Footnote of NET Bible concerning the Ending of Mark at 16:9.
9
tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579
al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Θ Ë13 33 2427 Ď lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see
TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (
Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”
I think the references to the two "most respected" manuscripts are to
Sinaiticus and [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus']Vaticanus, [/URL]
both apparently from the 4th Century.
So let us revisit the arguments presented to undermine Dr. John MacArthur's viewpoint:
1) Massive evidence is redefined to not mean the evidence available against the long ending.
2) "they all survived" because they were not banned is ridiculed because natural decay exists. A nit pic at best.
3) "Earliest and most important is challenged as if Sinaiticus was not one of the earliest and most important.
4) Jerome included "9-20" in his Vulgate, but acknowledge that the text was possibly not part of the original because it differed from Matthew.
5) The early witnesses "say the same thing" is attacked as false, disregarding the overall truth of the statement based on specific differences.
6) The idea that you can put together support for your accepted version using patristic quotations is attacked because you could also put together a lack of support for other variant readings. Another nit...
7) The claim of a complete manuscript of the Iliad dates from the 13th Century is attacked because fragments exist much earlier. Manufactured problem.
8) The argument against the long ending relies on more than three witnesses. So another manufactured fault.
9) The claim is made by MacArthur than more than one optional ending exists. The above footnote validates that claim.
10) The MacArthur claim for support from early church fathers against the long ending does indeed appear to be an overreach.
He makes a good case for the longer ending.
