Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[JamesSnappJr]

How the Corrector of Sinaiticus Made the Cancel-Sheet at the End of Mark

37818,

Here is a hypothesis i developed to account for the extraordinary shifts in the rate of letters-per-column in the cancel-sheet. I don't have video-tape of the proof-reader-copyist at work, but I think this theory has compelling elegance.

When the proof-reader sat down to make this cancel-sheet, he realized that the main challenge would involve making the text of Luke 1:56a dovetail with the text of Luke 1:56b on the following page. If this was not accomplished properly, he would have to start over. To reduce the risk of wasting time and effort, he did not begin to make the cancel-sheet at the beginning, in Mark 14:54; instead, he began writing at the top of column 11, with Luke 1:1. To repeat: the proof-reader began writing on the cancel-sheet at the top of column 11, as a practical precautionary step; if his attempt was unsuccessful, he would have thus saved himself the trouble of writing out the text of Mark 14:54-16:8 only to have to start the whole thing over.

Having successfully fit Luke 1:1-56 into the last six columns of the cancel-sheet, the corrector then turned his attention to the text of Mark 14:54-16:8. In column 4, he reverted to the use of the lettering-compression he had used when writing the text of Luke 1:1-56; this is why there are 707 letters in column 4. This appears accidental. (The possibility cannot be absolutely ruled out that the proof-reader compressed his lettering at this point because he changed his mind, decided to follow an exemplar that contained Mark 16:9-20, and then changed his mind again. It seems worth noticing that if he had continued to compress his lettering throughout the rest of the text of Mark, and if he had also adopted the text of an exemplar that contained verses 9-20, he would have been able to reach the end of Mark 16:20 in the available space, with room to spare. But it is simpler to figure that the proof-reader simply lost track of what he was doing.)

Then the proof-reader stopped compressing his lettering, and began to compensate for the letter-compression by slightly stretching out his lettering in columns 5, 6, 7, and 8. But after accidentally skipping most of Mark 16:1, he still did not have enough text to reach column 10, even writing at a rate of 600 letters per column (30 letters less than usual).

He could have simply written the rest of chapter 16, up to verse 8, in his normal lettering, and thus finished Mark in column 9, with a blank column between the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke, but he made a conscious decision not to do that. Instead, he stretched out his lettering even more, so as to write only 552 letters in column 9. Thus he had 37 letters remaining to place in column 10.

Thus it is clear that although the proof-reader had no aversion to large blank spaces elsewhere in the manuscript, he deliberately avoided leaving a blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1 on the cancel-sheet. This feature, by itself, sufficiently demonstrates that the proof-reader was aware of at least one other way the text of Mark could end.

In addition, when he reached the end of Mark 16:8, he added a uniquely emphatic decoration – similar to his usual design, but embellished so as to leave no doubt that he believed that the text of Mark ought to end there.

The surprising significance of the cancel-sheet’s embellished arabesque was noticed in the 1800’s by John Gwynn, F.H.A. Scrivener, Edward Miller, and George Salmon. Salmon observed that the decorative line’s basic design “occurs three or four times in the Vatican Old Testament, but the prolongation of the arabesque has no parallel in either MS. We see that the scribe who recopied the leaf betrays that he had his mind full of the thought that the Gospel must be made to end with εφοβουντο γαρ, and took pains that no one should add more.” (p. 147-148, Introduction to the NT, 1904 edition)

John Gwynn wrote the following in 1883: “As regards the omission of the verses of S. Mk. xvi. 9-20, it is not correct to assert that Cod. Sinaiticus betrays no sign of consciousness of their existence. For the last line of ver. 8, containing only the letters ΤΟΓΑΡ, has the rest of the space (more than half the width of the column) filled up with a minute and elaborate “arabesque” executed with the pen in ink and vermilion, nothing like which occurs anywhere else in the whole MS. (O.T. or N.T.).” (from p. xiii (Addenda et Corrigenda) of the third edition of Scrivener’s Plain Introduction.) Miller expanded Gwynn’s remarks on pp. 300-301 of The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels with carefully chosen words: “It seems hardly possible to regard these carefully executed works of the pen of the diorthota otherwise than as precautions to guard against the possible restoration, by a subsequent revisor, of a portion of text deliberately omitted by him (the diorthota) from the end of the Gospel.”

It seems a very sound deduction that the corrector added the embellished arabesque in order to convey that nothing should follow 16:8. Salmon’s observation is solid: the corrector’s mind was full of the thought that Mark should end at the end of 16:8. And this implies that the corrector’s mind also held an awareness of at least one alternative to that abrupt ending.

But which ending was the corrector thinking about: verses 9-20, or the Short Ending, or both? Codex Sinaiticus was almost certainly produced at Caesarea, and, as I mentioned already, Eusebius, when commenting about the ending of Mark in Ad Marinum, displayed no knowledge whatsoever of the Short Ending. Taken together, these factors tilt the probabilities distinctly in favor of the conclusion that the corrector of Sinaiticus had verses 9-20 in mind when he avoided leaving a blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1, and added the arabesque after Mark 16:8 in the cancel-sheet, in the hope that it would prevent any would-be corrector from adding verses 9-20 in small letters in the underlying space and/or lower margin.

These details about these pages of Codex Sinaiticus, which are hardly ever mentioned in commentaries (because Metzger didn't mention them), show that although Sinaiticus is a witness to the existence of the ending of Mark at 16:8, it is also a witness to its creators' awareness of a continuation after 16:8 which almost certainly consists of verses 9-20.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

Regarding Clement’s Adumbrationes on Jude verse 24: here’s Cassiodorus’ text, and an English rendering:

In evangelio vero secundum Marcum, (Now, in the Gospel according to Mark,)
interrogatus dominus (as the Lord was being questioned)
a principe sacerdotum, (by the chief of the priests,)
si ipse esset “Christus, (if He was the Christ,)
filius dei benedicti” (the Son of the Blessed,)
respondens dixit ; “Ego sum, (he said in response, “I am,)
et videbitis filium hominis (and you shall see the Son of man)
a dextris sedentum virtutis.” (sitting at the right hand of power.”)
“Virtutes” autem significat (But ‘powers’ signifies)
sanctos angelos. (the holy angels.)
Proinde enim cum dicit (Further, when he says)
“a dextris dei” (“at the right hand of God,”)
eosdem ipsos dicit propter (He means the self-same [beings], by reason of)
aequalitatem et similitudinem (the equality and likeness)
angelicarum sanctarumque virtutum, (of the angelic and holy powers,)
quae uno nominantur nomine dei. (which are called by the name of God.)
Cum ergo “sedere in dextra” dicit, (He says, therefore, that He sits at the right hand,)
hoc est: in eminenti honore et ibi requiescere. (that is, He rests in pre-eminent honor).

The implication is that when Origen says, ‘Further, when he says ‘at the right hand of God,’ he is talking about something said by Mark, not Jesus (inasmuch as Jesus never uses that phrase in the Gospels), and the only time the phrase is found in the Gospel of Mark is in 16:19. There is a smidgen of a chance that Origen [r: Clement or Cassiodorus] had Luke 22:69 in mind instead, and paraphrased it, but I’d say that this excerpt qualifies at least as a probable reference to Mark 16:19 by Origen [r: Clement or Casiodorus].

Thank you very much, James, for including Cassiodoro's Latin text, as the English translation can be a bit misleading. For example, "further", in English could be taken to imply a spatial sense, ie, 'further along in Mark's gospel', when it really has a logical meaning, ie, "hence, therefore, accordingly, then" (L&S). Likewise, 'sedere in dextra' is incorrectly translated here with a 3rd person masculine singular as, "He sits at the right hand", which is closer to Mk 16,19 than the Latin infinitive, 'to sit at the right hand'. It's perfectly fine as a dynamic equivalent English translation but it is unsuited for those who want to judge if this is an allusion to Mk 16,19. More importantly, the quotation is cut off in a way that creates a false impression. You would like to read the segment as Jesus responding to the high priest (Mk 14,61-62) then Clement interpreting one word in Jesus' response, 'power', in the phrase, 'seated at the right hand of power,' and then Clement quoting Mk 16,19. But if you had included the immediately following text of Cassiodorus, it would be apparent that Clement is still speaking about the same pericope (Jesus before the high priest) in Luke and Matthew:

In aliis autem evangeliis dicit dominus principi sacerdotum interrogatus, si ipse esset filius dei, non e contra respondens; sed quid dixit? Vos dicitis, satis bene respondens. Si enim diceret sicut vos intellegitis, mentiretur utique, non se confitens filium dei, siquidem illi non ita de illo sentiebant. Dicens autem vos dicitis vere locutus est; quod enim non sapiebant, verbis dicebant, hoc ille verum esse confessus est.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6X0...nepage&q=false

ET:
In the other Gospels, however, He is said not to have replied to the high priest, on his asking if He was the Son of God. But what said He? “You say.” Answering sufficiently well. For had He said, It is as you understand, he would have said what was not true, not confessing Himself to be the Son of God; [for] they did not entertain this opinion of Him; but by saying “You say,” He spoke truly. For what they had no knowledge of, but expressed in words, that he confessed to be true.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0211.htm

So since Clement is alluding to Lk 22,67 and then directly quoting Luke 22,70 (not Mt 26,64) in these very next lines, is it really so unlikely that he is alluding to Lk 22,69 in the preceding sentence instead of Mk 16,19?

It should also be noted as Willker makes abundantly clear: "One should note however that there is a significant textual issue. One important manuscript of Cassiodorus reads:

'Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentum virtutis dei.'
'I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of the power of God.'

If this is the correct reading, there is no need to refer to Mk 16:19. Also, it is a bit strange that the writer, discussing the questioning by the high priest, suddenly refers to the end of Mk."

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf

Of course, it is possible that Cassiodorus has correctly translated a well preserved text of Clement who could have alluded to Mk 16,19 but you clearly should not minimize the possible allusion to Lk 22,69 as a 'smidgen of a chance'.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you would give full quotes and link to the original language texts and secondary authors you are relying on. That way we can more easily evaluate arguments and hopefully avoid or at least more easily correct mistakes.

[One Bad Pig]

[FONT=Book Antiqua]One Bad Pig,

Hostility? I'm not personally hostile toward Bruce Metzger. He was a prolific scholar. I simply noticed that in the 1964 edition of The Text of the New Testament, on page 226, Metzger wrote, “Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses,” and that he adjusted that sentence in later editions. I hope that you share such “hostility” toward the spread of blatantly false claims such as that one about Eusebius. You, like me, want such claims to be withdrawn and corrected . . . right?

Of course I want false claims corrected. However, calling it a "false claim" implies the claimant knowingly made an erroneous argument, which is less than charitable.

Regarding Clement’s Adumbrationes on Jude verse 24: here’s Cassiodorus’ text, and an English rendering:

In evangelio vero secundum Marcum, (Now, in the Gospel according to Mark,)
interrogatus dominus (as the Lord was being questioned)
a principe sacerdotum, (by the chief of the priests,)
si ipse esset “Christus, (if He was the Christ,)
filius dei benedicti” (the Son of the Blessed,)
respondens dixit ; “Ego sum, (he said in response, “I am,)
et videbitis filium hominis (and you shall see the Son of man)
a dextris sedentum virtutis.” (sitting at the right hand of power.”)
“Virtutes” autem significat (But ‘powers’ signifies)
sanctos angelos. (the holy angels.)
Proinde enim cum dicit (Further, when he says)
“a dextris dei” (“at the right hand of God,”)
eosdem ipsos dicit propter (He means the self-same [beings], by reason of)
aequalitatem et similitudinem (the equality and likeness)
angelicarum sanctarumque virtutum, (of the angelic and holy powers,)
quae uno nominantur nomine dei. (which are called by the name of God.)
Cum ergo “sedere in dextra” dicit, (He says, therefore, that He sits at the right hand,)
hoc est: in eminenti honore et ibi requiescere. (that is, He rests in pre-eminent honor).

Thank you. I'll defer to robrecht on this.

You asked, “You’re quick to sling accusations, aren’t you?” – Having read Metzger’s article on Origen’s references to textual variants, and also having read Amy Donaldson’s more thorough dissertation on the subject of patristic references to textual variants, I think I have the right, when anyone suggests that Origen’s writings are brimming with text-critical comments about the Gospel of Mark, or that Origen made so much use of the Gospel of Mark that it is remarkable and surprising that he never commented about Mark 16:9-20, to say that the person is speaking from ignorance. So does anyone who is well-informed on the subject.

I don't mind having my ignorance corrected. You did not claim I was ignorant; you accused me of making stuff up.

No matter how you slice it, when one considers the dozens and dozens of textual variants in the Gospel of Mark, and also considers that Origen only commented on two of them -- and, then, only to answer objections, not as part of any systematic review of the Gospel of Mark -- and also considers that no commentary by Origen on the Gospel of Mark is extant, what we really have from Origen on the question of the inclusion or non-inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 is non-testimony -- a side-effect of his relative non-use of the Gospel of Mark.

You asked, “How many of those “dozens and dozens of variants” had been introduced in the first two centuries?” If P45 is any indication, hundreds of textual variants had been introduced into the Greek text of Mark by the time of Origen.

Thanks.

I hope you are not missing my point, which is that Origen’s non-use of Mark 16:9-20 is no more remarkable, and is no more of an indication of the contents of the manuscripts of Mark that he used, than is Origen’s non-use of Mark 1:36-3:16 (54 consecutive verses), Mark 5:2 to 5:43 (41 consecutive verses), Mark 9:7 to 9:32 (25 consecutive verses), Mark 10:3 to 10:42 (39 consecutive verses), Mark 12:29-13:30 (46 consecutive verses), Mark 13:32-14:47 (63 consecutive verses), or Mark 15:22-16:8 (33 consecutive verses) – to list just some of the many substantial chunks of text in Mark of which Origen makes no use in his extant writings.

If someone were to propose that because Origen did not utilize Mark 13:32-15:47 and 15:22-16:8, his manuscripts of Mark must not have contained those verses, people would consider that ridiculous. But multiple commentators (and Metzger was not the first) have presented Origen’s non-utilization of Mark 16:9-20 as if it somehow implies that his manuscripts did not contain these 12 verses. That’s why it is important, when considering such arguments from silence, to view them in light of the patristic writer’s general utilization of the Gospel of Mark as a whole. Unfortunately hardly any commentators do this, because they are so dependent upon Metzger’s Textual Commentary.

This argument is not all that robust IMO, as it ignores the content of those passages relative to 1) the passages he does reference and 2) the other gospels.
It would make a fine dissertation topic, perhaps.

Regarding my “quite evident hostility to the opposing view” – Hostility, schostility; my mood is not the issue.

It does affect how your input is received. Thank you for your information on Clement and Origen; I will place less weight on that argument accordingly.

[robrecht]

37818,

Pickering is not correct to call the pages that contain Mk. 14:54-16:8 and Luke 1:1-56 a "forgery."

Thank you!

... somehow, for some reason, Metzger never mentioned it in his discussions of Mark 16:9-20.

I would not question his motives, as it is not really that relevant for the text critical discussion unless one is trying to address claims of foul play or trying to learn more about the preparation of codices at this time in history.

Thus it is clear that although the proof-reader had no aversion to large blank spaces elsewhere in the manuscript, he deliberately avoided leaving a blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1 on the cancel-sheet. This feature, by itself, sufficiently demonstrates that the proof-reader was aware of at least one other way the text of Mark could end.

This should in no way be surprising considering that the longer ending was very early.[/QUOTE]

[Obsidian]

Why in the world would Mark end his gospel with a verse saying that the women didn't talk to anyone? If that were all the chapter said, it would arguably be a lie, because it would suggest that the women told no one when in reality, the women did eventually talk to the disciples. (Also, common sense would imply that they talked.)

[seanD]

It could be that the resurrection appearances were so well established to his audience beforehand, that it wasn't his initial goal for writing the gospel.

[robrecht]

Why in the world would Mark end his gospel with a verse saying that the women didn't talk to anyone? If that were all the chapter said, it would arguably be a lie, because it would suggest that the women told no one when in reality, the women did eventually talk to the disciples. (Also, common sense would imply that they talked.)

There are lots of good ideas about this that can be found in the commentaries and the scholarly and devotional literature. One of these ideas is that Mark wanted his readers and their listeners to relate to the resurrected Christ in the story as they already do await Jesus' return in glory in the parousia. The silence and fear is also seen as an expression of the awesome resurrected Christ that can only be mysteriously experienced in the present. Plenty of other ideas as well. There is one exceptionally good idea that ties it all together, but unfortunately it has not yet been published so I'm not at liberty to say.

[Geert van den Bos]

Moderator's note: This area is only for orthodox Christians.

[robrecht]

The last two words "ephobounta gar" have to be connected with the first two words of Mark "archè tou euangeliou", something also suggested by "scholar" Ben Hemelsoet.

"The end will ever lead back to the beginning, the principle of the Gospel. In this way Jesus himself can be the prophet of his own prophecy, the Gospelpreacher of his own Gospel. The women can't do that." (B.Hemelsoet, "Marcus, verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte" 1977)

This view is based upon (but also exaggerates) Willi Marxsen's seminal German work using redaction criticism to study the gospel of Mark. If you are Dutch, you may also learn much from the work of Bas van Iersel. He was not as well known as Marxsen and other Markan scholars but he has very good insights. With respect to this question, if memory serves me well (and it often does not), he holds the view that the Mk 1,1 functions as a title to the whole gospel with particular emphasis on the word 'arxh', beginning. Hence Mark's whole gospel is telling the beginning of the (preaching of) the gospel of Jesus, Christ, anointed Son of God. The story builds with John's and then Jesus' preaching and teaching and activity and his death but it is not until the young man at the empty tomb who announces the resurrection of Jesus, which is the beginning of the preaching of the gospel about Jesus Christ, anointed Son of God.

[Geert van den Bos]

Moderator's note: This area is only for orthodox Christians to post in.

[robrecht]

Bas van Iersel was my professor exegesis of the New Testament in Nijmegen. ...

Small world! Did you also classes with Edward Schillebeeckx? What a great mind. A Belgian who made good in Holland!

[Geert van den Bos]

Moderator's note: This area is only for orthodox Christians to post in.

[robrecht]

I didn't follow classes of Schillebeeckx.

Schillebeeckx denied the resurrection as historical fact, and also the virgin birth, which I do think was great, especially in the R.C. context.
But further I am not such a fan of him.

By the way, Van Iersel didn't make a distinction between a Gospel of Jesus Christ and a Gospel about Jesus Christ, like you suggested. He jsut said "archè tou euangeliou" is title of the whole book.

My previous answer has been deleted by a moderator. Which is not so nice.

I had in mind his earlier sacramental theology, but even his later works, which are highly nuanced, although investigated and officially critiqued, were never condemned IIRC and he remained a Dominican priest in good standing. I did not intend to give a detailed explanation of van Iersel view of Mk 1,1 as I have not read any of his work in 20 years.

A moderator can explain the policy to you, but feel free to PM me if you wish to carry on.

[One Bad Pig]

I didn't follow classes of Schillebeeckx.

Schillebeeckx denied the resurrection as historical fact, and also the virgin birth, which I do think was great, especially in the R.C. context.
But further I am not such a fan of him.

By the way, Van Iersel didn't make a distinction between a Gospel of Jesus Christ and a Gospel about Jesus Christ, like you suggested. He jsut said "archè tou euangeliou" is title of the whole book.

My previous answer has been deleted by a moderator. Which is not so nice.

You've been told repeatedly that you are not allowed to post in this forum. Further, you know full well that you were not allowed to post in this forum even in the old TWeb. If you want to be allowed to post on TWeb at all, do not post in this thread again, even to reply to this post.

[JamesSnappJr]

Clement and Origen and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Mark 16:9-20

Robrecht,

I think OneBadPig is not allowed here, so I will not reply to his most recent post. Let’s continue.

Whatever the shortcomings of the English translation of Casisodorus’ excerpt from Clement’s Admumbrationes may be, the relevant point still stands: after utilizing Mark 14:62, Clement says: “Proinde enim cum dicit ‘a dextris dei’ eosdem ipsos dicit propter . . . .” and the words “a dextris dei” are not part of the preceding quotation of Mark 14:62 (since it reads, instead, a dextris sedentum virtutis.) Where is Clement getting this phrase, “a dextris dei”? From somewhere in Mark, inasmuch as, as you noted, it is after making this statement that Clement turns to the other Gospels. But “a dextris dei” does not appear in any of the parallel-passages.

You asked: “Since Clement is alluding to Lk 22,67 and then directly quoting Luke 22,70 (not Mt 26,64) in these very next lines, is it really so unlikely that he is alluding to Lk 22,69 in the preceding sentence instead of Mk 16,19?”

First, it seems absolutely clear that Clement is alluding to Mt. 26:64. Second, yes, it is unlikely, since the phrase “a dextris dei” is not in any of the parallel-passages.

Now, /if/ that one manuscript of Cassiodorus is right, and all the others are wrong, the case that Clement utilized Mark 16:19 dissolves. But the variant in that MS looks like an expansion from the Vulgate.

Also, it is not strange that Clement’s argument (which is all supposed to pertain to the meaning of Jude 24’s phrase, “the presence of His glory”) would include at least a brief mention of Mark 16:19, so as to equate “the presence of His glory” to “His right hand.”

All things considered, istm that the categorical statement, "Clement shows no knowledge of any text from Mark 16:9-20,” has not been proved.

But this is a tertiary point. My main point, where Clement and Origen are concerned, is that the much-repeated statement, “Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses” gives readers a very false impression of the relevance of such non-testimony. Readers would have a very different impression if the full picture was not hidden from them. Let’s tell them something like this about Clement:

“Clement of Alexandria, who does not utilize twelve chapters of Mark, might not utilize these twelve verses, either, unless a citation of Mark 16:19 in a Latin extract from Clement’s Adumbrationes, on Jude verse 24, accurately represents his Greek statement.”

And let’s tell them something like this about Origen:

“Origen, who does not utilize numerous passages in Mark consisting of 54, 28, 17, 41, 13, 15, 18, 22, 25, 39, 32, 46, 63, 31, and 33 consecutive verses in his major works, also does not utilize these 12 verses, unless he is alluding to 16:20 in Philocalia, paragraph 5, when he says, ‘Let a man observe how the apostles who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the divine command.’”

Regarding Metzger’s motives: you wrote, “I would not question his [Metzger’s] motives, as it is not really that relevant for the text critical discussion . . . .”

I didn’t say what Metzger’s motives were. I don’t know why the UBS apparatus’ symbol-codes include indications where other manuscripts (such as Codex W) contain supplemental pages, but not any indications where Codex Sinaiticus contains cancel-sheets. It would be helpful if it would include such indications.

Regarding the features in Sinaiticus’ cancel-sheet that demonstrate that the proofreader was aware of at least one other way the text of Mark could end, you wrote, “This should in no way be surprising considering that the longer ending was very early.”

Well, it would be surprising to a lot of Metzger’s readers, and readers of Bible-footnotes written by Metzger-readers, who wrongly deduce from Metzger’s incomplete description of Codex Sinaiticus that because Codex Sinaiticus’ text ends at 16:8, this manuscript offers no support of any kind for any other reading. Instead of telling people, “The text of Mark ends at 16:8 in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus,” let’s tell them about Vaticanus: “In Vaticanus, the text of Mark ends at 16:8, but the subscription is followed by a distinct and non-incidental blank space, including an entire blank column, in which a skilled copyist, beginning from the end of 16:8, could write the absent verses, using compressed lettering of the sort that is seem in the text of Luke 1:1-56 in Codex Sinaiticus.”

And let’s tell them about Sinaiticus: “The pages of Codex Sinaiticus which contain Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 are replacement-pages made by a proof-reader, who made a special effort, via drastically stretching his lettering, to avoid leaving a blank column between the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke; this almost certainly implies that he was aware of manuscripts with additional text beyond the end of verse 8.”

These fuller, more precise, more informative statements throw an entirely different light on the testimony of these witnesses; instead of presenting them as if they say, “We know of no text except the ending at the end of Mark 16:8,” they proclaim something very different. But hardly any commentators share this information. And their treatment of the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome is just as bad.

(Btw, I think I said "Origen" earlier a couple times when I should have said "Clement.")

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.