Expanded Menu

Revealed Through Creation - 6. The disputed text of Mark 16:9 – 20



We don’t have any originals writings of Mathew, Mark, Luke, John or Paul. In fact, in order to protect the original text the original manuscript would have been destroyed as soon as one letter, jot or tittle even looked like fading.


When a team of scribes was entrusted with an original manuscript, they would carefully and meticulously copy the each line, checking the number of words, letters, jots and tittles in each line, and then they would check each other’s work before they carried on. Even if one letter, jot or tittle was copied incorrectly the whole page (or scroll) would be destroyed. It was this careful and meticulous copying and checking by the scribes that guaranteed the original text, not the original writings. 


Because of this practice of destroying the original writings, in order to protect the original text, it is doubtful (other than the writings of John) that any of the original writings lasted much beyond 100 AD. Yet about 180 AD an orthodox believer called Gaius named four heretics, saying they couldn’t deny their guilt because they couldn’t produce the originals. This suggests that some still could produce the true original text. (W.N. Pickering: The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 111)  


About 208 AD Tertullian advised heretics to visit apostolic churches where the authentic writings were found. In giving this advice, Tertullian doesn’t mean the original hand written letters of Paul may still be found in these cities, he means that they can still produce the true original text. (B.M. Metzger: The Text, p.201)    


There are those who seek to discredit both the King James Version of the Holy Bible and the Greek Text used as the basis for most (if not all) Holy Bibles written from 400 AD to 1880 AD, by saying that Mark 16:9 – 20 are not found in the older and more accurate manuscripts. 


This argument was first put forward by Hort (who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ) to gain support for his New Greek text based on the Vatican and Mount Sinai manuscripts and two other lesser manuscripts. It is interesting to note, that the Vatican and Mount Sinai are the only two major recognized manuscripts that do not include Mark 16:9 – 20. Also there are seven manuscripts that are older than both the Vatican and Mount Sinai manuscripts, all of which include Mark 16:9 – 20.       


There are over 600 Greek manuscripts of Mark, of which only 10 omit Mark 16:9 – 20. Of these 10 only two are considered to be major manuscripts. We should add that it was a common practice in the early church to bind the four gospels in the following order; Matthew, John, Luke and then Mark. Many of these books of the gospel were also divided into daily readings; a page for each day and each day ending with words similar to ‘the end.’ Thus if a manuscript lost its last page, it would most likely lose Mark 16:9 – 20 and still have ‘the end’ written after Mark 16 verse 8.  


We can also appeal to the Early Church Fathers in determining authenticity Mark 16:9 – 20, for many have quoted from this passage including Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycrap, who, was a student of the Apostle John.  


Other Church Fathers who have also quoted this passage include: 


Papias                 (60 – 130 AD.)

Justin Martyr               (100 – 165 AD.)

Hippolytus               (170 – 236 AD.)

Eusebius               (260 – 340 AD.)

Ambrose of Milan               (339 – 397 AD.)

Chrysostum               (347 – 407 AD.)

Jerome              (331 – 420 AD.)

Augustine              (354 – 430 AD.) 


(List from “God’s Covenant of Healing.” By Stephen Hill)


Given the overwhelming evidence that the Modern Greek text of The New Testament based on the Vatican and the Mount Sinai manuscripts is a corrupt text with many alterations and deletions, perhaps we should asked why is this corrupt text used as basis for our modern English Bibles?  Is it because they do not love some of the truths found in God’s word; therefore God has allowed them to be blinded to the truth? Or do they want to discredit the King James text, so they can (either intentionally or unintentionally) make alterations and deletions to suit their own beliefs?


Some examples: 


• There are many who do not love the truth, that man is a living soul and/or that the soul of man is eternal.  The influence of theses unbelieving people and their supporters has resulted in between 30% and 90% of references to the soul being deleted or translated out of our English Bibles. 


• There are also many who do not love the truth that upon the death of their body, the souls of the wicked will be cast into the pit of hell.  Therefore they have either removed or supported the removal or alteration of up 90% (in many versions) of references to hell.


• There are also others who do not love the truth that God created the heavens and the earth in seven days.  These people have been allowed to (or have influence the translators to) translate the first two verses of our Bibles in such a way that it fits in better with the theory of evolution. 





Written by Kenneth Allan Clark and printed and published by

e-mail: web:
Copyright © 2000 & 2011, all rights reserved.  No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means without the prior permission of the author Kenneth Allan Clark.
Scripture taken from the “Clarks English Translation” © Copyright 2011 by Victorious Christian Ministries International. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Hard copies of both this booklet and others can be found on our resource page


Copyright © 2011. All Rights Reserved.