The
patristic witness supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is impressive,
and one of the main reasons why I accept the longer ending. Indeed, in some
cases, the evidence predates the
manuscript evidence. David W. Hester noted the following on this issue:
Papias
Papias, whose Five Books on the Sayings of the Lord was completed by AD 110, had
only bits and pieces of his work later cited by various writers. Though no
evidence is available that Papias quoted directly from 16:9-20, he may have
been familiar with the passage. Eusebius indicated this: “But as regards them
let it be noted that Papias, their contemporary, mentions a wondrous account that
he received from the daughters of Philip. For he recounts a resurrection from
the dead in his time, and yet another paradox about Justus who was surnamed
Barsabbas, as having drunk a deadly poison and yet, through the grace of the
Lord, suffered no harm” (Ecc. History
3.39). An allusion to Mark 16:18 as personified by Justus is thus possible, but
not certain.
Epistle of the Apostles
The Epistula
Apostolorum, or Epistle of the
Apostles, is an anonymous composition. First discovered in 1895 in Cairo,
the first publication of the text was in 1913. It was translated from Greek
into Coptic and Ethiopic (the Ethiopic alone being complete), as well as a
small Latin fragment. Hannah proposed that the Epistle of the Apostles evidenced a collection of all four Gospels,
thus placing them as early as the 140s. While not explicitly quoting from
16:9-20, the author seems to have been familiar with the passage—as indicated
by several instances in his writing. It speaks of Jesus’ position in heaven
where he “sits at the right hand of the throne of the Father” (Epistle of the Apostles, 3), a reference
to Mark 16:19. It also describes the women at the tomb “weeping and mourning”
(Ibid., 10). This phrase is identical to that used in Mark 16:10. There is also
this statement: “Come, our Master has risen from the dead. And Mary came and
told us. And we said unto her: What have we to do with you, O woman? He that is
dead and buried, can he then live? And we did not believe her, that our Savior
had risen from the dead” (Ibid.). This seems to indicate that the author was at
least familiar with the passage; he describes the apostles collectively
rejecting the testimony of the women who had seen Jesus (as in Mark 16:11-14).
Further, the text states: “Then she went back to our Lord and said unto him, ‘None
of them believed me concerning your resurrection.” Again, this seems to
parallel 16:11. Consider also these citations: “Then the Lord said to Mary and
to her sisters, ‘Let us go to them,’ And he came and found us inside, veiled .
. . and he said to us, ‘Why do you doubt and are not believing?’” (Ibid.,
11). This seems to be another allusion
to the collective disbelief of the apostles, only found in 16:11-14—especially verse
14, where Jesus rebukes the apostles for rejecting the testimony of those who
had come to tell them of his resurrection. Later, it has Jesus saying, “Go and
preach to the twelve tribes of Israel and to the Gentiles and Israel and to the
land of Israel towards Easter and West, North and South” (Ibid., 30). This
could be from Mark 16:15. Taken as a whole, the author of Epistle of the Apostles seems to demonstrate a familiarity with
16:9-20. In his commentary on Mark, Robert H. Stein rejected 16:9-20 as
authentic. He yet acknowledged that Epistle
of the Apostles used the passage (Stein, Mark, 728) as did Hengel—who declared “the connections . . . are
particularly striking” (Hengel, Studies
in the Gospel of Mark, 168). Hengel also concluded that the account of the
resurrection found in Epistle of the
Apostles matches best with 16:9-20, dating Epistle “at the latest in the middle of the second century, and
very probably earlier,” and 16:9-20 “to the first decades of the second century”
(Ibid.)
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr, who dates ca. AD 153, shows a
familiarity with the passage. The phrase ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν (First
Apology 45.5) (“having gone forth, preached everywhere”) is the same as
found in Mark 16:20, with one difference. The order of the last two words is
reversed. While it is feasible that Justin knew the passage, there are those
who take issue. In the most recent critical text published of Justin’s Apology, the editors do not list 16:20
as a Scripture cited. Yet, the very words chosen by Justin seem to be more than
coincidental. The phrase from both works is virtually the same. It is probable
that Justin was at least alluding to Mark 16:20. Kelhoffer used Justin as a
witness to the antiquity of the passage, and also referenced words and phrases
used by Justin that possibly reflect knowledge ad use of the passage (Kelhoffer,
“Miracle and Mission,” 170-75). Assuming Justin cited it, it would indicate that
the long ending existed prior to AD 150.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus also dates toward the middle of the
second century. In Against Heresies,
there seem to be two citations from 16:9-20. In book 1, there is this statement
concerning Jesus, which is a reference to verse 19: “Then he was assumed into
heaven, where Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.” In book 3 there is a
quotation from Mark 16:19: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark
says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up
into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God” (Against Heresies 3:10:5). This statement about Mark 16:19 is
specifically mentioned in a Greek margin note in Codex 1582 and in Codex 72 (which
implies that the note was present in the archetype of Family 1, in the late 400’s).
Westcott and Hort accepted this quotation by Irenaeus as genuine (Introduction to the New Testament, 39).
One might dispute this by pointing to the uncertainty of the text. The writings
of Irenaeus are known in a Latin translation of a later date, and how much it was
emended is unknown. However, Kelhoffer had no problem citing Irenaeus as using the
passage. Kelhoffer refers to it as an “unambiguous citation of Mark 16:19 as a
part of the end of Mark’s Gospel” (Miracle
and Mission, 170). Because of the patristic evidence, Kelhoffer stated that
16:9-20 dates at least t the early decades of the second century (Ibid., 175). In light of the support of Markan
authorship of 16:9-20 by mid-second-century authors—whether one accepts or
rejects 16:9-20—the passage is ancient, well-attested, and accepted by the
early church. (David W. Hester, Does
Mark 16:9-20 Belong in the New Testament? [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock,
2015], 118-21, emphasis in bold added)
