{"id":8137,"date":"2023-07-13T23:43:08","date_gmt":"2023-07-14T04:43:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=8137"},"modified":"2023-07-15T08:21:44","modified_gmt":"2023-07-15T13:21:44","slug":"spurious-bible-texts-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/07\/13\/spurious-bible-texts-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Spurious Bible texts Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"\nThe Early Fathers and the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27 \n\n\n\nCopyright \u00a9 2013 Norman L. Geisler \u2013 All Rights Reserved\n\n\n\nThe Biblical Passage in Question\n\n\n\n\u201cAnd behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.  \u200eThe tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, \u2018Truly this was the Son of God.\u2019\u201d\n\n\n\nMt. 27:51-54 ESV\n\n\n\nThe Current Challenge to Its Historicity\n\n\n\nIn his book on The Resurrection of Jesus (RJ), Mike Licona speaks of the resurrection of the saints narrative as \u201ca weird residual fragment\u201d (RJ, 527) and a \u201cstrange report\u201d (RJ, 530, 548, 556, emphasis added in these citations).[1]  He called it \u201cpoetical,\u201d a \u201clegend,\u201d an \u201cembellishment,\u201dand literary \u201cspecial effects\u201d (see 306, 548, 552, and 553). He claims that Matthew is using a Greco-Roman literary genre which is a \u201cflexible genre\u201d in which \u201cit is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins\u201d (RJ, 34).  Licona also believes that [...x]<\/span>
other New Testament texts may be legends, such as, the mob falling backward at Jesus claim \u201cI am he\u201d in John 18:4-6 (See RJ, 306, note 114) and the presence of angels at the tomb recorded in all four Gospels (Mt. 28:2-7; Mk. 16:5-7; Lk. 24:4-7; Jn. 20:11-14; see RJ, 185-186).  Licona cites some contemporary evangelical scholars in favor of his view, such as, Craig Blomberg who denied the miracle of the coin and the fish story in Matthew (Matt. 17:27).[2]  Blomberg also said, \u201cAll kinds of historical questions remain unanswered about both events [the splitting of the temple curtain and the resurrection of the saints]\u201d (Matthew<\/em>,<\/strong>electronic ed., 2001 Logos Library System; the New American Commentary<\/em>[421].  Broadman and Holman, vol. 22).  He also cites W. L. Craig, siding with a Jesus Seminary fellow Dr. Robert Miller, that Matthew added this story to Mark\u2019s account and did not take it literally.  Craig concluded that there are \u201cprobably only a few [contemporary] conservative scholars who would treat the story as historical\u201d (from Craig\u2019s comments in Paul Copan, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? <\/em>Baker, 1998).  On the contrary,  in terms of the broad spectrum of orthodox scholars down through the centuries, there are relatively \u201cfew\u201d contemporary scholars who deny its authenticity, and they are overshadowed by the \u201cmany\u201d (vast majority of) historic orthodox scholars who held to the historicity of this Matthew 27 resurrection of the saints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Evidence for Its Historicity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In spite of these contemporary denials, many scholars have pointed out the numerous indications of historicity in the Matthew 27:51-54 text itself, such as: (1) It occurs in a book that present itself as historical (cf. Mt 1:1,18); (2) Numerous events in this book have been confirmed as historical (e.g., the birth, life, deeds, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ); (3) It is presented in the immediate context of other historical events, namely, the death and resurrection of Christ; (4) The resurrection of these saints is also presented as an event occurring as a result of the literal death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Mt. 27:52-53); (5) Its lineage with the preceding historical events is indicated by a series of conjunctions (and\u2026and\u2026and, etc.); (6) It is introduced by the attention getting \u201cBehold\u201d (v. 51) which focuses on it reality;[3] (7) It has all the same essential earmarks of the literal resurrection of Christ, including: (a) empty tombs, (b) dead bodies coming to life, and (c) these resurrected bodies appearing to many witnesses; (8) It lacks and literary embellishment common to myths,  being a short, simple, and straightforward account;  (9)  It contains element that are confirmed as historical by other Gospels, such as (a) the veil of the temple being split (Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45), and (b) the reaction of the Centurion (Mk. 15:39; Lk. 23:47).  If these events are historical, then there is no reason to reject the other events, such as, the earthquake and the resurrection of the saints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, it is highly unlikely that a resurrection story would be influenced by a Greco-Roman genre source (which Licona embraces) since the Greeks did not believe in the resurrection of the body (cf. Acts 17:32).  In fact, bodily resurrection was contrary to their dominant belief that deliverance from <\/em>the body, not a resurrection in<\/em> the body, was of the essence of salvation.  Homer said death is final and resurrection does not occur (Iliad<\/em> 24.549-551).  Hans-Josef Klauck declared, \u201cThere is nowhere anything like the idea of Christian resurrection in the Greco-Roman world\u201d (The Religious Context of Early Christianity<\/em>. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000, p. 151).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Don Carson makes a interesting observation about those who deny the historicity of this text, saying, \u201cOne wonders why the evangelist, if he had nothing historically to go on, did not invent a midrash [legend] with fewer problems\u201d (Carson, \u201cMatthew\u201d in Expositors Bible Commentary; Matthew, Mark, Luke<\/em>, ed. Frank Gabelein.  Zondervan, 1984, p. 581).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Survey of the Great teachers of the Church on the Passage<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite his general respect for the early Fathers, Mike Licona refers to their statements on this passage as \u201cvague,\u201d \u201cunclear,\u201d \u201cambiguous,\u201d \u201cproblematic,\u201d and \u201cconfusing.\u201d[4] However, this is misleading, as the readers can see for themselves in the following quotations.  For even though they differ on details, the Fathers are clear, unambiguous, and unanimous as to the historical nature of this event.<\/strong>  We have highlighted their important words which affirm the literal and historical nature of the event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The apostolic Father Ignatius was the earliest one to cite this passage, and Licona acknowledges that his writings \u201care widely accepted as authentic and are dated ca. A.D. 100-138 and more commonly to ca. A.D. 110\u201d (Licona, RJ, 248).  He adds that these writings provide \u201cvaluable insights for knowledge of the early second-century church\u2026\u201d (ibid.).  If so, they are the earliest and most authentic verification of the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 on record\u2014one coming from a contemporary of the apostle John!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ignatius to the Trallians<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor Says the Scripture, \u2018May bodies of the saints that slept arose,\u2019 their graves being opened<\/strong>.  He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, butHe arose accompanied by a multitude<\/strong>\u201d (chap. Ix, The Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, vol. I, p. 70).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ignatius to the Magnesians (AD 70-115)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c\u2026[T]herefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master\u2014how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?  Andtherefore He who they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead\u201d<\/strong> [Chap. IX] (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, vol. I (1885).  Reprinted by Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p. 62. Emphasis added in all these citations).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Irenaeus (AD 120-200)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Irenaeus also was closely linked to the New Testament writers.  He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.  <\/strong>Irenaeus wrote: \u201c\u2026He [Christ] suffered who can lead those souls aloft that followed His ascension<\/strong>.  This event was also an indication of the fact that when the holy hour of Christ descended [to Hades], many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies\u201d <\/strong>(Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus<\/em> XXVIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, vol. I, Alexander Roberts, ibid., 572-573).  This is followed (in XXIX) by this statement: \u201cThe Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews.  For they had particular stress upon the fact that Christ [should be] of the seed of David.  Matthew also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular pains to afford them convincing proof that Christ is the seed of David\u2026\u201d<\/strong> (ibid., 573).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clement of Alexandria (AD 155-200)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another second century Father verified the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27, writing, \u201c\u2018But those who had fallen asleep descended dead, but ascended alive.\u2019  Further, the Gospel says, \u2018that many bodies of those that slept arose,\u2019\u2014plainly as having been translated to a better state\u201d<\/strong> (Alexander Roberts, ed. Stromata, Ante-Nicene Fathers, <\/em>vol. II, chap. VI, 491<\/em>).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tertullian (AD 160-222).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Father of Latin Christianity wrote:  \u201c\u2019And the sun grew dark at mid-day;\u2019 (and when did it \u2018shudder exceedingly\u2019 except at the passion of Christ, when the earth trembled to her centre, and the veil of the temple was rent, andthe tombs burst asunder<\/strong>?) \u2018because these two evils hath My People done\u2019\u201d (Alexander Roberts, ed. An Answer to the Jews, <\/em>Chap XIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers,<\/em> vol. 3, 170).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hippolytus (AD 170-235)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd again he exclaims, \u2018The dead shall start forth from the graves,\u2019 that is, from the earthly bodies, being born again spiritual, not carnal<\/strong>.  For this he says, is the Resurrection that takes place through the gate of heaven, <\/strong>through which, he says, all those that do not enter remain dead\u201d (Alexander Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5,  The Refutation of All Heresy, BooK V, chap. 3<\/em>, p. 54).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Origen (AD 185-254)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c\u2019But,\u2019 continues Celsus, \u2018what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God?\u2026Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him<\/strong>, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than the Gospel narratives, which state that \u2018there was an earth quake, and that the rock were split asunder, and the tombs were opened, <\/strong>and the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, an the darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light\u2019\u201d (Against Celsus<\/em>, Book II, XXXIII. Alexander Roberts, ed.  Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, vol. 4, 444-445).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut if this Celsus, who, in order to find matter of accusation against Jesus and the Christians, extracts from the Gospel even passages which are incorrectly interpreted, but passes over in silence the evidences of the divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let him read the Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept watch over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred<\/strong>, were greatly afraid, saying, \u2018This man was the Son of God\u2019\u201d (Ibid., XXVI, p. 446).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. AD 315-c. 386)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Early Fathers in the East also verified the historicity of the Matthew test.  Cyril of Jerusalem wrote: \u201cBut it is impossible, some one will say, that the dead should rise; and yet Eliseus [Elisha] twice raised the dead,\u2013when he was live and also when dead\u2026and is Christ not risen? \u2026 But in this case both the Dead of whom we speak Himself arose, and many dead were raised without having even touched Him.  For many bodies of the Saints which slept arose, and they came out of the graves after His Resurrection, and went into the Holy City<\/em><\/strong>, <\/em>(evidently this city in which we now are,) and appeared to many\u201d<\/strong> (Catechetical Lectures<\/em> XIV, 16 in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p, 98).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, \u201cI believe that Christ was also raised from the dead<\/strong>, both from the Divine Scriptures, and from the operative power even at this day of Him who arose,\u2013who descended into hell alone, but ascended thence with a great company for He went down to death, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose <\/em>through Him\u201d<\/em><\/strong> (ibid., XIV, 17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cyril adds, \u201cHe was truly laid as Man in a tomb of rock; but rocks were rent asunder by terror because of Him.  He went down into the regions beneath the earth, thence also He might redeem the righteous.<\/strong>  For tell me, couldst thou wish the living only to enjoy His grace,\u2026 and not wish those who from Adam had a long while been imprisoned to have now gained their liberty? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. AD 330-c. 389)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHe [Christ] lays down His life, but He has the power to take it again; and the veil rent, for the mysterious doors of Heaven are opened;[5] the rocks are cleft, the dead arise.<\/strong>  He dies but he gives life, and by His death destroys death.  He is buried, but He rises again. He goes down to Hell, but He brings up the souls; He ascends to Heaven<\/strong>, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead, and to put to the test such words are yours\u201d (Schaff, ibid., vol. VII, Sect XX, p. 309).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jerome (AD 342-420)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking of the Matthew 27 text, he wrote: \u201cIt is not doubtful to any what these great signs signify according to the letter, namely, that heaven and earth and all things should bear witness to their crucified Lord\u201d<\/strong> (cited in Aquinas, Commentary on the Four Gospels<\/em>, vol. I, part III: St.<\/em>Matthew <\/em>(Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1841), <\/em>964.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs Lazarus rose from the dead, so also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to shew forth the Lord\u2019s resurrection; yet notwithstanding that the graves were opened, they did not rise again before the Lord rose, that He might be the first-born of the resurrection from the dead\u201d<\/strong>(cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hilary of Poitiers (c. AD 315-c.357)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe graves were opened<\/em>, for the bands of death were loosed.  And many bodies  of the saints which slept arose<\/em><\/strong>, for illuminating the darkness of death, and shedding light upon the gloom of Hades, He robbed the spirits of death\u201d <\/strong>(cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chrysostom (AD 347-407)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/strong>When He [Christ] remained on the cross they had said tauntingly, He saved others, himself he cannot save. <\/em>But what He should not do for Himself, that He did and more than that for the bodies of the saints.<\/strong>  For if it was a great thing to raise Lazarus after four days, much more was it that they who had long slept should not shew themselves above; this is indeed a proof of the resurrection to come.<\/strong>  But that it might not be thought that that which was done was an appearance merely, <\/strong>the Evangelist adds, and come out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many\u201d <\/em>(cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963-964).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

St. Augustine (AD 354-430)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The greatest scholar at the beginning of the Middle Ages, St. Augustine, wrote: \u201cAs if Moses\u2019 body could not have been hid somewhere\u2026and be raised up therefrom by divine power at the time when Elias and he were seen with Christ: Just as at the time of Christ\u2019s passion many bodies of the saints arose, and after his resurrection appeared, according to the Scriptures, to many in the holy city\u201d <\/strong>(Augustine, On the Gospel of St. John<\/em>, Tractate cxxiv, 3, Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, vol. VII, 448).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMatthew proceeds thus: \u2018And the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arise, and come out of the graves after the resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.\u2019 There is no reason to fear that these facts<\/strong>, which have been related only by Matthew, may appear to be inconsistent with the narrative present by any one of the rest [of the Gospel writers)\u2026. For as the said Matthew not only tells how the centurion \u2018saw the earthquake,\u2019 but also appends the words [in v. 54], \u2018and those things that were done\u2019<\/strong>\u2026. Although Matthew has not added any such statement, it would still have been perfectly legitimate to suppose, that as many astonishing things did place at that time\u2026, the historians<\/strong> were at liberty to select for narration any particular incident which they were severally disposed to instance as the subject of the wonder.  And it would not be fair to impeach them with inconsistency, simply because one of them may have specified one occurrence as the immediate cause of the centurion\u2019s amazement, while another introduces a different incident\u201d<\/strong> (St. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels,<\/em> Book III, chap. xxi in Schaff, ibid., vol. VI, p. 206, emphasis added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

St. Remigius (c. 438-c. 533) \u201cApostle of the Franks\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut some one will ask, what became of those who rose again when the Lord rose.  We must believe that they rose again to be witnesses of the Lord\u2019s resurrection.<\/strong>  Some have said that they died again, and were turned to dust, as Lazarus and the rest whom the Lord raised.  But we must by no means give credit to these men\u2019s sayings, since if they were to die again, it would be greater torment to them, than if they had not risen again.  We ought therefore to believe without hesitation that they who rose from the dead at the Lord\u2019s resurrection, ascended also into heaven together with Him\u201d<\/strong> (cited in Aquinas, ibid., 964).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Augustine was the greatest Christian thinker at the beginning of the Middle Ages, Aquinas was the greatest teacher at the end.  And too he held to the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27<\/strong>, as is evident from his citations from the Fathers (with approval) in his great commentary on the Gospels (The Golden Chain<\/em>), as all the above Aquinas references indicate, including Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Chrysostom, and Remigius (see Aquinas, ibid., 963-964).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John Calvin (1509-1564)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The chain of great Christian teachers holding to the historicity of this text continued into the Reformation and beyond.  John Calvin wrote: \u201cMatt. 27.52.  And the tombs were opened. <\/em>This was a particular portent in which God testified that His Son had entered death\u2019s prison, not to stay there shut up, but to lead all free who were there held captive\u2026.  That is the reason why He, who was soon to be shut in a tomb opened the tombs elsewhere.  Yet we may doubt whether this opening of the tombs happened before the resurrection, for the resurrection of the saints which is shortly after added followed in my opinion the resurrection of Christ.  It is absurd for some interpreters to image that they spent three days alive and breathing, hidden in tombs.  It seems likely to me that at Christ\u2019s death the tombs at once opened; at His resurrection some of the godly men received breath and came out and were seen in the city.  Christ is called the Firstborn from the dead <\/strong>(1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18)\u2026. This reasoning agrees very well, seeing that the breaking of the tombs was the presage of new life, and the fruit itself, the effect, appeared three days later, as Christ rising again led other companions from the graves with Himself.  And in this sign it was shown that neither His dying nor His resurrection were private to himself, but breathe the odour of life into all the faithful\u201d (Calvin\u2019s New Testament Commentaries<\/em>, trans. A. W. Morrison. Eds. David and Thomas Torrance.  Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, vol. 3, pp. 211-212).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concluding Comments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, there are some aspects of this Matthew 27 text of the saints on which the Fathers were uncertain.  For example, there is the question as to whether the saints were resurrected before or after Jesus was and whether it was a resuscitation to a mortal body or a permanent resurrection to an immortal body.  However, there is no reason for serious doubt that all the Fathers surveyed accepted the historicity of this account<\/strong>.  Their testimony is very convincing for many reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the earliest confirmation as to the historical nature of the resurrection of the saints in the Matthew 27 passage goes all the way back to Ignatius, a contemporary of the apostle John (who died. c. AD 90).  One could not ask for an earlier verification that the resurrection of these saints than that of Ignatius (AD 70-115).  He wrote: \u201cHe who they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead\u201d<\/strong> [Chap. IX].[6] And in the Epistle to the Trallians he added, \u201cFor Says the Scripture, \u2018May bodies of the saints that slept arose,\u2019 their graves being opened<\/strong>.  He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude<\/strong>\u201d (chap. IX, The Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, vol. I, p. 70). The author who is a contemporary of the last apostle (John) is speaking unmistakably of the saints in Matthew 27 who were literally resurrected after Jesus was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the next testimony to the historicity of this passage is Irenaeus who knew Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John.  Other than the apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus is a good as any witness to the earliest post-apostolic understanding of the Matthew 27 text.  And he made it clear that \u201cmany\u201d persons \u201cascended and were seen in their bodies\u201d <\/strong>(Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus<\/em> XXVIII. Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, vol. I, ibid., 572-573).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, there is a virtually unbroken chain of great Fathers of the church after Irenaeus (2nd<\/sup> cent.) who took this passage as historical (see above).  Much of the alleged \u201cconfusion\u201d and \u201cconflict\u201d about the text is cleared up when one understands that, while the tombs were opened at the time of the death of Christ, nonetheless, the resurrection of these saints did not occur until \u201cafter<\/strong> his resurrection\u201d (Mt. 27:53, emphasis added)[7]  since Jesus is the \u201cfirstfruits\u201d (1 Cor. 15:23) of the resurrection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, the great church Father St. Augustine stressed the historicity of the Matthew 27 text about the resurrection of the saints, speaking of them as\u201c<\/strong>facts\u201d <\/strong>and \u201cthings that were done\u201d <\/strong>as recorded by the Gospel\u201chistorians\u201d<\/strong> (St. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels,<\/em> Book III, chap. xxi in Schaff, ibid., vol. VI, p. 206, emphasis added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifth, many of the Fathers used this passage in an apologetic sense as evidence of the resurrection of Christ.  This reveals their conviction that it was a historical event resulting from the historical event of the resurrection of Christ. Irenaeus was explicit on this point, declaring, \u201cMatthew also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular pains to afford them convincing proof that Christ is the seed of David<\/strong>\u2026\u201d (Irenaeus, ibid., 573).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some, like Chrysostom, took it as evidence for the resurrection to come.  \u201cFor if it was a great thing to raise Lazarus after four days, much more was it that they who had long slept should not shew themselves above; this is indeed a proof of the resurrection to come<\/strong>\u201d <\/em>(cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963-964).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Origen took it as \u201cevidences of the divinity of Jesus\u201d <\/strong>(Origen, ibid., Book II, chap. XXXVI. Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, 446).  None of these Fathers would have given it such apologetic weight had they not been convinced of the historicity of the resurrection of these saints after Jesus\u2019 resurrection in Matthew 27.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sixth, even the Church Father Origen, who was the most prone to allegorizing away literal events in the Bible, took this text to refer to a literal historical resurrection of saints.  He wrote of the events in Matthew 27 that they are \u201cthe evidences of the divinity of Jesus\u201d <\/strong>(Origen, ibid., Book II, chap. XXXVI. Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, 446).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seventh, some of the great teachers of the Church were careful to mention that the saints rose as a result of Jesus\u2019 resurrection which is a further verification of the historical nature of the resurrection of the saints in Mathew 27.  Jerome wrote: \u201cAs Lazarus rose from the dead, so also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to shew forth the Lord\u2019s resurrection;<\/strong>yet notwithstanding that the graves were opened, they did not rise again before the Lord rose, that He might be the first-born of the resurrection from the dead\u201d (cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963).  John Calvin added, \u201cYet we may doubt whether this opening of the tombs happened before the resurrection,for the resurrection of the saints which is shortly after added followed in my opinion the resurrection of Christ<\/strong>.  It is absurd for some interpreters to image that they spent three days alive and breathing, hidden in tombs.\u201d  For \u201cIt seems likely to me that at Christ\u2019s death the tombs at once opened; at His resurrection some of the godly men received breath and came out and were seen in the city.<\/strong>  Christ is called the Firstborn from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18\u201d (Calvin\u2019s New Testament Commentaries<\/em>, vol. 3, pp. 211-212).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eighth, St. Augustine provides an answer to the false premise of contemporary critics that there must be another references to a New Testament event like this in order to confirm that it is historical.  He wrote, \u201cI<\/strong>t would not be fair to impeach them with inconsistency, simply because one of them may have specified one occurrence as the immediate cause of the centurion\u2019s amazement, while another introduces a different incident\u201d<\/strong> (St. Augustine, ibid., emphasis added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, contrary to the claims of critics, the Matthew 27 account of the resurrection of the saints is a clear and unambiguous affirmation of the historicity of the resurrection of the saints. This is supported by a virtually unbroken line of the great commentators of the Early Church and through the Middle Ages and into the Reformation period (John Calvin).<\/strong>  Not a single example was found of any Father surveyed who believed this was a legend.  Such a belief is due to the acceptance of critical methodology, not to either a historical-grammatical exposition of the text or to the supporting testimony of the main orthodox teachers of the Church up to and through the Reformation Period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ninth, the impetus for rejecting the story of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 is not based on good exegesis of the text or on the early support of the Fathers but is based on fallacious premises.  (1) First of all, there is an anti-supernatural bias beneath much of contemporary scholarship.  But there is no philosophical basis for the rejection of miracles (see our Miracles and the Modern Mind, <\/em>Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), and there is no exegetical basis for rejecting it in the text.  Indeed on the same ground one could reject the resurrection of Christ since it supernatural and is found in the same text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) Further, there is also the fallacious premise of double reference which affirms that if an event is not mentioned at least twice in the Gospels, then its historicity is questioned.  But on this grounds many other events must be rejected as well, such as, the story of Nicodemus (Jn. 3), the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4), the story of Zaccchaeus (Lk. 19), the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn. 11), and even the birth of Christ in the stable and the angel chorus (Lk. 2), as well as many other events in the Gospels.  How many times does an event have to be mentioned in a contemporary piece of literature based on reliable witnesses in order to be true?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(3) There is another argument that seems to infect much of contemporary New Testament scholarship on this matter.  It is theorized that an event like this, if literal, would have involved enough people and graves to have drawn significant evidence of it in a small place like Jerusalem.  Raymond Brown alludes to this, noting that \u201c\u2026many interpreters balk at the thought of many known risen dead being seen in Jerusalem\u2014such a large scale phenomenon should have left some traces in Jewish and\/or secular history!\u201d[8]  However, at best this is simply the fallacious Argument from Silence.  What is more, \u201cmany\u201d can mean only a small group, not hundreds of thousands. Further, the story drew enough attention to make it into one of the canonical Gospels, right along side of the resurrection of Christ and with other miraculous events.  In brief, it is in a historical book; it is said to result from the resurrection of Christ; it was cited apologetically by the early Fathers as evidence of the resurrection of Christ and proof of the resurrection to come.  No other evidence is needed for its authenticity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Denial of Inerrancy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the official statements on by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), the denial of the historicity of the Matthew 27 resurrection of the saints is a denial of the inerrancy of the Bible.  This is clear from several official ICBI statements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy speaks against this kind of \u201cdehistoricizing\u201d of the Gospels, saying, \u201cWe deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing<\/strong>, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship\u201d (Article XVIII).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) The statement add: \u201call the claims of the Bible must correspond with reality, whether that reality is historical, factual or spiritual\u201d<\/strong> (Sproul,Explaining Inerrancy (EI)<\/em>, 43-44).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(3) ICBI framers said, \u201cThough the Bible is indeed redemptive<\/em> history, it is also redemptive history<\/em><\/strong>, and this means that the acts of salvation wrought by God actually occurred in the space-time world<\/strong>\u201d (Sproul, EI, 37).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(4) Again, \u201cWhen the quest for sources produces a dehistoricizing<\/strong> of the Bible, a rejection of its teaching or a rejection of the Bible\u2019s own claims of authorship [then] it has trespassed beyond its proper limits (Sproul, EI, 55).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subsequently, Sproul wrote: \u201cAs the former and only President of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Mr. Michael Licona\u2019s views are not even remotely compatible with the unified Statement of ICBI\u201d<\/strong> (Letter, May 22, 2012, emphasis added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(5) Also, \u201cWe deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual\u201d<\/strong> (Explaining Hermeneutics <\/em>(EH), XIII). \u201cWe deny that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated<\/strong>\u201d (EH  XIV bold added in all above citations).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(6) Finally, as a framer of the ICBI statements I can testify that Robert Gundry\u2019s like view deshistoricizing Matthew were an object of these ICBI statements. And they lead to his being asked to resign from the Evangelical theological Society (by a 70% majority vote).  Since Licona\u2019s views do the same basic thing, then they should be excluded on the same basis. Gundry used Jewish midrash genre to dehistoticized parts of Gospel history, and Licona used Greco-Roman genre and legends, but the principle is the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1] Licona has subsequent questions about the certitude of his view on Matthew 27 but has not retracted the view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]  Craig Blomberg, \u201cA Constructive Traditional Response to New Testament Criticism,\u201d in Do Historical Matters Matter to the Faith<\/em> (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012) 354 fn. 32.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3] Carl Henry noted that \u201cCalling attention to the new and unexpected, the introductory Greekide<\/em>\u2014See! Behold!\u2014stands out of sentence construction to rivet attention upon God\u2019s awesome intervention\u201d (Henry, God Revelation and Authority.<\/em>Texas: Word Books, 1976) 2:17-18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4] Mike Licona, \u201cWhen the Saints Go Marching in (Matthew 27:52-53): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Biblical Inerrancy\u201d given at the November, 2011 Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5] Despite the curious phrase about the \u201cmysterious doors of Heaven are opened\u201d when the veil was split, everything in this passage speaks of literal death and literal resurrection of Christ and the saints after His death. The book of Hebrews makes the same claim that after the veil was split that Christ entered \u201conce for all\u201d into the most holy place (heaven) to achieve \u201ceternal salvation\u201d for us (Heb. 9:12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6] See Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Ignatius to the Magnesians<\/em> in The Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/em>, vol. I (1885), reprinted by Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p. 62. Emphasis added in all these citations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7] See an excellent article clearing up this matter by John Wenham titled \u201cWhen Were the Saints Raised?\u201d Journal of Theological Studies<\/em> 32:1 (1981): 150-152.  He argues convincingly for repunctuating the Greek to read: \u201cAnd the tombs were opened.  The bodies of the sleeping saints were raised, and they went out from their tombs after the resurrection.\u201d  While this affects the alleged poetic flavor of the passage, it is certainly Bizzare to hold like some that the saints were raised at Christ\u2019s death and then sat around the opened tombs for three days before they left.  It also contradicts 1 Corinthians 15:20 which declares that Christ is the \u201cfirstfruits\u201d of the resurrection and Matthew 27:53 which says they did not come out of the tombs until \u201cafter\u201d the resurrection of Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8] Raymond E. Brown, \u201cEschatological events Accompanying the Death of Jesus, Especially the Raising of the Holy ones from Their Tombs (Matt 27:51-53)\u201d in John P. Galvin ed., Faith and the Future: Studies in Christian Eschatology<\/em> (NY: Paulist Press, 1994), 64.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

A Case for the Longer Ending of Mark<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

An argument for Mark 16:9\u201320 as the original, canonical ending, written by Mark but added by his colleagues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

james snapp jr. JUNE 1, 2022\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the first of a series on Mark\u2019s ending. The next article offers a case against 16:9\u201320<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSome of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9\u201320.\u201d That\u2019s how the ESV introduces Mark 16:9\u201320 in its heading between Mark 16:8 and 16:9. The ESV also features a footnote, stating, \u201cSome manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9\u201320 immediately after v. 8,\u201d and \u201csome manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.<\/em> These manuscripts then continue with verses 9\u201320.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Readers might wonder what to do when facing a contest between \u201cSome of the earliest manuscripts,\u201d and \u201cother\u201d manuscripts and \u201csome manuscripts.\u201d Let\u2019s dispense with such vagueness and bring the evidence into focus. At last count, 1,653 Greek manuscripts include Mark 16:9\u201320. (Some of them are damaged, but show that they had the whole passage when they were pristine). Three<\/em> Greek manuscripts end the text of Mark at 16:8. Eight<\/em> Greek manuscripts have the so-called Shorter Ending (given above in italics from the ESV footnote). And all eight proceed to include 16:9 (a few of these eight manuscripts are fragments which, due to damage, do not have all twelve verses).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

At last count, 1,653 Greek manuscripts include Mark 16:9\u201320.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The (Overwhelming) External Evidence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This means that 99.8% of Greek manuscripts include vv. 9\u201320. They include majuscule and minuscule manuscripts such as Codex Alexandrinus (5th c.), C, D (damaged, the text up to 16:15a survives), G, K, M, S, W, Y, \u0394, \u03a1, \u03a3, 33, 35, 157, 700, etc. (A more complete list can be viewed here.) Over 1,000 Greek lectionaries\u2014manuscripts in which the text is arranged in segments assigned to days of the ecclesiastical calendar\u2014also include Mark 16:9\u201320.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Three That Lack It<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The three Greek manuscripts that end the Gospel of Mark at verse 8 are two manuscripts from the fourth century, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and the twelfth-century GA 304. Let\u2019s take a look at these three manuscripts and their anomalous features at the end of Mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Manuscript 304 contains the text of Matthew and Mark interspersed with commentary material. It has no closing-title for Mark\u2014only a short poem, the Greek equivalent of, \u201cAs travelers rejoice on their homeland to look, thus also the scribe at the end of a book.\u201d Also, the commentary material resembles that of Theophylact, who commented about vv. 9\u201320. This suggests that 304 may lack vv. 9\u201320 because its exemplar was damaged.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Vaticanus, Mark 16:8 ends in the second column of a three-column page. The third column is blank. Vaticanus\u2019s copyist did not leave any other blank columns in the New Testament. In Vaticanus\u2019s Old Testament portion, three blank spaces occur, but each is clearly a side-effect of a factor in the manuscript\u2019s production: (1) a format shift from three columns per page to two columns per page; (2) the convergence of two sections which were written by different scribes; and (3) the end of the Old Testament portion itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The author\u2019s reconstruction of Mark 16:9\u201320 fitting in the blank space of Vaticanus.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As a deliberately placed blank column, the blank column at the end of Mark in Vaticanus is thus unique.<\/em> This blank space is what could be called a \u201cmemorial space,\u201d signifying the scribe\u2019s recollection of material that was not in his exemplar. This is especially likely considering that vv. 9\u201320 fit snugly into the blank space if one begins writing 16:9\u201320 after 16:8 in slightly compressed lettering. (The Shorter Ending can also fit, of course, but this would remove the need for a blank column, since it fits into the space after 16:8 in the second column.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 In Sinaiticus, four replacement pages contain Mark 14:54\u201316:8 and Luke 1:1\u201356 which are not written by the scribe of the surrounding pages. It was probably made by the manuscript\u2019s supervisor and proof reader (known as a diorth\u014dt\u0113s<\/em>). Although initially this copyist wrote at a rate of 635 letters per column, in Luke he drastically compressed his lettering at the rate of 690 letters per column. But near the end of Mark, he did the opposite: he expanded<\/em> his lettering in the first column of the third page. Without taking this step, after accidentally omitting most of Mark 16:1, the diorth\u014dt\u0113s<\/em> would have reached the end of v. 8 in this column, leaving the next column blank. But, not wanting to do so, he not only expanded his lettering, but also made the decorative design after 16:8 uniquely emphatic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These features indicate that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were both made by copyists who were aware of additional material after v. 8 and decided not to include it. In Vaticanus, the decision to include those verses or not was left up to the eventual owner of the manuscript. In Sinaiticus, the diorth\u014dt\u0113s <\/em>allowed no such option.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Church Fathers<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Evidence from the church fathers in favor of Mark 16:9\u201320 is even earlier than the oldest manuscript evidence. Irenaeus wrote book three of Against Heresies<\/em> when Eleutherius was bishop of Rome (174\u2013189)\u2014at least a century before Vaticanus was produced. There Irenaeus wrote, \u201cAlso, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, \u2018So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God\u201d (3.10.5). Irenaeus\u2019s copy of Mark obviously included Mark 16:9\u201320, since he is quoting here from Mark 16:19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A marginal note in GA 72 (11th c.) which reads, \u201cIrenaeus, who was near the time of the apostles \u2026 cites this from Mark.\u201d The same note is in GA 1582. Photo of BL Harley MS 5647, f. 132v.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Another second-century writer, Justin Martyr (c. 160) also uses Mark 16:20. Justin\u2019s full statement is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThat which he says, \u2018He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem,\u2019 is predictive of the mighty word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached<\/em> everywhere. And though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, you can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by fire\u201d (First Apology<\/em> 45).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Justin uses the words \u201cgoing forth everywhere preaching\u201d (\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd) which are found in Mark 16:20, albeit in a different order. He also mentions \u201cthe word\u201d (cf. Mark 16:20), and he writes about how believers cannot be harmed (a theme found in 16:18). In 1881, the famous textual critic F. J. A. Hort objected to accepting Justin\u2019s support with certainty on the grounds that Mark 16:20 \u201cdoes not contain the point specially urged by Justin.\u201d1<\/sup> But this changed in 1888 after the publication of an Arabic text of Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron\u2014a second century Gospel harmony. J. Rendel Harris observed that this Arabic text showed that the Diatessaron does<\/em> contain the point specially urged by Justin, and that \u201cDr. Hort may therefore remove the query [the question mark] from the name of Justin in the tabulated evidence for the twelve verses.\u201d2<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This means that three witnesses from the second century\u2014Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tatian\u2014all attest that 16:9\u201320 was part of Mark\u2019s Gospel. The Diatessaron\u2019s inclusion of these verses is further shown by Codex Fuldensis (546) in Latin and by the use of Mark 16:15 in the commentary on Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron by Ephrem Syrus (c. 360).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another text, known as the Epistula Apostolorum<\/em> (before 150), provides a fourth witness. Having been published in 1895, it was unknown to Hort. It was thought by the late Robert Stein to reflect its author\u2019s awareness of Mark 16:9\u201320. Other researchers, including Martin Hengel, have agreed with this assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More External Evidence<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In the third and fourth centuries, support for Mark 16:9\u201320 comes from Hippolytus (235); Vincentius of Thibaris (256); De Rebaptismate<\/em> (258); the pagan author Hierocles (305) who used 16:18 in a jibe issued at believers; the Syriac writer Aphrahat (337); Acts of Pilate<\/em> (4th c.); the Latin commentator Fortunatianus (350); Epiphanius (375); Ambrose (385); Apostolic Constitutions<\/em> (380); Palladius (late 300s); Augustine (430); Greek copies mentioned by Augustine; and the Old Latin chapter summaries (3rd\u20135th c.). Not to be overlooked: the Freer Logion, an interpolation placed between 16:14 and 16:15 (found only in Codex Washingtonianus, but also mentioned by Jerome). Metzger assigned the Freer Logion to the second or third century.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the fifth century, Mark 16:9\u201320 is supported by Macarius Magnes (410); Pelagius, Philostorgius (425); Marius Mercator (430); Marcus Eremita (435); the Armenian translator Eznik of Golb (440); Prosper of Aquitaine (450); Nestorius, as cited by Cyril of Alexandria (440); Peter Chrysologus (440); Leo the Great; and Saint Patrick (ca. 450). In addition, Mark 16:9\u201320 is in the Syriac Peshitta, the Curetonian Syriac (fragmented; it has 16:17\u201320), and the Vulgate, which Jerome stated he prepared by consulting ancient Greek copies (in 383). The Gothic version (mid-4th c.), preserved in Codex Argenteus (from the 6th c.), also includes Mark 16:9\u201320 (including verses 12\u201320, thanks to Franz Haffner\u2019s discovery of its final page in 1970 in Speyer, Germany).3<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly, there is a tremendous amount of external evidence for Mark 16:9\u201320 in the first five centuries of Christianity. In contrast, the possible counter evidence is meager indeed. For instance, it is often claimed that Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of these verses. But Clement used very little of the Gospel of Mark besides chapter 10. He cited only 1.3 percent of Mark 1\u20139 and 11\u201316. Origen likewise used Mark only sparingly, and never quoted from about 70 percent of Mark\u2019s text. Plus, near the beginning of Philocalia<\/em> he may allude to 16:20: \u201cLet a man observe how the apostles, who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel, went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the divine command.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Answering Objections<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Now, someone familiar with the arguments about Mark 16:9\u201320 might object, \u201cBut Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome both wrote that hardly any of their Greek copies of Mark included 16:9\u201320.\u201d One might think so, due to the inaccurate description of what Eusebius and Jerome wrote in Bruce Metzger\u2019s much quoted Textual Commentary on the New Testament<\/em>. But Roger Pearse has made a superior presentation of Eusebius\u2019s full comments (not just out-of-context snippets) in his helpful edition Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions<\/em>. As for Jerome, D. C. Parker is basically correct in his assessment that the relevant composition by Jerome is just \u201ca translation with some slight changes of what Eusebius had written,\u201d4<\/sup> and is therefore not an independent witness on this point. More importantly, Eusebius and Jerome advised their correspondents to retain Mark 16:9\u201320.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut there are many manuscripts with scribal notes,\u201d someone might say, \u201cand these notes say that the old manuscripts don\u2019t have Mark 16:9\u201320 \u2026 right?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That idea is probably also based on vague statements in Metzger\u2019s Textual Commentary<\/em>. Let\u2019s zoom in. The minuscule manuscripts 1, 15, 22, 205, 209, 1110, 1192, 1210, 1582, and 2886 (aka 205abs<\/sup>) have a note which descends from the ancestor of their shared manuscript family. It reads, \u201cNow in some of the copies, the Gospel stops here [at 16:8] and so do Eusebius Pamphili\u2019s Canons [referring to the Eusebian Canons]. But in many, this [16:9\u201320] also appears.\u201d In manuscripts 20, 215, and 300, the last part of the note says, \u201cBut in the ancient ones, it all appears intact.\u201d When actually read, these notes are not as weighty as they as they may seem when described abstractly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Allegations are sometimes also made about many manuscripts with editorial marks such as asterisks or obeli alongside Mark 16:9\u201320, indicative of scribal doubt. But there are no such manuscripts. Researchers have misrepresented these manuscripts too, as shown elsewhere (see here, here, here, and here).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It should be clear by now that the external evidence\u2014manuscripts, versions, church fathers, and lectionaries\u2014heavily favors including Mark 16:9\u201320. But what about the internal evidence involving style and vocabulary?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Internal Evidence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s true that vv. 9\u201320 have many words used only once in Mark\u2019s Gospel. But eight other twelve-verse segments of Mark have even more. So, vocabulary frequency is not a compelling reason to see these verses as not being Mark\u2019s. That said, more compelling evidence that vv. 9\u201320 were not the ending that Mark intended are (1) the reintroduction of Mary Magdalene; (2) the restating of the day and time; (3) the sudden absence of those who accompanied Mary Magdalene in 16:8; and (4) the lack of any mention of Galilee where Jesus is expected to meet His disciples (as predicted in 14:28 and 16:7). The overwhelming external evidence and the awkward fit of vv. 9\u201320 in context require some explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An Explanation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Here is the scenario which I think accounts most simply for both the internal evidence and the external evidence: Mark unintentionally stopped writing his gospel account in 16:8 due to a permanent interruption (likely persecution). His colleagues, entrusted with his manifestly unfinished narrative, completed it, not by composing fresh material, but by attaching material that we now know as 16:9\u201320. This was material that Mark had written on a previous occasion (perhaps for Roman churches to use at Easter). Only after this auxiliary material was added did the Gospel\u2019s \u201cproduction stage\u201d end, and its \u201ctransmission stage\u201d begin. On this view, the earliest edition of Mark included 16:9\u201320.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

On this view, the earliest edition of Mark included 16:9\u201320.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Where and when and why were vv. 9\u201320 removed? In Egypt, in the second century, overly meticulous scribes rejected them even though they were in their exemplars. They did so on the grounds that these verses were technically not part of Peter\u2019s \u201cmemoirs\u201d (which is how the Gospel of Mark was regarded in the second century). They declined to copy these verses just as one might reject an appendix written by a secretary. (John 21:25 was similarly not transcribed initially in Codex Sinaiticus,5<\/sup> probably for a similar reason.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Gospel of Mark then circulated in Egypt without vv. 9\u201320. Later, someone in Egypt created the Shorter Ending found in some Bible footnotes today as a way to wrap up the narrative (perhaps after the 200s, considering that Eusebius never mentioned it). Next, copies of Mark with vv. 9\u201320 soon invaded Egypt, and Egyptian scribes combined the Shorter Ending with vv. 9\u201320. That this occurred in Egypt in one specific textual transmission line is shown by unique features in the text and marginalia of L, \u03a8, 099, and 083 (\u2248 0112) that are shared with Greek-Sahidic (i.e., Egyptian) lectionary 1602.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Longer Ending Today<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n

The foibles of some Egyptian copyists do not outweigh the general judgment of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

If this is correct, then the way we should treat Mark 16:9\u201320 today becomes clear. The foibles of some Egyptian copyists do not outweigh the general judgment of the Christian church. It may be auxiliary, but it is still original, authentic, and canonical. In this, it is like various other passages in the Bible such as Deuteronomy 34:5\u201312, Joshua 24:29\u201333, Proverbs 30\u201331, Jeremiah 52, etc. That is how the Christian church, resisting false impressions from vague footnotes and misinformation, should continue to regard Mark 16:9\u201320.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a response to this argument,\u00a0read the case against the Longer Ending.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Early Fathers and the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27 Copyright \u00a9 2013 Norman L. Geisler \u2013 All Rights Reserved The Biblical Passage in Question \u201cAnd behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.  \u200eThe tombs also were opened. … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\n\n

\n Sharing is caring<\/span><\/strong> \n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> +1<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Tweet<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n 8334 words 152 views<\/w>\n <\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8137"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8137\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8139,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8137\/revisions\/8139"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}