Mark 16:12
- Thread starter cih1355
- Start date
- Status
jbergsing
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't know if this helps, but Matthew Henry wrote this:
He is here said to have appeared to them in another form, in another dress than what he usually wore, in the form of a traveller, as, in the garden, in such a dress, that Mary Magdalene took him for the gardener; but that he had really his own countenance, appears by this, that their eyes were holden, that they should not know him; and when that restrain on their eyes was taken off, immediately they knew him, Lu. 24:16-31.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
I'm not trying to start a fight over text criticism here but it might be helpful to know that both the NIV and ESV have notes in the text to the effect that the oldest MSS and other ancient witnesses (i.e., even some of the later copies from as late as the 12th century) do not have verses 9-20.
The United Bible Society textual commentary has a long discussion (4 page -- most notes are about a paragraph long) of the questions surrounding the longer ending of Mk.
What is impressive about the absence of the longer ending is that it occurs in two different text types, Alexandrian and Western, in other words, its absence cannot be said to belong to only one text family and thus dismissed. It is absent from Syriac MSS, Old Latin MSS, and Aremenian MSS and Georgian MSS from the 9th and 10th centuries. Clement of Alexandria and Origen do not know the longer ending and Eusebius and Jerome testify that it is not in the oldest Greek texts.
Several witnesses from the 7th-9th centuries do not have the longer ending but have a note about things reported to Peter. I don't think this ending appears in any major English translations.
There is yet another ending after v. 8 that is not regarded as credible on the basis of extenal/textual history.
The longer ending found in the AV and and the "textus receptus" (Stephanus' so-called "received text") is present in the Byzantine texts (ACDK et al), the basis for the Majority Text and thus is found in a large number of texts. If numbers count, then the longer ending is "in" but there are good reasons for doubting that this is the best way to make text-critical decisions. This reading is in Irenaeus (c. 130-202), the Diatesseron. There is some evidence that Justin Martyr (c.100-65) knew it. I suppose that this is the strongest evidence for the longer ending.
The textual/external evidence favors omitting the longer ending but the main argument is from "internal" evidence, i.e., the vocabulary of the ending and the style are not Markan.
The UBS has the traditional longer ending in brackets.
I'm thinking about this because I'm preaching through Mark and have to decide whether to preach the longer ending. The UBS folk are correct that the transition between 8 and 9 is very rough. It certainly appears to be the work of a Scribe trying to make Mark conform to the other synoptics.
Why is Mary Magadalene so identified in 16:9 since she was identified in 15:40.
The term that raises the question for the thread, form/morphe appears only here. That seems unlike Mark hitherto.
Further, "signs" (16:17) are not used positively in Mark (8:11, 13:4, 22). Now "signs" are used to validate the apostolic ministry. Finally, with the shorter ending the temptation must have been great to fill-in the story but that filling-in doesn't really seem to fit the narrative of the book thus far.
All this is to suggest caution about how much weight one gives to the longer ending.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Scott,
You say,
“I'm not trying to start a fight over text criticism here but…”
It is a throwing down the gauntlet to impugn the trustworthiness of such a major portion of Scripture. To me it is.
Alleged by you:
“It is absent from Syriac MSS, Old Latin MSS, and Armenian MSS and Georgian MSS from the 9th and 10th centuries.”
When you assert as you have above it is misleading. The impression given is that the 12 verses are entirely missing from: the “Syriac MSS”, whereas even Geisler and Nix in their A General Introduction to the Bible are less misleading when they say it is found in “some Syriac manuscripts” (p. 372), while in reality it is found in all except the Sinaitic Syriac (EF Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 133). As regards your “It is absent from…Old Latin MSS” again the impression given is it is not in them at all, whereas it is found “in all the Latin manuscripts except k” (ibid.) It is absent from a large number of the Armenian MSS, but is found in the Georgian MSS except the “Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version” (ibid. p. 134)
Dr. Clark:
“The United Bible Society textual commentary has a long discussion (4 page -- most notes are about a paragraph long) of the questions surrounding the longer ending of Mk.”
Rev. John William Burgon has a book of 333 pages documenting the authenticity of these verses – The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark – and no one has refuted it, they just ignore it! And few read it, even though they wax “knowledgeable” about the subject.
Dr. Clark:
“…Eusebius and Jerome testify that it is not in the oldest Greek texts.”
Which may have been the two “old texts” or others of their type which plague us today with their notorious omissions! That Jerome considered it authentic is seen in his including it in his Latin Vulgate. Tischendorf opined that Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) were of those 50 Bibles Eusebius had printed at the order of Emperor Constanine. Nolan in his Integrity of the Greek Vulgate makes a good case that Eusebius used manuscripts from Origen’s library in Caesarea.
Dr. Clark:
“The textual/external evidence favors omitting the longer ending but the main argument is from "internal" evidence, i.e., the vocabulary of the ending and the style are not Markan.”
Run that by me again. What “textual/external evidence”? That Aleph & B omit it, while all the other 15 uncials contain it? This Aleph & B which disagree with each other’s readings 3,036 times in the Gospels alone, these are the standard of judgment used for discerning the true text? While the, as you said, Byzantine or Majority manuscripts almost unanimously contain it (in Burgon’s day, a full 600 of the 600 miniscules that had Mark contained it).
You said,
“If numbers count, then the longer ending is ‘in’ but there are good reasons for doubting that this is the best way to make text-critical decisions.”
I would agree with that, but to overthrow the testimony of such overwhelming numerical testimony one would have to account for it, and that on a basis besides Hort’s now-discredited “Antiochian rescension,” where a supposed official edition was imposed on the church, there being no historical support for such a sheer fabrication, and which is no longer believed by textual critics, even of the eclectic varieties.
In modern times the best defense of Burgon’s views and repudiation of Hort’s would be Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont’s Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html.
Please note, this is for serious enquirers as to the status of the views of Burgon and the Traditional or Byzantine Text. In particular, Robinson and Pierpont deal with the invalidity of the Westcott and Hort tenets of text criticism in light of current scholarship, and they provide a point-by-point refutation of Hort’s foundational premises. I will append also two other outstanding Byzantine-priority defenses available in their entirety online:
Dr. Jakob van Bruggen’s, The Ancient Text of the New Testament http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html
Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text II http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html
In a stinging letter to Bishop Ellicot, chairman of the Revision Committee which supplanted the Traditional Greek text with the Westcott/Hort critical text, Burgon summarized his research as follows:
You said,
“Why is Mary Magadalene so identified in 16:9 since she was identified in 15:40.”
Could it be to distinguish her from the other Mary mentioned in 15:40?
The “main argument” from “internal evidences” re vocabulary is so subjective – and easily refutable at that – it is not worth pursuing at this point. It is a “dream” in the mind of prejudiced critics. I think the objection to “sign” as used in the passage not being in accord with earlier usage is without weight, a mere vagary.
The viewing of Mark’s Gospel 16:9-20 as spurious was first done by the rationalist German critic Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) and manifested so in his second edition of the NT (1796-1806). He had heard it was absent in Rome’s Vaticanus and, without seeing the MS, deleted it. He is not counted among believing Christians. In all the centuries of the Christian church prior to this its authenticity was not questioned. But (for other omissions) the Unitarians loved his New Testament.
The encroachment of Enlightenment skepticism into the church of Jesus Christ has penetrated even into the modern Scriptoriums from whence we get our Bibles, and the classrooms where our spiritual leaders are taught and trained concerning the Bible. Such bodes ill for the people of God in future generations. The scholars, some of them at any rate, seem sure of themselves amidst the uncertainty engendered by this skepticism toward our Bibles, but the lay people increasingly are losing their confidence in the reliability of Scripture. Truth be told, many scholars themselves realize the text of their holy Book is uncertain, and unlikely to be recovered on the path text criticism has taken.
Ted Letis spoke of a “post-critical” view of Scripture – what some call the canonical or ecclesiastical view – and perhaps this is where we are heading. The link above to van Bruggen’s book, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, leads to a discussion of the disillusionment with text critical method to date.
I have faith that the original language texts of Scripture the Reformation fathers used – concerning which the WCF spoke of in its 1:8 – has been, by God’s “singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, [and] are therefore authentical”. The mss they had and used can be defended, notwithstanding the assaults both then – by Rome – and now, by those within the camp who have used Rome’s very weapons against the Scriptures the Reformation divines built the doctrines of Sola Scripture and Providential Preservation upon.
Back to Mark 16:9-20, this recent symposium – http://www.sebts.edu/NTConference/ – is of great interest to many. I hope the papers presented will be available soon. Does anyone know if they are now? (I understand Robinson and Black defended the 12 verses, Bock I don't know.)
Steve
You say,
“I'm not trying to start a fight over text criticism here but…”
It is a throwing down the gauntlet to impugn the trustworthiness of such a major portion of Scripture. To me it is.
Alleged by you:
“It is absent from Syriac MSS, Old Latin MSS, and Armenian MSS and Georgian MSS from the 9th and 10th centuries.”
When you assert as you have above it is misleading. The impression given is that the 12 verses are entirely missing from: the “Syriac MSS”, whereas even Geisler and Nix in their A General Introduction to the Bible are less misleading when they say it is found in “some Syriac manuscripts” (p. 372), while in reality it is found in all except the Sinaitic Syriac (EF Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 133). As regards your “It is absent from…Old Latin MSS” again the impression given is it is not in them at all, whereas it is found “in all the Latin manuscripts except k” (ibid.) It is absent from a large number of the Armenian MSS, but is found in the Georgian MSS except the “Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version” (ibid. p. 134)
Dr. Clark:
“The United Bible Society textual commentary has a long discussion (4 page -- most notes are about a paragraph long) of the questions surrounding the longer ending of Mk.”
Rev. John William Burgon has a book of 333 pages documenting the authenticity of these verses – The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark – and no one has refuted it, they just ignore it! And few read it, even though they wax “knowledgeable” about the subject.
Dr. Clark:
“…Eusebius and Jerome testify that it is not in the oldest Greek texts.”
Which may have been the two “old texts” or others of their type which plague us today with their notorious omissions! That Jerome considered it authentic is seen in his including it in his Latin Vulgate. Tischendorf opined that Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) were of those 50 Bibles Eusebius had printed at the order of Emperor Constanine. Nolan in his Integrity of the Greek Vulgate makes a good case that Eusebius used manuscripts from Origen’s library in Caesarea.
Dr. Clark:
“The textual/external evidence favors omitting the longer ending but the main argument is from "internal" evidence, i.e., the vocabulary of the ending and the style are not Markan.”
Run that by me again. What “textual/external evidence”? That Aleph & B omit it, while all the other 15 uncials contain it? This Aleph & B which disagree with each other’s readings 3,036 times in the Gospels alone, these are the standard of judgment used for discerning the true text? While the, as you said, Byzantine or Majority manuscripts almost unanimously contain it (in Burgon’s day, a full 600 of the 600 miniscules that had Mark contained it).
You said,
“If numbers count, then the longer ending is ‘in’ but there are good reasons for doubting that this is the best way to make text-critical decisions.”
I would agree with that, but to overthrow the testimony of such overwhelming numerical testimony one would have to account for it, and that on a basis besides Hort’s now-discredited “Antiochian rescension,” where a supposed official edition was imposed on the church, there being no historical support for such a sheer fabrication, and which is no longer believed by textual critics, even of the eclectic varieties.
In modern times the best defense of Burgon’s views and repudiation of Hort’s would be Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont’s Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html.
Please note, this is for serious enquirers as to the status of the views of Burgon and the Traditional or Byzantine Text. In particular, Robinson and Pierpont deal with the invalidity of the Westcott and Hort tenets of text criticism in light of current scholarship, and they provide a point-by-point refutation of Hort’s foundational premises. I will append also two other outstanding Byzantine-priority defenses available in their entirety online:
Dr. Jakob van Bruggen’s, The Ancient Text of the New Testament http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html
Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text II http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html
In a stinging letter to Bishop Ellicot, chairman of the Revision Committee which supplanted the Traditional Greek text with the Westcott/Hort critical text, Burgon summarized his research as follows:
Similarly, concerning THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK which you brand with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token that, in your opinion, there is “a breach of continuity” (p.53), (whatever that may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. Your ground for thus disallowing the last 12 verses of the second Gospel, is, that B and a omit them: – that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them: – and that Eusebius says they were often away. Now, my method on the contrary is to refer all such questions to “the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities.” And I invite you to note the result of such an appeal in the present instance. The verses in question I find are recognized,
In the 2nd century, – By the Old Latin, and – Syriac Verss. – by Papias; – Justin M.; – Irenaeus; – Tertullian.
In the 3rd century, – By the Coptic – and Sahidic versions: – by Hippolytus; – by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage; – by the “Acta Pilati;” – and the “Apostolical Constitutions” in two places.
In the 4th century, – By Cureton’s Syr. and the Gothic Verss.: – besides the Syriac Table of Canons; – Eusebius; – Macarius Magnes; – Aphraates; – Didymus; – the Syriac “Acts of the Ap.;” – Epiphanius; – Leontius; – ps.–Ephraem; – Ambrose; – Chrysostom; – Jerome; – Augustine.
In the 5th century, Besides the Armenian Vers., – by codices A and C; – by Leo; – Nestorius; – Cyril of Alexandria; – Victor of Antioch; – Patricius; – Marius Mercator.
In the 6th and 7th centuries, – Besides cod. D, – Georgian and Ethiopic Verss.: – by Hesychius; – Gregentius; – Prosper; – John, abp of Thessalonica; – and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem.*
* John William Burgon, B.D., The Revision Revised (Paradise, Pa.: Conservative Classics, 1883), 422-23.
In the 2nd century, – By the Old Latin, and – Syriac Verss. – by Papias; – Justin M.; – Irenaeus; – Tertullian.
In the 3rd century, – By the Coptic – and Sahidic versions: – by Hippolytus; – by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage; – by the “Acta Pilati;” – and the “Apostolical Constitutions” in two places.
In the 4th century, – By Cureton’s Syr. and the Gothic Verss.: – besides the Syriac Table of Canons; – Eusebius; – Macarius Magnes; – Aphraates; – Didymus; – the Syriac “Acts of the Ap.;” – Epiphanius; – Leontius; – ps.–Ephraem; – Ambrose; – Chrysostom; – Jerome; – Augustine.
In the 5th century, Besides the Armenian Vers., – by codices A and C; – by Leo; – Nestorius; – Cyril of Alexandria; – Victor of Antioch; – Patricius; – Marius Mercator.
In the 6th and 7th centuries, – Besides cod. D, – Georgian and Ethiopic Verss.: – by Hesychius; – Gregentius; – Prosper; – John, abp of Thessalonica; – and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem.*
* John William Burgon, B.D., The Revision Revised (Paradise, Pa.: Conservative Classics, 1883), 422-23.
You said,
“Why is Mary Magadalene so identified in 16:9 since she was identified in 15:40.”
Could it be to distinguish her from the other Mary mentioned in 15:40?
The “main argument” from “internal evidences” re vocabulary is so subjective – and easily refutable at that – it is not worth pursuing at this point. It is a “dream” in the mind of prejudiced critics. I think the objection to “sign” as used in the passage not being in accord with earlier usage is without weight, a mere vagary.
The viewing of Mark’s Gospel 16:9-20 as spurious was first done by the rationalist German critic Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) and manifested so in his second edition of the NT (1796-1806). He had heard it was absent in Rome’s Vaticanus and, without seeing the MS, deleted it. He is not counted among believing Christians. In all the centuries of the Christian church prior to this its authenticity was not questioned. But (for other omissions) the Unitarians loved his New Testament.
The encroachment of Enlightenment skepticism into the church of Jesus Christ has penetrated even into the modern Scriptoriums from whence we get our Bibles, and the classrooms where our spiritual leaders are taught and trained concerning the Bible. Such bodes ill for the people of God in future generations. The scholars, some of them at any rate, seem sure of themselves amidst the uncertainty engendered by this skepticism toward our Bibles, but the lay people increasingly are losing their confidence in the reliability of Scripture. Truth be told, many scholars themselves realize the text of their holy Book is uncertain, and unlikely to be recovered on the path text criticism has taken.
Ted Letis spoke of a “post-critical” view of Scripture – what some call the canonical or ecclesiastical view – and perhaps this is where we are heading. The link above to van Bruggen’s book, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, leads to a discussion of the disillusionment with text critical method to date.
I have faith that the original language texts of Scripture the Reformation fathers used – concerning which the WCF spoke of in its 1:8 – has been, by God’s “singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, [and] are therefore authentical”. The mss they had and used can be defended, notwithstanding the assaults both then – by Rome – and now, by those within the camp who have used Rome’s very weapons against the Scriptures the Reformation divines built the doctrines of Sola Scripture and Providential Preservation upon.
Back to Mark 16:9-20, this recent symposium – http://www.sebts.edu/NTConference/ – is of great interest to many. I hope the papers presented will be available soon. Does anyone know if they are now? (I understand Robinson and Black defended the 12 verses, Bock I don't know.)
Steve
Last edited:
- Status
