John MacArthur |
● MacArthur conveyed that copyists of New Testament books
wrote one letter, and then took a bath, and then wrote another letter, and took
a bath, and so forth. This is
false. When Grace To You spreads this
sort of nonsensical fable, they insult viewers’ intelligence.
● MacArthur said that all manuscripts of the New Testament
survived after the Council of Nicea in 325 because no one was banning them or
destroying them. This is false. The natural effects of humidity destroyed
many papyrus manuscripts. There were
still areas where Christianity was opposed.
And there are many cases in which Christians themselves destroyed
ancient manuscripts by recycling their parchment to use as material with which
to make new books.
● MacArthur stated that the earliest copies of Biblical
texts are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
This is false, inasmuch as the Dead Sea Scrolls are older than those two
manuscripts, and so are some New Testament papyrus manuscripts (P52, P104, P45,
et al).
● MacArthur said that Codex Vaticanus contains both the Old
Testament and the New Testament. It
should be clarified however that Codex Vaticanus does not contain the books of
First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation; in addition,
the Old Testament text in Codex Vaticanus is a Greek text, primarily a form of
the Septuagint, which includes apocryphal books (Tobit, Bel and the Dragon,
etc.) and which varies in many other respects from the Hebrew-based English translations
that MacArthur uses and endorses.
● MacArthur, referring to Latin manuscripts, conveyed that there are “eight thousand copies going back to the fourth century” but what ought to be said is that the Vulgate was translated in the fourth century, and our extant copies of the Vulgate were produced later. There were later revisions of the Vulgate, such as the revision undertaken by Charlemagne’s scholar-advisor Alcuin. It is not as if all existing copies of the Vulgate read the same as the Vulgate as it existed at the end of the fourth century.
● MacArthur, referring to Latin manuscripts, conveyed that there are “eight thousand copies going back to the fourth century” but what ought to be said is that the Vulgate was translated in the fourth century, and our extant copies of the Vulgate were produced later. There were later revisions of the Vulgate, such as the revision undertaken by Charlemagne’s scholar-advisor Alcuin. It is not as if all existing copies of the Vulgate read the same as the Vulgate as it existed at the end of the fourth century.
● MacArthur stated, referring to Syriac manuscripts, “There
are 350 copies that go back to the 200s, very ancient manuscripts.” In real life, the number of Syriac
manuscripts with text from the New Testament that were made in the 200s is zero.
There are two major Syriac manuscripts that represent an early Syriac
text of the Gospels (not the whole New Testament). The 350 Syriac manuscripts to which MacArthur
refers are copies of the Peshitta, a translation which scholars such as Syriac-specialist
Sebastian Brock do not consider earlier than the late 300s in terms of its
creation. In terms of the
production-dates of manuscripts of the Peshitta, its representative manuscripts
are all significantly later than the 200s.
● MacArthur, after describing Greek, Latin, and Syriac
manuscripts, said, “When you compare all of these manuscripts, they’re all
saying exactly the same thing.” That is
outrageously false – so false than it must be concluded, if one assumes that
MacArthur had no desire to deceive, that MacArthur does not know very much at
all about the contents of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. It boggles the mind that MacArthur was
capable of saying such a thing in the course of a sermon in which he rejected Mark
16:9-20, because in those thousands of copies of the Vulgate, and in those
dozens of copies of the Peshitta, Mark
16:9-20 is in the text. MacArthur makes it seem as if the opposite is the case. Grace To You spreads this severe misrepresentation
of the evidence every day they keep MacArthur’s sermon online.
● MacArthur claimed that using 32,000 Scripture-quotations
made by patristic writers, it is not only possible to reconstruct the entire
New Testament, but that “it matches perfectly all other manuscript
sources.” This too is absurd. Dozens of patristic writers, in the era of
the Roman Empire, quoted from Mark 16:9-20 and used the passage as Scripture;
this alone proves that what can be reconstructed from patristic quotations does
not match perfectly with “all other manuscript sources.” A brief investigation of practically any
major patristic writers – Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil of
Jerusalem, Chrysostom – will show that their quotations do not match perfectly
with each other, let alone with “all other manuscript sources.” MacArthur’s claim about this is preposterous,
and the staff of Grace To You should be ashamed to participate in the
circulation of such nonsense.
● MacArthur claimed that over 19 thousand quotations from
the Gospels in patristic writings “read the Gospel text the very same way you
read them in your Bible today.” This is not
just one absurdity, but a stack of absurdities, a tower of absurdities. It is a statement which can only be made by
an honest man if he has vigilantly avoided studying the materials about which
he is speaking. Anyone who picks up an
ordinary UBS Greek New Testament and reads its textual apparatus with a modicum
of understanding will see that there are hundreds of textual contests in which
some patristic writers favor one reading, and other patristic writers favor a
rival reading. Grace to You should not
expect to be trusted while it spreads claims that are refuted by a basic
familiarity with the evidence.
● MacArthur conveyed that the original text of the New
Testament was “preserved and protected as it was passed down.” Without testing this claim, I merely wish to
raise a point: considering that out of
1,670 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark, only three end the text at 16:8,
how can MacArthur say one minute that the original text has been preserved and
protected as the text was passed down, and then say the next minute that 99.8%
of the Greek manuscripts of Mark contain a “bad ending” that shouldn’t be there?
● MacArthur explicitly appeals to the number of manuscripts
as evidence of the preservation of the original text: “we have so
many accurate, consistent manuscripts that we know without hesitation that
what we hold in our hands is an English translation of the original with no
loss.” By “many,” he cannot mean three.
But if he were to consult 99.8% of the Greek manuscripts of Mark (plus
lectionaries, in which Mark 16:9-20 is routinely found), he would find the
passage that he rejects! The moment one posits
that the text of the vast majority of manuscripts is the text that should be
accepted without hesitation, one surrenders any objection against Mark 16:9-20.
● MacArthur claimed that the oldest manuscript we have of
Homer’s Iliad is from the thirteenth
century A.D.: “We don’t have anything
between the thirteenth century and the eighth century B.C. of Homer’s Iliad.”
That is false, Over two dozen
fragments of the Iliad exist which
were produced before the thirteenth century A.D. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 560, from the 200’s, is
just one example.
● MacArthur claimed that Irenaeus, a prominent Christian
writer in the 100s, was aware of “other endings starting to float around.” This too is false. In real life, Irenaeus – writing well over a
century before Codex Vaticanus was made – clearly quoted Mark 16:19, stating
that he was quoting from near the end of Mark’s Gospel-account. This shows that as far as Irenaeus’ manuscripts
of Mark were concerned (and Irenaeus had been in Asia Minor, and southern Gaul,
and Rome ), the
Gospel of Mark ended with verses 9-20.
Contrary to MacArthur’s claim, the only way in which the Gospel of Mark
ended, as far as we can tell from Irenaeus’ testimony, is with verses 9-20
included. Irenaeus does not express an
awareness of the existence of manuscripts of Mark that end at the end of verse
8. Irenaeus does not indicate in any way
that he is aware of manuscripts of Mark that end with the “Shorter
Ending.” MacArthur’s statement about
Irenaeus is 100% fictitious and 100% misleading.
● MacArthur claims that two other second-century writers –
Justin Martyr and Tatian – also “show knowledge of other endings.” This too is false. The only ending of Mark attested in any way
by Justin Martyr and Tatian is the ending that consists of verses 9-20.
● MacArthur claims that several endings were composed by
people who tried “to help Mark a little bit with his abrupt ending.” However this too is false; exactly one
alternative ending, the Shorter Ending, was created in Egypt , where
the text had formerly circulated with no words after the end of verse 8. Except for the Shorter Ending – which stands
alone after (most of) Mark 16:8 in exactly one Latin manuscript, and which
appears along with verses 9-20 (or at least verse 9; incidental damage having
affected the rest) in six Greek manuscripts (sometimes in the margin, sometimes
with notes – see my book for details) – there are no endings of Mark after 16:8
that do not involve the presence of verses 9-20. When Grace To You spreads the claim that “several
endings” were floating around, as if referring to several independent
compositions, Grace To You misleads people.
And where
are the faculty members of The Masters Seminary on this subject? Where are the staff-members
of Grace To You? Or the officers of Grace Community Church? These trusted men are entirely
silent as far as I can tell – either too scared, too apathetic, too distracted,
or too misinformed to adequately address the wild inaccuracies that are being
spread daily by their school’s founder.
Grace To You, you have one proper
course of action: take down the video in
which John MacArthur makes these false claims.
This is not about debatable points of theology; this is not even about
whether or not Mark 16:9-20 belongs in the text. It is about whether Grace To You’s leadership
and staff want to spread false statements, or not.
Any teacher who aspires to inform listeners, rather than misinform them, would
be happy to improve his work by removing false claims. If Dr. MacArthur and Grace To You do not stop spreading these claims, having been informed that the claims are false, the only
conclusion that can reasonably be drawn is that these men continue to spread
false claims because they have decided to do so. I do not mean for this to be construed as an accusation but rather as an invitation: please show me, Dr. MacArthur and Grace To You, that you do not want to continue to spread false claims.
7 comments:
My favorite was when he said that "all the other manuscripts" end at verse 8!
My goodness...you must be consumed with John Macarthur !!!!! (I think there is medicine for that) lol..Guess you will have to take your disapproval of MacArthur to the Lord and complain to Him!!! because God has & is still using John MacArthur to deliver the truth of the Gospel to the saints...I praise God for John MacArthur and all the other true shepherds helping build His Church...
COG,
My disapproval is not with John MacArthur per se, but with his reckless and negligent treatment of Scripture in this particular case, and with the brazen air of confidence with which he administers rank falsehoods to his trusting congregation and other viewers, and misrepresents the level of his familiarity with the relevant materials -- and refuses obvious correction, which has come not only from me but from other who, unlike him, know what they are talking about. And as you mention, MacArthur will have to give an account to God for every misrepresentation he has made.
The majority of texts is what should always be trusted and what has been handed down for generations. To start trying to determine what was scripture and what wasn't only plants the seeds of doubt. That is the very same thing Satan started doing with man from the very moment man was created. Simply accepting anything as more accurate just because it is thought to be older is bad science. It also paints a very weak view of God. God is not weak. God was in control of his word the entire time and is even today. Narrow is the way, and God wants it that way. Those that doubt his word will be judged accordingly no matter how much they thought they were right. I would certainly want to air on the side of caution if I was them. It deals with the final destination of their eternal soul.
James Snapp Jr., thank you for this article. I am posting to update that they still haven't taken the video down as of February 25, 2023. As you so aptly said in your article here, "the only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn is that these men continue to spread false claims because they have decided to do so".
With the sake of full charity in view, I just cannot see any other reasonable way to explain why these individuals continue to allow these misrepresentations to stand. I cannot see why they allow these teachings to mislead others regarding Mark 16:9-20, other than that they have decided to and still decide to.
- Andrew
Even regarding some of the details not central to the thesis in the sermon, "The fitting end to Mark's Gospel," such as the manuscripts of the Illiad, these only further demonstrate the lack of standards for accuracy in the research for these teachings. Even just looking among the complete manuscripts for this work, for example, there are sources from at least the 10th century AD, so earlier than the 13th. So I thank you for pointing these other details out as well.
Regarding the central claim, which is of rejection of Mark 16:9-20, I am reminded of a few passages. In Ecclesiastes, it says, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." This is what we must wait for. And I am reminded what Christ said, "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." If that ever applied, then it does so here with this teaching in "The fitting end to Mark's Gospel." The level of misrepresentation found in the above mentioned teaching is just so extreme, in first emphasizing the preservation, but then, seamlessly but vaguely insinuating an outright misrepresentation to the audience that the manuscripts, versions and other evidence, (virtually everything except for Aleph and B), do not say what they do in fact say, that it exceeds any possibility of giving a charitable benefit of the doubt as to the intentions of its formulator. All we can say is, MacArthur will have to give an account: as the Lord says, "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." I would remind you too, that the serpent in the day that it deceived Eve, pretended to be 'virtuous' in the way that it presented its open, flagrant questioning and misrepresenting of God's word.
As it says in 2 Corinthians, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
As one who had been a member of Grace Community Church in the 90's and have continued to listen to many of MacArthur's series over the years, I can affirm that MacArthur has a tendency to oversimplify and/or overstate his position at times. I believe he did so in this case because of his desire to maintain his flock's confidence in God's word while presenting a difficult truth about the ending of Mark. It is fair to point out his oversimplifications and overstatements, as you have done, but let us do so in a charitable spirit, treating others the way we wish to be treated. I appreciate your passion for this subject and I agree that we should strive to be as accurate as possible when building our case.
Post a Comment