For decades, commentators on
the Gospel of Mark have mentioned that there is an alternative ending to the
Gospel of Mark (that is, an alternate after verse 8 that does not involve
verses 9-20). The ESV presents this
alternative ending, which is known as the “Shorter Ending,” in a footnote,
attributing it to “some manuscripts” – “But they reported briefly to Peter and
those with him all that they had been told.
And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to
west, the sacred and inperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
The
ESV’s “Some manuscripts” was, until recently, a total of six continuous-text Greek manuscripts, plus one bilingual Greek-Sahidic lectionary (lectionary 1602): 019, 044, 083 (a.k.a. 0112), 099, 279, and 274mg.
The Double Ending is also attested in quite a few versional
copies:
Sahidic
copies (for example, Pierpont Morgan Manuscript 11 (c. 700), Pierpont Morgan
Manuscript 4 (c. 800), Vienna 9075 and 9076
(700s), and British Museum Oriental Manuscript 7029 (900s) – and a Sahidic
fragment in the collection of Duke
University (P.
Duke Inv. 814), from the 700s).
The
Armenian MS Etchmiadzin 303 (1200s).
The Bohairic MS known as Huntington 17 (1174), and
Many Ethiopic copies (at least 131 – as described by Bruce
Metzger in 1980 in “The Gospel of St. Mark in Ethiopic Manuscripts,” in New
Testament Tools and Studies, Vol. 10; in the course of this study Metzger withdrew
the well-circulated claim that a number of Ethiopic copies conclude Mark’s text
at 16:8 – although the false claim can still be found in some sources,
including p. 322 of the fourth edition (2005) of Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament, of which Bart Ehrman is named as a
co-author). (The corrected description of the Ethiopic evidence is on p. 120 of the same book.)
The Double Ending has also been found in a few representatives of the Harklean Syriac version (such as DFM 00829, a witness from the 1200s-1300s discovered by Mina Monier), and even in a copy of the Peshitta (British Library MS Add. 14456, as David Taylor has shown).
Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis (VL 1) is the only witness to the Shorter Ending in which the Shorter Ending is not
accompanied by at least part of the usual
twelve verses 9-20 (which are supported by at least 1,650 Greek manuscripts, plus
the non-extant manuscripts used by many patristic writers such as Tatian and
Irenaeus in the 100s). (VL 1 also attests
to an interesting interpolation between Mark 16:3 and 16:4, and does not attest
to the final phrase of 16:8. Its scribe also made various errors in the course of writing the Shorter Ending.) There are slight variations in the text of these witnesses
– mainly the presence or absence of the explicit reference to Jesus’ appearance
(ο Ις εφανη in 044 and 274mg and Greek-Sahidic lectionary 1602, and Ις εφανη αυτοις in 099) and the presence or absence of a final Amen. But today I shall
overlook the interesting implications of these variants to focus on a recent
discovery made by Mina Monier: there are
now eight Greek manuscripts (plus Greek-Sahidic lectionary 1602) that
support the Double Ending (i.e., the Shorter Ending followed by verses
9-20): the newly confirmed manuscripts are GA 1422 and GA 2937 . GA 1422 is assigned to the
900s-1000s; GA 2937 is assigned to the 900s.
These two new witnesses for the Double Ending, via their
agreements in shared format and shared annotations with several of the other
known Greek witnesses for the Double Ending, convey more clearly than ever
before that as a Greek reading, the Shorter Ending’s early circulation had a
very limited geographic range, in one specific area in Egypt.
On folio
178v of GA 1422, alongside the text of the Gospel of Mark 16:7 (beginning
with ὄτι προάγει) to 16:13 (up to and including λοιποῖς), the catena-commentary
that frames the text on three sides refers to, and includes, the Shorter
Ending. Variants within the Shorter
Ending in 1422’s commentary are: (1) the non-inclusion of ὁ before Ἰς), (2)
the non-inclusion of ἐφάνη or ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς after Ἰς, and (3) ἀπ,
rather than ἀπό, before ἀνατολῆς.
(One might suspect that the Shorter Ending that appears in
the lower margin of GA 274 (below the text of Mark 16:6b-15, up to and including ἃπαντα κη-) was extracted from a
commentary-manuscript such as 1422 or 2937, rather than from a commentary-free
continuous-text manuscript.)
Following the Shorter Ending, 1422’s commentary has a
note: Εστι[ν] δε κ[αι] ταυτα φερόμενα
μετα τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γαρ. This is the same
note that introduces verse 9 in 019 (Codex L), 044 (Codex Ψ), 083, and
Sahidic-Greek lectionary 1602. Each
member of this small cluster of manuscripts must be connected to the same
transmission-stream from which this note emanated.
Mark 16:8 in GA 2937, meanwhile, is
followed by – according to Mina Monier’s transcription – “ειχεν δε αυτας
τρομος and several lines of commentary, concluding with Αυτη η υποθεσις οπιθεν εστι εις το “εφοβουντο γαρ:” This is
followed by the Shorter Ending, in a form which is nigh-identical to what is in
274mg. And this is followed by – again
following Monier’s transcription – “Eστι δε και ταυτα φερομενα μετα το εφοβουντο γαρ” (the same note
that is in 019, 044, 083, 1422, and Greek-Sahidic lectionary 1602) – followed by “αναστας δε πρωϊ πρωτῃ σαββατον και τα εξης.” More commentary-material (from Gregory of
Nyssa, according to a rubric in the margin), which makes use of Mark 16:9-20,
follows.
 |
A page from Sahidic-Greek
lectionary 1602. |
Notice that in 2937, ειχεν δε αυτας τρομος (that is, the
second half of 16:8, with δε instead of γαρ) follows 16:8. 2937 shares this “rewound” feature with 099
and Sahidic-Greek lectionary 1602. Thus,
by sharing the note “Εστι[ν] δε κ[αι] ταυτα φερόμενα μετα τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γαρ,” or by restarting Mark 16:8b before continuing with 16:9 (or both), all these witnesses to the
Shorter Ending show that they belong to the same narrow transmission-line –
which, by virtue of including Sahidic-Greek lectionary 1602, must have been in
Egypt. More information about GA 2937 can be found in the article Greek Manuscripts in Alexandria, by H.A.G. Houghton and Mina Monier, which appeared in Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 71, Issue 1, April 2020, pp. 119-133.
[Readers are encouraged to explore the embedded links in this post.]
