The History Of The Christian Church Volume 1, Philip Shaff 1819-1893

CHAPTER XII THE NEW TESTAMENT 301 they do in cod. L. But Aphraates quotes it.

III. Solutions of the problem. All mere conjectures; 3. In all the existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries or certainty is impossible in this case. evangeliaries and synaxaries, as far as examined, which 1. Mark himself added the section in a later edition, contain the Scripture reading lessons for the churches. issued perhaps in Alexandria, having been interrupted in Dr. Burgon lays great stress on their testimony (ch. X.), Rome just as he came to 16:8, either by Peter’s imprisonbut he overrates their antiquity. The lection-systems can- ment and martyrdom, or by sickness, or some accident. not be traced beyond the middle of the fourth century Incomplete copies got into circulation before he was able when great liturgical changes took place. At that time the to finish the book. So Michaelis, Hug, and others. disputed verses were widely circulated and eagerly seized 2. The original conclusion of Mark was lost by some as a suitable resurrection and ascension lesson. accident, most probably from the original autograph 4. Irenaeus of Lyons, in the second half of the second (where it may have occupied a separate leaf), and the century, long before Eusebius, expressly quotes Mark present paragraph was substituted by an anonymous 16:19 as a part of the Gospel of Mark (Adv. Haer., III. editor or collector in the second century. So Griesbach, 10, 6). The still earlier testimony of Justin Martyr (Apol., Schulthess, David Schulz.

I. 45) is doubtful (The quotation of Mark 16:17 and 18 3. Luke wrote the section. So Hitzig (Johannes Marin lib. viii., c. 1 of the Apostolic Constitutions is wrong- cus, p. 187). ly ascribed to Hippolytus.) Marinus, Macarius Magnes 4. Godet (in his Com. on Luke, p. 8 and p. 513, Engl. (or at least the heathen writer whom he cites), Didymus, transl.) modifies this hypothesis by assuming that a Chrysostom (??), Epiphanius, Nestorius, the apocryphal third hand supplied the close, partly from Luke’s Gospel, Gesta Pilati, Ambrose, Augustin, and other later fathers which had appeared in the mean time, and partly (Mark quote from the section.

16:17, 18) from another source. He supposes that Mark 5. A strong intrinsic argument is derived from the was interrupted by the unexpected outbreak of the Nerofact that Mark cannot intentionally have concluded his nian persecution in 64 and precipitously fled from the Gospel with the words ἐφοβουντο γάρ(Mark 16:8). He capital, leaving his unfinished Gospel behind, which was must either have himself written the last verses or some afterward completed when Luke’s Gospel appeared. In other conclusion, which was accidently lost before the this way Godet accounts for the fact that up to Mark 16:8 book was multiplied by transcription; or he was unex- Luke had no influence on Mark, while such influence is pectedly prevented from finishing his book, and the con- apparent in the concluding section. clusion was supplied by a friendly hand from oral tradi5. It was the end of one of the lost Gospel fragments tion or some written source. used by Luke 1:1, and appended to Mark’s by the last reIn view of these facts the critics and exegetes are very dactor. Ewald. much divided. The passage is defended as genuine by Si6. The section is from the pen of Mark, but was purmon, Mill, Bengel, Storr, Matthaei, Hug, Schleiermach- posely omitted by some scribe in the third century from er, De Wette, Bleek, Olshausen, Lange, Ebrard, Hilgen- hierarchical prejudice, because it represents the apostles feld, Broadus (“Bapt. Quarterly,” Philad., 1869), Burgon in an unfavorable light after the resurrection, so that the (1871), Scrivener, Wordsworth, McClellan, Cook, Mor- Lord “upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness ison (1882). It is rejected or questioned by the critical of heart” (Mark 16:14). Lange (Leben Jesu, I. 166). Uneditors, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, likely.

Alford, Westcott and Hort (though retained by all in the 7. The passage is genuine, but was omitted in some text with or without brackets), and by such critics and valuable copy by a misunderstanding of the word Commentators as Fritzsche, Credner, Reuss, Wieseler, τέλοςwhich often is found after Mark 16:8 in cursives. So Holtzmann, Keim, Scholten, Klostermann, Ewald, Mey- Burgon. “According to the Western order,” he says (in the er, Weiss, Norton, Davidson. Some of these opponents, “Quarterly Review” for Oct., 1881), “S. Mark occupies however, while denying the composition of the section the last place. From the earliest period it had been cusby Mark, regard the contents as a part of the apostolic tomary to write τέλος(The End) after 16:8, in token that tradition. Michelsen surrenders only 16:9–14, and saves there a famous ecclesiastical lection comes to a close. Let 16:15–20. Ewald and Holtzmann conjecture the original the last leaf of one very ancient archetypal copy have beconclusion from 16:9, 10 and 16–20; Volkmar invents gun at 16:9, and let that last leaf have perished;—and all one from elements of all the Synoptists. is plain. A faithful copyist will have ended the Gospel