Early church writers and Mark 16

When someone tells you that Mark 16:9-20 was not originally in Mark, think about this. Notice a little of the chronology, geography, and variety of early church writers who mention or quote from it. Or as James Snapp, Jr. put it, “From Patrick in Ireland, to Irenaeus in Gaul, to Augustine in North Africa, to Epiphanius in Cyprus, to Aphrahat in Syria, to Eznik in Armenia, the support for these 12 verses is early, abundant, and widespread.” Here are six recognizable names of early church writers, from Mesopotamia to Britain.

• Justin Martyr, Asia Minor. Written circa AD 160. First Apology, Chapter 45.
• Tatian of Adiabene (northern Mesopotamia). Compiled circa AD 170. Diatessaron (a harmony of the Gospels).
• Irenaeus of Lyon (present-day France). Written circa AD 175-185. Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 10.5.
• Hippolytus of Rome (Italy). Written circa AD 220. Apostolic Traditions, 36.1 (allusion to Mark 16:18).
• Augustine of Hippo (North Africa). Lived AD 354 – AD 430. On the Soul and Its Origin, Book 2, Chapters 17, 23; Homily 4 on the First Epistle of John; The Harmony of the Gospels, Book III, Chapter 24.
• Patrick of Ireland (British Isles). Lived probably 4th century AD. Confessions (paragraph 40); Letter to Soldiers of Coroticus (paragraph 20).

Patrick of Ireland and Mark 16

A week late posting on something about “Saint Patrick” of Ireland. In conjunction with last Wednesday’s post, here is evidence that Patrick had an old Latin Bible that included the last twelve verses of Mark.

Confessio (Confession)

Patrick wrote in Latin

Euntes ergo in mundum uniuersum praedicate euangelium omni creaturae; qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit saluus erit; qui uero non crediderit condempnabitur.

English

Again he says: “Go out therefore to the whole world and announce the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Patrick’s Confession, English translation by Padraig McCarthy at www.confessio.ie)

Letter to the soldiers of Coroticus

Patrick wrote in Latin

Testificor coram Deo et angelis suis quod ita erit sicut intimauit imperitiae meae. Non mea uerba sed Dei et apostolorum atque prophetarum quod ego Latinum exposui, qui numquam enim mentiti sunt. Qui crediderit saluus erit, qui uero non crediderit condempnabitur, Deus locutus est.

English

I bear witness before God and his angels that it will be as he made it known to one of my inexperience. These are not my own words which I have put before you in Latin; they are the words of God, and of the apostles and prophets, who have never lied. ‘Anyone who believes will be saved; anyone who does not believe will be condemned’ – God has spoken. (Patrick’s Letter, English translation by Padraig McCarthy at www.confessio.ie)

Augustine’s Bible had Mark 16:9-20

Augustine of Hippo (AD 354 – AD 430) believed and used a Bible that included the disputed ending of Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20. He supports his theology by and makes references to several verses from this section in his writings.

On the Soul and Its Origin, Book 2, Chapter 17

And as a counterbalance against this condemnation, the Lord exhibits the help of His salvation alone, saying, He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

On the Soul and Its Origin, Book 2, Chapter 23

Everything, therefore, which you find in the books that he [apparently Vincentius Victor, rlv] has addressed and forwarded to you, I beg you to consider with sobriety and vigilance; and you will perhaps make fuller discoveries than I have myself of statements which deserve to be censured. And as for such of their contents as are worthy of praise and approbation — whatever good you have learned therein, and by his instruction, which perhaps you were really ignorant of before, tell us plainly what it is, that all may know that it was for this particular benefit that you expressed your obligations to him, and not for the manifold statements in his books which call for their disapproval — all, I mean, who, like yourself, heard him read his writings, or who afterwards read the same for themselves: lest in his ornate style they may drink poison, as out of a choice goblet, at your instance, though not after your own example, because they know not precisely what it is you have drunk yourself, and what you have left untasted, and because, from your high character, they suppose that whatever is drunk out of this fountain would be for their health. For what else are hearing, and reading, and copiously depositing things in the memory, than several processes of drinking? The Lord, however, foretold concerning His faithful followers, that even if they should drink any deadly thing, it should not hurt them. Mark 16:18 And thus it happens that they who read with judgment, and bestow their approbation on whatever is commendable according to the rule of faith, and disapprove of things which ought to be reprobated, even if they commit to their memory statements which are declared to be worthy of disapproval, they receive no harm from the poisonous and depraved nature of the sentences.

Augustine refers to Mark 16 in his Homily 4 on the First Epistle of John.

You heard while the Gospel was read, Go, preach the Gospel to the whole creation which is under heaven. Consequently, the disciples were sent every where: with signs and wonders to attest that what they spoke, they had seen.

Augustine’s Harmony of the Gospels introduces verses from Mark 16:9-20 when comparing and harmonizing the accounts in the four Gospels. For example:

The Harmony of the Gospels, Book III, Chapter 24

Mark also attests these facts; for, after telling us how the women went out from the sepulchre, trembling and amazed, and said nothing to any man, he subjoins the statement, that the Lord rose early the first day of the week, and appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils, and that she went and told them who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept, and that they, when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

The Harmony of the Gospels, Book III, Chapter 25

Mark likewise mentions that He appeared first to Mary Magdalene...

...He appeared next to those two, of whom Cleophas was one, and regarding whom Luke presents us with a complete narrative, while Mark gives us only a very brief notice.

Mark tells us how Jesus “upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen.”

There are a number more of these in Chapter 25, of which these are samples.

Note: I was unable to find much biography on Vincentius Victor. He is sometimes described as of Mauretania Caesariensis, and a Rogatist who converted to Caecilianism. See, for example, The Contours of Donatism: Theological and Ideological Diversity in Fourth Century North Africa. The theologies of Augustine and Victor are mostly immaterial to the discussion the last 12 verses of Mark. What is more important is that Augustine and those to whom he wrote, and apparently Victor as well, would have recognized Mark 16:9-20 as authoritative.

Macarius, Porphyry, and the Long Ending of Mark

Porphyry of Tyre, who lived about AD 234 through AD 305, wrote Against the Christians (or, Adversus Christianos), consisting of fifteen books. Though the book is lost to posterity, much of it can be reproduced from the works of Christian apologists who responded to his arguments. The general consensus of scholarship is that The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes is in response to Porphyry (see also The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes by T. W. Crafer). In Apocriticus III: 16 we find a reference to one of the later verses of Mark 16 (verse 18b “…and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”).

“Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, ‘Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them.’ So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said. For if it is a peculiarity of the faith to overcome the evil of a poison and to remove the pain of a sick man, the believer who does not do these things either has not become a genuine believer, or else, though his belief is genuine, the thing that he believes in is not potent but feeble.”

Through the writings of an objector to Christianity, we find in the pagan philosopher Porphyry of Tyre an unlikely testimony to the authenticity of the “long ending” of Mark, Mark 16:9-20. Against the Christians was probably written around AD 270-280, and obviously before the death of Porphyry circa AD 305 (providing, like Irenaeus, testimony prior to the exclusion of the verses in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).

The Problem of Textual Variants

Modern evangelical textual critics hold out a sort of “COVID-19” approach to the problem of textual variants. Like the government, first they scare you. Then they try to establish themselves as the answer to your problem.

Unbelievers, agnostics, atheists, and apostates, seize on the problem of textual variants to attack the Bible and the Christianity built upon it. Cue apostate textual critic Bart Ehrman:

“…how does it help to say the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (p. 7).[i]

“There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” Misquoting Jesus (p. 90)

In “Textual Variants: It’s the Nature, Not the Number, That Matters,” Tim Barnett states:

“Most scholars put the number of variants for the New Testament at around 400,000. This is a staggering number when coupled with the fact that there are only about 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament.”

However, he goes on to make this point:

“When it comes to the New Testament, it’s not the number of variants that’s important, it’s the nature of the variants. It’s not the quantity of the differences; it’s the quality of the differences.”

Further, Barnett explains the types of textual variants, which “are categorized by whether or not they are viable, and whether or not they are meaningful. A variant is viable only if the variant has a good possibility of being part of the original wording. A variant is meaningful only if it changes the meaning of the text.”[ii] He describes them helpfully in this way:

• Neither Viable nor Meaningful
• Viable, but Not Meaningful
• Meaningful, but Not Viable
• Viable and Meaningful

It seems most text critics and scholars allow that the number of variants for the New Testament are somewhere around 400,000. Peter J. Gurry suggests “a reasonable estimate for the number of textual variants in the Greek New Testament (not including spelling differences) is about 500,000.”[iii]

Despite the large number of variant readings, evangelical text critics tell us that over 99% fall into a category of not being meaningful. Variants that are both meaningful and viable – those that might be authentic (according to the text critic) and change the meaning of the text – make up less than 1% of all textual variants. Textual critics (whether evangelical or not) variously agree no important biblical doctrines depend on any of the meaningful and viable variants. In Can We Still Believe the Bible (p. 27) Craig Blomberg asserts “no orthodox doctrine or ethical practice of Christianity depends solely on any disputed wording.” Dan Wallace writes, “no cardinal doctrine depends on any disputed wording” and even Bart Ehrman agrees “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

So here we are. The textual critics frighten the simple Bible believers. Then they step in to save them. “Just trust us.” “We know what we are doing and have recaptured most of the Bible, well, pretty much so – even though God did not preserve it intact, and our job is never finished, and we would not know it if it were.”

I suppose it is good to know that only 1% of the textual variants touch the Bible in any meaningful way. However, to assume that this 1% does not make any difference and should not concern the Bible believer is a bridge too far. James Snapp, Jr. illustrates it this way:

“It’s like telling people that there are only 6,500 stray cats in the city, and the vast majority of them are harmless. If 65 of them are rabid it is still a concern.”

It is high time to reject the mythical mantra that these changes do not matter.[iv]

Here is an example of what some text critics mean when they say that no Bible doctrine depends on a disputed wording. They dismiss 1 John 5:7 (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one). Not to worry, we can defend the Trinity without it. We have Matthew 3:16-17, Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Galatians 4:6, 1 Peter 1:2, and so on. And this is true. The biblical teaching of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost does not reduce to only one verse that supports the teaching.[v] On the other hand, despite animadversions to the contrary, this verse – missing in the Greek critical text and most modern translations – deals with a cardinal Bible doctrine in a meaningful and viable way!

Deleting Mark 16:9-20 removes the account of the resurrection appearances, commission, and ascension from the Gospel of Mark. 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 is a disputed passage that addresses the role of women in the church.[vi] Yes, these things matter.

The above discussion of variant texts, their nature and quantities, is in reference to the Greek text of the New Testament.  That means none of it directly addresses the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Though there may be fewer textual variants, those that exist affect the Bibles we use.[vii] For example, see Psalm 22:16 .

KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

NRSV: For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled.

This passage is a prophecy, a preview regarding Christ’s death on the cross (cf. Matthew 27:31-32; John 20:24-27; and Zechariah 12:10). Most of the popular new translations tend to stay with the ‘they pierced” idea. The New Revised Standard Version, however, reduces it to shriveled hands and feet of the writer, with no reference to Christ.

Textual critics and scholars of note, if you really believe that most variants are trivial, affecting nothing, and that no disputed wording affects either our faith or our practice – keep your hands off our Bibles! If you do not really believe what you are saying, stop telling lies!

---

[i] This problem avoids addressing whether the words of the Bible are inspired and inerrant, but rather challenges whether we currently even have the words of the Bible.
[ii] In How We Got the Bible, Neil R. Lightfoot lists three and explains them this way: “1. Trivial variations which are of no consequence to the text. 2. Substantial variations which are of no consequence to the text. 3. Substantial variations that have bearing on the text.”(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003; p. 95-103)
[iii] “The Number of Variants in the Greek New Testament: A Proposed Estimate,” Peter J. Gurry. New Testament Studies 62 (1), pp. 97-121, 2016. “The present estimate is based on a clear foundation in the available data and a clear method, both of which are open to public scrutiny.”
[iv] The text critics belie their message when they attack the Traditional Texts of the Bible (Bomberg, Textus Receptus), and Reformation era Bibles like the King James Version and Reina-Valera. It really does matter to them; they only say it doesn’t when trying to smooth over things with more conservative Bible believers. It seems pretty clear to me that the textual critics speak differently among themselves than when they condescend to speak to us peons. Re “it doesn’t matter,” see also The Missing “Book” of the Bible.
[v] It is worth noting that George Vance Smith – an Unitarian who served on the English Bible Revision Committee created in 1870 – thought the variants did have theological impact and was quite pleased that the new revision muted the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the atonement. In the conclusion of his book, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, he summarizes the “Doctrinal Results of the Revision.” Some claimed “that the changes of translation which the work contains are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view” but Smith countered that “any such statement appears to be in the most substantial sense contrary to the facts of the case...” “The changes just enumerated are manifestly of great importance, and are they not wholly unfavourable to the popular theology?  Many persons will deny this, but it is hard to see on what grounds they do so.  Or, if it be true that the popular orthodoxy remains unaffected by such changes, the inference is unavoidable that popular orthodoxy must be very indifferent as to the nature of the foundation on which it stands.” (Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, by George Vance Smith. London: 37 Norfolk Street, 1881, pp. 45, 47).
[vi] Many moderns might gladly dispense with this! Though this is a disputed text, I am not aware that any Bibles have yet removed it. Some include notes about it, such as the NET Bible: “Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5, ” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262).”
[vii] “All Old Testament scholars know of the collations of several hundred thousand variant readings in texts of the Hebrew Bible...” “Textual Variants in the Hebrew Bible Significant for Critical Analysis,” by Francis S. North, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 47, No. 1 (1956), p. 77.