Mark 16:8

ἐξελθοῦσαι, going out of the sepulchre into which they had entered (Mark 16:5). ἔφυγον, they fled, from the scene of such surprises. The angel's words had failed to calm them; the event altogether too much for them. τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις, trembling, caused by fear, and stupor, as of one out of his wits. τρόμος = “tremor corporis”: ἔκστασις = “stupor animi,” Bengel. οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον : an unqualified statement as it stands here, no “on the way,” such as harmonists supply: “obvio scilicet,” Grotius. ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ gives the reason of this reticence so unnatural in women: they were in a state of fear. When the fear went off, or events happened which made the disciples independent of their testimony, their mouths would doubtless be opened.

So ends the authentic Gospel of Mark, without any account of appearances of the risen Jesus in Galilee or anywhere else. The one thing it records is the empty grave, and an undelivered message sent through three women to the disciples, promising a reunion in Galilee. Strange that a story of such thrilling interest should terminate so abruptly and unsatisfactorily. Was there originally a continuation, unhappily lost, containing, e.g., an account of a meeting of the Risen One in Galilee with His followers? Or was the evangelist prevented by some unknown circumstances from carrying into effect an intention to bring his story to a suitable close? We cannot tell. All we know (for the light thrown on the question by criticism, represented, e.g., by Tischendorf, Nov. Test., G. Ed., viii., vol. i., pp. 403 407; Hahn, Gesch. des. N. Kanons, ii., p. 910 ff.; Westcott and Hort, Introduction, Appendix, pp. 29 51, approaches certainty) is that Mark 16:9-20 of Mark 16 in our N. T. are not to be taken as the fulfilment of any such intention by the author of the second Gospel. The external evidence strongly points this way. The section is wanting in [164] [165] and in Syr. Sin [166] Jerome states (Ep. cxx., quaest. 3) that it was wanting in nearly all Greek copies (“omnibus Graecis libris pene”), and the testimony of Eusebius is to the same effect. The internal evidence of style confirms the impression made by the external: characteristic words of Mk. wanting, words not elsewhere found in the Gospel occurring (e.g., ἐθεάθη, Mark 16:11), the narrative a meagre, colourless summary, a composition based on the narratives of the other Gospels, signs ascribed to believers, some of which wear an apocryphal aspect (vide Mark 16:18). Some, in spite of such considerations, still regard these verses as an integral part of Mk.'s work, but for many the question of present interest is: what account is to be given of them, viewed as an indubitable addendum by another hand? Who wrote this conclusion, when, and with what end in view? We wait for the final answers to these questions, but important contributions have recently been made towards a solution of the problem. In an Armenian codex of the Gospels, written in 986 A.D., the close of Mk. (Mark 16:9-20), separated by a space from what goes before to show that it is distinct, has written above it: “Of the Presbyter Aristion,” as if to suggest that he is the author of what follows. (vide Expositor, October, 1893. Aristion, the Author of the last Twelve Verses of Mark, by F. C. Conybeare, M.A.) More recently Dr. Rohrbach has taken up this fact into his interesting discussion on the subject already referred to (vide on Matthew 28:9-10), and appreciated its significance in connection with the preparation of a four-gospel Canon by certain Presbyters of Asia Minor in the early part of the second century. His hypothesis is that in preparing this Canon the Presbyters felt it necessary to bring the Gospels into accord, especially in reference to the resurrection, that in their preaching all might say the same thing on that vital topic. In performing this delicate task, the fourth Gospel was taken as the standard, and all the other Gospels were to a certain extent altered in their resurrection sections to bring them into line with its account. In Mt. and Lk. the change made was slight, simply the insertion in the former of two verses (Matthew 28:9-10), and in the latter of one (Luke 24:12). In Mk., on the other hand, it amounted to the removal of the original ending, and the substitution for it of a piece taken from a writing by Aristion the Presbyter, mentioned by Papias. The effect of the changes, if not their aim, was to take from Peter the honour of being the first to see the risen Lord, and from Galilee that of being the exclusive theatre of the Christophanies. It is supposed that the original ending of Mk. altogether ignored the Jerusalem appearances, and represented Jesus, in accordance with the statement of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5), as showing Himself (in Galilee) first to Peter, then to the Twelve. The inference is based partly on Mark 16:7, and partly on the relative section of the Gospel of Peter, which, following pretty closely Mk.'s account as far as Mark 16:8, goes on to tell how the Twelve found their way sad of heart to their old homes, and resumed their old occupations. In all this Rohrbach, a pupil of Harnack's, is simply working out a hint thrown out by his master in his Dogmengeschichte, vol. i., p. 346, 3 Ausg. It would be premature to accept the theory as proved, but it is certainly entitled to careful consideration, as tending to throw some light on an obscure chapter in the early history of the Gospels, and on the ending of the canonical Gospel of Mark in particular.

[164] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[165] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[166] Sin. Sinaitic Syriac (recently discovered).