Why wouldn't Irenaeus and Tatian put to bed the debate on the long ending of Mark?


With Tatian writing the long ending in his 40’s within his Diatessaron, which he would have copied from an already existing Gospel of Mark (pushing to perhaps the early to mid 2nd century). And Irenaeus who was a very devout Christian and knew Polycarp, who knew John quotes it from a text that dates from the year 180 (again, Ireanaeus would have been pulling this text from another document that would have dated earlier) how can we deny that it ought to be called authentic?

I understand the arguments against calling it authentic, but they never seem to take into question the strength behind the Tatian/Irenaeus arguments. Had Irenaeus really existed and had he written Adversus Haereses and had he really known Polycarp who had really known John; how can this be denied?


Who sates that verses 9-20 are not inspired? Jerome included them in his Vulgate, Pope Damasus I and the council declared Mark as canonical in that edition and Trent later ended the dispute. Do we then throw out all of the other books (Isaiah, etc.) that are suspected of having more than a single author? Someone or something is attacking the scriptures for some reason. The Church has ruled. Either we have a bible or we do not.

This trendy move toward reverse-engineering the faith, if not stopped, will end up destroying it.


Reading your thread title, no individual in the Catholic Church puts and end to anything. That is reformation theology. Pope and council spoke and ended the debate - the fact that it may rage on in some circles means only that some like to argue. I would not listen to them, as the matter is long settled and can serve only to generate doubt.


I think the debate continues due to textual criticism and many scholars who point out that it wasn’t original.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.