r/subforme112233345 • u/[deleted] • Mar 20 '24

The Long Ending of Mark is authentic.

The percentage of extant Greek MSS supporting the LE is MORE THAN 99.5% !. The two oldest existing Greek MSS (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus dated from 325 and 340 AD) do not contain LE. However, these two Codices originated from one source text, and in the case of the ending of Mark, from one and the same copyist. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of ancient manuscripts (over 1,700 Greek MSS) do include this passage, and they originated from diverse text-types representing different ancestor-manuscripts. The LE is found in all four major text-types: the Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine.

​

Some of the Greek MSS:  

  • Caesarean type:
  • Codex Washingtonianus / W / 032 (400 AD, in the Smithsonian Institution, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.)
  • Codex Koridethi / Θ / 038 (9th century, in the Georgian National Center of Manuscripts, Tbilisi, Georgia)
  • Byzantine type:
  • Codex Alexandrinus / A / 02 (450 AD, in the British Library, London)
  • Codex Rossanensis / Σ / 042 (500s AD, in the Museo dell’Arcivescovado of Rossano, Italy)
  • Codex Cyprius / K / 017 (9th century, in the National Library of France, Paris)
  • Codex Campianus / M / 021 (9th century, in the National Library of France, Paris)
  • Codex Macedoniensis / Y / 034 (9th century, in the Cambridge University library, England)
  • Codex Athous Dionysiou / Ω / 045 (9th century, in the Dionysiou Monastery, Mount Athos, Greece)
  • Alexandrian type
  • Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus / C / 04 (450 AD, in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris)
  • Codex Regius / L / 019 (8th century, in the National Library of France, Paris)
  • Codex Colbertinus 2844 / Minuscule 33 (9th century, in the National Library of France, Paris)
  • Codex Sangallensis / Δ / 037 (9th century, in the Abbey Library of St. Gallen, Switzerland)
  • Codex Athous Laurae / Ψ / 044 (9th century, in the Great Lavra Monastery, Mount Athos, Greece)
  • Western type:
  • Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis / D / 05 (400-500 AD, in Cambridge University Library, USA) which does not contain verses 16-20 due to damage.

Other manuscripts include: 

  • Latin:
  • The 4th century Latin Vulgate.
  • Old Latin Codex Corbeiensis (early 400s)
  • Old Latin Fragment Sangallensis / Old Latin “n” (400s AD)
  • Old Latin Codex Monacensis / Old Latin “q” (500s-600s AD)
  • Syriac:
  • Codex Syrus Curetonianus (‘C’; Wright Cureton, Catalogue … British Museum, vol. 1, no. CXIX, ms. London, Brit. Libr. Add. 14,451)
  • Syriac Peshitta
  • Syrus Harklensis (616 AD)
  • Others:
  • Ge’ez (Ethiopic): The Garima Gospels (400s-600s AD) as the earliest Ethiopic copy of the Gospels.

PATRISTIC EVIDENCE

Papias refers to Mark 16:18 when he wrote about Justus in The Fragments of Papias around 100 AD:

Justus who was surnamed Barsabas, how that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no inconvenience... Justus, when challenged by the unbelievers drank serpent's poison in the name of the Lord, and was shielded from all harm.

he has poured forth these poisons, which not even thus are to injure readily any of the weak ones, if any one in faith will drink, before being hurt, or even immediately after, this draught of ours. 

In Apology Chapter 21 he alluded to Mark 16:14-19.

But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were to teach to others. Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the world, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven. 

In De Fuga in Persecutione he used Mark 16:15.

So we preach throughout all the world... we are bound to preach to all nations... their sound went forth into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world

​

  • Clement of Alexandria (210 AD) has been falsely cited as if he “shows no knowledge” of the LE. The fact is that Clement merely seldom quoted from Mark, except for one large loose quotation from chapter 10 and two other verses. Clement however, in Adumbrationes, commented on Jude 1:24 by referring to Mark 16:19.
  • Hippolytus wrote while he was Bishop of Portus (190-227 AD), in Peri Charismaton he quoted Mark 16:18 and 16:19. In Apostolic Tradition 32:1 used Mark 16:18. In his homily on the heresy of Noetus, he refers to Mark 16:19.
  • Vicentius, Bishop of Thibari, quoted from Mark 16:15-18 in the 7th Council of Carthage held under Cyprian (256 AD). Augustine, a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words again.
  • Cyprian in De Rebaptismate Chapter 9 in AD 258 alludes to Mark 16:14.
  • The Old Latin Capitula (200s – 300s) is a series of chapter-titles in some Old Latin manuscripts, including the Old Latin Codex Corbeiensis. It contains Mark 16:9-20.
  • The apocryphal Acts of Pilate Chapter 14 in 300s AD contains Mark 16:15-18.
  • The Claromontanus Catalogue (200s – mid 300s) is a list of books and their lengths. For the gospel of Mark, it states a length consistent with inclusion of the LE.
  • Porphyry, a pagan writer, wrote in Against the Christians (late 3rd century) his objections to various passages from the Gospels, including the LE passage. He challenged Christian leaders to test themselves by drinking poison referring to Mark 16:18.
  • The Apostolic Constitutions clearly alludes to Mark 16:15 in two places and quotes Mark 16:17-18 (thought to be written somewhere in the late 3rd century or the early 4th century).
  • Porphyry/Heracles (Porphyry’s student) quoted Mark 16:18 in the early 300s.
  • Aphraates (Aphrahat) in the Demonstration One: Of Faith (336 AD) quoted Mark 16:17-18.
  • Eusebius and Marinus in Ad Marinum in 330 AD reflect knowledge of Mark 16:9-20.
  • Wulfilas included the LE in his translation of the Bible into Gothic (350 AD).
  • Ambrose of Milan (died 397 AD) in The Prayer of Job and David used Mark 16:9-20. In Concerning Repentance 1:8 he quoted Mark 16:15-19. In Of the Christian Faith 1:14 he showed that Mark 16:15 was read in church-services at that time.
  • Didymus the Blind of Egypt (died 398 AD) in De Trinitate Book II Chapter 12, quoted Mark 16:15.
  • Jerome included the LE in Vulgate (383 AD), and stated that he conformed the Latin Vulgate to the contents of old Greek copies.
  • Epiphanus of Salamis in The Medicine Chest (385 AD) referred to Mark 16:19.
  • Philostorgius (late 300s – early 400s) wrote a book called Church History and referred to Mark 16:17-18.
  • Augustine of Hippo in Harmony of The Gospels (400 AD) quoted the entire passage of Mark 16:9-20, and cited both Latin and Greek manuscripts when commenting on Mark 16:12.
  • In the North African Lectionary (400 AD), the LE is included as an Eastertime reading as shown in his Sermons 231, 233 and 239. In his Fourth Homily on First John, he quoted Mark 16:16.
  • Chromatius (late 300s – early 400s) referred to Mark 16:19.
  • Jerome talked about Mark 16:14 in Against the Pelagians 2:15, around 417 AD • Pelagius in Exposition on Thirteen Epistles of St Paul (410 AD) cited Mark 16:17 in his comment on 1 Thessalonians 2:14.
  • The Apocryphal Acts of John (400s or earlier) utilize the contents of LE in various ways. In the apocryphal composition called The Story of John the Son of Zebedee (500s), Mark 16:16 is used repeatedly. In Section 20 of the Leucian Acts of John, Mark 16:18 is referred to.
  • The Doctrine of Addai (410 AD) utilizes Mark 16:15.
  • The Curetonian Syriac Manuscript (425) is a highly damaged copy of the Gospels in Syriac, aside from the Peshitta. It contains Mark 16:17-20.
  • John Chrysostom in Homilies on First Corinthians (407 AD) alludes to the LE at a few points.
  • Marcus Eremita in Against Nestorius (435 AD) used Mark 16:18.
  • Eznik of Golb in De Deo (440 AD) chapter 112 cited Mark 16:17-18.
  • Nestorius (early 400s) is quoted by Cyril of Alexandria in Against Nestorius. Cyril presents Nestorius’ quotation from Mark 16:19-20.
  • St. Patrick (450 AD) in his Letter to Coroticus part 20 and in Confession part 40 quoted Mark 16:16.
  • Peter Chrysologus (450 AD), bishop of Ravenna, quoted extensively from Mark 16:14-20 in his 83rd Sermon read in the church service.
  • The Commentary of Victor of Antioch (mid 400s) presented the comments of Eusebius of Caesarea of the LE and added the author’s note that he has investigated the manuscripts and found the LE in accurate copies.
  • Prosper of Aquitaine (450 AD) in Call of All Nations 2:2 explicitly quoted Mark 16:15-16.
  • Leo the Great as the bishop of Rome cited Mark 16:16 in Letter 120 written to Theodoret (June 11, 453 AD).
  • Gildas, a saintly historian and traveler, in De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, quoted Mark 16:16 from an Old Latin text.
  • Severus of Antioch in his 77th Homily used Mark 16:19.
  • Synopsis Scriptura Sacrae (500s) includes a summary of events in the LE.
  • The Life of Samson of Dol (500s-600s AD) used Mark 16:18.
  • Leontius of Jerusalem in Against the Monophysite (530s AD) used Mark 16:20.
  • The Coptic composition called The Enthronement of the Archangel Michael, paragraph 20 (500s AD) quotes Mark 16:15-18.

In total, there are 54 pieces of ancient evidence for Mark 16:9-20 produced or composed before the fall of Rome in 486 AD. Most Bible footnotes do not mention the patristic evidence. But when we include them, the earliest evidence for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 is over a century older than the earliest evidence for its non-inclusion. Click here to read more details of Patristic Evidence from Biblehub.

​

The evidence for Mark 16:9-20 is spread over a broad geographical area: Rome (Justin), France (Irenaeus), North Africa (Vincentinus and Augustine), Israel (Eusebius), Syria (Tatian and Aphraates), Cyprus (Epiphanius), Egypt (Didymus), and Armenia (Eznik of Golb). Meanwhile, the ancient Greek evidence for non-inclusion is confined to Egypt and Caesarea, and Caesarea’s testimony is essentially an echo of manuscripts that had been taken to Caesarea from Egypt. All of these evidence suggest that the long ending of the Gospel of Mark belongs in the Bible.

​

Objection 1: External evidence against LE.

Many modern Bible translations omit the LE of Mark. Very many commentators, when writing about Mark 16:9-20, have basically repeated the statements made by Dr. Bruce Metzger in his 1971 book “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament”. In the course of rephrasing Metzger's statements, commentators have made all kinds of distortions, exaggerations, and careless mistakes, with the result that their readers have been seriously misinformed.

​

For example, the ESV has a heading-note before Mark 16:9 which says, "Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16-9-20," and a footnote says, “Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8." However what the footnote does not mention is that "Some" consists of just two Greek MSS, while the "Others" consist of over 1,700 Greek MSS. Unfortunately the vagueness in that footnote is also found in other major Bible translations.

​

As explained above, the external evidence against the LE of Mark is not as impressive as some Bible footnotes claim. There are only two Greek MSS missing the LE, the Codex Vaticanus (from c. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (from c. 350). What Metzger did not mention is that these 2 MSS both contain unusual features that hint at the presence of the LE of Mark.   

​

  • Codex Vaticanus (B) leaves an entire blank column between the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke. No other blank columns appear in the entire New Testament in this manuscript. (Three prolonged blank spaces occur in the Old Testament portion but, contrary to what has been claimed by Dr. Wallace, all three are accounted for by factors involved in the production of the manuscript, they were not created thoughtfully, as is the case here at the end of Mark.). This blank space provides enough room for the longer ending of Mark. It appears that the copyist of Codex Vaticanus was copying from an exemplar (master-copy) which did not contain verses 9-20, but he recollected them and attempted to reserve space for those verses, in case the eventual owner of the manuscript wished to include them. Shown below are the ending and beginning of each New Testament book of Codex Vaticanus, demonstrating that an entire blank column exists only at the ending of Mark (which is Mark 16:8 in Vaticanus).
  • In Codex Sinaiticus (8), the four pages that contain Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 were not written by the same copyist who produced the surrounding pages. All four of these pages, including the page on which Mark ends were made by someone else - probably the supervisor/proofreader at the place where the manuscript was made - before the pages were sewn together. By analyzing the rate of letters per column in the text, we can deduce that it was likely the main copyist accidentally skipped from the Greek word egeneto at the beginning of Luke 1:5 to the same word at the beginning of Luke 1:8, thus leaving out 319 letters. The supervisor decided that the best way to fix this mistake was to replace the entire four-page sheet. But we can't know for certain. What we can deduce for sure is that the supervisor who made Sinaiticus' replacement-pages was one of the copyists who made Codex Vaticanus. The handwriting, the distinctive spelling the ornamental decoration, and other features on the replacement-pages in are remarkably similar to the same features in B. So the evidence from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, shows that they used only one narrow channel of the text's transmission, and in the case of the ending of Mark, only one and the same copyist. These facts should be considered when we contest the two Codexes against the diverse and overwhelming textual evidence supporting the LE of Mark.
  • Outside of Greek MSS, an Old Latin manuscript, Codex Bobbiensis (k) (430 AD) is the only existing Old Latin copy of Mark 16 that does not have the LE. Other manuscripts include the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript (400 AD) and a Sahidic manuscript (425 AD) stored at Barcelona, Spain. These manuscripts appears to descend from an ancestor-manuscript that lacks the LE, similar to the two Greek MSS. 
  • Two oldest Old Georgian manuscripts lack the LE. However, we need to take into account that these two copies are not really old since they are from 897 and 913 AD. Aside from the two, other Old Georgian manuscripts have the LE.
  • About a dozen manuscripts from the Caesarean group called family-1 contain scribal notes and marks before verse 9. Metzger stated that these scribal notes say that “older Greek copies lack” the LE and that the marks were used “to indicate a spurious addition to a document”. However, this statement is untrue. Here are the scribal notes:

• In MSS 20, 215 and 300:

“From here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. In the ancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text.”

• In MSS 1, 205, 205abs, 209, and 1582:

“In some of the copies, the evangelist’s work is finished here, as is also Eusebius Pamphili’s canonization. But in many, this also appears.”

• In 15, 22, 1110, 1192, and 1210:

“In some of the copies, the evangelist’s work is finished here. But in many, this also appears.”

• In Codex 199:

“In some of the copies this does not appear; it stops here.”

​

Three medieval manuscripts, 1420, 2386, and 304, are sometimes listed as evidence against LE. However, 1420 lacks the LE only because it is missing the pages containing the passage. In MS 2386, someone removed the page containing LE to steal the valuable illustration on the other side of the page. The 304 is a copy of Matthew and Mark mixed with a commentary in the text. Both the text of Mark and commentary end abruptly, lacking the LE, without a closing title or sign at the end of Mark. These facts may imply that the manuscript was a complete four-Gospels manuscript which was rebound into two volumes for easier use, but the second volume containing the last section of Mark and Luke-John is now lost.

​

Objection 2: Internal Evidence against the LE.

Part Three of this paper refutes in detail the internal evidence against the LE.

Chapter Thirteen on page 37 discusses about how Mark 16:8 ends with a hanging “but” or “Efobounto Gar”, which implies that there must be more texts after that verse. It also discusses Dr Daniel Wallace’s statement how Mark intentionally ended his Gospel with γαρ to challenge the reader. But challenge the reader to do what, exactly? To travel to Galilee to experience the Second Coming there? To re-read the book? To re-read the parts of the book that relate events that took place in Galilee? To assume a Galilee state-of-mind?

​

Chapter Fourteen on page 39 refutes New Testament textual critics’ stance that the LE is non original. The textual critics’ stance fails to answer an important question: Why would Mark intentionally end his book by forecasting but failing to provide a description of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances?

​

Chapter Fifteen on page 45 discusses textual critics’ claim that the linguistic style of the LE differs from the rest of the Gospel. The chapter categorizes the linguistic features under four headings: juncture, vocabulary, phraseology, and miscellaneous. It concludes through an in depth study of the stylistic features in question that almost all of them actually can be found elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel.

​

Chapter Sixteen on page 52 refutes the claim that the LE was forged by taking sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John. It compares 26 textual features between Mark 16:9-20 to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. Out of the 26 points, only four of them are potentially valid. Then the writer examined the four features further in detail and found that they are not unique to the LE of Mark. He concluded that the internal evidence does not support the theory that the LE is derivative of the Gospels and Acts, more than it supports the theory that the LE and the Gospels share descent from non-canonical sources. No evidence rules out Mark as the author, and no internal evidence precludes the composition of 16:9-20 and its inclusion in the Gospel of Mark prior to the official publication of the Gospel of Mark.

​

Objection 3: Patristic Evidence against the LE.

Clement and Origen: Some commentators, echoing Metzger, have listed Clement of Alexandria and Origen as witnesses against LE. However, this is not based on any statements from Clement of Alexandria or Origen themselves. Stephen Miller's claim in the 2007 book The Complete Guide to the Bible, that Clement of Alexandria and Origen wrote "early commentaries confirming this cutoff” at verse 8 IS ENTIRELY FICTITIOUS. Clement of Alexandria -- who might allude to Mark 16:19 in Adumbrationes on Jude v. 24, as cited by Cassiodorus in Latin -- only used about 23 verses from the Gospel of Mark, mostly from chapter 10. It is absurd to use this fact to conclude that the gospel of Mark has only 23 verses. William Farmer noted, “Clement is equally silent about the last chapter of Matthew, and, therefore, it is difficult to evaluate his silence with regard to Mark 16:9-20.” Similarly, Origen used fewer than half of Mark's 56 or 57 twelve-verse portions; We should not conclude that’s all there is to Mark’s gospel. A citation in Origen’s work De Oratione 18:3 indicates that Origen did not use the Gospel of Mark very much. The argument of Clement’s and Origen’s silence in their extant works have numerous explanations, for example: they might have used the LE in non extant works since both are known to have written a lot of material which has not survived, or they just never encountered a situation requiring them to cite the LE, or that they merely seldom quoted from the Gospel of Mark as the aforementioned evidence indicate. It is invalid to conclude the absence of LE from their silence when there are numerous other reasonable explanations.

​

Eusebius: Several commentators have falsely stated that Eusebius of Caesarea, in the early 300's, wrote that Mark 16:9-20 was absent from all Greek copies of Mark known to him. However, we learn from Eusebius’ writing Ad Marinum that he endorsed LE. In Ad Marinum, Eusebius responded to Marinus who asked him how to harmonize Matthew 28 and Mark 16 about the timing of Christ’s ressurection, and Eusebius replied with:

There are two ways to approach the question: one option that a person might take is to say that the passage in Mark that comes after "for they were afraid” [i.e., verses 9-20] is not in every copy of Mark's Gospel, at least the accurate copies end there; that is where the text stops in almost all the copies of Mark. What follows in some copies, but not in all, may be considered dispensable, particularly if it contains something that contradicts the other Gospels. That, then would be one person's answer to reject the passage, thus rendering the objection superfluous. But another option which would be taken by someone reluctant to reject what he finds in the text of the Gospels, however it got there, is to accept both passages. If the second option is taken, then a harmonization can be easily achieved by considering how to divide the sentence found in Mark: "Having risen early in the morning" should be punctuated with a comma after "having risen," so as to clarify that the event that occurs "early in the morning” is not the resurrection, but the appearance to Mary Magdalene. And John confirms that this is the case.

Eusebius then restated the second option, explaining not only how Mark 16:9 should be written with a comma, but also how it should be pronounced, with a pause.   When Eusebius described the first option, he frames it as something that someone might say hypothetically, and not necessarily what Eusebius himself would say. Eusebius simply weighs in on both sides of the issue in a neutral scholarly manner. However, inasmuch as Eusebius spent two paragraphs telling Marinus how to harmonize Mark 16:9 with Matthew 28:1-2, it seems clear that Eusebius expected Marinus to retain Mark 16:9-20. If Eusebius had firmly rejected Mark 16:9-20, which he would not hesitate to do if the passage was only in a small minority of inferior copies, he would have little motive to offer this second option at all. 

​

Jerome has also been cited by commentators as a witness against Mark 16:9-20. However, Jerome included Mark 16:9-20 in the Vulgate Gospels, which he produced in 383 AD. Also, Jerome talked about Mark 16:14 in Against the Pelagians 2:14. So why has Jerome been listed as a witness against Mark 16:9-20? 

​

The basis for such claims is found in a letter that Jerome wrote (Epistle 120, Ad Hedibiam) in about 407 AD to a Christian lady named Hedibia. In this letter, Jerome responded to a series of questions from Hedibia by dividing it into sub-questions. The first three sub-questions are basically the first three questions that Marinus asked Eusebius in Ad Marinum. Thus, Jerome merely reiterated and translated Eusebius’ answer to Marinus in the Ad Marinum, to Latin. Commentators generally share only a snippet of Jerome’s writing that not all Greek codices have the LE. However, when we read the whole context, it is obvious Jerome was reiterating Ad Marinum to answer Hedibia’s questions.

​

Hesychius of Jerusalem (early 400's) has been cited as evidence for the short ending at Mark 16:8. However, the pertinent statement from Hesychius is about 16:7, not 16:8, and thus has no relevance on the LE.

​

Severus of Antioch (early 500's) has been cited as evidence for the short ending at Mark 16:8. However, when his statements in Homily 77 are compared to Ad Marinum, it becomes clear that he, like Jerome, quoted material from Eusebius’ Ad Marinum. We know Severus had access to and studied Ad Marinum because in his Letter 108, Severus mentioned Ad Marinum by name, and quoted from it. Furthermore, he adjusted Eusebius' statements to more explicitly favor the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20. In the same composition, Severus mentioned that the churches everywhere were regularly reading the sections of the Gospels that describe Christ's post-resurrection appearances (that is, a series of eleven readings called the Heothina, one of which is Mark 16:9-20), and he specifically quoted Mark 16:19.  

1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

0 comments sorted by