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 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 -- Papyrus 45, 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, which softly suggests that
Papyrus 45 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 16:9-20 is not as decisive as the evidence which shows that 16:9-20 was in different text-types.
(A "text-type" may be likened to a branch on a family tree -- 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, we must also consider evidence found in 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 uses of, material from 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," as he explained the fulfillment of Psalm 110:1-2. The 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 in this chapter, 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 text which consisted of the texts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke blended together -- a
"Synoptics-Harmony." Justin's statement in First Apology blends Mark 16:20 and Luke 24:52 in precisely the
way that one would expect to find in such a Harmony. Thus Justin clearly 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 according to Acts, Peter preached about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances and His ascension).

A work from the mid-100's called the Epistula Apostolorum (Letter of the Apostles), which was unknown until the
early 1900's, has been affirmed by several scholars, including Robert Stein, to have used Mark 16:9-20.

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 attempted to use
Mark 16:18 as an example of absurdity in Christian teachings.

A composition called 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 Mark 16:9-20, in Eusebius' work Ad
Marinum. Marinus seems to have taken for granted that it was part of the text; Eusebius affirms that it was not in
his "accurate copies" but it was in "some" copies."

Ambrose, who worked in Milan (and died in 397), used parts of 16:9-20 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.

Marcus Eremite (c. 425), Prosper of Aquitaine, Peter Chrysologus (c. 450), Marius Mercator, and Leontius of
Byzantium also used the passage.

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, the earliest evidence for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 is over a century older than
the earliest evidence for its non-inclusion. The evidence for Mark 16:9-20 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 manuscripts taken to
Caesarea from Egypt). The implication of this is that copies of Mark containing 16:9-20 were in use at all these
locations.

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 Mark 16:9-20.

Quite a few Old Latin manuscripts are damaged, but all undamaged Old Latin manuscripts of Mark 16 except
Codex Bobiensis contain Mark 16:9-20.

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 of the
Gospels (first undertaken c. 410 but re-edited over the next several decades) was initially based on Syriac copies,
but it was revised in a way which conformed the Gospels-text to a "Caesarean" form. What seems to have
happened is that Armenian scholars, visiting Constantinople in 430, obtained one of the 50 codices which Eusebius
of Caesarea had prepared for Emperor Constantine 100 years earlier, and the Armenian Version was redone to
agree more closely with that codex. Most of the oldest accessible Armenian manuscripts do not contain Mark
16:9-20. In some Armenian copies, 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.

The Armenian manuscript Etchmiadzin-229, now known as Matenadaran 2374, includes a note stating that it was
copied from ancient and reliable exemplars (probably no later than the 500's). 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, the note was 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) ends the text of Mark at the end of 16:8. The next "layer" in the Sahidic tradition has
both the Short Ending and 16:9-20. Then 16:9-20 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 in the mid-second century.

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