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),
The Armenian MS Etchmiadzin 303 (1200s).
The Bohairic MS known as
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).
 |
| The third-to-last and last page of Mark in Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis (VL 1, k) |
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
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.)
 |
| Mina Monier |
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. |
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.]
3 comments:
So, all the exemplars with the shorter ending--in Greek anyway--all boil down to a single witness. Has anyone admitted this yet, or are they all still counting noses?
Daniel Buck,
Not quite; there is a little variation regarding whether the SE includes ἐφάνη or ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς or nothing. But do all the Greek MSS with the SE echo one very narrow transmission-line? Yes, and this is shown by their shared formats and annotations (with the exception of 579, which I haven't covered here).
In case you're wondering about 679. here (extracted from my book) is a description of its testimony:
This minuscule of the Gospels has a primarily Byzantine Text in Matthew, while in the other three Gospels, according to Metzger, “it preserves an extremely good Alexandrian text which often agrees with B, Aleph, and L.” However, 579 supports “in the prophets” in Mark 1:2, “Gergesenes” in Mark 5:1, “prayer and fasting” in 9:29, and includes Mark 9:44 and 9:46 and 15:28, so it should be considered a mixed text. Another indication that 579 descends, in part, from an Egyptian text-form is that it displays approximately the same rare chapter-divisions in the Gospels that are displayed in Codex Vaticanus.
The testimony of 579 is somewhat unique because it presents the end of 16:8 and the
beginning of the Shorter Ending with nothing between them except the word “telos,”written in
red, which is used repeatedly in 579 to signify the end of lections. After the Shorter Ending, in which the final “Amen” is the only occupant of the last line on the page, there is a plus-sign in the right margin. (This is an unusual symbol in 579, although a smaller plus-sign appears on the same page alongside 16:7.) The next page begins at the beginning of 16:9, and the text of 16:9-20 (with εκ νεκρων in 16:14 and “Και εν ταις χερσιν” in 16:18, without any Section-numbers) occupies the page.
As far as the great scholarship of Mina Monier, I would suggest reading an article he wrote just this year: Mark's Endings in Context: Paratext and Codicological Remarks.I thought you might find it interesting that when he discusses GA 2937 and GA 1422 he states the following, "In these manuscripts, we are informed by the copyists that the Shorter Ending is in fact an argumentum that appears at the rear of, or behind, the Short Ending... The scribe's explicit categorization pushes the Shorter Ending from the category of "text" to the category of paratexts. Thus it becomes a prologue to another text, which could be the Long ending. This understanding of Mark's ending diverges from the views most scholars hold today." He concludes his paper by stating that "As we saw in some cases, the Long Ending could be seen as an appendix, whereas the Shorter Ending is labelled as a paratext (argumentum)." concluding with, "a very good case to learn from is the so-called Shorter Ending in Ga 2937 and 1422, where it appeared as an argumentum for the Longer Ending, and therefore it explains why the Shorter Ending appears in almost all of its attestations across languages as neither as a Shorter nor an Ending." He adds in a footnote that Codex Bobbiensis is the exception.
Post a Comment