Quote:
Originally Posted by Arphaxad
The "serious doubt" is based on the fact that one Greek manuscript, Sinaiticus, simply omits Mark 16:9-20. One other, Vaticanus, also omits it, but leaves a blank space exactly the right size for the inclusion of the passage. This proves that the scribe copying the manuscript was either working from a more ancient manuscript that incuded the passage, but he for some reason ommited it, or that he was working from a more ancient manuscript which also ommited the passage, but which also left the blank space, indicating the testimony of a still more ancient manuscript. In any case, the blank space left by Vaticanus testifies to the existance of the passage prior to the copying of the manuscript, which is dated about 350 AD.
Every other manuscript extant which includes Mark includes the passage in question, as do the earliest church fathers, the most trustworthy ancient versions, and the lectionaries.
You Can Understand the Bible by Daniel L. Seagraves
eighth printing 2006, pgs 187, 188
ARPH  |
Is it known, to any certainty, how many generations of copying there is between the oldest extant copies and the originals?
A theory I've read on this passage has it that the very original ending of Mark was lost forever, damaged from being on the outermost portion of the rolled up scroll. The ending we have now was added by a scribe at some point (possibly very early), based on other writings and/or oral testimony. This commentary also said we should not assume it is not inspired, but didn't go into much detail as to why -- other than to say it is (to some extent) consistent with other scriptures. Not sure I buy that. It's one thing to see Paul shake a viper off of his hand (
Acts 28), and another matter to turn this into a sign that will follow all believers!