Does Mark 16:9–20 Belong in the New Testament?

By David W. Hester and David H. Warren

For almost fifty years, much has been written concerning Mark 16:9-20. During the same time period, evidence once counted against Mark 16:9-20 was shown to be otherwise. In this study, David W. Hester surveys modern scholarship (1965-2011) surrounding the passage. He examines the passage itself--the external evidence, with particular attention paid to the manuscripts and the patristics, especially those of the second and third centuries; and the internal evidence, featuring details that are problematic as well as those that favor Markan authorship. Finally, a proposal concerning the origin of the passage is presented. The first edition of Mark's Gospel ended at 16:8, resulting in the manuscript tradition that omits the passage, but this was not his intended ending. Later, his associates attached Mark's notes and published a second edition of the Gospel with the last twelve verses. This led to its inclusion. Given that the passage is cited by second- and third-century witnesses and attributed to Mark, along with the biblical prohibition against adding to or taking from Scripture, it is doubtful that an anonymous second-century author could have been successful in adding his own composition and it being widely accepted by the early church.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Mar 19, 2015
• ISBN: 9781498201599

David W. Hester

David W. Hester is Lecturer for the V. P. Black College of Biblical Studies and the F. Furman Kearley Graduate School of Theology at Faulkner University in Montgomery, Alabama. He is the director of the Faulkner Bible Lectureship, and coeditor of the graduate journal, ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΑ. He is the author of two books: Among the Scholars (1994) and Tampering With Truth (2007).

Book preview

Foreword

Did Mark really intend for his gospel to end at 16:8? Or was his original ending lost, and someone else later supplied the traditional ending of 16:9–20? Could Mark have intended to write more but was somehow prevented from supplying his story with a suitable conclusion? Curiosity indeed feeds our speculations.

But forget Mark for the moment and any other man. What did God himself intend? This is the primary question that demands our attention. What most people fail to realize, including scholars, is that all of these possible scenarios could still fall under the providence of God. Even though ancient Jews did not believe that Moses prophetically wrote of his own death in the last chapter to Deuteronomy, they still regarded all thirty-four chapters as canonical and thus authoritative. According to the Babylonian Talmud (b. Baba Bathra 14b–15a), Joshua, the successor to Moses, wrote the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, describing Moses’s death. And Joshua’s sons Eleazar and Phinehas completed the book of Joshua, after Joshua’s death (Josh 24:29–33). And Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet completed the two books of Samuel after Samuel’s death (recorded early in 1 Sam 25:1). Even though someone besides the original authors supplied the conclusions to these canonical books, the Jews still attributed them to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel respectively.

So, does Mark 16:9–20 belong in the New Testament? This is the central question that Dr. David W. Hester attempts to answer in this volume. And he does not treat it as a theological question per se but as a historical question, albeit a historical question that surely has theological implications. And, yes, he does venture into speculation. How could he not? But he frames his answers with historical phenomena. Why does no church father in antiquity object to the addition of these verses (as you will see, no, not even Eusebius)? The final warning of the Bible in Revelaton 22:18–19 is repeated several times elsewhere (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Josh 1:7; Prov 30:6), showing that it is a general principle to be applied to the whole of Scripture. No one may add to or subtract from God’s word. Given this strong prohibition, why does Jerome include Mark 16:9–20 in his Latin Vulgate in spite of his awareness that nearly all Greek manuscripts in his day (the late fourth century) lack it (Epistle 120: To Hedibia 3)? Even two centuries earlier, Irenaeus quotes from Mark 16:19 and attributes these words to Mark (Against Heresies 3.10.5). In making this quotation, he expresses no doubts or misgivings, though he is quite conscious of incurring divine condemnation should he add anything to Scripture (ibid. 5.30.1). Irenaeus clearly believed that Mark wrote Mark 16:19, and apparently he is unaware of any textual problem. He is our first indisputable witness to how Mark’s gospel ended, and his copy of Mark is older than any copy that we possess today.

The Greek manuscripts, the ancient versions, statements by early church fathers, modern arguments based on vocabulary and style—here in this volume you will find all of the relevant evidence brought together and presented. Dr. Hester even includes photographs of several key Greek manuscripts so that you can actually see the evidence for yourself. He begins his study with a careful and complete survey of modern scholarship over the past fifty years, beginning with Kenneth Clark, whose presidential address before the Society of Biblical Literature in 1965 stirred William Farmer to write his own dissertation on The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.

I remember when I purchased Farmer’s monograph in the summer of 1976, after my first year of Greek, and began reading his preface, where he mentioned the presidential address of Clark. The Catholic Edition of the New Testament portion of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) had just been released, and Clark began his address with some observations on this new edition of the old RSV. He noted that in this new Catholic Edition, the text of Mark 16:9–20 had been restored to the main text of Mark, although a footnote warned that some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. In the original RSV, published in 1946, the text of Mark 16:9–20 was relegated to a footnote with type that was much smaller than that of the main text of Mark. This treatment of Mark 16:9–20, as if to diminish its importance, fueled one of the many complaints leveled against the old RSV by conservative Christian scholars. And many of these same voices called for a new version, and their cries eventually led to the publication of the New International Version (NIV) in 1973.

When the original NIV appeared, Mark 16:9–20 was printed with the same font size as the rest of Mark, although a line set it apart with the following note: The most reliable MSS omit Mark 16:9–20. In 1978, this note was reworded for the second edition of the New Testament: The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9–20. In 1984, for the third edition, this note was reworded again: The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20. And yet in all of these editions, the text of Mark 16:9–20 remained in the same font size as the rest of Mark’s text. This situation changed, however, in 2002, when Today’s New International Version (TNIV) retained the same wording for the note, but now the text of Mark 16:9–20 was printed in a noticeably smaller font size than the rest of Mark, and it was italicized. And this same practice was followed in the 2011 edition of the NIV. Of course, this note in its latest version is palpably wrong, for Irenaeus’s copy of Mark apparently had Mark 16:9–20, and it would certainly count as the earliest known manuscript of Mark’s gospel.

When the New Revised Standard Version appeared in 1989, the text of Mark 16:9–20 was printed in the same font size as the rest of Mark’s gospel, though enclosed with double brackets rather than separated with a line. But what an ironic situation has developed! The newest NIV has followed the practice of the old, controversial RSV, while the new RSV has adopted the policy of the old, conservative NIV.

Perhaps Dr. Hester’s volume can help reverse the tide once again for those who cherish the Bible as the divine, inspired word of God.

Dr. David H. Warren

Faulkner University

Introduction

In the spring of 1987, I was a senior Bible major in my last semester at Freed-Hardeman College (now University) in Henderson, Tennessee. One of the classes I took was Critical Introduction to the New Testament. Having already taken the companion class on the Old Testament, I looked forward with eager anticipation to delving into the questions of authorship, dating, and other issues. In the course of our study, we addressed the ending of the Gospel of Mark. The Greek courses I had previously taken served to introduce me to the problem. Now, we entered into it in more detail. When the time came for us to choose a topic for the paper we were to write, I made sure I chose the ending of Mark. Our professor guided me with patience and understanding, pointing me to the proper sources and gently giving me reminders to allow the evidence to speak. I thoroughly enjoyed the process. My conclusion at that time was that Mark 16:9–20 should be included in the text, with a footnote indicating that the two oldest manuscripts did not contain the passage—indicating doubts about its originality with Mark. However, I remember being bothered by the fact that Irenaeus’s second-century testimony in favor of Markan authorship was given less weight than I thought it should. At any rate, I thought at the time that this was as far as the evidence could go.

I did not revisit the issue for over twenty years. By that time, I was now a doctoral student at the Turner School of Theology at Amridge University in Montgomery, Alabama. In the course I took on the Synoptic Gospels, I chose to write my paper on Mark 16:9–20. I expected to arrive at the same conclusion from twenty years before. In the course of my research, though, I was surprised to discover two things: first, some of the pieces of evidence that had been cited against the passage were shown by Bruce Metzger to actually favor it. Second, the amount of material that had been written in the intervening years concerning Mark 16:9–20 was huge. As a result, my interest in the passage was rekindled. This also greatly helped me to make my decision concerning my dissertation topic. The more I delved into the articles and books written on the problem, the more I was convinced this was the subject that needed to be addressed. What settled the matter for me was reading Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views, by David Alan Black, Darrell Bock, Keith Elliott, Maurice Robinson, and Daniel Wallace. Published in 2008, this was the summary of a conference, previously held, which addressed the ending of Mark. To say that I was pleasantly surprised is an understatement. I was now convinced that the issue had to be revisited, and that a different perspective from the norm was ripe for presentation. Thus it was that in 2012, I finished work on the dissertation that serves as the bulk of this book. My dissertation committee, headed by Dr. Jim Smeal, was vital in focusing my research and strengthening my arguments. While Jim did not necessarily agree with my conclusion, that did not prevent him from offering helpful suggestions and encouragement throughout the process. He fully supported me all the way, as did the committee. I owe a debt of gratitude to them. They are all Christian gentlemen and scholars of the very best sort.

During the process of working on the dissertation, I at times was frustrated by certain attitudes and positions adopted by many of the scholars who wrote the articles and books I used concerning Mark 16:9–20. While I could not include my thoughts at the time in my work, I mentally filed them away for future use, if and when I was approved for publication. That time is now.

As indicated above, I was bothered by my perception that the testimony of second-century witnesses (such as Irenaeus) was given less weight than I thought they deserved. Why was this so? Were these witnesses telling the truth when they testified that Mark wrote the passage? There is absolutely no indication that they were doing otherwise. Were they mistaken? While such is within the realm of possibility, it is unlikely—given the attitude of the early church concerning the integrity of Scripture, and the biblical prohibitions against adding to the Word of God. How could such early witnesses knowingly proclaim that the passage was from Mark, if they knew that the opposite was true?

It is a presupposition on my part that the Holy Spirit fully inspired Mark, as well as all of the New Testament writers. The conservative position (or high view) of Scripture is simple: The Holy Spirit fully inspired the writers of the New Testament, down to the words they chose, without overriding their individual skills and abilities. Without impugning the beliefs of any scholar, it is my strong conviction that the process of inspiration must be factored into the discussion concerning Mark 16:9–20, or for that matter, the study of any biblical book or passage.

John Mark is held forth by many to have written a masterpiece; sometimes to the point that his Gospel seems to be elevated by scholars above those written by Matthew, Luke, and John. That said—if the Holy Spirit chose the words for Mark to use, without overriding his skills and abilities—is it sensible to limit the way in which Mark wrote? To put it another way: John wrote his Gospel, as well as the epistles of John and Revelation; there is a huge difference in style between the Gospel of John and Revelation, yet both came from the same author. As will be seen, even scholars who do not hold Mark to have written 16:9–20 nevertheless admit similarities between the passage and the rest of the Gospel of Mark.¹ Is it thus a leap of reasoning to say that the same author could have written both? If the Holy Spirit chose the words, and utilized the intelligence, skills, and abilities of John Mark, such is entirely reasonable. John Mark quite obviously was a very gifted author. The Holy Spirit realized this, and utilized him to the fullest—as he did with the rest of the authors of the Gospels. Each author was chosen to write a unique Gospel for a unique audience for a unique purpose. They each told the same story from unique perspectives.

Yet, this very idea—that each author of the Gospels wrote his own eyewitness account, by the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit (which would account for similarities)—seems all too often to be lost in the discussion. Thus it is that Green-Armytage’s observations ring true:

There is a world—I do not say a world in which all scholars live but one at any rate into which all of them sometimes stray, and which some of them seem permanently to inhabit—which is not the world in which I live. In my world, if The Times and The Telegraph both tell one story in somewhat different terms, nobody concludes that one of them must have copied the other, nor that the variations in the story have some esoteric significance. But in the world of which I am speaking this would be taken for granted. There, no story is ever derived from facts but always from somebody else’s version of the same story . . . In my world, almost every book, except some of those produced by Government departments, is written by one author. In that world almost every book is produced by a committee and some of them by a whole series of committees.²

In commenting on the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark, Carson’s remarks have bearing on the discussion:

Regardless of whether John depends on Mark, the easiest explanation as to why John

6

and Mark

6

preserve the same order of events is that they actually occurred in that order. It is important to remember that the Gospels were written within the lifetime of someone who knew Jesus himself. The studies on which so much form-and redaction-criticism have been based, the works on which so much effort to delineate the ‘descent of the oral tradition’ turn, were careful examinations of the passing on of traditions within a pre-literate society (the Maoris) over three hundred years or more. But in the Gospels we are dealing with a literate society (as the prologue of Luke attests), with books written within decades, not centuries, of the matters they describe.³

To hold one Gospel above the others does the rest a disservice, and in turn seems to overlook the process of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For all that has been written concerning the Synoptic Problem, a larger point has been missed. The four accounts that have been preserved are masterpieces in their own right. Instead of focusing on who copied whom, and who wrote first, attention should rather be given to each Gospel as a unit to itself. Such is not the prevailing view among scholars by far, but it must be considered. If biblical scholarship is to have relevance in the lives of people, it must get back to the Bible, as it were, and steer away from theories of relatively recent origin. Having said that, it seems that some scholars are resistant to real change.

In 1970, the landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions appeared.⁴ While Thomas S. Kuhn originally was attempting to perceive the physical sciences, his work had major ramifications across many academic disciplines. Terms now considered normal—paradigms, paradigm shift—were revolutionary when Kuhn first used them. The paradigm in this context is a commitment to a framework that both defines the world and what the scientist would expect to see. It provides a model of reality by which a thing can be determined to be true. Scientists operate within the rules of the paradigm as they work. Yet, although paradigms are necessary, dogmatic adherence to a paradigm makes scientists very sensitive to anything discovered that does not conform to the paradigm. Thus, over time anomalous results accumulate until a paradigm change is inevitable. Such is not at first accepted, but over time takes place. Biblical studies were not immune from scrutiny. In 2000, Shedinger wrote an article asking whether Kuhnian paradigms had application to biblical scholarship.⁵ Shedinger’s thesis was that the academic discipline of biblical studies constitutes a poor arena for the application of Kuhn’s notion of paradigms.⁶ He further argued that the concept of paradigms has little place in the discipline of biblical studies.⁷ Interestingly, Shedinger pointed to the discipline of Synoptic Gospel studies as one reason why. He contrasted scientific work as normally not marked by a debate over paradigmatic fundamentals to precisely the characteristic of scholarly work in biblical studies, a discipline frequently characterized by debate between adherents of differing paradigms.⁸ He offered the example of the predominant presupposition of the priority of Mark and the existence of Q. But while this is the dominant paradigm, it is not the only one.⁹ He pointed to debate between the two groups, a growing number of scholars who advocate the Griesbach hypothesis, and in biblical studies, contradictory paradigms can and do coexist within the same academic community.¹⁰

Yet, Shedinger acknowledged some similarities between Kuhnian paradigms and biblical research; in so doing, he seemed to contradict his assertion concerning the Mark/Q understanding of the Synoptics. He observed, The paradigm has commanded the allegiance of a significant majority of scholars and has provided the framework for an enormous amount of detailed, paradigm-based research.¹¹ He pointed out that those who differed with this understanding