When reading the last chapter of Mark it is likely that you will find a note after verse 8 stating that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20. What it fails to mention is that “ancient witnesses” as early as the early 2nd century do reference there verses and that these “most reliable” early manuscripts are two manuscripts from the 4th century. These are two important manuscripts because they are the earliest “complete” manuscripts of Mark we have, but are there reasons why these complete manuscripts many be incomplete?
Etc. Etc. Etc. We could go on and on asking hypothetical questions, and many do, but... why? The truth is that everything in verses 9-20 is collaborated elsewhere in the New Testament with the exception of believers drinking something deadly and remaining unharmed. And quite frankly, if I believe that Christ rose from the dead then I don’t really have a problem believing all these other things as well.
I’m grateful for biblical scholars. They have done extremely valuable work from which we have benefitted. However, when it comes to textural criticism... well it feels kind of like a dog chasing its tail. If it catches it what has it done?
To me this is just a distraction from the something that justly requires much ado. Christ rose from the dead! No one ever did that before. (A few had been resuscitated but not risen.) No one has done that since. No one has even claimed that anyone else has done it. And because He did it whoever has faith in Him will have eternal life. In light of that, what is all the fuss about some theoretical speculations to question no one can answer (nor do they really need too)?
No comments:
Post a Comment