From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Mark Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is
not altered.
Over 50 Interpreters
Explain the Gospel of Mark
A COMPENDIUM OF THE MOST INSIGHTFUL MATERIAL FROM COMMENTARIES
AND OTHER WORKS
NOW IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Volume 1:
Chapters 1-8
Compiled and Edited
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr.
Copyright © 2013 by author
All electronic and computer
reproduction both permitted and encouraged so long as authorial and compiler
credit is given
and
the text is not altered.
*
The primary text of this work is the traditional King
James Version. More modern renditions
are included from the New King James Version of selected words and phrases.
Scripture taken from the New King
James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved.
*
2013 PREFACE
Sometimes
your best hopes and desires get postponed.
Especially if your computer
literacy is modest and your financial resources as well. This projected was intended to go “on line”
in 2003 (see following “Preface”) but is finally making it only now—a decade
later. After the completion of a
much longer commentary on 1 Corinthians—one laid out and developed far
differently than this.
As I went through the last stages of development,
I shifted back to the classical KJV to avoid annoying copyright
restrictions. Although I can understand
it intellectually, putting a copyright on printing the text of God’s Word still
strikes me as a tad audacious. But since
there are so many willing to “make a buck” by ripping off others’ hard work, I
suppose such is inevitable.
While converting the text over, I was surprised
just how many words and phrases I had not discovered anything that impressed me
deeply enough to include extracts concerning.
So I decided to use my “editor’s prerogative” of adding my own comments
to a number of them—in italics to distinguish it from those of others and with
my initials included in brackets.
Am I on their level? Sometimes. But even when I, likely more often that
desirable, fall short of their high standard, I still think what is include
will prove serviceable to many. That is
certainly a worthwhile goal in its own right.
At the very least, it hopefully gives a sense of “completeness” to the
work that it might otherwise lack.
In addition I added four comparative translations
on each verse. To provide a representative sampling of translation styles we have
presented the commentary itself in the King James Version with significant
differences (mainly due to language changes) in its contemporary successor, the
quite worthy New King James Version.
To provide representative alternate
translation styles that are in the public domain we have included the
appreciated
Then
there is the WEB (World English Bible) which is a conscious updating of
the respected American Standard Version.
For those seeking an extremely
literal version, we could hardly do better than the classic Young’s Literal
Version. Personally I have never
found much of appeal in this because in places it seems to verge on
incomprehensibility. Literal is praiseworthy,
of course, but unless the reader can also use it without scratching his or her
head in confusion, perhaps it is too literal? Be that as it may, there are those who consider it something bordering on “the gold standard”
and deserves inclusion on grounds of both literalness and continuing
reader interest.
Finally there is Ronald L. Conte Jr.’s 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version. It is a contemporary translation of the Latin
text recognized as authoritative in the Roman Catholic Church and may have
special value to those of that religious background. It should be noted that he is—rightly—quite
angry at contemporary Catholic translators’ willingness to yield to Modernism
and extreme feminism and their biased slanting of the text. For that reason as well, his version may well
provide non-Catholic readers with a useful Catholic version.
It should be noted, however, that sometimes what is at the end of one
verse in the other translations will occur at the very beginning of Conte’s
next verse. Also Mark 9:1 becomes
With this explanation of the most recent changes,
the book is now yours: May you find it
useful in your coming years of Biblical study!
Roland
H. Worth, Jr.
2003 PREFACE
Some ideas just get laid aside in
the rush of life. This might well serve
as a prototype example.
It’s been more than 35 years since
my first effort to piece together a “classic commentary” of the best material
published on the gospel of Mark prior to about the 1920s. The initial draft, if memory serves me
correctly, was compiled in about 1965 and contained extracts from less than
twenty commentaries. I laid it aside for
two decades and when I came across it again the thought went through my mind
that the concept was good but it needed to be vastly expanded--not to mention
finding a less distracting method to include references to a large number of books.
Even then all was not simple and
straightforward. In the process of going
from one computer to another and laying aside my expanded draft, the diskettes
that had the data would no longer work.
Thanks to the computer genius of a friend, the vast bulk of the material
was salvageable and I had to find replacement for only a modest amount to
compensate for what was lost. (I also
learned to back up files in triplicate.)
More time went
by and my mind carried me on to other projects.
It didn’t help for my computer to go “dead” and the two disks I had the
completed work on to go missing for over a year when we moved from one
apartment to another. Actually, perhaps
it wasn’t so strange after all. An
amazing number of things just vanished into thin air during that move; impossibly
vanished it seemed at the time. Be that
as it may, the disks finally surfaced.
Better luck yet, the entire text was still there!
There remained
some further editing still to be done and the finished product is what you have
before you. The only difference lies in
this revised introduction and a “spell check” on the text to assure maximum
accuracy.
In the meantime I have had a number
of books published. Historical studies
of World War Two. Biblical
exegesis. The
history of Bible translation. Yet
this one has a special place in my heart.
It was one of the first two books I ever attempted.
But perhaps it is all for the
best. I really only had the vaguest of
concepts of how to produce such a work when I first began. Thanks to all the research I’ve done on
various diverse topics, I now finally have a “handle” on what’s required and
how to go about it. (After 35-plus
years--about time, I suppose.) Yet,
sadly, it is unlikely that I will ever do any more volumes like this one. Publisher interest in the “old”—no matter how
good—is minimal. It is “new or forget
about it.” A willful
and knowing cutting of ourselves apart from our interpretative legacy.
(On the other hand, widespread
access to the internet now offers a new outlet previously unavailable for such
labors. So, perhaps, all is not lost.)
If that weren’t enough, the “rules
of the game” have been draconically rewritten in the copyright field. Courtesy of a few big name publishers zealous
to protect their large earnings from a small percentage of their authors,
copyright protection continues to be expanded in both duration and the books to
which they apply—including works which will never be reprinted in full and,
rarely if ever, even in part if monetary charges must be paid: the potential interest in them is simply not
that great. Hence greed that won’t even
increase the bottom line trumps the free flow of information.
Though it is
still quite possible to navigate between these reefs of avarice, the simple
fact is that the profit margins are simply too narrow and reader potential too
modest for conventional print publishers to run the risk of accidental
infringement. Hence much good material
will vanish, not because of it losing its usefulness but simply to avoid even
the remote chance of harassment.
Yet within
those now “outdated” works and public domain writings lies a great deal of
useful and thought provoking material.
Some of it is included in the current work.
Roland
H. Worth, Jr.
ORIGINAL (NON-COMPUTER)
PREFACE
Hundreds of volumes have been written on or
about the gospel of Mark--some with that work being the sole subject, some in
commentary form, some as part of a broader study of
the entire life of Christ. What we have
done here is take the work of over fifty commentators, scholars, and
theologians as they discuss Mark's account of the gospel of Christ. They range from the famous and historically
significant (such as Adam Clarke) to individuals whose efforts were just as detailed
but their reputation far more limited.
They range in
theological viewpoint over a wide spectrum of the landscape--from Anglican to
Baptist, to
Explanation of the text has been
much preferred to edification from the text, "preaching" (if you
will) the moral and religious lessons to be learned from it. Although a minority of
citations are of such a nature, they have been kept to a minimum because
the central thrust of the work is to help the contemporary student of scripture
better understand the text itself. (If
you want a sermon you can get that on Sunday morning.)
The writers utilized are primarily
American, with a lesser number of British (both English and Scottish), German,
and scattered other nationalities as well.
Since the purpose of this work is to preserve the best exegetical work
of the past for future generations, we have imposed a cut-off date of
approximately World War One. Although
valuable textual criticism (as to minor revisions necessary to the then-used
Greek underlying text) continues to be produced, these have only minor impact
upon the central interest to the most probable readers of this volume--the meaning
of the text itself.
Although it would be very unfair to
say that "all that is worth saying has been said," it is certainly
true that fifty good minds are more likely to produce a total product superior
to that of any one specific individual.
They will contribute some to the understanding of the sacred text
but none individually as much as all of these collectively. Hence one's contemporary commentary needs can
be met by consulting one or two more recent volumes from those recommended by
one's minister or someone else knowledgeable in the newer literature.
The one area where these older works
falter the most is in regard to matters related to authorship and dating and
for that purpose it would be useful to compare what is said herein with one of
the several valuable and reliable Biblical encyclopedias currently
available. Again, the user of this
volume will find this volume is far more likely to have her or his interest
centered in the meaning of the text, however intriguing these other matters may
be.
The
counsel of the 50-plus commentators included in this work will keep us from
making many an interpretive error that we might make on our own. On the other hand, the reader must remember
that even the most well versed commentator remains fallible. Though perceptive and insightful, he may
still inadvertently steer the reader in the wrong direction. Hence even the best commentator remains an aid
to our interpretation of scripture, not a replacement of our duty to
read, evaluate, and conclude for ourselves.
This does not
mean that we should arbitrarily lay aside any of these views just because we do
not like them. Instead they should be
used to goad our thinking processes into high gear. And, if after consideration, we are still
uncertain there is no need to fix our interpretation in
"cement." If the Lord grants
us life, we will surely return to this book yet again in the future and bring
with it--at that time--an even greater experience in handling scripture.
Commentators do not always
agree. Hence on some texts we present
more than one view while in other cases an able summary of the competing
approaches has been deemed quite adequate.
What is amazing is not that commentators disagree but that on so much
they are in essential agreement. If that
were not the case, a volume of this nature would have been impossible to
compile.
The
"problem" the Bible most often poses to modern humanity is not
what it means, but whether we are willing to apply it to
ourselves. Here we are centered upon
establishing the meaning of the text.
The matter of personal application must be left to individual conscience
and personal consistency.
Even so there are matters of
difficulty and objection to the sacred text that requires a more detailed
analysis than can reasonably be placed within the confines of short remarks
upon the meaning of the individual words and phrases within a given verse. Hence in a number of cases, after the verse
we have a section labeled "in depth," in which these issues are
discussed at greater length.
Not only does
this approach permit the reader to examine issues and controversies that would
otherwise be omitted, it permits us to keep concise and to the point the
discussion of the text itself. The
"in depth" sections serve, if you will, the same purpose of a good
footnote: To provide additional
information that, though useful to the reader, would disrupt the flow of the
text.
In
order to keep the reader's attention on the text--rather than the source
of each piece of commentarial information--we have identified each source by a
number rather than by a name. This way
the text will flow easier rather than the large number of sources used becoming
a hindrance. The numerical
identification is provided at the end of each comment or, in the case of
"In Depth" extracts, at the beginning.
Each source is
carefully identified in the "Works Cited" section at the beginning of
the book. No particular significance
should be attributed to these numbers; the lowest are not necessarily the most
profound and the highest the least perceptive.
The assigned numbers are solely the result of when they happened to be
entered into the final draft of the current work.
When more than one source is cited
on a specific word or phrase, each comment is placed in a separate paragraph
with the appropriate numerical designation.
Although some of these could easily be run together, on balance, it
seemed better to more clearly indicate that one has gone from one citation to
another.
As a further effort to avoid
distraction, we have not utilized ellipses [ . . .
]. On the other hand, we have taken
great care to assure that when we have left any material out that we have not--in
any way--distorted the point or idea the commentator is developing.
In a few cases the wording of the
quoted material might not be totally clear and brackets have been added to make
crystal clear the thought and to remove any ambiguity.
Roland
H. Worth, Jr.
WORKS CITED
1 = G.
A. Chadwick. The
Gospel According to St. Mark.
2 = A.
3 = Joseph
Addison Alexander. The
Gospel According to Mark.
New
York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.,
1858 (1874 printing).
4 = Andrew
C. Zenos. The
Son of Man: Studies in the Gospel of
Mark.
5 = A.
C. Gaebelein. The
Annotated Bible; volume 1: The
Gospels and
the
Book of Acts.
6 = W.
C. Allen. The
Gospel According to Saint Mark.
7 = Robert
F. Horton. The
Cartoons of St. Mark.
8 = Edwin
W. Rice. People's Commentary on the
Gospel
According
to Mark. (Fourth
Edition).
American
Sunday-School
9 = Harvey
Goodwin. A
Commentary on the Gospel of Mark.
10 = John
Henry Burn. The Preacher's Homiletic
Commentary on the
Gospel according to
Mark.
11 = Matthew
P. Riddle. The International
Revision Commentary on
Mark.
12 = John
Peter Lange. A Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures: The
Gospel according to
Mark. Sixth
Edition.
Armstrong
& Company, 1866; 1872 printing.
13 = Edward
I. Bosworth. Studies
in the Life of Jesus Christ.
New
14 = Charles
R. Erdman. The
Gospel of Mark.
15 = Henry
Cowles. Matthew and
Mark.
Company,
1881.
16 = John
Albert Bengel.
Gnomon of the New Testament (volume 1).
Revised and Edited by
Andrew R. Fausset.
Clark, MDCCCLIX.
17 = Alexander
Bruce. "The Synoptic Gospels"
in The Expositor's Greek
Testament
(Volume One).
date].
18 = Samuel
J. Andrews. The
Life of Our Lord. Fourth Edition.
19 = Melanchton W. Jacobus. Notes on the Gospel of
Mark. 1853.
20 = Pasquier Quesnel. The Gospels: with Moral Reflections on Each
Verse. Volume I.
printing.
21 = Adam
Clarke. Commentary
on Mark. No date
22 = Bernhard
Weiss. A Commentary on the New
Testament: Matthew
and
Mark. Translated by George H. Schodde and Epiphanius
23 = W.
N. Clarke. American
Commentary on the Gospel of Mark.
24 = Alfred
Nevin. Popular
Expositor of the Gospels and Acts:
Matthew,
Mark, John.
25 = Charles
H. Hall. Notes, Practical and
Expository on the Gospels:
Matthew and Mark
(Second Edition).
Houghton, 1856, 1871.
26 = Jeremiah
W. Jenks. The Political and Social
Significance of the Life
and Teachings of Jesus.
Association Press, 1906; 1908 printing.
27 = Herman
H. Horne. Modern Problems as Jesus
Saw Them. New
28 = Henry
C. King. The Ethics
of Jesus.
Company, 1910; 1912 printing.
29 = Halford E. Luccock. Studies in the Parables
of Jesus.
30 = W.
H. Thomson. The
Parables by the
31 = ?
32 = William
M. Taylor. The
Miracles of Our Saviour.
33 = John
Laidlaw. The Miracles of Our Lord.
Wagnalls Company, 1892.
34 = A.
T. Robertson. Studies
in Mark's Gospel.
35 = Ernest
De Witt
Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago Press,
1904; 1923 printing.
36 = Joseph
Parker. The People's Bible: Mark-Luke.
& Wagnalls
Company, 18--.
37 = Marcus
Dods. The Parables of our Lord.
Revell Company, 18--.
38 = J.
W. McGarvey. Commentary on Matthew and Mark. 1875.
39 = E.
Bickerstith. St.
Mark in The Pulpit Commentary. Reprint,
40 = Henry
Alford. The Greek Testament. Volume One; Fifth Edition.
41 = Benjamin
W. Bacon. The
Beginnings of the Gospel Story.
New
Haven,
42 = Albert
Barnes. Commentary on Mark. 18--.
43 = David
Brown. The Four
Gospels.
Alfred Martien, 1859.
44 = Ernest
D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Illinois: University of Chicago
Press, 1900; 18th reprint, 1923.
45 = W.
A. Campbell. A
Commentary on the Gospel According to Mark.
46 = G.
A. Chadwick. The
Gospel According to Mark. In The
Expositor's
Bible.
47 = John
Cumming. Sabbath Evening
Mark.
48 = Andrews
Norton. A Translation of the Gospels With Notes.
49 = B.
W. Johnson. The
People's New Testament. 18--.
50 = Alexander
Maclaren. Expositions
of Holy Scripture: Mark.
51 = F.
N. Peloubet and M. A. Peloubet. A Commentary on the
International Lesson for 1895.
1894.
F. N. Peloubet
and M. A. Peloubet. A Commentary on the
International Lessons for 1900.
Company, 1899.
52 = Thomas
Scott. Commentary
on the Bible. Volume Three.
53 = Marvin
R. Vincent. Word
Studies in the New Testament.
Volume I:
The Synoptic Gospls, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles of Peter, James,
and
Jude. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887;
1911 reprint.
54 = Matthew
Henry. Commentary
on the Whole Bible.
1721. Reprint,
York: Fleming H. Revell
Company, [no date].
Introductory Materials
Mark: The Man Behind the Name [13]
John Mark was a Jerusalem boy whose mother,
Mariam [Mary], was a well-to-do widow and a prominent
woman among the
It has been conjectured that John
Mark was the young man who was so nearly captured on the night of Jesus' arrest
(Mark 14:51-52), and if so, that it was in his father's house that Jesus ate
the Last Supper with the inner circle of His disciples. John Mark, therefore, was acquainted as a boy
with the information regarding Jesus current in the
He had connection with the apostolic
circle, not only as the special friend and protégé of Peter, but also as the
kinsman of Barnabas (Colossians
Relationship
of the Gospel of Mark to the Apostle Peter [13]
There is good reason for considering
the Gospel According to Mark to be really "Peter's Reminiscences of his
Lord." The historian Eusebius of
Caesarea in Palestine, who died about 340 A.D., in Book III, chapter 39, of his
Church History, quotes the following statement made by Papias,
Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who died probably
between 125 and 150 A.D.,
“This also the presbyter
said: Mark, having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order,
whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed
him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to
the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account
of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote
some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things
which he had heard and not to state any of them falsely.”
The "presbyter" whom Papias here quotes probably belonged to an older generation
than that of Papias himself,
and this testimony therefore is very early.
If we assume that the work of Mark here referred to is our Gospel of
Mark, we see what superior preparation Mark had for the composition of the
Gospel.
The quotation represents Peter to
have had a series of anecdotes regarding his Lord from which he made selection
according to the varying needs of his hearers.
Although Peter, as a native of bilingual Palestine, in addition to his
vernacular Aramaic, probably knew also some Greek, he did not feel equal to
making public addresses in Greek; just as many Americans who read German easily
and have some conversational use of the language, would not think of delivering
a public address in German. The most
natural inference from the quotation is that Market knew Greek better than
Peter did and helped Peter in his work among Greek speaking peoples.
Peter's anecdotal reminiscences may
have taken a somewhat stereotyped oral form and been taught by Mark to classes
of Peter's converts. This series of
anecdotes Mark finally arranged in the order in which we now have them, and
perhaps after introducing some other matter as a result of personal
investigation, wrote them out in the Greek narrative which has come down to us
as the Gospel of Mark.
Attitudes
toward the Gospel of Mark in the Post-Biblical Ancient and Early Medieval Church [34]
The early commentators seem to have
neglected this Gospel. Victor of Antioch
(fifth or sixth century A.D.), the earliest known commentator on Mark,
"complains that, while St. Matthew and St. John had received the attention
of a number of expositors, and St. Luke also had attracted a few, his utmost
efforts had failed to detect a single commentary upon St. Mark" (Swete, Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark,
xxix). It is plain that for a long time
Mark's Gospel was less esteemed and less used than the others, in particular,
less than the Gospels of Matthew and John, the work of apostles, while Mark's
at best was only the work of an apostle's disciple. As compared with Luke's Gospel it was much
briefer and less complete and without Luke's literary charm.
Besides, Irenaeus
asserted that Mark's Gospel was later than that of Matthew and of less
intrinsic historical work. His order of
the Gospels is, Matthew (in Aramaic first), Mark,
Luke, John. Augustine (de Cons. Evang., 1, 4) speaks of Mark as the "follower and
abbreviator of Matthew," a view that seems directly counter to the modern
view.
The uncertainty among the ancient
writers as to the place and value of Mark's Gospel is shown by the fact that
different writers used each of the symbols to describe Mark (the lion, the man,
the ox, the eagle). And yet Holdsworth is correct in saying: "The priority of St. Mark's Gospel is
now generally accepted by modern critics" (Gospel origins, 1913, p.
104).
Eyewitness
Roots of the Markian Account [34]
The notes of an eye-witness are
manifest in Mark's Gospel. They are
admitted by all and include such details as the look of anger (3:5), the single
pillow in the boat (4:38), the disposal of the five thousand like garden beds
([as meant by the Greek in] 6:40), and the green grass (6:39), Christ sighing
over the blindness of the Pharisees (8:12), taking the children in His arms
(9:36; 10:16), Christ's look of love upon the rich young ruler (10:21), and the
cloud upon the young man's face (10:22).
The graphic style of Mark is seen
also in his frequent use of the imperfect tense to describe the scene, as the
picture of Jesus watching the crowds and the rich in particular as they cast
their gifts into the treasury (12:41).
The historical present is also very common and is due to the same
vividness and realistic imagination of an eyewitness. Mark sees the picture going on because of
Peter's vivid description in his discourses.
These picturesque details do not
prove that Peter is responsible for them, but only that they are due to an
eyewitness. The early writers, as we
have seen, ascribe the body of the Gospel to Peter as the ultimate source. The character of the Gospel is in perfect
harmony with this uniform tradition.
The Long
Ending of Mark (16:9-20): Part of the
Original or a Later Addition
[rw]?
[There
are three basic alternatives:
[1. The gospel ended at
verse 8, "And then went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they
trembled and were amazed. And they said
nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."
Yet are we to really believe that a Peter-based gospel omitted any
discussion of the resurrection? Are we
to believe that the writer left Jesus' ultimate destiny hanging in mid-air,
unresolved?
[Such
questions are dealt with in several ways.
One is to argue that since the available endings are not
authentic, that one is forced to accept 16:8 as the original ending, whether it
seems an appropriate stopping point or not.
[Others deal with this by conceding that
there was an original ending but that it was on a separate leaf of the
original manuscript and was lost. But if
this is so, it is hardly likely that it was lost at such an early date that the
author would not or could not replace it.
Hence the scenario of a lost page from a early manuscript fits in
well with both the preservation of a strong tradition of the text ending at
16:8 and another textual tradition including the Long Ending of 16:9-20
as well.
[Other scenarios are possible. As one scholar writes, "It is possible,
of course, that Mark meant to write more and never did, being interrupted by a
journey or even by death." A death that just happened to coincide to his discussion
with the death of Jesus? [34] Or a journey that somehow
just happened to keep him from taking the text with him and completing it--or
returning to it at a later date?
[2. A moderate degree
of evidence is available for the Short Ending, "And they reported
briefly to Peter and those in his company all the things commanded. And after these things Jesus himself also
sent forth through them from the East even to the West the holy and
incorruptible message of eternal salvation."
[Innocent in itself, such an ending would be
in remarkable dissent from the uniform tradition of Matthew, Luke, and John in
providing at least a moderate amount of post-resurrection details. Indeed once one concedes a Petrine basis of the gospel--indeed, one rooted in his preaching
of the risen Christ--one would be nothing less than shocked if a written
version of that teaching omitted all explicit discussion of the matter.
[3. The Long Ending of
16:9-20 is supported by the bulk of Greek manuscripts. The counterbalancing argument is that the allegedly
"best" manuscripts do not provide anywhere near the same proportion
of support for the passage. For a summary of the evidence see below. The other key argument against the long
ending (rebutted in an extract below) is that the Greek words used in those
verses indicate a different authorship than that of the rest of the book.]
The
Textual Evidence concerning the Ending of Mark [34]
The
two oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) and B (Codex Vaticanus),
stop with verse 8. B has a blank space,
which shows that the scribe knew of the longer ending but concluded not to give
it.
The Sinaitic
Syriac stops also at [verse 8] as does the margin of
the Harclean Syriac. The best manuscripts of the Armenian and some
of the older Ethiopic manuscripts likewise end with verse 8.
Eusebius says that "almost all
the Greek copies" are without further ending. Victor of Antioch, who wrote the earliest
commentary on Mark, stops his comment with verse 8. Some of the Greek manuscripts (cursives) that
give the longer ending say that it is not found in other manuscripts. The cursive Greek manuscript 22 marks
"End" after verse 8, according to "some of the copies," but
adds that "in many" the regular ending is found. Similar comments are found in nearly thirty
other cursives.
With the exception of Aleph and B,
which have no ending and [Greek uncial manuscript] L [of the eighth or ninth
century and a few others], which have both endings, "the longer ending
follows verse 8, without a break, in every known Greek MS" (Plummer)
outside of [certain] cursives. It
appears in most of the Old Latin manuscripts, in the Curetonian
Syriac, in the Memphitic
and in the Gothic versions. Irenaeus quotes verse 19 as part of the Gospel of Mark, and
thereafter it is frequently referred to by Christian writers. I do not, however, agree with Plummer that
"this external testimony to the genuineness of the twelve verses seems to
be not only conclusive, but superabundant." Manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely
counted. Plummer rejects the passage in
spite of that strong statement.
In Defense
of the Genuineness of the Long Ending [38]
A
difference of opinion has long existed among the critics as to the genuineness of
the last twelve verses of Mark. The
recent popularization of the results of Biblical Criticism, as well as the
increased circulation of critical commentaries, has brought this and similar
questions before the masses of the people and created a demand for their
treatment in a style adapted to the comprehension of comparatively uneducated
readers. We propose, therefore, to state
with as much brevity and simplicity as we can the facts which must have the
controlling influence in deciding this question.
All the historical statements of the
passage are known to be true independently of their occurrence here,
because they are found in the other gospels or in Acts. Thus the statements concerning Mary
Magdalene, which occupy verses 9-11 are substantially
verified by John and Luke (John 20:1-18; Luke 8:2). The statement concerning His appearance to
two disciples as they went into the country is but a brief account of what is
more fully described in Luke 24:13-35 and yet it is so varied in expression as
to show that it is not an abbreviation from Luke.
All the items
of the appearance of Jesus to the eleven, described in verse 14, are
substantiated by the statements in Luke 24:36-43, and John 20:19-23; and those
pertaining to the commission and the ascension (15-16, 19-20) are confirmed by
Luke's account of the latter (24:36-51), and by Matthew's report of the former
(28:19-20); while the promise concerning the signs that were to follow the
believers is substantially included in Matthew 28:20 and John 14:12 and is
fully verified by the events recorded in Acts.
The authenticity of the passage
being conceded, and the fact being apparent that it was written by some one
possessed of independent and correct sources of information, the question of
its genuineness must be waived with detracting from its authority or
credibility; for a true piece of history attached to Mark's book is not less
valuable or authoritative because some other person than Mark may have been the
author of it: but we proceed, for the
sake of a thorough understanding of the facts in the case, to examine the
evidence pro and con, and first those which are called external evidences.
First, the
manuscripts. The passage is
omitted from a few of the manuscripts and among these are the
On the other hand, the passage is
found in nearly all of the other ancient manuscripts, including
the Alexandrian. It was also cited by Irenaneus and Tatian of the
second century and by Hyppolytus and Dyonisus of Alexandria, of the third century, all of whom
lived before the earliest existing manuscript was written, and from one hundred
to two hundred years earlier than Jerome.
The preponderance of evidence from this source is in favor of the passage.
Second, the
ancient versions. The evidence
from this source is altogether in favor of the passage: for all the ancient versions contain it and
thereby testify that it was in the Greek copies from which they were
translated. If, at this time, the Greek
copies did not generally contain it, it is at least a very remarkable
circumstance that all of the versions were made from those that did. Among these versions are the Peshito Syriac, the Old Italic,
the Sahidic and the Coptic; all of which were in
existence earlier than the Sinaitic and
Third, critical
conjecture. The relative
probability of the passage having been written by Mark or having been added by
a later hand, is next to be considered. Those who adopt the latter hypothesis think
that the addition was made on account of the want of completeness apparent in
closing the narrative with the eighth verse of this chapter. Any reader will be struck with this want of
completeness, if he will read from the first to the eighth verse, and imagine
that the narrative there closes.
But while this consideration would
account for the addition of the passage, it leaves unaccounted for the fact
that Mark cut short his narrative so abruptly.
The various conjectures advanced to account for this fact, such as the
sudden death of Mark, or the sudden death of Peter, Mark's instructor, are so
unsatisfactory that they serve only to show the strait in which the writers
find themselves who adopt this hypothesis.
On the other hand, if we suppose
that the passage was written by Mark, its absence from some copies is at once
accounted for by considering the many accidents by which the last leaf of a
manuscript may be lost. Alford himself
recognizes the force of this consideration and says, "The most probable
supposition is that the last leaf of the original gospel was torn
away." This remark is intended by
him to account for the incompleteness which suggested the addition of the
passage in question, but we think it still more satisfactorily accounts for the
absence of this passage from those manuscripts which have it not: for one manuscript with the last leaf torn
away, or worn away, might be used as a copy and might thus become the prolific
mother of an immense brood of manuscripts lacking the portion lost.
As regards the external evidence,
then, we are constrained to adopt the conclusion of Dr. Davidson, who very
modestly says: "On the whole, the
external arguments in favor of the passage outweigh those on the other
side" (Davidson's Introduction).
We believe that the ground of doubt
which overrules it in the minds of some is internal evidence, furnished
by words and phrases found in the passage which are foreign, it is claimed, to
Mark's style, and which therefore show the hand of another writer. Dean Alford, after mentioning each of these
words and phrases as they occur in the text, sums up the evidence from this
source as follows: "Internal
evidence is, I think, very weighty against Mark's being the author. No less than seventeen words and phrases occur
in it (and some of them several times) which are never elsewhere used by
Mark--whose adherence to his own peculiar phrases is remarkable." Such also is the judgment of several other
eminent critics, both English and German.
A question of this kind is not to be
decided by balancing the weight of the great names which have been arrayed in
the discussion of it, but by a careful and patient examination of the alleged
peculiarities of style, in order to determine the actual force of the evidence
which they contain.
To Professor John A. Broadus, of
Such a coincidence occurring in the
immediately context, is at once a surprising fact and a startling exposure of
the fragile foundation on which this famous critical structure has been erected. It shows that the same use of the Greek
Concordance which led to the origin of this criticism, if pushed a little
farther, would have smothered it at its birth, and would have saved some
distinguished critics from being detected in a flimsy though pretentious
fallacy.
Applying to another passage the
method adopted by Professor Bradus, I have myself
examined the last twelve verses of Luke's narrative and found there nine
words which are not elsewhere used in the narrative, and among them are four
which are not elsewhere found in the New Testament: yet none of our critics have thought it worth
while to mention this fact, if they have noticed it, much less have they raised
a doubt in regard to the genuineness of this passage. Doubtless many other examples of this kind
could be found in the New Testament; but these are simply sufficient to show
that the argument which are considering is but a shallow sophism.
But the argument appears, if
possible, still more fallacious, when we come to consider it in connection with
the words and phrases in question and taken separately. We make a few specifications, taken from
among those on which Alford and others most confidently rely for the support of
their criticism.
1.
We select first the word poreuomai,
"to go." Alford says,
"This word, never used by Mark, is three times contained in this passage,
verses 10, 12, 15." True, this word
in its simple form is not elsewhere used by Mark, but he uses it in composition
with a preposition not less than nineteen times. He uses eis-poreuomai,
"to go in," eight times; and ek-poreuomai,
"to go out," eleven times.
2. We next notice the phrase meta
tauta, "after these things" (verse
12). Alford says of this expression,
"It is not found in Mark, though many opportunities occurred for using
it." The argument, fairly stated,
is this: In all similar connections,
Mark employs other terms, such as eutheoos,
"straightway" or palin,
"again;" but here, where the critic thinks his style required the use
of the latter term, we find the phrase meta tauta,
"after these things."
It is surprising that this argument
is employed, for it requires only a cursory glance at the connection to see
that the term palin, "again" would not
have served the purpose of the writer in this place. The statement is, literally translated,
"after these things he appeared in another form to two of them as they
walked and went into the country."
It would not have been proper to say that He appeared to them again,
for He had not appeared to them previously; but this appearance took
place after the events just previously mentioned by Mark, and he must properly
chose the phrase "after these things" to indicate this fact.
As regards the "many
opportunities" which occurred in Mark's narrative for a previous use of
this phrase, we are prepared to affirm that in no one of the places where palin occurs, would meta tauta
have served the purpose of context so well.
This the English reader can see for himself, if he will examine the
occurrences of "again" in Mark's narrative and suppose the phase
"after these things" to be substituted for it.
Moreover, in this instance, as in others
already mentioned, a striking coincidence discovered by Professor Broaddus
serves most effectually the purpose of refutation. Luke, in the book of Acts, a book nearly
twice as large as Mark, makes the same use of outheoos
and palin that Mark does, yet once and only
once, he employs meta tauta, the very phrase
now in question (18:1). True, the phrase
occurs four times in Acts, but in the other three instances it occurs in
quotations, one from Stephen (7:7), one from Paul (13:20), and one from James
(15:16).
3.
Finally, we notice the term "the Lord" (verses 19, 20). Alford says that this term is "foreign
to the diction of Mark in speaking of the Lord;" and it is true that it is
not found elsewhere in Mark except in quotations. But, as Professor Broadus remarks, "It
is precisely after the resurrection of Christ that it would be most
natural to apply to Him this high name, 'the Lord.' "
John uses the term in this sense
only three times before the resurrection, but it is found nine times in
his lips and those of his fellow disciples in his brief account of the scenes
that followed the resurrection. If,
then, the apostle John thus changes his phraseology to suit the changed and
more exalted condition of his Master, why should it be thought strange that
Mark does the same; and why, in this most natural and reasonable change,
pretend to discover the hand of a new writer?
We regard further specifications as
unnecessary. None of the seventeen words
and phrases mentioned by Alford and the critics who agree with him, furnishes
any better ground for objection to the passage than these three; and
"although," to use the language of the scholar to whom I am so much
indebted in preparing this note, "the multiplication of littles may amount to much, not so the multiplication of
nothings."
Our final conclusion is that the
passage in question is authentic in all its details, and that there is no
reason to doubt that it was written by the same hand which [wrote] the
preceding parts of this narrative. The
objections which have been raised against it are better calculated to shake our
confidence in Biblical Criticism than in the genuineness of this portion of the
word of God.