Ending of Mark Papers Published

The papers from the Mark 16 conference around this time last year have now been published in the latest issue of Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Bulletin. I haven't had a chance to read them yet myself but look forward to.

---

The Transmission of Mark’s Endings in Different Traditions and Languages

Papers presented at the International Workshop, Lausanne, 2–3 June 2022; ed. by Claire Clivaz, Mina Monier, and Dan Batovici

Introductory Essay

• A Multilingual Turn: Introducing the ‘MARK16’ COMSt Bulletin  (Claire Clivaz) 

Greek and Latin Traditions

• Physical Discontinuities in the Transitions between the Gospels: Reassessing the Ending of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus  (Patrick Andrist) 
• The Text and Paratext of Family 1 in Mark 16 (Tommy Wasserman) 
  
• ʻAccording to the Egyptiansʼ: Mark 16 in GA 72 (Mina Monier) 
  
• Framing Mark: Reading Mark 16 in a Catena Manuscript (Anthony P. Royle and Garrick V. Allen) 
• Was Salome at the Markan Tomb? Another Ending to Mark’s Gospel  (Elizabeth Schrader Polczer)
• ‘The End of the Beginning’: Mark’s Longer Ending (16:9–20) and the Adaptation of the Markan Storyline (James A. Kelhoffer)
• The Ending of Mark in Tatian’s Diatessaron (Nicholas J. Zola) 
• Mark 16 and the Eusebian Apparatus: Greek and Latin Solutions  (W. Andrew Smith) 

Other Languages

• The Shorter Ending of the Gospel of Mark in the Coptic Versions  (Anne Boud’hors and Sofía Torallas Tovar) 
• The Endings of the Gospel of Mark in Syriac Witnesses  (David GK Taylor) 
• Mc 16 dans les manuscrits arabes du Sinaï — Réflexions de méthode pour leur utilization en critique textuelle. Diversity of versions, rubriques, langues sources, variantes fausses et vraies (Jean G. Valentin) 
• The Endings of Mark in Ethiopian Translation and Transmission  (Curt Niccum) 
• Mark 16 in the Persian Harmony of the Gospels (Ali B. Langroudi)
• The Displaced Endings of Mark in Armenian Biblical Manuscripts  (Dan Batovici) 
  
• Mark 16:9–20 in Armenian Medieval Literature: A Commentary by Barseł Maškeworc’i (Armine Melkonyan) 
• Un essai de panorama de Marc 16 dans la tradition georgienne  (Bernard Outtier)
  

History of the Reception

• Cerinthus and the Gospel of Mark: The Priority of the Longer Ending  (Joan E. Taylor)
  
• Trajectories in the History of Textual Scholarship on Mark’s Endings: A Reconsideration (Jan Krans and An-Ting Yi)
• Mark 16 from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century: Why Were the Doubts not Expressed Earlier? (Regis Burnet)

Mark 16 on a Roll

Many New Testament scholars consider Mark 16.8 to be the original ending of the Gospel. Others regard the original ending as now lost. For those who think it’s lost, the most frequent explanation is that it was lost at some point given that the beginning and ends of books are particularly liable to damage and loss. Those who think that Mark 16.8 is the original ending sometimes argue against this by pointing out that, because Mark was most likely written on a roll, a loss at the end is actually very unlikely.

Dan Wallace makes this argument in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (2008). After saying that it is very unlikely that Mark wrote his gospel as a codex, he says

However, if Mark’s Gospel is earlier than this [end of the first century]—as virtually all scholars acknowledge, regardless of their view of the synoptic problem—then he would have written his Gospel on a roll, and the first generation of copies would also have been on rolls. And if the Gospel was written on a roll, then the most protected section would be the end, because when someone rolled the book back up, the end would be on the inside. To be sure, some lazy readers might not rewind the book when finished—of course, they would get fined a denarius at their local Blockbuster for such an infraction! But the reality is that this sort of thing was the rare exception, not the rule. Consequently, if Mark was originally written on a roll, it is hard to imagine how the ending could have gotten lost before any copies were made. (pp. 35–36)

Appeal has also been made to the placement of the title in a scroll in this debate. F. G. Kenyon actually changed his mind on whether the end was liable to loss. He felt that the position of the title at the end of the roll would mean that “the reader of a roll would not want to wait till he had read to the end in order to know the name of the author and the title of the work; and an intending reader would not want to unroll the entire roll in order to ascertain these facts.” Because of that, Kenyon takes the opposite view of Wallace on whether a scroll might account for the loss of Mark’s original ending.

Is the Longer Ending of Mark Inspired? (with Poll)

Not a picture of the ending of Mark.

For some, the question of whether Mark 16.9–20 belongs to the original text of Mark’s Gospel settles the matter of whether it should be read, preached, and taught as Scripture. For others it’s not so simple. These 12 verses may have been added, but this does not mean they aren’t inspired by God.

I count myself among that small group that thinks Mark 16.9–20 is not Mark’s original ending but is still Scripture. These verses are attested early and widely and there is nothing in them that I can see that would discredit them theologically. The fact that they have been received by so many Christians as Scripture seems to me to weigh heavily in their favor.

But I admit I am probably in a minority in holding this position. So I was glad to find an ally this week in Samuel P. Tregelles who held the same view. I might still be wrong, but at least I’m in good company!

Here is how Tregelles explained his view:

As, then, the facts of the case, and the early reception and transmission of this section, uphold its authenticity, and as it has been placed from the second century, at least, at the close of our second canonical Gospel;­—and as, likewise, its transmission has been accompanied by a continuous testimony that it was not a part of the book as originally written by St. Mark;—and as both these points are confirmed by internal considerations—

The following corollaries flow from the propositions already established:—

I. That the book of Mark himself extends no farther than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, 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.

Consistency is Highly Overrated

Everyone who has worked a lot with the raw data of a manuscript knows that scribes seem to do many things on a whim, without any discernible rule. Editors of our modern text hate scribes for this and expect that the original that lies behind the manuscript tradition shows more consistency. But this is a dangerous attitude, since any imposed consistency may hide something more subtle in the language of the author - a notion of consistency is based on our understanding of the language rather than an attempt to reflect the manuscript tradition.

An example from the Gospel of Mark. Nine times we find the third person plural ‘they said’, ειπον / ειπαν. In NA26/27 it is spelled consistently ειπαν. In each of the nine cases there is manuscript support for ειπαν but in two cases this support is unusually slim, 11:6 and 16:8. In the latter ειπαν is only read by Bezae, all other witnesses read ειπον (nice to talk about Mark 16:8 without mentioning the ...).



What has happened here? Once we accept the external case for ειπον in 11:6 and 16:8 (and you guess correctly that this will be the reading of the Tyndale House edition), we see that of all nine cases of ‘they said’, these are the only two that are not followed by direct speech. It may be coincidence, it may be not. However, simply the possibility that such observations can be made now, is for me sufficient reason not to attempt too much orthographic consistency; there may be more going on than I understand at this moment.