MarkTwo

A footnote in "The Message," a popular hyper-paraphrase of the Bible, states that
Mark 16:9-20 "is contained only in later manuscripts" (The Message © 1993 by
Eugene Peterson). That statement is false. Many ancient manuscripts contain
these verses (such as Codex Washingtonensis, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex
Ephraemi). The abundance of manuscripts which contain Mark 16:9-20 implies that
it was present in their ancestor-manuscripts. The earliest known copy of Mark --
p45, from about A.D. 225 -- is damaged (and for this reason is missing all of Mark
16) but its closest textual relative in Mark is Codex Washingtonensis (from ch. 6
on), which softly suggests that p45 originally contained the Long Ending.

Of all undamaged Greek copies of the Gospel of Mark (and there are over 1200),
only two (or possibly three) can be shown to have not contained Mark 16:9-20 when
they were made. However, this numerical avalanche in favor of the inclusion of the
Long Ending is not as decisive as the evidence which shows the Long Ending's
presence in different text-types. (A "text-type" may be likened to a branch on a
family tree of manuscripts -- even if one branch has many more leaves than another
branch, one branch is still just one branch. Likewise, even though most manuscripts
display the Byzantine text-type, they descend from one branch.) Vaticanus and (for
the most part) Sinaiticus are both Alexandrian manuscripts. Other Alexandrian
manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20. So do Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine
manuscripts. Because Mark 16:9-20 is found in all four branches, and appears in
each one with features not present in the other branches, it is generally more likely
to have originated in the trunk of the tree rather than in one of the branches.

Furthermore, the evidence from manuscripts must be weighed alongside the
evidence from patristic writings -- the writings of leaders in the early church.

The earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 are not the earliest evidence. Not even close!
There are several quotations of, or references to, the contents of Mark 16:9-20
which are quite a bit earlier than Vaticanus.

Justin Martyr, who died in A.D. 165, wrote in his First Apology ch. 45 that the
apostles "going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere." The three words in
red here represent three Greek words identical to Greek words used in Mark
16:20, including the word pantachou, which Justin uses twice, as if to emphasize the
point. A comparison of this paragraph of Justin's work to the contents of Mark
16:9-20 shows that it is highly likely that he was borrowing his terms from Mark
16:20. Justin typically drew his Gospels-citations not from the separate Gospel of
Matthew, Gospel of Mark, and Gospel of Luke, but from a Gospels-Harmony. If
Justin's use of 16:20 was also from his Gospels-Harmony, blended with Luke 24:52,
then clearly Justin used Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark.

Tatian was a second-century writer who, building on the work of Justin, interwove
the texts of the four Gospels into one continuous narrative, called the Diatessaron,
in about A.D. 172. He included material from Mark 16:9-20 in the Diatessaron,
blending it with the parallels in the other Gospels.

Irenaeus was a Christian bishop in the second century. He wrote in Against
Heresies (A.D. 184), Book III, 10:5-6, "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." This is clearly a quotation of
Mark 16:19.

Papias, a writer in the early 100's, recorded that Justus Barsabbas (the individual
mentioned in Acts 1:23) once drank a poisonous drink and suffered no ill effects.
(This statement is preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea and by Philip of Side). His
motivation for mentioning this story may have been to provide an example of the
fulfillment of Mark 16:18. Perhaps more significantly, Papias wrote that Mark did
not omit any of what Peter had preached (and Peter certainly preached about Jesus'
post-resurrection appearances and His ascension).

At the seventh Council of Carthage in 256, a bishop named Vincentius of Thibaris
said, "We have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept
commanded to His apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in My name, expel
demons.' And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" Vincentius' second
quotation is from Matthew 28:19. Despite attempts by some interpreters to connect
the first quotation to Matthew 10:8, the references to going, laying on hands,
expelling demons, and doing so in My name add up to a reference to Mark 16:15-
18, especially when placed side-by-side with the parallel passage from Matthew.

Either Porphyry (an early opponent of Christianity who died in A.D. 305) or
Hierocles (a student of Porphyry, writing in the very early 300's) was cited by
another writer (Macarius Magnes, c. 405) as having (mis-)used Mark 16:18 as an
example of absurdity in Christian teachings .

A composition called "Rebaptism" (De Rebaptismate), written c. 258, strongly
alludes to Mark 16:14 in its ninth chapter. Some researchers assigned this text a
date about a century later, but strong internal evidence indicates that it was written
around the time of Cyprian.

Prominent writers in the 300's and 400's also used Mark 16:9-20. Here are some
examples:

Aphraates (also known as Aphrahat), writing in 336, quoted from Mark 16:17-18 in
Demonstration One: Of Faith, stating, "And again He said this: 'This shall be the
sign for those that believe; they will speak with new tongues and shall cast out
demons, and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall be made whole.'"

Eusebius and Marinus (c. 330) both reflect knowledge of the existence of the Long
Ending, in Eusebius' work Ad Marinum.

Ambrose, who worked in Milan (and died in 397), used the Long Ending as Scripture
(one example is his use of Mark 16:18 in his work The Prayer of Job and David).

Didymus the Blind, who worked in Egypt (and died in 398), or an author in the same
area and era, wrote De Trinitate, in which, in Book Two, chapter 12, Mark 16:15-16
is quoted.

Augustine, who worked in Hippo, North Africa (and died in 430), used Mark 16:9-20
in Easter-time sermons, showing that by the early 400's the passage was
established in the lectionary there. He quoted the entire passage in his Harmony of
the Gospels (c. 400), and cited both Latin and Greek manuscripts when commenting
on Mk. 16:12.

Saint Patrick (mid-400's) used Mark 16:16 twice, in Letter to Coroticus, part 20,
and in Confession, part 40.

When the patristic evidence -- which is not mentioned by most Bible footnotes or
headings attached to Mark 16:9-20 -- is added to the equation, it becomes clear

that the earliest evidence for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 (in the second century)
pre-dates the earliest evidence for its non-inclusion (in the fourth century). The
evidence for the Long Ending is spread over a broad geographical area: Justin (in
Rome), Irenaeus (in Gaul [France]), Eusebius (in Caesarea, in Israel), Vincentius
(in North Africa), and Tatian and Aphraates (in Syria). Against this, the ancient
Greek evidence for non-inclusion is confined to Egypt (and Caesarea, but this is
because the library at Caesarea included Egyptian manuscripts). The implication of
this is that copies of Mark containing 16:9-20 were in use at all these locations.
And the blank column in Vaticanus indicates that the passage was known in Egypt
also.

Some evidence from early translations -- especially the Gothic, Old Latin, Syriac,
Armenian, and Coptic versions -- may be considered here.

The Gothic version is known to have been translated by Wulfilas (who was
originally from Antioch) in about A.D. 350. Manuscript-evidence for the Gothic
Version is sparse, but it displays the Long Ending.

Quite a few Old Latin manuscripts are damaged, but all undamaged Old Latin
manuscripts of Mark 16 except Codex Bobiensis contain the Long Ending.

The Syriac evidence is divided: the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript ends the text of
Mark at 16:8; the Curetonian Syriac manuscript is mutilated but preserves part of
Mark 16:17-20 (the only part of Mark in the manuscript!). The Peshitta Syriac
Version (made some time before A.D. 400) contains all of Mark 16:9-20.

Although a quotation by Eznik of Golb (an Armenian bishop in the mid-400's) shows
that Mark 16:9-20 was known in Armenia, the original contents of the Armenian
version of Mark 16 are in doubt. The Armenian Version (first undertaken c. 410
but re-edited over the next several decades) was based, at least in part, on Syriac
copies, but it was revised in a way which conformed the Gospels-text to a
"Caesarean" form. Possibly one of the 50 copies which Eusebius of Caesarea had
prepared for Emperor Constantine, 100 years earlier, was taken by an Armenian
copyist to Armenia, where it was used as an exemplar. Eusebius' treatment of the
passage, and his non-inclusion of it in the Eusebian Canons (which are typically
featured prominently in Armenian Gospels-manuscripts), drew the passage into
doubt. Most of the oldest accessible Armenian manuscripts do not contain Mark
16:9-20. In others, the closing subtitle "End of the Gospel of Mark" appears after
16:8, and again after 16:20. Some other Armenian manuscripts format 16:9-20 in
unusual ways, such as by drastically stretching the lettering.

The Armenian manuscript Etchmiadzin-229, now known as Matenadaran 2374,
includes a note stating that it was copied from ancient and reliable exemplars. This
manuscript, produced in A.D. 989, contains the words "Aristou eritzou" written
between the lines between Mark 16:8 and 16:9. This may be based on a tradition,
or a guess, that Mark 16:9-20 was the work of a first-century Christian named
Aristion. Another possibility, however, is that this note appeared alongside 16:18 in
an older manuscript, and was intended only to mean that Aristion had handed down
a story which was a fulfillment of part of 16:18 (about a believer's imperviousness to
poison). Later, after the question was raised regarding whether or not Mark 16:9-
20 ought to be included, such a note may have been misinterpreted to mean that
Aristion had composed the entire passage. (Somewhat surprisingly, another
Armenian manuscript at the same monastery (near Mount Ararat) contains the
Short Ending attached to the end of Luke. This is probably a result of a later
distribution of manuscripts between Egyptian and Armenian monks.)

The Coptic versions are divided. The earliest manuscript of Mark in the Sahidic
Coptic version (which is the earliest Coptic translation) does not have the Long
Ending. The next "layer" in the Sahidic tradition has both the Short Ending and the
Long Ending. Then the Long Ending dominates, fully included without the Short
Ending. The Ethiopic manuscripts include Mark 16:9-20, frequently with the Short
Ending between 16:8 and 16:9.

For any manuscript of Mark, the less it is connected with the early Alexandrian
channel of textual transmission and the Caesarean channel related to it, the more
strongly it supports Mark 16:9-20. The same thing is true of patristic testimony

and versions. This suggests that the loss of these twelve verses occurred either in,
or en route to, Alexandria, perhaps sometime in the mid-second century.

How could such a loss have occurred? We will answer that question in Part Three.