Subject: Mark 16:16 what does it say? |
Bible Note: Greetings Toft! I'm not sure of the numbers in your quote, since Bruce Metzger lists much more textual support for the absence of vv. 9-20 than two manuscripts. But, even if they were accurate, the simple fact is that manuscripts are 'weighed' not simply 'counted'. For example, one could have 10,000 copies dating from the 10th century and only 2 dating from the 1st century. Obviously, the ones dating from the 1st century would have more evidentiary value than the ones dating from the 10th century. This is a common mistake that people make when evaluting variant readings. The evidence for or against the longer reading of Mk. 16 is by no means conclusive, but the evidence for it's ommissions appears to be more substantial. Of course, there are other facts which must be weighed other than just age, but in this case age is pretty important. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |