The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his018/authbi.txt

Text File | 1989-02-18 | 14.4 KB | 318 lines

Bible validity vs. the authenticity of Mark, One viewpoint

In an ongoing philosophical discussion with a member of this
forum regarding the extra-biblical revelation of THE_URANTIA_BOOK,
and how it relates to Christianity, he mentioned that I should
expand upon one of my messages to him and upload it to the
scripture study library.  It condenses a lot of information
regarding the origins of the Old and New Testaments, and defines
why the Bible is reliable.

In the process of translation from one language to another,
interpretation is a matter of neccessity.  A Spanish edition of
any text, in order to be translated to Spanish must first
be interpreted, because word for word translations from one
language to another is just meaningless.  Words in one language
may not exist in the other language, and grammatical and sentence
structures between two languages are generally incompatible.  In
such cases interpretation is neccessary and acceptable.

Websters' Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines AUTHENTIC as:

           1. Authoritative.
           2. Worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to
              fact or reality.
           3. (a) Not imaginary, false, or imitation.
              (b) Conforming to an original so as to reproduce
                  essential features.




Can we accept the authenticity (as defined by Webster) of the
Bible?

In the course of writing this article, I have excerpted text from
"INTRODUCTION TO NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM", by J. Harold
Greenlee, and from "REASONS", by Josh McDowell & Don Stewart.

Due to the strict Levitical Laws surrounding duplication of the
Old Testament, since the time the Levites were first given the
responsibility for its safe keeping, it is reasonable to presume
that the Old Testament we know today, is accurate.  (I can provide
you with those laws if you aren't already aware of them).  In the
50's the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, and when translated were
found to *verify* the Old Testament.  This was a phenomenal find
as it put to rest any questions regarding the completeness of the
Old Testament.  We can say then that the Old Testament is accurate
and therefore authentic.

The New Testament however was not afforded the priviledge of
strict Levitical Laws to protect and preserve its essence for 2000
years in the future.  We do have something else though.  Many,
many copies of early scrolls, parchments, and papyri.  These
manuscripts are also in several different languages.

Our knowledge of the New Testament is derived from three principal
sources.

A. Greek Manuscripts

     1. AUTOGRAPHS (originals) hypothetical source only, since
        none are extant.
     2. PAPYRI  Over 70 papyrus manuscripts are now known and
        identified.   Circa 2 AD to 5 AD.
     3. UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS. Circa 4 AD to 10 AD.
     4. MINISCULE MANUSCRIPTS. Circa 9 AD to ?
     5. LECTIONARIES. Circa 6 AD to ?

B. Versions

     1. LATIN
        (a) ITALA   Circa 4 AD to ?
        (b) VULGATE Circa 4 AD to ?
     2. SYRIAC
        (a) Diatessarone  Circa 2 AD
        (b) Old Syriac    Circa 3 AD
        (c) Peshitta      Circa 5 AD
        (d) Philoxenian   Circa 5 AD
        (e) Harkleian     Circa 8 AD
        (f) Palestinian   Circa 5 AD
     3. COPTIC
        (a) Sahidic       Circa 4 AD
        (b) Bohairic      Circa 7 AD
        (c) Mid. Egyptian Circa 4 AD
     4. ARMENIAN          Circa 5 AD
     5. GEORGIAN          Circa 4 AD
     6. ETHIOPIC          Circa 4-7 AD
     7. GOTHIC            Circa 3-4 AD
     8. ARABIC            Circa 7 AD
     9. PERSIAN           Circa 14 AD
    10. SLAVONIC          Circa 9 AD


C. Patristic Quotations

The third principal source of knowledge of the New Testament text
is the great numbers of quotations from the New Testament which
are found in writings of christian writers of the early centuries.
These quotations are so extensive that the New Testament could
virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of the
manuscripts listed in A. and B. above.  They are mainly in Greek,
Latin, and Syriac.

We are now faced with a 200-300 year dilemma between the original
texts, and the known, existing copies.  Not to worry, I refer you
once again to J. Harold Greenlee's book.

By way of comparative analysis between the three principal sources
using the techniques of Textual Criticism, it is possible to
establish an authentic text, that conforms to the original text so
as to reproduce the essential features, and is trustworthy.

While the great majority of the text of the New Testament is
beyond doubt, there do exist a few passages in which there is some
question as to their originality.  Without being exhaustive, these
passages include John 5:3,4; John 7:53 to 8:11 and 1 John 5:7.
However, the most famous passage probably is the conclusion of the
Gospel of Mark.

After Mark 16:8 there is a disagreement in the existing
manuscripts as to what follows.  Some manuscripts end at verse 8
with the phrase, "for they were afraid."  There are a handful of
manuscripts that contain two different short endings which are not
considered by any textual scholar to be in the original
manuscript.  However, most of the manuscripts contain the familiar
12 verses that are found in the KJV and many other translations.

Is this Mark's original ending?  Or did Mark end his Gospel at
verse 8?  Perhaps the original reading was lost.  The issue is,
are the last 12 verses (Mark 16:9-20)-as contained in the KJV-
original to the Gospel of Mark?

Reasons against accepting the last 12 verses as being
authoritative can be put into 3 categories:
     1. External evidence
     2. Internal evidence
     3. Theological evidence

The argument from external evidence concerns such a long ending
being absent.  In the two oldest manuscripts that contain the end
of the Gospel of Mark (Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus), the
last 12 verses are omitted.  Some of the versions (translations
into other languages) also omit these verses as do some of the
early church fathers.  The fact that some manuscripts contain  two
shorter endings also speaks against the longer reading as being
original with Mark.

Moreover, some of the  early church fathers speak out against
these verses as being original.  Clement of Alexandria and Origen
do not seem to be aware  of the existence of these verses, while
Eusebius and Jerome supposedly say that these verses were absent
from almost all the Greek manuscripts they were aware of.

Some manuscripts that contain the long ending have notes written
by scribes testifying that older manuscripts lacked these verses.
Other manuscripts have  marks indicating there is some doubt about
the passage.

Bruce Metzger, in "A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW
TESTAMENT" (P. 125), states the case against accepting the last 12
verses as being original with Mark, based upon the internal
evidence:
"The longer ending though current in a variety of witnesses, some
of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be
secondary.
     (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markal,
There are certain words used here and nowhere else in the New
Testament, and there are certain names used as designations of the
desciples, which occur only here in the New Testament.
     (b) The connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20 is so
awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist
intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel.
The subject of verse 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed
subject in verse 9.

In short, all these features indicate that the section was added
by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with verse
8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion.  In view
of the inconsistencies between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely
that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious
gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another
document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second
century.

There also is alleged theological evidence against these verses
being authentic with Mark.  This includes:
     1. baptism is a requirement for salvation (Mark 16:16)
     2. Jesus' appearance in a different form  (Mark 16:12)
     3. fanciful ideas such as drinking poison and
        snake handling (Mark 16:18)
Since these ideas appear to be contrary to the rest of Scripture,
the passage must be rejected as being the inspired Word of God,
critics say.

Although these arguments seem, on the surface, to be conclusive
they break down upon closer examinations of the evidence.

While it is true that the two oldest manuscripts which contain
Mark 16 do not have the last 12 verses, there is enormous external
evidence that supports it as being original.  Although omitted by
the two oldest Greek manuscripts, these verses are found in
virtually all the remaining Greek manuscripts that contain the end
of Mark.  All of the Latin versions and Syriac versions contain
these verses with only a few exceptions.

More important is the fact that early church fathers quote from it
and are aware of it (Justin Martyr, A.D. 150; Tatian, A.D. 175;
Irenaeus, A.D. 180; and Hippolytus, A.D. 200).  These men lived
150 years before the composition of Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Siniaticus (about A.D. 325), showing that these verses were in
existence at that time.

For some reason, they were not included.  But the reason was not
that they did not exist.  If this long ending is not original then
why is there such wide and diverse testimony as to its
authenticity?  External evidence favors it as being authentic.

Internal evidence against these verses being original likewise is
unsatisfactory.  Arguments regarding style and vocabulary are weak
at best.  Metzger points out that there are 17 words in the 12
verses that are found nowhere else in the Gospel of Mark.  This
supposedly proves that this section is not authentic (THE TEXT OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT, P. 227).

However, John Broadus did a study of the 12 verses which preceded
the ones in question (Mark 15:44 to 16:8) and found 17 words in
THAT section that are found nowhere else in the Gospel of Mark!

It is a well-know fact that vocabulary and style change with
subject matter.  To base an argument on something as subjective as
this is not valid.  The argument that the connection is awkward
between verse 8 and verses 9-20 does not help the case for
omitting it.  If these verses were added by someone later, rather
than by Mark, why did they not try to smooth out the
discontinuity?  The internal argument here is not as sound as some
make it to appear.  (see John Burgon, LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK,
Reprint, pp. 222-270.)

The theological evidence also is not conclusive against these
verses.  Mark 16:16 does NOT teach that a person needs to be
baptized to be saved.  It merely links salvation with the act of
baptism because the two go together.

A person who truly accepts Christ as his Savior will desire to be
baptized, seeing that the Lord commanded it.  However, it is not
baptism that saves a person but believing: "He that believeth on
the Son hath everlasting life" (John 3:36).

Baptism is the outward objective sign of the inward change.  It
should be the experience of every believer, but it is not a
requirement for salvation.  Notice Mark says in verse 16 that he
who believes not shall be damned, not he who is not baptized.
Nothing here is contrary to Scripture.

The idea of Jesus appearing in another form does not contradict
other accounts of his resurrection.  It is a simple description of
His walk to the village of Emmaus with the two disciples in which
He appeared in a form which was unrecognizable.

This differs from His appearances to Mary Magdalene and the other
women who recognized him immediately.  But Luke tells us that when
they reached Emmaus the eyes of the two disciples were opened and
they recognized Jesus.  There is no contradiction here.

Mark is recording the point of view of Jesus (different form)
while Luke gives the point of view of the two disciples (eyes held
back).  Moreover, the New Testament seems to indicate that Jesus'
appearances after His resurrection were not always in the same
form.

Finally, the excesses that have come about as a result of some
interpretations of the verses on drinking poison and snake
handling do speak against their authenticity.  In Acts 28:3-6 we
are given an example of the apostle Paul being accidentally bitten
by a deadly snake, yet he survived.

The miraculous signs promised to our Lord's disciples in Mark are
not new, for both Matthew and Luke record the promise and
fulfillment of these signs (Matthew 10:1; Luke 10:17, 18).
Moreover, Hebrews 2:3,4 indicates that signs did follow the
believers.  Just because there have been abuses based upon these
verses does not mean that the verses are to be thrown out as
uninspired.

On the other hand, three strong arguments can be given for
accepting these verses as original:

(1) No satisfactory theory has been advanced to explain how Mark
could have or would have ended his Gospel at verse 8;

(2) No objection has been raised against these last 12 verses
being inspired that cannot be answered;

(3) The arguments given to explain the tremendous amount of
objective evidence as to the varied and wide testimony in the
Greek manuscripts, translations, and church fathers, are
unsatisfactory.

It is much easier to explain why the passage could have been
omitted in some manuscripts rather than to try and explain how it
received such a wide acceptance.  And for a thorough answer to the
correctness of the theology of the last 12 verses, see THE
INTERPRETATION OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL, by R.C.H. LENSKI.

It can be said then that the entire Bible IS textually 99.5%
authentic, through investigation and verification, and that we
know that which is in doubt.  The spiritual teachings and miracles
performed by Jesus Christ, (as witnessed and testified to by the
disciples, and in most cases, the Jews) are that which we can
accept based on the textual validity of The Bible.

Glenn W. Ulrich
CIS 71566,1470