Dishonest Scholars ?

A Fabricated

"Testimony of the Ancient Fathers" Against the Last 12 Verses

of the Gospel of Mark

by the Textual Criticism scholars. 

Amid all the controversy surrounding the last 12 verses of Mark, Christendom does NOT need fabricated evidence to confuse the problem. 

Yet, we have a host of textual critics in the 1800's who did just that.

They compounded the confusion by promoting statements of conjectured evidence.   

The result was that their statements were assumed to be correct by present day textual critics ... which promoted the error all along the way.

General statements today reflect something like this: "The last 12 verses of Mark are not found in Early Christian writings. "  

These Textual Critics of the New Testament , generally in the 1800's, were well-learned scholars whose names we know well. 

They are scholars by the familiar names of : Constantin von Tischendorf, Samuel P. Tregelles, Henry Alford, Samuel Davidson, Thomas Hartwell Horne, Norton, Johann Scholz, Johann Wettstein, Johann Jakob Griesbach, Brooke Westcott, and Fenton J. A. Hort. 

Undoubtedly, they were great scholars, every one of them, who could both read AND write in Latin AND Greek competently. 

Well-respected as scholarly college professors and writers, they also could speak and read other languages, such as German and French, as well as English. Some were accomplished in Hebrew and Aramaic and Arabic, as well.

However, THEY ALL have one thing in common:  

They dis-honestly represented

the words, content, and intent

of the Early Christian Fathers*

regarding

the Last 12 Verses of Mark's Gospel.

Much to their shame, they either:

·                 were not able to read the Ancient writers,  

·                 or… could not understand accurately what they DID read,

·                 or… did not take the time to read them at all,  

·                 or… did not read them thoroughly enough,  

·                 or… IF having read and understood them completely, then they deliberately mis-construed the writings of the Ancient Christians  

and reported their mis-construction to the general public who had not the resources nor academic prowess to verify their statements.

 

This was either done purposefully

·                 to shape popular opinion

·                 or willfully so as not to lose the esteem of their peer group,

·                or from sloppy scholarship

·               or from deliberate choices made in their scholarly work with the manuscripts

·                 or to establish THEIR thoughts instead of The LORD'S

·    or to support the philosophy of "rationalism" ( i.e., the human mind, reason,  reigns over all ), which was the school of thought promoted in the theology department of the University of Tubingen in Germany in the mid-1800's.

·           or to perhaps support a preferred doctrine instead of allowing The Word of GOD to speak for itself.

These college professors and learned academic men of great reputation truly built their reputation upon the backs of Christian theology, shaping that very theology to conform to their own IDEA OF IT.

Unfortunately, it seems they left out the HOLY SPIRIT from their understanding. 

In general, then, what is the case against these learned theologians, scholars, and writers of the 1800's ?

 

They stood against

the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

and worked to have it removed

from the New Testament Scriptures

... based on a very faulty evaluation of the evidence from the Early Christian writers ... 

... using their academic reputation

as knowledgeable scholars

upon the unsuspecting public. 

They cite seven Early Fathers* who THEY CLAIMED were against the Last 12 Verses.

These 7 Early Christian Fathers* were:

[N.B. We follow the LORD's Words in Matthew 23:9 to call no man "father."

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your FATHER, WHO is in Heaven.

But to maintain a clear reference throughout this article to the authorities we quote, we will temporarily consent to use the terminology accepted by others in reference to the Ante-Nicene and Nicene Early Christian "Fathers" , instead of our chosen terms, Early Christian "Apologists" or  Early Christian writers. ]

·                 Eusebius ... d. 340 AD

·                 Jerome ... d. 430 AD

·                 Gregory of Nyssa ... d. 395 AD

·                 Hesychius of Jerusalem, Presbyter ... d. 433 AD 

·                 Severus of Antioch ... d. 538 AD

·                 Victor of Antioch ... circa 425-450 AD

·                 Euthymius...  473 AD

To this list we would add their statements and sentiments published about the testimony of Mark 16's Last 12 Verses from the two Clements, Clement of Rome ( 30 to 100 AD) of the first century and Clement of Alexandria, (150 to 215 AD ) . 

DEAN John W. Burgon meticulously researched the writings and references of these seven Early Christian writers and located the exact passages these scholars used... passages which these scholars assured us "proved" the inclusion of the Last 12 Verses of Mark was an "error." 

In the fifth chapter of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, DEAN Burgon provides prodigious footnotes, some in Latin, some in Greek, some in English,  but all with exact references to the ancient writings he is citing. 

It behooves the advocate of TRUTH in Scripture to read pages 38-69 in DEAN Burgon's volume to grasp the enormous discrepancy between what was actually WRITTEN in the Ancient Christian documents versus what these scholars promoted. 

Here is a summary of a portion of this section of this chapter. 

Omission of Quotes Construed to Mean an Omission of  Mark 16:9-20 by Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria ...

Beginning with citations from Samuel Davidson, ( a learned Irish theologian in the 1800's who broke away from traditional Christianity ), DEAN Burgon pointed out some interesting facts about the two Clements.

Clement of Rome, according to Samuel Davidson, was a voice AGAINST the Last 12 verses of Mark 16 because "Clement omitted to quote from the last chapter of Mark ( p. 38)."

 

DEAN Burgon, however, pointed out this interesting fact: 

Clement of Rome

NEVER quoted

from any of Mark's Gospel

  AT ALL!

( p.39).  

A quick reference to Clement's pages in the Ante-Nicene Father's (ANF) Vol. 1 index verifies DEAN Burgon's research. 

Clement of Rome filled pages 1 through 21  in that volume; however,  there is not one reference listed in the index citing Mark in Clement's writing.

QUESTION:

WHY did Samuel Davidson

and other scholars

OMIT this finding ...

this factual evidence ... 

and "list" Clement of Rome

as supporting the omission

of the last 12 verses in Mark ? 

Is that "honest" scholarship ?

How many people ...

do you suppose, had access to the Ante-Nicene Fathers' writings  in the 1800's and could --- and would --- check this statement of  Samuel Davidson's ?  

How many people --- if they DID have access to the ANF volumes ---  could read Latin fluently enough like these scholars could do, to verify this WELL-PUBLISHED "statement" by the scholars who purposed to omit Mark 16:9-20 ? 

Mr. Davidson et al, also painted a skeptical picture of Clement of Alexandria's position on those Last 12 Verses by saying that it appeared that Clement of Alexandria's writings contained "no reference" to the last chapter of Mark.  

DEAN Burgon, however, brought to light that Clement of Alexandria ALSO did NOT QUOTE from the last chapter of Matthew ! This fact is also verified via a quick check of the ANF Vol 2 index. 

Could the learned and determined detractors from the Last 12 Verses in Mark have checked their references THOROUGHLY ? 

Casting aspersions on the authenticity of eight verses written by the Evangelist Mark and four verses spoken directly by Our LORD is a serious transgression, if found to be false. 

THREE AUTHORS for ONE "HOMILY" ?   

Next, Dean Burgon researched the famous quote ATTRIBUTED to Gregory of Nyssa, one of the seven Ancient Authorities cited by the textual critics. Here is that much-quoted statement.

" In the more accurate copies,

the Gospel according to Mark

has at its end "for they were afraid."

In some copies, however, this is also added,

--- "Now when HE+ was risen

early the first day of the week

HE+ appeared first to Mary Magdalene,

out of whom HE+ had cast seven devils."

The issue here is that word for word,  this quote is found under the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem instead of Gregory of Nyssa by two compilers of early Christian writings ... and under yet another writer's name, Severus of Antioch, by another two compilers of early Christian writings, DEAN Burgon relates ( p. 40). 

The vote, Burgon said, by the competent authorities in these matters, goes to Hesychius of Jerusalem as the author instead of either Severus or Gregory of Nyssa. 

Since one writing can only have one author, that means that both SEVERUS and GREGORY of Nyssa are removed from the aforementioned list of seven Ancient Authorities Against the Last 12 Verses of Mark, according to  Burgon (p. 41). 

That curtails the list now to three Ancient Authorities whom the scholars claim as justification to omit Mark 16:9-20. 

EUSEBIUS' Writings Provide the Medium for Confusion, Alas...

Eusebius ( d. 340), however provided the real mischief, although seemingly, he did so inadvertently. 

Perhaps not purposefully, but in using a "suppose-one-should-say" style of literary technique, Eusebius established the grounds for confusion for un-careful readers of his writings. 

In addition to his method of discussion, there is another reason for confusion here. 

This "confusion" was not the fault of Eusebius, but rather the scholars' reading of his passage.

Eusebius happened to be

addressing A DIFFERENT QUESTION

than what the textual critics

were addressing.

Thus, Eusebius' writings ( regarding the Last 12 Verses of Mark ) had a different INTENT or a different point to prove than what the score of learned textual critics had discovered.  

 As a result, confusion may have occurred when his passage was lifted from the context and his literary technique twisted into a direct quote.

In other words, the textual critics turn Eusebius' literary technique into a declaration  that Eusebius has "stated" a fact

. . . instead of a "suppose-one-should-say" type of  literary technique in his discussion.

The Focus in the Writing of Eusebius on Mark 16:9-20 

DEAN Burgon explains this thoroughly ( p. 45), as Eusebius focuses on  the word "early" being attached to the phrase, beginning    " ... early the first day of the week"  instead of    "... when HE+ was risen early..."  

NOTE the discussion Eusebius puts forth:

"This then is  
what a person will say

who is for

EVADING AND ENTIRELY GETTING RID OF

 A GRATUITOUS* PROBLEM."

(* uncalled-for, unwarranted)

The problem Eusebius was focused upon was the reconciliation of Mark 16:9 with the other Evangelist's account in Matthew 28:1. 

Eusebius wrote that church men wanted to dispense with the Last 12 Verses in Mark in order to make the Evangelists' account agree, regarding the first appearance of Our Risen LORD.  

Eusebius, then, wrote about it in this manner, saying "this is what those men will say... "  

In Defense of Eusebius

Eusebius labored to show that DISPENSING with the Last 12 Verses in Mark was NOT necessary to make the witness of the Evangelists Matthew and Mark agree ! 

If one pauses after "risen" instead of after "early", there is no discrepancy between the Evangelists' accounts, he said. [ We keep in mind that the Greek manuscripts were written without punctuation.]

Extrapolating "what a person might say" who wanted to dispense with the Last 12 Verses of Mark ( for the reason previously stated), Eusebius said that such a person might say any of the following :

·           he might say ... they are not met with in ALL the copies ( manuscripts),

·            or he might say ...not  in the accurate ones, at least,

·          or he might say ... those verses are met with seldom,

·          or he might say ...are absent from almost all copies ( manuscripts)

Unfortunately for the general public, the textual critics of the 1800's were anxious to use Eusebius' ancient authoritative standing to "prove" their point. 

Henry Alford, in his Greek Text ( Vol. i, p. 433, listed in Burgon, p. 41) thus overlooked the context, overlooked the literary technique, and overlooked the intent of that passage and thereby concluded that

Eusebius himself said

that the Last 12 Verses

" were wanting in many manuscripts." 

Unfortunately for the general public yet again, Tischendorf and Tregelles have printed only half of the Eusebius passage involved in this, thereby "proving" that Eusebius himself gave "adverse testimony" to the Last 12 Verses of Mark...

when in fact Eusebius did not.

+  +  +

(For those interested, the full passage is quoted below. )

Thus, in summary we see that some of the "textual criticism" scholars in the 1800's lifted PARTIAL information from the ancient Christian writings and used it dishonestly. 

These were men of great academic prowess. No-one could nor can doubt the ability of these scholars to READ the passages in question accurately. 

Furthermore, they spent years reading and studying the original manuscripts, traveling extensively to libraries and monasteries throughout the Christian world. It was their life's work. 

However, the end seemed to justify the means, as they did not ACCURATELY reflect what they found written in the ancient Christian writings. 

Their blindness or their lack of integrity resulted in immense deception and confusion brought into the Christian translations of the HOLY WORD of GOD, even to this day, alas.

WHY did Christendom tolerate this ?

It was a wholesale rejection of the HOLY SPIRIT'S inspiration of the HOLY SCRIPTURES and a reversal into worshipping "rationalism" ... the reign of reason, the reign of the mind ... as openly admitted by these scholars in their writings. 

+  +  +

For those interested, the context of the entire passage from Eusebius is quite enlightening. Let us take note of the INTENT of Eusebius' argument and his METHOD of presentation of it ( pg 44-45, Last Twelve Verses of Mark ):

Marinus is asking a question, which Eusebius answers.

Marinus asks: "How is it, that according to Matthew 28:1, The SAVIOR+ appears to have risen 'in the end of the Sabbath;' but according to Mark 16:9  ' early the first day of the week' ?"

Eusebius answers:

"This difficulty admits of a two-fold solution. He who is for getting rid of the entire passage WILL SAY

‘that it is not met with in all the copies of Mark's Gospel : the accurate copies, at all events, making the end of Mark's narrative come after the words of the young man who appeared to the woman and said 

'Fear not ye! Ye seek JESUS of Nazareth, &c': to which the Evangelist adds ' and when they heard it , they fled and said nothing to any man, for they were afraid.' ...

‘For at those words , in almost all copies of the Gospel according to Mark, comes the end. What follows ( i.e., the last 12 verses ) ,

‘( which is met with seldom [ and only ] in some copies, certainly not in all), might be dispensed with  , especially if it should prove to contradict the other evangelists.'

“This then is what a person WILL SAY who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem.

"But ANOTHER , on no account daring to reject anything whatever which is, under whatever circumstances, met with in the text of the Gospels, WILL SAY that

‘here are two readings ( as is so often the case elsewhere ); and that both are to be received, --- inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, this reading is not held to be genuine rather than that:  nor that  than this.’

"Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our business is to interpret the sense of the passage. And certainly, if I divide the meaning into two, we shall find that it is not opposed to what Matthew says of our SAVIOR'S + having risen 'in the end of the Sabbath.' "  ~ end of the quote from Eusebius ( as far as we are concerned with our topic here ). 

This writing is taken from Cardinal Angelo Mai's published fragments of Eusebius' writings, according to DEAN Burgon. Cardinal Mai published twice, once in 1825 and then in 1847 a work entitled "Nova Patrum Bibliotheca."  DEAN Burgon has extensive footnotes --- about 10 inches' worth, 8-point or smaller print,  continuing from pages 42 through 45 --- on the translation and source for these fragments of the writings of Eusebius.

[ The information in this post has been obtained from a variety of sources from Wikipedia and from DEAN John Burgon's detailed book: The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. There will be other articles forthcoming on Mark 16:9-20, including other sources.  This is the first article posted. ]