Changes

Almost all contemporary Chapter 16 of Mark, '''Mark 16''', has been controversial among non-Orthodox [[New TestamentBible]] textual critics have concluded in that neither the longer or shorter endings were ''originally'' part of Mark’s Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows many contend that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of chapter, verses 9-20 from , was not part of the original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of work by Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending. This position Nevertheless, a handful developed even though second century references are made of scholars, particularly those in traditionalist or fundamentalist traditions, argue that the evidence is insufficient to justify its exclusion or that the evidence in fact supports its inclusion. However, in biblical scholarship, changes and advances due to creative detective work and new discoveries have a long past history of proceeding with caution very slowly, so the almost unanimous conclusion with regards to the inauthenticity of the ending(s) of Mark should be seriously consideredtext.

'''Against ==For Omission==Almost all contemporary [[New Testament]] textual critics have concluded that neither the above:longer or shorter endings were ''originally' In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote 'part of Mark'Against Heresies''. In it he cites from Mark 16:19s Gospel, establishing though the evidence of the early church fathers shows that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeusending had become accepted tradition. Quoting [http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_mr16_9The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20from the original Markan manuscript as "certain.html], "The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that For this passage is not authenticreason, then we must question what happened many modern versions of Bibles decline to print the original longer ending of Mark. It is not logical that together with the rest of the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely[[gospel]], as some scholars have suggestedbut, that the Gospel was never finishedbecause of its historical importance and prominence, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal it is often included as a footnote or conservative, that an appendix alongside the original shorter ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation. If we allow that Nevertheless, a passage handful of inspired Scripture has been lost from this section of the Biblescholars, particularly those in traditionalist or fundamentalist traditions, what stops us from making argue that the same application to other passages? It evidence is certainly within the realm of scholastic studies insufficient to note any and all textual differences. But once we open the possibility that this justify its exclusion or that passage has been lostthe evidence in fact supports its inclusion. However, we are now trusting in the understanding biblical scholarship, changes and advances due to creative detective work and new discoveries have a long past history of men over proceeding with caution very slowly, so the biblical promises of God. Certainly it is better almost unanimous conclusion with regards to embrace the textual evidence and hold to inauthenticity of the promise ending(s) of preservationMark should be seriously considered."

==Against Omission==In 177 AD, [[Irenaeus of Lyons|Irenaeus]] wrote ''Against Heresies''See also. In it he cites from Mark 16:''' 19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus. Quoting [http://www.usccbav1611.orgcom/nabkjbp/biblefaq/mark/mark16holland_mr16_9-20.html], "The difference here is extremely important.htm#foot1 About If we conclude that this passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the Shorter and Longer Endings original ending of Mark 16 (Mark 16 footnotes. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative, New American that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation. If we allow that a passage of inspired Scripture has been lost from this section of the Bible, United States Conference what stops us from making the same application to other passages? It is certainly within the realm of Catholic Bishops]scholastic studies to note any and all textual differences. But once we open the possibility that this or that passage has been lost, we are now trusting in the understanding of men over the biblical promises of God. Certainly it is better to embrace the textual evidence and hold to the promise of preservation."

==SourcesReferences==* [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark16.htm#foot1 About the Shorter and Longer Endings of Mark 16 (Mark 16 footnotes, New American Bible, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)] Excerpt: "''vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark''"* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-24888c Mark 16 footnotes, New King James Version (a much respected version in Orthodox circles)] Excerpt: "''Mark 16:20 Verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in [[Codex Sinaiticus]] and [[Codex Vaticanus]], although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them''" ==External links==