Mark 16:9-20

Mark 16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark

Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (a and B), ²⁰ from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it^k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, ²¹ and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). ²² Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after Mark 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Y 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, ²³ and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, ²⁴ continue after verse Mark 16:8 as follows (with trifling variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” All of these witnesses except it^k also continue with verses Mark 16:9-20.

(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X D Q P Y 099 0112 ¦¹³ 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (I:45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. Mark 16:20 (tou/ lo,gou tou/ ivscurou/ o]n avpo. VIerousalh.m oi` avpo,stoloi auvtou/ evxelqo,ntej pantacou/ evkh,ruxan).

(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. Mark 16:14: “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 your 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 handed 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 that is in heaven.’”

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including o` aivw.n ou-toj( a`marta,nw( avpologe,w( avlhqino,j( u`postre,fw) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (deino,j( o[roj( prosle,gw). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in Mark 16:14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses Mark 16:9-20 are non-Markan (e.g. avpiste,w( bla,ptw( bebaio,w( evpakolouqe,w( qea,omai( meta. tau/ta( poreu,omai( sunerge,w( u[steron are found nowhere else in Mark; and qana,simon and toi/j metV auvtou/ genome,noij, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. Mark 16:8 and verses Mark 16:9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. Mark 16:8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. Mark 16:9; in ver. Mark 16:9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before ( Mark 15:47 and Mark 16:1); the other women of verses Mark 16:1-8 are now forgotten; the use of avnasta.j de, and the position of prw/ton are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses Mark 16:1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. Mark 16:8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses Mark 16:1-8 and Mark 16:9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. ²⁵ Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark’s Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses Mark 16:9-20, No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses Mark 16:9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with a few lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with Mark 16:8. ²⁶ At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses Mark 16:9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist. ²⁷

SHORTER ENDING

For a discussion of the shorter ending, see the section (2) in the comments on verses 9-20 above. The reading VIhsou/j is to be preferred to the others, which are natural expansions. It is probable that from the beginning the shorter ending was provided with a concluding avmh,n, and that its absence from several witnesses (L cop ^boms eth^{most mss}) is due either transcriptional oversight or, more probably, to the feeling that avmh,n is inappropriate when verses Mark 16:9-20 follow.

VARIANT READINGS WITHIN [MARK] Mark 16:9-20

Since the passage Mark 16:9-20 is lacking in the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make decisions among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the several levels of certainty ({A}, {B}, {C}) are within the framework of the initial decision relating to verses Mark 16:9 to Mark 16:20 as a whole.

²⁰ Two other Greek manuscripts, both of the twelfth century, also lack verses Mark 16:9-20, namely 304 and 2386. The latter, however, is only an apparent witness for the omission, for although the last page of Mark closes with evfobou/nto ga,r, the next leaf of the manuscript is missing, and following Mark 16:8 is the sign indicating the close of an ecclesiastical lection (tl Ê te,loj), a clear implication that the manuscript originally continued with additional material from Mark (see Kurt Aland, “Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica, Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. by E. Earle Ellis [and] Max Wilcox [Edinburgh, 1969], pp. 157—180, especially pp. 159 f., and idem, “Der wiedergefundene Markusschluss?” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, LXVII [1970], pp. 3—13, especially pp. 8 f.).

²¹ For their identity see Ernest C. Colwell in Journal of Biblical Literature, LV (1937), pp. 369—386.

²² It has often been stated that three Ethiopic manuscripts, now in the British Museum, lack the last twelve verses of Mark. This statement, made originally by D. S. Margoliouth and reported by William Sanday in his Appendices ad Novum Testamentum Stephanicum (Oxford, 1889), p. 195, is erroneous; for details see the present writer’s article, “The Ending of the Gospel according to Mark in Ethiopic Manuscripts,” contributed to the Festschrift for Morton Scott Enslin (Understanding the Sacred Text, ed. by John Reumann et al. [Valley Forge, Pa., c. 1972]), and reprinted, with additions, in Metzger, New Testament Studies (Leiden, 1980), pp. 127—147.

²³ See P. E. Kahle, “The End of St. Mark’s Gospel. The Witness of the Coptic Versions,” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. II (1951), pp. 49—57.

²⁴ See the article mentioned in footnote 22[3] above.

²⁵ For a full discussion of the Greek and Latin evidence for the endings of Mark, with a more favorable estimate of the originality of the shorter ending, see the article by Aland in the Festschrift for Matthew Black, referred to in footnote 20[1] of p. 102 above.

²⁶ Three possibilities are open: (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.

²⁷ For a discussion of W. R. Farmer’s The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Cambridge, 1974) and of J. Hug’s La Finale de l’Évangile de Marc (Paris, 1978), see Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1992), pp. 296 f.

²² It has often been stated that three Ethiopic manuscripts, now in the British Museum, lack the last twelve verses of Mark. This statement, made originally by D. S. Margoliouth and reported by William Sanday in his Appendices ad Novum Testamentum Stephanicum (Oxford, 1889), p. 195, is erroneous; for details see the present writer’s article, “The Ending of the Gospel according to Mark in Ethiopic Manuscripts,” contributed to the Festschrift for Morton Scott Enslin (Understanding the Sacred Text, ed. by John Reumann et al. [Valley Forge, Pa., c. 1972]), and reprinted, with additions, in Metzger, New Testament Studies (Leiden, 1980), pp. 127—147.

²⁰ Two other Greek manuscripts, both of the twelfth century, also lack verses Mark 16:9-20, namely 304 and 2386. The latter, however, is only an apparent witness for the omission, for although the last page of Mark closes with evfobou/nto ga,r, the next leaf of the manuscript is missing, and following Mark 16:8 is the sign indicating the close of an ecclesiastical lection (tl Ê te,loj), a clear implication that the manuscript originally continued with additional material from Mark (see Kurt Aland, “Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica, Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. by E. Earle Ellis [and] Max Wilcox [Edinburgh, 1969], pp. 157—180, especially pp. 159 f., and idem, “Der wiedergefundene Markusschluss?” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, LXVII [1970], pp. 3—13, especially pp. 8 f.).