This is not a review of
the First Nations Version of the New Testament, the work of
translators such as Terry Wildman and Gordon Campbell, Alvin Deer, Antonia
Belindo, Bryan Jon Maciewski and others which was released in 2021. Today
I want to simply point out that despite being recommended by scholars such as Matthew Schlimm (
The footnote says, "Most ancient manuscripts end at this verse. Some others include verses 9-20 as we have in this translation."
The problem is that only two ancient Greek manuscripts end the text of Mark at the end of 16:8. And the "some" is over 1,650 Greek manuscripts. In addition, earlier witnesses such as Tatian's Diatessaron and Irenaeus (in about 180) support the inclusion of verses 9-20; Irenaeus explicitly cited Mark 16:19 in his third book of Against Heresies.
I don't know why it seems so hard for some people to write an accurate footnote. The possibility occurs to me that if they were accurate and let readers know how lopsided the external evidence is in favor of including Mark 16:9-20, readers would stop trusting the scholars who want to erase the passage from the Gospel of Mark. I suspect that some people are rejecting Mark 16:9-20 not because of the evidence but because they don't like what this Scripture says - they don't like the idea that baptism normally is a step into salvation instead of a consequence of salvation; they want Jesus to say "He who believes and is saved shall be baptized" instead of "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." Or perhaps they don't like reading an endorsement of glossolalia from the lips of Jesus because they believe that sort of thing isn't for modern-day Christians. Whatever the reason, the headings and footnotes in a lot of modern versions at Mark 16:9 are pitiful. A half-truth is a whole lie. FIX YOUR FOOTNOTES, Bible publishers. Crossway and Holman and Zondervan, I'm talking to you. You can do it if you want to.
1 comment:
It's hard to know the reasons why people do such things if they aren't transparent as to their motivation, but I think a lot of it is just reinforcing their own suppositions. A theory that made the rounds sixty years ago was that Mark, as bishop of Alexandria, didn't perform any of the signs that his gospel said would follow those who believed. Therefore, out of respect for his memory, his followers dropped that section from his gospel after he died.
Post a Comment