Gospel of Mark: Longer or Shorter Ending? (Is 16:9-20 Authentic?) 

It is a difficult test case to be sure, however the longer ending of Mark is quoted very early on, for instance in Justin Martyr, who wrote 165 AD. So in this case we have Church Father quotations that preceded the earliest manuscript evidence.

11:12 It’s not misleading to say "some" earliest mss., because there are several. (I understand that you're just thinking about the Greek, but textual critics take from many languages and Versions) (as you mentioned later at 19:48): The oldest Old Latin manuscript (VL 1 = Codex Bobiensis, from the fourth or fifth century) concludes at Mark 16:8 with a version of the Shorter Ending and lacks 16:9-20 The oldest Syriac manuscript (the Sinaitic Syriac, from the fourth century) ends at 16:8 The oldest Sahidic manuscript (sa 1 = P. Palau-Ribes Inv. Nr. 182, from the fifth century) ends at 16:8 The earliest evidence we have for the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version of Mark (Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus in St Petersburg, Syr. No. 16) ends at 16:8 The oldest Armenian manuscripts (going back to the ninth century) end at 16:8 The oldest Georgian manuscripts (translated from the Armenian) end at 16:8 This mss. evidence taken from: A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark, Text & Canon Institute, Peter M. Head So regarding an ending at vs. 8, there are several in agreement for the short ending from our earliest mss. evidence. What makes little sense is how other endings (and the "Shorter Ending" Codex Bobiensis) would arise if the longer ending was authentic (from the original *scroll). See #5: Comfort, Philip W., “A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament” (Kregel, 2015) - for another list of mss. with both the "Shorter Ending" & Longer Ending.

The multiple endings rip off the other gospels

You have much larger issues than cigars in the reformed calvinist doctrine.

Sir, "critical text" refers to the NA27 or UBS4 Greek New Testament, my preference for Greek texts.

@@MatthewEverhard My research does not confirm that "The Critical Text" is only based on two versions, which you seem to be claiming above. I understand that the notion of critical text is based on a comparative reading of many manuscripts and determining what readings are the most likely to be the original, taking into account concepts such as preferring the more difficult reading as more likely, etc. What am I missing here?

@@paul3441 Hello sir. You are correct that the Critical Text is based on dozens, even hundreds of manuscripts! The number of Greek manuscripts number over 5,000! But they don't all contain every text. Some are only portions or fragments. What I am saying here is that the choice of the Critical Text to relegate the longer ending to brackets or footnotes is only based on the two texts (three if you could the 304 commentary) that lack it, i.e. the ones that I showed you. Does that make sense sir?

@@MatthewEverhard If you're saying that, for round numbers, 4,998 of the 5,000 contain the identical same long ending as the KJV, then I understand what you're saying. But I have read in many places of at least two other endings, both being shorter than the long ending, but longer than verse 8. Do these such other/variant manuscripts not exist in your knowledge? Thank you.

The question itself is, "What does the manuscript evidence suggest?" This is the point of the video - to examine the evidence.

He’s explaining the evidence and rationale behind the ending of Mark. Did so in such a way as to be scholarly but also that someone almost completely unfamiliar with textual criticism could understand, while also giving a visual on how one can examine manuscripts. A very informative and helpful video, and if that upsets you and makes you want to berate a minister just trying to help lay people understand an important issue, then you need to check yourself.

That's right - the only two ancient Greek mss that lack the longer ending (thus ending in 16:8) are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. There is also manuscript #304 which is actually a text + commentary. The statistic 99 of 200 that I gave refers to the ancient Aremenian translations of the Greek. Hope that helps!

@@davidpike6289 It was an awful video based on its title. That is truth. Feedback is a gift.

@@MatthewEverhard So then there are over 100 total manuscripts that lack the longer ending; correct? And what about the other two endings? There are actually four different endings. But perhaps the most powerful evidence against the longer ending is the word choice, which is highly inconsistent with the rest of the book of Mark. And also, a high school student could recognize the sudden veering off the road in the account beginning in verse 9 where the writer feels they have to introduce a character that is already in the story. Also important is the fact that there are strange Pentecostal and other doctrines that can be traced back only to verses 9-20--nowhere else in scripture. And it would be the only account of Jesus speaking of speaking in tongues. I could go on, but I was hoping you would have addressed any of these issues based on the video's title.

I don’t think you listen very well Paul. Stop being so ideological! Pastor Matt presented very thorough and scholarly viewpoint! You sir are out of line! You need to learn some Christian virtues such as respect! He is not “this guy” And who are you and what are your credentials Paul?

Oh be quiet! The bible has been ALTERED DEAL WITH IT! The word isn’t protected and it isn’t God!

@@HistoryandReviews Not so much altered but when you read the original text in the original Hebrew and Greek, you get the full picture. But the uneducated seem to gloss over this fact.

@@jeffneub3578 there is no Hebrew original to the “New” Testament

@@HistoryandReviews there are 2,500 Allusions in the NT from the OT Do your research

@@HistoryandReviews You disappeared, where'd you go?