Lenski, Interpretation of Mark, p. 736:
After the two parts (chapters 14 and 15) that present the Passion and the death there follows the last minor section of the Gospel, that regarding the resurrection. In each of the four Gospels this last section regarding the resurrection constitutes the glory part. Yet this tale is told in the same sober way as is the account of the crucifixion and the death. The great facts that occurred are reported to us in the briefest and the most dispassionate way. Our faith is to rest on these facts, that is all. One of the decisive tests of
the Christian faith is belief in these facts which declare that Jesus rose from the dead. All who alter these facts and in some way or other deny his resurrection can no longer claim the Christian name, for Christianity stands and falls with the resurrection of the Savior.
The four accounts differ in detail, no witness reports all the facts. This affords the critics an opportunity to play one witness against another in order to discredit all of them or to discredit any desired part of their testimony. The Christian student has only one duty, namely, properly to combine all the testimony and thus to reconstruct the entire story. The statement thatthis can never be done is unwarranted.
Mark 16
Parser
1 και διαγενομενου του σαββατου, μαρια η μαγδαληνη και μαρια η του ιακωβου και σαλωμη ηγορασαν αρωματα, ινα ελθουσαι αλειψωσιν αυτον
2 και λιαν πρωι της μιας σαββατων ερχονται επι το μνημειον ανατειλαντος του ηλιου
Lenski - Jews did not name the days. Calendars are culture. BCE and CE - new culture.
3 και ελεγον προς εαυτας "τις αποκυλισει ημιν τον λιθον εκ της θυρας του μνημειου?"
4 και αναβλεψασαι, θεωρουσιν οτι αποκεκυλισται ο λιθος ην γαρ μεγας σφοδρα
ἀποκυλίω
The gar clause points out this was a great stone, not the small stone of a poor grave. Jesus rose before the angel flattened the stone - He was not released from the grave by the angel. The stone could not be put back easily, so the tomb remained open for everyone to see.
5 και εισελθουσαι εις το μνημειον ειδον νεανισκον, καθημενον εν τοις δεξιοις, περιβεβλημενον στολην λευκην, και εξεθαμβηθησαν
6 ο δε λεγει αυταις, "μη εκθαμβεισθε ιησουν ζητειτε τον ναζαρηνον, τον εσταυρωμενον, ηγερθη, ουκ εστιν ωδε - ιδε ο τοπος οπου εθηκαν αυτον"
7 "αλλ υπαγετε ειπατε τοις μαθηταις αυτου και τω πετρω οτι προαγει υμας εις την γαλιλαιαν; εκει αυτον οψεσθε καθως ειπεν υμιν"
και τω πετρω - Peter denied Jesus and needed to know the Lord was risen. He would have been completely grief-stricken about his treachery. This restoration is completed in the last chapter of John, the three-fold absolution.
8 και εξελθουσαι ταχυ, εφυγον απο του μνημειου, ειχεν δε αυτας τρομος και εκστασις, και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον, εφοβουντο γαρ
9 αναστας δε πρωι πρωτη σαββατου, εφανη πρωτον μαρια τη μαγδαληνη αφ ης εκβεβληκει 'επτα δαιμονια
hepta - seven
10 εκεινη πορευθεισα, απηγγειλεν τοις [μετ αυτου γενομενοις], πενθουσιν και κλαιουσιν
11 κακεινοι ακουσαντες οτι ζη και εθεαθη υπ αυτης ηπιστησαν
a plus believe - disbelieve
12 μετα δε ταυτα, δυσιν εξ αυτων περιπατουσιν εφανερωθη, εν ετερα μορφη, πορευομενοις εις αγρον
13 κακεινοι απελθοντες απηγγειλαν τοις λοιποις ουδε εκεινοις επιστευσαν
14 υστερον ανακειμενοις αυτοις τοις 'ενδεκα εφανερωθη, και ωνειδισεν την απιστιαν αυτων και σκληροκαρδιαν, οτι τοις θεασαμενοις αυτον εγηγερμενον ουκ επιστευσαν
15 και ειπεν αυτοις, "πορευθεντες εις τον κοσμον απαντα κηρυξατε το ευαγγελιον παση τη κτισει"
16 "ο πιστευσας και βαπτισθεις σωθησεται ο δε απιστησας κατακριθησεται"
17 "σημεια δε [τοις πιστευσασιν] ταυτα παρακολουθησει εν τω ονοματι μου δαιμονια εκβαλουσιν γλωσσαις λαλησουσιν καιναις"
18 "οφεις αρουσιν, καν θανασιμον τι πιωσιν, ου μη αυτους βλαψει, επι αρρωστους χειρας επιθησουσιν και καλως εξουσιν"
βλάπτω injure
19 ο μεν ουν κυριος μετα το λαλησαι αυτοις, ανεληφθη εις τον ουρανον και εκαθισεν εκ δεξιων του θεου
20 εκεινοι δε εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν πανταχου, του κυριου συνεργουντος, και τον λογον βεβαιουντος δια των
επακολουθουντων σημειων αμην
βεβαιόω establish, confirm
1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550)
From Thy Strong Word
23
KJV Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
One theory held that the Gospel was mysteriously broken off at Mark 16:8, letting people imagine death or persecution. Given the value of written texts in the early Church, the abrupt ending is difficult to explain adequately. According to Bruce Metzger, the best known textual expert in America, one 12th century manuscript of Mark broke off at Mark 16:8 with the Greek letter tau indicating the end of a lection and more text following.11 For this reason he rejects that particular manuscript as evidence for the abrupt ending. Nevertheless, Metzger argues very strongly for excluding the traditional ending of Mark, giving little evidence against his view, but he offers three alternative explanations for the ending at Mark 16:8 –
1. The author intended to end his work with “they were afraid.” 2. The Gospel was not finished. 3. The Gospel lost its last leaf before it was copied. (The most probable in his opinion.)12
Justin Martyr used vocabulary from the traditional ending in his Apology, written about 155 AD. Although we do not know exact dates for the New Testament Gospels, it is likely that the entire New Testament was completed before 100 AD. That makes the possible allusion to the traditional ending extremely early. A website about Justin Martyr and other saints made the observation that the early Roman emperors persecuted the Christian Church because they were trying to preserve the old Roman ways. The active persecution of an impoverished and illegal religion might explain the problem with the ending. Justin Martyr was beheaded with six of his students, one of them a woman. My United Bible Society Greek New Testament (Aland third edition) has notes for the variant readings. Similar decisions about which words or sections to include or exclude are made about Shakespeare and all important authors, but most people are not aware of it. The Shakespeare Variorum is an enormous work with variant readings of the dramas. The Yale Shakespeare, in one volume, is the result of many different editorial decisions. Although Shakespeare belongs to the modern age, scholars still argue about the authorship of the plays. Did he write some or all of them? Or did the Earl of Oxford? Or Bacon? If a Shakespeare play began with as much uncertainty as many sermons, no one would pay attention to Shakespeare either. The actor would begin, “Scholars are not sure whether William Shakespeare wrote this play. We chose which lines we would use in performing the play, but no one agrees which words are actually his, or Oxford’s, or Bacon’s, depending on which book you read.”13
p. 24
The Aland edition of the New Testament omits the traditional ending of Mark, supporting this reading with Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and a few additional witnesses. The traditional ending is supported by Alexandrinus, Epraemi Rescriptus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, and many others. The position of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus looks very lonely, but aha, do not they agree with each other? Are they not better and earlier? Can we not find it in our hearts to forgive that forgotten scribe who added a few verses to Mark, just to improve the Gospel? Vaticanus does not include the traditional ending of Mark, but the copyist left more than a column of space blank. That was long before the days of “this page intentionally left blank.” At the very least we can assume that the scribe knew of the traditional ending. That leaves Sinaiticus stranded. It is one thing to say that Mark’s Gospel ended abruptly, for no known reason, and that an ending was added. But, if two major witnesses against the traditional ending do not even agree completely with each other, then snipping off verses nine through twenty seems arbitrary, arrogant, and deceitful. St. Jerome knew about manuscripts omitting Mark 16:9-20, but he was convinced of the authenticity of the traditional ending. W. R. Farmer concluded: “In fact, external evidence from the second century for Mark 16:9-20 is stronger than for most other parts of that Gospel.”14 Now we have a great dividing line on this subject. Most of the conservatives have surrendered to Westcott and Hort, abandoning the Majority Text. And yet, an author who accepted the modern theories about the New Testament text, said this about the ending of Mark:
J-002 “In favor of Mark 16:9-20 there are a host of witnesses: the Alexandrian Manuscript, the Ephraem Manuscript, Codex Bezae, other early uncials, all late uncials and cursives, a number of old Latin authorities plus the Vulgate, one Old Syriac manuscript, the Syriac Peshitta version, and many other versions. Besides, there is a plain statement from Irenaeus (early Christian writer) which clearly shows the existence of Mark 16:9-20 in the second century and the belief that Mark was its author. In brief this is the negative and positive data on the question. On one hand is the unparalleled reliability of the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts; on the other hand is almost all of the other evidence. J. W. McGarvey wrote a capable defense of Mark 16:9-20 in his Commentary on Matthew and Mark. It was first published, however, in 1875, before the great work of Westcott and Hort on the Greek text was completed. Yet McGarvey’s, with a few minor modifications, can stand with credit today.” Neil Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963, pp. 74f.
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have “unparalleled reliability,” except in one of the most important passages of the New Testament—the ending of Mark. If the claim does not match up with the data, then the claim is wrong.15 In light of the concessions made by Lightfoot above, the treatment of the traditional
p. 25
ending of Mark in the New International Version is worth noting. After Mark 16:8, a line appears in the text, indicating a break. The following heading appears above Mark 16:9-20:
“[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.]”16
Someone who has not read the research on the ending of Mark—and this material is fairly difficult to find—would conclude from the NIV that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in the Bible. He would not know that the only major manuscript unambiguously omitting the ending is Sinaiticus and that this “most reliable manuscript” suddenly appeared without a so-called family of copies to back it up. Since Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod professors participated with the liberals and tongue-speakers of the NIV translation team, a conservative Lutheran would assume that the bracketed information is in harmony with orthodox Lutheran doctrine. In fact, no other Bible translation is so brassy in disdaining the traditional ending of Mark. If a modern scholar’s training goes against the traditional ending of the Second Gospel, and he still supports the Majority Text conclusion of Mark, then the untrained person can see that the case against Mark 16:9-20 is very weak indeed. For the sake of comparison, consider what Westcott and Hort have done to millions of Christians. The Beck Bible published by Christian News has also omitted the traditional ending of Mark with a footnote, following Westcott and Hort.17 When a faithful Lutheran reads this Bible, after being exposed to the King James Version, he is led to believe that the Christian Church was deceived for centuries. Luther was wrong. Tyndale was wrong. All the Reformers were wrong. How can the average Christian check the facts? In front of him is the latest Bible printed by a conservative Lutheran. He has no way of discovering, apart from a theological library, that the manuscripts favored in the new edition have no history at all. If a farmer bred cattle or pigs without knowing their genetic heritage, he would be considered lazy or foolish. The ultimate result of Westcott and Hort enthusiasm has planted doubt about the entire New Testament text.18 Ironically, the Majority Text is rejected by liberals today because of its heritage, its careful preservation in the Christian Church, its thousands of manuscript witnesses, its consistency, its harmony in many different forms. Even the mysterious Vaticanus tips its hat to the Majority Text, by making room for the traditional ending of Mark.
“We must conclude that fidelity to the New Testament text has been abandoned since the publication of the Revised Version in 1881.”19
