Mark 16:9

Mark 16:9 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]185
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου, ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ’ ἡς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.

MSS: E, G, M, S

Mark 16:9 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]18rc2
Αναστας δε πρωϊ πρωτη σαββατου εφανη πρωτον μαρια τη μαγδαληνη· αφ ης εκβεβληκει επτα δαιμονια·

Mark 16:9 [Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 (B03) (4th century)]37ac2
OMITTED

Mark 16:9 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]84
Αναστας δε πρωι πρωτη σαββατου· εφανη πρωτον μαρια τη μαγδαληνη αρ ης εκβεβληκει επτα δαιμονια·

Mark 16:9 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]347v|675
Αναστας δε πρωϊ πρωτη σαββατου εφανερωσεν πρωτοις· μαρια μαγδαληνη παρ ης εκβεβληκει · ζ · δαιμονεια

Mark 16:9 [Lectionary ℓ339 (Egerton MS 2163) (12th century)]25rc2
Ἀναστὰς ἰς πρωῒ πρώτη σαββάτων· ἐφάνη πρῶτον μαρία τῆ μαγδαληνὴ· ἀφ’ ἡς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια·

Mark 16:9 [Lectionary ℓ1086 (A’ 86) (10th century)]53vc2
(τῆ ε´  τῆς ἀναληψη μου)
Τῶ καιρῶ ἐκεινω ἀναστας ὁ ις ἐκ νεκ{ρων}

Mark 16:9 [Lectionary ℓ1086 (ii) (A’ 86) (10th century)]238vc1
Ἀναστὰς ΙC πρωῒ πρωτη σαββάτω-, ἐφανη πρωτον μαρια τῆ μαγδαληνὴ, ἀφ’ ἡς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα δαιμόνια·

Critical Apparatus :

(1) Mark 16:9 : A, C, D, E, G, K, L, M, S, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 22※, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086, ℓ1086 (ii)
(2) OMIT Mark 16:9 : א, B, 1*, 22*, 1582*

(3) αναστας : A, C, D, E, G, K, L, M, S, Y, Δ, Ω*?, 1※, 22※, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ1086, ℓ1086 (ii)
(4) ADD ο ιησους : Ωmg, ℓ339

(5) σαββατου : A, C, D, E, G, L, M, S, Δ, Ω, Majority
(6) σαββατων : K, Y, 1※, 22※, 700, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii)

(7) εφανη πρωτον : A, C, E, G, K, L, M, S, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 22※, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(8) εφανερωσεν πρωτοις : D

(9) τη μαγδαληνη : A, C, E, G, K, L, M, S, Y, Ω, 1※, 22※, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(10) τη μαγδαλινη : Δ
(11) OMIT τη : D

(12) αφ : A, E, G, K, M, S, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 22※, 700, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(13) αρ : C
(14) παρ : D, L, 892

(15) ης : A, C, D, E, G, L, M, S, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 22※, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(16) εις : K

(17) δαιμονια : A, C, E, G, K, L, M, S, Y, Δ, Ω, 1※, 22※, 700, 892, 1582※, ℓ339, ℓ1086 (ii), Majority
(18) δαιμονεια : D

 

 

CΛΕ :

K (f130v)

CΛΔ / Β :

C (84), G (f115rc2), M (f132rc1)

CΛΔ / Ι :

S (f114vc1-2), Ω (p259c1)

 

 

A Textual Commentary On Mark 16:9

(a) B omits Mk 16:9-20, but leaves a blank space, which is apparently intended for it; this seems to prove that the exemplar from which B was copied lacked these verses, but that they were known to B’s scribe.

(b) The most remarkable feature in our text of Mark is the omission of twelve verses, chap. xvi. 9-20. This, as is well known, occurs in other ancient codices, notably in the Sinaiticus and in the Vaticanus. But in the former it is open to question if their absence is not due to cancelling by a later hand. In ours there can be no doubt that they never existed. St Mark ends about the middle of f. 68 r,  col. b, of the original MS. and St Luke begins a little lower down on the same column, the intervening space being filled up by the colophon written with red ink, “Here endeth the Gospel of Mark.” Then comes a line of ornamental dots, and then “The Gospel of Luke” also in red.
Our Codex is thus differentiated from the Curetonian, where, strangely enough, these verses must have existed; for all that is there preserved to usof St Mark’s Gospel is xvi. 17-20. The testimony of the Old Syriac version to their being part of the sacred record is therefore equivocal. We may hope that fresh light will be thrown on this subject through the investigations which have been prompted by Mr F. C. Conybeare’s remarkable discovery of the signature Ariston Erizou (Ariston the Presbyter’s) to the last twelve verses of Mark xvi. in an Armenian MS. of the tenth century¹.

¹ Expositor for September 1894.

(Agnes Smith Lewis, Some Pages of the Four Gospels Retranscribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest with a Translation of the whole Text, 1896 p. xiv)

(c)  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 13, 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 ascer tain 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, à primâ 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 Irenæus, 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 cælo, et sedet ad dexteram Dei. ‘ 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 Περί 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 con jectured 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 anything 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 (R), 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 everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the words with signs following ; and as it does not appear that all the apostles quitted Judæa earlier than the year 501 (though several of them laboured among the Gentiles with great success), it has been argued that we shall approximate 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.
V. St. Peter having publicly preached the Christian religion at Rome, many who were present intreated Mark, as he had for a long time been that apostle’s companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter had delivered, that he would commit the particulars to writing. Accordingly, when Mark had finished his Gospel, he delivered it to the persons who made this request. Such is the unanimous testimony of ancient writers”, which is further confirmed by internal evidence, derived from the Gospel itself. Thus, the great humility of Peter is conspicuous in every part of it, where any thing is related or might be related of him ; his weakness and fall being fully exposed to view, while the things which redound to his honour are either slightly touched or wholly concealed. And with regard to Christ, scarcely an action that was done, or word spoken by him, is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and with such minuteness of circumstance as shows that the person who dictated the Gospel had been an eye-witness of the transactions recorded in it.
(Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study & Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 4, pp. 434-437)

 

 

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

Comments are closed.