Applying Arguments Against Mark 16:9–20 to Other Markan Texts
(avg. read time: 5–10 mins.)
Throughout my posts on Mark 16:9–20 (linked here), I have noted weaknesses with internal arguments against its authenticity. Of course, I realize scholars must make these points to uphold their conclusions about its inauthenticity. A text’s absence in fourth-century manuscripts cannot tell us that it was added in the second century (unless there was a note to this effect, which does not exist in any of our manuscripts). But scholars pursue a case for such because we have second-century references to Mark 16:9–20 long before our earliest extant manuscripts with Mark 16. Yet the internal arguments ultimately rely for their force on being confirmation of conclusions reached on the basis of external evidence.
Arguments from internal evidence always highlight supposed “non-Markan” or “un-Markan” vocabulary here, though the use of such phrasing obviously biases the analysis. The words that only appear once include, in order of appearance, πενθέω (16:10), ἕτερος (16:12), μορφή (16:12), ὕστερον (16:12), ἕνδεκα (16:14), παρακολουθέω (16:17), ὄφις (16:18), θανάσιμος (16:18), βλάπτω (16:18), ἀναλαμβάνω (16:19), συνεργέω (16:20), βεβαιόω (16:20), and ἐπακολουθέω (16:20). One could also include the three uses of πορεύομαι (16:10, 12, 15), two uses of θεάομαι (16:11, 14), and two uses of ἀπιστέω (16:11, 16) here and nowhere else in the Gospel, which puts the total at thirteen words used only once each and sixteen words used a total of twenty times only here. This is out of 166 to 171 words according to NA28 (depending on if bracketed words are included, and this is to exclude further variants that could be counted). Scholars also highlight the absence of elements used elsewhere in Mark, such as the historic present, the word εὐθύς (used forty-two times),1 and the word πάλιν (used twenty-eight times).2 They also point to the peculiar phrase “to those who had been with him” (τοῖς μετ’ αὐτου γενομένοις) in 16:10, which is not replicated anywhere else in the Gospel.
Such arguments can be applied to other texts in Mark, if we engage in a bit of facetious exegesis. Here, we will focus on two cases: Mark 13:14–23 and Mark 14:1–9. These two texts are of roughly similar length (the former is 152 words, and the latter is 159 words), and they also lack the historic present, εὐθύς, and πάλιν. And extending the verse ranges by one in any direction to give us an even closer number of words would not solve the omissions in either case.
There is no otherwise complete copy of Mark that omits either text. But there are texts that include the ending of Mark that lack one or both of these due to being lacunose or fragmentary (083 lacks Mark 14:1–9, 0103 lacks Mark 13:14–23, 099 lacks both, as does the even more fragmentary 0287).3 I have not explored manuscripts in other versions, but I am not aware of any major omissions of these entire texts due to any reason besides a manuscript being lacunose. Overall, manuscript testimony in Greek is similar in strength for all three texts. Patristic evidence is decidedly stronger in favor of Mark 16:9–20 in contrast to the specifically Markan texts of 13:14–23 and 14:1–9. That is, there are not as many allusions or quotes of these particular versions (as opposed to Matthean or Lukan versions), nor do they specifically outnumber the number of second- and third-century teachers one could cite as witnesses for 16:9–20.4
What about the actual language used in these texts? After a transition that completely changes the subject in Mark 13:14–23, we have numerous cases of unusual vocabulary, including βδέλυγμα (13:14), ἐρήμωσις (13:14), δῶμα (13:15), οὐαί (13:17 [2x]), γαστήρ (13:17), θηλάζω (13:17), χειμών (13:18), κτίζω (13:19), κολοβόω (13:20 [2x]), ἐκλέγω (13:20), ψευδόχριστος (13:22), ψευδοπροφήτης (13:22), τέρας (13:22), ἀποπλανάω (13:22),5 and προέπω (13:23). That is a total of fifteen words used seventeen times that only appear in this stretch of 152 words. Some of these terms are also notably more common in other texts, suggesting that they owe something to drawing from other authors. The term δῶμα is more common in Luke-Acts. And the word οὐαί is also much more common in Matthew and Luke.
Beyond these terms, we should consider phrases and syntax. The collocation οὐ δεῖ in 13:14 appears nowhere else in the Gospels and Acts. The only use of μή καταβάτω in Mark appears here in 13:15. The phrase εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν in 13:16 is rare in Mark (only in Mark 5:14 and 16:12) and shows a clear attempt to imitate Mark, like the similarly “inauthentic” 16:12. It is further differentiated by using both the article and the singular, unlike any other uses. The scribe appears to have done the same with the use of κτίσις in 13:19, which only appears in the “inauthentic” 16:15 and in 10:6. Mark 13:16 also features the only use of εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω in Mark, which is used more often in Luke and John. The phrase ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχω appears three times in Matthew (1:18, 23; 24:19) and only once in Mark in 13:17. That phrase is part of a larger participial construction interrupted by a prepositional phrase adjoined to another participle that is an unusually complex construction for Mark complete with peculiar vocabulary (ταῖς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσαις καὶ ταῖς θηλαζούσαις). The phrase ἵνα μὴ γένηται in 13:18 only appears here in Mark.6 Likewise, οὐ γέγονεν only appears in Mark 13:19, as do ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς, ἕως τοῦ νῦν, and οὐ μὴ γένηται. In other words, that sentence is full of “un-Markan” features, if we apply the standards of scholarship consistently. Only Mark 13:21 uses the negative command μὴ πιστεύετε. The only use of a πρός + infinitive construction in all of Mark appears in 13:22.
Additionally, one might cite other unusual features, as scholars (such as Kelhoffer) reference in Mark 16:9–20:
The perfect form of the participle ἐστηκότα (not specifically paralleled in Matthew or Luke’s versions) in 13:14 is relatively more common in Lukan, Pauline, and Johannine literature while only appearing otherwise in Mark 9:1 and 11:5.
While Mark has a few uses of the verb “read,” nowhere else does he use the substantival “the reader,” as in 13:14.
The adverb τότε is a Matthean characteristic (see here), and it otherwise appears in Mark only in 2:20; 3:27; 13:26–27. It appears in this segment twice in vv. 14 and 21.
The verb φευγέτωσαν is more common in Matthew, and nowhere does Mark use it in this third-person plural imperative form. Indeed, the imperative is more of a Pauline characteristic.
Not only are references to mountains more common in Matthew, but Mark never uses the accusative plural form in 13:14 anywhere else. Every other use of εἰς with the accusative is with the singular form.
The reference to “flesh” is rare in Mark (appearing here in 13:20, as well as 10:8 and 14:38), and this is the only use of “all flesh.” It is much more common in Johannine and Pauline writing.
The term ἐκλεκτός only appears here (13:20, 22) and in 13:27 in Mark.
The reference to “signs” is obviously more of a Johannine characteristic.
In Mark 14:1–9, which follows 13:37 with a complete change of subject without even signaling that Jesus is done speaking, we again have a spate of unusual vocabulary. These include ἀλάβαστρον(14:3 [2x]), μύρον (14:3–5), νάρδος (14:3), πιστικός (14:3), πολυτελής(14:3),7 καταχέω(14:3), ἀπώλεια (14:4), πιπράσκω (14:5), ἐπάνω(14:5), τριακόσιοι(14:5), κόπος (14:6) παρέχω (14:6), ἐργάζομαι (14:6), πάντοτε(14:7 [2x]), εὖ (14:7), μυρίζω (14:8), προλαμβάνω (14:8), ἐνταφιασμός (14:8), and μνημόσυνον (14:9). That is a total of nineteen words used twenty-three times that only appear in this stretch of 159 words. Moreover, some of these terms are more characteristic of other authors, as with ἐπάνω being significantly more common in Matthew. The verb ἐργάζομαι is also a more Johannine feature. Likewise, πάντοτε is a Johannine term.
Beyond these terms, we should consider phrases and syntax. The syntax of 14:1 is a rather convoluted construction uncharacteristic of Mark that involves an indicative verb + complex subject + adverb + object + preposition + noun + participle + subjunctive verb. 14:2 then features a negative verbless clause with a prepositional phrase (μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ). The same verse also features the unusual construction (for Mark) of a verb + predicate nominative + genitive (ἔσται θόρυβος τοῦ λαοῦ). Verse 3 then begins with a complex genitive absolute construction, being combined with a prepositional phrase. The same verse features a quadruple genitive adjective construction, using four consecutive terms one finds nowhere else in Mark (μύρου νάρδου πιστκῆς πολυτελοῦς). The phrase ἐν ἐμοί only appears in 14:6, although the majority of mss feature it as well in Mark 14:27. The phrase εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον in 14:9 appears nowhere else in Mark.
Additionally, one might cite other unusual features:
References to the Feast of Unleavened Breda only appear in 14:1 and 12.
The word ἑορτή is more of a Johannine feature, while it appears in Mark only here (14:2) and 15:6.
The negative μήποτε only appears here and in a Scripture quote (Mark 4:12), while it is more common in Matthew and Luke.
Similarly, λαός appears only here (14:2) and in a Scripture quote (Mark 7:6), while it is far more common in Luke.
θόρυβος only appears here (14:2) and Mark 5:38.
One of only two references to a leper (along with Mark 1:40) appears in 14:3.
The term ἀγανακτέω appears only three times in Mark, with 14:4 being the only participial form.
The phrase εἰς τί appears only here (14:4) and Mark 15:34.
The use of “poor” as a substantive appears twice here (14:5, 7) and only once elsewhere in Mark (10:21). This is more of a Lukan feature.
Instead of using the historic present, the scribe here uses an imperfect of a term that only appears in 14:5 and Mark 1:43 (ἐνεβριμῶντο).
The noun ἔργον, a Johannine term, only appears in 14:6 and Mark 13:34.
The use of κόσμος in 14:9 also appears in 16:15, as well as 8:36.
What about other parts of the text that are more in line with Mark? Mark 13:19 uses οἷος, which is most common in Mark among the Gospels, appearing all of two times (the same applies to συντρίβω in 14:3). The term δυνατός is also most common in Mark. Mark 14:1 features two words that are most common in Mark: κρατέω and δόλος (the latter appears twice in Mark). The term κατάκειμαι in 14:3 is most common in Mark with four occurrences. Mark’s preference for κηρύσσω appears in 14:9, but is that any more to its credit than it is to the credit of Mark 16:15 and 20? The word for “gospel” appears in 14:9, but is that any more to its credit than it is to the credit of Mark 16:15? Many other words are neither unusual nor out of place in Mark.
Of course, as we have seen with Kelhoffer’s analysis of Mark 16:9–20, as well as Chris Keith’s analysis of John 7:53–8:11, such consistencies with Mark need not stand in the way of a claim of inauthenticity. One could just as well say that the scribe was clever to imitate features of Markan vocabulary and style. He simply was not clever enough to catch the other, apparently more outstanding, incongruities.
Does the external evidence set these texts apart from Mark 16:9–20, so that one could not apply the same arguments here? On the one hand, that would give away the point that the strength of the arguments from internal evidence is ultimately dependent on conclusions drawn from the external evidence, rather than that they have an independent contribution to make. On the other hand, such a suggestion could only hold water if one is not dedicated enough to making the argument. Any scholar with enough chutzpah could argue that these are two cases where a scribe, multiple scribes, or scribes plus multiple redactors “got away with it” and managed to have their work featured in every sufficiently extant copy of Mark. It would be like the arguments you sometimes hear about 1 Thess 2:14–16 or 1 Cor 15:29–34 (in the case of William O. Walker, Jr.),8 despite their ubiquitous manuscript support.
Or maybe this exercise just illustrates that the arguments were not that strong to begin with. (If you think I have misrepresented them or gone too far in my satirizing of them, I invite you to look at the posts linked at the beginning and consult the sources cited therein.)
See 1:3 [Isa 40:3], 10, 12, 18, 20–21, 23, 28–30, 42–43; 2:8, 12; 3:6; 4:5, 15–17, 29; 5:2, 29–30, 42 (2x); 6:25, 27, 45, 50, 54; 7:25; 8:10; 9:15, 20, 24; 10:52; 11:2–3; 14:43–45, 72; 15:1.
See 2:1, 13; 3:1, 20; 4:1; 5:21; 7:14, 31; 8:1, 13, 25; 10:1 (2x), 10, 24, 32; 11:3, 27; 12:4; 14:39–40, 61, 69, 70 (2x); 15:4, 12–13.
Conversely, 0104, 0116, and 0318 include both texts but do not include any of ch. 16.
Cyprian references Mark 13:23 in Unit. eccl. 17. But all of Tertullian’s possible allusions or quotations do not appear to be specifically related to Mark (Ux. 5; Exh. cast. 9; Mon. 16; Marc. 3.3; An. 57).
This is also the only time the term appears in any of the Gospels.
The conjunction and negative are used together only in Mark 3:9, 12; 5:10; 14:38. The scribe has taken the unusual and made it unique.
Also the only time the term appears in the Gospels.
Or, dare I say, the Testimonium Flavianum. To be fair to those arguments, though, the gap between the earliest manuscript of that text and the time of Josephus’s composition is significantly longer than these NT examples.