Victor of Antioch's "Mark Commentary" : where is the greek?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Matt. 21:18 Πρωῒ δὲ ἐπανάγων εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἐπείνασεν. 19 καὶ ἰδὼν συκῆν μίαν ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἦλθεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν καὶ οὐδὲν εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ φύλλα μόνον, καὶ λέγει αὐτῇ· μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. καὶ ἐξηράνθη παραχρῆμα ἡ συκῆ.


Mark 11:12 Καὶ τῇ ἐπαύριον ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Βηθανίας ἐπείνασεν. 13 καὶ ἰδὼν συκῆν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἔχουσαν φύλλα ἦλθεν, εἰ ἄρα τι εὑρήσει ἐν αὐτῇ, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν οὐδὲν εὗρεν εἰ μὴ φύλλα· ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων. 14 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι. καὶ ἤκουον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.

General Allenby's entry into Jerusalem was done on foot. Jesus rode on a young unbroken donkey[1], with donkey's mother attending. William Lane (Mark, 1974, p. 400) his discussion of the cursing of the fig tree which is part of the narrative surrounding the arrival in Jerusalem, cites a 5/6th cent. work commonly known as Victor of Antioch's "Mark Commentary" which appears to be a translation provided by C.E.B. Cranfield (Mark, 1959).

an acted parable in which Jesus used the fig tree “to set forth the judgement that was about to fall on Jerusalem” Quoted from C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark pp. 356-57

Couldn't find the greek text for this. All the books lead back to Cranfield 1963. A dead end.

Would help to see exactly what Victor of Antioch had to say and who he was quoting, since most of the material in Victor of Antioch's work is borrowed from earlier authors. My purpose is to fix a date on the exegetical tradition concerning the fig tree episode. The wording is kind of stark:

μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, where εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα might be viewed as something more drastic and final than the destruction of Jerusalem. That's why I would like to see what the earliest exegetical works had to say about this.


[1] good thing it wasn't an unbroken horse.

[bedwere]

Maybe this will help you
https://katalog.ub.uni-leipzig.de/Recor ... /Multipart

[bedwere]

ἀπόλαυσον

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Thank you Bedwere. Published in 1775! I think that appeared in a footnote somewhere. Apparently there isn't much interest in Victor of Antioch. I manged to get behind Cranfield's citation this morning. Found the sentence in H.B. Swete,

Victor: τὴν μέλλουσαν κατὰ τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ κρίσιν ἐπὶ τῆς συκῆς ἔδειξεν
H.B. Swete, (Gospel According to Mark, p255, Macmillian, London 1913, Kregal 1977)

and using that as a search text found

“Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, vol. 1”, Ed. Cramer, J.A.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840, Repr. 1967.
Page 392, line 7

ἦν πείνης τὴν οἰκείαν ἐνδεικνύμενος δύναμιν, εἰς τὸ μὴ οἴεσθαι
αὐτοὺς ἀτονίᾳ τὸ πάθος αὐτὸν ἀναδέχεσθαι. διὰ τοῦτο φυτὸν ἐπι-
λεξάμενος, ὃ κἀν εἰ τέμοι τις, οὐ ῥᾳδίως τὴν ἔμφυτον ὑγρασίαν
ἀποτίθεσθαι πέφυκε· τοῦτο διὰ μόνης ἐξήρανε τῆς ἐπιτιμήσεως.
Ἄλλως δέ φησι τὴν μέλλουσαν κατὰ τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ κρίσιν ἐπὶ
τῆς συκῆς ἔδειξεν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ παραβολὴ δηλοῖ· ἣν καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς
ἀπεμνημόνευσε λέγων, “συκὴν εἶχέν τις πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπε-
λῶνι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἦλθεν ζητῶν καρπὸν ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ οὐχ εὗρεν. εἶπεν
“δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀμπελουργόν. ἰδοὺ τρία ἔτη ἀφ' οὗ ἔρχομαι ζητῶν καρ-
“πὸν ἐν τῇ συκῇ ταύτῃ καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκω. ἔκκοψον αὐτήν· ἵνα τί καὶ
“τὴν γῆν καταργῇ; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ λέγει. Κύριε, ἄφες αὐτὴν

about which Cranfield said:

The most satisfactory explanation of this difficult (miracle) is surely that which is given by the earliest extant commentary on Mark, that of Victor of Antioch, viz., that the withering of the fig tree was an acted parable in which Jesus used the fig tree to set forth the judgment which was about to fall on Jerusalem.

C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 347

[C. S. Bartholomew]

John W. Burgon appears to have taken a keen interest in Victor of Antioch's Mark Commentary.

Victor’s Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel is generally considered to be claimed for Cyril of Alexandria by the following words: ΥΠΟΘΕCΙC ΕΙC ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΑΓΙΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ
ΕΚ ΤΗC ΕΙC ΑΥΤΟΝ ΕΠΜΗΝΕΙΑC ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙC
ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΥ c.

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark: Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established by John W. Burgon, James Parker and Co. 1871, APPENDIX (D) p279.

Here is the text under consideration:

“Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, vol. 1”, Ed. Cramer, J.A.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840, Repr. 1967.
Page 263, line 2t

ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ
Εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον Ἅγιον Εὐαγγέλιον ἐκ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν
Ἑρμηνείας τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρείας.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of this. Patristics is a difficult field to dabble in. The resources are complex and intimidating.

[mwh]

So you've found the Greek, and for anything else it looks as if this is what you’re after: http://www.brill.com/catena-marcum (2002). Some of it’s on google books (but not the stuff on the fig?). It looks good.

The work is assigned to the 5th-6th century, and apparently it's an anthology of patristic commentary on the Mark gospel. Looks invaluable for Marcan exegesis, worth more than any number of tralatitious modern commentaries.

[jeidsath]

“Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, vol. 1”, Ed. Cramer, J.A.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840, Repr. 1967.
Page 392, line 7

ἦν πείνης τὴν οἰκείαν ἐνδεικνύμενος δύναμιν, εἰς τὸ μὴ οἴεσθαι
αὐτοὺς ἀτονίᾳ τὸ πάθος αὐτὸν ἀναδέχεσθαι. διὰ τοῦτο φυτὸν ἐπι-
λεξάμενος, ὃ κἀν εἰ τέμοι τις, οὐ ῥᾳδίως τὴν ἔμφυτον ὑγρασίαν
ἀποτίθεσθαι πέφυκε· τοῦτο διὰ μόνης ἐξήρανε τῆς ἐπιτιμήσεως.
Ἄλλως δέ φησι τὴν μέλλουσαν κατὰ τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ κρίσιν ἐπὶ
τῆς συκῆς ἔδειξεν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ παραβολὴ δηλοῖ· ἣν καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς
ἀπεμνημόνευσε λέγων, “συκὴν εἶχέν τις πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπε-
λῶνι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἦλθεν ζητῶν καρπὸν ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ οὐχ εὗρεν. εἶπεν
“δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀμπελουργόν. ἰδοὺ τρία ἔτη ἀφ' οὗ ἔρχομαι ζητῶν καρ-
“πὸν ἐν τῇ συκῇ ταύτῃ καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκω. ἔκκοψον αὐτήν· ἵνα τί καὶ
“τὴν γῆν καταργῇ; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ λέγει. Κύριε, ἄφες αὐτὴν

…was famine, he demonstrating power to his household, so that they would not think to receive his passion without vigor. Because of this, having spoken additionally of a plant, which — if it might be cut by someone — has not easily put forth its naturally stored moisture. This dried up through a single rebuke. Especially, it is said, the destined judgement against Jerusalem was shown upon the fig-tree, as the parable demonstrates. This also Luke related from memory, saying “a certain man had a fig-tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit in it and did not find any. He said to the vine-dresser ‘look, for three years I have come seeking fruit in this fig-tree and have not found it. Cut it down — why leave the ground idle?’ He answered him saying, ‘Lord, let it alone…’”

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Thank you Michael and Joel for the responses.

Knowing nothing about Victor of Antioch three days ago I was confused about authorship issues. Cramer's Catenae (Oxford, 1840) contains, among numerous other works, the Oxford manuscript from what is called a "Commentary on Mark" which is itself a catenae of exegetical tradition from works on the gospels by earlier authors. The author/editor of this work is either Victor of Antioch or Cyril of Alexandria. So were talking about mid 400s to sometime in following century. Not terribly important to nail that down.

The author of this work states that he found many exegetical texts of the gospels of Matthew and John, a few of Luke and failed to find a single exegetical work on Mark's gospel. I quote the greek for this below.

“Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, vol. 1”, Ed. Cramer, J.A.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840, Repr. 1967.
Page 263, line 5


ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ
Εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον Ἅγιον Εὐαγγέλιον ἐκ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν
Ἑρμηνείας τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρείας.

ΠΟΛΛΩΝ εἰς τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον καὶ εἰς τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην τὸν
υἱὸν τῆς βροντῆς, συνταξάντων ὑπομνήματα, ὀλίγων δὲ εἰς τὸ
κατὰ Λουκᾶν, οὐδενὸς δὲ ὅλως, ὡς οἶμαι, εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον
Εὐαγγέλιον ἐξηγησαμένου (ἐπεὶ μηδὲ μέχρι τήμερον ἀκήκοα, καὶ
τοῦτο πολυπραγμονήσας παρὰ τῶν σπουδὴν ποιουμένων τὰ τῶν
ἀρχαιοτέρων συνάγειν πονήματα) συνεῖδον τὰ κατὰ μέρος καὶ
σποράδην εἰς αὐτὸ εἰρημένα παρὰ τῶν διδασκάλων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας,
συναγαγεῖν, καὶ σύντομον ἑρμηνείαν συντάξαι. Ὅπως μὴ μόνον
ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης βιβλίων δόξῃ παρεωρᾶσθαι, ἢ ὡς
μηδὲ μιᾶς ἐπιστάσεως δεομένου, ἢ ὡς δυναμένων ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς τῶν
λοιπῶν ἑρμηνείας καὶ τούτου τὴν διάνοιαν ἀνεξευρίσκειν.

My primary source for this was H. B. Swete[1]. John W. Burgon (1871)[2] has a great deal to say about this which is all over the web. Burgon is the go to guy for advocates of the TR. Let's not get sidetracked into that discussion.

Tracing the exegetical tradition about the cursing of the fig tree; I'm not sure if Victor is borrowing his comments on this passage from an earlier work on Matthew or if this comment is his own based on Mark. If Victor had access to exegetical texts on Matthew he may be using a source that didn't survive. So the tradition could be much older.

Having read H.B Swete[3] on the use of Mark by the early church and why it was accepted into the canon even though it was generally being ignored, I find it fascinating to read Victor's remarks about the unavailability of exegetical works for Mark's Gospel. We can only guess what Victor's resources looked like based on the fact that he had lots of material on Matthew and John and some on Luke. Must have been a church library in town.



[1] H. B. Swete, Gsp. Mark, London, 1913, p. xxxiv. Swete provided the keywords to search TLG. Without works like this your dead in the water.

[2] John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark: Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established James Parker and Co. 1871, APPENDIX (D) p279.

[3] H. B. Swete, Gsp. Mark, London, 1913, Introduction.

[mwh]

That is an interesting testimony you quote. But if Mark was “generally being ignored,” how surprising is it if there were no commentaries on it? But there are a fair number of early manuscripts with Mark, so perhaps it is surprising. I wonder where this testimony was written. Antioch (which will have been stuffed with church libraries)? But only if the shaky ascription to Victor of Antioch is reliable, which there seems little evidence of.

Rather than whistling in the dark like this I reckon you’d be better off consulting the 2002 book by Lamb. (Burgon, “all over the web” or not, is long superseded.) There’s also a kind of modern counterpart to the ancient anthology done the new-fashioned easy way, by computer searching: http://www.amazon.com/Mark-Ancient-Chri ... 0830814183. I haven’t seen either that or Lamb’s book, apart from glancing through Lamb’s table of contents and a few random pages on google books.

Best to avoid Joel’s attempt at a translation, btw. It’s, well, not good. The most pertinent bit is the bit introduced by ἄλλως, which is often used to signal another explanation or another source (as in a variorum edition, which apparently this is); “Alternatively, he says [who?], in the case of the fig-tree he showed the impending judgment on Jerusalem, as the parable also makes clear, the one that Luke (too?) mentioned: ‘(Lk.13.6ff)’.”

[jeidsath]

I was thinking of changing 'especially' to 'alternatively' all afternoon, but I trusted that mwh was already working on the master's class response. I will try to do the second block of text if I get a few free minutes tonight.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Joel and Michael,

I was doing some reading for the week between Palm Sunday and Easter, but got sidetracked by the issue of Jesus "cursing the fig tree" a notorious crux interpretum. Found the reference to Victor of Antioch in William Lane[1] (Mark NICNT, 1974). The cursed fig tree episode is broken in two, woven together in Mark's narrative with the temple incident (see R. T. France, Matthew 2005, Mark 2002). The eschatological significance of the curse: μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι seems to be ignored in the subsequent discussion about the power of faith. But the symbolism involved in both the denunciation of and the destruction of the temple along with the cursed fig tree raise questions in my mind about a system of eschatology that has a huge following in north america. What caught my eye was the wording of the curse, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα which is found only twice in the Apocalypse in reference to judgement.

Rev. 14:11 καὶ ὁ καπνὸς τοῦ βασανισμοῦ αὐτῶν εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων ἀναβαίνει, καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἀνάπαυσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τὸ θηρίον καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ καὶ εἴ τις λαμβάνει τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ.

Rev. 19:3 καὶ δεύτερον εἴρηκαν· ἁλληλουϊά· καὶ ὁ καπνὸς αὐτῆς ἀναβαίνει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

Note another place in Mark where εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is used in a context of judgement that is final and irrevocable.

Mark 3:29 ὃς δ᾿ ἂν βλασφημήσῃ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ ἔνοχός ἐστιν αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος.

Mark only appears to ignore the eschatological implications by having the subject switch to the power of faith to move mountains. The structure of Mark's narrative reveals a sub-text about the coming destruction of Temple and all that it represents.


PS - this morning I read Westcott & Hort[2] famous notes on the ending of Mark where they claim that Victor of Antioch was dependent on Cyril of Alexandria. I find it mind boggling that Mark's gospel, that was supposed to be the source for Matthew and Luke, didn't survive in a single complete manuscript. By the time Eusebius talks about it there were copies of it ending at Mk 16:8 and copies of it with Mk 16:9-20. Westcott and Hort were proto-textlinguists[3] in their discussion they demonstrate conclusively IMHO that 16:9-20 does not cohere 16:1-8. David Black & Co. have A bibliography on the ending of Mark which for some unexplained reason doesn't include Westcott & Hort.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: A Bibliography
http://www.daveblackonline.com/last_twe ... f_mark.htm

[1] William Lane taught at my alma mater late in his career decades after I graduated. His magnum opus was a two volume commentary on Hebrews (Word Biblical Commentary) which I don't own since it is always citing something written in German.

[2] Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: With Notes on Selected Readings
by B. F. Westcott , F. J. A. Hort, 1882

[3] Cohesion in English M.A.K. Halliday, Ruqaiya Hasan, 1976.

[mwh]

εις (τους) αιωνας (των) αιωνων looks very different from εις τον αιωνα to me. And I’m not competent to pronounce on eschatological implications of the latter, about which I’m sceptical. It reads as a simple intensification of μήκετι, the standard sort of thing you find in curses/wishes/prayers. More interesting to me is that the episode was brought into connexion with the parable in Luke 14, for no better reason than that a fig-tree figures there too. That’s the way older non-Christian commentators behave too.

As to the ending of Mark— well, I thought you didn’t want to go there. And nor do I. But since you bring it up, and even provide a defective bibliography of 225 items which I have no intention of reading, I would like to know just how secure the evidence really is for acquaintance with the “long” ending prior to the later 4th century. I mean the Diatessaron, Hippolytus, all the others conventionally trotted out. Is it really certain? Because if not, then the solution seems rather simple. In outline it would be:
The original ending was lost by mechanical accident at the outset of the transmission;
various completions were subsequently supplied;
the “long” ending did not establish itself in the tradition until the 4th century at the earliest (unknown to Bobbiensis and Vaticanus; Eusebius’ testimony).

This seems to be what the manuscript evidence suggests. It may be too simple to be true. But I’d like to see it definitively knocked down. So what I’m after is is not bibliography or references or history of scholarship or personal anecdote but concrete textual evidence that falsifies the thesis. There may well be some, but I need to see it to believe it. If you can provide it I’ll be very grateful.

[jeidsath]

I have to start out by saying that I believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and also that the Gospels are inspired accounts of his life and his resurrection. However, I do I feel that the Gospels are accounts that had fallible and sometimes ignorant human authors, who sometimes worked imaginatively rather than from first-hand accounts.

So I will go slightly farther than mwh and suggest that textual evidence suggests that Matthew and Luke had a version of Mark that ended more or less at the ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ of verse 8. Both the short and long endings are additions that postdate Matthew and Luke by a long while. Further, I would argue that Mark is internally consistent to end his gospel at verse 8.

First, notice that Matthew (who worked directly from Mark, as I have argued elsewhere) more or less follows Mark word for word through the promise that "he goes ahead of you into Galilee." Then, in Matthew's account, the women run in both fear and joy to tell everyone, and Jesus shows up to explain what was meant about the Galilee thing.

I am forced to read this as Matthew being anxious about the meaning of the Galilee statement, and he invokes Jesus to explain it away. And Jesus explains it rather prosaically — Jesus just meant that he planned to meant everyone there on a mountain, could have been anywhere, just round 'em all up. I can't imagine Matthew being anxious about the Galilee statement unless his manuscript of Mark really did end at verse 8.

Luke drops any reference to the meetup in Galilee, although there remains a hint of it because in his version the angels remind the women of what Jesus told them while ἔτι ὢν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ. Then Luke does his road to Emmaus story and closes his Gospel. Evidently Luke doesn’t know anything about Mark’s story continuing past verse 8. But does he know Matthew’s ending? Evidently yes, because it’s Matthew who has added the bit about the women reporting everything to the twelve.

That’s enough to prove to me that either the manuscript had an accident before Matthew and Luke ever saw it, or Mark ended it at verse 8.

Now I think it makes perfect sense for Mark to end there. For Mark, Galilee is actually an important place. The promise “he goes ahead of you into Galilee” is high language, not prosaic. To me it is a fairly straightforward case of the “king under the mountain” fairy tale. More like Arthur in Avalon or Ogier the Dane in Kronborg than Matthew’s meetup in Galilee.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

That’s enough to prove to me that either the manuscript had an accident before Matthew and Luke ever saw it, or Mark ended it at verse 8.

I am mildly inclined toward the lost leaf (one or more) of a codex. Do we have any examples of a codex from the first century? The long ending turns up in the second century. If Mark was being circulated in multiple copies from the beginning, this lost leaf must have been lost almost immediately. Otherwise we would need to account not only for a lost leaf but the lost copies with the original ending and the lost memory in the church of the original ending. That is a difficult. So we are virtually stuck with a lost leaf in the period before copies were made.

If Mark was preserving the memoirs of Peter and ended at 16:8, he didn't finish the job.

I have no aversion to talking about the ending of Mark. I was concerned about attracting the attention of TR advocates. I read the Majority text (Robinson - Pierpont, Byzantine Textform 2005) right along side the SBLGNT and the UBS3/NA26. I generally don't read the TR except to compare it.

[jeidsath]

“Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, vol. 1”, Ed. Cramer, J.A.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840, Repr. 1967.
Page 263, line 5


ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ
Εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον Ἅγιον Εὐαγγέλιον ἐκ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν
Ἑρμηνείας τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρείας.

ΠΟΛΛΩΝ εἰς τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον καὶ εἰς τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην τὸν
υἱὸν τῆς βροντῆς, συνταξάντων ὑπομνήματα, ὀλίγων δὲ εἰς τὸ
κατὰ Λουκᾶν, οὐδενὸς δὲ ὅλως, ὡς οἶμαι, εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον
Εὐαγγέλιον ἐξηγησαμένου (ἐπεὶ μηδὲ μέχρι τήμερον ἀκήκοα, καὶ
τοῦτο πολυπραγμονήσας παρὰ τῶν σπουδὴν ποιουμένων τὰ τῶν
ἀρχαιοτέρων συνάγειν πονήματα) συνεῖδον τὰ κατὰ μέρος καὶ
σποράδην εἰς αὐτὸ εἰρημένα παρὰ τῶν διδασκάλων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας,
συναγαγεῖν, καὶ σύντομον ἑρμηνείαν συντάξαι. Ὅπως μὴ μόνον
ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης βιβλίων δόξῃ παρεωρᾶσθαι, ἢ ὡς
μηδὲ μιᾶς ἐπιστάσεως δεομένου, ἢ ὡς δυναμένων ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς τῶν
λοιπῶν ἑρμηνείας καὶ τούτου τὴν διάνοιαν ἀνεξευρίσκειν.

Presenting (of course, a bad) translation:

Hypothesis
In regard to the Holy Gospel to Mark, from the interpretation of him by Cyril of Alexandria [who rests] in holiness:

Many having organized the memoirs from the Gospel according to Matthew, also those from the Gospel according to John the son of Thunder, and some few those from the Gospel according to Luke, but no one at all, I believe, having set in order the Gospel according to Mark (since neither until today have I heard [of such], and with earnest efforts I inquired closely into this alongside[1] the oldest of gathered works), I have been able to see the sayings from the teachers of the Church, from several parts here and there gathered together into one, and collated into an abridged teaching. Thus not alone of the books of the New Testament shall it appear neglected, nor as being in need of attention, or as within our powers the interpretation of the others, and of this the thought be undiscovered.

[1] LSJ παρα “4. with Verbs of placing, examining, etc., side by side with . .” Cyril’s main concern in all of this seems to be gospel harmonies (ie., like the Diatessaron).

[mwh]

The long ending turns up in the second century.

I don't like to ask again, but could you provide the evidence for this? I’m willing to believe it, but the various statements I've seen fail to give actual evidence. I really would like to see the probative textual evidence presented here at first hand for us to look at, because if "the long ending" was already accepted as the end of Mark in the 2nd century it results in an inherently implausible transmission that in my experience is uniquely problematic. I just can't make sense of it. I realize that the text will have been different in different places but still ....

Joel does not “go slightly farther” than me in suggesting that the supplied endings to Mark postdate Matt. & Luke “by a long while” (though he gives no evidence for that). See my trial-balloon outline of a prima facie plausible transmission in my previous post. What to make of the fact that the “long” ending is apparently unknown both to the Vaticanus and to the Bobbiensis? Textual traditions tend to be accretive rather than the reverse.

To your question. Papyrus scrolls often lose their ends. 1st-cent. manuscripts are generally scrolls, but contemporary codices of various (non-Christian) works are attested by Martial. Early Christians seem to have favored use of the codex (for whatever reason; in contradistinction from Jews?), and the Mark gospel may have taken some kind of codex form from the start. Codices often lose one or other of their outer sheets (or more). In short, there’s nothing implausible about the idea that Mark lost its original ending. Obviously the loss must have occurred right at the outset of the transmissional process; otherwise it would have been made good. (I certainly can’t credit the once popular notion that Mark is complete at 16.8, nor, needless to say, that the “long” ending is the original one.)

Joel’s attempt at translating the "Cyril" hypothesis is very faulty as he recognizes. (Joel, I know you mean well, and I’ve held my peace on previous occasions, but how much of a service is it to offer mistranslations that will mislead people? I’m not going to correct everything.) Just one or two points on the passage.
συνταξάντων ὑπομνήματα. Α hypomnema is a commentary, not a memoir. συνταξαι is to compile, compose.
ὀλίγων is “only a few.” There were lots of comms. on Mt. and Jn. but only a few on Lk. This lessens the gap between Lk. and Mk.
…
παρα is simply “from.” τῶν σπουδὴν ποιουμένων is masc., as is τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων too.
He’s not concerned with gospel harmonies, he’s just been collecting up the scattered incidental remarks on Mk. in other works. The book by Lamb I referred to deals with the various constituents of the resultant compendium.
…
(Edit. The closest we get to comparison with the other gospels is at the very end of the passage, where he speaks of being able to use the interpretation of the rest of the NT books to discover the meaning of Mk. too. An unsurprising but somewhat questionable methodology.)

[jeidsath]

Joel does not “go slightly farther” than me in suggesting that the supplied endings to Mark postdate Matt. & Luke “by a long while” (though he gives no evidence for that). See my trial-balloon outline of a prima facie plausible transmission in my previous post. What to make of the fact that the “long” ending is apparently unknown both to the Vaticanus and to the Bobbiensis?

Maybe I misunderstood you, but your argument was that the endings to Mark are late. That seems obvious enough to me from just reading through them -- "παρ’ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια" is the first thing that trips me up. And it gets very un-Markean as you read more.

However, my argument was that neither Matthew nor Luke in the first century were aware of any verses to Mark after 16:8. That brings us all the way back to the 1st century, and I do consider it a stronger condition than what you put forward. Nor am I sure that you would agree?

According to Mark Goodacre, the current consensus of NT scholarship is that Mark ended at 16:8 and always did end there: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/la ... -mark.html (if you have 15 minutes to listen to this podcast on the question, it is very well done, and articulates most of the main arguments very well). The older consensus was that Mark had some earlier ending that was lost, but according to Goodacre, that is no longer as persuasive as it once was.

Another good Goodacre read is this blog post (text this time, not podcast), which touches on the ending of Mark tangentially, but does describe some of the motivation. Goodacre describes Matthew as an orthodox redactor of Mark, attempting to reconcile stories like that of 1 Corinthians 15 with the abrupt ending of Mark (his main source): http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/or ... -mark.html

[C. S. Bartholomew]

The 2nd century fathers who appeared to be citing some portion of Mk 16:9-20 include Irenaeus of Lyons, Tatian's Diatessaron and perhaps Justin Justin Martyr. My sources don't cite the texts. This isn't controversial. It isn't the advocates of the long ending who are supplying this information. It's found in Metzger, Westcott & Hort and everywhere else the issue is discussed. These people are not claiming that the long ending of mark was accepted as a part of the gospel in the second century. All they are saying is the long ending was out there in circulation. For example, Eusebius knew about both endings and he said the long ending wasn't in the "best copies."

R. T. France (Mark 2005) points out the chief weakness in the advocacy for the short ending being intentional. It involves applying late modern literary fashion to an ancient document.

[mwh]

Thanks for the reply Stirling.

[jeidsath]

The 2nd century fathers who appeared to be citing some portion of Mk 16:9-20 include Irenaeus of Lyons, Tatian's Diatessaron and perhaps Justin Justin Martyr. My sources don't cite the texts. This isn't controversial. It isn't the advocates of the long ending who are supplying this information. It's found in Metzger, Westcott & Hort and everywhere else the issue is discussed.

I would be interested in sources. Metzger seems to say exactly the opposite about 2nd century sources in his Textual Commentary on the NT: "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them."

R. T. France (Mark 2005) points out the chief weakness in the advocacy for the short ending being intentional. It involves applying late modern literary fashion to an ancient document.

Matthew was geographically and linguistically removed from Mark. It strikes me as unlikely that his would be the only copy in circulation of Mark. So if there was an original ending in circulation, even if Matthew didn't use it, why wasn't it ever recovered? People were evidently looking for such an ending very early on. The only reason that we find Mark's ending strange is that we've all read Matthew. For Mark, I imagine, the chief resurrection witness was the empty tomb. He possibly lived in a community that could travel to this tomb -- perhaps not the original tomb, given that such things are generally fakes -- and see it. When he presents that, he's done.

[mwh]

So if there was an original ending in circulation, even if Matthew didn't use it, why wasn't it ever recovered? People were evidently looking for such an ending very early on.

If there was an original ending in circulation. But there wasn’t. (I thought that was settled.) It was lost at the outset of the transmission. End of problem.

The only reason that we find Mark's ending strange is that we've all read Matthew.

Not so. We find it strange because it is strange, so strange as to be incredible, and no amount of special pleading and fantasizing will make it credible to those familiar with contemporary compositional practices. The original ending was lost. That is far and away the most plausible hypothesis.

[jeidsath]

I'm happy to be convinced if someone is willing to make a case for it.

The case on the other side is very strong, in my opinion. Mark saw Jesus' return (to Galilee) as an apocalyptic event, fulfilling the prophecy made in chapter 13, that prophecy being a prophecy very local to Judea, and clearly one meant to happen soon after the events narrated. There is no ending to Mark because the next big event is the apocalypse. Until that occurs, there is nothing more to say.

Maybe Mark was planning to write about that when it happened?

[Paul Derouda]

Not so. We find it strange because it is strange, so strange as to be incredible, and no amount of special pleading and fantasizing will make it credible to those familiar with contemporary compositional practices. The original ending was lost. That is far and away the most plausible hypothesis.

Do you mean that it's strange to end a book with the word γάρ as in ἐφόβουντο γάρ? To me, though I'm hardly an expert, it seems that the sentence as it stands is highly irregular and would need some sort of a continuation. But apparently you're also implying that from a stylistic and/or narratological point of view as well the text would need some sort of a coda. I think I believe you, but can you elaborate a bit – what exactly do you find strange?

[mwh]

It’s not just the γάρ, though that’s part of it. The book is patently incomplete, breaking off as it does. I feel it would be a waste of time to argue the point, but:

The unexpectedly encountered young man in white (let’s call him an angel) tells the women to deliver a message to the disciples and to Peter, but they’re scared out of their wits and don’t.
I can understand why some have wanted to accept this as the gospel’s intended ending, but for an ancient book to just stop like this seems to me out of the question. The abruptness and ellipticality and open-endedness might work as an embedded Herodotean tale, or as a Pindaric one, or in a modern short story, but not as the conclusion of a book in antiquity, certainly not one as stylistically and narratologically (thankyou Paul) naive as this one is. It lacks any mark of conclusion, and leaves too much up in the air.

Recognition of the book’s incompleteness seems to me the essential first step in approaching the problems of the ending(s) it was later provided with.

(Edited to delete a comment which might have been taken as rude to those who believe Mark originally ended at 16:8. I didn't mean it that way.)

[Paul Derouda]

That makes perfect sense to me.

The gospel of Mark was one of the first texts I tackled in Greek, and was profoundly struck by how naive it was – it's surprising how all translations somehow circumvent the sheer naivety of the original.

[jeidsath]

I have now read R. H. Lightfoot’s Locality and Doctrine. These arguments on Mark’s original ending being at 16:8 are mostly taken from there.

1. Mark was fond of ending statements with short γὰρ clauses.

1:16 ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλεεῖς.
3:21 ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη.
9:6 ἔκφοβοι γὰρ ἐγένοντο.
10:22 ἦν γὰρ ἔχων κτήματα πολλά.
16:4 ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα.

Lightfoot suggests that this might have been the literal rendering of a particular Aramaic equivalent which I will not try to reproduce without a request.

2. Mark has several sections that parallel 16:1-8 in form. 1:23-27, 2:3-12, 4:36-41, 6:46-51, 7:32-37. The formula is generally: problem -> miraculous solution -> amazement from onlookers. Lightfoot has a longer description of the parallels. Regardless, in addition to all of the other coincidences of Mark losing a page at the beginning of transmission, it would seem that it had to happen exactly on a section break.

3. Mark 16:6-7 is a perfectly natural way for an ancient, especially such a naive stylist such as Mark, to end his Gospel. For Mark, the empty tomb was the central evidence of the resurrection. Also for Mark, Galilee is central to Jesus’ ministry in a way it is not for the other Evangelists.

4. Mark 16:8 is simply an “and they were amazed” coda to the section. Mark does some variant of “and they were amazed” to end most of his vignettes. It is not meant to contradict the commandment in 16:7, and Mark himself probably did not even notice the contradiction. Compare the apparent contradiction between Mark 14:47 and 48, which we discussed here earlier. I believe the consensus here was that Mark did not notice the contradiction, unlike his redactors Matthew and Luke, who both thought that it was odd.