New Testament

The Jefferson Bible and the Faith of an American Founder

Thomas Jefferson’s cut-and-paste version of the Gospels reveals important facets of the famous founder’s faith and the Bible’s role in American history.

The “Jefferson Bible” is arguably the most controversial religious text in American history. Perhaps the other most obvious contender is Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon. But while the Book of Mormon has become one of the most printed and widely distributed books in world history, Thomas Jefferson never published his Bible in his lifetime. Indeed, the Jefferson Bible never got published at all during the 1800s, despite publishers’ offers to do so. Congress finally produced an edition of it in 1904, after the Smithsonian obtained the compilation from a Jefferson descendant. In 2011, the National Museum of American History restored the fragile text, allowing for its long-term preservation and the production of a new, beautiful facsimile edition.

The Origins of Jefferson’s Bible

What we call the Jefferson Bible is Jefferson’s cut-and-paste edition of extracts from the Gospels. Partisans cannot agree what Jefferson’s intentions for the Bible were, however. Secular devotees of Jefferson see the Jefferson Bible as the epitome of his skeptical religious views. Some Christian admirers of Jefferson have argued, conversely, that the text reveals Jefferson as a Christian, albeit an enigmatic one. Such Christians say that the text was actually a simplified version of the Gospels, one intended for education or evangelism of people unfamiliar with the Bible, especially the “Indians.”

The four-columned, cut-and-paste Jefferson Bible after recent preservation work. Image credit

The “Indians” were explicitly named as the audience for the first version of the Jefferson Bible, which the president produced in 1804. Unfortunately, the text of that first edition was lost, but the title page survived. He called this “wee little book” The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth … Being an abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians. Scholars have debated whether “Indians” literally referred to Native Americans, or perhaps to Jefferson’s Christian enemies in the Federalist Party, who reviled him as a heretic and closet atheist. Whatever Jefferson meant, he explained later to John Adams that he composed the first Bible for his “own use.” Like the second edition, the first apparently contained a distillation of Jesus’ moral and ethical teachings. Unlike the second version, however, the first run at his Gospels compilation was only in English. The second was a polyglot edition, with side-by-side passages in English, French, Greek, and Latin.

The fact that Jefferson was capable of compiling the Gospels in four languages testifies to the man’s enormous intellectual accomplishments.

The fact that Jefferson was capable of compiling the Gospels in four languages testifies to the man’s enormous intellectual accomplishments, including in his studies of the Bible and biblical languages. Jefferson seems to have read the Bible regularly, including the Greek New Testament, and the Septuagint, or the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Other prominent founders, including James Madison and John Adams, could also read Hebrew, but Jefferson never learned that biblical language. Indeed, Jefferson got irritated at Adams for suggesting that a truly educated man needed to be able to read both the Old and New Testaments in the original languages. In any case, Jefferson’s deep perusal of the Scriptures and his large collection of Bibles (some of which he dismantled to use in the compilations) could easily give a Christian observer the idea that the man was a devout Christian.

Diamonds in a Dunghill

Over his life, Jefferson did develop increasing reverence for Jesus’ ethical teachings. A close look at the Jefferson Bible reveals that it was a fundamentally skeptical project, however, when viewed from a traditional Christian perspective. Most notoriously, Jefferson literally used scissors to cut out sections of the Gospels that he pasted into his compilation. Thus, it was not so much that Jefferson cut out miracles in the Gospels, but that he left them behind, as tattered remnants in the New Testaments he mined for Jesus’ ethical principles. Why would Jefferson do this? Because, as an early advocate of what became known as “higher criticism” of the Bible, Jefferson regarded much of the New Testament as mythology. The stories of Jesus’ wonder-working powers were largely crafted and imposed on the man by misguided followers after his death. Jefferson saw Jesus’ ethics as the philosophical treasure of the Bible. But getting at that treasure was like picking out “diamonds in a dunghill,” he wrote. Jesus’ morals were the diamonds; the rest of the Bible was a veritable dunghill.

One of two English source copies used by Jefferson to make his Bible. Image source

Jefferson called the second volume, which he completed in 1820, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” The 84-page book focused primarily on Jesus’ teachings, parables, and some episodes from his life and ministry. It is tempting to characterize the Jefferson Bible as the Gospels without miracles. Most notably, Jefferson’s Gospel narrative ends with Jesus’ burial, and includes no resurrection. To traditional Christians of any denomination, it would be impossible to accept a version of the Gospels that does not include the empty tomb. Christians therefore should be hesitant to go along with some evangelical popularizers’ efforts to cast the Jefferson Bible as being within the bounds of historic orthodoxy.

Neither is the Jefferson Bible as naturalistic as some secular observers would suggest, however. There are miracles in the Jefferson Bible, or at least references to supernatural events. There are also suggestions that Jesus operated under divine inspiration. Jefferson’s Jesus has foreknowledge of the future, and the Jefferson Bible includes references to hell, the end times, the Second Coming, and the general resurrection of mankind. So Jefferson was not as rigorous about excising all supernatural content from the Gospels as a casual observer might assume. Why Jefferson left such supernatural references in the compilation is uncertain. He never exactly explained his rationale for what got included, and what got cut.

Principles of Production

The beginning pages of the Jefferson Bible suggest how he proceeded, however. Jefferson skipped over the account of the angel Gabriel’s appearance to Mary in Luke 1, and went straight to Luke 2:1: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.” Jefferson included historical material about Jesus’ life, but he tended not to include passages where supernatural beings or miracles were driving the narrative. Thus, he stopped at Luke 2:7, with the baby Jesus being laid in a manger, and skipped the angels appearing to the shepherds and declaring “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” He picked up again at Luke 2:21a, Jesus’ circumcision, but he excised the note in 2:21b that the child was called Jesus, “so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.”

But Jefferson didn’t always follow his angel’s rule, either. He included Jesus’ remarkable prediction in Matthew 13:41–42 that “the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Here we have references both to angels and to a fiery judgment in hell. This is exactly the sort of stuff you would think Jefferson wouldn’t put in his Bible. But this passage apparently “made the cut” (pun intended) because it was part of Jesus’ interpretation of a parable. Jefferson liked the parables, so he sometimes included supernatural references if they were part of those teachings. Jefferson perhaps did not obsess over the exclusion of supernatural happenings as much as we might expect. The biblical text is obviously interwoven with miraculous claims and accounts, so he may not have found it easy to be entirely naturalistic in his selections.

Whatever his rationale for the selections, Jefferson was an early example of a long tradition in elite studies of the Bible: judging Scripture’s authenticity by one’s own standards of reason. Most of the secular and liberal academic study of the Scriptures assumes that the Bible contains some content that was added by later authors or transcribers. Some of the Bible’s contents could be historically reliable, such critics reckon, but other parts were tacked on for ideological or polemical purposes or to enhance Jesus’ messianic claims. To discover the “historical Jesus,” one must dispense with the accretions and identify the more “authentic” content. This type of higher critical approach reached its apex in the oft-lampooned “Jesus Seminar” of the 1980s and ’90s. This meeting of prestigious higher critical scholars famously voted on the authenticity of Gospel passages by using colored beads to indicate their confidence in the authenticity of individual verses.

A Sect unto Himself

The problem with such approaches is that the Jesus who emerges after the requisite excisions tends to look like the critic’s “Personal Jesus,” as a 1989 Depeche Mode song put it. If you want a hippie Jesus, you get one. If you want a non-divine Jesus (as Jefferson wished), you get one. Once you assume that parts of Scripture are erroneous, unreliable, or ahistorical, your decisions about what should “stay in” tend to become fatally subjective.

Once you assume that parts of Scripture are erroneous, unreliable, or ahistorical, your decisions about what should “stay in” tend to become fatally subjective.

Of course, even biblical inerrantists are tempted to emphasize certain parts of Scripture over others. But while lots of people have implicitly cut out sections of Scripture they don’t like, Jefferson literally did so. Doing this could not produce anything but a radically individualized, cut-and-paste version of Christianity. Jefferson admitted as much in 1819, while he was beginning to compose the Jefferson Bible. He told a correspondent that year “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.” To Jefferson, being a sect by yourself was a good thing. But such radical individual judgment of the text certainly doesn’t foster confidence in the Bible’s plenary inspiration. No matter how you “cut it,” there’s no doubt that the Jefferson Bible was an attack on the reliability of Scripture.

A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark

An argument that Mark 16:9–20 is not original and so not inspired Scripture

Peter M. Head

This is the second article on Mark’s ending. It responds to an argument for the authenticity of Mark 16:9–20.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to James Snapp’s article. He argued that we should regard Mark 16:9–20 as the ending of Mark’s Gospel. I will be arguing instead that we should regard Mark 16:8 as the ending of Mark’s Gospel.

For clarity I simply note that I will use the term Longer Ending for Mark 16:9–20, and the term Shorter Ending for the sentences which were never given verse numbers, but which follow on from “for they were afraid” (v. 8) in some manuscripts with the words: “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 imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”¹ I will argue that neither the Shorter Ending nor the Longer Ending were the initial ending of Mark’s Gospel, but that we should regard Mark 16:8 as the original ending of Mark’s Gospel.

What Counts as Evidence

Before we get into the evidence, we should note that one of the issues in this debate concerns what actually counts as evidence, especially what counts as evidence against the Longer Ending. It is reasonably clear what counts as evidence for the Longer Ending, or at least evidence that the Longer Ending was known and used as the ending of Mark’s Gospel—manuscripts (in Greek and other languages) in which Mark’s Gospel ends with 16:20 are the clearest evidence, as well as Church Fathers who clearly quote from portions of the Longer Ending.

But it is not as clear what will count as evidence against the Longer Ending. Church Fathers who don’t quote from any passage in the Longer Ending (like Origen or Clement of Alexandria, just for the sake of argument), are not providing us with evidence that their copy (or copies) of Mark ended at 16:8. It is not even an argument from silence, it is an argument from absence. But this doesn’t really seem like solid evidence at all. Of course, it would be relevant if a Church Father preached through Mark and his sermons finished with 16:8; but of course, sermon series and commentaries on Mark are pretty much completely absent from the patristic period.

So, what counts as evidence against the Longer Ending then? Only manuscripts (in Greek or other languages) which end Mark’s Gospel at Mark 16:8, manuscripts which preserve evidence for earlier manuscripts which lacked the Longer Ending, and Church Fathers explicitly discussing the ending of Mark. At least that narrows our discussion somewhat.

Points of Agreement

James Snapp’s argument for the Longer Ending reflects his long-standing commitment to the investigation of this problem, as well as his learned impatience with inaccurate generalizations about the status of the manuscript and patristic evidence in some commentaries and English translations.

But it also reflects a particular approach to which bits of evidence are actually decisive in this discussion. At various points I will obviously disagree with his judgment on that point—otherwise the conveners would not have asked me to write on this topic! But before I disagree, I want to begin with a whole series of his points with which I am in substantial agreement.

Irenaeus provides indisputable evidence for the Longer Ending in the 2nd century. Source

The vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts of Mark (copied between the fifth and the fifteenth centuries) contain the Longer Ending of Mark. I agree that over 99 percent of all manuscripts of Mark in this period contain the Longer Ending though I also think that Snapp doesn’t always acknowledge the slim strand of evidence showing that this ending was also disputed.²
The two earliest complete manuscripts of Mark in Greek (copied in the fourth century) do not contain the Longer Ending of Mark and clearly end their text at Mark 16:8. For me this is important evidence, so we will have to discuss this further.
Data drawn from many ecclesiastical writers from the third, fourth, and fifth centuries offer evidence that they were familiar with the Longer Ending. Irenaeus in particular is an important late second-century witness to the Longer Ending as the ending of Mark’s Gospel.³ I will, however, offer some mild disagreements from Snapp’s view of the second-century evidence.
The contents, vocabulary, and “awkward fit” of the Longer Ending in relation to Mark 16:1–8 suggests that this was not the authorial ending to Mark’s Gospel. This is a very important admission from Snapp, which I will take further below.
The Shorter Ending (found with the Longer Ending in an interesting range of witnesses) only makes sense as an addition to a text of Mark that ended at 16:8.
I also agree, for what it is worth, that dots, asterisks, and obeli placed alongside the Longer Ending in some manuscripts are not obviously self-interpreting and scholars should be more careful in their treatments of such things. (Against Snapp the same must be said for manuscript decorations and blank spaces—which Snapp treats as if they are significant when it helps his overall argument.)

So, on these six points I am in substantial agreement.

Of course, in part, this agreement highlights the problem of the Longer Ending: it was absent from the earliest manuscripts, it doesn’t fit when it does appear in the later manuscripts, and it has unusual stylistic features; but it was widely adopted as the ending of Mark, is quoted regularly in ecclesiastical writers, and became the almost universal ending of Mark in later manuscripts. This is the textual problem—a combination of external and internal evidence—that scholars are trying to investigate, explore, and ultimately explain and resolve.

Differences of Judgment

Within a discussion taking in many different manuscripts, versions, church fathers, and such there is ample room for differences of judgment. We may distinguish between disagreements which are fundamental and those which are more marginal.

For example, I am not as confident about finding evidence for the Longer Ending of Mark, as part of Mark, within the second-century witnesses such as Justin, Tatian’s Diatessaron, and the Epistula Apostolorum, and perhaps a little more confident that the Gospel of Peter should be considered as a witness to the ending of Mark at 16:8.⁴ These are not, however, crucial differences, just areas where scholars have often come to different judgments on questions where the evidence is inconclusive. Take, as one example of these, the question as to whether Justin Martyr, an important mid-second-century Christian leader in Rome, knows the Longer Ending of Mark.

It is difficult to agree on a method for determining when and where second-century Christian writers show knowledge of particular New Testament texts. We can perhaps agree on a statement of the facts of the matter: Justin Martyr, on one occasion in his First Apology 45 (as cited by Snapp) used three words—relatively quite common terminology, about the apostolic mission—that are also found in Mark 16:20, not in the order they are found in Mark, in a vaguely similar context, but without other strong connections with the context in Mark.

So I disagree with Snapp’s confidence in seeing this as proof that Justin knew the Longer Ending of Mark. At best I would rate this as “possible.” But it is also possible that the three-word quasi-agreement is coincidental (I suppose a common source could not be excluded). Thus, I remain more at home with Westcott and Hort on this: “the evidence is slight.”

It would be similarly possible to come to more cautious conclusions about Tatian’s Diatessaron—where the task of reconstructing Tatian’s work is obviously complex and the problem can be posed simply by noting that Snapp’s evidence for this second-century harmony actually comes from a sixth-century Latin manuscript and a fourth-century Syriac commentary.⁵ But differences in these matters (or in relation to the Epistula Apostolorum) are not particularly decisive; they are disagreements in judgment.

More Substantial Disagreements

There are four areas, however, requiring more significant discussion.

1. Internal Evidence

In relation to the style and content of the Longer Ending, I agree with Snapp that the following features of the Longer Ending provide “compelling evidence” that this is not Mark’s originally intended ending. I shall note Snapp’s evidence and then explain:

The reintroduction of Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene has already appeared three times in the latter sections of Mark: at the cross (15:40), at the tomb seeing where Jesus’ body was placed (15:47), and coming to the now empty tomb on Sunday morning (16:1). Because of this, it is incongruous to introduce her in 16:9 as “the one from whom seven demons had been expelled” (a phrase that comes from Luke’s introduction of her in Luke 8:2)
The restating of the day and time. Mark 16:2 states in emphatic manner that the women came to the tomb “very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen,” while 16:9 states the time of Jesus’ resurrection as “early on the first day of the week” in a way that is both unnecessarily repetitive and also in different wording to what was used in 16:2.
The lack of any meeting in Galilee predicted in Mark 14:28 and 16:7. This is a major problem with the Longer Ending of Mark—it doesn’t deliver what both Jesus and the angel promised would take place!

But I think the internal issues go further than this in the case of both style and content. In relation to style, given that twelve verses are a small sample, two features suggest a different author: the frequent use of the pronoun “that” or “those” (ἐκεῖνος) referring to people (v. 10: ἐκείνη; v. 11: κἀκεῖνοι; v. 13: κἀκεῖνοι, ἐκείνοις; v. 20: ἐκεῖνοι), and the general shift in connectives away from a simple “and” kai (καί) to the post-positive “but” de (δέ; vv. 9, 12, 14, 17, 20 [in a μέν … δέ construction])—Mark generally uses de to signal a change of subject, but in 16:9–20 it becomes the default connective.

In relation to content there is a significant issue that the Longer Ending draws upon parallel material in the other Gospels.

In relation to content there is a significant issue that the Longer Ending draws upon parallel material in the other Gospels.⁶ The individual appearance to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9–11) parallels John 20:14–18; the appearance to two people walking in the country (Mark 16:12–13) parallels the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13–35; the appearance to the eleven while reclining (Mark 16:14) parallels Luke 24:36–43; the commissioning (Mark 16:15) parallels Matthew 28:19–20; and the mention of the ascension (Mark 16:19) parallels Luke 24:50–51. This synthesizing feature of the content of the Longer Ending has long been recognized as reflecting a different relationship to the other Gospels than is reflected within Mark’s Gospel.⁷

2. Church Fathers

I’m not persuaded that Snapp does justice to all the patristic evidence in favor of ending the Gospel at Mark 16:8, including the important evidence of Eusebius (and Jerome). It seems clear to me that in his letter to Marinus, in discussing the problem of harmonizing Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9, Eusebius not only quotes from the perspective of the person who would regard the Longer Ending as spurious—where he reports that “the accurate copies” end at 16:8—but that he himself also affirms that this was the ending of Mark “in nearly all the copies” (to Marinus 1).⁸ Eusebius does also attempt a harmonization, for the sake of argument, assuming that the Longer Ending was part of the text of Mark, but Eusebius is offering a complex double sort of approach here.⁹ What is also clear is that, in the construction of his influential Canon Tables, Eusebius did not include the Longer Ending of Mark.¹⁰

A page of Eusebius’s canon tables in Walters Manuscript W.538, fol. 8v (12th c.). Public domain

To this we could add the testimonies of Hesychius of Jerusalem (5th c.), who notes that Mark’s Gospel ends after the appearance of the angel to the women, and Severus of Antioch (465–538), who echoes Eusebius’s comment that “in the more accurate copies the Gospel according to Mark ends at the [passage] ‘for they were afraid.’”¹¹ The comments of Eusebius (who travelled widely but was especially associated with Caesarea) and Jerome (mostly associated with Rome), show that awareness of the manuscript support for ending the Gospel at Mark 16:8 was present in intellectual and major ecclesiastical centers of the fourth and fifth centuries.

3. External Evidence

The straightforward evidence of the two great fourth-century codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is unduly minimized by Snapp. These are our earliest complete Greek manuscripts of Mark, and they both end the Gospel quite clearly at Mark 16:8. In Codex Sinaiticus the text ends at Mark 16:8 with a decoration and an end-title (“Gospel according to Mark”). In Codex Vaticanus the text ends at 16:8 with a decoration and an end-title (“according to Mark”), followed by an empty column.

This essentially quite straightforward evidence is subjected to some obfuscation by Snapp on the basis of his interpretation of the decorations of Codex Sinaiticus and the unusual empty column in Vaticanus. It is well known that the end of Mark in Sinaiticus (from Mark 14:54) and the beginning of Luke (up to Luke 1:56) are written on a replacement sheet by scribe D. (This is one of three such replacement sheets within the New Testament.) Investigations of the possible problem corrected by Scribe D (who appears to be the senior scribe, regularly correcting the work of Scribe A, and copying very carefully) have pointed to the likelihood of problems in the text of Luke. As Dirk Jongkind states, supporting prior scholarship: “the so-called longer ending of Mark could never have fit on this sheet.”¹²

In addition, it is not only the earliest Greek manuscripts which end at Mark 16:8. There is good evidence that the earliest form of the Gospel of Mark, as translated into Latin, Syriac, Sahidic Coptic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Armenian, and Georgian, all consisted of the text of Mark ending at 16:8. This is further very significant confirmation of the testimony of Eusebius as to the state of the text of Mark in the manuscripts of the fourth century. Here is a brief listing of the relevant evidence.¹³

The ending of Mark in Codex Bobiensis, the earliest Latin manuscript of Mark. Source

The oldest Old Latin manuscript (VL 1 = Codex Bobiensis, from the fourth or fifth century) concludes at Mark 16:8 with a version of the Shorter Ending and lacks 16:9–20
The oldest Syriac manuscript (the Sinaitic Syriac, from the fourth century) ends at 16:8
The oldest Sahidic manuscript (sa 1 = P. Palau-Ribes Inv. Nr. 182, from the fifth century) ends at 16:8
The earliest evidence we have for the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version of Mark (Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus in St Petersburg, Syr. No. 16) ends at 16:8
The oldest Armenian manuscripts (going back to the ninth century) end at 16:8
The oldest Georgian manuscripts (translated from the Armenian) end at 16:8

In each of these language groups, later witnesses include the Longer Ending, but that does not detract from the force of this observation. The general direction of travel in the manuscript evidence as we have it for Greek, Sahidic, Latin, Syriac, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Armenian, and Georgian, moves from an original, shorter Mark towards incorporating a version of Mark with the Longer Ending.

In other words, the Greek manuscript evidence, and the evidence within these six linguistic areas, works in the opposite direction to that proposed by James Snapp (and others). In short, it is not evidence that an original long form of Mark was subsequently edited down, but is in fact evidence for the opposite: the earliest form of Mark known in these areas ended at Mark 16:8, and this was subsequently supplemented with one or more of the available additional endings.

4. Method

Finally, in terms of method, it is a general principle within New Testament textual criticism to work on the principle that the reading which explains the other readings is to be preferred. Snapp attempts to explain the ending at Mark 16:8 as an editorial emendation by “overly meticulous scribes,” that is, as a deletion of material within their exemplars.

But evidence for this sort of speculative conjecture is lacking. A stronger argument is that an ending at Mark 16:8 explains the origin of the other readings. It is an unusual and abrupt ending, which gave rise to a natural desire for a clearer ending, and this is evident in both the Shorter and the Longer endings to Mark. This is the tendency of the textual tradition as already noted.

The Significance of the Longer Ending

This argument is obviously my own, but broadly speaking this is the sort of argument which stands behind the views of many textual critics over the past two centuries (e.g., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott & Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Parker), it explains the decision to print a primary text ending at Mark 16:8 in the contemporary critical editions of the Greek New Testament (N1–NA28, UBS1–5, THGNT, SBL, ECM), and it is the viewpoint reflected in practically all the recent scholarly commentaries on Mark (e.g., Yarbro Collins, Hooker, France, Gundry, Pesch, Gnilka). If this judgment is correct, one final but important question remains: what should we do with the Longer Ending?

One final but important question remains: what should we do with the Longer Ending?

To be honest, I hesitate at precisely this point (and I appreciate that I am channeling Eusebius here). Some days I want to argue, with the full courage of my textual convictions, for simply printing the text of Mark up to Mark 16:8 and then closing (with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). Positively, this would be a clear expression of the conclusions drawn from internal and external evidence. It would expose readers to the surprising nature of the original Markan ending. And the Longer Ending could take its rightful place, not among the words of the inspired authors of Scripture, but among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Christian writings from the generations after the apostolic period.

But on other days, I think of the 99 percent of Greek manuscripts which contain the Longer Ending, I consider the breadth and depth of Christian reception of the Longer Ending in the Church Fathers from the time of Irenaeus, and its ubiquitous presence in primary historical vernacular translations of the New Testament. On these days I think of it as inhabiting a quasi-canonical space, somewhat similar to the place of the Apocrypha in the Anglican tradition: not inspired Scripture, not for deciding on doctrine, but interesting, useful, and even edifying to read and ponder.

Notes

1
The Editio Critica Maior (ECM) identifies the Shorter Ending as Mark 16:8/38–104. In this system of reference every word in the text is assigned an even number, and each space between words is assigned an odd number. It is a little cumbersome, but it is made for precision! The ECM for Mark has recently been published and I shall refer to it in some of the following notes. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior. I.2 Das Markusevangelium (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2021; in three parts).
2
We also note that the most recent research on 304 affirms that it does provide solid evidence for a later manuscript ending Mark at 16:8: Mina Monier, “GA 304, Theophylact’s Commentary and the Ending of Mark,” Filología Neotestamentaria 52 (2019), 94–106.
3
This is not disputed, cf. J. A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT 2.112; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2000), 169–170.
4
On these, see now N. Kiel, “Die frühen Kirchenväter als Zeugen des kurzen and langen Markusschlusses” in Editio Critica Maior. Das Markusevangelium. Teil 3. Studien, 105–132. Kelhoffer is more positive about both Justin and Tatian in Miracle and Mission, 170–175.
5
Within this Syriac commentary, the only evidence for the Longer Ending of Mark comes in the form of Jesus’ commission: “Go forth into the whole world, and baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit.” This admittedly, does seem like a conflation of Mark 16:15 and Matt 28:19. But that is the only direct evidence. Quoted from C. McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes (JSSS 2; Oxford: OUP, 1993), 289.
6
See Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission, 123–150, for an overview see the charts on pp. 138–139. He concludes: “The numerous allusions to Matthew, Luke and John—especially to the ends of these writings—demonstrate that the author of the LE [Longer Ending] wrote with knowledge of copies of these writings” (p. 150). Cf. also C.B. Amphoux, “La finale longue de Marc: un epilogue des quatre évangiles” in C. Focant (ed.), The Synoptic Gospels, Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism (BETL 110; Leuven: Peeters & LUP, 1993), 548–55.
7
For a survey of the history of scholarship see S. L. Cox, A History and Critique of Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings (Lewiston: Mellen, 1993); Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission, 5–46.
8
See R. Pearse (ed), Eusebius of Caesarea, Gospel Problems and Solutions Quastiones ad Stephanum et Marinum (CPG 3470) (Ipswich: Chieftain, 2010), 96, 97. See also J.A. Kelhoffer, “The Witness of Eusebius’ ad Marinum and Other Christian Writings to Text-Critical Debates concerning the Original Conclusion to Mark’s Gospel,” ZNW 92 (2001), 78–112. Jerome’s later comment to the effect that the Long Ending “appears scarcely in [copies of] the Gospel, while almost all books in Greek do not have this pericope at the end, especially since it seems to narrate things different and contrary to certain evangelists” (Ep. CXX.3, ad Hedybiam; AD 406–407) does bear some relationship with Eusebius’ discussion (translation from Kelhoffer, “Witness,” 99).
9
C. J. J. Coombs, A Dual Reception: Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016).
10
See M. R. Crawford, The Eusebian Canon Tables: Ordering Textual Knowledge in Late Antiquity (OECS; Oxford: OUP, 2019), 182.
11
Both are cited in the ECM apparatus. Texts and discussion in Kelhoffer, “Witness,” 101–104 (citation from p. 103).
12
D. Jongkind, Scribal Habits in Codex Sinaiticus (T&S III.5; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2007), 39–57 for general discussion, citation from p. 45; cf. H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938), 9–11. For more on Scribe D, see P. M. Head, “Some Observations on Various Features of Scribe D in the New Testament of Codex Sinaiticus” in Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (eds. S. McKendrick, D. C. Parker, A. Myshrall, and C. O’Hogan; London: British Library, 2015), 127–137.
13
Latin: Turin, Bibl. Nat. Univ. 1163. C. Cipolla (ed), Il codice evangelico k della Biblioteca Universitaria Nazionale di Torino (Turin: Molfese, 1913). See especially C. Clivaz, “Mk 16 im Codex Bobbiensis. Neue Materialien zur conclusion brevior des Markusevangeliusms,” ZNT 47 (2021), 59–85 (with reference to earlier scholarship).
Syriac: George A. Kiraz (ed), Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Version (NTTS 41.1–4; Brill: Leiden, 1996), vol. 2, 251–52. Taylor notes, “The general consensus is that this manuscript represents a generally earlier form of the Old Syriac Gospel text than the Curetonian manuscript,” D. G. K. Taylor, “New Developments in the Textual Study of the Old Syriac Gospels” in At One Remove: The Text of the New Testament in Early Translations and Quotations (eds H. A. G. Houghton and P. Montoro; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2020), 1–42, at pp. 11–12.
Sahidic: Edition: H. Quecke, Das Markusevangelium saïdisch: Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 182 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569 (PCS&T 4; Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 1972). This is taken to be the primary witness to the earliest form of the Sahidic translation of Mark by A. Boud’Hors and S. Torallas Tovar, “Towards a Textual History of the Gospel of Mark in Sahidic Coptic. Prolegomena to a New Critical Edition” in Editio Critica Maior, Das Markusevangelium. Teil 3. Studien, 203–220. ECM notes sa 393var—with text from Mark 1:1–2 and 16:8—as another witness to the Sahidic version ending at Mark 16:8, see S. G. Richter and K. D. Schröder, “Zur koptischen Markus-Überlieferung” in Editio Critica Maior, Das Markusevangelium. Teil 3. Studien, 185–202 (at p. 200). For this amulet, containing readings from Matt 1:1 and 28:20; Mark 1:1–2 and 16.8; Luke 1:1 and 24:53; John 1:1 and 21:25 (Freiburg/Schweiz Bible and Orient Museum ÄT 2006.8), see G. Emmenegger, “Ein koptisches Amulett als Beleg für den kurzen Markusschluss,” ZNW 103 (2012), 142–145. For an earlier stage of scholarship see P. E. Kahle, “The End of Mark’s Gospel: The Witness of the Coptic Versions,” JTS 2 (1951), 49–57.
Christian Palestinian Aramaic: C. Müller Kessler & M. Sokoloff, The Christian Palestinian Aramaic New Testament Version from the Early Period: Gospels (CCPA IIA; Groningen: Styx, 1998), 97 (fol. 103/40v); this is designated as CSRP^cin the ECM following C. Müller-Kessler, ‘Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus (CSRG/O/P/S). A Collection of Christian Palestinian Aramaic Manuscripts’ Le Muséon 127 (2014), 263–309.
Armenian: Out of 220 manuscripts studied by Colwell, 99 manuscripts (which are generally earlier manuscripts) end Mark at 16:8, 33 manuscripts add the Long Ending after an end-title for the Gospel of Mark (or other closing signal), while 88 manuscripts (generally later ones) include 16:9–20. He concludes that 16:9–20 were not present in the original Armenian translation. E. C. Colwell, “Mark 16:9–20 in the Armenian Version,” JBL 56 (1937), 369–386. One Armenian manuscript from AD 989 (Echmiadzin Patr. Libr. 229) attributes 16:9–20 to Ariston the elder: Colwell, “Mark 16 9–20 in the Armenian Version,” 373, 383. Cf. F. C. Conybeare, “Aristion, the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark,” The Expositor Fourth Series VIII (1893), 241–254.
Georgian: Blake argued that the Adysh Gospels (dated to AD 897 and representing a translation from perhaps the fifth century) represented the earliest translation into Georgian, with later versions being adapted to Greek texts: R. P. Blake, The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of Markfrom the Adysh Gospels with the Variants of the Opiza and Tbet’ Gospels. Edited with a Latin Translation (Patrologia Orientalis XX.3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1928); cf. also D. M. Lang, “Recent Work on the Georgian New Testament,” BSOAS 19 (1957), 82–93; for general orientation: J. W. Childers, “The Georgian Version of the New Testament” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, 2nd ed. (eds. M. W. Holmes and B. D. Ehrman; NTTSD 42; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 293–327.

A Case for the Longer Ending of Mark

An argument for Mark 16:9–20 as the original, canonical ending, written by Mark but added by his colleagues.

James Snapp Jr.

This is the first of a series on Mark’s ending. The next article offers a case against 16:9–20.

“Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9–20.” That’s how the ESV introduces Mark 16:9–20 in its heading between Mark 16:8 and 16:9. The ESV also features a footnote, stating, “Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9–20 immediately after v. 8,” and “some manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: 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 imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. These manuscripts then continue with verses 9–20.”

Readers might wonder what to do when facing a contest between “Some of the earliest manuscripts,” and “other” manuscripts and “some manuscripts.” Let’s dispense with such vagueness and bring the evidence into focus. At last count, 1,653 Greek manuscripts include Mark 16:9–20. (Some of them are damaged, but show that they had the whole passage when they were pristine). Three Greek manuscripts end the text of Mark at 16:8. Eight Greek manuscripts have the so-called Shorter Ending (given above in italics from the ESV footnote). And all eight proceed to include 16:9 (a few of these eight manuscripts are fragments which, due to damage, do not have all twelve verses).

At last count, 1,653 Greek manuscripts include Mark 16:9–20.

The (Overwhelming) External Evidence

This means that 99.8% of Greek manuscripts include vv. 9–20. They include majuscule and minuscule manuscripts such as Codex Alexandrinus (5th c.), C, D (damaged, the text up to 16:15a survives), G, K, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ρ, Σ, 33, 35, 157, 700, etc. (A more complete list can be viewed here.) Over 1,000 Greek lectionaries—manuscripts in which the text is arranged in segments assigned to days of the ecclesiastical calendar—also include Mark 16:9–20.

The Three That Lack It

The three Greek manuscripts that end the Gospel of Mark at verse 8 are two manuscripts from the fourth century, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and the twelfth-century GA 304. Let’s take a look at these three manuscripts and their anomalous features at the end of Mark.

Manuscript 304 contains the text of Matthew and Mark interspersed with commentary material. It has no closing-title for Mark—only a short poem, the Greek equivalent of, “As travelers rejoice on their homeland to look, thus also the scribe at the end of a book.” Also, the commentary material resembles that of Theophylact, who commented about vv. 9–20. This suggests that 304 may lack vv. 9–20 because its exemplar was damaged.

In Vaticanus, Mark 16:8 ends in the second column of a three-column page. The third column is blank. Vaticanus’s copyist did not leave any other blank columns in the New Testament. In Vaticanus’s Old Testament portion, three blank spaces occur, but each is clearly a side-effect of a factor in the manuscript’s production: (1) a format shift from three columns per page to two columns per page; (2) the convergence of two sections which were written by different scribes; and (3) the end of the Old Testament portion itself.

The author’s reconstruction of Mark 16:9–20 fitting in the blank space of Vaticanus.

As a deliberately placed blank column, the blank column at the end of Mark in Vaticanus is thus unique. This blank space is what could be called a “memorial space,” signifying the scribe’s recollection of material that was not in his exemplar. This is especially likely considering that vv. 9–20 fit snugly into the blank space if one begins writing 16:9–20 after 16:8 in slightly compressed lettering. (The Shorter Ending can also fit, of course, but this would remove the need for a blank column, since it fits into the space after 16:8 in the second column.)

In Sinaiticus, four replacement pages contain Mark 14:54–16:8 and Luke 1:1–56 which are not written by the scribe of the surrounding pages. It was probably made by the manuscript’s supervisor and proof reader (known as a diorthōtēs). Although initially this copyist wrote at a rate of 635 letters per column, in Luke he drastically compressed his lettering at the rate of 690 letters per column. But near the end of Mark, he did the opposite: he expanded his lettering in the first column of the third page. Without taking this step, after accidentally omitting most of Mark 16:1, the diorthōtēs would have reached the end of v. 8 in this column, leaving the next column blank. But, not wanting to do so, he not only expanded his lettering, but also made the decorative design after 16:8 uniquely emphatic.

These features indicate that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were both made by copyists who were aware of additional material after v. 8 and decided not to include it. In Vaticanus, the decision to include those verses or not was left up to the eventual owner of the manuscript. In Sinaiticus, the diorthōtēs allowed no such option.

The Church Fathers

Evidence from the church fathers in favor of Mark 16:9–20 is even earlier than the oldest manuscript evidence. Irenaeus wrote book three of Against Heresies when Eleutherius was bishop of Rome (174–189)—at least a century before Vaticanus was produced. There Irenaeus wrote, “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God” (3.10.5). Irenaeus’s copy of Mark obviously included Mark 16:9–20, since he is quoting here from Mark 16:19.

A marginal note in GA 72 (11th c.) which reads, “Irenaeus, who was near the time of the apostles … cites this from Mark.” The same note is in GA 1582. Photo of BL Harley MS 5647, f. 132v.

Another second-century writer, Justin Martyr (c. 160) also uses Mark 16:20. Justin’s full statement is:

“That which he says, ‘He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem,’ is predictive of the mighty word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. And though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, you can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by fire” (First Apology 45).

Justin uses the words “going forth everywhere preaching” (ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν) which are found in Mark 16:20, albeit in a different order. He also mentions “the word” (cf. Mark 16:20), and he writes about how believers cannot be harmed (a theme found in 16:18). In 1881, the famous textual critic F. J. A. Hort objected to accepting Justin’s support with certainty on the grounds that Mark 16:20 “does not contain the point specially urged by Justin.”¹ But this changed in 1888 after the publication of an Arabic text of Tatian’s Diatessaron—a second century Gospel harmony. J. Rendel Harris observed that this Arabic text showed that the Diatessaron does contain the point specially urged by Justin, and that “Dr. Hort may therefore remove the query [the question mark] from the name of Justin in the tabulated evidence for the twelve verses.”²

This means that three witnesses from the second century—Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tatian—all attest that 16:9–20 was part of Mark’s Gospel. The Diatessaron’s inclusion of these verses is further shown by Codex Fuldensis (546) in Latin and by the use of Mark 16:15 in the commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron by Ephrem Syrus (c. 360).

Another text, known as the Epistula Apostolorum (before 150), provides a fourth witness. Having been published in 1895, it was unknown to Hort. It was thought by the late Robert Stein to reflect its author’s awareness of Mark 16:9–20. Other researchers, including Martin Hengel, have agreed with this assessment.

More External Evidence

In the third and fourth centuries, support for Mark 16:9–20 comes from Hippolytus (235); Vincentius of Thibaris (256); De Rebaptismate (258); the pagan author Hierocles (305) who used 16:18 in a jibe issued at believers; the Syriac writer Aphrahat (337); Acts of Pilate (4th c.); the Latin commentator Fortunatianus (350); Epiphanius (375); Ambrose (385); Apostolic Constitutions (380); Palladius (late 300s); Augustine (430); Greek copies mentioned by Augustine; and the Old Latin chapter summaries (3rd–5th c.). Not to be overlooked: the Freer Logion, an interpolation placed between 16:14 and 16:15 (found only in Codex Washingtonianus, but also mentioned by Jerome). Metzger assigned the Freer Logion to the second or third century.

In the fifth century, Mark 16:9–20 is supported by Macarius Magnes (410); Pelagius, Philostorgius (425); Marius Mercator (430); Marcus Eremita (435); the Armenian translator Eznik of Golb (440); Prosper of Aquitaine (450); Nestorius, as cited by Cyril of Alexandria (440); Peter Chrysologus (440); Leo the Great; and Saint Patrick (ca. 450). In addition, Mark 16:9–20 is in the Syriac Peshitta, the Curetonian Syriac (fragmented; it has 16:17–20), and the Vulgate, which Jerome stated he prepared by consulting ancient Greek copies (in 383). The Gothic version (mid-4th c.), preserved in Codex Argenteus (from the 6th c.), also includes Mark 16:9–20 (including verses 12–20, thanks to Franz Haffner’s discovery of its final page in 1970 in Speyer, Germany).³

Clearly, there is a tremendous amount of external evidence for Mark 16:9–20 in the first five centuries of Christianity. In contrast, the possible counter evidence is meager indeed. For instance, it is often claimed that Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of these verses. But Clement used very little of the Gospel of Mark besides chapter 10. He cited only 1.3 percent of Mark 1–9 and 11–16. Origen likewise used Mark only sparingly, and never quoted from about 70 percent of Mark’s text. Plus, near the beginning of Philocalia he may allude to 16:20: “Let a man observe how the apostles, who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel, went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the divine command.”

Answering Objections

Now, someone familiar with the arguments about Mark 16:9–20 might object, “But Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome both wrote that hardly any of their Greek copies of Mark included 16:9–20.” One might think so, due to the inaccurate description of what Eusebius and Jerome wrote in Bruce Metzger’s much quoted Textual Commentary on the New Testament. But Roger Pearse has made a superior presentation of Eusebius’s full comments (not just out-of-context snippets) in his helpful edition Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions. As for Jerome, D. C. Parker is basically correct in his assessment that the relevant composition by Jerome is just “a translation with some slight changes of what Eusebius had written,”⁴ and is therefore not an independent witness on this point. More importantly, Eusebius and Jerome advised their correspondents to retain Mark 16:9–20.

“But there are many manuscripts with scribal notes,” someone might say, “and these notes say that the old manuscripts don’t have Mark 16:9–20 … right?”

That idea is probably also based on vague statements in Metzger’s Textual Commentary. Let’s zoom in. The minuscule manuscripts 1, 15, 22, 205, 209, 1110, 1192, 1210, 1582, and 2886 (aka 205^abs) have a note which descends from the ancestor of their shared manuscript family. It reads, “Now in some of the copies, the Gospel stops here [at 16:8] and so do Eusebius Pamphili’s Canons [referring to the Eusebian Canons]. But in many, this [16:9–20] also appears.” In manuscripts 20, 215, and 300, the last part of the note says, “But in the ancient ones, it all appears intact.” When actually read, these notes are not as weighty as they as they may seem when described abstractly.

Allegations are sometimes also made about many manuscripts with editorial marks such as asterisks or obeli alongside Mark 16:9–20, indicative of scribal doubt. But there are no such manuscripts. Researchers have misrepresented these manuscripts too, as shown elsewhere (see here, here, here, and here).

It should be clear by now that the external evidence—manuscripts, versions, church fathers, and lectionaries—heavily favors including Mark 16:9–20. But what about the internal evidence involving style and vocabulary?

Internal Evidence

It’s true that vv. 9–20 have many words used only once in Mark’s Gospel. But eight other twelve-verse segments of Mark have even more. So, vocabulary frequency is not a compelling reason to see these verses as not being Mark’s. That said, more compelling evidence that vv. 9–20 were not the ending that Mark intended are (1) the reintroduction of Mary Magdalene; (2) the restating of the day and time; (3) the sudden absence of those who accompanied Mary Magdalene in 16:8; and (4) the lack of any mention of Galilee where Jesus is expected to meet His disciples (as predicted in 14:28 and 16:7). The overwhelming external evidence and the awkward fit of vv. 9–20 in context require some explanation.

An Explanation

Here is the scenario which I think accounts most simply for both the internal evidence and the external evidence: Mark unintentionally stopped writing his gospel account in 16:8 due to a permanent interruption (likely persecution). His colleagues, entrusted with his manifestly unfinished narrative, completed it, not by composing fresh material, but by attaching material that we now know as 16:9–20. This was material that Mark had written on a previous occasion (perhaps for Roman churches to use at Easter). Only after this auxiliary material was added did the Gospel’s “production stage” end, and its “transmission stage” begin. On this view, the earliest edition of Mark included 16:9–20.

On this view, the earliest edition of Mark included 16:9–20.

Where and when and why were vv. 9–20 removed? In Egypt, in the second century, overly meticulous scribes rejected them even though they were in their exemplars. They did so on the grounds that these verses were technically not part of Peter’s “memoirs” (which is how the Gospel of Mark was regarded in the second century). They declined to copy these verses just as one might reject an appendix written by a secretary. (John 21:25 was similarly not transcribed initially in Codex Sinaiticus,⁵ probably for a similar reason.)

The Gospel of Mark then circulated in Egypt without vv. 9–20. Later, someone in Egypt created the Shorter Ending found in some Bible footnotes today as a way to wrap up the narrative (perhaps after the 200s, considering that Eusebius never mentioned it). Next, copies of Mark with vv. 9–20 soon invaded Egypt, and Egyptian scribes combined the Shorter Ending with vv. 9–20. That this occurred in Egypt in one specific textual transmission line is shown by unique features in the text and marginalia of L, Ψ, 099, and 083 (≈ 0112) that are shared with Greek-Sahidic (i.e., Egyptian) lectionary 1602.

The Longer Ending Today

The foibles of some Egyptian copyists do not outweigh the general judgment of the Christian church.

If this is correct, then the way we should treat Mark 16:9–20 today becomes clear. The foibles of some Egyptian copyists do not outweigh the general judgment of the Christian church. It may be auxiliary, but it is still original, authentic, and canonical. In this, it is like various other passages in the Bible such as Deuteronomy 34:5–12, Joshua 24:29–33, Proverbs 30–31, Jeremiah 52, etc. That is how the Christian church, resisting false impressions from vague footnotes and misinformation, should continue to regard Mark 16:9–20.

For a response to this argument, read the case against the Longer Ending.

Notes

1
B. F. Westcott and F. J. A Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix, Notes on Select Readings (New York: Harper, 1882), 39.
2
J. Rendel Harris, The Diatessaron of Tatian: A Preliminary Study (London: C.J. Clay, 1890), 58.
3
See Oswald J. L. Szemerényi, “A New Leaf of the Gothic Bible,” Language 48.1 (1972): 1–10.
4
D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 135.
5
As shown in the ultraviolet light enhanced photo of H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus (London: British Museum/Library, 1955), 28.

Recovering an Erased Gospel

How the earliest Greek New Testament commentary manuscript has been restored by modern imaging techniques

H. A. G. Houghton

Two hundred years ago, a nobleman on the Greek island of Zakynthos presented a visiting British soldier with a handwritten copy of the readings from the Greek gospels used in church services. On his return to London, General Colin Macaulay gave this manuscript, Codex Zacynthius, to the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Although the text of this lectionary appeared to have been copied in the thirteenth century, scholars soon realized that the manuscript was a palimpsest: the gospel extracts had been written on the pages of a much older document whose text had been erased in order to re-use the parchment for another book. Pages where the remains of the earlier text could be made out with the naked eye enabled it to be identified as a copy of the Gospel according to Luke. Based on the style of the handwriting, it was estimated that it had originally been copied between the sixth and eighth century, at least five hundred years before its rewriting as a lectionary.

A source for early commentary

The text of Luke, however, only occupied the middle part of each page. In wide margins, another text had been added by the copyist in a smaller version of the same script. This showed that the original manuscript was a type of commentary known as a catena, in which extracts from early Christian authors had been joined together to form a chain of comments explaining each passage in the gospel text.

Codex Zacynthius appeared to be the earliest surviving example of a New Testament catena by at least a century.

In many cases, the original writings from which these extracts were taken have been lost, and these commentaries are the only surviving source. As the only known manuscript in which both biblical text and commentary were written in majuscule script, Codex Zacynthius appeared to be the earliest surviving example of a New Testament catena by at least a century.

Recovering the text

Around the end of the nineteenth century, scholars began to experiment with using chemicals to make the underwriting stand out on palimpsest manuscripts. Although initial results were promising, subsequent deterioration made these pages even less legible than before. Fortunately, this was not attempted on Codex Zacynthius. Instead, after the manuscript was acquired by Cambridge University Library in 2014 following a public campaign which raised £1.1 million, it was examined through a non-invasive process known as multispectral imaging. Funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Codex Zacynthius Project engaged a specialist team which took fifty-one high resolution images of each page using different wavelengths of light, from infrared to ultraviolet.

Using advanced processing techniques, different sets of images were combined in order to produce a single composite photograph on which the undertext was as visible as possible. The final result was remarkable: on the majority of pages, the erased undertext could be clearly made out thanks to an artificial coloring of this type of ink in a dark blue color, while text written in red ink appeared in a different hue. The black writing of the overtext was transformed into a light cyan color in order to enable readers to make sense of the obscured portions of the letters below.

A digital edition

The new images were then used by scholars at the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing at the University of Birmingham to make a full transcription of every word of the manuscript. The only previous attempt to do this had been in 1950, when the American scholar J. Harold Greenlee spent a year working with the manuscript on a windowsill in Oxford’s Bodleian Library, trying to read the manuscript in direct sunlight.

The multispectral images made it possible for the Birmingham team to improve significantly on Greenlee’s unpublished results, including reading large passages which he had left blank. Once the transcription had been completed, the whole text was translated into English, preserving the same layout as the catena manuscript, to make this early form of commentary available to readers without Greek.

The multispectral images, the transcription and the translation have all been made openly available on the Cambridge Digital Library. This digital edition also includes a complete set of photographs of the lectionary overtext, along with a transcription of these gospel passages, showing the current appearance of the manuscript and the evidence it provides for Byzantine liturgical practices.

The struggles of a twelfth-century scribe

While examining the lectionary, members of the project team noticed an unusual feature. At the foot of many of the pages, there are a series of notes written by the copyist which have nothing to do with the biblical text. Several of these are appeals to God and to later users, such as “God be merciful to me, the sinner Neilos” or “Priests, remember Neilos in the all-night vigil.”

Notes like this found in other manuscripts featuring the same handwriting have enabled us to identify the scribe Neilos as a monk active on the island of Rhodes between 1170 and 1181, providing for the first time a precise date and location where the pages of Codex Zacynthius were reused. In fact, the copyist might even be the Neilos who became Abbot of the Monastery of St John in 1174.

The undertext is almost invisible to the naked eye on some pages of Zacynthius. — Scribal notes in the margin allowed researchers to connect Codex Zacynthius to the island of Rhodes in the 12th century.

Some of the notes, however, refer to the problems faced when copying the manuscript. After a page with many crossed-out words and erasures, the scribe has written at the bottom: “Very drowsy and foolish.” Elsewhere, he observes that “The one who writes tends towards errors,” and that a particular mistake is “The error of Theodore the squinter.” Most striking of all, at the foot of one page he exclaims “I am very tired, with a heavy head, and what I write I do not know!” These marginal asides offer an unexpectedly vivid portrait of the scribe struggling to copy a lengthy liturgical manuscript some 850 years ago.

New discoveries in the ancient text

The multispectral images have led to new discoveries in the original text of the manuscript. Codex Zacynthius has already been recognised as an important witness to the text of the Gospel of Luke. It preserves a series of chapter divisions which are only otherwise attested in the famous fourth-century Greek Bible known as Codex Vaticanus. At the beginning of the book, Codex Zacynthius features the earliest example of a table of capitula parallela, a means of cross-referencing the contents of the four canonical gospels. The project has identified three previously unknown places in which the manuscript attests the reading of the earliest form of the text of Luke, demonstrating the value of its biblical text.

The transcription of the catena has made this commentary available for the first time. Of the 343 extracts, no fewer than 300 preserve passages from early Christian writings which are not found in Greek outside this tradition. Half of these come from the Commentary on Luke by the fifth-century Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria. Almost fifty come from Titus, bishop of the town of Bostra in southern Syria which is now a World Heritage Site. His sermons on Luke, originally preached in the middle of the fourth century, are only preserved in catenae.

Most remarkable are passages from the Christian writer Severus of Antioch. In the year 536, just before his death, Severus was excommunicated and his books were banned by the Emperor Justinian: none survive in Greek. Codex Zacynthius, however, preserves thirty-eight extracts attributed to Severus, several of them quite extensive. Many of them give details of the sermon or the letter from which they were taken, and even describe the author as “Saint Severus,” suggesting that the compiler of this commentary did not subscribe to the condemnation of Severus. Nevertheless, in a later manuscript based on this catena, the extracts from Severus were omitted or ascribed to a different author. Codex Zacynthius therefore provides the only Greek text known to survive of certain writings by Severus. This discovery will enable scholars to look for other passages by Severus in catenae and examine portions of his works in their original form.

A screenshot of the digital edition, showing how the electronic transcription assists users in reading the manuscript.

A study of the handwriting as revealed on the new images suggests that Codex Zacynthius was originally copied during the eighth century, confirming it as the oldest surviving catena manuscript. However, the project has also identified features which indicate that this is not the first instance of this compilation, but a copy of an even earlier catena manuscript. The research team published a volume of studies giving a full account of the manuscript and their findings. In addition, a printed edition of the catena with facing English translation has also been made available in open access. The University of Birmingham is now home to a major European-funded project which will undertake the first systematic examination of New Testament catena manuscripts and shed new light on the significance of this tradition of commentary.

Does the Woman Caught in Adultery Belong in the Bible?

Jesus’ famous act of mercy is missing in many manuscripts, raising questions about its place in the Bible.

Tommy Wasserman

The story of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11) is arguably one of the most beloved Jesus stories in the New Testament which includes the familiar quotation, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” However, the story is missing from some ancient manuscripts of John, as noted already by early church fathers like Jerome and Augustine. For this and other reasons, a majority of modern scholars regard the passage as a later insertion, and some even want to remove it altogether from our Bibles. One can imagine the outcry such a radical move could cause.

Thus, in his study on early manuscripts and modern translations, Philip Comfort rejected the passage as a non-Johannine interpolation and lamented the habit of printing the tradition at all in editions and translations: “True, the passage has been bracketed, or marked off with single lines … , or set in italics. But there it stands—an obstacle to reading the true narrative of John’s Gospel.”¹

Andreas J. Köstenberger expresses a similar attitude in his commentary on John: “proper conservatism and caution suggests that the passage be omitted from preaching in churches” and it should not be regarded as “part of the Christian canon.”² More recently, Dan Wallace has suggested that the inclusion of the narrative in modern translations reflects “a tradition of timidity,” implying that at least Protestant churches should but did not yet dare to remove the story from the Bible.

The story may well go back to a very early tradition about Jesus and a woman accused of many sins

To be sure, the story is often marked out in various ways in both scholarly editions and Bible translations, for example, by double brackets and an accompanying footnote explaining that it is missing in the earliest manuscripts, including Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from the third and fourth centuries, and goes unmentioned by Greek church fathers until the twelfth century.

There is indeed a wide scholarly consensus that the story was not originally a part of the Gospel of John, but on the other hand, it may well go back to a very early tradition about Jesus and a woman accused of many sins, which gradually found its way into John. The earliest reference to such a story is found in the Didascalia Apostolorum, a third-century book of instructions on living a Christian life, which survives in Syriac:

But if you do not receive him who repents, because you are without mercy, you shall sin against the Lord God. For you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do even as He did with her who had sinned, whom the elders placed before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, and departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: “Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?” She said to him: “Nay Lord.” And He said unto her: “Go, neither do I condemn you.” In this then let our Savior and King and God, be to you a standard, O bishops, and imitate Him.³

Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340) in his church history attributes a similar story to Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130) and the now lost Gospel of the Hebrews. Further, Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398) says he found the story “in certain gospels,” a reference which likely suggests he did not know the passage from John, but from a different gospel.

Codex Bezae at John 7:53 — Codex Bezae (c. 400 AD) showing a later dash mark in the left margin at the start of John 7:53 (f. 133v)

The earliest manuscript evidence for the passage in John is the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae (c. 400 AD) which contains the story in its traditional place both in Greek and Latin on facing pages. Interestingly, later annotators have marked out the story in the margins, probably because it was treated separately in the liturgy.

We know that in the assigned reading for Pentecost in the Byzantine liturgy, a lesson is read from John 7:37–8:12, but our story is skipped, likely because it was not present in the manuscripts when the lesson was first constructed. On the other hand, the story was assigned as a lesson at a later stage to celebrate the Feast of Saint Pelagia of Antioch and various other “sinner saints” such as Mary of Egypt, Theodora of Alexandria, and Eudokia of Heliopolis.

It is probably no coincidence that the story first turns up in a Greek-Latin manuscript, because it apparently became established much earlier in the Latin West even though it clearly originated in Greek. Indeed, the story was assigned a chapter in Latin manuscripts at an early stage, probably in the early third century. The Latin church father Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397) knew it from the traditional place in John and cited it in different writings but in varying textual form. Perhaps this was because he translated the story himself from one or several Greek manuscripts.

Ambrose’s contemporaries Jerome and Augustine were familiar with the Johannine story as well, but both acknowledged that it was not in every copy. When Jerome cited the passage in an argument against the Pelagians, he mentioned that he found it “in many copies of the Gospel of John,” and therefore not in all of them. When he completed his new Latin translation of the Gospels (as part of the Vulgate) several decades earlier, he had chosen to include the story in John. In doing so, he guaranteed its abiding presence in the Latin Christian tradition. The story was also incorporated in the Roman liturgy perhaps some time in the fifth century.

Augustine, who cited the passage about a dozen times, was also aware of its absence in some manuscripts. He even proposed an explanation why the story could have been omitted, suggesting that “men of slight faith” deleted it because they were afraid that their wives might commit adultery after hearing about the woman (On Adulterous Marriages 7.6). A few modern scholars who defend the story as original to the Gospel of John have argued along similar lines, that scribes may have excluded the pericope because Jesus is too lenient toward the sinner. However, this is highly unlikely, because scribes and scholars were trained never to delete, even when they doubted the authenticity of a given passage, and, besides, there was a long and widespread affection for stories about adulterous women across the ancient world (as reflected in other passages in the New Testament).

There was a long and widespread affection for stories about adulterous women across the ancient world.

Although the story is not preserved in any surviving Greek gospel manuscript before the eighth century, apart from Codex Bezae, there are still other traces of the story in the East too. For example, two ivory pyxides, likely Coptic in origin, are certain attestations of the story in an Egyptian setting. These two boxes depict the forgiven adulteress among other scenes from the life of Jesus. In a sixth-century Syriac chronicle there is reference to a Gospel manuscript, likely in Greek, in the possession of Bishop Mara (d. 532 AD), which had a “chapter” peculiar to the Gospel of John, but that this chapter was not found in other copies. Then follows a version of John 8:2–11.

There is much to suggest that the story had been assigned its own “chapter” (kephalaion) in Greek gospel manuscripts no later than the fifth century. Unlike our modern chapters, this particular system of “Old Greek chapters” marks out the highlights in each of the four gospels with a focus on Jesus’ miracles and teachings. Thus, the first kephalaion in John was placed at John 2:1 (the wedding in Cana). Most extant Byzantine manuscripts contain eighteen chapters in John, but some add a nineteenth chapter—the story of the adulteress—as chapter ten.

Minuscule 1 showing the note explaining textual issues the woman caught in adultery. — The story of the woman caught in adultery in Minuscule 1 (12th c.) is located at the end of the manuscript with a long, explanatory note about it. INTF

In several important medieval manuscripts that represent a family of manuscripts (known as Family 1), at the end of John 7 where one expects to find our story there is instead a critical note to inform the reader concerning “the kephalaion concerning the adulteress,” that it is not found in most manuscripts, nor mentioned by the divine fathers John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia and the rest. This ancient scribe or editor, probably working in the fifth century, decided to relocate the story to the end of John, where it is found in this family of manuscripts. By this time, then, the popular story had already been inserted into John and even assigned its own chapter in some manuscripts but was omitted or relocated in others.

Today, the large majority of surviving Greek manuscripts of John include the story. It is read in the Byzantine liturgy and thus accepted as inspired by the Greek Orthodox Church. It is part of the canonical Vulgate used by the Catholic Church, and it is present in virtually all Protestant Bible versions albeit often marked with brackets and footnotes.

On the other hand, it is clear that the story was interpolated into the Gospel of John at an early point in a climate of Gospel book production in which the story was regarded as “gospel.” Incidentally, from the concluding verse of the Fourth Gospel we learn that many stories about things that Jesus did were in circulation, some of which had not yet been written down (John 21:25), but genuine “gospel stories” all the same I presume.

So, should the beloved story of the Woman Caught in Adultery be read in our churches? Yes, I think so. The story has the earmarks of a genuine gospel story albeit not original to John.

Notes

1
Philip Wesley Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1990), 116.
2
Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 248.
3
Did. apost. 7; transl. by Arthur Vööbus

Taking Stock of the “First-Century Mark” Saga

What can we learn from the overzealous excitement about the earliest known copy of our earliest Gospel?

Elijah Hixson

The “First-Century Mark” saga is an unfortunate series of events surrounding an early papyrus fragment of Mark’s Gospel that began publicly in late 2011 and, at the time of this writing, is still not fully resolved. The story begins with a tweet from Dr. Scott Carroll on December 1, 2011, “For over 100 years the earliest known text of the New Testament has been the so-call[ed] John Rylands Papyrus. Not any more. Stay tuned . . . .” At the time, Dr. Carroll was working for the Green family who owns Hobby Lobby, helping them to purchase the materials that would eventually form the basis of the Museum of the Bible’s collection.

The news of Carroll’s “earliest known text” began to make headlines in February 2012, when Dan Wallace used a debate with Bart Ehrman to announce the existence of a fragment of Mark’s Gospel that an unnamed, world-class paleographer had dated to the first century. The announcement surprised Ehrman and the audience. Allegedly, this item was part of a private collection and was to be published shortly thereafter. Years came and went, and no first-century Mark fragment was ever published. Wallace could not give more information because he had signed a non-disclosure agreement that barred him from speaking about the manuscript until it had been published.

Years came and went, and no first-century Mark fragment was ever published.

It was not long before rumors about the fragment made their way to the popular level. Apologists and scholars (e.g., Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Gary Habermas) saw it as powerful evidence for the reliability of the Christian message. After years of speculation and what seemed like leaked information, an early fragment of Mark was finally published in the Spring of 2018 in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series—a series of papyri owned by the Egypt Exploration Society (EES)—not a private collection.

The EES collection was excavated over a century ago in modern-day Al-Bahnasa, Egypt. This meant the new fragment was not part of a private collection but one that had been known and studied for over 100 years. As I quickly put the pieces together, it became clear that this tiny manuscript, designated P.Oxy. 5345 (or P137), was the “First-Century Mark.” The earlier dating was simply incorrect, and there had been confusion as to who owned the manuscript and how it would be published. It was not owned by the Greens and it was not from the first century after all. A great deal of the speculation was simply wrong.

P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 (or P137), containing Mark 1:7–9, 16–18, measures just 4.4 × 4 cm. Wikipedia

Far from resolving the issue, the publication raised new and more serious questions. Most of these revolved around the fact that P137, according to some reports, had been offered for sale to a private collection (presumably the Greens’). The serious problem with this situation is that unpublished papyri in the Oxyrhynchus Collection cannot be sold. (Early on, some of the collection’s published papyri were given away to other institutions, but this was quite different.) The EES responded to the startling suggestions by issuing a statement saying that the fragment “has never been for sale, whatever claims may have been made arising from individual conversations in the past.”

We now know this is not true. It has since come to light that P137 was indeed offered for sale to Hobby Lobby along with other papyri without authorization from the EES, allegedly by someone working for the EES who had access to the manuscripts.

The excavations at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt around 1900 uncovered thousands of papyri, including the now infamous P137. Wikipedia

As of November 2019, the EES had “identified around 120 pieces which appear to be missing,” and in February 2021, they reported that “The police investigation in the UK is continuing into the unauthorised removal of texts from the EES collection and their sale to Hobby Lobby and others.” Someone had been trying to pawn the EES’s papyri from right under their noses. The prime suspect is none other than Wallace’s world-class paleographer. The matter has not been resolved, and a police investigation is ongoing so we are limited as to what more we could say. At the time of writing, Obbink has been living in a houseboat in England and avoiding authorities.

Although the story is still not fully resolved, now is a good time to step back and consider lessons learned from the “First-Century Mark” saga. Here are four suggestions.

1. If something sounds too good to be true, it might be. Assume it is until there is an informed scholarly consensus.

A consensus can be wrong, but it is the purpose and nature of scholarship to find and eliminate weak points in the argument. As the external examiner at my own PhD examination said to me as we began, “It is my job to shake this thesis as hard as I can and see if I can get any bits of it to fall out.” Such is the nature of good scholarship, and a consensus is almost always on firmer grounds than a lone objector—especially in the context of arguing a position. P137 was not the first manuscript claimed to be from the first century,¹ and none of the others claimed first-century New Testament papyri has proven to be so.

However, it’s worth mentioning that the descriptions of the person who dated the manuscript left little to the imagination with regard to his identity. There was never much doubt that the unnamed paleographer was probably Dirk Obbink, and these suspicions turned out to be correct. At the time, Obbink was among the most respected and influential papyrologists alive. Recently, I spoke to another papyrologist who described Obbink as being the LeBron James of papyrology.

Dr. Dirk Obbink was a professor at Oxford and one of the world’s foremost experts on ancient papyri. (Photo)

Simply put, in 2011, Dirk Obbink’s word was gospel when it came to dating papyrus manuscripts, and it would have been reasonable to take Obbink at his word. Still, good practice is to wait for a consensus. Years later, when P137 was published, the date that was always traced back to a single specialist had changed—by the same specialist.

2. Overhyped expectations can result in undervaluing the actual evidence.

Once the cat was out of the bag, the popular-level response to “First-Century Mark” led to unjustified expectations from several sources. P137 is still an amazing discovery! It is probably the oldest manuscript of Mark in existence. It is almost certainly the oldest manuscript of Mark 1:7–9, 16–18. Nevertheless, because the expectation was for a first-century manuscript, some were disappointed.

When we raise our expectations higher than what the facts allow, we set ourselves up to be disappointed. For example, when we teach that the Rylands fragment (or P52), which is our earliest New Testament manuscript, was written “around 125” or even “as early as AD 100,” we are setting people up to be disappointed when they find out that manuscript dating cannot be so specific. The more accurate date is the full range of the second century. Even a date in the 190s is still remarkably early, relatively speaking. But, when the expectation is significantly earlier, even a remarkably good piece of evidence backfires and leaves people feeling empty and let down.

3. Don’t cite unpublished research.

A significant problem with “First-Century Mark” was that it was unpublished for so long. Without publication, it was impossible to verify or challenge, not only the date, but also the contents, the quality of the text, and even the very existence of the fragment itself.

It is true that some unpublished expertise can be extremely valuable (especially if it comes from a source with Obbink’s authority on manuscript dating), and it is also true that mere publication does not prove a theory or mean that an article is correct—and this is especially relevant in the world of self-publishing. Still, any academic publisher worth its paper and ink will have sent the research to at least one other competent set of eyes to look for holes in the arguments, to verify claims, and to see if the argument holds up under scrutiny.

4. Show integrity at earliest possible opportunity.

Although he has been rightly criticized for announcing the unpublished and unverifiable “First-Century Mark” at a debate, Wallace was right to admit his mistake once the fragment was published and he was no longer bound by the non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Wallace apologized for his actions, both to Ehrman “and to everyone else for giving misleading information about this discovery.”

The Museum of the Bible has also owned its mistakes and expedited the process of returning items known to be acquired for their collection under the seller’s pretense. Claims that P137 had been offered for sale were not initially taken seriously by the EES (and not without reason). It wasn’t until Michael Holmes, acting on behalf of the Museum of the Bible, shared with them the purchase agreement for some papyri and a handwritten list describing their contents in June 2019 (first publicized by Brent Nongbri on his blog) that these claims were taken seriously.

The EES quickly confirmed that the fragments described in the handwritten list were indeed P137 and other Oxyrhynchus Papyri in their collection. Once a representative from the Museum released evidence that there was something shady going on, an investigation was undertaken. One of the results is that thirty-four papyri in the Museum collection were identified as having been “taken without authorisation from the EES” and were returned to the EES.

Should the Green Collection/Museum of the Bible have been more diligent to determine legal provenance before purchasing the papyri? Absolutely. However, regardless of what other criticisms one might have for the Museum of the Bible, this is one way they did the right thing. They had items that they suspected had been stolen, and they worked to make it right. Not every institution is willing to give back stolen artifacts, but in this case, the Museum was not only willing to do so, but they also had to convince the EES that the papyri had been stolen in the first place. Would that we also would have such a zeal for the right thing that we would pursue it even when it costs us to do so.

In neither case did the offending party try to quietly put away their wrongs. They didn’t silently delete evidence of their wrongs or give a quiet, half-hearted apology and move on—they publicly took responsibility for their wrongs and did what they could to make them right as much as possible.

That’s a good lesson for all of us.

Notes

1
See Peter J. Gurry and Elijah Hixson, “Introduction” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity (2019), 14–20.

Topics

Levels

New Testament

The Origins of Jefferson’s Bible

Diamonds in a Dunghill

Principles of Production

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

A Sect unto Himself

What Counts as Evidence

Points of Agreement

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Differences of Judgment

More Substantial Disagreements

1. Internal Evidence

2. Church Fathers

3. External Evidence

4. Method

The Significance of the Longer Ending

Notes

The (Overwhelming) External Evidence

The Three That Lack It

The Church Fathers

More External Evidence

Answering Objections

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Internal Evidence

An Explanation

The Longer Ending Today

Notes

A source for early commentary

Recovering the text

A digital edition

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

The struggles of a twelfth-century scribe

New discoveries in the ancient text

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Notes

1. If something sounds too good to be true, it might be. Assume it is until there is an informed scholarly consensus.

2. Overhyped expectations can result in undervaluing the actual evidence.

3. Don’t cite unpublished research.

4. Show integrity at earliest possible opportunity.

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Notes

Footer

Articles

Research

Events

About

Support