Scholars cite Origen both as a witness for and against the longer ending (LE) of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20). However, (1) Origen's expertise as a text critic and his role in the transmission of the New Testament means little of text-critical... more
Scholars cite Origen both as a witness for and against the longer ending (LE) of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20). However, (1) Origen's expertise as a text critic and his role in the transmission of the New Testament means little of text-critical curiosity would have escaped his notice. (2) The results of text-critical studies on Mark's Gospel in Origen's writings reveal that his texts belonged to particular textual streams, each resolving the gospel's ending in certain ways. Moreover, Origen's preferred text in his early Caesarean period resembled Codex Regius that contains an ending at 16:8, the shorter ending (SE), and the LE. Yet Origen's later affinity with Θ suggests he found nothing objectionable in the LE. Finally (3) these various endings were potentially available to Origen. Therefore, Origen knew the Gospel of Mark ending at 16:8, with the LE, and possibly with the SE as well. Scholars cite Origen both as a witness for and against the longer ending (LE) of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20 as attested in A C D K 33, etc.). As a witness for the LE, scholars note passages in Origen's writings where the LE appears to be the source of the intertextual content. As a witness against, Bruce Metzger, for example, claims Origen (often paired with Clement of Alexandria) shows no knowledge of the LE.1 Each perspective remains equally
"This study is a critical analysis of one of the most common arguments against the ending of Mark, that is the one about the hapaxes or linguistic singularities which, it's said, would demonstrate that this passage is a latter addition if... more
"This study is a critical analysis of one of the most common arguments against the ending of Mark, that is the one about the hapaxes or linguistic singularities which, it's said, would demonstrate that this passage is a latter addition if not a forgery. By looking at the whole gospel of Mark, as well as the ending of major books from the New Testament, we demonstrate that such argument could invalidate more than the ending of Mark alone."
This article addresses the problem of the perception of Mark’s endings as expressed in its manuscript tradition. I will argue that, unlike the modern standardized image, manuscript evidence offers a complex phenomenon in which the endings... more
This article addresses the problem of the perception of Mark’s endings as expressed in its manuscript tradition. I will argue that, unlike the modern standardized image, manuscript evidence offers a complex phenomenon in which the endings were perceived in diverse ways that move across the threshold that separates a text from paratexts. Further, the manuscripts show an influence between the endings and their associated paratexts. I will show this phenomenon by examining (i) the hypotheses before the Gospel, (ii) marginalia that engaged Mark 16, and (iii) postscripts after the Gospel. In conclusion, the article recommends revisiting the standard perception of the “endings” within their larger paratextual ecosystem.
