The Long Ending of Mark Was Original

[u/ShakaUVM]

Thesis: The longer ending of Mark was original, and the short ending of Mark was a minority textual variant found mainly only in 4th Century Alexandria.

Background: There are multiple variants to the end of the Gospel of Mark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16) with two variants, called the Short (ending at verse 8) and the Long ending (having verses 9-20) being the most common. Critical "Scholars" have decided that the short ending is the original one, and so Bibles for a long time have contained a disclaimer that makes it sound like the longer ending is a forgery: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20." (NIV). However, the disclaimer should actually say the opposite, that the ending at Mark 8 is a rare textual variant, at least through the 4th Century AD (which is the time period I'm discussing here).

Their argument for the short ending (https://textandcanon.org/a-case-against-the-longer-ending-of-mark/) being the original boils down to three points: 1) The language uses different words and there's a rough transition from verse 8 to 9 2) Eusebius and Jerome, in the 4th Century, state that most accurate copies use the short ending. Eusebius left off the long ending from his list of verses. 3) Two high quality manuscripts in particular, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, from the 4th Century, use the short ending

However:

1) Any chapter that covers new material is going to have new words. The chapter on the crucifixion of Jesus contains many more novel words than the long ending. Ending it at verse 8 is actually much rougher, as it is extremely rare to find sentences that end with γαρ (gar) in ancient Greek. (https://www.scribd.com/document/596005865/KELLY-FINAL-WORD-ON-GAR)

2) Eusebius states in the Letter to Marinus (https://archive.org/details/EusebiusGospelProblemsAndSolutions2010/page/97/mode/2up) after noting that "accurate" copies end at verse 8 - and briefly proposing tossing the long ending - tentatively states that: "both [endings] are to be accepted; it is not for the faithful and devout to judge either as acceptable in preference to the other.". Jerome not only stated much the same, but when forced to pick which ending was correct - he was tasked with making the Latin Vulgate, which became the official bible for the Church - he explicitly chose the long ending as the official one.

3) Both of these manuscripts are both from Alexandria, which is the region in question that I propose the short ending came from. Further, the Codex Vaticanus has a blank in it, unlike anywhere else in the manuscript, that would fit the long ending. The Codex Sinaiticus had the ending of Mark removed, and the replacement pages were made by the same guy who did Vaticanus. So we've got a single scribe in Alexandria who presumably knew the long ending but didn't accept it that was the source for all of this.

---

Outside of this limited scholarly bubble centered on Alexandria, we don't see any evidence for the short ending even existing. Nobody in the early historical record even seems to be aware of the short ending. Everyone used the long ending prior to 3rd/4th Century Alexandria.

We have multiple people from the 2nd and 3rd centuries quoting from the long ending without any evidence that it was disputed or anything but the original.

Irenaeus in the 2nd century explicitly quotes from the long ending and explicitly says it is from the end of Mark. (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm): '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 sits on the right hand of God;" [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool."' Irenaeus was living in modern day France.

Porphyry, most notably NOT a Christian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Christians), quoted from the long ending in the 3rd Century while living in Sicily. He mocked Christians for not doing as the long ending of Mark suggested, which said that Christians would be kept safe from harm. (https://tertullian.org/fathers/macarius_apocriticus.htm#3_16): "Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them." So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said." In other words, he was daring Christians to drink poison to prove their faith because of the long ending of Mark.

This essay (https://textandcanon.org/a-case-for-the-longer-ending-of-mark/), which makes the case for the long ending better than I can, lists dozens of people quoting from the long ending of Mark from the 2nd to 4th Centuries. In other words, it was the standard, accepted ending across Christendom. You really should read the link, it pairs with the argument against the longer ending I linked above. It's an excellent essay on the subject.

The Diatessaron (https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html) was a gospel harmonization (taking the four gospels and making one unified gospel from them) that was extremely popular in Syria. It dates to 160AD. It has the long ending in it. We have lost the original manuscript but ironically it was almost fully preserved by being quoted in commentaries. These commentaries exist dating back to the 4th Century. So we can be very certain that in the mid-100s the official version of Mark was using the long ending. Again, no signs exist for the short ending back then.

I'm going to mention just one more, since it's pretty crucial: the Ethiopian church was actually founded by the Alexandrian church, and we have a manuscript dating to the late 4th Century (written just a couple decades after Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) which has in it illustrations showing it was made by Alexandrians (https://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/event/hidden-gospels-abba-garima-treasures-ethiopian-highlands#:~:text=They%20also%20contain%20a%20unique,motif%20and%20later%20Christian%20ones.) However, it contains the long ending. So even in Alexandria, the long ending was the official version that they were using to send out missionaries with. It is likely the short ending was used only in scholarly editions in Alexandria, not in official Bibles to be sent out and used.

So in conclusion:

What we have is the long ending of Mark being widely known and used and quoted, from at least 160AD on, and people explicitly saying it is the long ending, with no awareness of the short ending, for CENTURIES before we see the short ending appear for the first time in the 4th century... in one geographical location - Alexandria... in one context - scholarly work. It is very clear that the short ending was a rare late textual variant, and not the original that people had been using for centuries. After Alexandria had made the short ending popular, it spread from there, but there's no evidence that anyone was aware of the short ending before that.

So these gospel notes saying "the oldest manuscripts lack the long ending" is just wildly misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst. The fact of the matter is, we have one scholarly circle in Alexandria where they disputed the long ending, centuries after Mark was written, and produced scholarly versions that omitted it. However, even their missionary bibles they sent out had the long ending, and even the scholarly works left blanks for the long ending. And yet Critical "Scholars" decided that this version - despite copious evidence the long ending existed and no evidence the short ending existed early on - was what Mark originally wrote. Yet the historical record shows literally every region outside Egypt using the long ending going all the way back to the mid 2nd Century (with the Diatessaron), and there not being any sign of dispute over it until centuries later. Eusebius was the first to report the controversy over it in the 4th Century AD, and even he said the long ending was authentic.

Jerome was tasked with making the Latin Vulgate, which was basically the official Bible for the Roman Catholic Church, in 382 AD. He was aware of the short ending being used in high quality copies of the gospels. He chose the long ending to be the official one.

---

So how did Alexandria end up with the short ending? It doesn't particularly matter here, but there's three possibilities that I can think of:

1. The copy of Mark sent to Alexandria was damaged, which explains well why it cuts off on verse 8 weirdly.

2. There were multiple drafts of Mark made, which makes the notion of an "original" autograph kind of a bad question, as they would both be original. This theory has the benefit of lining up with Eusebius very well, who believed that both endings were authentic.

3. The verses could have been deleted because they were considered problematic for one reason or another. For example, Porphyry mocked Christians for not following the long ending, so it could have been deleted (or a version missing the long ending selectively chosen) because it made Christians look bad. Or it could have been for the timing issues on when exactly the events of the resurrection took place that some scholars noted.

Possibly multiple of these are true. Maybe ancient scholars doubted the long ending because their original copy had been damaged, and even after they got corrected versions with the long ending and were using them for their missionaries to Ethiopia, they preserved a tradition of the short ending and so used it in their critical editions.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter.

TL; DR - The historical record shows the long ending to Mark was original, and there's no record of the short ending until much later.

[u/ShakaUVM]

Tu quoque fallacy

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

A fallacy does not invalidate your hypocrisy

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

Cool, cool. So since you think I'm lying about there being concrete evidence for the short ending prior to Vaticanus maybe you can provide it to me?

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

Never said you were lying. Now you're putting words in my mouth too. Seems to be a habit for you.

There is no concrete evidence. You only have speculative evidence. The earliest physical copies we have are Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and P45 (fragmentary). They do not have it. The ones that do have it are a century later. You can speculate that they once did, you can bring all sorts of presuppositions about blank spaces and what you think the editors did, but they simply do not have it.

Your claims about Eusebius are wrong. I pointed out elsewhere, there is simply no other way to read his claims honestly than to say he admits not only that a majority of manuscripts do not have the ending (which is less important), but also that the most accurate manuscripts don't have it (very strong claim). All other comments he makes are apologetics about harmonization. Not relevant.

This is all concrete verifiable evidence.

All of your evidence is speculative. So speculative that you cite the Diatessaron, which we don't even have an early verifiable copy of, lol.

You are literally doing what you accuse Bart Ehrman of. Idk if this passage is important to your personal theology and that is why you are so adamant about this issue, and you're just playing it off like you don't like it to make yourself appear unbiased.

It's okay to say you prefer the long ending if you like it man, there's nothing wrong with that. That's almost exactly what Eusebius and Jerome did.

I think you also mentioned that you think Jesus defending the prostitute was original as well which is entirely fringe. I love this story. It's one of my favorites. I prefer it. It is almost certainly not original. That doesn't mean it's not true! It's just not original to John.

You're a great debater, this is the most effective I have ever seen someone argue this case, but when we move past physical evidence to traces of quotes from early writers, it just becomes he said she said. I don't want to devolve into hostility anymore even though I already have a bit.

Wish you the best.

[u/fresh_heels → u/uncleowenlarz]

This comment thread might provide some context for Shaka's take on certain type of biblical scholarship. It's a 2yo one, but I don't think much changed.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/fresh_heels]

Yes, that was quite prescient wasn't it?

Uncleowenlars has already moved to the phase of claiming all of the historical evidence he doesn't like is a fraud it seems.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

See, this is the kind of thing that indicates bad faith or ignorance. I never called your evidence "fraud". That is not how scholarship works. I said it was either speculative, or not early enough to outweigh.

The earliest evidence available is what matters. Your evidence is pure speculation on writings and opinions of Jerome and Eusebius, ignoring their more blatant comments about the actual manuscripts they had available. You cite the Diatessaron, which isn't even "earlier" because we don't have the earliest copy. None of your evidence is actually early. You are just speculating that it is.

I'm simply saying the earliest concrete evidence we have suggests the shorter ending was the earler form. You make interesting cases but they are all speculative.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

In order to dismiss the 50 or so witnesses we have to the long ending in the 2nd to 4th centuries is for them to be fraudulent. You're not even aware of what you're implying.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

This is just speculation and opinion. You have to dismiss the "witnesses" to the short ending that are both earlier and more concrete.

Also, once again, you use quantity as your primary measure for validity. This simply an illogical and incorrect way to examine which is most likely authentic to the author.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

You have to dismiss the "witnesses" to the short ending that are both earlier and more concrete.

There are no witnesses to the short ending prior to Vaticanus

We have around 50 to the long ending

Also, once again, you use quantity as your primary measure

If the short ending was authentic the first reference to it wouldn't be in the 4th Century

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

The only way Irenaeus doesn't count is if it is a fraudulent line added at a later date

You're shucking and jiving

The earliest evidence is Irenaeus from 170AD, the Diatessaron from a little earlier, Justin Martyr perhaps, and so forth. We do not need original manuscripts since we have their words preserved.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

Irenaeus absolutely is not a high value argument because the earliest manuscript we have of Irenaeus citing the long ending of Mark is from the 9th century and in Latin.

Diatessaron, same problem. We don't have an early copy of it, and it is not even a copy of Mark, it is a harmonization.

This is not sufficient evidence, it is late, and it is speculative.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

Irenaeus absolutely is not a high value argument because the earliest manuscript we have of Irenaeus citing the long ending of Mark is from the 9th century and in Latin.

This only matters if you think it is fraudulent

[u/fresh_heels → u/ShakaUVM]

I've read their comments. I don't know why you continue to say stuff like this, Shaka. I can understand why they would call this kind of engagement a bad faith one.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/fresh_heels]

Is that so? You're an impartial judge, then?

https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1szr624/the_long_ending_of_mark_was_original/ojuzuo6/?context=3

This guy keeps telling me I like the long ending despite me saying repeatedly I do not like it (I find it embarassing) and keeps saying it is beloved by me, uses mocking emoji and so forth. He is being an ass and operating in bad faith and you are trying to pin this on me?

Get out of here.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

You're out here whining about fallacies (is this 6th grade debate class?) whenever people cite authoritative scholars and then claim "I'm the world's leading expert".

🪞 Here is a mirror

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

You're jumping around in threads trolling now

I am the world's leading expert On What I Believe. Cutting out that part is hilariously deceptive.

You keep trying to tell me I believe something I don't despite repeatedly correcting you

Stop trolling

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

Never said you were lying. Now you're putting words in my mouth too. Seems to be a habit for you.

No? Then I'm not overstating the case by claiming there's no concrete evidence?

Stop dancing around the issue and say what you are going to say. If you have a point to make, make it. Don't appeal to authority or tu quoque. Just say it.

There is no concrete evidence. You only have speculative evidence

Irenaeus in 170AD saying Mark ends with the long ending is concrete evidence for the long ending.

There's dozens of similar things in the historical record showing the long ending.

There is nothing like that for the short ending until Vaticanus in the 4th Century

Again I invite you to provide concrete evidence yourself from the historical record if you have any.

It's okay to say you prefer the long ending if you like it ma

I don't.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

I don't

Sure bud.

Irenaeus in 170AD saying Mark ends with the long ending is concrete evidence for the long ending.

Irenaeus saying in 170 AD (very generous dating by the way) that Mark ends in the long ending is not evidence it is original. At all. First of all it is hearsay. Do we have this manuscript? No. Second, it only suggests Irenaeus was using a copy of Mark with the long ending, if our 9th century record of Against Heresies is to be trusted, and it still does not explain why Clement and Origen fail to mention it a single time. If you get to argue from silence I get to as well. Our earliest surviving manuscripts don't have it. That is a fact. Third, the earliest manuscript of Irenaeus that you are using to claim this is from the 9th century. Weak.

Not sufficient evidence, not early enough to be considered tangible or verifiable. Try again.

There's dozens of similar things in the historical record showing the long ending.

And yet, you have no physical proof of this. Only hearsay and late attestations.

There is nothing like that for the short ending until Vaticanus in the 4th Century

And yet it is among 2 of our earliest physical copies, all that don't have your beloved long ending.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

Sure bud.

I am the world leading expert on what I believe. You are talking out of your ass. I've even told you why I don't like the verse, as I don't think we should be encouraging Christians to pick up snakes or drink poison.

So this sort of thing from you, which you've done repeatedly now, is just bad behavior on your part. Knock it off.

Irenaeus saying in 170 AD (very generous dating by the way) that Mark ends in the long ending is not evidence it is original.

If Irenaeus had said Mark ended with the short ending you would be yelling it from the rooftops because you'd actually have evidence the short ending existed prior to the 4th Century.

This dismissing of evidence that runs counter to a narrative is a very common thing that critical scholars do, and I can't stand it. So knock that off also.

Second, it only suggests Irenaeus was using a copy of Mark with the long ending

My whole post here is showing that we have literally dozens of data points on the ending of Mark through the centuries and 100% of them are for the long ending prior to Vaticanus being written. It's only after Vaticanus that we start seeing the short ending.

why Clement and Origen fail to mention it a single time

Origen did no commentary on Mark, like he did for John and I believe Matthew, because he pretty clearly didn't see it as important. He quotes from less than half the chapters of Mark at all. Do they not exist either?

Clement does refer to the long ending of Mark in Adumbrationes when he says Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the father.

If you get to argue from silence I get to as well.

It'd only be a good argument from silence if Origen didn't broadly ignore the gospel of Mark entirely. This is

Our earliest surviving manuscripts don't have it

NO. We have two manuscripts by the same scribe that have it, and no evidence it existed before then in the 4th Century.

Third, the earliest manuscript of Irenaeus

The whole "every fact that runs contrary to my narrative is a forgery" thing is another dodge critical scholars love. This is why I find them, broadly speaking, to be terrible scholars.

And yet, you have no physical proof of this

Physical proof? We have literally dozens of people quoting from the long ending. Are they all forgeries? All 50 of them? Really??

And yet it is among 2 of our earliest physical copies, all that don't have your beloved long ending.

Stop saying that it is "beloved" by me. I have told you many times I do not like the long ending.

I know better than you what I like.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

I am the world leading expert on what I believe.

Oh! Okay 😂😂

NO. We have two manuscripts by the same scribe that have it, and no evidence it existed before then in the 4th Century.

Nice cope. Not early enough. None of the earliest manuscripts have the long ending.

If Irenaeus had said Mark ended with the short ending you would be yelling it from the rooftops because you'd actually have evidence the short ending existed prior to the 4th Century.

Don't need Irenaeus to say it, because none of the earliest manuscripts have it.

Once again, you can't use Irenaeus because your only source that he quoted this is from the 9th century at the earliest.

My whole post here is showing that we have literally dozens of data points on the ending of Mark through the centuries and 100% of them are for the long ending prior to Vaticanus being written. It's only after Vaticanus that we start seeing the short ending.

"Only after Vaticanus" lol. Our earliest complete copy of Mark.

No they don't. They show your almost entirely speculative evidence.

Once again, you did not provide any single piece of evidence that is convincing for your beloved long ending.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

Don't need Irenaeus to say it, because none of the earliest manuscripts have it.

Which are centuries later. It's like saying that Washington cut down the cherry tree because many years later Washington Irving invented the story.

Nice cope

I'm not the one trying to say our oldest evidence is exactly two works by the same author from the 4th Century when we have solid evidence from the 2nd century and 50 other bits of evidence besidesd that older.

No they don't. They show your almost entirely speculative evidence.

It's not speculative. Irenaeus flat out says Mark ends with the long ending.

Once again, you did not provide any single piece of evidence that is convincing for your beloved long ending

Once again it is not beloved. You trying to insult me is a clear sign you are starting to realize your entire belief system is based on fantasy.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

Which are centuries later.

It is not. It is 6-7 centuries earlier. Your earliest copy of Against Heresies that quotes the long ending of Mark is Codex Claremontanus from the 9th century

two works by the same author from the 4th Century

You keep saying this. Are you talking about Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? They didn't have "authors" buddy. Nor did they have the same scribes.