WM 307: O'Donnell Article Review: The Resurrection & Mark's Ending

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 24: Peter Masters Defends the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20: To deny is "Absurd"

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 22: Is Mark 16:12-13 another account of the road to Emmaus?

Notes:

This episode was stirred by my reading and review of Jakob Van Bruggen’s discussion of Mark 16:12-13 in his book Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History (Dutch original, 1987; English translation, Baker Books, 1998).

JVB on Mark 16:12-13:

JVB argues against the assumption that Mark 16:12-13 is another account of Christ’s appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-35. See Christ on Earth, pp. 284-286.

He sees two contrasts between the narratives:

First, the destination:

In Mark 16:12 the two disciples are going eis agron (AV: “into the country”).

In Luke 24:13 two disciples (Cleopas and unnamed disciple) are going eis kōmēn (AV: “to a village”).

Second, the return to Jerusalem:

In Luke the two disciples are told that Christ has already appeared to Simon (Luke 24:34). JVB sees Mark 16:12-13 as describing an earlier appearance.

In Mark 16:13 the focus is on the unbelief of the disciples. There is no direct mention of this in Luke 24:33-35.

JTR response:

First, regarding the destination:

The phrases “into the country” (Mark) and “to a village” (Luke) are not necessarily so different. Luke stresses that the distances from Jerusalem to Emmaus was “three-score furlongs” (Greek: 60 stadia, with a stadia being c. 1/8 of the Roman mile). The NKJV gives the distance as “seven miles.” The travel from Jerusalem to Emmaus would have taken the travelers into the “country.”

Second, regarding the return to Jerusalem:

Mark’s description of unbelief does not necessarily contradict an appearance to the disciples after Christ’s appearance to Peter. Compare Matthew 28:17, “but some doubted.” It makes sense for Mark to give emphasis to unbelief, since this is a theme in his Gospel and in his resurrection narrative.

Arguments in favor of harmonizing Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13-35:

First, both describe Christ’s appearance to two disciples in a remote location, before these two go to the Eleven.

Second, Mark’s mention of Jesus appearing to the two en hetera morphē (AV: “in another form”; i.e., in this resurrection body) likely parallels Luke’s mention that the two did not immediately recognize the risen Jesus (cf. Luke 24:16, “their eyes were holden”).

Conclusions if JVB is correct and the two are not the same event:

First, this would show the value of Mark 16:9-20 as offering an independent resurrection appearance narrative. Contra modern critics it would show that the traditional ending is NOT a “pastiche” of accounts drawn from the other Gospels.

Second, it would mean that each of the four canonical Gospels has a unique resurrection appearance narrative:

Matthew: Appearance at a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16 ff.).

Mark: Early appearance to two disciples (Mark 16:12-13).

Luke: Appearance on the Emmaus Road to Cleopas and another disciples (Luke 24:13-35).

John: Appearance to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21)

Overall assessment:

In the end, I am not convinced by JVB’s suggestion. Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13-35 describe the same event and Mark abbreviates the longer account as found in Luke.

JTR

Jots & Tittles 21: Early Independent Circulation of the Gospels & Mark's Ending

 

JTR

WM 284: Eusebian Canons, Mark's Ending, Mark 15:28, & Luke 23:34a

 

Notes for this episode:

The Eusebian Canons:

In this episode I want to make a few brief comments drawn from my recent reading through Francis Watson’s The Fourfold Gospel: A Theological Reading of the New Testament Portraits of Jesus (Baker Academic, 2016).

As the subtitle indicates, this volume offers a series of theological reflections on the four Gospels and their relationship to one another. The author is a mainstream NT scholar at Durham University with whom I certainly do not agree on everything, but the book still provides many helpful insights.

One aspect of the book that is rather unique is the fact that in the second half, Watson gives emphasis to how the Eusebian canons give insight into ancient understandings and interpretations of the fourfold Gospel.

The Eusebian canons were composed by Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340), the “father of church history,” best known for his Ecclesiastical History, and it was among the earliest attempts to provide a cross-referencing system and a harmony among the four Gospels, long before the development of modern printed Bibles with their chapter and verse divisions and in-text cross-references.

Eusebius had adapted his canons from an even earlier one composed by Ammonius of Alexandria.

These canons appeared in mss. (Greek and versions) for about a thousand years.

The canons are included in the front matter of the NA 28, along with Eusebius’s Epistle to Carpianus (in Greek) which introduces the layout of the canons.

There are 10 separate canons which group various passages in the Gospels along with their parallels. Canon I has passages that appear in all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John); Canon II has passages that appear in the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke); etc. The final Canon X consists of four sub-canons which list passages that are unique to each individual Gospel.

Then, in the text of the NA 28, references to these canons are listed on the inside margin of each page with two numbers (top and bottom). The top number provides a sequential reference for the passage and the bottom number provides the reference to the canon where the passage is located.

It seems there has been a revival of interest in these canons and in examination even of how they influenced early Christian reception and interpretation of the Fourfold Gospel. Some are even giving credit to Eusebius and his canons for solidifying the canonical consensus on the fourfold Gospel.

For a very recent work on this subject, see Jeremiah Coogan’s Eusebius the Evangelist; Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2023).

The Eusebian Canons and the Ending of Mark:

If you have ever done any research or study relating to the traditional ending of Mark, you have probably heard as one of the arguments against its authenticity is that it is not included in the Eusebian canons.

We know that Eusebius was well aware of controversy over the ending of Mark. One key evidence of this is his Letter to Marinus in which he discusses the fact that the ending is disputed by some. Interestingly enough, he says that the source of the controversy had to do with harmonizing Matthew and Mark with respect to the timing of the resurrection (Matt 28:1 “at the end of the Sabbath” and Mark 16:2 “And when the sabbath was past” and Mark 16:9 “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week”).

This letter is the first hint of controversy over the TE that lasts till c. 500. Clearly the TE was known from earliest times (see its citation in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies).

So, the absence of the TE in Eusebius’ canons is given as an argument against its authenticity, though it is ironic that these canons appear in various Greek and versional mss. which nonetheless include the TE.

The Eusebian Canons and other disputed passages:

The thing that struck me in reading Watson is the fact that he points out that the Eusebian canons make reference to several passages whose authenticity is challenged by modern critics.

Here are two examples:

The first is Mark 15:28 “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors” and its citation of Isaiah 53:12.

This verse is removed from the modern critical text on the assumption that it is harmonization with Luke 22:37 “For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.”

Watson points out, however, that Mark 15:28 is listed in Canon VIII which shows parallels between Mark and Luke. So Mark 15:28 is listed as 216/VIII and Luke 22:37 as 277/VIII.

This is not to say that Watson accepts the authenticity of Mark 15:28. He thinks it is “transplanted” from Luke (154). Still, it is striking that the Eusebian canons are a witness in favor of inclusion.

The second is Christ’s intercessory prayer in Luke 23:34a, “Father, forgiven them; for they know not what they do.” I did a talk on this passage last year for the TBS in London.

Watson points out that this passage is present in the Eusebian canons listed as 320/X. He observes, “Although the passage is missing from some early manuscripts and may be a later insertion, it was present in Eusebius’ text and is identified in his analysis as a passage unique to Luke” (156). Watson further notes that this prayer fits thematically with earlier teaching of Jesus in Luke, including love of enemy (156).

Concluding Thoughts:

I was really intrigued by Watson’s insights on what the Eusebian canons reveal to us about ancient understandings of the Gospels.

I am no expert on the canons, but I think it would be interesting do further study see what other “disputed” passages appear in the canons.

Given the information in the Letter to Marinus it is unsurprising that Mark 16:9-20 is not labelled in the canons.

It seems, however, that the evidence from the canons has not always been consistently used by some scholars and apologists. Though I have heard many cite the absence of Mark 16:9-20 from the canons to justify a verdict of that passage’s secondary nature, I have not heard those same scholars make reference to the presence of passages like Mark 15:28 and Luke 23:34a in the canons to justify the conclusion that those passages are original and authentic (though, as noted, Watson seems to lean that way with regard to Luke 23:34a).

JTR

Sermon: Pastor Christian Khanda on Mark 16: "Christ is Risen!"

 

Pastor Christian Khanda of the Holy Trinity OPC in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida provided a model for how to preach with confidence the traditional ending of Mark in this exposition of Mark 16 last Sunday (4.9.23). Pastors should not stop their sermons at 16:8 nor should they add spurious verses like "the shorter ending" (inserted between vv. 8-9 in the New Living Translation or tacked on to v. 20 in the Legacy Standard Bible).

JTR

WM 276: The Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) and the "Shorter Ending" of Mark

 

JTR

I added these notes to the description for this episode's video:

As noted in the podcast, since I don’t yet have a hard copy of the LSB for this episode I was using the online version of the LSB, from the official LSB website (read.lsbible.org), which does not include any footnotes with the text. I discovered after I posted the video that LSB footnotes are included with the text on biblegateway.com. So, here are the LSB notes for the passages which I cited in this episode: For the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer at Matthew 6:13b a note reads, “Early mss omit bracketed portion”. For Acts 8:37, a note reads: “Early mss omit this v”. For 1 John 5:7-8, a note reads, “A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit”. For 2 Peter 3:10, no note addresses the omission of the negative particle in NA28. For Mark 16:9-20, a note at v. 9 reads, “Later mss add vv 9-20”; a note at v. 20 regarding the “shorter ending” reads, “A few late mss and versions contain this paragraph, usually after v 8; a few have it at the end of ch”. The statement, “a few have it at the end of ch” is confusing. If I have read the apparatus of the NA28 correctly, it lists no Greek mss. or versions which have the “shorter ending” after v. 20. Bruce M. Metzger in his Textual Commentary, Corrected edition (1975) discusses the shorter ending in Greek mss. and versions and concludes, "All of these witnesses except it-k also continue with verses 9-20" (124). He makes no mention of the "shorter ending" appearing after v. 20 in any extant ms. In D. C. Parker’s discussion of this ending in The Living Texts of the Gospels (Cambridge, 1997) he presents the pattern as, “verses 1-8 – but they reported … eternal salvation – verses 9-20” (127) Parker lists no examples of either Greek mss. or versions which include the “shorter ending” after Mark 16:20. Nicholas P. Lunn, likewise, in The Original Ending of Mark (Wipf and Stock, 2014) lists as a variant “ending with both the shorter ending after 16:8 and the longer ending” (22), but he makes no reference to a Greek ms. or version which includes the “shorter ending” after v. 20.

WM 270: Review: Emma Thorne & James Tabor on Mark's Ending

 

JTR

Christian McShaffrey Lectures: TBS Text and Translation Conference in Northern Scotland (11.11.22)

 

JTR

WM 240 (a): Review: Ancient Christian Commentary on Mark

 

 

JTR

WM 238: Review: Lanier Panel Discussion on Manuscripts

 

Find the video for the entire panel discussion here.

Find Mounce's lecture at the Lanier Theological Library "Statistics Don't Lie, Or Do They?" here.

JTR

WM 235: Preaching the Traditional Ending of Mark

 

JTR

The Vision (4.22.22): The Resurrection, Unbelief, & Hardness of Heart

 

Image: Evening mist on the mountain, North Garden, Virginia, April 2022.

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Mark 16.

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen (Mark 16:14).

The Holy Spirit saw fit to give to God’s people not just one inspired account of the life and ministry of Christ but four. We have a fourfold Gospel. Calvin compared the four gospels to four horses drawing forth a triumphal chariot to display the glory of Christ. The four Gospels tell the same story, but each is also unique. The climax of each is the passion narrative, the inspired account of Christ’s death on the cross and his glorious resurrection.

One unique feature of Mark’s Gospel is his focus on the initial reaction of unbelief even among the apostles after Christ’s resurrection.

The risen Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene, and she reported this to the apostles, but they “believed not” (Mark 16:11).

The risen Christ appeared to two disciples as they walked into the country, and they reported this to the apostles, “neither believed they them” (v. 13).

Finally, Mark says Christ appeared to the unbelieving eleven apostles (minus Judas, who betrayed him) themselves as they sat at meat (v. 14; cf. John 20:19). Mark tells us specifically that Christ upbraided or admonished the apostles for their unbelief (apistia) and their hardness of heart (sklerokardia), “because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen” (v. 14).

This is not a very flattering presentation of the apostles. It is not an airbrushed account of the life of Christ. It is not a “glamour shots” version of Christ’s life. It tells us the truth warts and all. This is one reason we know it is true. When the truth is on your side, you have nothing to hide.

Every major college in the country has its own sports broadcasting team. And the fans of the sports teams love to listen to their home team announcers make the calls of their games. Such announcers are called “homers,” because they root for the home team, no matter what. If the home team does something even halfway good, they make it sound brilliant. If the same team does something bad, they blame it on the refs.

Mark is not a “homer” for the apostles. He tells the unvarnished truth. Christ took the apostles to the verbal woodshed for their unbelief. They had been with Christ; they had heard his teaching and witnessed his miracles. He had told them he would rise again the third day, but they did not believe, till he stood before them.

Here is the amazing thing. The Lord Jesus did not abandon the apostles at this point. The God who sent the flood might well have shelved the initially unbelieving apostles. But he did not.

Instead, after duly and justly chastening them, he extended to them a commission, commanding, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (v. 15).

There is truth being told here about the apostles, but also about us. The Lord did not give up on the original disciples in the face of their unbelief. And he will not give up on any of us who are truly his own. That is comforting and encouraging.

In fact, the Lord Jesus Christ told Thomas, “because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29). Christ declared a beatitude upon people like us who believe in Christ and his glorious resurrection based on the witness of the apostles, though we have not yet seen him face to face.

May he overcome by his grace all vestiges of our unbelief and hardness of heart and bring us unreservedly to confess our faith in him.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

WM 231: Gurry: Should Mark 16:9-20 be treated as Apocrypha?

 

Watch the original video under review here.

JTR

WM 223: Sinclair Ferguson on the Ending of Mark

In WM 223 I review Sinclair Ferguson's views on the Ending of Mark in his book Let's Study Mark (Banner of Truth, 1999).

See also WM 44: Hendrickson and the Ending of Mark.

Other resources on Mark's Ending:

My article "The Ending of Mark as a Canonical Crisis."

My lecture "A Defense of the Traditional Ending of Mark."

My review of Nicholas P. Lunn's The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.

JTR

Book Review: Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views

 

I have posted my book review of David Alan Black, Ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views (Broadman & Holman, 2008).

The written review appeared in American Theological Inquiry, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2012): 133-138. Read the pdf here on my academia.edu page.

JTR

WM 179: Refuting James White's Four Internal Arguments Against Mark 16:9-20

 

Recorded this WM last Saturday (10/17/20) but just getting around to posting it.

JTR

Debate follow up: Steven L. Anderson reviews the Mark 16:9-20 debate

 

Debate Follow Up: The Two Most Shocking Things Said By James White in Our Debates

 

What were the two most shocking things said by James White during our two debates last weekend?

Both of the things I found most shocking came out during the cross-examination periods:

First shocking statement:

During the cross-examination of the first debate on Mark 16:9-20 (the Traditional Ending of Mark or TE) (begin listening at c. the 1:25:25 mark), I asked my opponent if he believed the author of the TE was orthodox in his theology. To my surprise JW said that he did not believe the author of the TE was orthodox in theology. I then asked if he believed the TE, if spurious and not original, could be rightly described as a “corruption.” I asked this knowing that this was the way White had described the TE in writing [see his KJVO Controversy, Revised Edition, 2009: “some parallel corruption took place, drawing from oral stories and the other gospels to create the longer ending” (320)]. I had expected JW might say the author of the TE was orthodox but that the TE was still a corruption, thus conforming to Bart Ehrman’s theories of the NT being rife with “orthodox corruptions.” JW’s answer, however, went even further than Ehrman suggesting that the TE of Mark is an “unorthodox corruption”!

I tried then to point out that this would mean that most Christians, throughout the longest period of church history, up to the present day, have had a Bible that is filled with an “unorthodox corruption.” This text has appeared in all our Protestant Bible translations since the Reformation. It has been preached from countless pulpits. It was used as a prooftext for our Protestant confessions (see, e.g, WCF 28:4 which cites Mark 16:15-16 as a proof, as well as Acts 8:37-38!).

Such a view destroys not only any understanding of the integrity of Mark’s Gospel but the entire doctrine of providential preservation! We might have expected such a statement from a unbelieving liberal, but from an evangelical apologist?

Second shocking statement:

In the cross-examination during the second debate (begin listening at c. the 1:05:00 mark), I asked JW something like the following: “Yesterday you noted that if there were papyri discovered which contained the TE of Mark, then you would embrace it. I assume that the same would apply with Ephesians 3:9. Does this mean that you are ultimately not completely sure about whether or not it is right to reject the authenticity of the TR of this passage?” He agreed he would be willing to shift his view on these texts given proper evidence.

I then asked him, “Does this also mean that every verse in the Bible is up for grabs, at least theoretically? Is there any text in the NT about which you have 100% certainty?” After a good bit of tap-dancing around the question, JW was never able to name any specific passage about which he might have confident certainty. Not John 3:16, not Paul’s summary of the gospel as preached at Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:3-5), not the Gospel passion narratives, not even “Jesus wept” (John 11:35).

This was stunning! During and after the debate White accused those of us who hold to the TR of exhibiting “extreme skepticism” with regard to our pessimism as to the prospect that the modern critical method will ever be able to reconstruct the text. Does he realize, however, that his method has left him with a Bible about which he has absolutely no confidence or certainty? Now that is extreme skepticism. 

JTR

Audio Available: WM 177: Debate: Mark 16:9-20 & WM 178: Debate: Ephesians 3:9

 

JTR