Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[robrecht]

Robrecht,

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

Yes, he is certainly allowed here.

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.

It is quite possible that Clement was only including here the element that is present in this pericope of Luke but not in this pericope of Mark, hence no need to mention 'power' with 'God'. Allusions frequently work with this kind of abbreviated style. He introduces the main difference in the accounts of Matthew and Luke by noting it's presence in both gospels. That does not mean that he was previously only thinking of Mark and not thinking of a minor variant in Luke. His point when discussing Mk 14,62 is that there is not an important difference between 'power' and 'God' so there would be no need to call out where this appears, whether in Mark or in Luke.

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.

Of course he is also alluding to Matthew. Sorry, I did not think that would be misunderstood, but he quotes the crucuial words from Luke (cf plural), not from Matthew (cf singular).

Second, yes, it is unlikely, since the phrase “a dextris dei” is not in any of the parallel-passages.

It is not all that unlikely that this is an abbreviated allusion, as I said above. Personally, I do not believe that one can quantify levels of probability here.

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.

As would be quite natural for Cassiodorus writing in Latin.

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.”

Please take that up with Wieland.

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

Agreed, this has not been proven.

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.”

I think a brief text critical discussion need not make any mention of Clement or Cassiodorus since the evidence is not conclusive either way. A more expanded treatment of Cassiodorus is very much appreciated and should appropriately cite the fuller text and the important variant so as to give a full picture. Hence my request.

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.’”

If you want to discuss this text, please provide links to original sources and any secondary sources you rely on. That would be very much apprecaited and I thank you in advance.

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 did not say that you impugned his motives. I do not think there is any reason whatsoever to wonder about his motives. He was a very fine Christian gentleman, whom I was privileged to meet.

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.

A fuller critical apparatus has been in preparation for quite some time now and it is obviously an enormous task. There has already been an attempt to identify correctors where significant, but this is less obvious than explicit corrections. Let's wait and see how well the critical apparatus is revised and how much room is alloted for these types of issues, which are ultimately judgment calls subject to other specific considerations. Ultimately, some issues will only be able to be considered in the scholarly literature.

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.”

I think that's a fair and concise statement, but keep in mind that a brief textual commentary on the entire New Testament may not be able to address every interesting point for every discussion of variants. I think it is worth including, but reasonable authors can have different opinions how important this is regarding fourth century evidence, when the longer ending is already attested to be widely known at a much earlier date.

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.”

Same answer as above.

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.

Keep in mind that oftentimes commentaries barely have room even to cite witnesses, let alone characterize each one in sufficient detail. I generally expect this from dedicated monographs and journal articles.

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

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Christ in all things, robrecht

[One Bad Pig]

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

I apologize for causing confusion; I am on staff here, and was reprimanding Geert. TheologyWeb only recently came back from a catastrophic crash, and our editing tags are not yet functioning.

(And yeah, you had "Origen" a couple times when you were still discussing Clement. I understood what you were saying though).

[JamesSnappJr]

Metzger's False Claim, Origen's Non-Testimony, and Philocalia 5

One Bad Pig,

A-ha; so Geert was the subject of those large-red-letter notices, rather than the source. Okay.

Getting back to your post, then:

I insist that calling something a “false claim” does not imply that the claimant knowingly made an erroneous argument. It only means that the claim is false, regardless whether it came into being due to forgetfulness, carelessness, a printing error, or deliberate intent. In the case at hand, Metzger made a false claim about Eusebius, as I documented: 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.”

It is certainly not true (i.e., it's false) that Eusebius shows no knowledge of the existence of these verses; Eusebius discusses the ending of Mark in Ad Marinum, when answering Marinus’ question about how to harmonize Matthew 28:2 and Mark 16:9, and Eusebius used Mark 16:9 in two other places in the same composition.

I don’t know why Metzger wrote what he wrote about Eusebius on page 226 of the first edition that, but write it he did. We all make mistakes. Sometime before the third edition went to press, Metzger realized his mistake. If you consult the third edition of The Text of the New Testament,” you will see that the name “Eusebius” has been replaced by “Ammonius.” Which is not much of a correction, but the testimony of Ammonius is something we can visit later in the discussion.

Regarding the testimony of Origen: back in post #27, you wrote, “In my opinion, it is significant that Origen and Clement (both of Alexandria) do not refer to it,” i.e., to verses 9-20. In Post 142, you wrote, “Origen was one of the first textual critics, compiling a hexameron for the LXX. If he knew of different readings in the NT canon, he would typically refer to both when exegeting a passage.”

The demonstration of the inaccuracy of that last sentence is concise: Origen wrote, in his Commentary on Matthew, 15:14, “The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyist or through the perverse audacity of others.” So if he /typically/ referred to rival variants when exegeting a passage, we would see a great number of such discussions in his writings. But we don’t. Metzger covers almost all of them – a total of less than 30, and less than 20 from the Gospels. In addition, if you take the time to sift through Metzger’s essay, you’ll notice that Origen doesn’t always expound upon the variants; in several cases he merely mentions them. Thus, the claim that Origen, if he knew of different readings in New Testament books, would typically refer to them when exegeting the passage, is false. It is a made-up claim. That doesn’t mean that you made it up; surely you just borrowed it. But whoever came up with that claim was misrepresenting the evidence.

While we’re on the subject of Origen and his non-testimony, let's look into Philocalia, part 5. When considering this text, readers should keep in mind that as a whole, it consists of an edited edition of Origen’s composition, released by Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea (both active in the mid/late 300’s). As Origen reviews various Messianic prophecies (or what he perceived as such), he writes:

“And, according to Job, He came who subdued the great sea-monster, and has given authority to His true disciples to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, being in no wise hurt by them. 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.”

After clearly alluding to Luke 10:19, Origen mentions that the apostles went everywhere, having been sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel. The Greek text: . . . επιστησάτω δέ τις και τη τωναποστόλων πανταχόσε επιδημία των υπο του ’Ιησου επι το καταγγειλαι το ευαγγέλιον πεμφθέντων, και όψεται και το τόλμημα ου κατα άνθρωπον και το επίταγμα θειον.

The parallel between this passage and Mark 16:15-20 is thematic, rather than verbal, but there is a little bit of verbal overlap: Origen’s πανταχόσε (“everywhere”) corresponds to Mark 16:20’s πανταχου (“everywhere”) and his reference to the proclamation of το ευαγγέλιον matches Mark 16:15’s command to preach το ευαγγέλιον. The recollection of Mark 16:15-20 would provide an impetus for the statement that the apostles applied superhuman daring after they were sent by Jesus to share the gospel everywhere, moreso than any other passage would.

But Origen might not have been thinking of a single passage; he may have simply been thinking of the apostles’ boldness and courage in general. This is not the sort of airtight reference that an explicit quotation would be. But I think it merits categorization as a possible reference to Mark 16:15-20. Even without it, Origen's testimony is non-testimony; considering how many extensive Marcan passages Origen never uses in his major works, it would not be surprising if he did not utilize these 12 verses either.

(Another point for consideration is the possibility that Eusebius, in Ad Marinum, utilized a statement from Origen when discussing the ending of Mark. But this is something probably best explored when we get to the much-misrepresented testimony of Eusebius.)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

I think most people would recognize a difference in nuance between 'making a false claim' and being mistaken. We used to have a guy here who was constantly impugning the integrity or piety of Hort and Metzger and it did not encourage reasonable discussion. There's some understandable sensitivity around here to such tactics. Not saying you were doing this, intentionally or otherwise, but I think it is always best to strive for polite disagreement in areas where emotions can run high, eg, among KJV-onlyists or Textus Receptus zealots.

[37818]

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. . . _ . . . And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified." -- Matthew 28:1, ,5. Mary M is mentioned in verse 1, but by verse 5 she was no longer with the women. Matthew does not tell us about that.

"And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. . . _ . . . And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted." -- Mark 16:1, ,4-5. Between verse 4 and 5, Mary M is no longer with the women. Again Mark here does not tell us this.

But, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. . . ." -- Mark 16:9.

Luke also leaves out that detail.

John tells us, "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, . . . " -- John 20:1, 2.

[robrecht]

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. . . _ . . . And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified." -- Matthew 28:1, ,5. Mary M is mentioned in verse 1, but by verse 5 she was no longer with the women. Matthew does not tell us about that.
...

Matthew does not say that Mary Magdalene was alone. Rather he uses about eight different plural forms to indicate that both Marys, the only two women in his account, were still together. In your own quotation of the text you yourself includes the plural form 'women' and two uses of 'ye'. Historicizing and harmonizing differing accounts is not a part of text critical methodology. In fact, it is sometimes a cause of variant readings.

[robrecht]

... "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. . . _ . . . And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted." -- Mark 16:1, ,4-5. Between verse 4 and 5, Mary M is no longer with the women. Again Mark here does not tell us this.

But, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. . . ." -- Mark 16:9.

Luke also leaves out that detail.

John tells us, "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, . . . " -- John 20:1, 2.

This does not prove what you think it does. The vast majority of scholars take this as an indication that the author of Mk 16,9-20 is trying to harmonize Mark's account with that of John or a pre-Johannine tradition. Likewise, the Lukan Emmaus account. All of which would help address the sense that the current ending of Mark at 16,8 was deficient. Such an emendation may have occurred very early, as soon as a community that possessed only the gospel of Mark became aware of some of the stories included in other gospels or still circulating orally.

[37818]

This does not prove what you think it does. The vast majority of scholars take this as an indication that the author of Mk 16,9-20 is trying to harmonize Mark's account with that of John or a pre-Johannine tradition. Likewise, the Lukan Emmaus account. All of which would help address the sense that the current ending of Mark at 16,8 was deficient. Such an emendation may have occurred very early, as soon as a community that possessed only the gospel of Mark became aware of some of the stories included in other gospels or still circulating orally.

What did I say it proved? At issue is whether Mark 16:9-20 is or was not part of Mark's account. I pointed out that the synoptic gospel accounts do not give in account Mary M leaving upon seeing the stone rolled away. That only in Mark's account makes an indirect reference to it. Even with that, Mark's account does not reveal that detail. So it is not until John's account is this missing detail revealed. The arguments that was latter added, are the same type of argument used to argue all the synoptic gospel accounts were written after 70 A.D. Is this not true?

[robrecht]

What did I say it proved? At issue is whether Mark 16:9-20 is or was not part of Mark's account. I pointed out that the synoptic gospel accounts do not give in account Mary M leaving upon seeing the stone rolled away. That only in Mark's account makes an indirect reference to it. Even with that, Mark's account does not reveal that detail. So it is not until John's account is this missing detail revealed. The arguments that was latter added, are the same type of argument used to argue all the synoptic gospel accounts were written after 70 A.D. Is this not true?

Sorry. I'm not following you here. Maybe someone else will better understand your position/argument. Or maybe you could give me another chance by explaining again. Sorry.

[JamesSnappJr]

Maintaining the Flow: External Evidence First

37818,

Could you give us a while to work through some of the external evidence, before we address internal points like the ones you've mentioned? I'd like to take the evidence one piece at a time, or maybe two pieces, but if we just toss everything together it will probably diffuse the discussion.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[37818]

Matthew does not say that Mary Magdalene was alone. Rather he uses about eight different plural forms to indicate that both Marys, the only two women in his account, were still together. In your own quotation of the text you yourself includes the plural form 'women' and two uses of 'ye'. Historicizing and harmonizing differing accounts is not a part of text critical methodology. In fact, it is sometimes a cause of variant readings.

John's account does not teach Mary was alone either. Mary M saying, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." But we can get back to this latter. OK?

Sorry. I'm not following you here. Maybe someone else will better understand your position/argument. Or maybe you could give me another chance by explaining again. Sorry.

This is a side issue, we can get back to this latter. OK?

37818,

Could you give us a while to work through some of the external evidence, before we address internal points like the ones you've mentioned? I'd like to take the evidence one piece at a time, or maybe two pieces, but if we just toss everything together it will probably diffuse the discussion.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

I was not trying to defuse or confuse the discussion by bring up a side issue. We can come back to it latter. Please continue.

[robrecht]

John's account does not teach Mary was alone either. Mary M saying, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." But we can get back to this latter. OK?

Yes, I know.

This is a side issue, we can get back to this latter. OK?

OK.

I was not trying to defuse or confuse the discussion by bring up a side issue. We can come back to it latter. Please continue.

We've already been discussing issue in Posts #s 79, 90, 118 & 120. I don't mind continuing this discussion with you while James reviews the external evidence.

[One Bad Pig]

It is certainly not true (i.e., it's false) that Eusebius shows no knowledge of the existence of these verses; Eusebius discusses the ending of Mark in Ad Marinum, when answering Marinus’ question about how to harmonize Matthew 28:2 and Mark 16:9, and Eusebius used Mark 16:9 in two other places in the same composition.

Thanks for the info. I haven't yet read Ad Marinum.

Regarding the testimony of Origen: back in post #27, you wrote, “In my opinion, it is significant that Origen and Clement (both of Alexandria) do not refer to it,” i.e., to verses 9-20. In Post 142, you wrote, “Origen was one of the first textual critics, compiling a hexameron for the LXX. If he knew of different readings in the NT canon, he would typically refer to both when exegeting a passage.”

The demonstration of the inaccuracy of that last sentence is concise: Origen wrote, in his Commentary on Matthew, 15:14, “The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyist or through the perverse audacity of others.” So if he /typically/ referred to rival variants when exegeting a passage, we would see a great number of such discussions in his writings.

My mistake - I should have remembered reading that.

Metzger covers almost all of them – a total of less than 30, and less than 20 from the Gospels. In addition, if you take the time to sift through Metzger’s essay, you’ll notice that Origen doesn’t always expound upon the variants; in several cases he merely mentions them.

I have not had the pleasure of reading Dr. Metzger's essay, unfortunately.

Thus, the claim that Origen, if he knew of different readings in New Testament books, would typically refer to them when exegeting the passage, is false. It is a made-up claim. That doesn’t mean that you made it up; surely you just borrowed it. But whoever came up with that claim was misrepresenting the evidence.

Thank you for correcting me. I am by no means a scholar; my interest in patristics developed late, and I have a day job. I was just going by what I recalled from my reading of Origen's works.

While we’re on the subject of Origen and his non-testimony, let's look into Philocalia, part 5. When considering this text, readers should keep in mind that as a whole, it consists of an edited edition of Origen’s composition, released by Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea (both active in the mid/late 300’s). As Origen reviews various Messianic prophecies (or what he perceived as such), he writes:

“And, according to Job, He came who subdued the great sea-monster, and has given authority to His true disciples to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, being in no wise hurt by them. 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.”

After clearly alluding to Luke 10:19, Origen mentions that the apostles went everywhere, having been sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel. The Greek text: . . . επιστησάτω δέ τις και τη τωναποστόλων πανταχόσε επιδημία των υπο του ’Ιησου επι το καταγγειλαι το ευαγγέλιον πεμφθέντων, και όψεται και το τόλμημα ου κατα άνθρωπον και το επίταγμα θειον.

The parallel between this passage and Mark 16:15-20 is thematic, rather than verbal, but there is a little bit of verbal overlap: Origen’s πανταχόσε (“everywhere”) corresponds to Mark 16:20’s πανταχου (“everywhere”) and his reference to the proclamation of το ευαγγέλιον matches Mark 16:15’s command to preach το ευαγγέλιον. The recollection of Mark 16:15-20 would provide an impetus for the statement that the apostles applied superhuman daring after they were sent by Jesus to share the gospel everywhere, moreso than any other passage would.

But Origen might not have been thinking of a single passage; he may have simply been thinking of the apostles’ boldness and courage in general. This is not the sort of airtight reference that an explicit quotation would be. But I think it merits categorization as a possible reference to Mark 16:15-20.

I will have to keep an eye out for this when I get around to the Philocalia (I'm reading the works of Gregory of Nyssa at the moment).

[One Bad Pig]

John's account does not teach Mary was alone either. Mary M saying, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."

As far as I can tell, this is not necessarily accurate. I have always assumed from my reading of John that Mary's "we" referred to the disciples in general, though I'm willing to be corrected if it can be shown my reading is wrong. Jesus' interaction is certainly only with Mary in the passage, whereas in the other passages the other women are explicitly mentioned.

[37818]

As far as I can tell, this is not necessarily accurate. I have always assumed from my reading of John that Mary's "we" referred to the disciples in general, though I'm willing to be corrected if it can be shown my reading is wrong. Jesus' interaction is certainly only with Mary in the passage, whereas in the other passages the other women are explicitly mentioned.

Yes, the text is not explicit who the "we" are. My understanding has been the other women. To argue one way or the other is arguing interpretations and the reasons for them. I will take this up again latter.