|
50.
|
He led them out. This Gk. word is used often for the
deliverance of Israel; e.g. Acts 7:40.
|
|
As far as to Bethany. There is implied symbolism here,
for it was in Bethany that a friend of Jesus was risen from the dead when at
last the Lord came to his graveside. Also, Bethany = Place of Date Palms. On
this see "Bible Studies", H.A.W, p. 135.
|
|
Blessed them. The Law began and ended with curse:
Gen.3:14-19; Mal.4:6; but the Gospel with blessing: Lk. 1:42; 24:50, and in v.51
the verb is continuous inform. The Melchizedek blessing is implied also in the
repetition of heaven and earth in Mt.28:l 8 from Gen. 14:19.
|
51.
|
Carried up into heaven. In LXX this verb is commonly
used for the presenting of sacrifice before God.
|
|
Jesus had been impatient for the cross (Lk. 12:50; Mk.l 0;32)
but the language of this verse suggests a reluctance to leave the
disciples.
|
52.
|
With great joy;Jln. l6:20,22; 14:28.
|
53.
|
In the temple. See "Acts", H.A.W, p.20.
|
|
19.
|
RV: The Lord Jesus. A unique title in Mark. Cp. in this
respect ch.1:1.
|
|
Received up into heaven, cp. 2 Kgs.2:9-12: " the
Spirit...taken up (s.w.) into heaven... parted...saw it" and instead of the
Cloud, a whirlwind and chariots of fire.
|
|
Sat on the right hand of God: 1 Sam.7:18;
Ps.110:1
|
20.
|
They went forth and preached everywhere. What a
remarkable contrast with Lk. 24:52,53.
|
|
Confirming the word; Is. 44:26.
|
|
see also "Studies in Acts". H.A.W, ch.4.
|
|
1.
|
The more ancient manuscripts (uncials).
|
|
The verses in question are entirely omitted by the oldest
— the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices. Two .others give two conclusions:
one which is generally recognized to be spurious, and then the twelve verses
in the A.V
|
2.
|
The less ancient MSS (cursives).
|
|
Of these no less than thirty include a marginal note to
the effect that the last 12 verses are omitted from some codices.
|
3.
|
The versions (ancient translations of the Greek New Testament
into other tongues). The spurious fjf- ending mentioned in par.) is given
by one Old Latin MS, one Harkleian Syriac and two Ethiopic, v.9-20 being omitted
altogether. Several Armenian MSS stop at v.8.
|
4.
|
The Early Christian Fathers.
|
|
In their writings Eusebius, Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor
of Antioch, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Severus of Antioch and Euthymius all throw
doubt on the authenticity of the last 12 verses. Tertullian and Cyprian, who
commented copiously on the Gospels, make no reference to them at all. Nor is any
reference to them to be found in the writings of Clement of Rome or Clement of
Alexandria.
|
5.
|
Both style and vocabulary in these verses demand a
different author from the rest of Mark's Gospel (compare the earlier
quotation from Weymouth). A good deal will have to be said about this by and
by.
|
6.
|
There is a serious discontinuity in the story at v.8. The
women are described as fleeing in fear from the tomb, and they then disappear
from the narrative. There is nothing to indicate where they went or what they
did or how their amazement was later turned to conviction.
|
7.
|
Lastly, an explanation is available of the origin of these
disputed verses. At the beginning of this concluding section an Armenian MS of
the 1 Oth Century has the note: "according to Ariston." Here, surely, is a hint
that the author of this portion of the Gospel was Aristion, a personal disciple
of Jesus, who is mentioned by Papias (about A.D. 100).
|
|
a.
|
The passage which has led to the inclusion of the names of
Gregory of Nyssa, Severus of Antioch, and Hesychius of Jerusalem as adverse
witnesses turns out to be part of a homily which has been attributed at
different times to each of these three. Thus these three witnesses boil
down to one. Is it slapdash scholarship or desperate determination to
pile up a large number of witnesses in support of a weak case which prompted the
use of this "trinity"? Two of these — the first two, let it be supposed
— must be scored out of the list cited earlier.
|
b.
|
Further "verifying of the references" establishes conclusively
that the remaining Hesychius together with Jerome and Victor of Antioch are not
really giving their own independent opinions but are actually quoting
verbatim from the writing of Eusebius (Jerome paraphrases slightly). In
other words the names of these three must be deleted from the list of adverse
witnesses because they are merely echoes of Eusebius whom they are following
blindly and — as Burgon demonstrated — most unintelligently. Even on
other grounds it is evident that Jerome should be called for the defence,
rather than against it, because when he produced his authoritative Latin version
of the New Testament called the Vulgate, he included the last 12 verses of Mark
without indication of any degree of doubt whatever.
|
c.
|
Thus there now remain, out of what was a formidable list, only
Eusebius and Euthymius. Of these the latter can be quietly dropped in the
waste-paper basket, for he was not an "Early Father" at all, but a commentator
of the 12th Century (the Dark Ages of scholarship). To include Euthymius at all
is surely a confession of weakness.
|
d.
|
And even Eusebius turns out to be a doubtful starter. The
question of these last 12 verses crops up in replies which Eusebius wrote to
problems posed by a certain Marinus. One of these concerned the harmonizing of
Mark 16 and Matthew 28. The gist of Eusebius's long and prosy reply is this: The
difficulty may be solved in either of two ways. First, to say — as some do
-that Mark's narrative ends at verse 8 (the rest of that chapter being met with
only seldom), and thus the supposed contradiction ceases to exist. On the other
hand, allowing the passage at the end of Mark to be genuine, it is the job of
the student of the gospels to find a means of harmonizing Mark with Matthew.
Whereupon this early Father of great reputation proceeds to suggest a rather
feeble way of achieving "harmony."
|
|
Now this is surely a strange way of settling a difficulty
— first, to say the text is spurious, and then to proceed to discuss it as
though it were genuine. Eusebius himself does not appear to be convinced that
the 12 verses are to be rejected, yet strangely enough he succeeds in convincing
the modern critics! And, further, it is noteworthy that most of the critics (if
not all) cite the first of Eusebius's solutions to Marinus's problem without
even a mention of the alternative which he propounds. For what reason? —
carelessness or bias?
|
e.
|
The citing of Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria, of
Cyprian and Tertullian on this question likewise appears in a very different
light when carefully examined. It is true none of these four Fathers quote from
Mark 16:9-20, but what are these facts worth? The argument from omission is
notoriously unsafe and inconclusive. Readers may be acquainted with Bishop
Whateley's clever demonstration that Napoleon never existed and that the
Napoleonic wars never took place, by carefully selected applications of the same
phoney principle! Clement of Rome does not quote from Mark's Gospel at all, so
where is the point in insisting on his ignoring Mark 16? The argument from
omission is of rather greater force where Cyprian and Tertullian are concerned
because they wrote more copiously on the Gospels. But even so, the argument
still remains precarious and certainly is not strong enough to allow both
Westcott and Hort to lean on it as confidently as they do, making it in fact one
of their most decisive lines of argument against the 12 verses. But for Matthew
11:20,21 it would have been possible to argue (from omission) that Jesus never
went near Chorazin and hardly at all to Bethsaida, whereas actually most of his
miracles were done in those places. But for John 18:2 it would have been
possible to argue (from omission) that Jesus went to Gethsemane only
once.
|
|
The evidence of the Early Fathers has now boiled down to a
quite unimportant residuum, if indeed it has not evaporated altogether. And the
investigation has exposed the methods of textual criticism as none too
dependable.
|
|
a.
|
v. l1,14: the Greek word for "see" used here occurs nowhere
else in Mark's Gospel. True enough! But it is also true that the word "willing"
(15:15) occurs in this place only in Mark, whilst in 25 other places Mark uses a
different word for the same idea. Does this unusual circumstance cast doubt on
the Marcan authenticity of chapter 15? Many examples of this kind can be cited
in all the Gospels. What are they worth? Statistically, more of these than can
ever be possible out of twelve verses need to be cited before a dependable case
can be made.
|
b.
|
v. l1,16: the Greek word for "believeth not" is found nowhere
else in Mark.
|
|
But this same word is found only twice in Luke, and both of
those occurrences are in his last chapter — for obvious reasons, when one
considers that in each case it is the unbelief of disciples concerning Christ's
resurrection that is being described! So what force is there in "evidence" of
this nature? Further, on investigation it turns out that Mark several times does
use what is, in effect, the same word — it is only the termination that is
different (apistein — apistia, ch.6:6 and 9:24; apistos,
ch.9.-l 9). Consequently, if anything, this use of "believed not"
supports the Marcan authorship of the twelve verses. But the traditional
believer does not need such flimsy arguments to support his conclusions, as will
be seen by and by.
|
c.
|
v.20: "everywhere." This particular Greek word comes nowhere
else in Mark.
|
|
But then, neither does it occur in Matthew or John, and only
once in Luke (ch.9:6). So what is to be gained by emphasizing this fact? If
indeed the word were used by Matthew, Luke and John (say) half a dozen times
each and nowhere else in Mark at all, the fact might begin to have significance
as a criterion of style and vocabulary. But as it is, one is inclined to suspect
a determination to make bricks without straw.
|
d.
|
v.9: would a writer who has already referred to Mary Magdalene
in v. 1 now (in v.9) describe her somewhat belatedly for identification purposes
as "Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven devils"? Does not this betray
the hand of a different author?
|
|
1.
|
Apart from the handful that has been mentioned, every
single manuscript of the Gospels, whether uncial or cursive, includes the
twelve verses.
|
2.
|
The ancient Versions are equally emphatic. The various Syriac
Versions, all the Old Latin MSS (except one), the Memphitic and Thebaic Versions
of Egypt, the Vulgate of Jerome, the Gothic Version - all of these, going back
to the fourth century (or much earlier in the case of some) testify to the
general acceptance of Mark 16:9-20 by widely separated branches of the early
church.
|
3.
|
The evidence of the Early Fathers goes back (in many
instances) much further than any of the MSS, and here again - apart from the
doubtful exception of Eusebius — the testimony is unanimous. In the 1st
Century, Hermas and Papias quote from the twelve verses. In the 2nd Century
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus do likewise. Then come in quick succession famous
names such as Hypolytus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria.
Besides these there is the weighty opinion of the Council of Carthage (A.D.
256), expressing the conviction of the early church of N. Africa. Add also the
evidence of the so-called Acts of Pilate and the very early Apostolic
Constitutions, and it can be seen that even if there were little supporting
evidence from the MSS, the case in favour of the authenticity of the twelve
verses would still be remarkably strong. It becomes evident from the cataloguing
of so much testimony that the reader may set doubts at rest. Mark ] 6:9-20 was
part of the Gospel of Mark from the earliest times.
|
|
a.
|
A reading was sometimes introduced by the addition of the
simple explanatory phrase: "And Jesus said." The present writer has more than
once heard similar improvisations added to the public reading of Scripture. An
example of this which has crept into the text of the King James Version is to be
found in Luke 7:31, where the RV correctly omits: "And the Lord said."
|
b.
|
"It was customary in the reading for the day before Good
Friday to include Luke 22:43,44 (about the angel and the agony in Gethsemane)
after Matthew 26:39, and to omit it from Luke 22 on a later occasion. Influenced
by this practice the Vatican MS omits Luke 22:43,44 from the proper place and
has in turn influenced the Revisers to include a quite unwarranted note of
warning in the margin there.
|
c.
|
It was likewise customary to include John 1 9:34 (about the
piercing of the side of Jesus) after Matthew 27:49. Here again the Vatican Codex
is at fault and has again become the chief ground for an unjustifiable addition
in the RV margin.
|
d.
|
The early lectionaries prescribed the reading of John
7:37-8:12 for Whit Sunday with the omission of 7:53 — 8:11 (the woman
taken in adultery). This omission from the reading led to the practice of
leaving out 7:53 — 8:11 from official copies, and thus became the origin
of modern doubts about that section.
|
