In 1893 the following material (slightly adjusted to American orthography) was published in The Expositor journal. It remains an effective counterweight against those who still wish to belittle the testimony of Justin Martyr and to employ the name of Clement as a witness against Mark 16:9-20.
SOME EARLY EVIDENCE FOR THE
TWELVE VERSES
ST. MARK 16:9-20.
by Charles Taylor
Originally published on pages 71-78 of The Expositor, Volume 8,
edited
by Robertson Nicholl. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1893.
It has
been said that in the whole Greek ante-Nicene literature there are at most
but two traces of St. Mark 16:9-20. My
purpose in these notes is to show by a few instances that the early evidence
for the disputed twelve verses has perhaps been understated.
1. IRENAEUS
“Irenaeus
(188) clearly cites 16:19 as St. Mark’s own (In fine autem evangelii ait
Marcus, corresponding to Marcus interpres et sectator Petri initium
evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic) ; and the fidelity of the Latin text
is supported by a Greek scholium” (W. H., App. 39). See lib. 3:11.6 in Harvey’s Irenaeus (vol. II.
p. 39).
Irenaeus
writes that St. Mark’s “beginning of the Gospel”
(1:1) was fulfilment of prophecy; and that in accordance with this beginning he
writes at the end, So then the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken unto them,
was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God; thus
confirming the prophecy of Psalm 90: “The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy
footstool.”
2. JUSTIN MARTYR
Having
such testimony to the disputed twelve verses in the latter half of the second
century, we may go back a generation to Justin Martyr, and seek for traces of
them in his acknowledged writings, without any presumption against the
possibility of his acquaintance with them. The New Testament will in general be cited in
Greek from Westcott and Hort’s edition, and in English from the Revised Version
of 1881. Before seeking traces of verses
9-20 we must notice what are their characteristics, not neglecting the previous
labors of learned assailants of the verses, who have duly emphasized some of their
peculiarities of thought and diction, and thus made it the easier to recognize
allusions to them.
Mark 16:9.
Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first
to Mary Magdalene. When He was risen (ἀναστάς), on the first day (πρώτῃ), He appeared
(ἐπάνη). Each of the words ἀναστάς
, πρώτῃ, ἐπάνη is in a sense peculiar to this verse, as is also the
statement that Christ rose on the first day. In Matthew 28:6 we find only, “He is not here;
for He is risen, even as He said,” risen before the arrival of the women, who
came “late on the Sabbath day as it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week” (ver. 1). Some – notice the
harmonistic rendering of the Authorized Version – have found this hard to
reconcile with St. Mark’s ἀναστάς πρώτῃ, and have suspected that Mark 16:9
must be spurious: see Eusebius to
Marinus in W. H., App. 31: others condemn the self-same verse for its “otiose
triple repetition.” But we have not as
yet found, except in that verse, express testimony to His rising on the
first day, nor do I know that other such Gospel testimony is to be found. That “He hath been raised on the third day” is
of itself indecisive of the day of the week. Early fathers dwell upon the Lord’s rising on
a Sunday as a cardinal historic fact, and if in so doing they express
themselves more or less in terms of the disputed verse 9, we may think (unless
reason can be shown to the contrary) that they accepted it as part of the Gospel
as it had come down to them.
In Mark 16:2, 9, 14 three Greek words are
represented by “was risen” (R.V.). In Matthew 28:6 the Greek for “He was risen”
is ἠγέρθη,and this word, and not ἀναστή, is used
throughout the Gospel narratives properly so-called of the Resurrection-that is
to say, excluding the predictive δεῖ άναστῆνει – except in Mark 16:9, where we have the latter
word in the participial form ἀναστάς. This is therefore in a sense distinctly
characteristic of that verse.
No less
characteristic is its expression πρώτῃ for “on the first day,”
which is alleged as proof of the spuriousness of the verse. The evening and the morning were “day one (μία)”;
and this Hebraism is used in the Gospels for the first day of the week,
except in Mark 16:9, where it is called-as some say by a Latinism, pointing to
the Roman origin of the section-not the “one” but the “first” day.
A third
word, peculiar in a sense to the same verse is ἐπάνη, “he appeared,”
which is found there only of appearances of the Lord after the Resurrection. The words for “appear” (R.V.) in Acts 1:3 and
1 Corinthians 15:5-8 are different. Thus
we have found four things peculiar in a sense to Mark 16:9, namely, its
distinct specification of the day of the Resurrection, and the two words which
express
this, and the word expressing that “He appeared” on that
day.
Justin,
in Trypho § 138, speaks of the “day eighth in number, in which our
Christ appeared (ἐπάνη), when He was risen (ἀναστάς) from
the dead, but in rank ever first (πρώτης),” laying stress upon the word “first” to which special
attention is always called in discussions of the twelve verses.
In Apol.
1: 67 he tells us that “On
Sunday so-called there is an assemblage of all, whether resident in town or country,
and the Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read
(p. 98 D). And on Sunday it is that we
all assemble, since it is the first (πρώτη) day, on which God changed the darkness and matter
and made cosmos, and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose
(ανέστη) from the dead; for on the day before Saturday they
crucified Him, and on Sunday, the day after Saturday, He appeared (φανείς) to His apostles and disciples and taught these things”
(p. 99 A, B).
In each
case Justin states expressly and emphatically that Christ rose on the first
day, and in each he has a threefold verbal agreement with St. Mark as tabulated
below:
Mk 16:9 Apol. 1:67 Trypho 138
ἀναστάς
ανέστη ἀναστάς
πρώτῃ πρώτη πρώτης
ἐπάνη φανείς ἐπάνη
Hence (1) the verse Mark 16:9, or something closely resembling
it, must have formed part of his “Memoirs of the Apostles,” and (2) it must
have been much relied upon as Gospel authority for the fact of the Resurrection
upon a Sunday, and for the consequent observance of the first day of the week
as the Lord’s Day.
Mark 16:17. And
these signs shall follow them that believe: in My name shall they cast out
devils.
On this
and the following verse it has been said, that they “contain suspicious
circumstances-an excessive love of the miraculous. Miracles and the power of
performing them are attributed to all believers.” This again is a criticism which I welcome as serviceable for my
present purpose, since it sets in strong relief the powers assigned to the
faithful as such, one of which was the power to exorcise δαιμόνια. Akin to these verses is Matthew 7:22, “Many
will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not by Thy name cast out devils,
and by Thy name do many mighty works?” But
peculiar to Mark 16:17 is its place in a narrative of the Lord's Resurrection
and Ascension, and its express promise of the power named to “them that
believe.”
The
assertion that this power was possessed by such persons is a salient feature in
the writings of Justin. In Trypho §
85 he writes that by the name of Him who was crucified under Pontius
Pilate, and arose (ἀναστάντος) from the dead, and went up to heaven
every devil (δαιμόνιον) when exorcised is vanquished and made subject.
In Trypho
§ 76 he quotes Matthew 7:22 (p. 301 D), and adds that now we that believe (οἱ
πιστεύοντες) in our Lord Jesus, who was crucified, have all devils (δαιμόνια)
and evil spirits subject to us by exorcism.
These
and other passages in his works ascribe to believers the power of
casting out devils by the name of Christ, and they connect this power
with the Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension. The express mention of οἱ πιστεύοντες as
having this power, and some other things in the passages in question, point
again to Mark 16:9 sq. as one of Justin’s sources.
Mark 16:20. And
they went forth, and preached everywhere (ἐξελθόντες ἐκρύξαν πανταχοῦ), the
Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed.
“The Greek patristic evidence for vv. 9-20
perhaps begins with Justin (Ap. i. 45), who interprets Psalm 110:3 as
predictive τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ ὄν ἀπὸ Ιερουσαλήμ οἱ ἀπόστολοι αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκρύξαν . . . . On both sides the evidence is slight, and decision
seems impossible” (W. H., App. 39).
With
reference to this apparent quotation from our verse 20 “the word which .
. . they went forth and preached everywhere,” Dr. Samuel Davidson
remarks that “probably Justin Martyr” had the disputed twelve verses before him
(1868). Scrivener, following Burgon, judged that they were cited “unquestionably
by Justin Martyr” (1874).
The
late Dean Alford, perhaps not thinking of Apol. 1: 45, asserted that
Justin took no notice of the verses. To
Westcott and Hort “decision seems impossible”: that is to say from Apol. 1:45 only.
But
what has been said above on other passages, and in The Witness of Hermas to
the Four Gospels on that passage, may to some readers seem to suffice to
turn the scale. If not, there is still
much more to be said in proof that Justin knew the so-called appendix to St.
Mark’s Gospel. It seems to me that he was well acquainted with it; knew it (like
Irenaeus) as part of one of the Gospels customarily read in his own day on
Sunday; and has frequent allusions to things in it, some of which are not
mentioned in these notes.
3. THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The
Epistle of Barnabas was perhaps written about 120 A.D. Its parallelisms with Justin’s works are of
such a nature that the two writers can scarcely have been wholly independent of
one another. If Justin did not quote
Barnabas, the ideas common to them must have been
drawn in part from the Church teaching of their day. They speak in like terms of the Christian
observance of the “eighth day,” and had presumably the same Gospel authority
for holding it in honor as the day of the Resurrection.
In Epist.
Barn. 15:9, we read: “Wherefore also
we celebrate the eighth day unto gladness, whereon Jesus arose (ἀνέστη)
from the dead, and was manifested (ἐφανερώθη), and went up to the heavens.” The word eighth implies the use of
πρώτη as by Justin and St. Mark ;
the word arose, and the fact of the ascent to heaven, are common
to the Evangelist and Barnabas : and these agree in two other points which must
now be mentioned.
St.
Mark 16:12-14: And after these things
He was manifested (ἐφανερώθη) in another form unto two of them as they walked.
And afterward He was manifested (ἐφανερώθη) unto the eleven themselves as they
sat at meat. Here ἐφανερώθη is
used twice of appearances of the Lord after the Resurrection. It is so used
again once only in the New Testament, namely, in John 21:14, “This is now the
third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples after that He was
risen from the dead.” St.
John indeed uses also ἐφανερώθη ἑαυτόv in the
like sense, He manifested Himself, but it remains that ἐφανερώθη, He
was manifested, may be said to be characteristic of the disputed twelve
verses. We may therefore reckon φανερώθεις, having been manifested, in
the passage from Barnabas, as a perhaps not undesigned coincidence with St.
Mark.
Again, Mr.
Rendal quotes from the book Supernatural Religion: “In making the Resurrection, appearances
to the disciples, and the Ascension take place in one day, the author [of Epist.
Barn.] is in agreement with Justin Martyr, who made use of a Gospel
different from ours.”
The
statement is open to criticism. Were it in part true, we might say that
Barnabas and Justin had the twelve verses for their authority, interpreted them
hastily, and so were led to express themselves as they have done; for in the
said verses there is no palpable break between the
Resurrection and the Ascension. A short summary of Mk. 16:9-19 is “On the
first day He arose; He was manifested; He ascended to heaven.” And this is what Barnabas says, agreeing
in substance with the eleven verses, and, except as regards the Ascension, with
their phraseology; for his “eighth” implies πρώτη (rather than μία) for
“first” day. The hypothesis that they
were acquainted with the ending of St. Mark’s Gospel, accounts for the passage
quoted from Barnabas as well as for the parallels in Justin.
We have
seen that there are other indications that Justin knew the passage; and when we
go back some three decades to the earlier writer, who has such striking
coincidences with Justin, we do not need any great mass or evidence to make it
probable, or not improbable, that he knew what was known to Justin. Their singular agreement in the matter of the “eighth”
day at once raises a presumption that they rested upon the same authority for its
religious observance perhaps to show other traces of them in his Epistle.
Of such actual or possible traces, I will here
mention one only. If he knew Mark 16:17,
with its promise of miraculous powers to true believers indiscriminately, this
would certainly have appealed strongly to a writer of his individualizing bias,
and we might have expected to find some trace of the verse in his writings.
Further, we might have anticipated, from his inveterate habit of
spiritualizing, that he would have been tempted to
explain away the outward fact of demoniacal possession and make the “devils” tendencies
in the heart of man. Accordingly, in Epist. Barn. 16:7, we read: “Before we believed (πιστεῦσαι) our
heart was truly a temple made by hand, for it was full of idolatry, and a house
of devils (δαιμονίων), because we did whatsoever things were contrary to
God. But it shall be built upon the name
of the Lord.” This is his way of saying,
They that believe do thereby cast out devils in the name of the
Lord Jesus.
4. THE QUARTODECIMAN CONTROVERSY
The
late Bishop Lightfoot wrote of Polycarp of Smyrna, who flourished not very long
before the date to which we have traced the twelve verses:
“In the
closing years of his life he paid a visit to Rome, where he conferred with the Bishop
Anicetus. They had other points of
difference to discuss, but one main subject of their conference was. the time
of celebrating the Passion.
Polycarp pleaded the practice of St. John, and the other Apostles with whom he
had conversed, for observing the actual day of the Jewish Passover, the 14th
Nisan, without respect to the day of the week. On the other hand, Anicetus
could point to the fact that his predecessors, at least as far back as Xystus,
who succeeded to the see soon after the beginning of the century, had always
kept the anniversary of the Passion on a Friday, and that of the Resurrection
on a Sunday, thus making the day of the month give place to the day of the
week.”
The
weekly observance of the first day as the day of the Lord’s Resurrection
prepared the way for the decision of this controversy in the above sense. If
St. Mark's “when He was risen on the first day” was the most obvious Gospel
authority for the Christian observance of Sunday in each week, it would have
served as an argument for keeping Easter always on a first day; and the
argument
would have commended itself all the more to a bishop
of Rome if the
verse was found in a Gospel traditionally associated with that city. St. Mark’s Gospel generally satisfies this
condition; and in the twelve verses, the very expression “first” day (as above
remarked) has been thought by some to be a sign of their Roman origin. Can we confirm the hypothesis that one of the
twelve verses decided the Quartodeciman controversy by adducing evidence that
they were known at Rome before or about, the end of the first century'?
5. CLEMENT OF ROME
Clem. R. §
42 runs thus in the translation in Lightfoot’s edition: – “The Apostles
received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent
forth from God. So then Christ is from
God, and the apostles are from Christ.
Having therefore received a charge, and
having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth (ἐξελθον) with the
glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching
(κηρύσσοντες) everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons
unto them that should believe.”
Thus
the Roman Clement, for St. Mark’s ἐξελθόντες
πανταχοῦ ἐκρύξαν, has ἐξελθόν
κηρύσσοντες, with a paraphrase for the word πανταχοῦ, which he had used in the previous chapter of his Epistle.
If St.
Clement knew the twelve verses, they must have been known to Anicetus, and
cited by him against Polycarp’s authorities for regulating the date of Easter
by the Jewish calendar. If he so cited them, they must have contributed not a
little to a decision which has governed the usage of the Church from that day
till now. That decision was the logical sequel to the disestablishment of the
Sabbath by the hebdomadal observance of the First Day.
C. TAYLOR
