1

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

by James Snapp, Jr.

(for Ben C. Smith)

February 12, 2012

●●●●●●●

TABLE OF CONTENTS

● Preface

● PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

Chapter 1: External Evidence from the 100’s

Chapter 2: External Evidence from the 200’s

Chapter 3: External Evidence from the 300’s

Chapter 4: External Evidence from the 400’s

Chapter 5: Some External Evidence from the 500’s and Later

Chapter 6: External Evidence with the Double-Ending

Chapter 7: Lectionary Evidence

Chapter 8: Phantom Evidence

● PART TWO: INTERNAL EVIDENCE

Chapter 9: “Ephobounto Gar”

Chapter 10: Is Mark 16:9-20 Non-Marcan?

● PART THREE: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

Chapter 11: Four Theories About How the Ending was Lost

Chapter 12: Why Mark 16:9-20 Was Excised in Egypt, and Closing Thoughts

● APPENDICES

Appendix One: The End of Mark and the Synoptic Problem

Appendix Two: A Review of Two Chapters of a Recent Book

PREFACE

…

“Does Mark 16:9 to 20 belong in the Bible?” The book that you are about to read was written to answer that question, and to explain the answer. The answer is, “Yes.” Other answers have been provided in some commentaries on the Gospel of Mark. Different impressions have been given in the footnotes of some translations of the Bible. The research upon which those writers of those commentaries and footnotes have relied was significantly inaccurate, incomplete, and incorrect. Distortions and embellishments about these twelve verses are practically the norm in modern-day commentaries. Misplaced trust in those distortions and embellishments is the primary reason why so many commentators have denied the authenticity of Mark 16:9 to 20. Some Bible-footnotes mention that “some manuscripts” lack the passage, and that “other manuscripts” contain the passage. Such footnotes tend to deceive their readers. They are less accurate than a reporter who, after observing that 1,000 soldiers fought in a battle, and two of those soldiers died, reports, “Some soldiers died, and others lived.” Out of the over 1,500 existing Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark, only two of them clearly bring the text to a close at the end of 16:8. All the others, unless they have undergone damage in chapter 16, include verses 9 to 20.

The vagueness that characterizes many commentators’ descriptions of the manuscript-evidence pertaining to these verses is a small error compared to the falsehoods that have been promoted in popular commentaries and other books. Dr. Norman Geisler, who served as President of the Evangelical Theological Society, and who taught at Wheaton College, falsely wrote in one of his books that these 12 verses “are lacking in many of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.” 001n

Dr. Ben Witherington III, a prolific writer and professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, erroneously claimed that two influential patristic writers, Eusebius and Jerome, state that these verses were “absent from all Greek copies known to them.” 002n Later in this book I will examine the testimony from Eusebius and Jerome in detail; for now, I will just say that Eusebius and Jerome never said that.

Many more misleading statements in commentaries, ranging from minor inaccuracies to serious blunders, could be listed, such as the widespread, but false, claim that Mark 16:9 to 20 is lacking in some Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark. What can be said about the carelessness that has allowed these errors to be promoted so often, and for so long? May future scholars and commentary-writers listen to the words of Proverbs 18:9: he who is negligent in his work is a brother to him who destroys.

In order to give you an orderly survey of the evidence involved in this issue, I have divided this book into three parts. In Part One, I present external evidence (from manuscripts, patristic writings, and other sources) that pertains to the subject. In Part Two, I review internal evidence, and test the theory that these verses were added by a later copyist. In Part Three, I gauge the plausibility of competing theories about the origin of Mark 16:9 to 20, and offer a theory which fully accounts for the external evidence and the internal evidence – a theory which includes the point that Mark 16:9 to 20 was present in the original text of the Gospel of Mark.

Why keep you in suspense? Here is the gist of the theory: Mark, after spreading the word with Paul (on his first missionary journey) and with Barnabas (on Cyprus), also preached in Alexandria, Egypt, until he was called to Rome to assist Peter. Peter was martyred in Rome in about 66. During the years when Mark had served as Peter’s assistant, Mark had distributed collections of Peter’s speeches when requested to do so, and after Peter’s death, Mark decided to put Peter’s remembrances of Jesus into a definitive form. This task was almost complete when an emergency arose – probably a direct attack by Roman persecutors – that forced Mark to suddenly stop writing and flee to Alexandria (where, according to a later tradition, he was martyred in 68). He entrusted his unfinished work to his Christian colleagues at Rome. Mark’s Roman co-workers desired to release his Gospel for the benefit of the church, but they knew that Mark had not finished it. Not wishing to attach their own words, they decided to complete the account by attaching another text to it: a summary about Jesus’ resurrection-appearances which the church at Rome already used, and which Mark’s colleagues knew had been written by Mark. This formerly freestanding account of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances is what we know as Mark 16:9 to 20. So when the Gospel of Mark reached the end of its production-stage and was initially released for church-use, it contained this passage. This theory is essentially the same as the second of two theories which commentator George Maclear offered in 1883. After a brief review of the best-known external and internal evidence that was available in 1883, Maclear stated:

“The conclusion, therefore, appears to be that the passage is both genuine and authentic, and the most probable solutions of the special features of the verses are: — Either

(a) That the Evangelist being prevented at the time from closing his narrative as fully as he had intended, possibly in consequence of the death of St. Peter, or the outbreak of the terrible persecution under Nero, himself added in another land and under more peaceful circumstances the conclusion which we now possess; Or

(b) That it was added by some other hand shortly, if not immediately afterwards, but, at any rate, before the publication of the Gospel itself, and this in part accounts for its having been so early and widely accepted and transmitted as it has been.”003n

This theory may initially seem objectionable to people who have assumed that books of the Bible must be written by one and only one inspired author. Thoughtful consideration of similar features in other books of the Bible will remove that objection. In the Old Testament, there are numerous instances of small notes, anecdotes, and even entire chapters (such as Jeremiah 52) which originated with individuals other than the main author. Paul named Timothy as co-author of the letter to the Philippians. Silvanus assisted the composition of First Peter. And in the Psalms, different psalms have come from different authors, some known and some unknown. Several other examples could be supplied. Therefore a consistent definition of the “original text” cannot be restricted to the work of the main author of a book of the Bible; the original text is defined as the text as it existed when it was initially disseminated for church-use. By that definition, Mark 16:9 to 20 is part of the original text, and therefore should be regarded as authentic and authoritative Scripture.

I close this preface by presenting a literal translation of the last twelve verses of Mark.

9Having risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11And they, hearing that he is alive and has been seen by her, did not believe.

12After these things, he was revealed in another form to two of them as they were walking, going into the country. 13These went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either.

14Later, as they were sitting down at table, he was revealed to the eleven, and he rebuked their unbelief and hard-heartedness, because they did not believe those who had seen him after he had risen. 15And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who disbelieves will be condemned. 17These signs will accompany the believers: in my name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new languages, 18and in their hands they will take up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands upon the sick, and they will recover.”

19So then the Lord Jesus, after speaking to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20And these, having gone forth, preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the accompanying signs. Amen.

●●●●●●●

A series of illustrations which supplement the study of the ending of the Gospel of Mark, and which represent pertinent pages from some of the manuscripts described in this book, can be accessed at http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/public/AuthSuppl.html .

(At some time in 2012 the address may change to http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/public/AuthSuppl.html .)

In addition, two video-lectures on the subject,

featuring replicas of some major witnesses, are available to view at YouTube:

Mark 16:9-20 and Patristic Evidence (in three parts):

Part 1 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzJVTDi7SGs

Part 2 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y2KQaLyARw

Part 3 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEo1tWlUta4

Mark 16:9-20 & the Abrupt Ending (in four parts):

Part 1 (Vaticanus, Bobbiensis) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKCMduynjNE

Part 2 (Sinaiticus) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUz3XK2nYmY

Part 3 (Eusebius and Jerome) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeMV6N7kxvE

Part 4 (Annotated Copies)– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwW4Bd6i-0


●●●●●●●

PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

Chapter 1:

External Evidence from the 100’s

…

When writers appeal to the oldest manuscripts in order to resolve textual issues in the New Testament, readers frequently assume that the oldest manuscripts are the oldest evidence, but that is often far from the truth. Our oldest existing manuscripts of Mark 16 were produced in the 300’s, over 250 years after the Gospel of Mark was written. Several writers in the early church (and in one case, an opponent of the early church), writing before the production-dates of the earliest extant manuscripts of Mark 16, made statements that in one way or another indicated that their copies of the Gospel of Mark contained chapter 16 verses 9 to 20. Here we will examine evidence from six writers:

(1) Papias (circa 110),

(2) the anonymous author of Epistula Apostolorum (150 to 180),

(3) Justin Martyr (160),

(4) Tatian (172),

(5) Irenaeus (184), and

(6) Ammonius (late 100’s or early 200’s).

(1) Papias (Date: 110). Papias was a bishop in the city of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (in west-central Turkey). He is remembered as the author of Five Books on the Sayings of the Lord, completed by about the year 110. The remains of his writings exist today only as snippets and excerpts that were preserved by other writers. Eusebius of Caesarea, in the early 300’s, was one such writer. In Church History (Book Three, chapter 39), after mentioning that the four daughters of Philip the evangelist were said to have resided in Hierapolis, Eusebius stated, “We must now point out that Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle, regarding Justus surnamed Barsabbas: he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord.” 004n

In this recollection, Eusebius does not say that Papias was using Mark 16:18, and the Greek vocabulary involved does not match the words of Mark 16:18. Nevertheless, the incident about Justus (the same individual who is mentioned in the New Testament in Acts 1:23) bears a resemblance to that passage, as if Papias was illustrating the fulfillment of the prophetic statement that if believers drink anything deadly, it will in no way hurt them.

Another later writer, Philip of Side (circa 425), mentioned the very same statement, echoing Eusebius but including details which Eusebius did not mention: “The previously-mentioned Papias recorded, as something he had heard from the daughters of Philip, that Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, drank the poison of a viper in the name of Christ when put to the test by the unbelievers, and was protected from all harm. He also records other amazing things, in particular one about Manaim’s mother, who was raised from the dead.” 005n

Philip of Side’s version of Papias’ story appears to be based on Eusebius’ statement, but Philip is more specific about the identity of the person who was resurrected, and the kind of poison that Justus drank; he also mentions that Philip drank the viper-venom because he had been compelled by unbelievers. More significantly, Philip of Side stated that Justus had done so “in the name of Christ” (εν ονοματι του Χριστου; compare Mark 16:17, εν τω ονοματι μου).