Hello all! Here is a paper I recently had to write for school, and thought I'd share it! Constructive criticism is welcome, hope you all enjoy it! =)
A Study in Manuscripts:
A Mystery St. Mark Left for Linguists,
Scholars, and Theologians
What is a manuscript by definition? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary,
it is “a written or typewritten composition
or document as distinguished from a printed copy” or “writing as opposed to
print.” The word itself is rooted in the
Latin manu scriptus - “written by hand.” Overtime, copies,
editions, and versions can develop stark differences. A good example of these changes is within the
Bible. The Bible itself has undergone
transcription, translation and reprinting since it was officially canonized in 397 A.D. Certain
branches of the Church have left out some books originally canonized; developed
their own canon; or chosen to use different manuscripts of the Bible in the
place of others. For example, during the Reformation, books, now
considered Apocryphal to the Western Church, were taken out of the original
Majority texts of the Bible (i.e. Judith, Tobit, the Maccabees, etc.).
Many believe the removal was based on either lack of scriptural inspiration or
monetary practicality in publication. The Bible underwent even more
changes in the 19th century when the traditional Majority Text manuscripts were
moved aside for seemingly older manuscripts of the Bible, commonly identified
as the Minority Text. Most modern English translations of the Bible (such
as the NIV or NASB) follow the Minority Text manuscripts, whereas older English
translations (primarily the KJV) follow the Majority Text manuscripts.
Differences in Transcription and Translation
Outside of simple Apocryphal and Canonical differences in Church
Traditions, other difficulties have arisen about the consistency of
Scripture. For example, certain Hebrew or Greek terms found in the Bible
have meanings “untranslatable” into other languages. This has resulted in similar rather than exact
translations made to communicate ideas. However, this can lead to
exegetical confusion if the reader does not understand the original language of
the document. Paraphrasing is also an active difference in versions of
the Bible. The Message Bible, for instance, is a modern translation of
the Bible which has paraphrased/rephrased the Greek to fit cultural
idioms.
Yet, beyond all of these, the unmistakable differences in
Minority and Majority texts of the Bible and how people have chosen to address
those differences must be discussed. From
stark omission of a passage to a single word, the Minority and Majority Texts
of the Bible contradict each other 3,000 times just in the Gospels! One
of the more serious contradictions is the inclusion or exclusion of Mark
16:9-20.
Mark’s Rhetorical
Style
To give context, Mark has been characterized by some theologians
as a “comic book” style writer - everything took place quickly and concisely, continuing
on to the next event. Using ευθυς - the Greek word for “immediately” -
fifty-one times in his Gospel, his vocabulary choices are evidence of his
speedy and practical rhetorical style. He spends most of his time on the
last week of Jesus’ life - compactly and chronologically summarizing His last
few days. Lastly, he uses the historical
present tense over 150 times to demonstrate urgency. His purpose was to
highlight Christ’s non-stop work; how He truly came to “to seek and to save that
which was lost;”
and how He “seeked” diligently and with necessary urgency. He portrayed the substantial requirements of
the Christian life – then, effectively ending his Gospel with a specific
highlight of Christ’s death and resurrection in Chapters 14-15.
Discrepancy and Causes of Controversy
The end of these chapters is where the controversy starts -
Chapter 16. Mark’s “τελος” (ending) has
been analyzed with academic scrutiny and yet multiple elements of it still
cause contention among leading scholars, linguists and theologians. The first problem which arises is the two
known endings to Mark - the Long Ending and the Short Ending. The Short
Ending (shown below) is a less familiar replacement of Mark 16:9-20. It
is found in only six Greek manuscripts and one Latin manuscript (Codex
Bohiensis) from around 400 A.D. Although it can be found in italics or in
the footnotes of some Bibles (i.e. NASB), it is not a popular ending and is, in
majority, rejected by all Traditions of the church.
“All that had been told to them, they told to
Peter and his companions. And after that Jesus Himself [appeared to them
and] sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable
proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.”
(Short Ending)
The Long Ending, however, is much more prominent in the church
and has been accepted as canonical until recent speculation. The Long Ending is commonly known as Mark
16:9-20 in almost every modern Bible available.
“9 Now
when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary
Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and
told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And
they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed
not. 12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as
they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it
unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he
appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their
unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen
him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was
received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And
they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and
confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”
(Mark
16:9-20, KJV)
The recent speculation on the endings results from some
inconsistencies between certain manuscripts of the Bible - some including the
Long Ending and some removing it completely.
Those ancient manuscripts which do not contain the Long Ending - the
Alexandrian texts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus - are the bases for
what is now known as the Minority Text. The Majority Text has its
foundation in mainly Byzantine manuscripts (along with Western and Caesarean
manuscripts) most of which are considered “late” manuscripts - produced after
600 A.D. Out of the 5,000 Greek
manuscripts of the Bible, the Majority Text inhabits a vast 95% of them - all
of them containing the Long Ending. This is where the controversy started
- which one is right? The older one,
with no ending? Or, the countless
“later” manuscripts with an ending?
Five Major Views and Implications
In this case, scholars, pastors, linguists, and laymen take one
of five major views concerning Mark 16:9-20:
1. Those who include the verses, because they
believe Mark wrote them.
- Those who wish to include the
verses, regardless of Mark’s authorship.
- Those who exclude the verses,
even if Mark did write them.
- Those who exclude the verses
because they believe Mark did not write them.
- Those who include or exclude
the verses based solely on historical evidence and not personal
belief.
These five opinions can be found throughout the Church; however,
the stance a person takes on Mark 16:9-20 will greatly “affect and reflect” his
view on what defines Biblical canon. Thus, the implications of inclusion
or exclusion are huge. First, most mainstream Protestants, Roman
Catholics, and the Western Church as a whole are concerned with the placement
and historical standing of Mark 16:9-20 because it directly affects the
infallible inspiration of scripture. Historical
inaccuracy or unknown authorship is not acceptable or trustworthy. The Eastern Church (Oriental and Eastern
Orthodox) is concerned with the content of Mark 16:9-20 - is it
heretical or edifying to the Christian faith? Does it follow the criteria
for canonization?
When it comes to determining a side to a controversy, a scholar
must look toward the most natural proof in existence: evidence. Some
interpret evidence differently, depending on their worldview – absolute objectivity,
in this situation, is impossible. However, a brief summary and
explanation of the current evidence for/against the Long Ending is very
possible.
External Evidence For
and Against Including the Long Ending:
External in
Support:
The external evidence for the Long Ending is most
convincing. The words of the Early
Church Fathers, textual resources, and dates have been supplied to support the
Long Ending.
To begin, the claim that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus
are the oldest (and thus considered the “most reliable”) manuscripts containing
Mark is an erroneous statement. Older and contemporary manuscripts to those
two Codices exist as well. Those include
the Curetonian Syriac, the Coptic Sahidic, Bohairicn and Fayyumic versions, the
Vulgate, Codex Ephraimi Rescriptus, Codex Washingtonensis, and most importantly,
Codex Alexandrinus. Codex Alexandrinus
is regarded as equal, if not more consistent than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus -
both holding their own noticeable discrepancies with other manuscripts. All of these Codices, not including the two
Alexandrian ones, contain the Long Ending and stand as external evidences for
its inclusion.
Secondly, the Long Ending has received much reference from
Patristic writings and other writings from and on the Early Church.
Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Tertullian, Cyprian, the Gospel of Nicodemus, De
Rebaptismate, Aphraates, Ambrose, Didymus, the Apostolic Constitutions, Jerome,
Chrysostom, Leo, Severian, and Augustine all mention or contain some direct or
indirect reference to Mark 16:9-20 (Long Ending). These ancient witnesses
were also spread across a large geographical area ranging from Gaul to Egypt to
Syria. Irenaeus, a Church Father who
lived in the 2nd century - before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were completed -
explicitly quoted verse 19 from the Long Ending:
"Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: 'So
then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (roughly A.D. 185), Book III, 10:5-6
Lastly, the question should be raised as to why the early
Alexandrian texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, do not contain any ending, in
comparison to the rest. How did this
happen? And, how does the Long Ending’s
exclusion in these documents possibly support its inclusion? Since Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both
Alexandrian texts, they were copied and scribed in similar locations and
cultures. If an inclusion or exclusion is found in one text - to be
legitimately considered - that same variant must be found consistently
throughout other texts from different regions or cultures. However, this
is not the case with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They are the only
Alexandrian texts of their kind which contain this exclusion of the Long
Ending, whereas all other “branches” of texts and codices do not exclude it.
External
Against:
External evidence against the inclusion of the Long Ending is
sparse. Besides the weight which the
Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus carry in modern translation, most external
evidence supports the inclusion of the Long Ending in the canon. Some
Early Christian writers, such as the Church Historian Eusebius claim to have no
knowledge of the Long Ending and are only familiar with the short ending or no
ending at all. However, these ancient witnesses are few.
Internal Evidence For
and Against Including the Long Ending:
Before delving into
the internal evidences, it must be noted that those who support the inclusion
or exclusion of the Long Ending based on the internal evidence simultaneously
take a stance on Mark’s authentic authorship of the passage.
Internal Against
Inclusion:
Scholars and linguists say that the juncture between verses 8
and 9 is sudden and awkward, both in concept and language. Conceptually, the immediate reference to Mary Magdalene in verse 9 is unusual
to Mark’s typical style in regards to names and repetition of characters.
In addition, the women mentioned in verses 1-8 do not appear in the remainder
of the chapter, whereas Mary does. With regard to language, the Greek
word “γαρ” (gar), a conjunction which simply means “for,” appears oddly
placed at the very end of verse 8. Grammatically, “γαρ” is not supposed
to appear at the beginning of a Greek sentence. There is no rule,
however, that it is incorrect to be placed at the end. Mark uses “γαρ”
roughly four times in his Gospel, but never at the end of the sentence.
This inconsistency and abrupt ending causes some linguists or scholars to
believe that the Long Ending is not original and was added on later to make up
for a possible missing ending to Mark.
In
addition, scholars have examined the vocabulary used in the Long Ending in
comparison with the rest of Mark and have found some inconsistencies. Sixteen different vocabulary words, three of
which are repeated more than once, are used in the passage, but nowhere
else. For example,“μορφή” (morphe) appears nowhere else in the Gospels,
except for the Long Ending. And, “απιστεω” (apisteo) does not appear
anywhere in Mark but the Long Ending. Also, Mark’s “favorite” word
“ευθυς”(immediately) appears nowhere in the passage.
The different phraseology of the Long Ending is the last major
argument for the internal evidence against it.
Eight different phrases are used in that particular passage, but nowhere
else in Mark. “μεν ουν” (men oun "on the one hand therefore," v. 19) is one
example of a phrase appearing only in Mark. “Oi met' autou genomenoi
("those having been with him" vs. 10) is another obscure phrase -
used only in this passage, when referencing the disciples.
Internal For
Inclusion:
Little internal evidence exists for the inclusion of Mark
16:9-20 and any evidence which does exist is in refutation to the internal
evidence against the Long Ending’s inclusion.
In this case, the refuting arguments for the three internal reasons for
exclusion are below:
1) In regards to the conceptual and language differences within
the Long Ending, it was not uncommon for Mark to refer to people in the brief,
repetitive way he referred to Mary Magdalene. Three other instances in Mark (Mark 3:16,
Mark 3:17 and Mark 7:26) reveal that Mark had sparingly used this instant
flashback of character identification.
2) The vocabulary differences and inconsistencies in the
Long Ending are not as inconsistent as they appear. Although sixteen new
words appear in the passage, eight of the sixteen are just constructions based
off of root words which are found continuously throughout the rest of Mark and
the New Testament. Others appear elsewhere in the Bible to describe the
same events portrayed in the Long Ending.
3) Lastly, the phraseology is truly different from any other
found in Mark. However, it can be argued that other Gospels and books of
the Bible contain similar inconsistent phraseologies throughout them.
And, it must also be noted that another portion of Mark (chap. 15) includes
phraseologies found nowhere else in the book.
Based off of the evidences for inclusion, the general purposes
for including the Long Ending in Mark 16 are either because 1) a person is
convinced by the external evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic (in
authorship and/or canonical accuracy) or 2) a person requires these evidences
to prove the historical infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.
The purposes for excluding the passage encompass a broad plain. In summary, it can be said that either 1) a
person is convinced by the internal evidence against the passage or 2) a person
is uncomfortable with the possibility of error or apocryphal inclusion.
Plausible Conclusion
of Internal and External Evidence:
It is possible that Mark’s authorship of the Long Ending is
authentic for several reasons. First, Mark’s rhetorical style is erratic,
fast paced and resembling an ancient “comic book” nature. So, with regard
to the internal evidence, it is very possible that the abrupt junctions, new
vocabulary, and different phraseology were purposeful. Did Mark actually
write the Long Ending? We will likely never know. Scholars,
linguists and theologians have become almost evenly divided on the issue after
surveying the evidence. God tells Job in Job 38:4, “Where were you when I
laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.” In the same way, we
were not present for the writing, compiling, or transcription of the
manuscripts of Mark and because of this we lack the most convincing and
effective evidence: physical presence. In the same way, C.S. Lewis
says,
“When I lay these questions before God I get
no answer. But a rather special sort of 'No answer.' It is not the locked door.
It is more like a silent, certainly not uncompassionate, gaze. As though He
shook His head not in refusal but waiving the question.
Like, 'Peace, child; you don't understand.”
However, the more significant question is whether the Long
Ending should be included in the Bible as canonical. The answer, given
the evidence, is “yes.” For centuries,
the Long Ending has been regarded as not only canonical, but edifying to the
church and used within it. Regardless of the manuscript differences or
vocabulary skirmishes, the passage itself contains the very “heart and soul” of
countless mission statements, when it begins to say, “Go ye into all the
world.” And so, the question for inclusion or exclusion of the passage
does not rest in historical accuracy or full assurance of Mark’s authorship,
but on the edifying nature of the passage. Is it used universally
throughout the church? How has the
church used it throughout the centuries?
Conclusion:
The small inconsistencies in Mark and the troublesome history of
the manuscripts emerged after the Minority Text began to take more
precedence. Consequently, the authenticity of the two separate endings
(Long and Short) began to be (and still are being) hotly debated.
However, the primary debate is the inclusion or exclusion of Mark 16:9-20.
From the external evidence of manuscript statistics and Patristic writings to
the internal evidence of nuances in the Long Ending’s language, the passage of
Mark has made scholars, linguists, and theologians almost equally embattled.
These “sides” are taken based on the expert’s or layman’s priorities on the
issue - be that accuracy, authorship, consistency, or edification.
However, the church has used the Long Ending of Mark for centuries - experiencing
little controversy about it until recently.
Voltaire once said, “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” In addressing Mark, it
is necessary to ask the right questions - questions about the true purpose and
reason for the Long Ending.
A valuable lesson from
this controversy is that understanding the universals of purpose will set up a
strong foundation for analyzing the particulars.
Sources/Bibliography:
The Holy Bible. New King James. Reference Edition.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989.
The Holy Bible - American Standard
Version. The
Concise Bible Dictionary w/ Illustrations. Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901.
The Holy Bible - 1599 Geneva Bible,. White Hall, West Virginia: Tolle
Lege Press, 2006.
The Holy Bible - The Orthodox Study
Bible,.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2008.
The Holy Bible - ESV. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway
bibles, 2007.
The Holy Bible - NISB/NASB. Harvest House Publishers,
2000.
