Christians: Does is bother you that Mark 16:9-20 was added to the New Testament?

Question

Early manuscripts have been shown not to include these verses. The Gospel of Mark would end with Jesus' body disapearing, and there would be no witnesses to Jesus living after his death.

Because verses weren't in the original text, does it bother you that some monk decided to add them to bolster the story of the resurrection and subsequent ascension into heaven?

Does it cause you to wonder if there are other parts of the Gospel stories that were added/fabricated/embellished to strengthen early Christian doctrine and bolster beliefs?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=16&version=31

Randy, Not nit picking, just wonder how you deal with changes to the Bible. You mention Luke as a good source? I think you will find many changes in Luke specifically regarding the resurection. For instance: Luke24:40 Codex Bezae and many Old Latin texts do not include Luke 24:40 - 'having said this, he showed them his hands and feet'. Either some scribe added this verse, or some scribe dropped it. It is hard to see why any scribe would drop the verse. It is easy to see why a scribe would add the verse, basing it on John 20:20. He would have had to alter it as John 20:20 mentions 'hands and side' and there was no spear-thrust in Luke's Gospel, but that would only be a small change. It would all help to show that the Gospels 'recorded' a physical resurrection.

Self Serving?

Cathy, thank you for your scholarly rebuke and assumption that I am not aware of the theory of Q. You may want to check out the following webpage: http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/fallacy.htm

Answer 1

It should bother any christian who believes that the Bible is the "word of God" and that God "preserves it." Because the question arises, "what parts did God preserve and what parts did He not?"

Of the manuscripts that exist of the new testament,Christian 'theologians' suggest that the 'differences amongst manuscripts' in the new testament are not enough to oppose the 'main christian dogma'. Yet, the question arises, how much has been changed, and what kinds of differences are there?

It says in the Interpreters dictionary of the Bible:

"It has been estimated that these MSS(of the New Testament) and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings. It is true, of course, that the addition of the readings from another 150 MSS of Luke would not add another 30,000 readings to the list. But each MS studied does add substantially to the list of variants. It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform."

Answer 2

It is pretty easy to assert how the manuscript would have ended had parts not been lost, it is part of the syoptic view that comes from the Q source........

which if you don't know what that is you really don;t know enough about the writing and compilation of the bible to be trying to make the point you are trying make.

Svetlana I have seen authenticated pieces of the dead sea scrolls and I have seen the correct translations done by the Hebrew University (non christians) they do not conatin anything either to negate or promote Christ, especially considering most of the scrolls were written before the Christ era. I suggest you go to actual scholar books and documentation on the scrolls instead of commerical mass market conspirarcy writers which have no connection to the scrolls.

In response to the website.....an Anglecan Education that tries to nulify the Q, not surprising. Yes those are some theories that have been around, but simple fact almost every theology, history, anthropology and philosophy department in almost all universities, religous education and divinity programs be they in religous or secular colleges teaches the Q. And the theories for its existence are as strong if not stronger then its naysayers.

Answer 3

There is some debate as to whether these verses were in the original text of Mark, since the oldest versions of the Bible, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus do not contain these passages (it is possible that these documents are not complete). But note that the other gospels in these same two documents DO contain the story of Jesus being resurrected. How do you explain that? If someone were adding stuff, why not add something to all of the gospels, instead of just some, in order to avoid suspicion?

So your nit-picking at Mark seems to be a little self serving, since you have failed to consider all of the evidence available to you.

Answer 4

Some early manuscripts have Mark 16:9-20. Most do not. Could it be that these pages were simply lost when they were being translated? Perhaps. But it not important. Luke also mentions the same story of the ascension. The rest of the Bible verifies that Mark 16:9-20 is correct. They all tie into one another.

Answer 5

Just where did you obtain this information? I do not believe what you have typed to be true or at the most, true as it has come off.

Answer 6

It's highly skeptical either way, not to mention you are talking about a body rising up from its grave after it dies.

Answer 7

I hope you realize that none of this matters to Christians; you could show them authenticated Dead Sea scrolls revealing that the whole Christ thing was made up for fun, and they would ignore it.

Cathy - you are a pompous little twit. I said "IF," and I stand by my point.

Answer 8

To quote a move "humans are a gullible breed"

Answer 9

It doesn' bother me at all.-

Answer 10

whether you want one or not there is still a god.