Eusebius gives us our clearest evidence that most NT MSS known to him ended Mark in v. 8. Jerome (one of the early church fathers) repeats Eusebius' observation, although Jerome's Vulgate contain the longer ending; Jerome was also aware of a text we know as the Freer Logion (found in MS W within the longer ending).
We need to recall that Mark was not popular within the 2nd Century; hence this Gospel was seldom cited. Westott, Hort, and Cox, and others list fathers who knew of 16:9-20, of whom the most significant is Ireneaus. In A.D. 180, he knew of 16:19 to be from Mark. But many fathers did not quote from the longer ending and may therefore not have known about it. That is of course an argument from silence.
The external evidence shows quite clearly that from the earliest times we have reliable information that Mark's Gospel circulated in dfferent forms with differing endings. There is evidence that in the second century the longer ending wasn't even quoted; in the fourth century we have evidence that scribes were aware of a problem, the ending at v. 8 was known, as were the shorter ending and the longer ending; by the sixth centuy there is evidence of the shorter ending and longer ending together.
So what is it that caused the hesitation over vs. 9-20, or their omission? Why do most printed editions and modern versions go with the minority of witnesses, and exclude vv. 9-20?
The answer is that the contents and theology vv. 9-20 are uncharacteristic of Mark elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment