A Master Thesis on the Ending(s) of Mark by Bonar Lumban Raja

Here follows a very brief summary (without notes and bibliography) in English of Bonar Lumban Raja’s master thesis with the original title “Markan Ending: Penerapan Teori dan Metode Kritik Teks Perjanjian Baru Terhadap Akhir Injil Markus.” Bonar holds an M.Th. from the Evangelical Theological Seminary in Indonesia (STT Injili Indonesia Medan), where he now teaches. I have wanted to highlight his work not least because it comes from a totally different part of the world than my own privileged context. 

Summary of “Markan Ending: The Application of Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism to the Ending of Mark's Gospel”

Introduction

Most textual critics agree that the ending(s) of Mark reflect one of the most signficant textual problems in the New Testament. Although the issue has been vigorously debated by textual critics and commentators over the past 150 years in the Western world, it is still rarely discussed in my context in Indonesia. The ending of Mark is not simply a binary problem – whether Mark ended his Gospel at modern v. 8 with the phrase frase ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ or whether he wrote a longer ending vv. 9–20. In fact, the problem of the ending of Mark is very complex. Depending on how you count, there are at least five variants which are possible endings of the initial text of Mark. My master thesis on this topic attempts to understand how these variants appeared in the transmission of Mark by applying the so-called “Reasoned eclectic method,” taking into account external and internal evidence.

Textual Analysis of the Endings of Marks

There are sixdifferent variants of the ending of Mark reflected in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament: The Abrupt Ending (omits vv. 9-20), the Intermediate (Short)Ending, the Intermediate Ending and the Longer Ending, the Longer Ending with the Freer Logion, the Longer Ending with critical note or sign, and the Longer Ending. The distribution of textual witnesses for thesedifferent endings of Mark are laid out in the table below according to their type (papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, early versions, and patristic citations); the traditional text type, and their date. 

Tables of Distribution of Witnesses for Markan Endings

Reading 1: The Abrupt Ending

Reading 2: The Intermediate (Short) Ending

Reading 3: The Intermediate Ending and the Longer Ending                       

Reading 4: The Longer Ending with the Freer Logion

Reading 5: The Longer Ending (with critical note or sign)

Reading 6: The Longer Ending

On the basis of the external evidence (as laid out in the tables), most scholars agree that that there are two main competing variants: The Abrupt Ending and the Longer Ending. Hence, in my evaluation I have focused on these two variants.

TheAbrupt Ending (omit vv. 9-20): External Evidence

On the basis of the date of witnesses, the Abrupt Ending is supported by the earliest manuscripts, early versions, and patristic evidence. The fourth-century codices Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus have traditionally been assigned to the Alexandrian text type and are the earliest and best manuscript of Mark. Further, the reading has support from important early versions– Coptic, Syriac, part of the Armeniantradition, and the Georgian. The Sinaitic Syriac displays the earliest form of the Gospelsin the Syriac language and Sahidic Coptic is the earliest of coptic version. E. C. Colwell identified around 99 Armenian manuscropts of Mark that end at 16:8. 

In regard topatristic evidence, Clement is silent about the Longer Ending, whereas Origen was probably quite aware of the textual state of the endings of Mark in his time, but we do not find that he supported the Longer Ending. Eusebius maked a strong statement about the ending of Mark, saying that the accurate copies conclude at 16:8. Jerome who had access to numerous manuscripts said that most of the Greek manuscripts ended at verse 8. On the basis of the geograpical distribution, the Abrupt Ending readings is widespreadand represented in all text types. And on the basis of the geneological relationship of texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, in my opinion,derive from an ancestor from at least as early as the second century.

TheAbrupt Ending (omit vv. 9-20): Internal Evidence

The abrupt ending of Mark with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρis a shorter and more difficult reading because it unexpectedly ends withthe particle of γάρ. The use of the word ἐφοβοῦντο“they were afraid” is in line withthe style and vocabulary of Mark. Whereas Mark uses the verb 12 times, the same form, ἐφοβοῦντο, occurs four times elsewhere (9:32; 10:32; 11:18 [ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ αὐτόν]; 11:32). 

As J. Lee Magness has demonstrated, there are other examples of similar suspended endings that leave readers hanging in both Graeco-Roman and Biblical literature. The abrupt ending would create a sense of absence encouraging the readers to make sense of the absence in their own context in light of Mark’s Gospel.

TheLonger Ending (vv. 9-20): External Evidence 

Around 99 percent of the manuscripts support the Longer Ending, and itis widespread in the text types (Western,Caesarean, Byzantine, and even secondary Alexandrian witnesses), but most of the manuscripts represent the Byzantine textand date from the 8^th -14^thcenturies.According to J.K. Elliott, the Byzantine lectionary system seems to have developed into asettled form by the eighth century, andonly after that time do  most lectionaries contain a reading from the Longer Ending.

In regard to patristic evidence, Victor of Antioch wrote a commentary in the fifth century which became popular, but it lacks comments on the contents of vv. 9–20, although there is a comment suggesting that he knew the Longer Ending. This comment may have been added to his work later.

In regard to transcriptional evidence, it seems that the Longer Ending text reflects harmonization by scribes. Foursections of the appearanceto the Magdalene (vv.9-11), the appearance of two men (vv.12-13), the appearance to the eleven disciples, the Commission (vv.14-18), and the Ascension (vv.19-20)have parallels in the endings of Matthew and Luke. Inregard to intrinsic evidence, there are seventeen words and phrases in the Longer Ending that are not used elsewhere in Mark’s gospeland look like anomalies from stylistic viewpoint.

James Kelhoffer views the content of the Longer Ending as uncharacteristic of the firstcentury, suggesting that it rather reflects second-century Christianity. He argues that this portion was added to a truncated Mark in the mid-second century, and is comparable to some of the second-century apocryphal fragmentsthat have been discovered.

Conclusion

After evaluating the external and internal evidence of the endings of Mark, we find that the Longer Ending (16:9-20) is supported by 99 percent of the manuscripts whereas the Abrupt Ending (16:8) is attested only in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, minuscule 304, some significant early versions andpatristic citations. In the analysis of textual data, however,we do not count manuscripts, but we weighthem.

J. K. Elliott and other scholars have argued that the ending of Markwas simply lost before copies were made of it, whereas Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman have said that we simply do not know about how Mark ended his gospel. Proponents of the Longer Ending such as John Burgon, William Farmer, Maurice Robinson, James Snapp Jr, and others hold that Mark ended his Gospel at 16:20. This master thesis, however, suggests that the Longer Ending is not supported by the earliest witnesses, althoughan old Latin Western witness attest to the Intermediate Ending(without vv. 9-20).  The Abrupt Ending is supported by a variety ofthe earliest textual witnesses.

In conclusion, the Abrupt Ending (16:8) most likely represents Mark’s original ending. It is posible that the evangelist left the reader hanging– as J. Lee Magness has suggested,there are other examples in ancient literature that leave the reader hanging. The Longer Ending was probably added by a scribeto the text in the mid or late second century, and these verses have been accepted as canonical Scripture by many Churches.