The Port Gibson reveille. [volume] (Port Gibson, Miss.) 1890-current, 1912-04-11

1 writer was eltneT An eye witness o
had his information from an eye
witness.
Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome
chiefly for the Romans. This ap
pears clearly by internal evidence,
The Gospel was written after A.
D. 81, but before the destruction
of jerusalem. The writer follows
the chronological order of events,
hence it is easy to follow the mar.
rative as the arrangement is very
simple:
Introduction. chapter 1913: The
Ministry of Jesus, I:o-I3:37; the
Passion and Resurrection, I4:I-
1913.
The GENUINENEss of THE LAST
TWELVE VERSES in MARKS GOSPEL.
The Revisers in the English Re
vision issued in 1885 discredit and
authoritatively cut out the con-
cluding TWELVE VERSES in MAKK's
GOSPEL, claiming that they are NOT
GENUINE-not written by Mark.
! Now in the judgment of many
Ereliable critical scholars the Re-
viewers have in this action, dis
credited themselves in general as
"AuthorIties." (a) BY their we'll
known rationalizing tendencies, as
shown in certain very glaring mis-
translations: Such as the errone-
Gus rendering given in 2 Tim.
3:16; and (b) by the fact that they
have based the Revised Version
upon a Greek Text of the New
Testament, which no competent
scholar to-day defends, and which
has been pronounced by reliable
authorities, on good and sufficient
grounds, to be the worst text that
has ever been published.
/. (c) The revisers have displayed
a great lack of critical scholarship
and of patient research; and, con-
,sequentIy, have fallen into several
sysT55 slT55rs ID tnTs tFeatmenEz5- -oFE1ous'
portions of the text-notably in
the way they have dealt with Mark,
16:9-2o.
Dean Burgon, the most dis
tinguished critical Greek scholar
in England Cor in the world) has
swept away vast host of miscon
ceptions that had been gathering
in the. minds of scholars concern
ling this matter. (See Dean Bur
] gon's Monograph on The Last
Twelve verses in St. Marks Cos.
peI.)
Note further: The reviser's note
in the margin says-that the omis
, sion of these verses rests largely
: on two manuscripts-Alepb 9Th
, CiniaticO and B (the Vatican.
Now the fact is that both of thes
f manuscripts are well known t
scholars as of skeptical character
S and, therefore. not reliable and no
t possessing authority. These man
0 uscripts were written in a ba
v time-that of the Arian contrc
n versy. This being so, ought t
k have made the revisers careful nc
d to lay too much stress on them
,e reaching decision on the gent
d ineness of the passage under col
is sideration.
The reader will here note ais
v (I) Dean Burgon has concli
ty sively shown that both Of the abo7
in named manuscripts have been tar
Sc pered with, and thus discredit'
as witnesses against the last twel'
IS verses in Marks Gospel, and
be also shows how indefensible is t
Ii Revisers' summary treatment
r. them.
(2) Dean Burgon has also shoS
:er that "Codex B" and "Cod
to Alephp have been convicted
,e. bearing false witness in respect
is Mark 16:o-2o, where their eviden
IS had been hitherto regarded W
in. the utmost confidence.
% Bible readers must be
lso sured that these last twelve YER
HE of Marks Gospel are as cENUl
He as the REST Of this Gospel.
led (4) Flnally-That the crit
BUR statements of recent editors and
for fact the remarks of critics genei
us, ly in respect of Mark 16:o-2o, !
have to undergo serious rev;si