Charles Taylor's 1893 Analysis of Second-century Support for Mark 16:9-20

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

 

Lectionary 1276

A fragment of Lect 1276,
with the Gospels-text
artificially enhanced.

           Around 5,600 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament – ranging from small fragments to full 27-book collections – are known to exist.  About 2,500 of them are lectionaries.  Yet although lectionaries constitute over 40% of our New Testament manuscripts, the study of lectionaries is perhaps the most neglected area in New Testament text-critical research.   Lectionaries are considered so unimportant in some circles that the textual apparatus of the recently published Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament does not ever cite a lectionary.  There is a reason for some of this neglect – or avoidance – of lectionaries:  in the case of at least eight out of ten lectionaries, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all – basically the same form of text, divided into the same segments, assigned to the same days and occasions, with only minor anomalies such as the inclusion of a special feast-day to honor a local cleric or a bishop’s patron saint.

            The lectionary we are examining today is different:  lectionary 1276 is a small fragment that was published in 1900 by Charles Taylor, as part of the immense research-project involving the materials obtained by him and Solomon Schechter from the Cairo Genizah.  Being only a small fragment, lectionary 1276 does not contain much text; only a few lines from Matthew 10:2-4 and 10:11-15, and John 20:11-15 are extant.  But what makes Lectionary 1276 special is its age:  its online profile at the website of Cambridge University states, “The upper script” – that is, the writing in the Hebrew composition for which the lectionary’s parchment was recycled – “is Hebrew with sparse Palestinian vocalisation, and has been dated to the 8th or 9th century by Allony and Diez-Macho (1958-1959: 58). The under script is a Greek biblical majuscule that has been dated to between the 6th and 9th centuries.  Tchernetska (2002: 248-249) believes that the 6th-century date is more likely.”  Natalie Tchernetska is not the only researcher to prefer a production-date in the 500s for lectionary 1276; Carroll D. Osburn also accepted this dating in his 1995 essay The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament.  If this is the case, Lectionary 1276 is not only one of our earliest Greek lectionaries, but I reckon that it is among the 20 oldest Greek manuscripts of any kind which preserve the passages that it contains.

Another piece of Lect 1276,
with the Gospels-text
artificially enhanced.

            The identification of this manuscript as a lectionary is elicited by three features:  first, it has text from Matthew 10 and John 20, and it has the title “Gospel According to Matthew” written above the excerpt from Matthew; in addition, Taylor noted that there appears to be the remains of a sub-title which means “for the fifth day,” which is not unusual in lectionaries preceding readings assigned to Thursdays.

            Since lectionary 1276 is a palimpsest, it is not easy to discern its contents via a simple view of the fragment.  However, if one accesses the online page-views at Cambridge University's digital library, selects “Open with Mirador” from the sub-menu (accessible after pressing the three-bar button), toggles the side panel (again using the three-bar button), rotates the view, and adjusts Contrast to about 140% and Brightness to about 120%, it becomes much easier to perceive the Greek uncial letters through the Hebrew writing.                         

            What kind of text was in this lectionary?  With so little text to work with, it is not easy to make a sure assessment; nevertheless, it appears to be Byzantine, in consideration of the following readings.

The text of Lect 1276,
based on Charles Taylor's
transcription.

            ● In Matthew 10:3, Lect 1276 supports Θαδδαῖος ὁ ἐπικληθεις Λεββαῖος.  This reading is not supported by Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, or Bezae; B and À read Θαδδαῖος and D reads Λεββαῖος.  Metzger asserts that the Alexandrian and Western readings have been combined to produce the longer reading, and Willker concurs, calling the Byzantine reading “an obvious conflation.”   However, a few things weigh against this:  first, no such conflation is in the Byzantine Text in Mark 3:18, where the Alexandrian text names Thaddeus and the Western text names Lebbaeus.  If the Alexandrian reading is nothing but a replacement of Λεββαῖος with Θαδδαῖος, or vice versa, then one of these readings accounts for the other as a simple name-substitution.  But the Western reading is accounted for by the Byzantine reading, if an early copyist’s line of sight skipped from the end of Λεββαῖος to the end of Θαδδαῖος, causing the loss of the phrase “who was surnamed Thaddaeus.”  The support for the Byzantine reading is very broad; it includes Σ L Δ W Θ 157 700, and the Peshitta, and it is quoted, c. 380, in the Apostolic Constitutions (VI:14) and by Chrysostom.  Its presence in Lectionary 1276 adds to the extent of its early attestation.       
            ● In Matthew 10:11, Lect 1276 supports δ’ αν πόλιν η κώμην.  Codex D has a drastically different word-order; f¹ does not include η κώμην, and f¹³ puts η κώμην after εισέλθητε, indicating that Lect 1276’s text is neither Western nor Caesarean.  Yet, it does not strictly agree here with the Alexandrian and Byzantine form of the verse either; as Taylor observed, εισέλθητε is not in the manuscript (although he added it in his reconstruction). 

            ● In Matthew 10:13, Lect 1276 supports the usual reading ἐλθάτω, disagreeing with D which reads εστε, and with S Ω 28 which read εισελθάτω.

            ● In Matthew 10:13, Lect 1276 disagree with D again by including αξια; D replaces η αξια η with γε. 

            ● In Matthew 10:13, Lect 1276 agrees with Β À W, disagreeing with almost all other witnesses, by reading εφ instead of προς. 

            ● In Matthew 10:13, Lect 1276 reads –καμψε– which implies that when pristine, the text read ανακάμψει (as Luke 10:6 reads); Taylor observed that the minuscule 243 shares this reading, diverging from almost all other witnesses which support επιστραφήτω.

            ● In Matthew 10:14, Lect 1276 supports the inclusion of μη δέξηται, disagreeing with B*.

            ● In John 20:11, Lect 1276 supports the spelling ϊστήκει, agreeing with À L A N W Δ, and disagreeing with B D^supp K and most manuscripts, which read ειστήκει.         

            ● In John 20:11, Lect 1276 supports the normal reading προς, disagreeing with À (which reads εν).

            ● In John 20:11, Lect 1276 supports the word-order εξω κλαιουσα, agreeing with B L N W and disagreeing with Π Μ Κ Θ Ψ and most manuscripts.

            ● In John 20:13, Lect 1276 does not support the inclusion of τινα ζητεις which is read by A D 579 1424.

            ● In John 20:13, Lect 1276 does not support τεθείκασιν (read by W) or τεθείκαν (read by D); it has a word that begins with epsilon, probably the normal reading εθηκαν.

            ● In John 20:15, there does not appear to be room for τινα ζητεις; however the manuscript is very difficult to read at this point.

            All in all, while Lect 1276 has only a limited amount of text, and tends to agree with the Alexandrian Text on some small points, and has anomalous readings in Matthew 10:11 and 10:13, it agrees with the Byzantine Text at the major variant-unit in Matthew 10:3.   It does not show any close association with the Western and f¹ forms of the text.

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.

How Early Is the Basic Lection-Cycle?

            For several significant textual variants -- Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and Luke 22:43-44, for example -- solutions have been proposed which involve the idea that the unusual treatment of these passages in early lection-cycles contributed to their loss in part of the transmission-stream.  Some other variants, such as the non-inclusion of John 9:38-39a in some early witnesses -- have also been accounted for as having been elicited by special factors involving the presentation of the passage in a lector's copy.  (A lector was the person entrusted with the task of reading Scripture in early Christian worship-services.)  The usual, almost predictable, answer to such theories has been along the lines that the lectionary did not develop early enough to have such a strong impact on the text of the Gospels.

            However, one would not need a fully developed annual cycle of lections for every day of the year in order to account for a few significant losses.  The annual observances of major feast-days -- Easter-week, Pentecost, Christmas, Ascension-Day, and memorials of the apostles and a few martyrs -- are all that would be necessary.  There is nothing implausible about the idea that regular annual observance of major feast-days was already customary in the mid-100s.

            In 1900, a researcher named Charles Taylor published some finds from the Cairo Genizah (a fascinating subject for its own sake, but that's not our main subject today).  The manuscripts that he published included fragments of a Greek lectionary, containing text from Matthew 10 (and part of the lection's title) and John 20.  The production-date of this manuscript was assigned to the 500s, making it one of the earliest lectionaries (or, fragments from a lectionary, at least) known to exist.

Taylor's lectionary -- lectionary 1276 -- is a palimpsest; that is, it consists of recycled pages.  Someone who needed parchment obtained pages from a Greek lectionary, washed off the lettering, and reused the parchment to write a Hebrew composition.  (Whoever this person was, he also obtained pages from a copy of Acts and First Peter -- other pages of the Hebrew composition are palimpsests with text from those books underneath the Hebrew lettering; those pages constitute the uncial manuscript 093, which Taylor also published.)  Centuries later, part of the Greek lettering, which was not entirely washed away, remains legible.  

This picture of the fragments of Lectionary 1276 is based on the plates in Charles Taylor's book, Cairo Genizah Palimpsests.  The presentation of these fragments begins on page 89 (digital page-number 104).