http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=704
Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?
The science of textual criticism is a field of inquiry that has been
invaluable to ascertaining the original state of the New Testament text.
Textual criticism involves “the ascertainment of the true form of a
literary work, as originally composed and written down by its author”
(Kenyon, 1951, p. 1). The fact that the original autographs of the New
Testament do not exist (Comfort, 1990, p. 4), and that only copies of
copies of copies of the original documents have survived, has led some
falsely to conclude that the original reading of the New Testament
documents cannot be determined. For example, Mormons frequently attempt
to establish the superiority of the
Book of Mormon over the
Bible by insisting that the Bible has been corrupted through the
centuries in the process of translation (a contention shared with Islam
in its attempt to explain the Bible’s frequent contradiction of the
Quran). However, a venture into the fascinating world of textual
criticism dispels this premature and uninformed conclusion.
The task of textual critics, those who study the extant manuscript
evidence that attests to the text of the New Testament, is to examine
textual variants
(i.e., divergencies among the manuscripts) in an effort to
reconstruct the original reading of the text. They work with a large
body of manuscript evidence, the amount of which is far greater than
that available for any ancient classical author (Ewert, 1983, p. 139;
Kenyon, 1951, p. 5; Westcott and Hort, 1964, p. 565). [NOTE:
The present number of Greek manuscripts—whole and partial—that attest
to the New Testament stands at an unprecedented 5,748 (Welte, 2005)].
In one sense, their work has been unnecessary, since the vast majority
of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect doctrine as
it relates to one’s salvation. Even those variants that might be deemed
doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere
in the Bible where the question of genuineness is unobscured. No feature
of Christian doctrine is at stake. Variant readings in existing
manuscripts do not alter any basic teaching of the New Testament.
Nevertheless, textual critics have been successful in demonstrating that
currently circulating New Testaments do not differ substantially from
the original. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast
majority of discordant readings have been resolved (e.g., Metzger, 1978,
p. 185). One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our
possession the New Testament as God intended.
The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the
British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements
on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity
and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be
regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, 1940, p. 288). The late F.F.
Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the
University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about
which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament
affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and
practice” (1960, pp. 19-20). J.W. McGarvey, declared by the
London Times
to be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth” (Phillips, 1975, p. 184;
Brigance, 1870, p. 4), conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed
by these books when they were first written belong to them still”
(1956, p. 17). And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the
entire matter into perspective when they said:
Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the
discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim,
discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple
fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally
single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is
difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which
the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in
most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous
therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed (1964, p. 564, emp. added).
Writing in the late nineteenth century, and noting that the experience
of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved,
these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to
doubt can hardly amount to more than
a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament” (p. 565, emp. added).
THE AUTHENTICITY OF MARK 16:9-20
One textual variant that has received considerable attention from the
textual critic concerns the last twelve verses of Mark. Much has been
written on the subject in the last two centuries or so. Most, if not
all, scholars who have examined the subject concede that the truths
presented in the verses are historically authentic—even if they reject
the genuineness of the verses as being originally part of Mark’s
account. The verses contain no teaching of significance that is not
taught elsewhere. Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to Mary is
verified elsewhere (Luke 8:2; John 20:1-18), as is His appearance to the
two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:35), and His appearance to
the eleven apostles (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23). The “Great
Commission” is presented by two of the other three gospel writers
(Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-48), and Luke verifies the ascension twice
(Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9). The promise of the signs that were to accompany
the apostles’ activities is hinted at by Matthew (28:20), noted by the
Hebrews writer (2:3-4), explained in greater detail by John (chapters
14-16; cf. 14:12), and demonstrated by the events of the book of Acts
(see McGarvey, 1875, pp. 377-378).
Those who reject the originality of the passage in Mark, while
acknowledging the authenticity of the events reported, generally assign a
very early date for the origin of the verses. For example, writing in
1844, Alford, who forthrightly rejected the genuineness of the passage,
nevertheless conceded: “The inference therefore seems to me to be, that
it is an authentic fragment, placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early times: by whom written, must of course remain wholly uncertain; but
coming to us with very weighty sanction, and having strong claims on our reception
and reverence” (1:438, italics in orig., emp. added). Attributing the
verses to a disciple of Jesus named Aristion, Sir Frederic Kenyon
nevertheless believed that “we can accept the passage
as true and authentic narrative,
though not an original portion of St. Mark’s Gospel” (1951, p. 174,
emp. added). More recently, textual scholars of no less stature than
Kurt and Barbara Aland, though also rejecting the originality of the
block of twelve verses in question, nevertheless admit that the longer
ending “was recognized as canonical” and that it “may well be from the
beginning of the second century” (Aland and Aland, 1987, pp. 69,227).
This admission is remarkable since it lends further weight to the
recognized antiquity of the verses—what New Testament textual critic
Bruce Metzger, professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and
Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, referred to as “the
evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual
tradition of the Gospel” (1994, p. 105)—placing them in such close
proximity to the original writing of Mark so as to make the gap between
them virtually indistinguishable.
THE GENUINENESS OF MARK 16:9-20: THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
In light of these preliminary observations regarding
authenticity, what may be said regarding the
genuineness
of the last twelve verses of the book of Mark? In arriving at their
conclusions, textual critics evaluate the evidence for and against a
reading in terms of two broad categories: external evidence and internal
evidence (see Metzger, 1978, pp. 209ff.). External evidence consists of
the date, geographical distribution, and genealogical interrelationship
of manuscript copies that contain or omit the passage in question.
Internal evidence involves both transcriptional and intrinsic
probabilities. Transcriptional probabilities include such principles
as (1) generally the shorter reading is more likely to be the original,
(2) the more difficult (to the scribe) reading is to be preferred, and
(3) the reading that stands in verbal dissidence with the other is
preferable. Intrinsic probabilities pertain to what the original author
was more likely to have written, based on his writing style, vocabulary,
immediate context, and his usage elsewhere.
Four Textual Possibilities
According to Metzger (1994, pp. 102ff.), the extant manuscript evidence
contains essentially four different endings for the book of Mark: (1)
the omission of 16:9-20; (2) the inclusion of 16:9-20; (3) the inclusion
of 16:9-20 with the insertion of an additional statement between verse 8
and verse 9 that reads: “But they reported briefly to Peter and those
with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent
out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable
proclamation of eternal salvation”; and (4) the inclusion of 16:9-20
with the insertion of an additional statement between verses 14 and 15
which reads:
And they excused themselves, saying, “This age of lawlessness and
unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God
to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow
what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of
God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now”—thus they spoke to
Christ. And Christ replied to them, “The term of years of Satan’s power
has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those
who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to
the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual
and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.”
The fourth reading of the text may be eliminated as spurious. Meager external evidence exists to support it, i.e.,
only one Greek
manuscript—Codex
Washingtonianus. As Jack Lewis noted: “The support for the shorter
ending is so inferior that no scholar would champion that Mark wrote
this ending” (1988, p. 598). It bears what Metzger called “an
unmistakable apocryphal flavor” (1994, p. 104). The statement does not
match the style and grandeur of the rest of the section, leaving the
general impression of having been fabricated. This latter point applies
equally to the third ending since it, too, possesses a rhetorical tone
that contrasts—even clashes—with Mark’s simple style.
The third ending represents a classic case of
conflation—incorporating
both verses 9-20 as well as the shorter ending—and may also be
eliminated from consideration. In addition to internal evidence, the
external evidence is insufficient to establish its genuineness. It is
supported by four uncials (019, 044, 099, 0112) that date from the
seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, one Old Latin manuscript (which
omits verses 9-20), a marginal notation in the Harclean Syriac, several
Coptic (Sahidic and Bohairic) manuscripts (see Kahle, 1951, pp. 49-57),
and several late Ethiopic manuscripts (see Sanday, 1889, p. 195, and
Metzger’s response, 1972). Besides being discredited for conflation, the
third ending lacks sufficient internal and external evidence to
establish its genuineness as having been originally written by Mark.
Omission
Ultimately, therefore, the question is reduced simply to whether verses 9-20 are to be
included or
excluded
as genuine. Over the last century and a half, scholars have come down
on both sides of the issue. Those who have questioned the genuineness of
the verses have included F.J.A. Hort (Westcott and Hort, 1882, pp.
29-51), B.H. Streeter (1924, pp. 333-360), J.K. Elliott (1971, pp.
255-262), and Bruce Metzger (1994, pp. 102-106). On the other hand,
those who have insisted that Mark wrote the verses have included John W.
Burgon (1871), F.H.A. Scrivener (1883, pp. 583-590), George Salmon
(1889, pp. 156-164), James Morison (1892, pp. 446-449), Samuel Zwemer
(1975, pp. 159-174), and R.C.H. Lenski (1945, pp. 748-775).
The reading of the text that
omits verses 9-20 altogether does,
indeed, possess some respectable support (see the UBS Greek text’s
critical apparatus—Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189). The weightiest
external
evidence is the omission of the verses by the formidable Greek uncials,
the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which date from the fourth century.
These two manuscripts carry great persuasive weight with most textual
scholars, resulting in marginal notations in many English translations.
For example, the American Standard Version footnote to the verse reads:
“The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from
verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to
the Gospel.” The New International Version gives the following footnote:
“The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.”
Such marginal notations, however, fail to convey to the reader the
larger picture that the external evidence provides, including additional
Greek manuscript evidence, to say nothing of the ancient versions and
patristic citations.
Additional evidence for omission includes the absence of the verses
from various versions: (1) the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, (2) about one
hundred Armenian manuscripts (see Colwell, 1937, pp. 369-386), and (3)
the two oldest Georgian manuscripts that are dated A.D. 897 and 913. [NOTE:
Many scholars list the Old Latin codex Bobiensis from the fourth/fifth
century as evidence for the omission of the verses. However, as
indicated by the critical apparatus of the UBS
Greek text (see Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189), Bobiensis (k) contains the
“short ending”—deemed by everyone to be spurious. Its scribe could have
been manifesting his concern that something (i.e., verses 9-20) was
missing and so settled for the “short ending”.]
Among the patristic writers (i.e., the so-called “Church Fathers”), neither Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 215) nor Origen (A.D.
254) shows any knowledge of the existence of the verses. [Of course,
simply showing no knowledge is no proof for omission. If we were to
discount as genuine every New Testament verse that a particular
patristic writer failed to reference, we would eventually dismiss the
entire New Testament as spurious. Though virtually the entire New
Testament is quoted or alluded to by the corpus of patristic writers
(Metzger, 1978, p. 86)—
no one writer refers to every verse.]
Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 339), as well as Jerome (A.D.
420), are said to have indicated the absence of the verses from almost
all Greek manuscripts known to them. However, it should be noted that
the statement made by Eusebius occurs in a context in which he was
offering two possible solutions to an alleged contradiction (between
Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9) posed by a Marinus. One of the solutions
would be to dismiss Mark’s words on the grounds that it is not contained
in all texts. But Eusebius does not claim to share this solution. The
second solution he offers entails retaining Mark 16:9 as genuine. The
fact that he couches the first solution in the third person (i.e.,
“This, then, is what a person will say...”), and then proceeds to offer a
second solution, when he could have simply dismissed the alleged
contradiction on the grounds that manuscript evidence was decisively
against the genuineness of the verses, argues for Eusebius’ own
approval. The mere fact that the alleged contradiction was raised in the
first place demonstrates recognition of the existence of the verses.
Jerome’s alleged opposition to the verses is even more tenuous. He
merely translated the same interchange between Eusebius and Marinus
from Greek into Latin, recasting it as a response to the same question
that he placed in the mouth of a Hedibia from Gaul (see the discussion
by Burgon, 1871, p. 134). He most certainly was not giving his own
opinion regarding the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, since that opinion is
made apparent by the fact that Jerome
included the
verses in his landmark revision of the Old Latin translations, the
Vulgate, while excluding others that lacked sufficient manuscript
verification. Jerome’s own opinion is further evident from the fact that
he quoted approvingly from the section (e.g., vs. 14 in
Against the Pelagians, II.15 [Schaff and Wace, 1954, 6:468]).
Further evidence for omission of the verses is claimed from the
Eusebian Canons, produced by Ammonius, which allegedly originally made
no provision for numbering sections of the text after verse 8. Yet,
again, on closer examination, of 151 Greek Evangelia codices, 114
sectionalize (and thus make allowance for) the last twelve verses (see
Burgon, p. 391; cf. Scrivener, 1883).
In addition to these items of evidence that support omission of verses 9-20, several manuscripts
that actually do contain
them, nevertheless have scribal notations questioning their
originality. Some of the manuscripts have markings—asterisks or
obeli—that ordinarily signal the scribe’s suspicion of the presence of a
spurious addition. However, even here, such markings (e.g.,
tl, tel, or
telos)
can be misconstrued to mean the end of the book, whereas the copyist
merely intended to indicate the end of a liturgical section of the
lectionary. Metzger agrees that such ecclesiastical lection signs
constitute “a clear implication that the manuscript originally continued
with additional material from Mark” (1994, p. 102, note 1).
The
internal evidence that calls verses 9-20 into
question resolves itself into essentially two central contentions: (1)
the vocabulary and style of the verses are deemed non-Markan, and (2)
the connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20 seems awkward and gives
the surface appearance of having been added by someone other than Mark.
These two contentions will be treated momentarily.
Inclusion
Standing in contrast with the evidence for omission is the external and
internal evidence for the inclusion of verses 9-20. The verses are, in
fact, present in the vast number of witnesses (see the UBS
Greek text’s critical apparatus—Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189). This
point alone is insufficient to demonstrate the genuineness of a passage,
since manuscripts may perpetuate an erroneous reading that crept into
the text and then happened to survive in greater numbers than those
manuscripts that preserved the original reading. Nevertheless, the sheer
magnitude of the witnesses that support verses 9-20 cannot be summarily
dismissed out of hand. Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses,
the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause:
“It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is
found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as
a genuine part of the gospel of Mark”
(1987, p. 287, emp. added). Such longstanding and widespread acceptance
cannot be treated lightly nor dismissed easily. It is, at least,
possible that the prevalence of manuscript support for the verses is due to their genuineness.
The Greek manuscript evidence that verifies the verses is
distinguished, not just in quantity, but also in complexion and
diversity. It includes a host of uncials and minuscules. The uncials
include Codex Alexandrinus (02) and Ephraemi Rescriptus (04) from the
fifth century. [NOTE: Technically, the Washington
manuscript may be combined with these two manuscripts as additional
fifth-century evidence for inclusion of the verses, since it simply
inserts an additional statement in between verses 14 and 15.] Additional
support for the verses comes from Bezae Cantabrigiensis (05) from
the sixth century (or, according to the Alands, the fifth century—1987,
p. 107), as well as 017, 033, 037, 038, and 041 from the ninth and tenth
centuries. The minuscule manuscript evidence consists of the “Family
13” collection, entailing no fewer than ten manuscripts, as well as
numerous other minuscules. The passage is likewise found in several
lectionaries.
The patristic writings that indicate acceptance of the verses as
genuine are remarkably extensive. From the second century, Irenaeus, who
died c. A.D. 202, alludes to the verses in both Greek and Latin. His precise words in his
Against Heresies
were: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then,
after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God” (3.10.5; Roberts and
Donaldson, 1973, 1:426). It is very likely that Justin Martyr was aware
of the verses in the middle of the second century. At any rate, his
disciple, Tatian, included the verses in his Greek
Diatessaron (having come down to us in Arabic, Italian, and Old Dutch editions) c. A.D. 170.
Third century witnesses include Tertullian, who died after A.D. 220, in his
On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ch. 51; Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 3:584),
Against Praxeas (ch. 30; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:627), and
A Treatise on the Soul (ch. 25; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:206). Cyprian, who died A.D. 258, alluded to verses 17-18 in his
The Seventh Council of Carthage (Roberts and Donaldson, 1971, 5:569). Additional third century verification is seen in the apocryphal
Gospel of Nicodemus. Verses 15-18 in Greek and verses 15-19 in Latin are quoted in
Part I: The Acts of Pilate (ch. 14), and verse 16 in its Greek form is quoted in
Part II: The Descent of Christ into Hell (ch. 2) (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 8:422,436,444-445).
De Rebaptismate (A.D.
258) is also a witness to the verses. All seven of these second and
third century witnesses precede the earliest existing Greek manuscripts
that verify the genuineness of the verses. More to the point,
they predate both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Fourth century witnesses to the existence of the verses include
Aphraates (writing in A.D. 337—see Schaff and Wace, 1969, 13:153), with
his citation of Mark 16:16-18 in “Of Faith” in his
Demonstrations (1.17; Schaff and Wace, 13:351), in addition to the
Apostolic Constitutions
(5.3.14; 6.3.15; 8.1.1)—written no later than A.D. 380 (Roberts and
Donaldson, 1970, 7:445,457,479). Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, quoted from
the section in his
On the Holy Spirit (2.13.145,151),
On the Christian Faith (1.14.86 and 3.4.31), and
Concerning Repentance
(1.8.35; Schaff and Wace, 10:133,134,216,247,335). Didymus, who died
A.D. 398, is also a witness to the genuineness of the verses (Aland, et
al., 1983, p. 189), as is perhaps Asterius after 341.
Patristic writers from the fifth century that authenticate the verses
include Jerome, noted above, who died A.D. 420, Leo (who died A.D. 461)
in his
Letters (9.2 and 120.2; Schaff and Wace, 1969, 12:8,88), and Chrysostom (who died A.D. 407) in his
Homilies on First Corinthians
(38.5; Schaff, 1969, 12:229). Additional witnesses include Severian
(after 408), Marcus-Eremita (after 430), Nestorius (after 451), and
Augustine (after 455). These witnesses to the genuineness of Mark
16:9-20 from patristic writers is exceptional.
The evidence for inclusion that comes from the ancient versions is also
diverse and weighty—entailing a wide spectrum of versions and
geographical locations. Several Old Latin/Itala manuscripts contain it.
Though Jerome repeated the view that the verses were absent in some
Greek manuscripts—a circumstance used by those who support exclusion—he
actually
included them in his fourth century Latin
Vulgate (and, as noted above, quoted verse 14 in his own writings). The
verses are found in the Old Syriac (Curetonian) as well as the Peshitta
and later Syriac (Palestinian and Harclean). The Coptic versions that
have it are the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Fayyumic, ranging from the third
to the sixth centuries. The Gothic version (fourth century) has verses
9-11. The verses are also found in the Armenian, Georgian, and Old
Church Slavonic versions.
What must the unbiased observer conclude from these details? All told, the cumulative
external
evidence that documents the genuineness of verses 9-20, from Greek
manuscripts, patristic citations, and ancient versions, is expansive,
ancient, diversified, and unsurpassed.
Reconciling the Evidence
How may the conflicting evidence for and against inclusion of the
verses be reconciled? In the final analysis, according to those who
favor omission of the verses, the two strongest, most persuasive pieces
of evidence for their position are (1) the
external evidence of the exclusion of the verses from the prestigious Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and (2) the
internal
evidence of the presence of multiple non-Markan words. The fact is that
the presumed strength of these two factors has led many scholars to
minimize the array of evidence that otherwise would be seen to support
the verses—evidence that, as shown above, is vast and diversified in
geographical distribution and age. If these two factors are demonstrated
by definitive rebuttal to be inadequate, the evidence for inclusion
will then be recognized as manifestly superior to that which is believed
to support exclusion. What, then, may be said concerning the two
strongest pieces of evidence that have led many scholars to exclude Mark
16:9-20 as genuine?
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
Regarding the first factor, it is surely significant that though Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the passage,
Alexandrinus includes it.
Alexandrinus rivals Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in both accuracy and
age—removed probably by no more than fifty years. Why should the reading
of two of the “Big Three” uncial manuscripts take precedence over the
reading of the third? Are proponents staking their case in this regard
on mere numerical superiority, i.e., two against one? Surely not, given
the fact that the same scholars would insist that original readings are
not to be decided by counting numbers of manuscripts. If sheer numbers
of manuscripts decide genuineness, then Mark 16:9-20 must be accepted as
genuine. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should carry no more weight over
Alexandrinus than that assigned by critics to the manuscripts that
support inclusion on account of their superior numbers.
Vaticanus is technically, at best, a half-hearted witness to the
omission of the verses. Though he considered the verses as spurious,
Alford nevertheless offered an observation that ought to give one pause:
“After the subscription in B [Vaticanus—DM] the remaining greater
portion of the column and the whole of the next to the end of the page
are left vacant.
There is no other instance of this in the whole N.T. portion of the MS [manuscript—DM],
the next book in every other instance beginning on the next column” (p.
484, emp. added). This unusual divergence from the scribe’s usual
practice suggests that he knew that additional verses were missing. The
blank space he left provides ample room for the additional twelve
verses.
Interestingly, some have questioned the judgment of the scribe of
Sinaiticus in his omission of Mark 16:9-20 on the grounds that he
included the apocryphal books of the
Shepherd of Hermas and the
Epistle of Barnabas
(Aland and Aland, 1987, p. 107). Likewise, the scribe of Vaticanus
included several of the Apocrypha in the Old Testament, as Sir Frederic
Kenyon observed, “being inserted among the canonical books in B
[Vaticanus—DM]
without distinction” (1951, p. 81, emp. added).
Those who support exclusion of Mark 16:9-20 have not been forthright in
divulging that, as a matter of fact, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
frequently diverge from each other, with one or the other siding with
Alexandrinus against the other. For example, the allusions by Luke to an
angel strengthening Jesus in the Garden and the “great drops of blood”
(Luke 22:43-44) are
omitted by Vaticanus and
Alexandrinus, but Sinaiticus (the original hand) contains these
verses (Metzger, 1975, p. 177). Luke’s report of Jesus’ statement on the
cross (“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do”—Luke
23:34), is
included by Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus (the original hand), but
omitted by Vaticanus (p. 180). On the other hand, Vaticanus sides with Alexandrinus
against
Sinaiticus in their inclusion of the blind man’s confession and
worship of Jesus (“‘Lord, I believe!’ And he worshipped Him”) in John
9:38 (Metzger, p. 195). It is also the case that
both
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are sometimes separately defective in their
handling of a reading. For example, in John 2:3, instead of reading
“they ran out of wine,” the original hand of Sinaiticus reads, “They
had no wine, because the wine of the wedding feast had been used up”—a
reading that
occurs only in Sinaiticus and in no other Greek manuscript.
Many other instances of dissimilarities and dissonance between
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus could be cited that weaken the premature
assessment of the strength of their combined witness against Mark
16:9-20. [Cf. Luke 10:41-42; 11:14; Acts 2:43,44; Romans 4:1; 5:2,17; 1
Corinthians 12:9; 1 John 4:19.] Further, in some cases the UBS committee rejected as spurious the readings of
both
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and instead accepted the reading of
Alexandrinus (e.g., Romans 8:2—“me” vs. “you”; Romans 8:35—“the love of
Christ” vs. “the love of God” [Sinaiticus] or “the love of God in Christ
Jesus” [Vaticanus]).
Summary of External Evidence
The following chart provides a visual summary of the external evidence
for and against inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 for the first six
centuries—since thereafter the manuscript evidence in favor of the
verses increases even further (adapted and enhanced from Warren, 1953,
p. 104). Observe that when one examines all three sources from which the
text of the New Testament may be ascertained, the external evidence for
the genuineness of the verses is considerable and convincing.
Non-markan style
The second most persuasive piece of evidence that prompts some to
discount Mark 16:9-20 as genuine is the internal evidence. Though the
Alands conceded that the “longer Marcan ending” actually “reads an
absolutely convincing text” (1987, p. 287), in fact,
the internal evidence
weighs more heavily than the external evidence in the minds of many of
those who support omission of the verses. Observe carefully the
following definitive pronouncement of this viewpoint—a pronouncement
that simultaneously concedes the strength of the external evidence in
favor of the verses:
On the other hand, the section is no casual or unauthorised [sic] addition to the Gospel. From the second century onwards, in nearly all manuscripts, versions, and other authorities,
it forms an integral part of the Gospel, and it can be shown to have
existed, if not in the apostolic, at least in the sub-apostolic age. A
certain amount of evidence against it there is (though very little can
be shown to be independent of Eusebius the Church historian, 265-340 A.D.), but certainly not enough to justify its rejection, were it not that internal evidence clearly demonstrates that it cannot have proceeded from the hand of St. Mark (Dummelow, 1927, p. 73, emp. added).
Listen also to an otherwise conservative scholar express the same
sentiment: “If these deductions are correct the mass of MSS
[manuscripts—DM] containing the longer ending must have been due to the
acceptance of this ending as
the most preferable. But
internal evidence combines with textual evidence to raise suspicions regarding this ending” (Guthrie, 1970, p. 77, emp. added). Alford took the same position: “The
internal
evidence...will be found to preponderate vastly against the authorship
of Mark” (1844, 1:434, emp. added). Even Bruce Metzger admitted: “The
long ending, though present in a
variety of witnesses,
some of them ancient, must also be judged
by internal evidence
to be secondary” (1978, p. 227, emp. added). In fact, to Metzger, while
the external evidence against the verses is merely “good,” the internal
evidence against them is “
strong” (1994, p. 105).
So, in the minds of not a few scholars, if it were not for the
internal
evidence, the external evidence would be sufficient to establish the
genuineness of the verses. What precisely, pray tell, is this internal
evidence that is so powerful and weighs so heavily on the issue as to
prod scholars to “jump through hoops” in an effort to discredit the
verses? What formidable data exists that could possibly prompt so many
to discount all evidence to the contrary? Let us see.
Textual scholar Bruce Metzger summarized the internal evidence against
the verses in terms of two factors: (1) the vocabulary and style of
verses 9-20 are deemed non-Markan, and (2) the connection between verse 8
and verses 9-20 is awkward, appearing to have been “added by someone
who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished
to supply a more appropriate conclusion” (1994, p. 105).
The Connection Between
Verse 8 and Verses 9-20
Concerning the latter point, one must admit that the evaluation is
highly subjective and actually nothing more than a matter of opinion.
How is one to decide that a piece of writing is “awkward” or “likely” to
have been added by someone other than Mark? Tangible
objective
criteria must be brought forward to support such a contention if its
credibility is to be substantiated. As support for the contention,
Metzger notes (1) that the subject of verse 8 is the women, whereas
Jesus is the subject in verse 9, (2) that Mary Magdalene is identified
in verse 9 even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before in
15:47 and 16:1, (3) the other women mentioned in verses 1-8 are now
forgotten, and (4) the use of
anastas de and the position of
proton
in verse 9 are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive
narrative, but are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8 (1994, p.
105). Let us examine briefly each of these four contentions.
Regarding the first point, a simple reading of the verses does not
demonstrate a shift in subject from the women to Jesus. In actuality,
the subject has been Jesus all along, but more specifically, His
resurrection appearances. After pausing to relate specific details of
the tomb incident involving three women (vss. 2-8), the writer returns
in verse 9 to the subject introduced in verse 1—an enumeration of
additional resurrection appearances, reiterating Mary Magdalene’s name
for the reason that He appeared to her “first.”
Second, much is made of Mary Magdalene being identified in verse 9
though she had been identified already in 15:47 and 16:1. But if her
name could be reiterated in 16:1—
one verse after 15:47—why could it not be given again
eight verses later? Has it escaped the critics’ notice that her name is also mentioned in full in 15:40—a mere
seven
verses before being mentioned again in 15:47? Yet, not one critic
questions the genuineness of 15:47 or 16:1 though they redundantly
identify Mary Magdalene again! The fact that there is more than one Mary
in the text is sufficient to account for the repetition.
Third, it is also true that beginning in verse 9, the other women are
not mentioned again. But, again, the reason for this omission is
contextually obvious. Mary Magdalene is the one who spread the word
about the resurrection to the others—“those who had been with Him” (vs.
10). It makes perfect sense that the focus would be narrowed from the
three women to the one who performed this role.
Finally, the claim that the positioning of
anastas de (“now when He arose”) and
proton
(“first”) are appropriate at the beginning of a lengthy narrative, but
inappropriate in Mark 16 with only eleven verses remaining, is a claim
unsubstantiated by Greek usage. It is not as if there is some observable
rule of Greek grammar or syntax that verifies such a claim. It is
simply the subjective opinion of one observer—albeit an observer who
possesses a fair level of scholarly expertise. The term “first” (
proton)
has already been explained as appropriate since Mary Magdalene was the
initiator of getting the word of the resurrection out to the others.
Verses 9-14 are, in fact, intimately tied together in their common
function of identifying resurrection appearances.
The precise construction “now when she arose” (
anastasa de) is used by Luke (1:39) to introduce the narrative concerning Mary’s visit to Elizabeth—a section that extends for
only eighteen verses (1:39-56). He used the same construction to introduce the narrative reporting Jesus’ visit to Simon (4:38)—lasting
four verses (4:38-41)—the broader context actually extending
previous
to its introduction. Additional uses of the same construction (e.g.,
Acts 5:17,34; 9:39; 11:28) further verify that its occurrence in the
concluding section of Mark is neither unusual nor “ill-suited.” How may
one rightly claim that
anastas de is inappropriate in Mark
16:9-20 if it is the only time Mark used it? Surely, what Mark would or
would not have done cannot be judged on the basis of a single
occurrence, nor should Mark’s stylistic usage be judged on the basis of
what Luke or other users of the Greek language did or did not do. Is it
possible or permissible that Mark could have legitimately used the
construction intentionally only one time—without subjecting himself to
the charge of not being the author? To ask is to answer.
Before leaving this matter of the connection between verse 8 and verses
9-20, one other observation is apropos. It is true that if Mark’s
original book ended at verse 8, the book ended abruptly, leaving a
general impression of incompleteness. However, the same may be said
regarding the endings of both Matthew and Luke. Matthew reports the
Jews’ conspiracy to account for the resurrection by bribing the guards
to say the disciples stole away the body (28:11-15), and then shifts
abruptly
to the eleven disciples receiving the commission to preach (28:16-20).
Likewise, Luke has two abrupt shifts in his final chapter. He reports
the visits to the tomb by the women and Peter (24:1-12) and then
suddenly changes to the two disciples traveling on the road to Emmaus
(24:13ff.). Another takes place at the end of the Emmaus narrative
(24:13-35) when Jesus suddenly appears in the midst of the whole group
of disciples (24:36ff.). Yet no one questions the genuineness of the
endings of Matthew and Luke. The final chapter of John (21) follows on
the heels of John’s grand climax to his carefully reasoned thesis
(20:30-31), and gives the general impression of being anti-climactic and
unnecessary. Likewise, many of Paul’s epistles end abruptly, followed
by detached and unrelated greetings and salutations. No one questions
the genuineness of the endings of these New Testament books.
While Metzger does not accept verses 9-20 as the original ending of
Mark, neither does he believe that the book originally ended at verse 8:
“It appears, therefore, that
ephobounto gar [“for they were afraid”—DM]
of Mark xvi.8 does not represent what Mark intended to stand at the end
of his Gospel” (1978, p. 228). But this admission that something is
missing after verse 8 could just as easily imply that verses 9-20
constitute that “something.” Metzger concedes this very point when,
after noting that “the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark
ended with 16:8,” he offers only three possibilities to account for the
abrupt ending: “(a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this
place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or,
as seems most probable,
(c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied
by transcription” (1994, p. 105, note 7, emp. added). If verses 9-20
are, in fact, attributable to Mark, its absence in some manuscript
copies is explicable on the very grounds offered by Metzger against
their inclusion, i.e., the last leaf of a manuscript was lost—a
manuscript from which copies were made that are now being used to
discredit the genuineness of the verses in question. If, on the other
hand, verses 9-20 are
not genuine, then the original
verses that followed verse 8 have been missing for 2,000 years, and we
are forced to conclude that the book of Mark lacks information that the
Holy Spirit intended the world to have, but which they have been
denied—an objectionable conclusion to say the least (yet see McMillan,
1973, p. 190).
The Vocabulary and Style of Verses 9-20
But what about the style and vocabulary of verses 9-20? Are they
“non-Markan”? Textual scholar Bruce Metzger insists that they are.
Indeed, for those scholars who deem the verses spurious, the most
influential factor—the most decisive piece of evidence—is the alleged
“non-Markan vocabulary.” He defends his conclusion by referring to “the
presence of seventeen non-Marcan words or words used in a non-Marcan
sense” (1978, p. 227). Alford made the same allegation over a century
earlier: “No less than seventeen words and phrases occur in it (and some
of them several times) which are never elsewhere used by Mark—whose
adherence to his own peculiar phrases is remarkable” (1844, p. 438). The
reader is urged to observe carefully the implicit assumption of those
who reject verses 9-20 on such a basis: If the last twelve verses of a
document employ words and expressions (whether one or seventeen?) that
are not employed by the writer previously in the same document, then the
last twelve verses of the document are not the product of the original
writer. Is this line of thinking valid?
Over a century ago, in 1869, John A. Broadus provided a masterful
evaluation (and decisive defeat) of this very contention (pp. 355-362).
Using the Greek text that was available at the time produced by
Tregelles, Broadus examined the twelve verses that
precede
Mark 16:9-20 (i.e., 15:44-16:8)—verses whose genuineness are above
reproach—and applied precisely the same test to them. Incredibly, he
found in the twelve verses preceding 16:9-20
exactly the same number of words and phrases (seventeen)
that are not used previously by
Mark! The words and their citation are as follows:
tethneiken (15:44),
gnous apo, edoreisato,
ptoma (15:45),
eneileisen, lelatomeimenon, petpas, prosekulisen (15:46),
diagenomenou, aromata (16:1),
tei mia ton sabbaton (16:2),
apokulisei (16:3),
anakekulistai, sphodra (16:4),
en tois dexiois (16:5),
eichen (in a peculiar sense), and
tromos (16:8). The reader is surely stunned and appalled that textual critics would wave aside verses of Scripture as
counterfeit and fraudulent on such fragile, flimsy grounds.
Writing a few years later, J.W. McGarvey applied a similar test to the
last twelve verses of Luke, again, verses whose genuineness, like those
preceding Mark 16:9-20, are above suspicion (1875, pp. 377-382). He
found
nine words that are not used by Luke elsewhere in his book—four
of which are not found anywhere else in the New Testament! Yet, once
again, no textual critic or New Testament Greek manuscript scholar has
questioned the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Luke. Indeed,
the methodology that seeks to determine the genuineness of a text on the
basis of new or unusual word use is a concocted, artificial,
unscholarly, nonsensical, pretentious—
and clearly discredited—criterion.
CONCLUSION
For the unbiased observer, this matter is settled: the strongest piece
of internal evidence mustered against the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 is
no evidence at all. The two strongest arguments
offered to discredit the inspiration of these verses as the production
of Mark are seen to be lacking in substance and legitimacy. The reader
of the New Testament may be confidently assured that these verses are
original—written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of Mark as part of
his original gospel account.
REFERENCES
Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland (1987),
The Text of
the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren (1983),
The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, fourth revised edition).
Alford, Henry (1844),
Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1980 reprint.
Brigance, L.L. (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in
A Treatise on the Eldership by J.W. McGarvey (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications), 1962 reprint.
Broadus, John A. (1869), “Exegetical Studies,”
The Baptist Quarterly, [3]:355-362, July.
Bruce, F.F. (1960),
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, revised edition).
Burgon, John (1871),
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (London: James Parker), 1959 reprint.
Colwell, Ernest C. (1937), “Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian Version,”
Journal of Biblical Literature, 55:369-386.
Comfort, Philip (1990),
Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House).
Dummelow, J.R., ed. (1927),
A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York, NY: MacMillan).
Elliott, J.K. (1971), “The Text and Language of the Endings to Mark’s Gospel,”
Theologische Zeitschrift 27, July-August.
Ewert, David (1983),
From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Guthrie, Donald (1970),
New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, third edition).
Kahle, P.E. (1951), “The End of St. Mark’s Gospel: The Witness of the Coptic Versions,”
Journal of Theological Studies, [11]:49-57.
Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940),
The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper).
Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1951 reprint),
Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, second edition).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1945),
The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press).
Lewis, Jack (1988), “The Ending of Mark,” in
The Lifestyle of Jesus (Searcy, AR: Harding University).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875),
The New Testament Commentary: Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
McGarvey, J.W. (1956 reprint),
Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
McMillan, Earle (1973),
The Gospel According to Mark (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1972), “The Ending of the Gospel according to Mark in Ethiopic Manuscripts,”
Understanding the Sacred Text, ed. John Reumann, et al. (Valley Forge, PA).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1978 reprint),
The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, second edition).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1994),
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: United Bible Society, second edition).
Morison, James (1892),
A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Hodder & Stoughton, seventh edition).
Phillips, Dabney (1975),
Restoration Principles and Personalities (University, AL: Youth In Action).
Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (1970 reprint),
The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volumes 7 and 8:
Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries.
Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (1971 reprint),
The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volume 5:
Fathers of the Third Century.
Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (1973 reprint),
The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volume 1:
The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus; Volume 3:
Latin Christianity: It’s Founder, Tertullian.
Salmon, George (1889),
A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament (London: John Murray, fourth edition).
Sanday, William (1889),
Appendices ad Novum Testamentum Stephanicum (Oxford).
Schaff, Philip, ed. (1969 reprint),
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volume 12:
Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians.
Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds. (1969 reprint),
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volume 10:
St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters; Volume 12: Leo the Great, Gregory the Great; Volume 13:
Gregory the Great, Ephraim Syrus, Aphrahat.
Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds. (1954),
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1968 reprint; Volume 6:
Saint Jerome: Letters and Select Works.
Scrivener, F.H.A. (1883),
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., third edition).
Streeter, B.H. (1924),
The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan), 1953 reprint.
Warren, Thomas B. (1953),
The Warren-Ballard Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Welte, Michael (2005), personal e-mail, Institute for New Testament
Textual Research (Munster, Germany), [On-line], URL:
http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/.
Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1882),
The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge: MacMillan).
Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint),
The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: MacMillan).
Zwemer, Samuel (1975), “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark,” in
Counterfeit or Genuine, Mark 16? John 8?, ed. David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications).
American
views of Islam going back to the origins of America have been generally
consistent. With a Christian worldview intact at the beginning,
Americans have naturally recognized Islam’s inherent hostility toward
Christianity and its fundamental threat to the American way of life. For
example, Elias Boudinot was a premiere Founding Father with a long and
distinguished career. He served as a member of the Continental Congress,
where he served as its president (1782-1783); he signed the Treaty of
Peace with Great Britain; he was a member of the U.S. House where he
helped frame the Bill of Rights; he served as the Director of Mint under
presidents Washington and Adams; etc. In his masterful refutation of
Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, Boudinot labeled Muhammad an “impostor,” and insightfully observed that
The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection reveals that He rose from the grave on the
third day of His entombment. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus
as prophesying that He would arise from the grave on this day (Matthew
17:23; Mark 9:31; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first
epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third
day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). What’s more,
while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God
raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40, emp.
added). The fact is, however, Jesus also taught (and Mark recorded)
“that the Son of Man” would “be killed, and after three days
rise again” (Mark 8:31, emp. added). Furthermore, Jesus elsewhere
prophesied that He would be in the heart of the Earth for “three days
and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). So which is it? Did Jesus rise from
the dead on the third day or after three days?