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 decorationembellishedIntroduction to the NTPlain IntroductionThe Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsAd 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]

AdumbrationesIn 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,

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=falsehttp://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

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.

AdumbrationesIn 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).

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

You asked, 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, If P45 is any indication, hundreds of textual variants had been introduced into the Greek text of Mark by the time of Origen.

Thanks.

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.

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.
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]

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 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]

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

are not part of the preceding quotation of Mark 14:62 (since it reads, instead, a dextris sedentum virtutisabsolutely clear that Clement is alluding to Mt. 26:64. Second, yes, it is unlikely, since the phrase 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 mainwho does not utilize twelve chapters of MarkAdumbrationeswho 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