Tag Archives: Textual Criticism

On the Ending(s) of the Gospel of Mark

d38a6db3-bd4e-4462-b587-5e0764af14dd-mark-16

In the Sunday School class that I am a part of, we have recently been studying the history and meaning of the cross, and as a part of that study, I suggested that while the historical specifics and the theological significance of the cross are important, to truly understand the cross, we must understand it narratively as the climax of the Passion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This led the class’s facilitator to ask me to walk us through the Passion narrative, an invitation that I was more than willing to accept, and so, for more than two months, we followed in the steps of Jesus as He made his way toward the cross. And we did this by focusing specifically on Mark’s version of these events, which is recorded in chapters 11-16 of his Gospel.

It has been said that Mark’s Gospel is simply a “passion narrative with an extended introduction.” And whether that is an accurate description or not, Mark does allocate a disproportionate amount of space to the final week of Jesus’ life as compared with the first three plus years of His public ministry or, even, the thirty-some years that Jesus had lived beforehand. To be specific, Mark dedicates six entire chapters of his Gospel, some 38% if you are doing the math, to the events leading up and following Jesus’ death on the cross. Obviously, he thought that these events were of supreme significance. And so, typical of Mark’s style, these final six chapters tell the story of Jesus’ passion with such action and drama as to constantly leave the reader on the edge of their seat waiting to see what might happen next.

However, all throughout this study of Jesus’ passion week, I found myself feeling somewhat more afraid with every step we took as we moved closer and closer to the ending of Mark’s Gospel. You see, I already knew that there is a text critical question regarding Mark’s Ending, but the vast majority of the members of the class, being King James faithful, were very likely unaware of this issue. I was terrified of how they might react when I explained that Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20, as they appear in their Bibles, are most likely secondary in nature. Well, I am glad to report that my brothers and sisters in Christ were more than gracious in accepting my explanation of the issue, which, as I had presumed, most of them had never been exposed to. But, the vast ignorance of this issue among so many Christians, especially down here in the Bible Belt, breaks my heart, so in the space that follows I would like to give a brief overview of the issues related to Mark’s ending(s).

The fact of the matter is that there are actually four endings to the Gospel of Mark which are extant in the manuscript tradition. They are as follows:

  1. No ending, as is indicated in most modern translations, the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, particularly B and א, end the text of the second Gospel at verse 8.
  2. The Short Ending, immediately following 16:8, “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
  3. The Long ending (otherwise known as 16:9-20), which is included in all Bible translations that are available today, though usually with brackets, footnotes, and/or other indicators of its questionable authenticity.
  4. The Expanded ending, which expands the Long ending after verse 14, saying, “This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ – thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.”

Now, I am not here to argue the merits for or against any particular one of these four endings, but suffice it to say that the overwhelming consensus of New Testament textual scholarship has concluded that all of the endings that we have (numbers 2-4 above) are inherently secondary, and that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the Gospel of Mark as we know it ends at 16:8. Based on both external and internal evidence considerations, this much seems reasonably certain.

However, what is important is not one’s conclusion regarding the original ending of the Gospel of Mark, but what conclusions should be drawn in light of the textual question. First, we must maintain our belief in the fundamental trustworthiness and historical reliability of the Bible in general, and of the Gospel accounts in particular. Just because the last twelve verses of the second Gospel as we know it are in question, this does not mean that the rest of the Gospel of Mark, or the other three Gospels for that matter, are inherently false. In fact, all of the events in the so-called Long Ending are attested in the other accounts, especially in Luke and Acts. Further, we must remember that we do not build theological conclusions based on the testimony of one verse in isolation. As important as scriptural citations are in establishing the Biblical basis for our theological conclusions, individual verses must be understood within the context of the whole of Holy Scripture.

Second, this does not mean that translations of the Bible which lack any indication of the textual issue, e.g. some editions of the King James Version, are fundamentally in error, or that the are trying to lead people astray. The history of the Bible in English is long and complex, and conclusions that are based on the presence and/or omission of this particular issue, or others like it, are simplistic and reductionistic. To the extent that any English translation of the Bible faithfully reflects the original text of the autographs, then it can be read with great spiritual benefit. As Jesus promised, the Spirit will lead us into all truth through His Holy Word. Ultimately, He is the one who inspired the original  biblical authors, He is the one who has providentially preserved the text, and He is the one who gives understanding of its truths and applies them to our hearts to make us more like Christ.

 

 


On Modern Translations of the Bible and Missing Verses

bible_greek

One of the primary complaints that is most often levied against modern translations of the Bible into English by the King James Version faithful is that modern translations of the Bible omit some verses. Of course, it is typically the New International Version (NIV) that bears the brunt of these critiques, but the truth is that all modern translations omit some verses that are otherwise included in the Authorized Version (AV/KJV). Surprisingly, that point is actually not up for debate. There are verses that are found in the King James Version of the Bible that are generally not found in modern translations. There are other verses where the text is shortened as compared with their KJV counterparts, and there are still others where words and phrases are modified. The question, then, is not whether there are differences in modern translations as compared with the KJV; rather, the more important question is why there are differences.

And we cannot get too far into the consideration of this question without running headlong in the discipline of textual criticism. However, the problem is that most of the people who sit in the pews week in and week out have very little, or even no, understanding of this important discipline; they have no conception of how the text of Holy Scripture was transmitted from the pen of the original authors to the Bibles that we hold in our hands today. And whether it is due to the negative connotations associated with the word “criticism” or other presuppositions about the way that modern translations came to be, this crucial science is usually met with skepticism, fear, and denial. And this simply should not be.

Simply defined, textual criticism is “the process of attempting to ascertain the original wording of a text.” In other words, the Biblical authors of Holy Scripture were the ones who were inspired by God; therefore, it is their words that are the words of God. The challenge, though, for modern translators is that none of the documents that they produced actually exist. These original documents, called the autographs, have passed into the dust of history. Nevertheless, what we do have are copies of those autographs that have been passed down through time, called manuscripts. Of course, before the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century CE, these copies had to be made manually by the hands of scribes.

Yet, what is perhaps rather obvious but is sometimes forgotten is that these scribal copyists were humans, and as humans, they sometimes made mistakes in the duplication process. Whether in spelling or word order, whether by omission of words, phrases, and verses or by the addition of words, phrases, and verses, the reality is that no inerrant copy of scripture exists. So, when manuscripts from different places and from different times in the history of the church are compared, the truth is that there are incongruities and discrepancies in the manuscript tradition; no one manuscript agrees with every other manuscript in every instance. But this is where the role of textual criticism comes into the discussion. It is the textual critics role to compare these manuscripts with each other, along with evidence from patristic citations and other ancient versions, in an effort to reconstruct the original inspired wording of the Biblical authors.

And the result of this very tedious and time consuming endeavor is referred to as a critical edition. A critical edition represents what textual scholars, after much analysis and research, believe to be the earliest form of the text, the closest reproduction of the autographs, the most accurate reconstruction of the actual words of the inspired biblical authors. This critical edition, then, is used as the basis for translations into other languages like English. Of course, bible translators don’t just take the critical edition at its face value. Where a textual discrepancy makes significant difference in translation, I am sure they analyze the evidence for themselves, but, for the most part, the latest critical edition, usually Nestle/Aland or UBS, is what is translated into English in our modern translations.

Now, going back to the original question regarding omitted and modified verses in modern versions of the Bible as compared to the KJV, the reality is that the KJV, first published in 1611, is not based on the best and most reliable manuscripts that are available today. Of course, for its time, it was the epitome of textual scholarship and translation, but since then, many additional discoveries of biblical manuscripts have been made around the world that are both older and more reliable. Therefore, when there is a difference in the modern translations, rather than jumping to the conclusion that bad people are trying to change the Bible, we must entertain the possibility that they are simply translating a more accurate version of the text.

In the final analysis, the simple fact of the matter is that textual issues cannot simply be ignored in the teaching ministry of the local church. The sheer proliferation of footnotes, asteri, and other such indications in the vast majority of modern translations begs the question as to their meaning and significance. So, whether it is in small group bible studies, e.g. Sunday School, women’s groups, men’s groups, etc., or in the large group preaching/teaching setting, eventually this issue will demand our attention, and both pastors/teachers and members must be willing to have an open and honest discussion about these things.

For further study:
Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.


Slow To Write

"let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."

lovegavehope

Just another WordPress.com site

Jared Cornutt

Pastor | Speaker | Writer

Denny Burk

A commentary on theology, politics, and culture

G3 Ministries

Events + Resources for the Local Church

Biblical Reasoning

Biblical and Systematic Theology According to the Scriptures

RetroChristianity

Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith

SBC Voices

Southern Baptist News & Opinion

Lucid Theology

Thoughts on words, books, theology, and life.

Baptist21

A pastor-led voice for Baptists in the 21st century

Center For Baptist Renewal

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Pastor's Well - Pastor Well

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

Articles - AlbertMohler.com

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Gospel Coalition

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers