The Original Ending of Mark

A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9–20

Nicholas P. Lunn

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9781625646286
  9781498227193
• eBook ISBN:
  9781630875206
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

Although traditionally accepted by the church down through the centuries, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) has been relegated by modern scholarship to the status of a later appendage. The arguments for such a view are chiefly based upon the witness of the two earliest complete manuscripts of Mark, and upon matters of language and style. This work shows that these primary grounds of argumentation are inadequate. It is demonstrated that the church fathers knew the Markan ending from the very earliest days, well over two centuries before the earliest extant manuscripts. The quantity of unique terms in the ending is also seen to fall within the parameters exhibited by undisputed Markan passages. Strong indications of Markan authorship are found in the presence of specific linguistic constructions, a range of literary devices, and the continuation of various themes prominent within the body of the Gospel. Furthermore, the writings of Luke show that the Gospel of Mark known to this author contained the ending. Rather than being a later addition, the evidence is interpreted in terms of a textual omission occurring at a later stage in transmission, probably in Egypt during the second century.

1

Introduction

The first scholarly consensus

In the latter part of the nineteenth century two Cambridge scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, published their major critical edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881). This was one of several such publications appearing in the wake of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus and the coming to light of Codex Vaticanus several decades earlier. Of these various scholarly works that of Westcott and Hort was perhaps the most influential. In the accompanying “Notes on Select Readings”1 a lengthy and detailed argument was presented which forcibly proposed that Mark 16:9–20 be considered inauthentic, a view held earlier by Griesbach and Lachmann.2 The absence of these verses from the two major codices provided the strongest evidence supporting their case. This was backed up with citations from church fathers and the discussion of internal evidence.

The case put forward by Westcott and Hort and other early textual critics succeeded in persuading the greater number of NT scholars and very quickly the non-originality of the final verses of Mark became one of the dogmas of NT textual criticism. The generally accepted view was that these twelve verses were appended by a later hand, probably at some stage during the second century.

However, not all were convinced by the arguments. Both at that time and still now, there have been those occupying high academic or ecclesiastical positions who have defended, on the basis of the evidence, the genuineness of the disputed passage. Of these, the following are the most notable:

• Frederick C. Cook (1804–89), Cambridge scholar and canon residentiary of Exeter, chief editor of The Speaker’s Commentary.

• Christopher Wordsworth (1807–85), Fellow and tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge, Bishop of Lincoln, author of The Greek New Testament.

• John W. Burgon (1813–88), Fellow of Oriel College and Gresham Lecturer in Divinity at Oxford, author of The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark.

• F. H. A. Scrivener (1813–91), Cambridge scholar and Prebendary of Exeter, author of A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, and committee member for the Revised Version.

• Richard C. H. Lenski (1864–1936), Professor, Capital University, Columbus, author of the twelve-volume Commentary on the New Testament.

• William R. Farmer, Professor of New Testament, Perkins School of Theology, Dallas, author of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1974).

• Maurice A. Robinson, Senior Professor of New Testament, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, North Carolina, author of several works on textual criticism, including a contribution to Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (2008).

Notwithstanding this continuing opposition to the prevailing opinion, the case regarding the authenticity of Mark 16:9–20 is now largely treated as closed, an attitude reflected in the fact that many major commentaries offer no remarks on the contents of these verses.3

Though the view established in the late nineteenth century labeled the end of Mark as a later addition, this does not mean that the alternative position then put forward was that 16:8 was the actual original conclusion. Indeed, such a notion was scarcely entertained.4 An ending at that juncture was described by Westcott and Hort themselves as “incredible” and therefore rejected.5 At that time, as shown in the work of N. Clayton Croy, three theories regarding the conclusion were generally advanced: (1) there was an ending beyond v. 8 which was accidentally lost; (2) Mark intended to write an appropriate conclusion but never succeeded in doing so, perhaps on account of persecution or death; or (3) the original ending was deliberately suppressed.6

The new scholarly consensus

Over the ensuing decades, however, a shift in scholarly opinion began to take place. Croy has demonstrated that as the twentieth century progressed the idea that 16:8 might after all have been the author’s intended conclusion came to be seriously considered, and then advocated.7 Appeal was made to evidence from the classics that paragraphs, major divisions, and even whole books might end with the Greek particle γάρ (“for”), as does Mark 16:8. Towards the middle of that century the case for this abrupt ending was championed by Oxford professor R. H. Lightfoot,8 and from then on its popularity grew steadily. By the late 1980s this view had assumed the place of the new scholarly consensus, enlisting the support of scholars of such caliber as Raymond Brown, James Dunn, Paul Achtemeier, and Morner Hooker. On this dramatic shift in opinion Croy remarks:

Twentieth-century scholarship thus began and ended with a firm consensus about the ending of the gospel, a consensus, however, which flipped 180 degrees in the latter half of the century. The change was grad...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: External Evidence (1)
• Chapter 3: External Evidence (2)
• Chapter 4: Linguistic Evidence (1)
• Chapter 5: Linguistic Evidence (2)
• Chapter 6: Literary Evidence
• Chapter 7: Thematic Evidence
• Chapter 8: The Longer Ending and the Gospels
• Chapter 9: Miscellaneous Issues
• Chapter 10: The Cause of the Problem
• Chapter 11: Summary and Conclusion
• Bibliography