Christianity: Details about 'Mark 16'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home
|
Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark. There is much debate about the ending of Mark, and many textual problems—there are nine different endings known—but most of the debate focuses around the so-called ‘longer’ ending (16:9-20). There is strong evidence that these verses are not part of the original document, but rather an ancient ‘completion’ of it.
Possible Scenarios
The ‘Longer’ EndingVerses 16:8-9 read as follows in the New Revised Standard Version:
Note the way the narrative flow abruptly changes from "they were afraid" to "now after he rose". Also, Mary Magdalene, introduced at the beginning of the chapter (16:1), is re-introduced almost as though she had not already been mentioned. The final sentence in v.8 is also regarded as strange by many scholars, because in the Greek text it finishes with the conjunction γαρ (gar, 'for'). It is contended by those who see 16:9-20 as originally Markan that γαρ literally means “because”, and this ending to v.8 is therefore not grammatically coherent (literally, it would read “they were afraid because”). However, this objection misunderstands the nature of the Greek language. Since Greek is an inflexive language as opposed to a syntactic language such as English, word order is not as important. (Compare Grammar in Greek language and Grammar in English language.) γαρ is never the first word of a sentence: there is no such rule that states it can never be the last word, though it is very rare for a book to end with γαρ. Still, γαρ aside, the grammar of v.8 is still odd, as the verb φοβεομαι (phobeomai, 'I fear') has no object. Gundry also mentions that only 10% of Mark’s γαρ clauses—6 out of 66—conclude pericopes (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 9-16). As such, this statistic favours the view that, rather than concluding 16:1-8, v.8 begins a new pericope, the rest of which is now lost to us. Gundry therefore does not see v.8 as the intended ending; a resurrection narrative was either written, then lost, or planned but never actually written. Either way, the originality of vv.9-20 is denied by Gundry—and, indeed, the overwhelming majority of textual critics. Mark 16:9-20 is in most of the undamaged Greek copies of the Gospel of Mark. A copy of a manuscript, however, is only as good as the text being copied, so all of the texts with 16:9-20 may simply be copies of the same non-Markan addition. The verses are absent in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, including the vitally important Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which both conclude the gospel at 16:8. Many of the early church fathers also appear to use 16:9-20:
However, Mark 16:9-20 is absent in other early church fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Origen). At any rate, all that can be concluded from this use of the longer ending is that, rightly or wrongly, Mark 16:9-20 had become part of Church tradition and scripture much like other apocryphal writings such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, neither of which are now considered canonical. Parts of the longer ending seem to be based on various elements found in the other three Gospels and the book of Acts:
One could argue that the longer Markan ending is a pre-synoptic, primitive tradition (thus being original), and that the comparative pericopes in Matthew, Luke, John and Acts are extended versions of this tradition. However, given the absence of Mark 16:9-20 in the earliest manuscripts, this seems unlikely. The 'Shorter' Ending
Some manuscripts conclude Mark’s Gospel with what is known as the shorter ending (or intermediate ending) shown above. This ending is found in several uncial manuscripts of the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries, as well as a few minuscule manuscripts and some older Coptic and Ethiopian texts. As well as this, some mansucripts containing the shorter ending then follow it with the longer ending, such as the Codices Bobbensis and Regius of the 8th century. The 'Freer Logion' and 'Expanded' EndingsA version of the text found by Freer in Egypt, which is thought to date from the 5th century, has an ending that was not attested elsewhere when it was discovered. This ending is thus known as the Freer Logion:
A variation on the Freer Logion has been found in Codex Washingtonianius and cited by Jerome which replaces Mark 16:15-20 of the standard Longer Ending:
Mark 16 and Reading in the Ancient WorldIn the ancient world, reading was not the activity it is today. Rather than someone silently reading a book on their own, Mark’s Gospel, like other ancient literature, would have been read out loud by someone to a group of people. The low literacy rates in the ancient world demanded that such an approach to reading be taken. (See Oral history) Thus, reading would have involved an interaction between the reader(s) and the hearer(s). If Mark’s Gospel, as is postulated by some (notably Beavis, Mark’s Audience, pp.45-67, 167-73), had an evangelistic and teaching purpose, this interactive nature of ancient world reading starts to provide another theory for the ending of Mark. Given that the longer and shorter endings are seen by the overwhelming majority of text critics as not originally part of Mark (see below), these endings can be seen as reader’s responses and reactions to what Mark’s gospel tells us about the person of Christ. Specifically, the longer ending is a response by a person or community familiar with the other Gospels and Acts, especially Luke-Acts (see above). From this perspective, then, 16:8 starts to look like an intentional ending—and the acceptance of the longer ending is an indication of the general theological direction early Christians saw Mark’s Gospel headed in. Scholarly conclusionsAlmost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark’s Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending. Nevertheless, a handful of scholars, particularly those in traditionalist or fundamentalist traditions, argue that the evidence is insufficient to justify its exclusion or that the evidence in fact supports its inclusion. However, in biblical scholarship, changes and advances due to creative detective work and new discoveries have a long past history of proceeding with caution very slowly, so the almost unanimous conclusion with regards to the inauthenticity of the ending(s) of Mark should be seriously considered. Theological implicationsFew doctrines of the mainline Christian denominations stand or fall on the support of the longer ending of Mark. The longer ending does identify Mary Magdalene as the woman out of whom Jesus had exorcised seven demons, but Mary Magdalene's significance, and the practice of exorcism, are both supported by New Testament texts outside the debated passage. However, with the two-source hypothesis, the absence of the long ending forms an argument from silence about the non-historicity of the resurrection. The longer ending of Mark 16 is of considerable significance in Pentecostalism and other denominations:
See also
ReferencesBeavis, M. A., Mark’s Audience, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. ISBN 185075215X. Elliott, J. K., The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark. An Edition of C. H. Turner’s "Notes on Markan Usage" together with Other Comparable Studies, Leiden, Brill, 1993. ISBN 9004097678. Gundry, R. H., Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 9-16, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992. ISBN 0802829112.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||