Many Christians probably do not know this, but the last twelve verses in the gospel account of Mark (16:9-20) are the subject of an age old debate. There are evangelical Greek scholars and biblical historians on both sides of the fence. Some of them contend against the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20; some contend for it. The skeptics argue that most of the Greek copies of Mark do not contain the last twelve verses. They are correct, but the optimists argue that at least one of those copies appears to have a torn edge at the very end of the undisputed portion. They argue that the passage in question became torn off of that particular copy before ancient scribes ceased to copy from it. That would account for the absence of those verses in some later copies. The skeptics contend that the Greek literary style of the last twelve verses is very different from the rest of Mark's account; the optimists disagree.
Naturally, the key question in this debate is which Greek copies of Mark were written the earliest? That is one issue upon which even the most educated historians and Greek scholars simply cannot seem to agree, and that is nothing to worry about. I believe if we all knew for certain exactly which copies are the earliest and most reliable, we would probably idolize them. I believe that is why God did not preserve that actual copies that the apostles wrote with their own hands, under the inspiration of God. If we had them today, I am certain that we would idolize them too!
How then can we know for certain if the last twelve verses of Mark were given by inspiration of God? I have concluded that it is not really important whether or not we actually know. Nowhere within those debated verses is there anything unique. Literally every doctrine they convey is confirmed somewhere else in an undisputed passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, let's suppose the optimists are correct, and the debated verses are authentic. If we stop printing them altogether, have we really altered the gospel message? No we haven't. I know that God would not appreciate the omission of those inspired verses, but in spite of that, His gospel message would still remain intact. On the other hand, let's suppose the skeptics are correct, and those verses were added later by a different author. Has any new doctrine or revelation been added to God's Word? No, again. The resurrection of Jesus is conveyed in v. 8, but the debated portion begins with v. 9. Even if the resurrection was not conveyed before v. 9, we would still have the resurrection accounts in Matthew, Luke, and John. (They are disputed only by liberals who assume that Christ is not risen.)
There are other heavily-debated New Testament passages as well. John 8:1-11 and 1 John 5:7 are among the most controversial. John 8:1-11 is the account of Jesus' forgiving the woman caught in adultery, and forbidding her public execution. First John 5:7 is printed only in the King James and New King James Versions; it explicitly teaches the Trinity. Most other translations have it printed only in their footnotes. I take the same practical approach to those debated passages as I do with Mark 16:9-20. We still do not alter the gospel message or any of the fundamentals of the Faith even if we wrongfully remove John 8:1-11 and 1 John 5:7. Jesus' mercy and grace toward repentant sinners, and His condemnation of hypocrisy and self righteousness are clearly taught throughout the New Testament; so is the doctrine of the Trinity. Likewise, if those particular passages are not inspired by God, they still do not contaminate God's Word with any new (heretical) doctrine or theology.
We need not spend so much time arguing over which Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are the earliest and most reliable (when in fact they are nearly identical), or about the authenticity of certain disputed passages (which are extremely rare). Why don't we all agree to disagree over this peripheral Christian debate agreeably?
Back to Main Page
Back to Blogs Directory
