Additional Note on the Supplementary Endings to the Gospel
The earliest Greek, versional and patristic evidence supports the conclusion that Mark ended his Gospel at Ch. 16:8. To the witness of the two earliest parchment codices, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (א), may be added minuscules 304 and 2386. The absence of Ch. 16:9–20 in the Old Latin MS k, the Sinaitic Syriac, several MSS of the Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza MSS of the Georgian version, and a number of MSS of the Ethiopic version provide a wide range of support for the originality of the abrupt ending. Writing in the fourth century Eusebius remarked that “accurate” copies of Mark ended with verse 8, adding that Ch. 16:9–20 were missing from “almost all MSS” (Quaestiones ad Marinum 1 [MPG XXII, 937]), and the original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after Ch. 16:8. Jerome echoes this testimony when he says of the last twelve verses of Mark that “almost all the Greek codices do not have this concluding portion” (Epistle CXX. 3, ad Hedibiam [MPL XXII, 987]). Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian and Cyril of Jerusalem show no awareness of the existence of these verses. Moreover, a number of MSS which do contain them have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack them (e.g. 1, 20, 22, 137, 138, 1110, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, 1582), while in other witnesses the final section is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by scribes to mark off a spurious addition to a literary text. The evidence allows no other assumption than that from the beginning Mark circulated with the abrupt ending of Ch. 16:8. The fact that Matthew and Luke follow Mark until verse 8, but then diverge completely, lends further support to the supposition that the Gospel of Mark began its literary existence in this form.
The ending of the Gospel at Ch. 16:8, however, appeared too abrupt to some readers. The attempt to provide a more appropriate conclusion to the narrative affords the most plausible explanation for the origin of so-called shorter ending:
“But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
From the language it is clear that these lines cannot have been written by Mark. The intention of this report is to round off verse 8a, and to indicate that the women obeyed the injunction of verse 7. As such, it stands in opposition to the statement in verse 8b that “they said nothing to anyone.” This is made explicit in Codex Bobiensis (k), which is the only text which has the shorter ending alone. In joining the shorter ending to verse 8 the phrase “they said nothing to anyone” was omitted in this MS. The impression conveyed is that the women fled because they were afraid; nevertheless, they reported to Peter and to the others all they had been told.
This supplement to Mark’s ending is found, in combination with Ch. 16:9–20, in several uncial MSS of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112) as well as in a few minuscule or lectionary MSS (274mg 579 l961 1602) and in certain ancient versions (syhmg samss bomss aethmss). Codex Vaticanus (B) also provides evidence for the existence of the shorter ending.1
In a recent study of the supplementary endings to Mark2 K. Aland concluded that (1) the origin of the shorter ending is conceivable only with the hypothesis that the copy of Mark which lay before the author ended with Ch. 16:8, and that neither the longer conclusion nor any other continuation of the Gospel was then known. (2) The brevity and clumsiness of the shorter ending reflect either an early period of composition, a remote place of origin, or a very awkward author. It makes no attempt to create a link with Ch. 16:9–20, but arose evidently from the desire to round out the abrupt ending of Ch. 16:8. It should therefore be regarded as a parallel construction to Ch. 16:9–20. It is highly probable that the shorter and longer endings originated in completely separate areas. (3) There is strong authority for placing the shorter ending before the longer in the MS tradition.3 (4) There are almost no patristic allusions to the shorter ending which assist one to assign a date to its composition.4 The only formulation in the shorter ending which appears to offer a clue is “the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation,” but for this phrase there are no really close parallels. The latest possible date for the composition of the shorter ending is the fourth century. Codex Bobbiensis (k) was transcribed in the fourth or fifth century, but it is based on a much earlier text. It shows paleographic marks of having been copied from a second-century papyrus.5 Moreover, the narrow connection between MS k and the text of Cyprian (almost variant-free) suggests that the shorter ending was in existence at least as early as the beginning of the third century, and that in North Africa a relatively great number of MSS possessed the shorter ending.6 Because the copy from which k was transcribed gives every appearance of going back to an earlier Greek text it is necessary to push the date back into the second century. This judgment is consistent with the increasingly established text-critical principle that all genuine textual alteration in normal cases goes back to the second century. There is no other explanation for the fact that although the longer ending was in existence at the latest by the middle of the second century, until the thirteenth century the shorter ending stands before the longer (e.g. L Ψ 099 0112 579 syhmg samss bomss aethmss). This primacy of position is understandable only on the hypothesis of an early origin for the shorter ending. A date near the middle of the second century is probable.7
The fact that the shorter ending is now extant in only six Greek textual witnesses is not a counter-argument against its early origin. It is sobering to recall that the original abrupt ending is transmitted in only four Greek witnesses (א B 304 2386 [lectionary?]). As soon as the longer ending became widespread it simply supplanted (as more valuable) the shorter as well as the abrupt ending. The formulation of the shorter ending stands as an erratic piece of tradition in the production of Christian writers, and it was soon displaced by the dominant tradition embodied in the longer ending.
Unlike the shorter ending, the longer ending (Ch. 16:9–20) does not appear to have been compiled originally for the purpose of rounding off Mark. It actually interrupts the sequence of thought in Ch. 16:6–8, for it fails to relate the appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee, which was promised in Ch. 16:7. Instead of continuing the narrative it provides a list of appearances of the Lord which, in general, are brief extracts from the resurrection reports in Matthew, Luke and John.8 Moreover, the transition from verse 8 to verse 9 is not smooth. While the subject in verse 8 is the women, the presumed subject in verse 9 is Jesus. The fact that the subject is understood in verse 9 suggests that the entire section was drawn from a context in which the subject was expressed. As it now stands, Ch. 16:9–20 is a mosaic which is clearly secondary in character, which serves to round off the kerygma of the primitive Church with a reference to Christ’s ascension (Ch. 16:19). The tradition may have been composed originally as a catechetical summary of post-resurrection events. The development of a single theme, belief and unbelief, serves to unify the material theologically. The climax is provided by verse 14, where the disciples are rebuked for failing to believe, on the witness of others, the very message they will soon be urging their hearers to believe.9
Although the longer ending is found in the vast number of witnesses (A C D K L W X Δ Θ Π Ψ φ 28 33 274 565 700 892 1009 latt syc p h pal coppt), the form, language and style of these verses militate against Marcan authorship.10 The earliest definite witness to these verses as a part of Mark’s Gospel is Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. x. 6), who cites Ch. 16:9, although there is a possible echo of Ch. 16:20 in Justin (Apology XLV. 5). Justin’s disciple Tatian included the longer ending in his Diatessaron, to judge from the Arabic version of this work. The evidence is sufficient to assert that the longer ending was in circulation by the middle of the second century, while its composition should be assigned to the first half of the second century.11