Back on track...with a touch of controversy

Day 78

OT Reading: Deuteronomy 33-34

NT Reading: Luke 1:24-56

Ok...I admit it. I made it 75 days, reading every single day. I'd fight back sleep, I've gotten back out of bed, I've read from random Bibles that happened to be nearby and even on my iPhone. But on day 76...I missed my reading. Not only that, I missed day 77 too! So there you go, I made it that far, but have officially missed days. So today I did three days worth of reading to catch up. So don't feel too guilty if you've missed a day here and there. I can easily say we've all done it :-).

As for the readings, we've finished Deuteronomy (PRAISE JESUS!) as well as the Gospel of Mark, and there is a lot of material that is swimming through my head right now. From all that, there is a great deal that I could write on. But I suppose I'll stick with just one item. But...I'll make it just slightly controversial to make it up to you.

As you were reading, you probably saw a line in your Bible (it may have been a footnote in your translation) after Mark 16:8 which reads something like, "Earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20." Well for some this will be thisclose to heresy, while for others this will not be a big deal. But I, Mark Messmore, personally think verses 9-20 were not written by Mark and were in fact added later. What's more, if it were up to me...I'd remove them.

If you were in the class I taught at CCJ last spring (or listened to it on the CCJ podcast) on the Gospel of Mark, you've heard me voice my opinion on this matter before. And I do in fact have my reasons which I'll be glad to discuss - if, say, I got a comment requesting backup for my position ;-). But from what I see and understand, I don't believe they belong.

That being said, I'm not dogmatic about it. You can completely disagree with me on this matter and we still both go to heaven. As long as you're not basing an entire doctrine or a big piece of your theology on one of these verses alone, I don't have a problem with you accepting them. Just know that I personally question their authenticity and won't likely be referencing any of them in a sermon any time soon :-).