The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 © 2007 James Edward Snapp, Jr. [Permission is granted to reproduce this material, except for the essay by Dr. Bruce Terry in chapter 15, in electronic form (as a computer-file) and to make printouts on a computer-printer.] Considerable effort has been made to accurately cite sources throughout this composition, including materials in the public domain. If somehow an author’s work has not been adequately credited, the author or publisher is encouraged to contact me so that the oversight may be amended. - J.E.S. Be sure to consult the footnotes as you go. Some of them significantly clarify or reinforce the text. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: Preface (and Notes About Canonicity and Earlier Studies) PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE CHAPTER TWO: External Evidence: A Panoramic View CHAPTER THREE: Patristic Evidence CHAPTER FOUR: Lectionary Evidence CHAPTER FIVE: Versional Evidence CHAPTER SIX: A Review of External Evidence CHAPTER SEVEN: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus CHAPTER EIGHT: Codex Bobiensis and the Short Ending CHAPTER NINE: The Long Ending’s Presence in Separate Text-types CHAPTER TEN: The Close Relationships of Witnesses Against the Long Ending CHAPTER ELEVEN: Sixty Early Witnesses PART TWO: MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS CHAPTER TWELVE: How to Lose an Ending CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Explaining the External Evidence PART THREE: INTERNAL EVIDENCE CHAPTER FOURTEEN: “Efobounto Gar” CHAPTER FIFTEEN: The Style of the Long Ending of Mark (by Dr. Bruce Terry) CHAPTER SIXTEEN: A Detailed Look at Internal Evidence Appendix One: A List of Technical Terms and an Explanation of Some Symbols Appendix Two: Mark and Proto-Mark Appendix Three: Some Doctrinal Facets of the Issue Footnotes CHAPTER ONE: Preface For centuries, the Christian church has regarded Mark 16:9-20, the “Long Ending” of Mark (a.k.a. the “Longer Ending”) as part of the New Testament. However, in 1881 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, reinforcing the conclusions of some scholars who preceded them, presented evidence which has convinced many people that the Gospel of Mark originally did not contain these verses.1-a Today most commentators deny, often almost casually, that Mark 16:9-20 was an original part of the Gospel of Mark. 1-b That view has affected modern Bible translations and may affect them more noticeably in the future. 1-c I contend, however, that the modern consensus is largely the result of a pandemic of commentators’ exaggerations and inaccuracies, and that the external and internal evidence build a strong cumulative case that Mark 16:9-20 was originally present in the Gospel of Mark when it was first published for church use. The statement that Mark 16:9-20 was originally present in the Gospel of Mark at that point is not the same as a statement that Mark wrote these 12 verses immediately after writing the preceding part of the book. I propose that Mark unintentionally stopped writing at the end of 16:8, leaving the unpublished and unfinished text to his surviving colleagues in Rome. These colleagues, not desiring to publish the book in its incomplete state, and simultaneously hesitant to create an ending from their own minds, decided to attach a short composition which Mark had written previously -- a composition which summarized the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. That short composition is what we known today as Mark 16:9-20. I also propose that this passage was lost from a narrow channel of textual transmission either due to an accidental loss -- that is, the loose page containing the text of the resurrection- accouonts was disconnected from the main scroll, and was lost -- or because a copyist in the second century recognized this short composition as what it had originally been -- that is, a separate composition -- he excised it from the text of the Gospel of Mark. This loss affected the transmission-stream in Egypt, from which descended all extant manuscripts which attest to the abrupt ending of the book at 16:8. Because, as I will show, the evidence favors the theory that this passage was originally present in the book, its legitimacy as part of the canonical text should not be questioned, even if questions about its authorship remain. 1-d That is the main argument of this book. A secondary point runs along these lines: the loss occurred to the archetype itself, before a copy was made which reached Ephesus in the late first century. This copy at Ephesus contained the Abrupt Ending (that is, the ending at the end of 16:8). Some copies of the Gospel of Mark were made at this stage, and were sent to Egypt where they were recopied and disseminated. Meanwhile in Ephesus, John composed a text resembling John 21:1-19 (which I shall call the “Johannine Ending”) to complete the Markan narrative which ended at 16:8. Only shortly thereafter, however, a complete copy of the Gospel of Mark, containing the Long Ending, reached Ephesus from Rome. The Johannine Ending was removed from the Gospel of Mark, and briefly became a “floating” text which was soon incorporated into John 21. Later, in the second century, the Short Ending was composed as a flourish for a copy in Egypt which was descended from a copy which had displayed the Abrupt Ending. This theory is more detailed than, but basically identical, in its first part, to the theory proposed by G.F. Maclear in 1877 that the Long Ending was added by someone other than Mark before the Gospel of Mark was published (see footnote 1-n). A NOTE ABOUT THE CANONICITY OF THE LONG ENDING Some researchers, including even some who believe that Mark did not write verses 9-20, nevertheless consider these verses a canonical text which the Lord has used to instruct His church.1- e Canonicity does not preclude co-authorship; I am confident that the Long Ending was written by Mark as a freestanding summary of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances -- perhaps as a liturgical or catechetical tool. But even if someone else wrote it, as part of a final revision prior to the publication of the Gospel of Mark, both authors’ work are part of the original text, and both are canonical. Some scholars, especially Roman Catholic scholars, say that the longstanding acceptance and usage of Mark 16:9-20 and the pronouncements of the Council of Trent1-f make it “canonically authentic” regardless of its authorship and date. However, if we were to embrace every form of Biblical text which God has used to bless the church, we would have to embrace several forms, with competing variations. Only one text can be the original inspired text written by the authors at any given point where the manuscripts differ -- and for this reason, discussion about the original form of the text of the Gospel of Mark should matter, and do matter. The contents of Mark 16:9-20 are historically and doctrinally significant. Martin Luther quoted 16:16 with great emphasis.1-g The fellowship of Churches of Christ and Christian Churches has used Mark 16:16 to augment the case for baptism for the forgiveness of sins.1-h Some Pentecostal and Charismatic groups, for better or for worse, have appealed to 16:17-18 to support various practices.1-i Most variants are of no doctrinal significance, but this one definitely is.1-j Although a theological case for the passage’s canonicity may be made based on its widespread use, dogmatically asserted inclusion, and other factors, the purpose of this essay is to employ a text-critical approach to demonstrate that, as a textual variant, the presence of 16:9-20 in the Gospel of Mark explains the rise of other variants better than other variants explain the rise of 16:9-20, and therefore this passage should be received as part of the original, canonical text of the Gospel of Mark. A NOTE ABOUT EARLIER STUDIES OF THIS ISSUE Many commentators on the Gospel of Mark have gotten their facts wrong when describing the evidence related to 16:9-20. 1-k Others have uncritically echoed the sentiment made in 1881 by Hort. 1-l Others have presented facts in ways that are highly misleading and needlessly vague. This is especially true regarding descriptions of the external evidence – manuscripts, early versions, and usage or non-usage of the passage by early church writers. In order to rectify this situation, in chapters 2-11 I will describe the external evidence. I will refer to the main variants as the Short Ending (SE, a brief one-verse conclusion), the Abrupt Ending (AE, in which 16:8 is the last verse of Mark), and the Long Ending (LE, Mark 16:9-20).1-m In chapters 12-14 I will review several hypotheses that attempt to account for the external evidence. Then in chapters 15-16 I will examine internal evidence, with a supplemental essay by Dr. Bruce Terry. Along the way, I will provide evidence and argumentation to show that the probability that the LE was an original part of the Gospel of Mark is greater than the opposite scenario. 1-n PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE Chapter Two: The External Evidence - A Panoramic View EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE LONG ENDING It is sometimes said that only two out of 620 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark are 2-a missing the last twelve verses. That estimate can be improved. Today the list of Greek MSS containing the Gospel of Mark is over 1,500. It is still essentially true that only two Greek manuscripts clearly display the abrupt ending of Mark at the end of 16:8.