Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[robrecht]

My question is, for those that reject the passage, do we still accept it as inspired since it was included in God's finished product?

This:

... I think most churches still consider it inspired and part of the canon even if it was not written by Mark.

[seanD]

I don't about "most churches," sounds a bit arbitrary to me, but some of the comments I've read hear seem to suggest that we should disregard it as inspired.

[robrecht]

I don't about "most churches," sounds a bit arbitrary to me, but some of the comments I've read hear seem to suggest that we should disregard it as inspired.

I don't think it's arbitrary--in fact I don't know of any churches that do not consider it canonical and therefore inspired. I've seen individual theologians argue that it should not be considered canonical, but not churches. Do you know of any churches that do not consider this canonical?

[seanD]

That's why I asked the question here in this forum. We're not dealing with churches, we're dealing with individuals; and like I said, from some of the posts I read, I got the impression it's not inspired scripture. So that's why I asked.

[robrecht]

That's why I asked the question here in this forum. We're not dealing with churches, we're dealing with individuals; and like I said, from some of the posts I read, I got the impression it's not inspired scripture. So that's why I asked.

Personally, I think the determination of the canon is a communal decision of the church, not left to any individual to make their own determination.

[seanD]

I'm just curious what the opinions here are, sheesh. There is a lot of diversity in views here, a lot of which differ with official or orthodox church views as a whole.

[One Bad Pig]

One Bad Pig,
I can thing of some reasons why someone might excise Mark 16:9-20. But it's a cumulative and nuanced case; I think we would be better off rewinding a bit, before plunging into a new vein of argument. Let's revisit the external evidence. You mentioned that the testimony of Clement and Origen seems especially important to this subject, or something like that. Why?

JamesSnappJr

According to church tradition, Mark evangelized Egypt (in particular, Alexandria). Clement and Origen spent much of their lives there, yet don't reference it. Further, 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. In the case of the gospels, he would discuss parallel passages where appropriate. So if he didn't reference it, he probably didn't know about it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I accept the passage as canonical even if it was not penned by Mark himself; it's in my church's lectionary, after all.

[robrecht]

I'm just curious what the opinions here are, sheesh. There is a lot of diversity in views here, a lot of which differ with official or orthodox church views as a whole.

That is why I told you my opinion. If I have upset you in some way I apologize, but let me know how I have upset you. I have merely given you my answer to your question.

[JamesSnappJr]

Clement of Alexandria and Origen - Non-Testimony

One Bad Pig,

Metzger said that Clement and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of Mark 16:9-20. (Metzger said the same thing about Eusebius, but then removed that false claim in a later edition of Text of the New Testament.) But in the course of a comment on Jude verse 24 in Adumbrationes, preserved by Cassiodorus, Clement seems to refer to Mark 16:19.

But let's suppose that there is indeed no evidence that Clement of Alexandria or Origen ever quoted from Mark 16:9-20. Did you ever wonder how much of the Gospel of Mark Clement and/or Origen do show knowledge of? Clement, as far as I know, does not utilize twelve entire chapters of the Gospel of Mark. So what would the non-use of Mark 16:9-20 really say? Merely that Clement made about as much use of those 12 verses as he made of most 12-verse sections of Mark -- that is, outside of chapter 10, Clement of Alexandria hardly ever clearly utilized the Gospel of Mark. His silence - if he is silent - is a side-effect of his general non-use of the entire book. If we had dozens and dozens of quotations from Mark in Clement's writings, that would be different. But we don't.

Origen, similarly, did not use the Gospel of Mark very much; on one occasion he mentioned that he had looked through the Gospel of Mark to see if it contained the Lord's Prayer. There are oodles of 12-verse sections of Mark that Origen does not utilize; if you were to pick a 12-verse section of Mark at random, the odds would be better that Origen shows no knowledge of its existence than that the contrary is true.

You mentioned that "Origen was one of the first textual critics." True; regarding his work on the Septuagint. But if you consult Metzger's essay that lists all the New Testament passages where Origen mentions a variant, you'll see that they are not many. Your claim, "In the case of the gospels, he would discuss parallel passages where appropriate" is pretty much made-up, isn't it -- unless one were to say that it was only appropriate in about 20 instances. 'Cause Metzger -- in New Testament Tools & Studies VIII, 1968, in chapter nine, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts" -- only listed about 24 variant-units mentioned by Origen. And only two of them clearly involve passage in the Gospel of Mark.

First, Origen displays some confusion in his comment; he says that Matthew was the only apostle who was a tax-collector, and then says (utilizing Mark 2:14 and/or 3:18), "Levi also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-collector; but he was in no wise of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in some of the copies of the Gospel according to Mark." Now, no matter how you slice it -- whether you prefer the Alexandrian Text or the Byzantine Text -- the flagship manuscripts of both the Alexandrian and Byzantine groups affirm that Levi was an apostle (because Levi = Matthew, of course).

Second, Origen displays a distinct preference for readings that solve objections when he utilizes Mark 6:3. He says, "In none of the Gospels current in the churches is Jesus himself ever described as being a carpenter." Apparently Origen was making a bloated exaggeration, inasmuch as manuscripts of all types exactly describe Jesus as a carpenter in Mark 6:3; the only other possibility is that Origen's favored manuscripts featured a variant in Mark 6:3 (found today in a only smattering of MSS, but they include papyrus 45 and MS 700) in which Jesus is not called a carpenter, and assumed that everyone else's manuscripts must be like his.

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.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[One Bad Pig]

One Bad Pig,

Metzger said that Clement and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of Mark 16:9-20. (Metzger said the same thing about Eusebius, but then removed that false claim in a later edition of Text of the New Testament.)

Your hostility toward Dr. Metzger is duly noted.

But in the course of a comment on Jude verse 24 in Adumbrationes, preserved by Cassiodorus, Clement seems to refer to Mark 16:19.

I have not yet had the pleasure of reading that material.

You mentioned that "Origen was one of the first textual critics." True; regarding his work on the Septuagint. But if you consult Metzger's essay that lists all the New Testament passages where Origen mentions a variant, you'll see that they are not many. Your claim, "In the case of the gospels, he would discuss parallel passages where appropriate" is pretty much made-up, isn't it -- unless one were to say that it was only appropriate in about 20 instances. 'Cause Metzger -- in New Testament Tools & Studies VIII, 1968, in chapter nine, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts" -- only listed about 24 variant-units mentioned by Origen. And only two of them clearly involve passage in the Gospel of Mark.

You're quick to sling accusations, aren't you? My claim is based on what I've read of Origen's works - which is not everything by a long shot, but I do recall him discussing parallel passages.

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.

Your bias is showing. How many of those "dozens and dozens of variants" had been introduced in the first two centuries?

Pro-tip: Your quite evident hostility to the opposing view is not likely to win over those who have little stake in the argument.

[37818]

So now you're abandoning the 'foul play' theory again?

It was Dr Pickering which I cited who presented the view the editor of Codex Sinaiticus deliberately removed Mark 16:9-20 when those 4 sheets were replaced. Using information provided by James Snapp Jr, I calculated the mean character count for the 15 of the 16 columns would be 652 characters, if the current existent text was evenly counted over the 16 columns that would make 614 characters per column. Adding 981 [A number I had counted for it] characters for Mark 16:9-20, placing the characters evenly over the 16 columns gives me about 676 characters each. So I have since concluded, that Mark 16:9-20 was probably not part of Codex Sinaiticus before those 4 sheets were replaced. Of course that does not mean it could not have been. At about 676 characters per column it just does not seem likely to me. I do believe Mark 16:9-20 was known to those who prepared the Sinaitius Codex. That its non-inclusion could be do to "foul play." But if so, I would like to know the reason. That it was "foul play" is a conjecture, made without giving the reason that it is. The modern reason is the denial that it was part of the original text of Mark.

As for canonacy of Mark 16:9-20, it is my view of canonacy of holy scripture it was holy scripture when it was written. And copies made and were handed down from the receiving church to other churches.

[JamesSnappJr]

More about the Testimony of Clement and Origen

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 TestamentAdumbrationesIn 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,)
(if He was the Christ,)
(the Son of the Blessed,)
et videbitis filium hominis (and you shall see the Son of man)
sanctos angelos. (the holy angels.)
Proinde enim cum dicit (Further, when he says)
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.)
(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,anyone who is well-informed on the subject.

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, 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 (33ridiculousTextual Commentary

[JamesSnappJr]

37818,

Let's revisit the cancel-sheet in Codex Sinaiticus when/if the discussion reaches the discussion of fourth-century evidence. In the meantime, I just clarify that something closer to 630 is the main copyist's rate of letters per column; it's not valid to use the cancel-sheet (produced by a different copyist) to gauge the main copyist's rate of letters-per-column.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[37818]

37818,

Let's revisit the cancel-sheet in Codex Sinaiticus when/if the discussion reaches the discussion of fourth-century evidence. In the meantime, I just clarify that something closer to 630 is the main copyist's rate of letters per column; it's not valid to use the cancel-sheet (produced by a different copyist) to gauge the main copyist's rate of letters-per-column.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

The number of characters on the 4 cancel sheets are about 9824 (you have the actual counts). Mark's 16:9-20 is as I have counted using the TR at 981 characters. As I understood Dr Pickering's argument, he seemed to contend that Codex Sinaiticus had the reading of Mark 16:9-20 being removed and replaced by the cancel sheets. see Identity of the New Testament Text , Appendix E and foot note. http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering3b.htm

[JamesSnappJr]

The Cancel-Sheet for Mk 14:54-16:8 and Lk 1:1-56 in Codex Sinaiticus

37818,

Pickering is not correct to call the pages that contain Mk. 14:54-16:8 and Luke 1:1-56 a "forgery." They were not written by the main copyist, who wrote the surrounding pages. But that does not make them forged pages. These four pages are a cancel-sheetfewer letters than the original pages had contained. But what we see in columns 11-16 is a staggering increase10, instead of in column 11.

So we face essentially four possibilities:
(1) On the original pages, as the original copyist approached the end of Mark, he slightly extended his lettering in order to conclude the Gospel of Mark in column 10. This is quite possible when we compare his treatment of the end of Matthew, where only three letters (NOS) are present in the top line of the final column, followed by the subscription.
(2) On the original pages, the original copyist retained his rate of letters-per-line, ended Mark in column 9, left column 10 blank, and began Luke at the top of column 11.
(3) On the original pages, the original copyist very slightly increased his rate of letters-per-line, ended Mark in column 9, began Luke in column 10, and accidentally repeated most of Lk. 1:5-8 (or most of Lk. 1:34-38).
(4) On the original pages, the original copyist retained his rate of letters-per-line, and added the Short Ending after 16:8. As a result, the text of Mark extended into column 10. (I consider this fourth possibility extremely unlikelyAd Marinum. Nevertheless I included it in this list of possibilities because it is not technically impossible.)

Now I'd like to present some deductions about how the proof-reader of Codex Sinaiticus wrote the text on this cancel-sheet. In another post.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.