Mark 16:9-20: Does John MacArthur Know What He's Talking About?

John MacArthur

            Grace To You, a California-based ministry, is still spreading the false statements about Mark 16:9-20 that are found in John MacArthur’s infamous sermon, The Fitting End to Mark’s Gospel.  Here are some of them.           

● 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 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.    

For more data,
watch my 26-minute video
John MacArthur and
the Ending of Mark. 

● 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.   

For even more data,
read my book Authentic:
The Case for Mark 16:9-20.

● 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.

Michael J. Kruger and the Ending of Mark

          I appreciate a lot of Dr. Michael J. Kruger’s work, but his recent lecture on the ending of Mark contained so many inaccuracies, and ignored so much of the evidence, that I felt compelled to respond.  Here, therefore, is my counter-lecture.
          I encourage you to watch it – it’s just 17 and a half minutes long – on a desktop computer, to ensure that the annotations will be visible.
         The URL is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhGuN4nh5gs .

N. T. Wright and the Ending of Mark

           How bad is the present situation regarding the spread of misinformation about Mark 16:9-20?  It’s dismal.  (Sorry to chime in about this passage yet again, folks, but one must fix the fence where it is broken.)  One might expect misinformation to be spread by enemies of Christianity such as Bart Ehrman and James Tabor.  Ehrman has taught that Mark 16:9-20 was added by “early medieval scribes” (time-traveling scribes, apparently, inasmuch as Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in the 100’s).  Tabor has also fed ridiculous statements to his readers about the ending of Mark. 
          Ridiculous claims are not expected, however, from teachers within the church.  Yet some very inaccurate statements about Mark 16:9-20 continue to emanate from commentaries written by Christians.  This is having an impact on the contents of preaching and teaching.  For example, Bob McCartney, a preacher with two seminary degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, told his congregation in 2011 that no manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20 until the 800’s, and he made several other false statements.  Of course he did not intend to misinform anyone; he himself was misled by the commentators he had trusted.  
          So many commentaries contain mistakes and inaccuracies about Mark 16:9-20 that it would require several blog-posts to review and correct them all.  (Norman Geisler and John MacArthur have been spreading so much misinformation on this subject for so long that they should be near the top of the list.)   Today, just as a way of illustrating the problem, let’s look at what has been said about Mark 16:9-20 by a man who is, perhaps, the most influential commentator alive:  N. T. Wright.  Let’s consider his statements about the ending of Mark in his 2003 book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, a little at a time: 

That is true.  But in addition, both of these two manuscripts contain anomalous features that indicate that their copyists were aware of copies that included verses 9-20.  Are those anomalies and their implications not worth mentioning?
 

Manuscripts such as . . . ?  Such as the damaged manuscript 2386?  The damaged commentary-manuscript 304?  What??  Over 1,640 Greek manuscripts of Mark have been identified.  Which ones, specifically, are the “several” others in which the text clearly stops at the end of 16:8?   

Does anyone else think that Wright sounds like Metzger’s Textual Commentary here?  Metzger mentioned that Clement of Alexandria and Origen “show no knowledge” of verses 9-20.  Unfortunately Metzger did not also mention that Clement shows no knowledge of 12 chapters of the Gospel of Mark, and Metzger did not mention that Origen similarly shows no knowledge of much larger segments of Mark.  Plus, if one is going to mention the silence of Clement and Origen, does it not seem a tad one-sided when a writer fails to mention the testimony from early patristic writers such as Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus (in the 100’s) and the pagan writer Hierocles (in the very early 300’)?  Is their testimony not worth mentioning?   

Who is he talking about?  Probably Eusebius and Jerome, but this is an extremely unfocused way to describe their testimony. 

True, but if one is going to bring up the papyri, it may be worth mentioning that Papyrus 45’s affinities in Mark are significantly closer to Codex W (which includes Mark 16:9-20) than to the text in any other manuscript.

The word “most” can be anything over 50%.  So are we looking at 51%?  60%?  80%?  No; that’s not what we’re looking at.  This “most” is more like 99.9%.  One can understand why Bible footnotes, which must be concise, use terms such as “Some” and “Most” and “Other” when referring to manuscript-evidence.  But such terminology in a commentary is a sign of either sloppy research or a desire to allow readers to see only what the commentator wants them to see.

Readers should be advised about how Wright does math:  four + “some” = eight.  [Update:  in 2015 there were six such MSS; as of 2022 there are eight.]  Eight Greek manuscripts contain the Shorter Ending.  And Wright is wrong about something here.  All six contain at least part of the usual 12 verses.  The manuscript that contains only the Shorter Ending after (most of) verse 8 is Codex Bobbiensis, which is (badly) written in Latin, not in Greek, and which is assigned to the early 400’s, not to the centuries listed by Wright. 

Let’s put the evidence in focus.  Out of 1,643 Greek manuscripts that include verses 9-20, fifteen have special notes about those verses.  If 15 manuscripts make “a good many,” what do the other 99% make?!  The notes in these 15 manuscripts are similar; that is, these are not 15 unrelated witnesses; they are members of groups, like twigs on a branch.
          In one manuscript (MS 138), an asterisk draws the reader’s attention to a note (very difficult to read, but which probably says “some copies end here”); the same manuscript also has the note about Mark 16:9-20 which one typically finds in copies in which the Catena Marcum (a collection of comments compiled by, and augmented, by Victor of Antioch) accompanies the text; the note defends the inclusion of the passage.  The asterisk in 138 serves the same purpose that asterisks typically serve today:  to draw the reader’s attention to the marginalia – not “to indicate that the passage is regarded as of doubtful authenticity.”  
          In MS 199, a short note says, “In some of the copies, this [i.e., verses 9-20] does not appear, but the text stops here” [i.e., at the end of 16:8]. 
          A note in MSS 20, 215, and 300 states at, or near the beginning of 16:9, “From here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies.  But in the ancient ones, it all appears intact.” 
          A note in MSS 1, 205, 205abs, 209, and 1582 says, “In some of the copies, the evangelist’s work is finished here [i.e., at the end of 16:8] and so does Eusebius Pamphili’s Canon-list.  But in many, this [i.e., verses 9-20] also appears.” 
          MSS 15, 22, 1110, 1192, and 1210 share the same note that appears in 1 and 1582, minus the part about the Eusebian Canons:  “In some of the copies, the Gospel is completed here, but in many, this also appears.”  (The note in 199 is a shortened version of this note.) 
          If Wright or anyone else knows of any other examples in which an asterisk appears between Mark 16:8 and 16:9, but it is not to draw the reader’s attention to an ordinary lection-break or to marginalia, let’s have it!  Otherwise, Christian commentators – not just Wright, but also Wallace, MacArthur, Witherington, Edwards, etc., etc. – need to stop describing the evidence in unfocused, vague, imprecise, one-sided, sloppy and erroneous ways.
          If Wright can be this wrong, just about any commentator can be wrong.  On this subject, do not trust any commentator who does not present the evidence in focused detail.  (And if it looks like the commentator was just rephrasing Metzger’s Textual Commentary, if you do not want to become a source of misinformation yourself, stop reading!)