Bible Knowledge Commentary
X. Disputed Epilogue (16:9–20)
The last 12 verses of Mark (16:9–20) known as “the longer ending of Mark” constitute one of the most difficult and most disputed textual problems in the New Testament. Were these verses included or omitted in Mark’s original text? Most modern English translations call attention to the problem in some way such as adding an explanatory footnote at verse 9 (NASB), setting this section apart from verse 8 with an explanatory note (NIV), or printing the whole section in the margin (RSV).
The external evidence includes the following:
(1) The two earliest (fourth century) uncial manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) omit the verses though their respective scribes left some blank space after verse 8, suggesting that they knew of a longer ending but did not have it in the manuscript they were copying.
(2) Most all other manuscripts (fifth century on) as well as early versions support the inclusion of verses 9–20.
(3) Several later manuscripts (seventh century on) and versions supply a “shorter ending” after verse 8 which is clearly not genuine but all these manuscripts (except one) continue on with verses 9–20.
(4) Early patristic writers—such as Justin Martyr (Apology 1. 45, ca. A.D. 148), Tatian (Diatessaron, ca. A.D. 170), and Irenaeus who quoted verse 19 (Against Heresies 3. 10. 5)—support the inclusion of these verses. However, Eusebius (Questions to Marinus 1, ca. A.D. 325) and Jerome (Epistle 120. 3; ad Hedibiam, ca. A.D. 407) said verses 9–20 were missing from Greek manuscripts known to them.
(5) An Armenian manuscript of the 10th century attributed verses 9–20 to “the presbyter Ariston,” probably Aristion, a contemporary of Papias (A.D. 60–130) who was purportedly a disciple of the Apostle John.
(6) If Mark ended abruptly at verse 8, then it is easy to see why some early copyist(s) wanted to provide a “suitable” ending for the Gospel from other authoritative sources. However, if verses 9–20 were part of the original, it is difficult to see why the early copyists would have omitted it.
Internal evidence includes this data:
(1) The transition from verse 8 to verse 9 involves an abrupt change of subject from “women” to the presumed subject “Jesus” since His name is not stated in verse 9 of the Greek text.
(2) Mary Magdalene is introduced with a descriptive clause in verse 9 as though she had not been mentioned already in 15:40, 47 and 16:1.
(3) About 1/3 of the significant Greek words in verses 9–20 are “non-Marcan,” that is, they do not appear elsewhere in Mark or they are used differently from Mark’s usage prior to verse 9.
(4) The Greek literary style lacks the vivid, lifelike detail so characteristic of Mark’s historical narrative.
(5) Mark would have been expected to include a Resurrection appearance to the disciples in Galilee (14:28; 16:7), but the appearances in verses 9–20 are in or near Jerusalem.
(6) Matthew and Luke parallel Mark until verse 8 and then diverge noticeably, suggesting that Mark began its literary existence without verses 9–20.
Equally astute and conscientious interpreters differ widely in their evaluations of this data and reach opposing conclusions. Those who include these verses in light of the preponderance of early and widespread external support must still account satisfactorily for the internal evidence which appears to distinguish these verses from the rest of the Gospel. And those who omit these verses must still account for their early and widespread attestation externally and give a suitable reason for Mark’s seemingly abrupt conclusion at verse 8.
Four possible solutions for this have been suggested:
(1) Mark finished his Gospel but the original ending was lost or destroyed in some way now unknown before it was copied.
(2) Mark finished his Gospel but the original ending was deliberately suppressed or removed for some reason now unknown.
(3) Mark was unable to finish his Gospel for some reason now unknown—possibly sudden death.
(4) Mark purposely intended to end his Gospel at verse 8.
Of these options, numbers 1 and 2 are unlikely even though the view that the original ending was accidentally lost is widely accepted. If Mark’s Gospel was a scroll manuscript rather than a codex (leaf form of book) the ending would normally be on the inside of the scroll and less likely to be damaged or lost than the beginning of the scroll. If the incompleteness of Mark is assumed, number 3 is the most probable option but due to its very nature it cannot be confirmed. In light of Mark’s use of the theme “fear” in relation to Jesus’ followers (cf. v. 8), many modern interpreters incline toward option 4.
A final conclusion to the problem probably cannot be reached on the basis of presently known data.
A view which seems to account for the relevant evidence and to raise the least number of objections is that (a) Mark purposely ended his Gospel with verse 8 and (b) verses 9–20, though written or compiled by an anonymous Christian writer, are historically authentic and are part of the New Testament canon (cf. similarly the last chapter of Deut.). In this view, very early in the transmission of Mark’s Gospel (perhaps shortly after A.D. 100) verses 9–20 were added to verse 8 without any attempt to match Mark’s vocabulary and style. Possibly these verses were brief extracts from the post-Resurrection accounts found in the other three Gospels and were known through oral tradition to have the approval of the Apostle John who lived till near the end of the first century. Thus the material was included early enough in the transmission process to gain recognition and acceptance by the church as part of canonical Scripture. These verses are consistent with the rest of Scripture. The development of the theme of belief and unbelief unifies the passage.
John D. Grassmick, “Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 193–194.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another article on the subject that favors including the longer ending.
X. Disputed Epilogue (16:9–20)
The last 12 verses of Mark (16:9–20) known as “the longer ending of Mark” constitute one of the most difficult and most disputed textual problems in the New Testament. Were these verses included or omitted in Mark’s original text? Most modern English translations call attention to the problem in some way such as adding an explanatory footnote at verse 9 (NASB), setting this section apart from verse 8 with an explanatory note (NIV), or printing the whole section in the margin (RSV).
The external evidence includes the following:
(1) The two earliest (fourth century) uncial manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) omit the verses though their respective scribes left some blank space after verse 8, suggesting that they knew of a longer ending but did not have it in the manuscript they were copying.
(2) Most all other manuscripts (fifth century on) as well as early versions support the inclusion of verses 9–20.
(3) Several later manuscripts (seventh century on) and versions supply a “shorter ending” after verse 8 which is clearly not genuine but all these manuscripts (except one) continue on with verses 9–20.
(4) Early patristic writers—such as Justin Martyr (Apology 1. 45, ca. A.D. 148), Tatian (Diatessaron, ca. A.D. 170), and Irenaeus who quoted verse 19 (Against Heresies 3. 10. 5)—support the inclusion of these verses. However, Eusebius (Questions to Marinus 1, ca. A.D. 325) and Jerome (Epistle 120. 3; ad Hedibiam, ca. A.D. 407) said verses 9–20 were missing from Greek manuscripts known to them.
(5) An Armenian manuscript of the 10th century attributed verses 9–20 to “the presbyter Ariston,” probably Aristion, a contemporary of Papias (A.D. 60–130) who was purportedly a disciple of the Apostle John.
(6) If Mark ended abruptly at verse 8, then it is easy to see why some early copyist(s) wanted to provide a “suitable” ending for the Gospel from other authoritative sources. However, if verses 9–20 were part of the original, it is difficult to see why the early copyists would have omitted it.
Internal evidence includes this data:
(1) The transition from verse 8 to verse 9 involves an abrupt change of subject from “women” to the presumed subject “Jesus” since His name is not stated in verse 9 of the Greek text.
(2) Mary Magdalene is introduced with a descriptive clause in verse 9 as though she had not been mentioned already in 15:40, 47 and 16:1.
(3) About 1/3 of the significant Greek words in verses 9–20 are “non-Marcan,” that is, they do not appear elsewhere in Mark or they are used differently from Mark’s usage prior to verse 9.
(4) The Greek literary style lacks the vivid, lifelike detail so characteristic of Mark’s historical narrative.
(5) Mark would have been expected to include a Resurrection appearance to the disciples in Galilee (14:28; 16:7), but the appearances in verses 9–20 are in or near Jerusalem.
(6) Matthew and Luke parallel Mark until verse 8 and then diverge noticeably, suggesting that Mark began its literary existence without verses 9–20.
Equally astute and conscientious interpreters differ widely in their evaluations of this data and reach opposing conclusions. Those who include these verses in light of the preponderance of early and widespread external support must still account satisfactorily for the internal evidence which appears to distinguish these verses from the rest of the Gospel. And those who omit these verses must still account for their early and widespread attestation externally and give a suitable reason for Mark’s seemingly abrupt conclusion at verse 8.
Four possible solutions for this have been suggested:
(1) Mark finished his Gospel but the original ending was lost or destroyed in some way now unknown before it was copied.
(2) Mark finished his Gospel but the original ending was deliberately suppressed or removed for some reason now unknown.
(3) Mark was unable to finish his Gospel for some reason now unknown—possibly sudden death.
(4) Mark purposely intended to end his Gospel at verse 8.
Of these options, numbers 1 and 2 are unlikely even though the view that the original ending was accidentally lost is widely accepted. If Mark’s Gospel was a scroll manuscript rather than a codex (leaf form of book) the ending would normally be on the inside of the scroll and less likely to be damaged or lost than the beginning of the scroll. If the incompleteness of Mark is assumed, number 3 is the most probable option but due to its very nature it cannot be confirmed. In light of Mark’s use of the theme “fear” in relation to Jesus’ followers (cf. v. 8), many modern interpreters incline toward option 4.
A final conclusion to the problem probably cannot be reached on the basis of presently known data.
A view which seems to account for the relevant evidence and to raise the least number of objections is that (a) Mark purposely ended his Gospel with verse 8 and (b) verses 9–20, though written or compiled by an anonymous Christian writer, are historically authentic and are part of the New Testament canon (cf. similarly the last chapter of Deut.). In this view, very early in the transmission of Mark’s Gospel (perhaps shortly after A.D. 100) verses 9–20 were added to verse 8 without any attempt to match Mark’s vocabulary and style. Possibly these verses were brief extracts from the post-Resurrection accounts found in the other three Gospels and were known through oral tradition to have the approval of the Apostle John who lived till near the end of the first century. Thus the material was included early enough in the transmission process to gain recognition and acceptance by the church as part of canonical Scripture. These verses are consistent with the rest of Scripture. The development of the theme of belief and unbelief unifies the passage.
John D. Grassmick, “Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 193–194.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another article on the subject that favors including the longer ending.
Another article that favors the shorter reading with a section on doctrinal issues to be considered. The article is more advocacy than evaluation but worth considering.
Argues for the shorter ending.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html
A few thoughts from someone who chose not to preach them.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/preachers-toolkit-should-i-preach-the-longer-ending-of-mark/
A few thoughts from someone who chose not to preach them.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/preachers-toolkit-should-i-preach-the-longer-ending-of-mark/
No comments:
Post a Comment