Changes

[[File:Carracci The Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ.jpg|thumb|The true ending of the [[Gospel of Mark]] without the subsequent vandalism of its text, as depicted by [[Annibale Carracci]], ''The Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ'', circa 1597-98.]]

[[File:Carracci The Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ.jpg|thumb|The true ending of the [[Gospel of Mark]] without the subsequent vandalism of its text, as depicted by [[Annibale Carracci]], ''The Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ'', circa 1597-98.]]

The '''Mark ending''' — the final chapter 16 to the [[Gospel of Mark]] — was spectacular in its original form but has since been polluted by [[liberal]] vandalism, similar to soot obscuring a great work of art.  The soot on an Old Master's painting can be removed to restore the artwork to its original splendor.  Similarly, the sensational original ending to the [[Gospel of Mark]] can be restored, as depicted by this Master's painting ---->

The '''Mark ending''' — the final chapter 16 to the [[Gospel of Mark]] — is the most spectacular in all of history and literature, in its original form. But it was been polluted by [[liberal]] vandalism with [[liberal denial]], similar to soot obscuring a great work of art.  The soot on an Old Master's painting can be removed to restore the artwork to its original splendor.  Similarly, the sensational original ending to the [[Gospel of Mark]] can be restored, as depicted by this Master's painting -->

There is extensive scholarly commentary demonstrating that verses 16:9–20 are not authentic: they are not in the earliest manuscripts and consist of doubtful doctrine.<ref>Renowned scholar Bruce Metzger explained that Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the early third century show no knowledge of the existence of these verses 9-20; Eusebius and Jerome confirm that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.  ''See'' Bruce Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (2d ed. Hendrickson Publishers, 2005).  Also, the style of Greek is not Mark's, and the doubtful addition appears to copy closing sections of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. [https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/]</ref>  But equally important is to recognize and remove the [[liberal claptrap]] inserted as the last clause of verse 16:8.  '''''The second half of 16:8 is not authentic, and obscures the powerful original ending by [[Mark]]'''''.  

There is extensive scholarly commentary demonstrating that verses 16:9–20 are not authentic: they are not in the earliest manuscripts and consist of doubtful doctrine.<ref>Renowned scholar Bruce Metzger explained that Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the early third century show no knowledge of the existence of these verses 9-20; Eusebius and Jerome confirm that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.  ''See'' Bruce Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (2d ed. Hendrickson Publishers, 2005).  Also, the style of Greek is not Mark's, and the doubtful addition appears to copy closing sections of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. [https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/]</ref>  But equally important is to recognize and remove the [[liberal claptrap]] inserted as the last clause of verse 16:8.  '''''The second half of 16:8 is not authentic, and obscures the powerful original ending by [[Mark]]'''''.