Elucidation on the long ending of Mark
Mark 16:9-20
1. The witnesses in the
variant apparatus
1.1. Witnesses for the non-inclusion supporting the NA-Text: codices א, B, minuscule 304, the Syriac Sinaiticus and the Georgian(1+A) version, some manuscripts of the Armenian and Sahidic Coptic version, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius1/2, Jerome, Hesychius, Victor of Antioch, Ammonius of Alexandria and Euthymius. Eusebius, Severus and Jerome witnessed manuscripts missing the verses (mssaccording to Eusebius, mssaccording to Jerome and mssaccording to Severus ).
1.2. Witnesses for the inclusion supporting the TR, M-Text, PT, WPF35, Vg-St, the Clementine vulgate and the Complutensian Polyglot (both Latin and Greek): Codices A, C, D, K, L, W, X, Δ, Ψ, Θ, Π, 083, 099, 0112, both families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, minuscules 22, 28, 33, 138, 157, 180, 205, 264, 274, 565, 579, 597, 700, 892, 1006, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1110, 1195, 1210, 1221, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1253, 1292, 1342, 1344, 1365, 1424, 1505, 1546, 1582, 1646, 2148, 2174, 2346, 2427 and 2812, lectionary 1602, the Byzantine manuscripts and lectionaries, the old Latin codices itaur, itc, itd(supp), itff2, itk, itl, itn, ito and itq, the Curetonian Syriac, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Palestinian Syriac, the Bohairic Coptic, the Fayyumic Coptic and the Gothic version, some manuscripts of the Armenian and the Sahidic Coptic version, the Ethiopicpp, the GeorgianB and the Slavic version, the Diatessaron, Justin Martyr?, Irenaeuslat, an anonymous treatise on rebaptism, Asteriusvid, Aphrahat, the Apostolic Constitutions, Ambrose, Didymus the blinddub, Epiphanius1/2, Severus of Antioch, Marcus Eremita, Augustine, Nestorius, some Greek manuscripts according to Jerome include the interpolation known as freer-logion at Mark 16:14, some manuscripts according to Jerome and Severus (mssJerome and mssSeverus).
1.3. Codices Ψ, 083, 099, 0112, minuscules 274 (in the margin), 579, lectionary 1602, some manuscripts of the Bohairic and Coptic versions, the Ethiopic version and the Harklean Syriac version (in the margin) add with minor variations the following text between verses 8 and 9: “And they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself [appeared to them and] sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. [Amen.]”. The old Latin codex itk replaces verses 9 to 20 with this text also known as the shorter ending.
1.4. Family of
manuscripts ƒ1, minuscules 22, 138, 205, 264, 1110, 1210, 1221, 1582,
2346, 2812 and some manuscripts of the Armenian version add signs or notes that
collectively communicate the idea that some copies end the gospel in verse 8,
but many others or the ancient ones include it. Some in family of manuscripts ƒ1 say that
verse 8 is where the Eusebian canons ended.
2. Examination of some witnesses:
· Codex BIV: There is an unusual blank space in the third column of the page where the gospel of Mark ends in codex Vaticanus. This is the only place where a blank column is found in the entirety of the New Testament. The idea that the scribe left a space because of his recollection that the gospel was not supposed to end in verse 8 does not appear to be very likely and this is because of the typical marks that the scribe added to indicate that the gospel was supposed to end there. This blank space should not be used to try to turn this witness into what it is not. Codex B is a witness for the omission of the long ending of Mark and should be treated as such.
· Codex אIV: The gospel of Mark ends in the second column with marks indicating that the gospel ended in verse 8. In the third column begins the gospel of Luke. This is a witness for the omission.
· Minuscule 304XII: modern scholarship has demonstrated that this manuscript displays signs of incompleteness, possibly missing the final pages that contained the long ending of Mark. There are basically three reasons for this conclusion. First, the typical scribal marks at the end of a work after verse 8 are missing. Second, its dependence upon Theophylact’s work that possessed both the Greek text from verse 9 to 20 and a commentary on the section. And third, the Byzantine character of this minuscule. There is no Byzantine manuscript that ends the gospel of Mark in verse 8. For these reasons, minuscule 304 should be removed from the witnesses for the omission.
· Clement of AlexandriaII-III: The fact that Clement did not quote in his works any verse from the long ending of Mark does not make him a witness for the omission. It is incorrect to cite him as a witness for the omission.
· OrigenIII: This is another witness that never quoted a verse or discussed the content of the long ending of Mark. It is wrong to turn his silence into a witness against the passage.
· EusebiusIV: Eusebius is quoted as a witness for the omission because the Eusebian Canons have 233 chapters in the gospel of Mark, whose last chapter ends in Mark 16:8. And also because of a letter that he wrote to Marinus in which, after quoting Mark 16:8, he states: “That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark. What occasionally follows in some copies, not all, would be extraneous, most particularly if it contained something contradictory to the evidence of the other evangelists” (Letter to Marinus, question 1). In context, Marinus is puzzled by an apparent discrepancy between Matthew and Mark on the time of Christ’s resurrection. His question to Eusebius was “How is it that the Savior’s resurrection evidently took place, in Matthew [28:1], “late on the Sabbath”, but in Mark [16:9] “early in the morning on the first day of the week”?” Eusebius then proposes two solutions to Marinus. One was to say that the passage of Mark 16:9-20 is spurious and absent from “almost all copies”. He then goes on to say “That, then, would be one person’s answer: to reject it, entirely obviating the question as superfluous.” “Another view”, he says, “from someone diffident about excising anything at all in the text of the gospels…” and then he goes on to show how to harmonize those two texts. In this letter, he puts those two alternatives not as his own opinion, but of “one who says this” and “another who says that”. Those are two hypothetical apologists that he created that are offering material to help Marinus in his dilemma. From this we can infer that Marinus believed that Mark 16:9 was as canonical as Matthew 28:1 and because they are both scriptures there can be no contradiction between them. And second that Eusebius in this letter is not making any statement about his own position. He is rather revealing that in Egypt that was a tradition of excising some parts of the scripture considered as spurious and another of receiving everything that were in the copies of the gospels. It is fair to deduce though that Eusebius himself leaned towards the non-inclusion of the passage because in some copies of family of manuscripts ƒ1 there is a note saying that in some of the copies the gospel ends in Mark 16:8 like Eusebius Pamphili’s canons. This tradition of excising material from the gospels can be seen in Alexandrian codices and was criticized by the Latins. Thomas Aquinas says that “the Latin interpreter hits him right, when he supposes Eusebius to have picked out here and there, according to his pleasure and judgement some parts of the Holy Scriptures to be transcribed” (commentary on the gospels, John 8, introduction). It is significant that nobody before the 4th century questioned the long ending of Mark so that the omission of this passage in codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus may be reflecting a late and local tradition in Egypt. The passage had been used normally in the 100’s by Irenaeus and Tatian, in the 200’s by Hyppolitus and in the 300’s by Ambrose, Aphrahat and others. This is historical evidence that shows why codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should not be used as primary witnesses to the text. They are the product of a local tradition in Egypt going back to Eusebius or a generation or two before him where scribes tended to excise texts and words where variation is found or an apparent contradiction, which is reflected in the first hypothetical apologist that Eusebius put before Marinus. This character is certainly reflecting one of the scribal traditions that Eusebius appears to have embraced. Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus become strong witnesses when combined with witnesses of different text-types. This procedure allows textual critics to stay away from the trap of adopting local adjustments to the text in Egypt by this generation of scribes represented by Eusebius once agreement with witnesses of other transmission lines tend to go beyond the local boundaries and closer to the original text, away from local interventions or scribal errors.
· EpiphaniusIV: He is cited as a witness for the non-inclusion because he affirmed that “the four gospels consist of 1,162 chapters” (The last twelve verses of St. Mark vindicated, page 132, John Burgon - source: footnote 169, Authentic: the case for Mark 16:9:20, James Snapp), which is the number of chapters in the Eusebius canons, which excluded those 12 verses from Mark. Epiphanius may just be repeating a number that became popular starting with Eusebius, but that does not reflect the content of his bible, because elsewhere he says: “as the gospel of Mark and the other evangelists put it ‘and he ascended up to heaven and sat on the right hand of the Father’ (Mark 16:19)” (Panarion, Against Appeleans, 44:6,2). Therefore, Epiphanius should not be cited as a witness against the passage.
· JeromeIV-V: he is cited as a witness for the omission because of letter 120 that he wrote to Hebidia in which he repeats in an abridged form the content of Eusebius’ letter to Marinus. The letter has clear signs and language of dependence that does not represent his own views. In his treatise against the Pelagians he says the following: “In some copies, and especially in the Greek codices, it is written according to Mark at the end of his Gospel: “At length Jesus appeared to the eleven as they were at table.” (Against the Pelagians 2:15) and then he goes on to cite the interpolation known as freer-logion that he had found in some Greek codices, which has been preserved in codex W. This is a citation of Mark 16:14 that he attributes to Mark found at the end of his gospel. Commenting on Matthew 28:1, he says: “the fact that the gospels report different days and times for the visit of these women does not lead us to conclude that there is falsehood in them like the wicked do. This diversity proves only that these women come and go frequently”. In this passage, Jerome is dealing with the apparent contradiction between Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9. He calls them “gospels” and conclude that it is impious to find contradiction in them. And the fact that he maintained this passage in the vulgate shows that he personally did not consider it spurious. Therefore, Jerome should not be cited as a witness for the omission. The variant apparatus should change the notation mssaccording to Eusebius and mssaccording to Jerome to mssaccording to Eusebius à Jerome to inform the readers that Jerome’s letter 120 to Hebidia is an abridged form of Eusebius’ letter to Marinus that is not representative of Jerome’s views on Mark 16:9-20.
· HesychiusV: He says that “Mark, after briefly going through these things which pertained to one angel alone, put an end to the discourse” (collection of difficulties and their solution, question 52). In this work, Hesychius presents solutions to apparent contradictions, mainly in the gospels. Question 52 was about the different accounts in the gospels about the apparitions of the angels and the Lord to the women. He says that Mark ended the account with the angel talking to them, whereas Luke adds the information that the disciples went to the tomb, after hearing the women’s report (Luke 24:24). He even says towards the end of this solution that Luke ends his account with Cleopas and we all know that the gospel of Luke does not end with Cleopas, but with the ascension. And this is because he is not talking about the end of each gospel, but of the question at hand of the apparition of the angel to the women and the reaction of the disciples after learning about this apparition to the women. It is a great violence to this text to take it out of context like this and read into it a question that Hesychius is not addressing. Therefore, Hesychius should not be cited as a witness against the long ending of Mark.
· Victor of AntiochV: This author simply reports that the passage is missing in many copies, because some individuals supposed it to be spurious, but he had found it in many accurate ones and therefore he was subjoining the account of the Lord’s ascension (Authentic: the case for Mark16:9-20, James Snapp). Victor of Antioch, even though he was aware that the passage was missing in some manuscripts, should be cited as a witness for the inclusion of the passage, but his awareness of manuscripts missing the passage should also appear in the apparatus as mssVictor of Antioch.
· Ammonius of AlexandriaII: There is no extant writing of Ammonius, just a supposition that his previous work inspired the Eusebius canons. While it is a possibility, this inference should not count as evidence. Ammonius of Alexandrian should then be removed from the apparatus.
· Euthymius ZigabenusXI-XII: Euthymius wrote a commentary on the gospel of Mark. As he was transitioning from verse 8 to 9, he wrote this: “but some interpreters affirm that the gospel of Mark ends in this place and what follows is a late addition. It is necessary to explain this, for there is nothing here repugnant to truth” and he goes on to offer a commentary on verse 9 to 20. Euthymius, even though he was aware of the opinion of some saying that the gospel ended in 16:8, went on to exegete the passage going from verses 9 to 20. These interpreters referenced by Euthymius were incorrect in their assessment that the passage was added later. The historical record shows that the passage was excised later. Therefore, Euthymius should be cited as a witness for the inclusion of the passage, but his awareness of a tradition that maintained that the gospel ended in verse 8 should also appear in the apparatus possibly with the notation mssaccording to Euthymius.
· The DiatessaronII: This is an early witness rightly cited in the apparatus for the inclusion of the passage. Even though the original Diatessaron in Greek is no longer extant, the versions that have survived contain the passage. It is certain that Tatian added this passage in his harmony for two reasons. First, because it is interwoven with verses from other gospels in different sections, which follows Tatian’s style. Verses 7 to 13 appear in section 53 and verses 14 to 20 in section 55. Material from verses 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 that belong exclusively to Mark has been added to those sections.
· Justin MartyrII: Justin made allusions to Mark 16:20 (First apology, chapter 45) and Mark 16:14 (First apology, chapter 50). It cannot be proven though that he is really quoting from Mark in those passages. So, the question mark after his name should remain in the apparatus.
· IrenaeusII: In book 3, he says: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;” (Against heresies 3:10:5). It is certain that Irenaeus in the 100’s had the long ending of Mark in his bible. He quotes verse 19, says that Mark is the author of the verse and it is found at the end of his gospel. The idea that codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus can be traced back to Irenaeus is proven false by this quote. Irenaeus had Mark 16:19 in his manuscript of which there is no trace is codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Some readings in those codices may go back to Irenaeus and some are the product of a local and late adjustment as the evidence shows.
· A treatise on Re-baptism by an anonymous writerIII: The writer of this treatise is probably a bishop who wrote this treatise against Cyprian on the re-baptism of heretics. He cites content that is found in Mark 16:14: “And in addition to these things, all the disciples also judged the declaration of the women who had seen the Lord after the resurrection to be idle tales; and some of themselves, when they had seen Him, believed not, but doubted; and they who were not then present believed not at all until they had been subsequently by the Lord Himself in all ways rebuked and reproached; because His death had so offended them that they thought that He had not risen again, who they had believed ought not to have died, because contrary to their belief He had died once”.
· AphrahatIV: He quotes loosely verses 16 to 18: “And again when our Lord gave the Sacrament of Baptism to His apostles, He said thus to them:— Whosoever believes and is baptized shall live, and whosoever believes not shall be condemned… And again He said thus— This shall be the sign for those that believe; they shall speak with new tongues and shall cast out demons, and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall be made whole. [ Mark 16:17-18 ]” (Demonstrations1:17). This is certainly taken from the gospel of Mark.
· Apostolic ConstitutionsIV: This work offers a window into the ancient Antiochene right. In Book 8, it says: “With good reason did He say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from Him by the Spirit: “Now these signs shall follow them that have believed in my name: they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them: they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mrk16:17, Mrk 16:18)”
· AmbroseIV: Ambrose wrote a treatise that was very influential in the early church called “on the exposition of the Christian faith” where he writes to the emperor of the west about the essentials of the faith, especially focusing on the deity of Christ. He quotes Mark 16:15 in Book 1:86. And again Mark 16:15-18 in book 2:151 “on the Holy Spirit”. He quoted again Mark 16:17-18 in “concerning repentance” (Book 1:35). In his commentary on Luke, he quoted the long ending of Mark three times (3:1-20 – Mark 16:15, 10:1-24 – Mark 16:15-16, 23:50-56 – Mark 16:14-15).
· Dydimus the BlindDUB (IV): There is some question as to the original author of “De Trinitate”. But this is probably an Alexandrian work of the 4th century, even if Didymus is not the author of this work. (Authentic: the case for Mark 16:9-20, James Snapp)
· Marcus EremiteV: He quoted Mark 16:18 in a treatise against Nestorius (Authentic: the case for Mark 16:9-20, James Snapp)
· AugustineIV-V: Augustine quoted the long ending of Mark copiously in sermons, letters, in his treatises against the pelagians and in his harmony of the gospels. In the harmony of the gospels, he expounded on verses 9 to 20 (3:24:64 - 3:25:83). He tells us that he had consulted the Greek text of verse 12 and suggests that “country” should be translated as “state”, following the Greek (Harmony of the gospels, 3:25:71). Augustine’s most powerful opponent was Julian of Eclanum that was challenging Augustine’s doctrine of original sin. Julian was well read in the eastern fathers and at no point he questioned Augustine’s use of Mark 16:16 to teach that children needed baptism for salvation. Had this been a disputed passage in the east, Julian would probably have used it to neutralize Augustine’s doctrine against him. In book 3:201 against Julian of Eclanum he says that pelagians believe that children can be saved without baptism and so Mark 16:16 must be false. Here’s an easy opportunity for Julian to push back on Augustine’s use of a “spurious passage” to establish doctrine, but he never did. Not only that, but an ecumenical council would vindicate Augustine against the Pelagian heresy and no word was uttered against this passage. Lastly, Augustine was thorough is his approach to scriptures and he was aware of textual variants and disputed books in other churches. It is simply unthinkable that a man like Augustine was unaware that this passage was considered spurious by a large portion of the church.
· NestoriusV: The significance of this witness is that he was being targeted by the Patriarch of Alexandria because of his flawed Christology. Yet Cyril of Alexandrian never challenged Nestorius' use of Mark 16:20 (Authentic: the case for Mark 16:9-20, James Snapp).
· Eznik of KolbV: He quotes Mark 16:17-18 in his work against sects (Book 1, chapter 22). He is a relevant witness because he was probably involved in the translation of the bible into Armenian (Wieland Willker, the various endings of Mark)
· Leo the GreatV: He quoted Mark 16:16 (letter 120:2) and made a strong statement that nobody should preach, except the priests of the Lord (120:6). Leo was a very influential bishop of Rome. He is not cited in the variant apparatus but should be added as a witness for the inclusion.
· ChrysostomIV-V: In homily 38 on the first letter to the Corinthians, he says that Christ was seen first of Mary according to the gospel and the only gospel that states this is Mark chapter 16, verse 9. Chrysostom should be included as a witness for the long ending of Mark.
· John CassianV: He quotes Mark 16:17 on his 7th book on the incarnation (7:20). Should be included as a witness, too.
· Prosper of AquitaineV: In his book “a call to the nations” in which he displays a departure from Augustine’s hard instances on the sovereignty of God, he quotes Mark 16:15 in book 2 (page 91). Should be included as a witness as well.
· Fulgentius of RuspeVI: He quoted 16:19 as a saying of Mark the evangelist (letter 9:20:4). Again he quotes Mark 16:16 in his letter 12 to Ferrandus.
· The venerable BedeVII-VIII: he wrote a commentary on Mark where he includes the long ending of Mark without any question. Here we see that interpreting Jerome as a witness for the omission of the passage is not how the Latins interpreted him. Bede was fully acquainted with the writings of the fathers, including Jerome, could read Greek and shows no awareness of Jerome’s supposed rejection of this passage as spurious. Should be included as a witness for the inclusion of the long ending of Mark.
· TheophylactXI: like Euthymius, Theophylact was aware of the textual variant in Mark, but he goes on to expound the passage as he did through the entire book, treating it as scripture as the rest, even making a strong statement based on Mark 16:15-20 that a catechumen is not yet saved before baptism. Should be included as a witness for the inclusion of the passage.
· Thomas AquinasXIII: Thomas Aquinas, even though a witness in the 13th century, is highly relevant for his profound knowledge of patristics and the traditions of the church both in the east and the west. In his Summa Theologica, book 3, question171, he quotes Mark 16:20 saying that miracles are connected to prophecies. In book 4, question 55, he discusses the resurrected state and quotes Mark 16:9, 12, 14 and 19 and on question 58, “on the sitting of Christ at the right hand of the Father”, he quotes Mark 16:19. He treated this passage as scripture all the time. If Jerome had been a witness against the long ending of Mark, Thomas Aquinas would certainly have known it.
· I suggest also a
new symbol to convey the number of Greek manuscripts that includes and omits the
passage. We have approximately 1,650 manuscripts that support the inclusion of
the long ending of Mark and 2 that support the non-inclusion. I propose the
following symbol for this variable: mssgr for the inclusion (1651 / 1653)
and mssgr for the omission (2 / 1653)
3. Updating the variant
apparatus
After examining the
witnesses, I suggest an update to the variant apparatus as follows:
3.1. Witnesses for the non-inclusion supporting the NA-Text: codices א, B, the Syriac Sinaiticus and the Georgian(1+A) version, some manuscripts of the Armenian and Sahidic Coptic version and Eusebius. mssaccording to Eusebius à Jerome; mssaccording to Euthymius & Theophylact; mssaccording to Severus & Victor; mssgr for the omission (2 / 1653)
3.2. Witnesses for the inclusion supporting the TR, M-Text, PT, WPF35, Vg-St, the Clementine vulgate and the Complutensian Polyglot (both Latin and Greek): Codices A, C, D, K, L, W, X, Δ, Ψ, Θ, Π, 083, 099, 0112, both families of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13, minuscules 22, 28, 33, 138, 157, 180, 205, 264, 274, 565, 579, 597, 700, 892, 1006, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1110, 1195, 1210, 1221, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1253, 1292, 1342, 1344, 1365, 1424, 1505, 1546, 1582, 1646, 2148, 2174, 2346, 2427 and 2812, lectionary 1602, the Byzantine manuscripts and lectionaries, the old Latin codices itaur, itc, itd(supp), itff2, itk, itl, itn, ito and itq, the Curetonian Syriac, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Palestinian Syriac, the Bohairic Coptic, the Fayyumic Coptic and the Gothic version, some manuscripts of the Armenian and the Sahidic Coptic version, the Ethiopicpp, the GeorgianB and the Slavic version, the Diatessaron, Justin Martyr?, Irenaeuslat, an anonymous treatise on rebaptism, Asteriusvid, Aphrahat, the Apostolic Constitutions, Ambrose, Didymus the blinddub, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Severus of Antioch, Marcus Eremita, John Cassian, Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Nestorius, Eznik of Kolb, Leo the Great, Bede, Thomas Aquinas, Theophylact and Euthymius; mssgr for the inclusion (1651 / 1653).
3.3. Codices Ψ, 083, 099, 0112, minuscules 274 (in the margin), 579, lectionary 1602, some manuscripts of the Bohairic and Coptic versions, the Ethiopic version and the Harklean Syriac version (in the margin) add with minor variations the following text between verses 8 and 9: “And they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself [appeared to them and] sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. [Amen.]”. The old Latin codex itk replaces verses 9 to 20 with this text also known as the shorter ending.
3.4. Family of
manuscripts ƒ1, minuscules 22, 138, 205, 264, 1110, 1210, 1221, 1582,
2346, 2812 and some manuscripts of the Armenian version add signs or notes that
collectively communicate the idea that some copies end the gospel in verse 8,
but many others or the ancient ones include it. Some in family of manuscripts ƒ1 say that
verse 8 is where the Eusebian canons ended.
Note: there are more witnesses for the long ending of Mark, but those are sufficient to impress upon the reader the antiquity, the widespread nature and the superior quality of the witnesses for the inclusion of this passage.
4. Conclusion
This passage had been used in the church without any questioning since the 100’s. In the 300’s, we learn of a local tradition in Egypt where people are excising material from the scriptures that they consider spurious. The only two codices that omit this passage can be traced back to Eusebius or a generation or 2 before him. The emperor Constantine asks Eusebius to prepare 50 copies of the scriptures of 3’s and 4’s to be sent to churches. What was a local tradition in Egypt now spreads and some fathers become aware that the long ending of Mark is missing in some copies. They are honest about the evidence, but none of them rejects the passage as spurious. Even Eusebius himself gave Marinus the option of considering the passage original and then showed him how to harmonize Mark 16:9 with Matthew 28:1.
The collective witness of the majuscules of all text-types, all known Greek minuscules, the versions and the fathers is overwhelmingly against questioning this portion as part of the word of God. What Victor of Antioch, Euthymius and Theophylact knew intuitively, we can know with greater confidence by looking at the whole picture and join them in receiving Mark 16:9-20 as scripture.
In closing, Tregelles observed that several church fathers thought that this passage was not written by St. Mark himself, including Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome and other Greek writers, but concluded that this section is “an authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down from the narration of St. Peter (as we learn from the testimony of their contemporary, John the Presbyter); and that it ought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel, as the last chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as the writer is) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the books of Moses.”. As long as one receives this portion of the word of God as authoritative scripture, as Tregelles did, which has been in possession of the church from the 100's, the way in which this became part of the canon of scripture is, in my opinion, of no consequence.
No comments:
Post a Comment