THE ENDING OF MARK
The end of Mark presents an interesting dilemma for the biblical textual critic. Looking at chapter 16, most modern bibles have footnotes, brackets, and markings trying to help the reader understand that the ending of the book is in question. Mark 16:9-20 forms the verses in question. The shorter ending at verse eight, supported by a respected few manuscripts, is thrust into contention with later more numerous manuscripts[1] with a longer ending. While there are many divergent views, the facts lead to only one conclusion. Mark canonically ends in verse eight and all following verses are non-canonical additions.
Overview
The question of the ending of Mark can be broken down into two categories. First, a determination of authorship must be made. To that end the question of Markian authorship beyond 16:8 will be examined in light of internal evidence. Secondly, the question of canonicity of Mark 16:9-20 will be addressed independently of the authorship question through examination of both internal and external information.
Both of these issues are important and must be addressed in the above order. If through examination of style and grammar it is determined that Mark wrote 16:9-20 then the second question is answered in the affirmative. If however Mark did not write those verses, the second question must still be addressed and is not necessarily answered. Lack of authorship information does not prevent canonicity, i.e. Hebrews, and multiple authors in a book again does not discredit canonicity, as is seen in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes or Moses dying in the Pentateuch.
When examining the ending of Mark, all possible endings can be defined in three categories[2] as either short, intermediate, or long. For the purposes of this paper the short version ends at what is Mark 16:8 in the modern bible. The intermediate ends after verse eight with the following text: “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation”.[3] The longer ending has multiple variations but is considered to be any text that extends beyond the intermediate, usually consisting of Mark 16:9-20 with the possible inclusion of the intermediate ending before verse nine or after verse 20.
Authorship
Careful examination of the end of Mark reveals important clues as to specific authorship of the verses. First, there is an ambiguous pronoun change between verses eight and nine. In verse eight the narrative is talking about women fleeing the tomb, but verse nine begins with ‘He’.[4] Although easily inferred that the ‘He’ is Jesus, literarily it is an awkward jump. A single author would be unlikely to write in such a way.
A second textual observation is that Mary Magdalene is introduced in verse nine as if she was a new character, “from whom He had cast out seven demons” (NASB). However, she has been presented before in Mark 15:40,47 and even in 16:1, each time without any additional detail. The reference then in 16:9 means either that the author is now supply superfluous data about an established character, or a new author has begun to write unaware or unconcerned about the previous references to Mary.
Grammatically there is also a significant difference between the majority of Mark, and the longer ending. When looking at significant words used in the longer ending, almost one third[5] are only used in the longer ending and are found nowhere else in Mark. While it is possible Mark was simply employing new language to convey his ideas, most writers, Mark included, would tend to stick with an established vocabulary in their writings. Combined with the pronoun change and Mary being reintroduced, these three facts indicate a change of author between 16:8 and 16:9-20. Mark did not write the longer ending of his own book.
Canonicity
Outside of Mark itself, the only other evidence to determine canonicity is found in the manuscripts themselves. The manuscripts that support the shorter ending are fewer but very prestigious. Both Sinaiticus(א) and Vaticanus(B)[6] end Mark at 16:8, as well as a handful of others. These lend weight to the case for the shorter ending in that they are the earliest writings, and textual theory prefers the addition of text rather than the removal of it. Therefore if the earlier writings are shorter than the later ones, the shorter reading is usually the best. However, in both of the MSS there is blank space after verse eight, possibly indicating that the scribes were aware of other verses but those verses were not in their particular MS.[7]
Although well supported, the shorter ending has issues that must be addressed. Verse eight leaves off the narrative with the women leaving in fear and no resolution to the story. Several options exist to explain the abrupt end of Mark’s authorship: Mark wrote an abrupt ending on purpose, Mark died before finishing his book or the final page of the book was lost. The last option is doubtful as the autograph would have been written on a scroll[8] and not a codex. For the second case, there is little evidence for or against and could only be valid if the first case is incorrect. An abrupt ending though does have some merit. It follows the form of a tragedy in Greek literature[9] with the hero suffering an unresolved calamity. The unresolved conflict would cause a reader to inquire of Christians as to the ending of the story. The issues with the shorter ending are resolvable.
Support for the intermediate ending comes from a single Latin codex, Codex Bobbiensis (k).[10] Other manuscripts include that text of the intermediate ending but only k ends with that text. Codex Bobbiensis is rather late, seventh century,[11] and the lack of other texts supporting the intermediate ending leaves little support for the accuracy of this option. Instead, this ending really should be combined with the longer text of 16:9-20 to form a longer, possibly correct, ending.
The longer endings of Mark have the majority of MSS on their side. Three of the four textual families are represented: Byzantine, Caesarean and Western,[12] with ample MSS from each family. In addition to the texts Justin Martyr, Tatian and Irenaeus[13] all quote from the longer ending, although Jerome and Eusebius[14] mention nothing of it. The quotes provide information as to data of the longer ending being added. Justin Martyr’s death in 165 A.D.[15] provides an end date for the introduction of the longer ending. Even though Mark did not write it, the ending was added early on.
The issue surrounding the longer ending, in addition to grammatical and stylistic differences, is the questionable theology of Jesus’ words. Mark 16:17,18 says, “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover” (NASB). While some of the signs can be correlated elsewhere in scripture,[16] the references to snakes and venom are unique to Mark. These verses, despite their lack of support from the rest of scripture, caused George Hensley[17] to introduce snake handling to church services.
Verdict
After all the evidence is taken in the conclusion is that Mark originally ended his book at verse eight and canonically that is where the book should end. The intentional cliffhanger would have been an excellent tool for evangelism and was intentionally planned by the author. The longer ending is not Markian in origin, neither is it completely orthodox in its nature. The reason for the writing of the longer ending was the good intention of finishing Mark and making it more complete. However the details added are more completely covered in Matthew and Luke, and the addition of the venom reference can lead to theology based solely upon these verses. All together this verses should be viewed as non-Markian and non-canonical.
There is evidence supporting many of the possible endings of Mark, and a certain respect must be afforded to differing views on the ending. However, the evidence does point strongly to the conclusion that Mark did not write the longer endings, and that they are not canonical. They do help resolve the story of Mark and bring it into alignment with the other synoptic gospels, but the questionable theology concerning signs in the longer endings means that they are to be read with a grain of salt. Mark canonically ends in 16:8.
[1] Abbreviated MSS and MS for singular
[2] John C. Thomas “A Reconsideration of the Ending of Mark” JETS 26 (1983): 407-419. Lists six endings in the MSS including the Freer Logion extension, but all can fall into the three broader categories listed above.
[3] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) 123-124.
[4] John F. Walvoord et al., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983), Mk 16:8.
[5] Ibid, Mk 16:8.
[6] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Mk 16:7–8.
[7] Walvoord, Bible Commentary, Mk 16:8.
[8] Ibid., Mk 16:8.
[9] John William Drane, Introducing the New Testament (Oxford: Lion Publishing 2000), 199-200.
[10] Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) 292-293.
[11] Thomas, 408.
[12] Ibid., 408.
[13] Drane, Introduction, 200.
[14] Biblical, NET, Mk 16:7-8.
[15] David B. Peabody, Lamar Cope, and Allan J. McNicol eds., One Gospel from Two: Mark's
Use of Matthew and Luke (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2002) 330.
[16] Tongues: Acts 10:46; 19:6. Casting out Demons: Mark 6:13. Healing: 1 Cor. 12:30.
[17] Ted Cabal et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1504.
No comments:
Post a Comment