In the case against the final twelve verses of Mark 16, internal issues frequently cited include the following. (1) The vocabulary and style of vv. 9-20 appear to be non-Markan; seventeen words occur in these verses that are not found elsewhere in the Gospel, three of which appear more than once. (2) The connection between v. 8 and v. 9 seems awkward. (3) The subject of v. 8 is the women, but in v. 9 Jesus is the presumed subject. (4) Mary Magdalene is identified in v. 9, even though she is mentioned in 15:47 and 16:1, while the other women of 16:1-8 are forgotten.
In order for these charges to appear credible, a number of variables have to be overlooked that would otherwise significantly weaken the objections, particularly those centered on a hypothetical Markan vocabulary and style (see Biblical Authorship Part 3). If Mark based his Gospel on the oral testimony of the apostle Peter (as early tradition claims),1 and if Peter was incarcerated and/or killed before the Gospel was finished (a conjecture supported by biblical information and early tradition),2 Mark could have written the ending by himself, and the final section would therefore be entirely Markan, while the preceding material would represent a Petrine-Markan blend.
Since the conclusion of the Gospel deals with unique subject matter that is not previously discussed, would it not therefore call for distinctive terminology? Three words in this section occur in the New Testament only in the post-resurrection accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, and John. Of the seventeen words in this paragraph that do not appear elsewhere in Mark in duplicate form, eight do occur in varied forms and are thus part of the so-called "Markan vocabulary" after all, not to mention the rest of the terminology that comprises nearly 90% of the text! Applying the same scrutiny to the twelve verses preceding this section (15:44–16:8), we find that sixteen of these words and phrases do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel either. Moreover, by subjecting the last twelve verses of Luke’s Gospel to the same test, we discover no less than nine words that do not occur elsewhere in Luke, four of which are found nowhere else in the Greek New Testament (see J. W. McGarvey, NT Commentary: Matthew and Mark 380).
The connection between v. 8 and v. 9 seems awkward only if it is viewed as an attempted continuance of the previous empty tomb section. But if v. 9 is the beginning of a new paragraph (relating to the appearances of the resurrected Christ), the break is normal in Mark’s rapid-fire Gospel (cf. 1:3-4, 8-9, 13-14, 34-35, 39-40; 2:17-18, 22-23; 3:12-13, 19-20, 30-31; 3:35–4:1; 4:9-10, 20-21, 25-26, 29-30; 6:13-14, 29-30; 6:56–7:1; 7:13-14; 7:37–8:1; et al.). Note that v. 8 and v. 9 are separated by the conjuntion de, "which is elsewhere a sign of a definite break in the Gospel" (D. E. Nineham, Saint Mark 197 n.; cf. R. H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation 62 n.).
Although v. 9 begins with the masculine participle anastas ("rising") and the nearest antecedent is the women of v. 8, an unbiased reader can easily distinguish between an unrelated spatial antecedent and the more obvious conceptual antecedent of vv. 6-7. Compare Mark 7:30, where the subject is two females (the Syro-Phoenician woman and her daughter), immediately followed by v. 31 where "he" (Jesus) is the subject (cf. 2:12-13; 6:44-45; 14:2-3).
Mary Magdalene is named in v. 9 because she is the subject of the beginning of a new paragraph, particularly in view of her being the first to whom Jesus appeared. Bruce Metzger’s objection that the use of anastas de ("now rising") and the position of prōton ("first") "are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8" (Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 105) unnecessarily assumes continuance rather than an apparent break and the start of a new section. Note that Mary Magdalene is also mentioned back in 15:40, but no scholarly eyebrows are raised by the repetition of her name in 15:47 and immediately again in 16:1!
Allen Black comments: "it is important not to overrate the significance of the problem. There is no doctrine or practice discussed in vv. 9-20 that is not taught elsewhere in the New Testament" (Mark 293). While this statement is generally true, the reference in v. 18 to drinking "anything deadly" is without parallel in the New Testament. Nevertheless, Papias of Hierapolis reported that he had learned from the daughters of the apostle Philip concerning Justus Barsabas (cf. Acts 1:23-24), "though he drank a deadly poison, experienced nothing injurious through the grace of the Lord" (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.9).
Everyone agrees that the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel bear strong affinities to the other biblical accounts of the resurrection (i.e. the information is authentic) and serve as a fitting epilogue (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 8:2; 24:13-51; John 20:1-23; Acts 1:9; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:8; 8:6; 14:3, 9-10; 16:16-18; 28:3-9; Hebrews 2:3-4). The case against the traditional ending does not appear to be as compelling as most critical scholars would have us believe. In fact, the tenacity of this passage in avoiding complete omission from nearly all current standard Greek texts and translations, despite overwhelming opposition, bears testimony to its apparent veracity.3
–Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1Papias of Hierapolis reports that Mark was "Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord" (as quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15). According to Jerome, Peter’s interpreter was Mark, "whose gospel was composed with Peter narrating and him writing" (Ad Hedibiam 120). "Mark reads like a shorthand account of a story by an impromptu speaker--with all the repititions, redundancies and digressions which are characteristic of living speech" (B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels 162-64).
2Mark was summoned to Rome by Paul (2 Timothy 4:11) and was with Peter in Rome (1 Peter 5:13) not long before Peter’s martyrdom (2 Peter 1:13-15) at the hands of Nero (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.1-8). The proposed scenario above is bolstered by the fact that Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2) and Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.5-7) agree that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome but disagree as to whether this was before or after Peter’s death.
3For a more detailed assessment of the documentary evidence, consult the works of James Snapp, Jr., including Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.
Related Posts: Ending of Mark Part 1, Ending of Mark Part 2, Ending of Mark Part 3, Text of NT Part 1, Text of NT Part 2, Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel
It is commonly asserted that in the fourth and early-fifth centuries, Eusebius and Jerome indicated that Mark 16:9-20 was absent from "nearly all" Greek copies of Mark available to them. Bruce Metzger’s observation that "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses" (Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 103) proves nothing either way, and it is quite misleading to twist this argument from silence into an affirmative statement like: "The ending at 16:8 is attested by Clement, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome" (S. E. Dowd, Reading Mark 169), or "Mark’s Gospel (as written by Mark) ends with 16:8. This is attested to by . . . Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome . . ." (P. W. Comfort, Quest for the Original Text 137-38).
Eusebius is believed to have been among the first to question the veracity of these verses. In his Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum, he offers (in the third person) a twofold solution to an apparent discrepancy between Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9. His first response can be summarized as follows: someone might disregard Mark 16:9 because it is not in all the copies of Mark; the accurate ones end at v. 8, "almost in all the copies," and the words that follow "are extant in some but not in all." Eusebius’ second solution retains Mark 16:9 as genuine, briefly stated as follows: someone else, who dares not set aside these verses, can easily harmonize the two passages by simple punctuation.
Eusebius was obviously aware of the long ending of Mark, knew of Greek manuscripts that contained the passage, and was not entirely dismissive of it as a number of critical commentators have led their readers to believe. It is important to note that nearly all of the manuscripts available to Eusebius were of the Alexandrian text-type (akin to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and he apparently lacked access to earlier manuscripts used by the likes of Irenaeus and Tertullian that proliferated elsewhere (see below).
Jerome’s alleged "objection" to these verses (Epistle [Ad Hedibiam] 120.3) is merely a Latin translation of what Eusebius had written in Greek decades earlier, yet Jerome included Mark 16:9-20 in his Latin Vulgate! The Greek New Testament was translated into Latin as early as the late second century and was later revised by Jerome, using the best Latin texts and compared with old Greek manuscripts that were available. Jerome even employed Mark 16:14 in his Dialogus contra Pelagianos 2.15. Therefore, citing Jerome as evidence against the long ending of Mark would appear disingenuous.
Irenaeus of Lyons (late second century) regarded Mark 16:9-20 as part of the original (Adv. Haereses 3.10.6), about two centuries before Eusebius, Jerome, and the production of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts. Tertullian of Carthage (early third century) quotes from the long ending of Mark (16:19) in his Adv. Praxeam 2.1, over a century before Eusebius, Jerome, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. Further, a number of ancient versions (e.g. the Peshitta Syriac, the Old Italic, the Sahidic, the Coptic) include vv. 9-20, and these predate Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as well as Eusebius and Jerome. Apparently the Greek texts from which these early versions were translated contained the passage in question.
–Kevin L. Moore
Related Posts: Ending of Mark Part 1, Ending of Mark Part 2, Ending of Mark Part 4, Text of NT Part 1, Text of NT Part 2
The Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8 in some manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century. While these two documents are highly esteemed as the earliest surviving copies of the complete New Testament, this in itself does not guarantee their accuracy. They are commonly touted as the "best" simply because of their advanced age, yet their survival is fundamentally due to chance of locality. The dry, arid climate of Egypt is conducive to preserving papyrus materials, but if they had been located elsewhere (e.g. Rome or Syria), it is doubtful that their alleged "superiority" would have been recognized, and it is unlikely they would have endured.
Vaticanus is full of careless transcription, including omissions and repetitions, and in the Gospels alone words or entire clauses are left out no less than 1,491 times. Sinaiticus is also replete with transcriptional error, including numerous careless omissions and variant readings (see J. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses 73-76). W. N. Pickering observes: "But the evidence indicates that the earliest [manuscripts] are the worst. It is clear that the Church in general did not propagate the sort of text found in the earliest [manuscripts], which demonstrates that they were not held in high esteem in their day" (Identity of the NT Text 122). Vaticanus and Sinaiticus often diverge from one another, with one or the other agreeing with the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus, and this early witness (along with multitudes of others) contains the last twelve verses of Mark 16.
What about the claim that some manuscripts (e.g. codices 20, 137, 138, 215, 264, 300, 1221, 2346) are marked to indicate the questionable nature of these verses? Evidently there was enough textual evidence available to the respective scribes to justify the inclusion of the passage rather than excising it. In ancient manuscripts asterisks (*) signify added words and obeli (÷) omitted words, while the use of τλ (telos) merely designates a lectionary break and not a spurious passage at all. Upon further investigation, we learn that in 20, 215 and 300 (where the mark comes after v. 15 rather than v. 8), and in 138 and 137 (where asterisks do not appear), the marginal notations all claim the genuineness of the passage, with the observation that omission occurs only in "some" (tisi) manuscripts. Further, in 264, 1221, and 2346 the symbols simply mark the end and the beginning of lectionary readings. All of these witnesses actually provide added support for the validity of the text.
–Kevin L. Moore
Related Posts: Ending of Mark Part 1, Ending of Mark Part 3, Ending of Mark Part 4, Text of NT Part 1, Text of NT Part 2
Related articles: J. E. Snapp, Jr., Sorting Out Common Mistakes
Image credit: https://www.bricecjones.com/blog/coptic-manuscripts-for-sale-by-sothebys
Basically four endings of Mark’s Gospel appear in the extant manuscripts, two of which can readily be dismissed because of the acute weakness of the documentary evidence. Among the final twenty verses an expanded insertion between v. 14 and v. 15 is preserved only in the late-fourth or early-fifth century Codex Washingtonianus (W or 032). A number of late manuscripts include a shorter ending following 16:8, though all but one (itk) continue with vv. 9-20.
The major debate concerns the other two endings. The vast majority of witnesses contain the full twenty verses (i.e. the traditional ending). In fact, 99% of the existing manuscripts have the longer ending of Mark. But the Gospel ends at 16:8 in some copies, including the two oldest: the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, although in Vaticanus an empty space follows 16:8, leaving room for the verses in question.
While the difficulty is not easily resolved, the majority opinion in scholarly circles is that the original ending is at 16:8, although most agree that v. 8 provides an abrupt, clumsy conclusion with no record of a personal appearance of the risen Christ. From a pragmatic standpoint, we know that the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, the issuing of the great commission and the ascension were all well known accounts at the time Mark’s Gospel was penned (1 Corinthians 15:5-7; 1 Peter 3:18-22; 5:13; etc.). Why would these critical details be omitted and why would the Gospel end so abruptly? Three possibilities have been proposed: (1) the abrupt ending was intentional; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the original ending was lost.
Did Mark intentionally conclude the Gospel at 16:8 for reasons known only to him? Rather than leaving his readers in suspense, Mark was careful to affirm the fulfilment of divine promises. For example, Mark narrates the Lord’s prophetic warning of Judas’ betrayal (14:18-21, 42), followed by its fulfilment (14:43-45). Mark recounts the Lord’s expressed foreknowledge of the disciples forsaking him (14:27), followed by its fulfilment (14:50). Mark reports the Lord’s prediction of Peter’s denial and the crowing rooster (14:30), followed by its fulfilment (14:66-72). Mark records the Lord’s repeated forewarnings of his suffering, death, and resurrection (8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34), followed by the fulfilment of these prophecies (14:43–16:6).
Twice Mark documents the explicit promise that Jesus would appear to his disciples after his resurrection (14:28; 16:7). It seems incredible, therefore, to think that Mark’s narrative would uncharacteristically leave these promises unfulfilled! A point worthy of consideration is the improbability that ephobounto gar ("for they feared") would have been purposefully chosen as the final wording of a book, especially of this particular book. One might argue that a sentence or even a paragraph could legitimately conclude with gar ("for") (cf. BAGD 151), but "it is difficult to believe that the note of fear would have been regarded as an appropriate conclusion to an account of the . . . Good News" (B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman, Text of the NT 325-26).
Is it likely that the Gospel was never completed? Donald Guthrie considers this "a suggestion which is not impossible, but which in the nature of the case cannot be confirmed" (NT Introduction 78). There is simply no proof that the ending was absent from the Gospel of Mark when it was first disseminated.
Was the original ending lost? Mark’s Gospel ends at 16:8 at the bottom of the last surviving leaf of the 11th-century Codex 2386, and the next leaf is missing with clear indication that additional material followed (see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 102 n. 1). This demonstrates the plausibility of an earlier codex version of Mark that was similarly damaged, resulting in subsequent copies ending at v. 8, with later attempts to complete the Gospel with shorter and intermediate conclusions. Surely, then, it is conceivable that the original ending remained in non-defective manuscripts rather than having been totally lost and was faithfully preserved in the majority (99%) of copies that are currently available. This also offers a reasonable explanation for the empty space that follows v. 8 in Codex Vaticanus (the only blank column in the entire volume), if the copyist had only a defective manuscript with which to work but was aware of the longer ending.
–Kevin L. Moore
Related Posts: Ending of Mark Part 2, Ending of Mark Part 3, Ending of Mark Part 4, Text of NT Part 1, Text of NT Part 2, Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel
In the case against the final twelve verses of Mark 16, internal issues frequently cited include the following. (1) The vocabulary and style of vv. 9-20 appear to be non-Markan; seventeen words occur in these verses that are not found elsewhere in the Gospel, three of which appear more than once. (2) The connection between v. 8 and v. 9 seems awkward. (3) The subject of v. 8 is the women, but in v. 9 Jesus is the presumed subject. (4) Mary Magdalene is identified in v. 9, even though she is mentioned in 15:47 and 16:1, while the other women of 16:1-8 are forgotten.
