Mark 16:8

Mark 16:8 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]184-185
Καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ταχὺ, ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου. εἶχε δὲ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις· καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον· ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ.

Mark 16:8 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q77f5rc1-2
Και εξελθουσαι εφυγον απο >> του μνημειου· ειχεν γαρ αυτας τρομος και εκ>στασις· και ου>δενι ουδεν ει>πον εφοβουντο γαρʼ

ΕΥΑΓʼΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ

Mark 16:8 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]18rc2
Και εξελθουσαι εφυγον απο του μνημειου· ειχεν δε αυτας τρομος και εκστασις· και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον εφοβουντο γαρ.

MSS: A, Ω,

Mark 16:8 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]37ac2
Και εξελθουσαι εφυγον απο του μνημειου ειχεν γαρ αυτας τρομος και εκστασις και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον εφοβουντο γαρ:

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ

Mark 16:8 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]84
Και εξελθουσαι εφυγον απο του μνημιου· ειχεν δε αυτας τρομος και εκστασις· και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον εφοβουντο γαρ·

Mark 16:8 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]347v|675
Και εξελθουσαι εφυγον· απο του μνημιου ειχεν γαρ αυτας φοβος και εκστασις και ουδενι ουδεν <ε>ϊπαν εφοβουντο γαρ

Critical Apparatus :

(1) ταχυ : E
(2) OMIT ταχυ : א, A, B, C, D, G, K, M, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1, ℓ339, ℓ339 (ii), ℓ1086, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority, Peshitta, Vulgate, Scholz

(3) μνημειου : א, A, B, E, G, K, M, Y, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1, ℓ339, ℓ339 (ii), ℓ1086, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(4) μνημιου : C, D, Δ

(5) ειχε : Y, ℓ339, ℓ339 (ii)
(6) ειχεν : א, A, B, C, D, E, G, K, M, Δ, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1, ℓ1086
(7) ηχεν : ℓ1086 (ii)

(8) δε : A, C, E, G, K, M, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1, ℓ339, ℓ339 (ii), ℓ1086, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(9) γαρ : א, B, D

(10) τρομος : א, A, B, C, E, G, K, M, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1, ℓ339, ℓ339 (ii), ℓ1086, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(11) φοβος : D

(12) ειπον : א, A, B, C, E, G, K, M, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1, ℓ339, ℓ339 (ii), ℓ1086, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(13) ειπαν : D1
(14) ιπαν : D*

 

 

MSS:

(i) 1 and 1582 (f133r) ends at Mk 16:8 with a note:

εν τισι μεν των αντιγραφων, εως ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης· εως ου και ευσεβιος ο παμφιλου εκανονισεν. εν πολλοις δε και ταυτα φερεται.

 

CΛΓ / Β :

C (84), G (f115rc1-2), K (f130v), M (f132rc1), Y (f134r|237), Ω (p259c1)

 

 

A Textual Commentary On Mark 16:8

(a) Satisfactory as is the testimony to the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospel of Mark, generally, some critics have thought that the last twelve verses of the sixteenth chapter were not written by the Evangelist. The following is a concise statement of the question. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, has said in his second dis course on the resurrection, that this Gospel terminates in the more correct copies with the words ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, for they were afraid: and Jerome has observed, that few of the Greek MSS. which he had seen contained these verses. But the very concise affirmation of Jerome is greatly restricted by what he had himself said of a various reading in the fourteenth verse, viz. that it is found in qui- busdam exemplaribus, et maxime Græcis codicibus. It is evident, therefore, that, in the former passage, he has exaggerated, — which is no unusual occurrence with this writer. With regard to the as sertion of Gregory, at this distance of time it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine what he meant by the most exact manuscripts. Perhaps he intended MSS. more correctly written, but this merit alone would add nothing to their authority ; nor can we now ascertain the recension to which they belonged. We must, therefore, examine the evidences which actually exist. The verses in question are certainly wanting in the Vatican manuscript; and in Nos. 137. and 138. of Griesbach’s notation they are marked with an asterisk; they are also wanting in the canons of Eusebius : but, on the other hand, their authenticity is attested by authorities of the greatest importance. These verses are extant in the Codex Alexandrinus ; the most considerable portion of the disputed passage (that is, the seven first verses) is in the Codex Bezæ, a prima manu, but the remainder has been added by a later hand ; and they are extant in the Greek commentaries of Theophylact. The whole twelve verses are like wise found in the Peshito (or Old Syriac) and Arabic versions, and in those MSS. of the Vulgate Latin Version which are not mutilated at the end of the second Gospel ; and they are cited by Augustine, Ambrose, and Leo bishop of Rome (surnamed the Great), who followed this version. But what is of most importance is, that the manner in which so ancient a writer as Irenaeus, in the second century, refers to this Gospel, renders it highly probable that the whole passage was read in all the copies known to him. His words are these : — In fine autem Evangelii, ait Marcus : Et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in coelo, et sedet ad dexteram Dei. (Adv. Haer. lilt. iii. c. 10. (aL 11.)
The verse here quoted is the nineteenth, and the chapter contains only twenty verses. Hippolytus, who wrote in the early part of the third century, also bears testimony in favour of the disputed fragment in the beginning of this book Περὶ Χαρισμάτων. It is further worthy of notice, that there is not a single manuscript containing this verse, which has not also the whole passage from the eighth to the end; nor is there a single manuscript, in which this verse is wanting, that does not also want the whole. No authority of equal antiquity has yet been produced on the other side. It has been conjectured that the difficulty of reconciling Mark’s account of our Lord’s appearances, after his resurrection, with those of the other Evangelists, has emboldened some transcribers to omit them. The plausibility of this conjecture renders it highly probable : to which we may subjoin, that the abruptness of the conclusion of this history, without the words in question, and the want of any thing like a reason for adding them if they had not been there originally, afford a strong collateral proof of their authenticity. Transcribers, Dr. Campbell well remarks, presume to add and alter in order to remove contradictions, but not in order to make them. The conclusion, therefore is, that the disputed fragment is an integral part of the Gospel of Mark, and consequently is genuine.’

[A full statement of this question may be seen in Tregelles’s “Account of the printed Text,” pp. 246 — 261. Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by St. Mark, or not found in the best copies. Also they are omitted in B. (Codex Vaticanus), in the Latin Codex Bobbiensis (h), in the old MSS. of the Armenian, and in an Arabic version in the Vatican. In L. another termination is given, and then it is stated that this is also extant On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that from the second century and onward, these verses have been known as part of this Gospel (whoever was their author). The conclusions drawn from the arguments given at length in the place cited above, are, —

“I. That the book of Mark himself extends no farther than ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, xvi. 8.
“II. That the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel, and that the full reception of early testimony on this question does not in the least involve their rejection as not being a part of canonical Scripture.”]
IV. Although the genuineness and authenticity of Mark’s Gospel are thus satisfactorily ascertained, considerable uncertainty prevails as to the time when it was composed. It is allowed by all the ancient authors that Mark wrote it at Rome ; and many of them assert that he was no more than an amanuensis or interpreter to Peter, who dictated this Gospel to him, though others affirm that he wrote it after Peter’s death. Hence ‘a variety of dates has been assigned between the years 56 and 65 ; so that it becomes difficult to determine the precise year when it was written. But as it is evident from the Evangelist’s own narrative (Mark xvi. 20.), that he did not write until after the apostles had dispersed themselves among the Gentiles, and had preached the Gospel every where, the Lord working with them and confirming the words with signs following ; and as it does not appear that all the apostles quitted Judsea earlier than the year 50 (though several of them laboured among the Gentiles with great success), it has been argued that we shall ap proximate nearest to the real date, if we assign it to the year 63 or 64, at which time Peter was at Rome. This conclusion rests on two assumptions; 1. That the last verses were written by St. Mark himself; and 2. that the apostles did not disperse before a.d. 50. On other grounds we may safely conclude that Mark could not have written as interpres Petri before A.D. 64. (Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, volume 4, pp. 434-436)

(b) St. Mark xvi. 9-20. The last twelve verses of this Gospel have some remarkable phænomena connected with their history ; in order fully to discuss their authority, it is needful first to establish by evidence of facts certain propositions .
I. That it is historically known that in the early ages it was denied that these verses formed a part of the Gospel written by St. Mark.
II. That it is certain, on grounds of historical transmission, that they were from the second century, at least, and onward, known as part of this book.
III. That the early testimony that they were not written by St. Mark is confirmed by existing monuments.
After these propositions have been established, the conclusions to be drawn may assume the form of corollaries.

( I. ) The absence of this portion from some, many, or most copies of St. Mark’s Gospel, or that it was not written by St. Mark himself, is attested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome ; and by later writers (especially Greeks), who, even though they copied from their predecessors, were competent to transmit the record of a fact.
(i.) Eusebius, in the first of his Questiones ad Marinum, discusses πως παρά μεν τω Ματθαίω « όψε σαββάτων ” φαίνεται έγηγερμένος ο σωτήρ , παρά δε τώ Μάρκα πρωί τη μιά των σαββά He thus commences his solution of the difficulty : τούτου διττή αν είη η λύσις : ο μεν γαρ το κεφάλαιον αυτό την τούτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν αθετών , είπoι αν μη εν άπασιν αυτήν φέρεσθαι τους αντιγράφους του κατά Μάρκον ευαγγελίου . τα γ ‘ ούν ακριβή των αντιγράφων το τέλος περιγράφει της κατά τον Μάρκον ιστορίας εν τοις λόγοις του όφθέντος νεανί σκου ταϊς γυναιξί και είρηκότος αυταίς, “ μη φοβείσθε, Ιησούν ζητείτε τον Ναζαρηνόν ” και τους έξης , οίς επιλέγει , “και ακού σασαι έφυγον, και ουδενί ουδέν είπον, εφοβούντο γάρ.” εν τούτω γάρ σχεδόν έν άπασι τοις αντιγράφους του κατά Μάρκον ευαγγελίου περιγέγραπται το τέλος τα δε εξής σπανίως έν τισιν αλλ ‘ ουκ εν πάσι φερόμενα περιττά αν είη , και μάλιστα είπερ έχoιεν αντιλογίαν τη των λοιπών ευαγγελιστών μαρτυρία ταύτα μεν ούν είπoι άν τις παραιτούμενος και πάντη αναιρών περιττόν ερώτημα. (Mai Scriptorum Collectio Vaticana, i . ed . 2, 1831, p. 51, 2). Eusebius then goes on to explain the supposed difficulty, irrespective of the supposed authorship of these verses. This testimony, then, is clear, that the greater part of the Greek copies had not the twelve verses in question. It is evident that Eusebius did not believe that they were written by Mark himself, for he says , κατά Μάρκον μετά την ανάστασιν ου λέγεται ώφθαι τους μαθηταίς. The arrangement of the Eusebian Canons are also an argument that he did not own the passage ; for in genuine copies of the notation of these sections the numbers do not go beyond ver. 8, which is marked σλή ( 233 ). Some copies, carry indeed, this notation as far as ver. 14, and some to the end of the chapter ; but these are unauthorised additions, and contradicted by not only good copies which contain these sections, both Greek and Latin (for instance A, and the Codex Amiatinus), but also by a scholion found in a good many MSS. at ver. 8, έως ώδε Ευσέβιος έκανό It has been objected that these sections show nothing as to the MSS. extant in Eusebius’s time , but only the condition of the Harmony of Ammonius , from which the divisions were taken. The objection is not without significance ; but it really carries back our evidence from the fourth century to the third ; and thus it is seen, that just as Eusebius found these verses absent in his day from the best and most numerous copies, so was also the case with Ammonius when he formed his Harmony in the preceding century.
(ii.) Gregory of Nyssa says, in his second Homily on the Resur rection , * εν τοις ακριβέστεροις αντιγράφοις το κατά Μάρκον ευαγγέλιον μέχρι του « εφοβούτο γάρ, ” έχει το τέλος.
(iii.) Victor of Antioch, in his Commentary on Mark, says : επειδή έν τισι των αντιγράφων πρόσκειται το κατά Μάρκον ευαγ γελίω, “αναστάς δε τη μια του σαββάτου πρωί εφάνη , ” κτλ . δοκεί δε τούτο διαφωνείν τω υπό του Ματθαίου ειρημένω , έρούμεν , ως δυνατόν ήν ειπείν , ότι νενόθευται το παρά Μάρκο τελευταίον έν τισι φερόμενον . πλήν ίνα μη δόξωμεν επί το έτοιμον καταφεύγειν , ούτως αναγνωσόμεθα , « αναστάς δέ , ” και υποστίξαντες επάγομεν , « πρωϊ τη μιά του σαββάτου , ” κτλ . …. παρά πλείστους αντι γράφοις ουκ ήν δε ταύτα τα επιφερόμενα εν τω κατά Μάρκον ευαγγελίω ως νόθα γαρ ενόμισαν αυτά τινες είναι . ημείς δε εξ ακριβών αντιγράφων , ως εν πλείστοις ευρόντες αυτά , κατά το παλαιστιναίον ευαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ως έχει η αλήθεια , συντεθεί καμεν και την εν αυτώ επιφερομένην δεσποτικήν άνάστασιν μετά τό , εφοβούντο γάρ . (Matthaei Gr . Test . ii . 269.) This remark of Victor is worthy of attention ; for his testimony to the absence of these twelve verses from some or many copies , stands in contrast to his own opinion on the subject. He seems to speak of having added the passage in question (to his own copy, perhaps) on the authority of a Palestinian exemplar .
(iv.) Severus of Antioch , in the sixth century, says, ev mèv oův τοις ακριβεστέροις των αντιγράφων το κατά Μάρκον ευαγγέλιον μέχρι του “εφοβούντο γάρ,” έχει το τέλος έν δέ τισι προσκείται και ταύτα, “ αναστάς δε πρωί πρώτη σαββάτων εφάνη πρώτον , ” KTX . * This testimony may be buf a repetition of that already cited from Gregory of Nyssa ; but if so , it is , at least , an approving quotation . It is worthy of remark that both Eusebius and Victor have tỷ Meộ where our text has zpárn ; this may be an accidental vari ation ; as they do not afterwards give the words precisely as they had before quoted them ; or it may show that they spoke of the passage, ver. 9—20 , without having before them a copy which contained it , and thus that they unintentionally used tô utậ as the more customary phraseology in the New Testament. Dionysius of Alexandria has been brought forward as a witness on each side. Scholz refers to his Epistle to Basilides, as though he had there stated that some, or many, copies did not contain the passage ; and Tischendorf similarly mentions his testimony ; while , on the other hand, Dr. Davidson (Introd. i. 165) places Dionysius amongst those by whom the passage “ is sanctioned . ” All, however , that I can gather from his Epistle to Basilides (Routh, Rel. Sac . iii . 223—32 ) is , that in discussing the testimony of the four evangelists to the time ( whether night , or early in the morning ) at which our Lord arose from the dead, he takes no notice whatever of Mark xvi. 9; and this he could hardly fail to have done , as bearing more closely on the question , when referring to the beginning of the same chapter, if he had acknowledged or known the last twelve verses. His testimony, then , quantum valeat , is purely negative . Jerome’s testimony is yet to be adduced. He discusses (Ad Hedibiam , Quæst . II . ed . Vallarsi , i . col . 819,) the difficulties brought forward as to the time of the resurrection . Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est ; aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium , quod in raris fertur Evangeliis , omnibus Græciæ libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus , præsertim quum diversa atque contraria Evangelistis cæteris narrare videatur ; aut hoc respondendum , quod uterque verum dixerit,” etc. He then proposes to remove the difficulty by a different punctuation , in the same manner as Eusebius and Victor did . But an endea vour has been made to invalidate Jerome’s testimony by refer ring to what he says in his Dialogue against the Pelagians, II. 15. “ In quibusdam exemplaribus , et maxime in Græcis codicibus juxta Marcum in fine ejus Evangelii scribitur : Postea quum accu buissent undecim apparuit eis Iesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum , quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem non crediderunt . Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes ; Sæculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis substantia * est , que non sinit per im mundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem : idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam . Cui si contradicitis , illud certe renuere non audebitis ; Mundus in maligno positus est , ” etc. ( Ed. Vallarsi. ij. 744 , 5.) Hence it has been inferred that Jerome contradicts himself as to the Greek copies . But (i.) that conclusion does not follow , because he may here speak of those Greek copies which did contain the verses in question , and not of the MSS . in general. (ii.) If this testimony be supposed to relate to Greek MSS . in general , it is at least remarkable that we have no other trace of such an addition at ver . 14. ( iii . ) Jerome wrote against the Pelagians in extreme old age, and he made in that work such demonstrable errors (e.g. citing II . 2 , Ignatius instead of Polycarp ) , that it would be a bold step if any were to reject an unequivocal testimony to a fact stated in his earlier writings on the ground of something contained in this ; especially when , if the latter testimony be admitted as conclusive , it would involve our accepting a strange addition at ver. 14 ( otherwise wholly unknown to MSS . , versions , and fathers ) as a reading then current in Greek copies . These testimonies sufficiently establish , as an historical fact, that in the early ages it was denied that these twelve concluding verses formed a part of the Gospel of St. Mark . ( II . ) I now pass to the proofs of the second proposition ; —that it is certain , on grounds of historical transmission, that, from the second century at least , this Gospel concluded as it does now in our copies . This is shown by the citations of early writers who recognise the existence of the section in question . These testimonies com mence with Irenæus : * “ In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus , Et quidem Dominus Iesus , postquam locutus est eis , receptus est in cælos , et sedet ad dexteram Dei ” (C. H. iii . 10. 6 ) . This sentence of the old Latin translator of Irenæus is thus cited in Greek in confirmation of his having used this part of the Gospel : ‘ O MÈV ούν κύριος μετά το λαλήσαι αυτούς ανελήφθε εις τον ουρανόν , και εκάθισεν εκ δεξιών του θεού . Ειρηναίος και των αποστόλων πλησίον εν τω προς τας αιρέσεις γ λόγω τούτο ανήνεγκεν το ρητόν ως Mápką eipnuévov.f Whether this part of St. Mark was known to Celsus has been disputed . My own opinion is , that that early writer against Christianity did , in the passage which Origen discusses ( lib . II . $$ 59 and 70 ) , refer to the appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalen , as found in Mark xvi . 9 ; but that Origen , in answering him , did not exactly apprehend the purport of his objection , from ( probably ) not knowing or using that section of this Gospel . This would not be the only place in which Origen has misapprehended the force of remarks of Celsus from difference of reading in the copies which they respectively used, or from his not being aware of the facts to which Celsus referred. * Amongst the works of Hippolytus , enumerated as his on the ancient marble monument now in the Vatican , is the book trepi χαρισμάτων αποστολική παράδοσις , in which this part of St. Mark’s Gospel is distinctly quoted : (apostoli loquuntur) ás åv τετελειωμένων ημών φησίν [ ο κύριος πάσιν άμα περί των εξ αυτού διά του πνεύματος διδομένων χαρισμάτων , Σημεία δε τους πιστεύσασιν ταύτα παρακολουθήσει εν τω ονόματί μου δαιμόνια εκβαλούσι , γλώσσαις καιναΐς λαλήσουσιν , όφεις αρούσι , κάν θανά σιμόν τι πίωσιν ου μή αυτούς βλάψει επί αρρώστους χείρας , επιθήσουσι , και καλώς έξουσι . Τούτων των χαρισμάτων πρό τερον μεν ημίν δοθέντων τους αποστόλους , μέλλουσι το ευαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάση τη κτίσει έπειτα δε τους δι ‘ ημών πιστεύσασιν αναγκαίως χορηγουμένων. ( Ed . Fabr . i . 245. Cotel . Patr . Apost . 1. 391 , ed . 1724 ) . After these testimonies of the second and third centuries , there are many who use the passage ; such for instance as Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Augustine, Nestorius , ( ap . Cyr . Αlex . vi . 46. ) Under this head may be mentioned the MSS . and versions in general ( the conspectus of their evidence on both sides will be given under the next proposition ) ; and amongst the MSS. those may in particular be specified which continue the Ammonian Sections on to the end of the chapter . This seems to have been done to supply a supposed omission ; and in ancient MSS., such as C , it is clear that the copyist took this section for an integral part of the book . The early mention and use of this section , and the place that it holds in the ancient versions in general , and in the MSS., sufficiently show , on historical grounds, that it had a place, and was transmitted as a part of the second Gospel . III . To consider properly the third proposition ( that the early testimony that St. Mark did not write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments ) , the evidence of the MSS . and versions must be stated in full . The passage is wholly omitted in Codex B . , * in the Latin Codex Bobbiensis ( k ) , in old MSS. of the Armenian, and in an Arabic version in the Vatican (Cod. Arab. Vat. 13). Of these versions , the Codex Bobbiensis adds a different brief conclusion , “ Omnia autem quæcunque præcepta erant et qui cum puero [ l . cum Petro ] erant breviter exposuerunt . Posthæc et ipse jhesus adparuit . et ab orientem usque . usque in orientem . misit per illos sanctam et incorruptam ( ** add . prædicationis , * -nem ? ) salutis æternæ . Amen . ” And the Armenian , in the edition of Zohrab , separates the con cluding twelve verses from the rest of the Gospel . Mr. Rieu thus notices the Armenian MSS . ; “ . “ έφοβούντο γάρ Some of the oldest MSS . end here : many put after these words the final Ευαγγέλιον κατά Μάρκον , and then give the additional verses with a new superscription, eủayy . Katà M. Oscan goes on without any break . ” The Arabic MS . in the Vatican is that described by Scholz in his “ Biblisch – Kritische Reise ” ( pp . 117—126 ) ; and though the Arabic versions are of too recent a date to possess much critical value , this MS . , so far as may be judged from the few extracts made , seems to be based on an ancient Greek text . Besides the MS . which omits the verses , * they are marked with an asterisk in two cursive copies . In L , after époßoûvto yáp , there is added on a φέρετέ [ i . e . -ται ] που και ταύτα ” πάντα δε τα παρηγγελμένα τους περί τον πέτρον συντόμως εξήγγι λαν μετά δε ταύτα και αυτός ο Ιησούς από ανατολής και άχρι δύσεως εξαπέστιλεν δι ‘ αυτών το ιερόν και άφθαρτον κήρυγμα της αιωνίου σωτηρίας Thus far L is supported by the cursive cod. 274 , by the marg . of the Harclean Syriac , and by the Latin Codex Bobbiensis ( see above ) . L then continues : « έστην [ i . e . -τιν ] δε και ταύτα φερόμενα μετά το ‘ Έφοβούνται γάρ . ” αναστάς δε κτλ . ( and then follow the twelve verses ) . In Cod . 1 , ver . 8 ends on folio 220 A , and at the top of the next page is written in vermillion , έν τισι μέν των αντιγράφων έως ώδε πληρούται ο ευαγγελιστής : έως ου και Ευσέβιος ο παμφί λου έκανόνισεν . εν πολλοίς δε και ταύτα φέρεται (and then follow ver . 9—20). A similar note or a scholion stating the absence of the following verses from many, from most , or from the most correct copies ( often from Victor or Severus ), is found in twenty five other cursive codices ; sometimes with té os interposed after ver. 8. The absence of Ammonian divisions in A L and other good copies after ver. 8 should here be remembered . Such is the testimony of existing monuments confirming the ancient witnesses against this passage . N On the other hand , the passage is found in the uncial codd. A C D, X A, E G II K M S U V ( F is defective ) ; as well as in 33 , 69 , and the rest of the cursive copies which have been col lated . It is in copies of the Old Latin ; in the Vulg . in the Curetonian Syriac , as well as the Peshito and the Harclean ( with the marginal note given above ), and the Jerusalem Syriac ; in the Memphitic, Gothic, and Æthiopic ; besides those which have been previously mentioned as characterised by some peculiarity. The Thebaic is here defective , but it is supposed that a citation in that language may be a paraphrase of ver. 20. The Gothic is defective in the concluding verses, but enough is extant to show that it recognised the passage ; and of the Curetonian Syriac no part of this Gospel is found except a fragment containing ver. 17 to the end of this chapter. The Old Latin is here defective in the best copies ; for the Codex Vercellensis is imperfect from ch. xv. 15 , and Cod . Vero nensis from xiii . 24. Also the Cod. Brixianus is defective from xiv , 70. The mode in which Cod . Bobbiensis concludes has been noticed already . The Codices Colbertinus , Corbiensis, and others, are those which may be quoted as showing that the Old Latin contains this section. * It has been suggested that this portion of St. Mark was omitted by those who found a difficulty in reconciling what it contains with the other Evangelists . But so far from there being any proof of this , which would have required a far less change , we find that the same writers who mention the non – existence of the passage in many copies , do themselves show how it may be har monised with what is contained in the other Gospels ; we have no reason for entertaining the supposition that such a Marcion – like excision had been here adopted . In opposing the authenticity of this section , some have argued on the nature of the contents ; —that the appearance of our Lord to Mary Magdalene first, is not it is said ) in accordance with what we learn elsewhere ; that the supposition of miraculous powers to be received (ver. 17, 18) is carried too far ; —that ( in ver . 16 ) Baptism is too highly exalted . I mention these objections , though I do not think any one of them separately, nor yet the whole combined, to be of real weight . There is no historical difficulty which would be regarded as of real force, if , on other grounds , doubt had not been cast on the passage ; for else we might object to many Scripture narrations , because we cannot harmonise them, owing to our not being acquainted with all the circumstances . As to the doctrinal points specified, it is hard to imagine what difficulty is supposed to exist ; I see nothing that would involve the feelings and opinions of an age subsequent to the apostolic . The style of these twelve verses has been relied on as though it were an argument that they were not written by Mark himself . I am well aware that arguments on style are often very fallacious , and that by themselves they prove very little ; but when there does exist external evidence , and when internal proofs as to style , manner, verbal expression , and connection , are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment, then these internal considerations possess very great weight . A difference has been remarked , and truly remarked , between the phraseology of this section and the rest of this Gospel. This difference is in part negative and in part positive. The phrase ology of St. Mark possesses characteristics which do not appear in these verses. And besides these negative features , this section has its own peculiarities ; amongst which may be specified páry σαββάτου (ver. 9), instead of which τη μιά των σαββάτων would have been expected : in ver . 10 and 14 sentences are conjoined without a copulative , contrary to the common usage in St. Mark . ékelvos is used four times in a manner different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel . The periodic structure of verses 19 and 20 is such as only occurs once elsewhere in this Gospel (xiv. 38).

Many words, expressions, and constructions occur in this section , and not in any other part of St. Mark : e . g . Tropeúouai ( thrice ), θεάομαι ( twice ) , απίστεω ( twice ) , έτερος , παρακολουθέω , βλάπτω , επακολουθέω , συνεργέω , βεβαιόω , πανταχού , μετά ταύτα , εν τω óvóuatı , kúplos , as applied absolutely to Christ ( twice ). * Now, while each of these peculiarities ( except the first t ) may possess singly no weight , yet their combination , and that in so short a portion , has a force which can rather be felt than stated . And if any parallel be attempted , as to these peculiarities , by a comparison of other portions of St. Mark , it will be found that many chapters must be taken together before we shall find any list of examples as numerous or as striking as those which are crowded together here in these few verses . These considerations must be borne in mind as additional to the direct evidence stated before . It has been asked , as an argument that the section before us was actually written by St. Mark , whether it is credible that he could have ended his Gospel with … époßoûvto yap . εφοβούντο γαρ. Now, how ever improbable, such a difficulty must not be taken as sufficient , per se , to invalidate testimony to a fact as such . We often do not know what may have caused the abrupt conclusion of many works. The last book of Thucydides has no proper termination at all ; and in the Scripture some books conclude with extraordinary abruptness : Ezra and Jonah are instances of this. Perhaps we do not know enough of the circumstances of St. Mark when he wrote his Gospel to say whether he did or did not leave it with a com plete termination. And if there is difficulty in supposing that the work ever ended abruptly at ver. 8, would this have been transmit ted as a fact by good witnesses , if there had not been real grounds for regarding it to be true ? And further , irrespective of recorded evidence, we could not doubt that copies in ancient times did so end , for B , the oldest that we have, actually does so. Also the copies which add the concluding twelve verses as something separate, and those ( as L ) which give another brief termination , show that this fact is not incredible. Such a peculiarity would not have been invented . It has also been urged with great force that the contents of this section are such as preclude its having been added at a post – apostolic period , and that the very difficulties which it contains afford a strong presumption that it is an authentic history : the force of this argument is such that I do not see how it can be avoided ; for even if a writer went out of his way to make difficulties in a supplement to St. Mark’s Gospel , it is but little likely that his contemporaries would have accepted and transmitted such an addition, except on grounds of known and certain truth as to the facts recorded. If there are points not easy to be reconciled with the other Gospels , it is all the less probable that any writer should have put forth , and that others should have received, the narrative, unless it were really authentic history . As such it is confirmed by the real or supposed points of difficulty . As , then , the facts of the case , and the early reception and transmission of this section , uphold its authenticity , and as it has been placed from the second century , at least , at the close of our second canonical Gospel ; -and as , likewise , its transmission has been accompanied by a continuous testimony that it was not a part of the book as originally written by St. Mark ; —and as both these points are confirmed by internal considerations The following corollaries flow from the propositions already established : I. That the book of Mark himself extends no farther than εφοβούντο γάρ, Xvi . 8 . II . That the remaining twelve verses , by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel, and that the full reception of early testimony on this question does not in the least involve their rejection as not being a part of Canonical Scripture . * It may, indeed , be said that they might have been written by St. Mark at a later period ; but , even on this supposition , the attested fact that the book once ended at ver . 8 would remain the same, and the assumption that the same Evangelist had added the con clusion would involve new difficulties, instead of removing any . There is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to Holy Scripture, as if all our notions of its authority depended on our knowing who was the writer of each particular portion ; instead of simply seeing and owning that it was given forth from God , and that it is as much his as were the commandments of the Law written by his own finger on the tables of stone . As to many books of Scripture, we know not who the writers may have been ; and yet this is no reason for questioning their authority in the slightest degree. If we try to be certain as to points of which there is no proof, we really shall find ourselves to be substituting conjecture in the place of evidence. Thus some of the early Church received the Epistle to the Hebrews as Holy Scripture ; who, instead of absolutely dogmatising that it was written by St. Paul — a point of which they had no proof — were content to say that “ God only knoweth the real writer ” : and yet to many in the present day , though they have not one whit more evidence on the subject, it seems, that to doubt or disbelieve that Epistle to have been written by St. Paul himself, and to doubt or disbelieve its canonical authority , is one and the same thing. But this mode of treating Scripture is very different from what ought to be found amongst those who own it as the word of God . I thus look on this section as an authentic anonymous addi tion to what Mark himself wrote down from the narration of St. Peter ( as we learn from the testimony of their contemporary , John the Presbyter ) ; and that it ought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel , as the last chapter of Deuteronomy ( unknown as the writer is ) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the books of Moses . I cannot but believe that many upholders of orthodox and evangelical truth practically narrow their field of vision as to Scripture by treating it (perhaps unconsciously) as though we had to consider the thoughts , mind , and measure of apprehension pos sessed personally by each individual writer through whom the Holy Ghost gave it forth . This is a practical hindrance to our receiving it , in the full sense , as from God ; that is , as being really inspired : for , if inspired , the true and potential author was God, and not the individual writer , known or anonymous . * We know from John the Presbyter just enough of the origin of St. Mark’s Gospel to be aware that it sprang from the oral narrations of the Apostle Peter ; and we have the testimony of that long – surviving immediate disciple of Christ when on earth ( in recording this fact ) that Mark erred in nothing. But even with this information, if we thought of mere human authorship , how many questions might be started : but if we receive inspiration as a fact , then inquiries as to the relation of human authors become a matter of secondary importance . It has its value to know that Apostles bore testimony to what they had seen of Christ’s actions, and that they were inspired to write as eye and ear witnesses of his deeds and teaching. So it is of importance to know that in this Gospel we have the testimony of Peter confirmed by John the Presbyter ; but the real essential value of the record for the con tinuous instruction of believers, is that inspiration of the Holy Ghost which constitutes certain writings to be Holy Scripture.

Those which were originally received on good grounds as such, and which have been authentically transmitted to us , we may confidently and reverently receive, even though we may not know by what pen they were recorded.

(S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of fhe Greek New Testament, pp. 246-261)

 

This entry was posted in 02. Κατὰ Μᾶρκον. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.