THE ORIGIN OF MARK 16:9-20 © 2007 James Edward Snapp, Jr. The pictures have been removed from this edition in order to reduce the size of the file, making it easier to send and receive by e-mail. Most of the pictures can be found online. [Permission is granted to reproduce this material, except for the essay by Dr. Bruce Terry in chapter eight, in electronic form (as a computer-file) and to make printouts on a computer-printer.] TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 2 PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE CH. 1: External Evidence from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries 5 CH. 2: External Evidence from the 4th Century 20 CH. 3: External Evidence from the Early 400’s 42 Ch. 4: Some External Evidence from the Mid-400’s and Later 63 CH. 5: External Evidence With the Double-Ending 82 CH. 6: Lectionaries 90 PART TWO: INTERNAL EVIDENCE CH. 7: “Ephobounto Gar” 92 CH. 8: The Style of the Long Ending of Mark (by Dr. Bruce Terry) 96 CH. 9: Is Mk. 16:9-20 Non-Markan? 104 PART THREE: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS CH. 10: Theories about How the Ending was Lost 108 CH. 11: The Unlikelihood of Late Addition 115 CH. 12: The Best Solution 118 CH. 13: Matthew, Luke, and John 122 CH. 14: Closing Remarks 130 Appendix A: Excerpts from the Diatessaron 131 Appendix B: The Short Ending 132 2 Preface In 1881, Westcott & Hort, reinforcing the conclusions of some scholars who preceded them, presented what appeared to be strong and persuasive evidence that the Gospel of Mark originally did not contain Mark 16:9-20.1 Today most commentators deny, often almost casually, that this passage was an original part of the Gospel of Mark.2 That view has affected modern Bible translations and may affect them more noticeably in the future.3 In this book I will offer evidence that the modern consensus should be reconsidered. First, however, I will present external and internal evidence showing that Mark 16:9-20 is a first-century text, and not a late scribal addition as is frequently claimed by some commentators whose research can be fairly described as negligent, or negligible, or both. The origin of Mark 16:9-20 is this: in Rome, Mark wrote Mark 1:1-16:8. He had intended to write more, and, after that, to release the work for dissemination, but he was prevented from doing so by the rising threat of persecution. Mark departed Rome, and placed his unfinished Gospel-account in the hands of colleagues who remained there. They perceived that it was unfinished. These colleagues, not desiring to release the book in its incomplete state, and simultaneously reluctant to create an ending from desiringtheir _______________ 1 ~ Cf. Westcott & Hort’s Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, Notes on Select Readings pp. 28-51 (© Harper & Brothers, New York 1882), a source often cited to this day. For example, Dr. Craig Evans advised readers of the Word Biblical Commentary series, “For descriptions of the MS evidence, see Westcott-Hort, Introduction 2:28-51; Metzger, TCGNT1, 122-28.” (p. 544, Word Biblical Commentary 34b – Mark 8:27-16:20 © 2001 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.) Until Westcott & Hort, no scholarly consensus on this issue existed. Their contemporary Philip Schaff assembled the varied opinions of scholars from the 1800’s about the subject: “The passage is defended as genuine by Simon, Mill, Bengel, Storr, Matthaei, Hug, Schleiermacher, De Wette, Bleek, Olshausen, Lange, Ebrard, Hilgenfeld, Broadus (“Bapt. Quarterly,” Philad., 1869), Burgon (1871), Scrivener, Wordsworth, McClellan, Cook, Morison (1882). It is rejected or questioned by the critical editors, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort (though retained by all in the text with or without brackets), and by such critics and commentators as Fritzsche, Credner, Reuss, Wieseler, Holtzmann, Keim, Scholten, Klostermann, Ewald, Meyer, Weiss, Norton, Davidson. Some of these opponents, however, while denying the composition of the section by Mark, regard the contents as a part of the apostolic tradition.” (from www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc1/htm/i.XII.81.htm ) Samuel Tregelles initially opposed Markan authorship but by 1854 stated that 16:9-20 “might have been written by Mark at a later period.” (see p. 23, The Mutilation of Mark’s Gospel by N. Clayton Croy, © 2003 Abingdon Press.) 2 ~ This point should, however, be viewed alongside the observations that (a) most commentaries do not go into great detail about the pertinent manuscript-evidence, and (b) a considerable number of commentators merely echo Dr. Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, and (c) many commentators present false descriptions of the external evidence, indicating that their research into the question was shallow or non-existent. 3 ~ Treatments of Mk. 16:9-20 range from complete omission (p. 374, The Short Bible, © 1933 Univ. of Chicago, edited by Edgar J. Goodspeed and J.M. Powis Smith) to full inclusion (on p. 573 of The Reader’s Digest Bible ©1982 by the Reader's Digest Association, Inc. Bruce Metzger, General Editor). More recently, in a small book called The Message of Hope, which consists mainly of selections from The Message, the Gospel of Mark was presented up to the end of 16:8, where it stopped with no footnote. (p. 70, The Message of Hope, Copyright © 2001 by Eugene H. Peterson, publ. NavPress Publishing Group and distributed in association with Alive Communications.) In the Today’s New International Version Mark 16:9-20 was separated from the rest of the book, and was printed in an italicized font. The TNIV’s preface stated that the passage has “a very questionable— and confused—standing in the textual history of the New Testament.” (Preface and p. 77-78, The Holy Bible, Today’s New International Version, © 2001 by International Bible Society.) 3 their own minds, decided to attach a short composition which Mark had written previously – a composition which summarized the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Thus completed, the Gospel of Mark was first disseminated for use in the Christian churches. The short composition which was added by Mark’s Roman colleagues is known today as Mark 16:9-20. Several theories adequately explain the loss of Mark 16:9-20, but I have found one which is especially elegant. I shall present leading theories offered in the past to account for the loss of Mark 16:9-20, before explaining what I believe to be the best explanation of the state of the available evidence. The reader is encouraged to keep in mind, while reading this book, the basis on which a text is considered canonical. The question of the canonicity of a disputed passage in a New Testament book should not be decided on the basis of whether or not the main author of the book wrote the disputed passage. Co-authorship does not preclude canonicity. Roman Catholics may contend that the pronouncements of the Council of Trent make Mk. 16:9-20 “canonically authentic” regardless of its authorship and date. Others may propose that history vindicates the passage as a text which God intends for His people to use as Scripture.4 Nevertheless the position I have assumed is that the legitimacy of Mark 16:9-20 as Scripture ultimately depends on whether it was or was not present in the Gospel of Mark when it was originally disseminated. Kurt & Barbara Aland stated, “The competence of New Testament textual criticism is restricted to the state of the New Testament from the moment it began its literary history through transcription _______________ 4 ~ The diversity of scholars’ views about the canonicity of Mark 16:9-20 is shown by the following quotations. Alfred Wikenhauser: “Even if the longer ending of Mark is not by Mark himself, yet it is an integral part of Holy Scripture” (p. 173, New Testament Introduction, © 1963 Herder and Herder, New York. Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur ≅ 1958 Daniel Mageean, Bishop of Down and Conner). Wikenhauser, on p. 19 of the same book, described the decrees of the Council of Trent as “infallible and irreformable decisions of the magisterium.” To read a pertinent citation from the Council of Trent, see www.ntcanon.org/closing-west.shtml . The variety of views taken toward the canonicity of Mark 16:9-20 may be seen in the following quotes: Bruce Metzger: “Many translators, including myself, consider verses 9 through 20 to be a legitimate part of the New Testament” in 1994 in Christian History magazine; see www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/ hmar16_9.htm . C.E. Graham Swift: “Although the question of literary authenticity must remain uncertain, all scholars agree that these verses are canonically authentic. They are part of the Canon of Holy Scripture.” (p. 886, The New Bible Commentary, Revised © 1970 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, D. Guthrie & J.A. Motyer, editors.) The Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha: “The contents of vv. 9-20 . appear to have been gleaned from traditions known to us from the other gospels and Acts. From early Christian times these verses have traditionally been accepted as part of the canonical Gospel of Mark and therefore as inspired Scripture.” (p. 1238, © 1965 by Oxford University Press, New York.) The Jerusalem Bible: “The ‘long ending’ of Mark, vv. 9-20, is included in the canonically accepted body of inspired Scripture.” (p. 89 (New Testament), © 1966 by Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd. and Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York, Alexander Jones, Editor.) Douglas R. A. Hare: “It must be emphasized that these lines about handling poisonous snakes and drinking poisonous liquids are not scriptural. They do not belong to the authentic Gospel of Mark, and therefore are not part of the biblical canon." (p.