Mark 16:18

Mark 16:18 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]185
Ὄφεις ἀροῦσι· κἂν θανάσιμόν τι πίωσιν, οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψει· ἐπὶ ἀῤῥώστους χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσι, καὶ καλῶς ἕξουσιν.

MSS: ℓ339 (f25vc2)

Mark 16:18 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]18vc1
οφις αρουσιν· καν θανασιμον τι πιωσιν ου μη αυτους βλαψη· επι αρρωστους χειρας επιθησουσιν· και καλως εξουσιν.

Mark 16:18 [Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 (B03) (4th century)]37ac2
OMITTED

Mark 16:18 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]85
και εν ταις χερσιν οφεις αρουσιν· καν θανασιμον τι πιωσιν ουδεν αυτους βλαψη· επι αρρωστους χειρας επιθησουσιν· και καλως εξουσιν·

Mark 16:18 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]348v|677
οφεις αρουσιν· καν θανασειμον τι ποιωσιν. ου μη αυτους βλαψη, επ αρρωστους χειρας επιθησουσειν· και καλως εξουσιν,

Critical Apparatus :

(1) Mark 16:18 : A, C, D^supp, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, X, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 7, 8, 9, 13, 22※, 438, 439, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii)
(2) OMIT Mark 16:18 : א, B, 1*, 22*, 1582*

(3) οφεις : C, D^supp, E, G, K, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 7, 8, 9, 13, 438, 439, 700, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(4) οφις : A
(5) και εν ταις χερσιν οφεις : C, L, X, Δ, 1※, 22※, 892, 1582※

(6) αρουσι : Y, 7, 8, 9, 13, 22※, 438, 439, 892, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii),
(7) αρουσιν : A, C, D^supp, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, X, Δ, Ω, 1※, 700, 1582※

(8) θανασιμον : A, C, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, X, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 7, 8, 9, 13, 22※, 438, 439, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, Majority
(9) θανασειμον : D^supp,
(10) θανασημον : ℓ1086 (ii)

(11) πιωσιν : A, C, D^supp¹, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, X, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 7, 8, 9, 13, 22※, 438, 439, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(12) ποιωσιν : D^supp*,

(13) ου μη : A, D^supp, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, X, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 7, 8, 9, 13, 22※, 438, 439, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(14) ουδεν : C

(15) αυτους : A, C, D^supp, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, Y, 1※, 7, 8, 9, 22※, 438, 439, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339
(16) αυτοις : X, Δ, Ω, 13

(17) βλαψει : 9, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii)
(18) βλαψη : A, C, D^supp, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, X, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 7, 8, 13, 22※, 438, 439, 700, 892, 1582※, Majority

(19) επι : A, C, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, X, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 7, 8, 9, 13, 22※, 438, 439, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(20) επ : D^supp,

(21) αρρωστους : A, C, D^supp, E, G, K, M, S, W, X, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 7, 8, 9, 13, 22※, 438, 439, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, Majority
(22) αρροστους : ℓ1086 (ii)
(23) αρωστους : L

(24) επιθησουσι : S, Y, Ω, 1※, 7, 8, 13, 22※, 438, 439, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339,
(25) επιθησουσιν : A, C, D^supp¹, E, G, K, L, M, W, X, Δ, ℓ1086 (ii)
(26) επιθησουσειν : D^supp*,
(27) επιθησωσι : 9

A Textual Commentary On Mark 16:18

(a) It is only since the appearance of Griesbach’s second edition [1796–1806] that Critics of the New Testament have permitted themselves to handle the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel with disrespect. Previous critical editions of the New Testament are free from this reproach. “There is no reason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of Scripture,” wrote Mill in 1707, after a review of the evidence (as far as he was acquainted with it) for and against. Twenty-seven years later, appeared Bengel’s edition of the New Testament (1734) ; and Wetstein, at the end of another seventeen years (1751-2), followed in the same field. Both editors, after rehearsing the adverse testimony in extenso, left the passage in undisputed possession of its place. Alter in 1786-7, and Birch in 1788^a, (suspicious as the latter evidently was of its genuineness,) followed their predecessors ‘ example. But Matthaei, (who also brought his labours to a close in the year 1788,) was not content to give a silent suffrage. He had been for upwards of fourteen years a laborious collator of Greek MSS. of the New Testament, and was so convinced of the insufficiency of the arguments which had been brought against these twelve verses of S. Mark that with no ordinary warmth, no common acuteness, he insisted on their genuineness. “With Griesbach,” (remarks Dr. Tregelles^b,) “Texts which may be called really critical begin ;” and Griesbach is the first to insist that the concluding verses of S. Mark are spurious. That he did not suppose the second Gospel to have always ended at verse 8, we have seen already ‘. He was of opinion, however, that “at some very remote period, the original ending of the Gospel perished, —disappeared perhaps from the Evangelist’s own copy, —and that the present ending was by some one substituted in its place.” Griesbach further invented the following elaborate and extraordinary hypothesis to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi. 9–20.
(John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, pp. 5-6)