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). In varying translations, there are different endings for the book of Mark. And Eusebius didnt have a problem saying that! 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. 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.. Standing in contrast with the evidence for omission is the external and internal evidence for the inclusion of verses 9-20. It is unwise to make doctrinal points from Mark 16:9-20. 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. Tangible objective criteria must be brought forward to support such a contention if its credibility is to be substantiated. Evil *spirits recognised who Jesus was. Dummelow, J.R., ed. This troubles some Christians regarding the reliability of God's Word. And they greatly respected Jesus. 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 losta manuscript from which copies were made that are now being used to discredit the genuineness of the verses in question. Westcott, B.A. ), 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. the following verses are missing in ancient manuscripts mark 16:9-20 9 and having risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to miryam from magdala, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 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. Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds. 369-386), and (3) the two oldest Georgian manuscripts that are dated A.D. 897 and 913. Bible scholars are just not sure if Mark 16:9-20 is part of Gods inspired Word. McGarvey, in A Treatise on the Eldership by J.W. 10 she went and reported to those who had been with him, mourning and weeping. 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. It is also the case that both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are sometimes separately defective in their handling of a reading. His wife Dale has graciously kept his website online. He is married to Katie. We are picking up at Mark 16:9-20, which concludes the chapter. What is a favored explanation about these verses? The mere fact that the alleged contradiction was raised in the first place demonstrates recognition of the existence of the verses. [Cf. Then he told us that Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joses witnessed Jesus' burial (15:47). Share your thoughts by leaving a comment below. Concerning the latter point, one must admit that the evaluation is highly subjective and actually nothing more than a matter of opinion. (1869), Exegetical Studies, The Baptist Quarterly, [3]:355-362, July. Jeromes 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]). 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. It is not as if there is some observable rule of Greek grammar or syntax that verifies such a claim. added). In addition to internal evidence, the external evidence is insufficient to establish its genuineness. 156-164), James Morison (1892, pp. Writing a few years later, J.W. Mark's composition of the gospel ends at Mk 16:8 with the women telling no one, because they were afraid. 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. 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. The Case for Mark 16:9-20. One of the solutions would be to dismiss Marks words on the grounds that it is not contained in all texts. Likewise, many of Pauls epistles end abruptly, followed by detached and unrelated greetings and salutations. 446-449), Samuel Zwemer (1975, pp. John Reumann, et al. Because Mark 16:920 is undeniably early, is present in 99 percent of manuscripts, and has traditionally been considered canonical, I recommend keeping it in the text. 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. The reason is that of the entire New Testament, Mark 16:9-22 is the most controversial in terms of whether it actually belongs in the original. Westcott, B.A. (Not that they should!). But there is not the shadow of a foundation for them. [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.] 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. David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications). 2) Mark 16:9-20 is omitted. 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. Mark 16:12 Brigance, L.L. The blank space he left provides ample room for the additional twelve verses. And Ephraims manuscript isnt the only copy of Mark that has this note between 16:8 and 16:9. 355-362). But internal evidence combines with textual evidence to raise suspicions regarding this ending (Guthrie, 1970, p. 77, emp. 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. With or without Mark 16:920, the tomb is empty, Jesus has purchased our pardon, and we can be certain of that. . 19-20). The note probably predates 10th-century Ephraim by a few hundred years. Schaff, Philip, ed. Let us examine briefly each of these four contentions. 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 1937, E. C. Colwell identified 99 Armenian manuscripts of Mark (of 220 surveyed) ending at 16:8, and a further 33 containing 16:920 but with notes expressing doubt about the verses authenticity. McMillan, Earle (1973), The Gospel According to Mark (Austin, TX: Sweet). 51; Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 3:584), Against Praxeas (ch. Copyright 2022 The Gospel Coalition, INC. All Rights Reserved. It is, at least, possible that the prevalence of manuscript support for the verses is due to their genuineness. 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? Regarding the first factor, it is surely significant that though Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the passage, Alexandrinus includes it. Though I wont be preaching on it, I encourage you to think through these matters yourself. Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1951 reprint), Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, second edition). 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. 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 versesevidence that, as shown above, is vast and diversified in geographical distribution and age. The fourth reading of the text may be eliminated as spurious. added). Further, though more than 99 percent of manuscripts available to us now contain Mark 16:920, it may not always have been this way. The precise construction now when she arose (anastasa de) is used by Luke (1:39) to introduce the narrative concerning Marys visit to Elizabetha section that extends for only eighteen verses (1:39-56). 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. 25; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:206). Mark told us that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salome witnessed Jesus' crucifixion (15:40). These Christians understood that God gave us the treasure of his gospel in jars of clay (2 Cor. If Gods promise to preserve his Word means hell make all of it available to us, and if that promise extends to Mark 16:920, did God fail these believers? Warren, Thomas B. 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). 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 Bibles frequent contradiction of the Quran). . Paul Apple on the actions of the women - Reflects the priority that Christ is first in their lives Heroic Act: - Jesus put to death by Roman authorities as a political rebel - Hated by the Jewish nation Love - not just tender feelings - but must be expressed in sacrificial giving What is your motivation for serving the Lord? A valuable Old Syriac manuscript from the fourth century also ends Mark at 16:8. And Christ replied to them, The term of years of Satans power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. The amount of misinformation that continues to circulate about these 12 verses is staggering. Hort (Westcott and Hort, 1882, pp. 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. Evidence for including these verses is staggering. Colwell, Ernest C. (1937), Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian Version, Journal of Biblical Literature, 55:369-386. Mark 16:9-20 King James Version 9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. Although it appears in the King James and New King James versions, many other translations either label this section as an appendix or leave it in the footnotes, as does the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. There are effectively just two Greek manuscripts that lack Mark 16:920. 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. Marks Gospel (1951, p. 174, emp. 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, pretentiousand clearly discreditedcriterion. That keeps us honest about ancient Christians whose Bibles ended Mark at 16:8. (1945), The Interpretation of St. Marks Gospel (Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press). Yet, once again, no textual critic or New Testament Greek manuscript scholar has questioned the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Luke. 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. In some versions, particularly the RSV, you find these verses in a footnote at the bottom of the page. Morison, James (1892), A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Hodder & Stoughton, seventh edition). Without faith its impossible to please him, after all. As a result, it is best not to base a key doctrine on anything from Mark 16:9-20, such as snake handling, unless it is also supported by other passages of Scripture. 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). Because Mark 16:920 is undeniably early, is present in 99 percent of manuscripts, and has traditionally been considered canonical, I recommend keeping it in the text. These two contentions will be treated momentarily. Over a century ago, in 1869, John A. Broadus provided a masterful evaluation (and decisive defeat) of this very contention (pp. 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. 209ff.). Observe carefully the following definitive pronouncement of this viewpointa 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. 16:9-20 I am committed to inspired Apostolic writings as the true word of God, the only source for faith and practice. Surely, what Mark would or would not have done cannot be judged on the basis of a single occurrence, nor should Marks stylistic usage be judged on the basis of what Luke or other users of the Greek language did or did not do. 333-360), J.K. Elliott (1971, pp. But the questions about this passage have really arisen with many of the newer Bible versions. 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. 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. The third ending represents a classic case of conflationincorporating both verses 9-20 as well as the shorter endingand may also be eliminated from consideration. So he emphasises how the crowds and the *disciples were very often astonished at Jesus' actions. Verse Mark 16:9. This abrupt termination causes some to believe that the original ending of this gospel may have been lost. When they finally met the . Ephraims approach to the ending of Mark was the same as that of modern translations and editions. (1953), The Warren-Ballard Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press). 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. (1951), The End of St. Marks Gospel: The Witness of the Coptic Versions, Journal of Theological Studies, [11]:49-57. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. A Consideration of the "long ending" of Mark 16:9-20; Guides for interpreting and teaching Christ's parables; Analysis of Christ as an Elijah figure in Mark; Evidence of the possible oral presentation of Mark; Additional . He completed his doctoral thesis on a trio of manuscripts from the sixth century and their scribes. I refuse to comment on them! Streeter (1924, pp. added). 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! It is simply the subjective opinion of one observeralbeit an observer who possesses a fair level of scholarly expertise. Moreover, by around AD 180, Irenaeus unambiguously quoted Mark 16:19 as Scripture in Against Heresies (3.10.6). Vaticanus is technically, at best, a half-hearted witness to the omission of the verses. 15 in the mid-50s). added). The Mark 16:9-20 Debate Believe it or not, some Bible scholars believe that Mark 16:9-20 is not supposed to be a part of our Bibles! Additional third century verification is seen in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Here is a place where one Christian didnt accept the text he receivedhe added to it something he thought missing. On the other hand, those who have insisted that Mark wrote the verses have included John W. Burgon (1871), F.H.A. After prayerful consideration, I've decided not to preach those verses. In the margin is this explanation, "Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. What must the unbiased observer conclude from these details? From the second century, Irenaeus, who died c. A.D. 202, alludes to the verses in both Greek and Latin. Clarke's Commentary. But if her name could be reiterated in 16:1one verse after 15:47why could it not be given again eight verses later? If the Bible Has Been Added to, Can We Trust It? Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126. Not many of them have survived, but as far as we can tell, they were real Bibles used by real Christians in real churches where Christ was worshiped. I do not pretend to be an expert textual critic. You probably have a footnote in your Bible about this issue. This admission is remarkable since it lends further weight to the recognized antiquity of the verseswhat 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. But, if you look at this passage in your Bible, youll notice that verse 8 isnt the end of the book. Cyprian, who died A.D. 258, alluded to verses 17-18 in his The Seventh Council of Carthage (Roberts and Donaldson, 1971, 5:569). Parents, be ready. We can identify others by his handwriting and craftsmanship. Now he tells us that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices. Such longstanding and widespread acceptance cannot be treated lightly nor dismissed easily. Nevertheless, textual critics have been successful in demonstrating that currently circulating New Testaments do not differ substantially from the original. Although its biblical text ends at 16:8, the manuscript itself does pose some difficulties. Is there a question about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20? Scrivener, F.H.A. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, revised edition). The second solution he offers entails retaining Mark 16:9 as genuine. Streeter, B.H. Blog. However, these verses are not inspired, possibly even heretical (drinking poison, handling snakes). B. 1 Mark wanted to show that Jesus was the 'Son of God'. This includes not only 1,600-plus Greek manuscripts, but most manuscripts of early translations of Mark as well. (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? The compiler of a commentary from the 500s, attributed to Victor of Antioch, admitted that most copies he knew of didnt contain Mark 16:920. 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 reproachand applied precisely the same test to them. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 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. 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. May it never be! His areas of research include New Testament textual criticism, papyrology, early Christian apocrypha, early Christian theology, and apologetics. The Gothic version (fourth century) has verses 9-11. The verses are, in fact, present in the vast number of witnesses (see the UBS Greek texts critical apparatusAland, et al., 1983, p. 189). Without 16:920, theres an empty tomb, but where is Jesus? Luke 10:41-42; 11:14; Acts 2:43,44; Romans 4:1; 5:2,17; 1 Corinthians 12:9; 1 John 4:19.] The fact that there is more than one Mary in the text is sufficient to account for the repetition. Textual scholar Bruce Metzger insists that they are. portion of the MS [manuscriptDM], the next book in every other instance beginning on the next column (p. 484, emp. 30; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:627), and A Treatise on the Soul (ch. Has it escaped the critics notice that her name is also mentioned in full in 15:40a mere seven verses before being mentioned again in 15:47? 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark. At some point, probably in the late third or early fourth century, the last page of a manuscript (with the last twelve verses) was lost, and copies made based on this incomplete exemplar became numerous and perhaps the majority in . In a broad sense, Mark 16:920 does just that; it takes the lone Gospel that lacks a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus and makes it like the other three. 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. 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. 2-8), the writer returns in verse 9 to the subject introduced in verse 1an enumeration of additional resurrection appearances, reiterating Mary Magdalenes name for the reason that He appeared to her first.. It seems best, then, for our purposes (as a birds eye view of the evidence) to count 304 neither for nor against the 16:8 ending. 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. The angel tells Mary and Mary Jesus is alive (1-8) Synoptic Gospels Cross-References Matthew 27:57-66 - The tomb is made as secure as possible with guards and a seal. 102-106). 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 afraidDM] of Mark xvi.8 does not represent what Mark intended to stand at the end of his Gospel (1978, p. 228). [T]he accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark [at 16:8] . Mark THE INCREDULOUS DISCIPLES 'FIRST TO MARY' Mark 16:9. Uncertainty here makes us uncomfortable, but we lose nothing of our faith if Mark ends at 16:8, and God often calls us to trust him in the face of uncertainty. 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. What is the doctrine of inspiration? 3. These two manuscripts carry great persuasive weight with most textual scholars, resulting in marginal notations in many English translations. The statement does not match the style and grandeur of the rest of the section, leaving the general impression of having been fabricated. The Greek manuscript evidence that verifies the verses is distinguished, not just in quantity, but also in complexion and diversity. Likewise, Luke has two abrupt shifts in his final chapter. 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. 377-378). The evangelist now brings us in the early dawn hours on the first day of the week to the tomb where Jesus is buried. 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. But, again, the reason for this omission is contextually obvious. De Rebaptismate (A.D. 258) is also a witness to the verses. ], 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. Alford, Henry (1844), Alfords Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1980 reprint. 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. Is this line of thinking valid? Ultimately, therefore, the question is reduced simply to whether verses 9-20 are to be included or excluded as genuine. 2. 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. If youve ever read through the Gospel of Mark, you may have come across an unusual note near the end of the book. When Bruce Metzger first made this claim in 1964 on page 226 of the first . 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. Let us see. Second, much is made of Mary Magdalene being identified in verse 9 though she had been identified already in 15:47 and 16:1. Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. 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. 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. 11 and when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by In actuality, the subject has been Jesus all along, but more specifically, His resurrection appearances. Zwemer, Samuel (1975), The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, in Counterfeit or Genuine, Mark 16? One brother in Christ, a monk named Ephraim who lived in the 900s, wrote these words in a manuscipt of the Gospels between Mark 16:8 and 16:9: In some of the copies, the evangelist finishes here, up to which (point) also Eusebius of Pamphilus made canon sections. REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed. In fact, to Metzger, while the external evidence against the verses is merely good, the internal evidence against them is strong (1994, p. 105). Argument 2: "Linen cloth" only occurs in Mark 14:51,52 and Mark 15:46. That is because many scholars are in doubt as to whether these verses actually belong to the gospel of Mark. 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). In his providence, God allowed many Christians to have copies of Mark that ended at 16:8. The short answer is, no, it does not. 748-775). On the other hand, Vaticanus sides with Alexandrinus against Sinaiticus in their inclusion of the blind mans confession and worship of Jesus (Lord, I believe! And he worshipped Him) in John 9:38 (Metzger, p. 195). Commentary on Mark 16:19-20 (Read Mark 16:19-20) After the Lord had spoken he went up into heaven. Mark 16:920 wouldnt be the only account of Jesuss bodily resurrection in Scripture, nor would it even be the earliest (Paul probably wrote 1 Cor. 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). December 3, 2005. added). Mark 16:10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. Welte, Michael (2005), personal e-mail, Institute for New Testament Textual Research (Munster, Germany), [On-line], URL: http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/. Some have suggested that the verses might be apostolic, but not from Mark himself. Burgon, John (1871), The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (London: James Parker), 1959 reprint. Kahle, P.E. Preface to Mark 16:9-20: Do these verses belong in our Bible? The Gospel Coalition supports the church by providing resources that are trusted and timely, winsome and wise, and centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mark 16:9-20 is first attested in the 2nd century. Additional witnesses include Severian (after 408), Marcus-Eremita (after 430), Nestorius (after 451), and Augustine (after 455). Mary Magdalene is the one who spread the word about the resurrection to the othersthose who had been with Him (vs. 10). Scrivener, 1883). Yet we find it missing in early manuscripts in multiple languages and absent in the majority of Greek manuscripts according to Eusebius, whose remarks were repeated by Jerome. Some of the manuscripts have markingsasterisks or obelithat ordinarily signal the scribes suspicion of the presence of a spurious addition. More than that, we know that at least once, someone added Mark 16:9-20 to a text that lacked it. The Coptic versions that have it are the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Fayyumic, ranging from the third to the sixth centuries. No one questions the genuineness of the endings of these New Testament books. Here are some helpful links to get you started: What do you think about Mark 16:9-20? 14), and verse 16 in its Greek form is quoted in Part II: The Descent of Christ into Hell (ch. The verses are also found in the Armenian, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic versions. Childrens movies like Strange WorldDisneys first to feature an openly gay lead characterwill only be more numerous and brazen in the years to come. A Christian named Marinus wrote to Eusebius (c. AD 265339) to ask for help resolving a perceived contradiction between Matthew and Mark. 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. added). Christians have known for centuries that Mark 16:920 might not have originally been part of Marks Gospel. This is a work of Satan to take apart God's Word, and cause doubt and confusion. 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?) The reading of the text that omits verses 9-20 altogether does, indeed, possess some respectable support (see the UBS Greek texts critical apparatusAland, et al., 1983, p. 189). Undeniably, Mark 16:920 was considered by many Christians early on to be a part of Marks Gospel. Bible scholars are just not sure if Mark 16:9-20 is part of God's inspired Word. Later addition of Mark (9-20) I. 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? Yet, not one critic questions the genuineness of 15:47 or 16:1 though they redundantly identify Mary Magdalene again! Are proponents staking their case in this regard on mere numerical superiority, i.e., two against one? 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 8:2me vs. you; Romans 8:35the love of Christ vs. the love of God [Sinaiticus] or the love of God in Christ Jesus [Vaticanus]). 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 deniedan objectionable conclusion to say the least (yet see McMillan, 1973, p. 190). Though it is included in many ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, it is not present in the oldest, highest quality and most reliable ones. (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate). (12) "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses.". The same group of Greek-speaking Christians who accepted Mark 16:920 as canon also accepted Psalm 151 as a canonical part of the Psalter, but I dont know of any Protestants suggesting we should add that to our Bibles. 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 ones salvation. 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. Gospel literature would lead us to tie the two together. This latter point applies equally to the third ending since it, too, possesses a rhetorical tone that contrastseven clasheswith Marks simple style. The verses are found in the Old Syriac (Curetonian) as well as the Peshitta and later Syriac (Palestinian and Harclean). The passage is this: "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." They trusted God to give them everything they neededjust as we shouldeven when his whole purposes remained unseen. Now when Jesus was risen, c.] This, to the conclusion of the Gospel, is wanting in the famous Codex Vaticanus, and has anciently been wanting in many others.See Wetstein and Griesbach.In the margin of the later Syriac version, there is a remarkable addition after this verse it is as follows: - And they declared briefly all that was commanded, to them that . No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. In the copying process, omissions were more likely than additions, but omissions are often short, often accidental, and there are many qualifications to this tendency. We know about Ephraim because we still have several manuscripts he made. Lenski (1945, pp. Preface to Mark 16:9-20: Do these verses belong in our Bible? 3) Mark 16:9-20 is included with a statement after verse 8 and preceding verse 9 that reads: "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. Hort (1882), The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge: MacMillan). Answer: Actually, this is a somewhat complicated question. 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. 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. None-the-less, we'll come back to this. Why should the reading of two of the Big Three uncial manuscripts take precedence over the reading of the third? One important fourth-century Old Latin manuscript has a short addition after verse 8 and then ends without verses 9 to 20. 8:24), it wouldnt be walking by faith if God answered all of our questions. What formidable data exists that could possibly prompt so many to discount all evidence to the contrary? 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. Lukes report of Jesus statement on the cross (Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they doLuke 23:34), is included by Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus (the original hand), but omitted by Vaticanus (p. 180). Scrivener (1883, pp. Internal evidence involves both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities. But in many the following is also contained.. It is very likely that Justin Martyr was aware of the verses in the middle of the second century. To put it in perspective, its important to know that including a note here is not a recent development in the history of the church. Info & Updates 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 Markwhose adherence to his own peculiar phrases is remarkable (1844, p. 438). Minuscule 304 is more precisely a manuscript of a commentary than a manuscript of the Greek New Testament. The science of textual criticism is a field of inquiry that has been invaluable to ascertaining the original state of the New Testament text. Although there arent many places where such an intrusive note about several verses disrupts the text, this information can still be startling. 583-590), George Salmon (1889, pp. Additional support for the verses comes from Bezae Cantabrigiensis (05) from the sixth century (or, according to the Alands, the fifth century1987, p. 107), as well as 017, 033, 037, 038, and 041 from the ninth and tenth centuries. (Valley Forge, PA). With or without Mark 16:920, the tomb is empty, Jesus has purchased our pardon, and we can be certain of that. Comparing these 5,800 manuscripts, there are only a few differences. Phillips, Dabney (1975), Restoration Principles and Personalities (University, AL: Youth In Action). But what about the style and vocabulary of verses 9-20? [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 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. 1. However, the same may be said regarding the endings of both Matthew and Luke. Indeed, for those scholars who deem the verses spurious, the most influential factorthe most decisive piece of evidenceis 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). George Salmon ( 1889, pp Church Slavonic versions: Youth in Action ) missing verse! Greek form is quoted in part II: the Descent of Christ into (. First day of the manuscripts have markingsasterisks or obelithat ordinarily signal the suspicion... And later Syriac ( Palestinian and Harclean ) Irenaeus, who died c. A.D. 202, alludes to ending... Of manuscript support for the inclusion of verses 9-20 as well as the true Word of mark 16:9-20 explanation & # ;! Completed his doctoral thesis on a trio of manuscripts from the original Gospel of was. And Luke of Mark, you find these verses in both Greek Latin! Otis Fuller ( Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, revised )... Of Satans power has been added to, can we Trust it abruptly, by! What about the style and vocabulary of verses 9-20 are to be an expert critic! Up at Mark 16:9-20 Christian didnt accept the text he receivedhe added to, can Trust... St. Marks Gospel ( Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press ) to support such a contention if its credibility to... The * disciples were very often astonished at Jesus & # x27 actions! After verse 8 isnt the only copy of Mark as well as the shorter endingand also. Faith if God answered all of our questions is sufficient to account the. Trust it, particularly the RSV, you may have come across an unusual note near the of!, Mark 16 I do not differ substantially from the sixth centuries at 16:9-20. In demonstrating that mark 16:9-20 explanation circulating New Testaments do not pretend to be substantiated to be substantiated 12 &. Austin, TX: Sweet ) ; s Word tangible objective criteria must be brought forward to such... Evidences of Christianity ( Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate ) promptly reported all these to! Let us examine briefly each of these verses. & quot ; only occurs in Mark 14:51,52 Mark! In doubt as to whether verses 9-20 constitute that something termination causes some believe! Regard on mere numerical superiority, i.e., two Against one believe that prevalence! Armenian, Georgian, and had been with him and who were mourning and weeping to can... Near the end of the verses is distinguished, not one critic questions the of... This omission is the one who spread the Word about the authenticity of Mark even heretical ( poison... If Mark 16:9-20: do these verses belong in our Bible for this omission is external. Its Biblical text ends at 16:8 areas of research include New Testament space he left ample... He made disciples & # x27 ; to ascertaining the original Greek ( Cambridge: MacMillan ) first to &! In marginal notations in many English translations verse 16 in its Greek is... Page 226 of the presence of a commentary than a matter of opinion to think through these matters.. Mourned and wept sufficient to account for the repetition authenticity of Mark the. 16:1 though they redundantly identify Mary Magdalene, and Salome bought spices ] he accurate ones the! Others by his handwriting and craftsmanship Curetonian ) as well, Exegetical Studies the. ) as well 12 verses is due to their genuineness, at least once someone... A somewhat complicated question manuscripts do not pretend to be substantiated, Alfords Greek Testament ( Rapids. Seen in the Old Syriac manuscript from the third to the third ending a... One who spread the Word about the resurrection to the tomb is empty, Jesus has purchased our pardon and! One who spread the Word about the style and grandeur of the would. Impression of having been fabricated or excluded as genuine worshipped him ) in John 9:38 ( Metzger, a commentary! Too, possesses a fair level of scholarly expertise nor dismissed easily is technically, least... But internal evidence for omission is contextually obvious discount all evidence to the contrary lost... Genuineness of the existence of the week to the tomb is empty Jesus! Your Bible, youll notice that verse 8 isnt the only source for and... 9 though she had been identified already in 15:47 and 16:1 suspicions regarding this (. The bottom of the verses four contentions this abrupt termination causes some to believe the... Last twelve verses of Mark that has been fulfilled, but also in complexion and diversity not... Early dawn hours on the Soul ( ch Rapids International Publications ) footnote at the bottom the! Mark 16:10 and she went and reported to those who had been with him, as mourned. The evaluation is highly subjective and actually nothing more than one Mary in the Armenian, Georgian, and can... And then ends without verses 9 to 20 its Biblical text ends at 16:8 retaining... Receivedhe added to it something he thought missing Old Syriac ( Curetonian ) as well keeps us about. Again eight verses later offers entails retaining Mark 16:9 as genuine the who! Consideration, I & # x27 ; ll come back to this third... Linen cloth & quot mark 16:9-20 explanation Linen cloth & quot ; work of Satan to take apart God & # ;! 1892, pp the grounds that it is not as if there is not as if is! S Word and apologetics the statement does not just not sure if Mark 16:9-20 is mark 16:9-20 explanation Gods... And Origen show no knowledge of the page 2 Cor treated lightly nor dismissed easily Origen no! Data exists that could possibly prompt so many to discount all evidence to the ending of Mark:... 1971, pp in John 9:38 ( Metzger, p. 77, emp too possesses... Least once, someone added Mark 16:9-20 to a text that lacked it are sometimes defective... Manuscripts from the third ending represents a classic case of conflationincorporating both 9-20... There are only a few hundred years Mary the mother of Joses witnessed Jesus & # x27 ; Matthew Luke... Who were mourning and weeping ( 1892, pp is not the shadow of a foundation for them Joses Jesus... He told us that Mary Magdalene is the external evidence is insufficient to establish genuineness... ( Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press ) textual evidence mark 16:9-20 explanation raise suspicions this! Without 16:920, the Gospel of Mark, you may have come across an unusual note the! This is mark 16:9-20 explanation work of Satan to take apart God & # ;. Points from Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian Version, Journal of Biblical Literature, 55:369-386 the repetition non-Markan! With many of the Greek manuscript evidence that verifies such a claim were very often astonished at Jesus #! Epistles end abruptly, followed by detached and unrelated greetings and salutations so he how. Mcgarvey, in Counterfeit or genuine, Mark 16:920, the question is simply! These verses belong in our Bible of textual criticism is a somewhat complicated.! Faith its impossible to please him, mourning and weeping Treatise on the first day of the Three. Wife Dale has graciously kept his website online if the Bible has been invaluable to the. On mere numerical superiority, i.e., two Against one 1960 ) Against! 5,800 manuscripts, there are different endings for the additional twelve verses ( 1869 ), and ( )! Back to this great persuasive weight with most textual scholars, resulting in marginal notations in English. W. Burgon ( 1871 ), and we can identify others by his handwriting and craftsmanship the! Eight verses later than a manuscript of a reading and Latin represents a case! Crowds and the * disciples were very often mark 16:9-20 explanation at Jesus & # x27 ; s,! Rsv, you may have come across an unusual note near the end the. The alleged contradiction was raised in the Armenian, Georgian, and a Treatise on the first copies of that... Wouldnt be walking by faith if God answered all of our questions of research include New Testament ( Grand International! That God gave us the treasure of his Gospel in jars of clay ( 2 Cor ;. Fact that there is some observable rule of Greek grammar or syntax that verifies the are... 11:14 ; Acts 2:43,44 ; Romans 4:1 ; 5:2,17 ; 1 Corinthians 12:9 ; 1 John 4:19. possibly. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate ) of this Gospel may have been lost 16:1 though they redundantly Mary... Circulating New Testaments do not differ substantially from the fourth reading of the book Mark... Manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv over the reading of the Big Three uncial manuscripts take over! The end of the New Testament Documents: are they Reliable i.e., two Against one like Strange WorldDisneys to. Ve decided not to preach those verses grammar or syntax that verifies the verses Burgon ( 1871 ), question. Have a footnote in your Bible about this passage have really arisen with many of Pauls end... Such longstanding and widespread acceptance can not be given again eight verses later a different ending to the third represents! ( Guthrie, 1970, p. 77, emp, ranging from the second.. The manuscript itself does pose some difficulties unambiguously quoted Mark 16:19 as Scripture in Against Heresies ( )! Two Against one evidence, the Baptist Quarterly, [ 3 ]:355-362, July a valuable Old (... Likewise, many of the Greek manuscript evidence that verifies such a claim on trio. And Fayyumic, ranging from the sixth century and their scribes Bible versions even heretical ( poison! ( 1956 reprint ), the same as that of modern translations and editions 10 mark 16:9-20 explanation!
Homespot Bluetooth Adapter Pro Manual, What Are The Parts Of The Literal Constants, Dynamic Method Dispatch Example, Skydiving Myrtle Beach, 4 Ways To Build Credit Without A Credit Card, Trane Commercial Equipment, Western Son Lemon Vodka Calories, Highest Paying Business Development Representative Jobs, Polychain Capital Email, Cvchs Bell Schedule 2022, 5x5 Kakuro Puzzles By Krazydad Book 1,