Mark 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gospel of Mark
Mark 1 Mark 2 Mark 3 Mark 4 Mark 5 Mark 6 Mark 7 Mark 8 Mark 9 Mark 10 Mark 11 Mark 12 Mark 13 Mark 14 Mark 15 Mark 16

Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It begins with the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome — there they encounter a man dressed in white who announces Jesus' resurrection. After a brief series of resurrection appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, then the Eleven (the Twelve Apostles minus Judas) the text concludes with the Great Commission and the Ascension.

There is scholarly debate concerning the final twelve verses (16:9-20), since two fourth-century Greek manuscripts end at Mark 16:8,^[1] and another Old Latin manuscript has a different, shorter ending. Six seventh-to-tenth-century Greek manuscripts contain this Shorter Ending, with minor variations, after 16:8. All six also contain the Longer Ending. Furthermore, linguistic and stylistic differences between the concluding canonical verses 9-20 (often called the "Longer Ending") and the rest of the Gospel have been regarded by some scholars as enough to doubt their authenticity. Verse 8 ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

Contents 1 The empty tomb 2 Jesus' appearances and his ascension into Heaven 3 Unusual Features in Some Manuscripts 4 Hypothesis About the Ending 4.1 Internal Evidence 5 Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: Historically Linked? 5.1 Patristic Evidence 6 Scholarly Opinions 6.1 The Shorter Ending 6.2 The Freer Logion 7 Mark 16 and reading in the ancient world 8 Scholarly conclusions 9 Theological implications 10 Arguments in support of Mark 16 11 See also 12 Notes 13 References 14 External links

[edit] The empty tomb

See also: Empty tomb and Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Mark says the Sabbath is now over and Mary Magdalene, another Mary, the mother of James (who earlier Mark referred to more fully as "Mary the mother of James the little and Joses", 15:40)^[2] who might or might not be Mary the mother of Jesus,^{[citation needed]} and Salome, mentioned in Mark 15:40, come to anoint Jesus' body, which Luke 24:1 agrees with. John 19:40 seems to say that Nicodemus had already anointed his body. John 20:1 and Matthew 28:1 simply say Mary went to the tomb, not why.

The women wonder how they will remove the stone over the tomb. Upon their arrival, they find the stone already gone and go into the tomb. This shows that, according to Mark, they did not expect to find a resurrected but a dead Jesus.^[3] They find a young man dressed in a white robe who tells them:

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you' " (6–7).

The white robe might be a sign that the young man is a messenger from God.^[4] Matthew 28:5 describes him as an angel. According to Luke there were two men. John says there were two angels, but that Mary saw them after finding the empty tomb and showing it to the other disciples. She comes back to the tomb, talks to the angels, and then Jesus appears to her.

Mark uses the word neaniskos for young, a word he used to describe the man who fled at Jesus' arrest in Mark 14:51–52.^[5] Jesus had predicted his resurrection and returning to Galilee during the Last Supper in Mark 14:28. Mark uses the passive verb form ēgerthē — translated "he was raised," indicating God raised him from the dead,^[6] rather than "he is risen" translated in the NIV.^[7]

The women, who are afraid, then flee and keep quiet about what they saw. Fear is the most common human reaction to the divine presence in the Bible.^[8]

This is where the undisputed part of Mark's Gospel ends. Jesus is thus announced to have been resurrected from the dead and to have gone into Galilee. Some interpreters have concluded that Mark's intended readers already knew the traditions of Jesus' appearances, and that Mark brings the story to a close here to highlight the resurrection and leave anticipation of the parousia.^[9] Some have argued that this announcement of the resurrection and Jesus going to Galilee is the parousia (see also Preterism), but Raymond E. Brown argues that a parousia confined only to Galilee is improbable.^[10] Gospel writer Mark gives no description of the resurrected Jesus, perhaps because Mark did not want to try to describe the nature of the divine resurrected Jesus.^[11] Brown argues this ending is consistent with Mark's theology, where even miracles, such as the resurrection, do not produce the proper understanding or faith among Jesus' followers.^[12] Having the women run away afraid is contrasted in the reader's mind with Jesus' appearances and statements which help confirm the expectation, built up in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34, and Jesus' prediction during the Last Supper of his rising after his death.^[13]

[edit] Jesus' appearances and his ascension into Heaven

See also: Resurrection appearances of Jesus and Ascension of Jesus Christ

The book then describes Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene who is now described as someone whom Jesus healed from possession by seven demons. She then tells the other disciples (cf. 16:8) what she saw but no one believes her. Jesus' appearances to Mary are also found in Matthew 28:9–10, Luke 24:10–11, and John 20:14–18.

Then Jesus appears "in a different form" to two unnamed disciples. They, too, are disbelieved when they tell what they saw. Jesus' appearance to two disciples is also described in Luke 24:13–35.

Jesus then appears at dinner to all the remaining eleven Apostles. He rebukes them for not believing the earlier reports of his resurrection and then gives them instructions to go and preach his message to all creation (see also the Great Commission). Those who believe and are baptised will be saved, but unbelievers will be condemned.

In verses 17-18, Jesus states that believers will "speak in new tongues." This is likely a reference to glossolalia. They will also be able to handle snakes (see also Acts 28:3–6), be immune from any poison they might happen to drink, and will be able to heal the sick. Some interpreters, picturing an author putting words in Jesus' mouth, have suggested that these verses were a means by which early Christians asserted that their new faith was accompanied by special powers.^[14] By showing examples of unjustified unbelief in verses 10-13, and stating that unbelievers will be condemned, and that believers will be validated by signs, the author may have been attempting to convince the reader to rely on what the disciples preached about Jesus.^[15]

Jesus appearing and talking to the disciples is also recorded in Matthew 28:16–20, Luke 24:36–43, and John 20:19–29. Jesus' fighting against unbelief and the negative portrait of the disciples is in keeping with the themes of Mark.^[16]

According to verse 19, Jesus then is taken up into Heaven where, Mark claims, he sits at the right hand of God. The right hand is seen as the position of power. Jesus quoted Psalm 110:1 in Mark 11 about the Lord sitting at the right hand of God.

After the ascension, his Eleven then went out and preached "everywhere." Several signs from God accompanied their preaching. His ascension is also recorded in Luke 24:50–51 and in the Acts of the Apostles 1:9–11. Where these things happened is not stated, but one could presume, from Mark 16:7, that they took place in Galilee. Luke-Acts, however, has this happening in Jerusalem.

[edit] Unusual Features in Some Manuscripts

The final twelve verses, 16:9-20, are not present in two fourth-century Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.^[17]

Codex Vaticanus has a prolonged blank space following 16:8, which a competent copyist, after erasing the closing subscription, "Kata Markon" ("According to Mark"), could fill with Mark 16:9-20, written in slightly smaller-than-normal lettering. A copyist could likewise add the Shorter Ending after 16:8, and slightly stretch the lettering so as to extend into the top of the otherwise blank column. Possibly the copyist of Codex Vaticanus was aware of both endings, but wished to leave the decision of which ending to include (if any) up to the eventual owner of the codex.

Codex Sinaiticus contains a cancel-sheet at the end of Mark. Four pages produced by the main copyist of the Gospels were replaced by a four-page sheet, on which another copyist (serving as proof-reader) rewrote the text of Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56. The exact contents of the original pages are therefore unknown. The main copyist, using normal lettering, would not have had room for Mark 16:9-20, but he would have had room for the Shorter Ending. The lettering of Mark 15:19-16:7 on the replacement pages is exceptionally stretched, and the lettering of Luke 1:1-56 on the replacement-pages is exceptionally cramped together. This suggests that the replacement-pages were produced to correct a bad mistake that the main copyist had made somewhere in Luke 1:1-56 (such as accidentally omitting an entire paragraph). The decorative design after Mark 16:8, when compared to other such decorations at the end of books in Codex Sinaiticus made by the same copyist (Judith, Tobit, and another cancel-sheet which includes the end of First Thessalonians), is particularly emphatic, which may indicate that the copyist who made the replacement-page was aware of at least one copy of Mark containing additional material after 16:8, but wished to signify, through this emphatic decoration, that the book should end at 16:8.

In addition, the lettering, spelling, and space-filling mark used by the copyist who produced the cancel-sheet in Sinaiticus are remarkably similar to the lettering, spelling, and space-filling mark used by one of the copyists who produced part of Codex Vaticanus. The decorative design after Mark 16:8 in Codex Sinaiticus' cancel-sheet is very similar to the decorative design at the end of Deuteronomy in Codex Vaticanus.

The only other Greek manuscript without the ending is a twelfth century commentary on Matthew and Mark, known as "304".^[18] According to Dr. Maurice Robinson, who has examined a microfilm of this manuscript, the commentary-text contained in 304 also stops abruptly. Some other medieval manuscripts - 1420 and 2386 and an Arabic lectionary manuscript - have been claimed to similarly end at Mark 16:8, but closer study revealed that they each attested to nothing but incidental damage. Future investigation may reveal the same thing to be true of 304.

Mark 16:9-20 is present in 99% of the Greek manuscripts,^[19] with most of these witnessing to the "Byzantine text-type" manuscript tradition.^[20] However, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, largely of the Alexandrian text-type, are generally highly valued as a witness to the autograph of Mark due to their antiquity. Because of this, and also because of linguistic and stylistic differences between these verses and the rest of the Gospel, there has resulted scholarly debate concerning the authenticity of these passages and the original ending of the Gospel.

Codex Washingtonianus (late 4th or early 5th century A.D.), includes the addition, between 16:14 and 16:15, that is known as the Freer Logion.

Another ending, called the Shorter Ending is found in an Old Latin manuscript of Mark.^[21] This Latin manuscript has several quirky features, including an interpolation between Mark 16:3 and Mark 16:4 which pictures Jesus rising, accompanied by angels, and ascending to heaven then and there. It also omits the last phrase of 16:8. Its text appears to have been influenced by the docetic spurious text known as the "Gospel of Peter."

Six seventh-to-tenth-century Greek manuscripts and some Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic and Ethiopic manuscripts have this shorter ending either in the margin or between 16:8 and 16:9, with minor variations. One Bohairic manuscript, made in 1174, accompanies Mark 16:9-20 with the note, "This is the chapter expelled from the Greek."

About 20 Greek manuscripts contain notes in the margin at Mark 16:9. The most important of these manuscripts, Codex 1582, states that in some copies, the Gospel is completed here, and the Canons of Eusebius Pamphili are also completed here. But in many copies, these (that is, the following verses) also appear." (Codex 1582 also contains a marginal note next to Mark 16:19, stating that Irenaeus cited this verse in Book Three of "Against Heresies.") Other forms of this note omit the part about the Eusebian Canons, or replace the reference to "many copies" with a reference to "the ancient copies." In no case does the note appeal to "the older copies" as evidence for an ending at 16:8. All these notes probably descend from a common ancestor (possibly the exemplar of Codex 1582) which may have been based on a comment that appears in Victor of Antioch's fifth-century commentary/catena on Mark.

[edit] Hypothesis About the Ending

Hypotheses on how to explain the textual variations include:

• Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (at an early date) wrote the concluding lines.

• Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death), whereupon another person finished the work before it was released for church-use.

• The Gospel originally contained a different (perhaps similar) ending that was lost, for one reason or another, whereafter the current ending was added.

• Verses 16:9-20 are authentic, and were omitted or lost from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidental, perhaps intentional.

James H. Charlesworth pointed out that Codex Syriacus (a 5th-century translation), Codex Vaticanus (mid-4th century), and Codex Bobiensis (4th- or 5th-century Latin) are all early manuscripts that exclude the Marcan Appendix. In addition to these, approximately 100 Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts, also omit the appendix. The Armenian Version was made in 411-450, and the Old Georgian Version was based mainly on the Armenian Version. One Armenian manuscript, made in 989, features a note, written between 16:8 and 16:9, Ariston eritzou, that is, "By Ariston the Elder/Priest." Ariston, or Aristion, is known from early traditions (preserved by Papias and others) as a colleague of Peter and as a bishop of Smyrna in the first century.

[edit] Internal Evidence

Critical questions concerning the authenticity of verses 9-20 (the "longer ending") often centre around stylistic and linguistic issues. On linguistics, E. P. Gould identified 19 of the 163 words in the passage as distinctive and not occurring elsewhere in the Gospel,^[22] and from this it must be determined whether the occurrence of such new vocabulary is sufficient to argue against authenticity. Militating against this is the rather plentiful use of other unique and idiosyncratic terms and phrases throughout Mark.^[23] Dr. Bruce Terry has shown that a vocabulary-based case against Mark 16:9-20 is indecisive, inasmuch as other 12-verse sections of Mark contain comparable amounts of once-used words. Mark 15:40-16:4 contains 22 once-used words. Using the same yardstick that Dr. Bruce Metzger used when he declared that some words in Mark 16:9-20 are "non-Markan,"^[24] these 22 words would also be categorized as "non-Markan."^[25]

The final sentence in verse 8 is regarded as strange by some scholars. In the Greek text it finishes with the conjunction γαρ (gar, 'for'). It is contended by some who see 16:9–20 as originally Markan that γαρ literally means because, and this ending to verse 8 is therefore not grammatically coherent (literally, it would read they were afraid because). However, γαρ may end a sentence, and does so in various Greek compositions, including some sentences in the Septuagint, a popular Greek translation of the Old Testament used by early Christians. Protagoras, a contemporary of Socrates, even ended a speech with γαρ. Although γαρ is never the first word of a sentence, there is no rule against it being the last word. Nevertheless, it is extremely rare for a narrative to end with γαρ. There is no known instance of a narrative earlier than Mark ending with γαρ.

The grammatical issue of γαρ aside, the style of verse 8 is still considered by some to be odd, as the verb φοβεομαι (phobeomai, 'I fear') has no object. Robert Gundry mentions that only 10% of Mark's γαρ clauses — 6 out of 66 — conclude pericopes (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 9–16). As such, this statistic favours the view that, rather than concluding 16:1–8, verse 8 begins a new pericope, the rest of which is now lost to us. Gundry therefore does not see verse 8 as the intended ending; a resurrection narrative was either written, then lost, or planned but never actually written.

Concerning style, the degree to which verses 9-20 aptly fit as an ending for the Gospel remains in question. The turn from verse 8 to 9 has also been seen as abrupt and interrupted: the narrative flows from "they were afraid" to "now after he rose", and seems to reintroduce Mary Magdalene. Secondly, Mark regularly identifies instances where Jesus' prophecies are fulfilled, yet Mark does not explicitly state the twice predicted reconciliation of Jesus with his disciples in Galilee (Mark 14:28, 16:7). Lastly, the active tense "he rose" is different from the earlier passive construction "[he] has been risen" of verse 6, seen as significant by some.^[26]

[edit] Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: Historically Linked?

According to T. C. Skeat, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were both produced at the same scriptorium, which would mean that they represent only one textual tradition, rather than serving as two independent witnesses of an earlier text type that ends at 16:8.^[27] Skeat argued that they were produced as part of Eusebius' response to the request of Constantine for copies of the scriptures for churches in Constantinople,^[28] leading to speculation that the ending may have been suppressed for political reasons.^[29]

However, while Skeat's case that Sinaiticus was produced at Caesarea is reasonably secure, he did not fully account for section-numbers in Codex Sinaiticus. These section-numbers are part of a cross-reference system for the Gospels which Eusebius of Caesarea developed as an easy way to locate parallel-passages. Eusebius divided the text of the four Gospels into many sections, and assigned a number to each section. Each section-number was then placed in a table, which prefaced the Gospels, so that the reader could see which other Gospels, if any, contained a parallel-passage. Mark 15:28 was assigned section-number 216. However, Mark 15:28 is absent from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (and from Old Latin k). It would be very puzzling behavior for Eusebius to include Mark 15:28 when making his Canon-tables and section-divisions, but choose to use, as master-copies when preparing codices for Constantine, manuscripts which did not contain Mark 15:28.

A more plausible theory may be that Acacius, who succeeded Eusebius of Caesarea as bishop, was among the copyists who produced Codex Vaticanus, in Egypt, and later, after moving up through the ranks, as bishop of Caesarea he oversaw the production of Codex Sinaiticus, using as master-copies some papyrus codices which were at risk of decaying beyond repair. (Jerome, in "Lives of Illustrious Men," mentions that Acacius undertook to preserve on parchment some texts which were on decaying papyrus in the library at Caesarea. Although Jerome does not specify that they were papyrus copies of books of the Bible, it seems reasonable to deduce that such copies were there, and that the preservation of their contents would be a high priority. ^[30]

If copies of Mark existed at Caesarea from which the ending of Mark (either 16:9-20 or some other ending) had been excised for some unknown reason, or had been lost by accident, this would help explain Eusebius's statement that verses 9-20 were absent from the "accurate copies".^[31] Eusebius held Origen in high esteem, and if Eusebius thought that some copies at Caesarea were descended from copies used by Origen, he may have regarded them as "accurate" for that reason.

[edit] Patristic Evidence

Some of the early church fathers appear to use 16:9–20:

• Justin Martyr in about A.D. 160 wrote in his First Apology (ch.45) that the apostles, "going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere." A comparison of this paragraph shows that it is highly likely that he was borrowing his terms from 16:20. Often when Justin uses material from the Gospels, he does not cite just one Gospel but uses a combination of material from more than one. In First Apology 45, he appears to use part of Mark 16:20 and part of Luke 24:52. This implies that, at some earlier date, Justin had regarded Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark when he had devised a Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
• Tatian was a student of Justin before adopting some heretical beliefs and moving to Syria. In about A.D. 172, Tatian combined all four Gospels into one continuous narrative (expanding on Justin's earlier work), which was called the Diatessaron. Mark 16:9-20 is incorporated in ch. 55 of the Diatessaron.
• Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies III:10:5–6, stating specifically that he is quoting from near the end of the Gospel of Mark. Against Heresies Book III was written c. 184;
• Tertullian does not make such a clear quotation from Mark 16:9-20, but in the last chapter of his essay Scorpiace, written c. 220, he uses figurative language to describe how a Christian's faith and determination to follow Jesus' example should serve as a safeguard against heresy, and against denying Christ under pressure: "If anyone in faith will drink this antidote of ours, before being hurt by these poisons which he poured forth long ago, or even immediately after being hurt by them, they will not be able to readily injure any of those who are weak." The obvious similarities between this sentence and Mark 16:18 might not be entirely coincidental.
• Hippolytus wrote many compositions, including Apostolic Tradition. In one of the few parts of this work (from c. 220) which have been preserved in Greek, Hippolytus wrote, "Let every one of the believers be sure to partake of communion before he eats anything else. For if he partakes with faith, even if something deadly were given to him, after this it cannot hurt him." This appears to be an interpretation of I Cor. 11:30-31 viewed through the lens of Mark 16:18. Hippolytus used the term THANASIMON, which is also used in Mark 16:18.
• De Rebaptismate was written by an unknown author c. 258. It uses Mark 16:14 to present the apostles as examples of individuals who expressed unbelief and were severely rebuked but ultimately restored to service.
• Macarius Magnes ("Magnes" = from Magnesia, in Asia Minor) wrote a book called Apocriticus in about 405, but the pagan author whom he cites extensively in this composition, in order to respond to the pagan author's objections to Christianity, wrote at an earlier time. Although Macarius Magnes was not aware of the identity of the pagan author of the text to which he was responding, various pieces of evidence indicate that it consisted of selections from Porphyry's Against the Christians, a multi-volume work made c. 270 which was revised by Porphyry's student and fan Hierocles c. 305. In Apocriticus, Macarius Magnes presents an objection in which the pagan author loosely quotes Mark 16:18. In Macarius Magnes' response, he resorts to an allegorical interpretation of the passage, and offers no indication that it is absent from any copies anywhere. (The "Magnes" in his name does not mean "The Great" but indicates the name of his city, Magnesia, in Asia Minor.)
• Acts of Pilate ch. 14, written in the early 300's, includes a quotation of Mark 16:15-16.
• Aphraates in the Syriac composition Demonstration One, Of Faith, written before 337, quoted from Mark 16:16-18.
• Eusebius of Caesarea and Philip of Side record the writings of Papias (c. 110), who mentions that Justus Barsabbas (c.f. Acts 1:23) once drank a poisonous drink and suffered no ill effects. The motivation for this story may have been to provide an example of the fulfillment of Mark 16:18; furthermore Papias claimed that Mark did not omit anything that Peter had preached.
• Eusebius and Marinus (c. 330) both reflect knowledge of the existence of the longer ending, in Eusebius' work Ad Marinum; but Eusebius also relates that the Longer Ending is not in the accurate manuscripts. Eusebius, probably discerning that Marinus already has adopted Mark 16:9-20, explains how a person could harmonize (and thus retain) Mark 16:9 with Matthew 28:1, by using a pause or comma in Mark 16:9.
• Ambrose was bishop of Milan in 374-397. He quoted from Mark 16:9-20 several times in his writings.
• Apostolic Constitutions was composed in 380. Much of this text is based on earlier writings. Its eighth book begins with an extensive quotation of Mark 16:17-18.
• John Chrysostom died in 407. In one of his sermons, Homily 14, Part 2, on First Corinthians 4:19, he uses a phrase taken from Mark 16:20. He also alludes to Mark 16:9 in Homily 38, Part 5, on First Corinthians 15:5.
• Augustine (d. 430) used 16:9–20 in Easter sermons. This demonstrates that, by the early 400's, the longer ending had been established in the lectionary in North Africa. In addition, in Augustine's Harmony of the Four Gospels, written c. 400, he cited all of Mark 16:9-20. In the same composition, Augustine referred to Greek copies to make a point about Mark 16:12. Augustine gave no indication that the passage was absent from any copies.

However, Mark 16:9–20 is not clearly used by other early church fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian). However, this argument from silence is not particularly strong, because many works by these authors have not survived, and because these authors tended to quote from Mark the least of all four Gospels, and because none of them, in any writings attributed to them, state that the Gospel of Mark ends when the women fearfully run from the tomb.

It could be proposed that all that can be concluded from the use of Mark 16:9-20 as Scripture in the second, third, and fourth centuries, from Gaul to Rome to Asia Minor to Syria, is that although Mark 16:9–20 had become part of Church tradition and Scripture, this does not render the passage canonical any more than early patristic use of apocryphal writings such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache rendered them canonical. On the other hand, the historical process which ultimately rendered those books uncanonical has not had the same effect on these 12 verses.

[edit] Scholarly Opinions

Perhaps the most common view among scholars is that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text of Mark but represent a very early addition. However, the basis for this consensus may be challenged, because inaccurate descriptions of the manuscript evidence are widespread, even in works by respected scholars. False descriptions of manuscript-evidence may be found in published statements by William Barclay, James A. Brooks, Philip W. Comfort, David E. Garland, Robert Grant, J. Harold Greenlee, Wilfrid J. Harrington, Ralph P. Martin, Bruce Metzger, C.F.D. Moule, D.E. Nineham, David Parker, Ron Rhodes, Larry O. Richards, A.T. Robertson, B.H. Streeter, James Tabor, W.R. Telford, Daniel Wallace, and Ben Witherington III, among others.^{[citation needed]} Inaccuracies are also present in footnotes in the English Standard Version, The Jerusalem Bible, the New American Standard Bible Update, the .NET, and The Message.

Among the scholars who reject Mark 16:9-20, a debate continues about whether the ending at 16:8 is intentional or accidental. Mark 16:8 ends in a highly unusual grammatical construction, with the final word γαρ (gar, 'for') being a conjunction. It is exceedingly rare for a book to end with γαρ. Likewise, the verb φοβεομαι (phobeomai, 'I fear') has no object. Lastly, that verse 8 ends on a note of fear has been regarded by some, notably Bruce Metzger, are a very inappropriate way to end an account of the "Good News".^[32] Given this, though some scholars consider the original ending to have been verse 8, many argue that Mark never intended such a conclusion: either he planned another ending that was never written, or the original ending has been lost. C. H. Turner argued that the original version of the Gospel could have been a codex, with the last page being especially vulnerable to damage. Whatever the case, many scholars, including Rudolf Bultmann, have concluded that the Gospel most likely ended with a Galilean resurrection appearance and the reconciliation of Jesus with the Eleven,^[33] even if verses 9-20 are unautographic.

Verses 9-20 shares the subject of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, and other points, with other passages in the New Testament. This has led some scholars to believe that Mark 16:9-20 is based on the other Gospels and Acts. Some of the elements that Mark 16:9-20 has in common with other passages of Scripture are listed here:

• v.11 they refused to believe it (Luke 24:10–11);
• v.12–13a two returned and told the others (Luke 24:13–35);
• v.14 appeared to the Eleven (Luke 24:36–43, John 20:19–29, 1 Cor 15:5);
• v.15 Great Commission (Matthew 28:19, Acts 1:8);
• v.16 salvation and judgement Acts 2:38, 16:31–33);
• v.17a cast out demons (Luke 10:17, Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12);
• v.17b speak with new tongues (Acts 2:4,
• v.18a pick up serpents (Luke 10:19, Acts 28:3–6);
• v.18c lay hands on the sick (Mark 5:23, Acts 6:6, 9:17, 28:8);
• v.19a ascension of the Lord Jesus (24:51, John 20:17, Acts 1:2, 1:9–11);
• v.19b sat down at the right hand of God, (Acts 7:55, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1);
• v.20 confirmed the word by the signs that followed (Acts 14:3).

On the other hand, only Mk. 16:9 mentions the time of Jesus' resurrection; only Mk. 16:10 states that the disciples "mourned and wept;" only Mk. 16:11 states that the disciples did not believe Mary Magdalene's report that she had seen Jesus; only Mk. 16:13 states that the main group of disciples did not believe the two travelers' report; only Mk. 16:14 states that Jesus rebuked the eleven disciples because they had not believed those who had claimed to have seen Him; only Mk. 16:17 states that Jesus told the disciples that believers would speak with new tongues, and only Mk. 16:18 records Jesus' statement about poison-drinking. It is thus extremely difficult, when these details are considered, to regard Mark 16:9-20 as a pastiche, or patchwork-quilt, made of pieces taken from the other Gospels.

Among those scholars who hold that verses 16:9-20 are unauthentic, there is debate as to whether the autographic text ended at verse 8, or whether it originally contained a different, now lost ending. Jesus' vindication by resurrection from the dead is explicitly foreshadowed earlier in the Gospel,^[34] leading many scholars, including Rudolf Bultmann, to conclude that the Gospel most likely ended with a Galilean resurrection appearance and the reconciliation of Jesus with the Eleven.^[35] Likewise, among those who conclude that the autographic text ended at 16:8, there is debate as to whether this was the intent of the author, or if he was somehow hindered from concluding his work. Some scholars consider that verse 8 would have been a highly inappropriate way to end the Gospel.

Bruce M. Metzger, whose statements about Mark 16:9-20 have been so influential that several commentators have reproduced them almost verbatim in their commentaries, wrote that he "cannot believe that the note of fear would have been regarded as an appropriate conclusion to an account of the Evangel or Good News."^[36] Bible scholar Daniel J. Harrington maintains that the longer ending is probably a second century compilation of resurrection stories mostly found in Luke 24 and some from John 20.^[37] However, John J. Kilgallen believes they were more likely composed in the first century.^[38]

[edit] The Shorter Ending

And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. (NRSV)

Six Greek manuscripts and many non-Greek copies of Mark include, between 16:8 and 16:9, a brief paragraph known as the Shorter Ending (or Intermediate Ending) shown above. In one Old Latin copy (Codex Bobbiensis), it replaces the last part of 16:8 and is not accompanied by 16:9-20. Greek witnesses for the Shorter Ending date from as early as the 700's. Its composition-date is much earlier. It is attested in the Ethiopic Version, the margin of the Harklean Syriac, and the Sahidic Version. Codex Bobbiensis is presently the only manuscript in any language in which the Shorter Ending appears without the Longer Ending. Codex Bobbiensis is also notable for a remarkable interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4.

[edit] The Freer Logion

An expanded form of the Long Ending is attested in Codex W, which was acquired by Charles L. Freer in the eary 1900's. This copy of the four Gospels is thought to have been made c. 400. Because different parts of Codex W appear to have been based on different master-copies ("exemplars"), some researchers suspect that Codex W is descended from manuscripts which were salvaged after an attempt to destroy them, possibly during a Roman persecution.

Jerome, writing in the early 400's, mentioned that he had seen copies of Mark with extra material after 16:14. Codex W is the only surviving manuscript which contains this extra material, which is known as the "Freer Logion."

The Freer Logion does not replace Mark 16:9-20 and has never existed as anything except an insertion, or interpolation, between 16:14 and 16:15:

And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or: does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now" — thus they spoke to Christ.

And Christ replied to them, "The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven

-Translation from Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek NT

[edit] Mark 16 and reading in the ancient world

In the ancient world, reading was not the activity it is today. Rather than someone silently reading a book on their own, Mark's Gospel, like other ancient literature, would have been read out loud by someone to a group of people. The low literacy rates in the ancient world demanded that such an approach to reading be taken (see Oral history). Thus, reading would have involved an interaction between the reader(s) and the hearer(s).

If Mark's Gospel, as is postulated by some (notably Beavis, Mark's Audience, pp. 45–67, 167–73), had an evangelistic and teaching purpose, this interactive nature of ancient world reading starts to provide another theory for the ending of Mark. Given that the longer and shorter endings are seen by the overwhelming majority of text critics as not originally part of Mark (see below), these endings can be seen as reader's responses and reactions to what Mark's gospel tells us about the person of Christ. Specifically, the longer ending is a response by a person or community familiar with the other Gospels and Acts, especially Luke-Acts (see above). From this perspective, then, 16:8 starts to look like an intentional ending — and the acceptance of the longer ending is an indication of the general theological direction in which early Christians saw Mark's Gospel headed.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Scholarly conclusions

A large majority of contemporary New Testament textual critics, see also Textual criticism, have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition by some in the second century. However, many of those scholars have written inaccurately about the manuscript-evidence involved, and it would be ill-advised to lean on a consensus of scholars who are demonstrably misinformed. One example is The Complete Gospels^[39] which states: "The ending of the Gospel of Mark is a classic problem in New Testament textual criticism. The scholarly consensus is that Mark originally ended with the abrupt stop at 16:8. The earliest Patristic evidence (Clement of Rome, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome) give no indication of any text beyond 16:8." In the real world, however, material from Mark 16:9-20 was used by Justin Martyr (160), Tatian (172) and Irenaeus (184); Eusebius discussed the passage (arguing that it was not in the accurate copies, but also explaining how it could be retained without contradicting Matthew 28); Jerome not only included it in the Vulgate in 383 but also cited Mk. 16:14 decades later when explaining to his reader the location of the interpolation that is now known as the "Freer Logion." In addition, there are very many 12-verse sections of the New Testament from which Clement of Rome does not cite; it is specious to use Clement of Rome as evidence. (Probably Miller was confused and intended to refer to Clement of Alexandria, about whose writings the same point can be made.) Errors and miscitations of this sort are unfortunately the norm rather than the exception in recent commentaries. Even the classic comments written by F. J. A. Hort in 1881 contain some errors.

The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9–20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." Bruce M. Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament^[40] states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription." Baptist New Testament scholar Dr. Frank Stagg labels verses 9–20 as "spurious." He allows for the possibility that there was a now-lost ending which told of an appearance of Jesus to the women.^[41] For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel. Because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending.

The NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." However, the earliest Greek manuscript of Mark, part of Papyrus 45, has no text from Mark 16 at all because Papyrus 45 has been extensively damaged, and the next-oldest manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, has a prolonged blank space after 16:8, as if the copyist recollected the missing verses and wished to leave space for them in the event that a later owner of the manuscript wished to include them. Codex Sinaiticus, the only other early Greek manuscript that ends at 16:8, has Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 written on a replacement-sheet (that is, this entire portion of text was not written by the main copyist), and a decorative design after 16:8 is uniquely emphatic, which may indicate that this manuscript's production was overseen by someone who was aware of (and rejected) at least one ending that continued beyond Mark 16:8.

A handful of scholars, particularly those in traditionalist or fundamentalist traditions or the King-James-Only Movement^{[citation needed]}, argue that inasmuch as it can be shown that non-extant manuscripts used in Christian churches in the 100's, 200's, and 300's contained 16:9-20 as the end of the Gospel of Mark, and since the passage is present in all but three undamaged Greek copies of the Gospel of Mark (the third being #304, a medieval copy, the testimony of which is currently not fully resolved), the evidence is insufficient to justify its exclusion and tends to show that the passage is part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark.

Others have argued on theological grounds that the Longer Ending should be regarded as part of the Gospel of Mark because that is how the text was handed down as the canon of Scripture was defined. From this perspective, the removal of Mark 16:9-20 on the grounds that Mark did not write it would be like removing II Peter from the New Testament on the grounds that Peter did not write it. Textual critics, as textual critics, can only aspire to ascertain the genuineness of any passage, not its canonicity. Mark 16:9-20 has been used as Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church (being declared canonical at the Council of Trent), the Greek Orthodox Church, and by Protestant leaders such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and Charles Spurgeon.

[edit] Theological implications

Very few doctrines of the mainline Christian denominations stand or fall on the support of the longer ending of Mark. The longer ending does identify Mary Magdalene as the woman out of whom Jesus had exorcised seven demons (but so does Luke 8:2), but Mary Magdalene's significance, and the practice of exorcism, are both supported by New Testament texts outside the debated passage.

The longer ending of Mark 16 is of considerable significance in Pentecostalism and other denominations:

• Mark 16:16 is cited as evidence for the requirement of believer's baptism among churches of the Restoration Movement.
• Mark 16:17 is specifically cited as Biblical support for some of these denominations' teachings concerning exorcism and spiritual warfare, and also in support of speaking in tongues.
• The practice of snake handling and of drinking strychnine and other poisons, found in a few offshoots of Pentecostalism, find their Biblical support in Mark 16:18. These churches typically justify these practices as "confirming the word with signs following" (KJV), which references Mark 16:20. Other denominations believe that these texts indicate the power of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles, but do not believe that they are recommendations for worship.

The longer ending was declared canonical scripture by the Council of Trent. Today, however, Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this ending.^[42] The Catholic NAB translation includes the footnote: "[9-20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."

[edit] Arguments in support of Mark 16

Finis Jennings Dake, in the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, made the following argument in support of verses 9-20.

1. Greek Manuscripts. There are over 4,200 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament. At least 618 contain the gospels and only two do not have these verses.

2. Syriac versions. Syriac is the first language into which the New Testament was translated. The "Peshito" manuscript, 150 A.D, and "Curetonian," 3rd century, contain these verses.

3. Latin versions. 8,000 of them now exist, copied from Jerome's Vulgate, 382 A.D. (He had access to the Greek testaments of his day). It contains these verses. His version was a revision of the Vetus Itala (2nd century), which also contains these verses.

4. The Gothic version (350 A.D.) contains these verses.

5. The Egyptian versions: the Memphitic (Coptic), 4th century, and the Thebaic (Sahidic), 3rd century, contain these verses.

6. The Armenian (5th century), the Ethiopic (4th century), and the Georgian (6th century), all have v9-20.

(4) The patristic evidence demonstrates early and widespread acceptance of verses 9-20 as part of the canonical text of the Gospel of Mark. Besides the patristic writers listed earlier (Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus in the 100's, Hippolytus, De Rebaptismate, and Porphyry in the 200's, Marinus, Aphraates, and Ambrose, and Augustine's Greek copies in the 300's), other writers and anonymous writings -- Epistula Apostolorum in the mid-100's, the Acts of John in the late 100's, Doctrine of Addai, put together in the late 300's using earlier source-material, the lectionary of North Africa used by Augustine (late 300's), Saint Patrick (mid-400's, using an Old Latin text) and Leo the Great (453), either show signs of familiarity with Mark 16:9-20, or explicitly quote from the passage, using it as Scripture. Each of these writers reveals the contents of non-extant copies of Mark, either older than Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, of or comparable age, which contained 16:9-20.

8. It is admitted by all that the overwhelming mass of witnesses- manuscripts, versions, and Fathers are in favor of them, and that the two oldest Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican are the only two that do not have them. It is also admitted that in one of these- the Vatican, a blank space is left for these verses, indicating that the chapter is left incomplete. It was not until the 4th century that they were questioned.

9. The doctrines taught in these verses can be proved by many other Scriptures.

• The appearances of Christ
• The commission of v15 to preach and baptise
• The result of preaching
• The signs to follow
• The ascension
• The confirmation of the Word

10. If we leave these verses out just because they are not in a few manuscripts, then to be consistent we must leave out great portions of the Bible. For example, the Codex Vaticanus that leaves out Mark 16:9-20 also leaves out Genesis 1-46; Psalms 105-137; Hebrews 9:14-13:25; and all of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation. Why not leave out all of these portions also if we are going to leave out Mark 16:9-20? There is not one early manuscript but what leaves out some portion, so if we are going to leave out all of these parts we shall have a smaller Bible than some of our modern short ones. Suppose we found a Bible today having parts missing and we would conclude that the missing parts were not in the original copy. Would this be sensible? Neither is it sensible to take this attitude towards the parts that are not in the old manuscripts.

[edit] See also

• John 21
• Pericope Adulteræ
• Comma Johanneum

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• Beavis, M. A., Mark's Audience, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. ISBN 1–85075–215-X.
• Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday, 1997. ISBN 0–385–24767–2
• Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall, 1990 ISBN 0–13–614934–0
• Elliott, J. K., The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark. An Edition of C. H. Turner's "Notes on Markan Usage" together with Other Comparable Studies, Leiden, Brill, 1993. ISBN 90–04–09767–8.
• Gundry, R. H., Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 9–16, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992. ISBN 0–8028–2911–2.
• Kilgallen, John J. A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. Paulist Press, 1989. ISBN 0–8091–3059–9
• Mark 16 NIV Accessed 8 May 2007
• Miller, Robert J. Editor, The Complete Gospels. Polebridge Press, 1994. ISBN 0–06–065587–9
• Dake, Finis Jennings, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible Dake Publishing, 1996. ISBN-13: 9781558290716

[edit] External links

• The various endings of Mark Detailed text-critical description of the evidence, the manuscripts, and the variants of the Greek text (PDF, 17 pages)
• Extracts from authors arguing for the authenticity of Mark 16:9–20
• Aichele, G., "Fantasy and Myth in the Death of Jesus" A literary-critical affirmation of Mark's Gospel ending at 16:8.
• Did the Gospel End at 16:8 — and Would That Be a Problem?
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Gospel of Saint Mark: Section IV. STATE OF TEXT AND INTEGRITY
• Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established A Book written by Burgon, John William
• The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 A detailed defense of Mk. 16:9-20, featuring replicas of portions of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and a list of early patristic evidence.

Chapters of the Bible
Preceded by: Mark 15	Gospel of Mark	Followed by: Luke 1