Most believers in the tenacity of the New Testament would tell you the answer is absolutely “no”, but there is reason to disagree once one takes a look at the manuscript evidence. Today we’ll be taking a look at Mark 16, but not in the way you’re usually accustomed. As a quick recap, Mark 16 in the earliest Greek manuscripts, ends presumably at verse 8. Later manuscripts in Latin extend the ending up to verse 20. Let’s take a quick look at what these look like in the English language:
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Trans.: NIV, verse 8).
9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. (Trans.: NIV, verses 9-20).
Both codices Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B) date from the 4th century CE, roughly 300 years after Jesus (peace be upon him) walked the earth. They both end at verse 8. However, verses 9-20 can be found in codices Alexandrinus (A, 5th century CE), Ephraemi-Rescriptus (C, 5th century CE), Bezae (D, 6th century CE) and Washingtonianus (W, 5th century CE). You may be familiar with the claim of a longer ending, but there are actually five endings. In one of those five endings there is the case where the women then proceed from the tomb to a group of people who were with the disciple Peter. This ending can be found more notably in the Latin Codex Bobbiensis from the 5th century CE.
There is also another version where an addition is at Mark 16:14 which can be found in Codex Washingtonianus (circa 5th century CE) where it speaks of a more apocalyptic ending. In this ending Satan rules the world and the manuscript quite oddly says that due to Satan, God cannot rule the world…:
“This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits.”
The text in Koine Greek reads as follows:
οτι ο αιων ουτος της ανομιαϛ και της απιστιας υπο τον σαταναν εστιν ο μη εων τα υπο των πνευματων ακαθαρτα την αληθειαν του θεου καταλαβεσθαι δυναμιν
Moving on, the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek New Testament (the Greek text used for most of today’s modern translations) renders verse 8 as follows:
Καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις· καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν· ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ
It uses codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as the basis for the above Greek version. Do note that the sentence ends with the word “gar” (γάρ), I’ll explain more on the significance of that word shortly. So what do the manuscripts read? We are looking at the ending of verse 8. Codex Sinaiticus reads as follows (here’s the link to view page online):
Codex Sinaiticus ends verse (and by extension the Gospel of Mark) 8 with the word “gar” (γάρ – do note the text is written in majuscule not minuscule Koine Greek so while the words appear to be different, they’re exactly the same). In majuscule Greek as we find in Codex Sinaiticus we will see γάρ written as ΓΑΡ. Codex Vaticanus reads as follows (here’s the link to view the page online):
Verse 8 once again ends with the word ΓΑΡ (“gar”), and by extension the Gospel of Mark ends with this word. So what is the significance of the word “ΓΑΡ” (gar)? The word “ΓΑΡ” (gar) is a conjunctive. A conjunction is a word that combines two clauses, phrases or sentences. HELPS Word-studies states on the use of the word:
1063 gár (a conjunction) – for. While “for” is usually the best translation of 1063 (gár), its sense is shaped by the preceding statement – the “A” statement which precedes the 1063 (gár) statement in the “A-B” unit.
Do note, the Strong’s number for this word is 1063 and can be read here. In other words, ΓΑΡ (“gar”) is a word that combines two phrases, for example in the English we can understand it to operate like the word “and” or like the terms “because”, “therefore”, “due to”, “hence”, “henceforth”, etc. This means that the verse is essentially incomplete if it ends with a conjunction. Normally in a sentence when you read the word “because”, you expect something to be written afterwards.
- they were afraid because…what?
- they were afraid therefore…what?
- they were afraid due to…what?
- they were afraid hence..what?
When you end a sentence abruptly with any of the terms above, you necessarily expect a word or phrase to follow. Grammatically this is known as an anacoluthon (see the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary):
syntactical inconsistency or incoherence within a sentence; especially : a shift in an unfinished sentence from one syntactic construction to another
In other words, verse 8 is an unfinished sentence. This explains why there were additional endings that were later developed and added to the text, because the way the verse ends is incorrect and suggests that something is missing. This ultimately brings us to our question, if the verse is grammatically incorrect and unfinished, it possibly means that something followed from the word ΓΑΡ (“gar”) and is now no longer evidenced by the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts some 300 years after Jesus (peace be upon him) walked the earth. One may argue apologetically that perhaps the verse was phrased this way for rhetorical effect. That is possible but unlikely due to the authors of Mark never having done this previously in the entire gospel. In fact, I’m not aware of any other instance in the New Testament where ΓΑΡ (“gar”) is used to end a sentence where nothing follows after it. Such an argument is also implausible because it is clearly grammatically incorrect to the point we have multiple endings having been added to it thus showing that readers correctly noted an error has been made.
In the English language, if someone wrote:
There was a boy with a cat. The cat was afraid because…
The cat was afraid because what? The sentence does not continue and so we don’t know. Therefore in either English or Greek, there is a mistake here and so we must ask what did the sentence originally contain and what words did it end with? Were there just a few words more, or many sentences after? How much have we lost? We cannot clearly determine the amount that is lost to us. It is then clear that the last words of the Gospel attributed to Mark are lost to us and therefore a portion of the New Testament is lost to us. Ipso facto, the theological beliefs of tenacity and the preservation of the New Testament are proven to be false.
and God knows best.
Author’s Post Publication Note:
In this article I assumed the A-B unit as the structure of the verse, however given that Mark 16:8 contains two sentences, the first sentence contains this A-B structure (emphasis mine own, taken from the NA 28 GNT online):
Καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις· καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν·
In this first sentence of Mark 16:8, we see this A-B formula in work. In the very next sentence, we do not see it at work:
While this is a correct sentence in and of itself, if we only and absolutely take this sentence into isolation, it would be grammatically correct. However, when we take it into the context of the author’s normal usage of the term ΓΑΡ (“gar”) within this very verse, then it would break the pattern and thus establish itself as being against the norm and therefore in error.
Furthermore, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (scroll down) argues for a succeeding repetition [with the word ΓΑΡ (“gar”)] as the norm (emphasis mine own):
When in successive statements γάρ is repeated twice or thrice, or even four or five times, either a. one and the same thought is confirmed by as many arguments, each having its own force, as there are repetitions of the particle…
There is no argument for the second sentence of the verse, therefore it also breaks this norm. There is one more alternative (emphasis mine own):
b. every succeeding statement contains the reason for its immediate predecessor, so that the statements are subordinate one to another: Mark 6:52…
Again, there is no reason explaining the fear, thus breaking the norm again. Regardless of the apologetic arguments to defend the incompleteness of Mark 16:8, there is no sufficient argument to plainly excuse the break in grammatical norms for this specific verse, though I want to thank at least one individual with knowledge of Greek for trying.
As mentioned above, the same individual raised the point of “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ” being a complete sentence and has argued it is perfectly reasonable to end a sentence with such a word. Though I did not argue the point that “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ” was the start of a new sentence (though incorrectly stated by the person), they also argued that no Greek scholar would agree with my conclusions. It should be noted though that I am not the person that has made these conclusions. One noted scholar of Greek and the New Testament, Robert Gundry states in his book Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross on page 1009 that verse 8 in the autograph of the Gospel attributed to Mark was not a conclusion but the beginning of a new unit, “the rest of which is now lost.” He also clarifies that while there is at least one possible example for the word “γάρ” in ending a work, which is possibly the case in the thirty second treatise of Plotinus as edited by Porphyry (though many others disagree), it is rather the exception to the norm and he conclusively states that no other book ends with the word “γάρ”. It should also be noted that New Testament scholar N. Clayton Croy in his work, “The Mutilation of Mark’s Gospel”, also argues that the ending of Mark is incomplete at verse 8 and he also argues that this is in part due to the presence of “γάρ” which he notes is extremely rare and thus unlikely the author of Mark intended to end the Gospel with such a word.
As for the use of “ἐφοβοῦντο”, Collins and Attridge in their work, “Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark”, on page 799 they state:
Some opponents of the thesis that v. 8* is the original conclusion of the Gospel have argued that the verb “they were afraid” (ἐφοβοῦντο) is incomplete as it stands and must have been followed originally by an object, an infinitive, or a clause introduced with the conjunction μή (“that … [not]” or “lest”). Apart from 16:8*, the verb “to be afraid” (φοβεῖσθαι) occurs eleven times in Mark. It is used with a personal object four times (6:20*; 11:18*, 32*; 12:12*). Once it is used in the phrase ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν (“they were very fearful”; lit. “they feared a great fear”) (4:41*). On one occasion it is used with the infinitive: “they were afraid to ask him” (ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτὸν ἐπερωτῆσαι) (9:32*). This verb is never used with the conjunction μή (“that … [not]” or “lest”) in Mark. It is used five times absolutely, as in 16:8*.
Post Publication Note dated 29.08.18, with a note for Further Reading on 06.09.18.
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity
Good evening Ijaz,
To begin with, I do like how you framed the question to your article – while modern textual critics who are influenced by the German rationalism of the late 18th century tend to downplay the significance of this passage, they end up getting tangled in their own snares – because when they assert Mark was the first gospel published and then say this passage was added – its plays into the narrative that the resurrection was made up after the fact – enough said there
But the real question Ijaz, is what is the objective criteria in which we can authenticate this passage as the original writing of St Mark – Now I’m posting my video defense to this passage to see if you can actually answer my arguments: https://youtu.be/ekIyxjy00nU
First, if your hypothesis is that the passage is not original to mark – what were the means to interpolate this passage into the Ecclesiastical Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Coptic, Ethiopian, Gothic, Georgian (you get the point – without anyone ever noticing –
Secondly – To use such texts as Vaticanus and Sinaticus as Witnesses – you must first establish the provenance of these texts – otherwise, what is their true witness? – who authored these texts, what groups did they belong too, So they are basically 4th century witnesses to what” because in the fourth century we can establish this passage was publically read at Antioch, it was in Jerome Vulgate which not only is a witness to the Greek Texts 4th century or earlier (but he personally investigated the matter personally), – We can also establish it in the Palestinian text (aka Victor of Antioch) –
So if you are going to use these texts as witnesses, you must establish what they are witnesses too – because if they are not witnesses to the official texts used in the official Greek churches – then they don’t offer any relevant testimony.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You have a keen eye, the argument was framed in mind with those who propose reasoned eclecticism, I don’t think the argument would work for those who are pro-Byz or MT aligned.
[[without anyone ever noticing]]
On this point I do disagree, Eusebius did note it and I believe there were comments by scribes about its uncertainty within the tradition of scripture.
[[you must first establish the provenance of these texts]]
I always meant to ask you, in your study, where do you place the role of the scriptoria that produced the uncial codices? Do you see them as a function of the state as a religious entity or not?
[[you must establish what they are witnesses too]]
I agree, atleast from an Islamic perspective, but treat me as a RE proponent in this case. As per our previous conversations, as I do recall there were texts without any chain of clear transmission, thereby placing them under the same banner RE proponents do, you project their authorship with some authority somewhere in the past. As I remember it took us quite sometime for us to arrive at the conclusion that we do not with certainty have any early copy with absolutely certain authorship.
Actually ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is a complete sentence. Your argument assumes that γάρ is the beginning of a new clause, but in Greek, γάρ is never the first word of a clause. It logically goes with the word before it and expresses a complete thought (“for they were afraid”). This is why it helps to know Greek grammar and syntax before constructing arguments like this.
Thanks for your comment Mr. Dizon.
[[Actually ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is a complete sentence. ]]
I don’t disagree nor do I think I argued otherwise in my article, do feel free to quote me to the contrary though.
[[Your argument assumes that γάρ is the beginning of a new clause]]
I disagree, as I did not state this nor did I implicitly indicate otherwise. My only statements in regard to the word “γάρ” was in respect to it being at the end of the passage. Here are some quotes to justify my position above:
“Do note that the sentence ends with the word “gar” (γάρ), I’ll explain more on the significance of that word shortly.”
“Codex Sinaiticus ends verse (and by extension the Gospel of Mark) 8 with the word “gar”…”
“Verse 8 once again ends with the word ΓΑΡ (“gar”), and by extension the Gospel of Mark ends with this word.”
I’m afraid I was unable to find a quote from my article that qualifies what you claim, that is unfortunate, but I trust it is a simple misreading on your end of things and that’s okay.
[[This is why it helps to know Greek grammar and syntax before constructing arguments like this.]]
I agree, which is why I find it quite odd the claims you made to the contrary. Thank you for your time, scholarship and friendship. Should you have any further comments, feel free to add them, I erroneously assumed it was approved since you made the same comment on Facebook. It’s only now that I came to reply did I see it had not been approved. As per the WP settings, the commenting rules are that you need to have atleast one approved comment and hence your subsequent comments should be approved instantly.
Thanks for your time and have a great day today!
An important point to be considered in all of this: the majority (if not NONE) of these manuscripts have been radiocarbon-dated!!!
We already know that more than 90 percent of their 5800 manuscripts come after the 9th Century using paleography dating. I would put that all the way up to 100 percent if we dated them using REAL SCIENCE (i.e radiocarbon-dating).
In other words, the current Greek NT we have, is nothing more than a medieval fabrication coming much later than the advent of Islam.