Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20

Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20 STANLEY N. HELTON Florence, South Carolina

J. W. McGarvey's defense of the ending of Mark is well known to heirs of the Restoration Movement and has been cited frequently in later discussion. However, scarcely anyone has recognized that he revised his oft-repeated conclusion defending the passage and that he qualified his conclusion, even then, to one less rigid and more skeptical of Markan authorship, thus agreeing with Westcott and Hort.1 Because McGarvey's earlier conclusion continues to be touted as a solid tradition,2 four needs arise: (1) to review McGarvey's original conclusion, placing it in the "qualified" context in which he framed it, and then to examine the extent to which McGarvey demonstrated his original case; (2) to introduce his revised position; (3) to examine the way in which McGarvey's followers have misunderstood him, thus allowing him to be cited in support of their position; and (4) to review some of the recent literature on this subject, revealing that McGarvey was not ill-informed or 'theologically liberal' in changing his mind, but rather he actually anticipated the consensus of textual criticism today.

*See B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (Appendix; Cambridge and London: Macmillan and Co., 1882) 28-51. McGarvey was optimistic about the potential of textual criticism to fully recover the original text of the New Testament, and he gives a particularly positive review of Westcott-Hort's labors in his Evidences of Christianity (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1886) 53-56.

2McGarvey's "final" conclusion is quoted by Thomas B. Warren, Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired? A Defense (Wolfe City, TX: Ralph Edmunson, nd) 11; Willis G. Jernigan, "Is Mark 16:9-20 Spurious?" Gospel Guardian 4 (January 22, 1953) 3; Robert C. Welch, "The Last Chapter of Mark," Gospel Guardian 14 (June 7, 1962) 82; Rubel Shelly, "The Reliability of Mark 16:9-20," Gospel Advocate (hereafter abbreviated GA) 111 (1969) 651; William Woodson, 'The Problem of Interpolation: Should Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7-8 Be in Our Bibles?" in Difficult Texts of the New Testament Explained (Hurst, TX: Winkler Publications, 1981) 43; Guy N. Woods, "The Genuineness of Mark 16:9-20," GA 130 (September 1988) 34; and Cliff Lyons, "Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong in the New Testament?" in The Bible-None Like It (Memphis: Memphis School of Preaching, 1989) 405.

34 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

McGarvey's "Final Conclusion" Unlike his contemporary David Lipscomb, McGarvey had a degree of

competency in the field of textual criticism, but more accurately he was a popularizer of text critical information for the interest of his readers among the Disciples.3 In his commentary on Mark, he included the following note on Mark 16:9-20, concluding thus:

Our final conclusion, is that the passage in question is authentic in all its details, and that there is no reason to doubt that it was written by the same hand which indited [sic] the proceding [sic] parts of this narrative. The objections which have been raised against it are better calculated to shake our confidence in Biblical Criticism than in the genuineness of this inestimable portion of the word of God.4

But on what did he base this conclusion? As to external evidence McGarvey asserted that a few manuscripts omit the passage; among these are >C and B, which he explained was reasonable if the last page of the Gospel of Mark had been lost from the exemplar from which these manuscripts derive. Next he maintained that all of the ancient versions contained the traditional ending. His own words, useful in the developing discussion, best state his understanding of the evidence.

The evidence from this source is altogether in favor of the passage; for all the ancient versions contain it, and thereby testify that it was in the Greek copies from which they were translated. If, at ¿lis time, the Greek copies did not generally contain it, it is at least a very remarkable circumstance that all the versions were made from those that did. Among these versions are the Peshito Syriac, the Old Italic, the Sahidic and the Vatican manuscripts, and [all these existed] before the time of Jerome.5

Naturally, then, with so little evidence against the omission of Mark 16:9-20, he summed up the external data to favor the authenticity of the passage.

His treatment of the internal evidence was aimed almost entirely at Alford, who had isolated some seventeen words and phrases not found anywhere else in the Gospel.6 Against this contention, McGarvey presented the findings of Broadus, who found seventeen words and phrases in the twelve

3See his Evidences, which shows a full and accurate familiarity (for that date) with textual criticism.

4McGarvey, The New Testament Commentary: Matthew and Mark (Des Moines: Eugene S. Smith, 1875) 382.

5McGarvey, 379. 6Hemy Alford, The Greek New Testament, Vol. 1 (London: Rivingtons and

Deighton, Bell, 1863) 431-435.

HELTON/CHURCHES OF CHRIST & MARK 16: 9-20 35

verses preceding Mark 16:9-20 not found elsewhere in the book.7 He next tried his own hand at it and discovered from the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Luke nine words not found elsewhere in that Gospel (though he never tells the reader what those words are). Convinced that Alford's approach proves nothing, he dealt with three of Alford's non-Markan elements: πορεύομαι, μετά ταύτα, and ό κύριος.8

At the end of his commentary McGarvey revealed that he had just received from Prof. Broadus a copy of J. W. Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark,9 which he recommended to thoughtful inquirers, though cautioning that Burgon tends to be "extravagant in many of his expressions, and often extreme in his conclusions." McGarvey, however, never accepted Burgon's argumentations or his conclusions.

Though he argued, at this time, that there is really no case for omission, McGarvey nonetheless qualified his conclusions, while assuring his reader, "All the historical statements of the passage are known to be true independently of their occurrence here, because they are found in the other Gospels or in Acts."10 He then listed the other passages where the parallel material can be found. In the next paragraph he argued against any dependence of the Mark 16 passage on these parallels, but he leaves this conclusion unsubstantiated. Having posited that Mark 16:9-20 evidences the telltale signs of "an original writer," he sets before his readers one more qualification:

The authenticity of the passage being conceded, and the fact being apparent that it was written by some one possessed of independent and correct sources of information, the question of its genuineness might be waived without detracting from its authority or credibility; for a true piece of history attached to Mark's book is not less valuable or authoritative because some other person than Mark may have been the author of it... (italics mine, SNH).11

7John A. Broadus, "Style of Mark 16:9-20, as Bearing on the Question of Genuineness," Baptist Quarterly 3 (1869) 355-362.

8McGarvey, Matthew and Mark , 380-382. In reference to Alford's seventeen words and phrases and McGarvey's nine words in Luke, it should be observed that neither of these passages has the text-critical doubts that Mark 16:9-20 raises.

9J. W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (Oxford and London: Parker, 1871).

10McGarvey, Matthew and Mark, 377. 1 McGarvey, 378. Given this disclaimer, it is difficult to understand why any

dependence on the other Synoptics and Acts is unpalatable to McGarvey, but cf. Jack P. Lewis' similar treatment below.


But why did he need such a qualification? Why did he separate the question of authority from traditional authorship? McGarvey underscored that he wrote in response to "the recent popularization of the results of Biblical Criticism" and that his purpose was "to state with as much brevity and simplicity as we can, the facts which must have the controlling influence in deciding the question."12

McGarvey's Revised Position In 1886, McGarvey again commented on Mark 16:9-20 in his

Evidences of Christianity, where he merely noted, "The genuineness of these [Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11] is doubted by some critics, though confidently defended, especially the former, by others. Further investigation will doubtless bring all to the same judgment concerning them."13 Does he mean that critics would come to accept these two passages or reject them? Scholars questioned the Pericope Adulterae even in McGarvey's day.14 It would seem, then, that McGarvey anticipated a day when the same would be true of Mark 16:9-20. This is not the only interpretation possible for his words, but it is consistent with where we find him later.

In a lengthy footnote in this same work, McGarvey pitted Hort's discussion against that of Scrivener, who furnished "an elaborate answer to all the arguments made by Dr. Hort." But McGarvey does not tell where he falls on the question, not in so many words, anyway. In addition, he does not cite Burgon at all, who had also attempted to meet Hort's arguments.15

But in his regular column "Biblical Criticism" in the 1896 Christian Standard, McGarvey responded to the query of a C. H. Thompson concerning why Catholics accept Mark 16:9-20 since their own manuscript Vaticanus (B) lacks it McGarvey correctly answered that the current Catholic translation (Rheims-Douay) was based on Jerome's Vulgate which unquestionably contained it. But he continued one paragraph beyond the need of the question in which he stated that he had revised his opinion on the ending of Mark:

12McGarvey, 377. His separation of authority from authorship may also be interpreted as a polemic against textual critics who find Mark 16:9-20 of no value simply because it derives from other than the author of the Gospel.

13McGarvey, Evidences, 15-16. 14McGarvey, Evidences, 16, n. 1. 15McGarvey, Evidences, 16, and Frederick H. A. Scrivener, Introduction to the

Critical Study of the New Testament, 583-590, as cited by McGarvey, but see the more assessable Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. 2 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894) 337-344.

HELTON/CHURCHES OF CHRIST & MARK 16:9-20 37

The question of the genuineness of these verses is one of the most intricate with which textual critics of the New Testament have to deal. At the close of my commentary on Mark, I attempted to set forth the principal evidence, pro and con, as it was known at the time of publication. Since then new light has been thrown upon the question, and the most elaborate discussion of it, in the light of the most recently gained information, can be found in the appendix to the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. / think that, after a candid study of the evidence as a whole, it must be conceded that the question is as yet unsettled. It would be reckless to say that the passage is spurious; and it would be hazardous to affirm that these verses are certainly genuine. At the same time, I think it safe to say, as I did before, that the statements contained in them are authentic, whether written by Mark or appended by another hand (italics mine).16

It may be impossible to recover the precise reasons McGarvey moderated to a less conclusive position, but he openly admitted his debt to Westcott and Hort's volume. From it one can surmise the evidence on which McGarvey changed his opinion, though, in truth, he had anticipated it as early as 1875 with his qualifications.

From Westcott-Hort's appendix volume to The New Testament in the Original Greek, McGarvey would have discovered that several other manuscripts in addition to Κ and Β have peculiarities which speak of the absence of Mark 16:9-20, namely L, 22, and certain of the Armenian manuscripts, which all contain not one, but two endings: Mark 16:9-20, known in contrast as the "longer ending," and a "shorter ending."17 In these last named manuscripts (L, 22, arm) the shorter ending stands immediately following vs. 8 (though sometimes preceded by ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΤ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΎΤΑ, "these are also current") and then an explanatory gloss (ΕΣΤΙΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟ ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ "and there are these also current after έφοβουντο γάρ") followed by the longer ending. This information, which can be supplemented today, was considerably more than McGarvey had known earlier.18 The phenomenon of

16McGarvey, Christian Standard (CS) 32 (1896) 1367. 17Westcott and Hort, Appendix 29-30. 18For a corrected apparatus, see J. K. Elliott, "The Text and Language of the

Endings to Mark's Gospel," Theologische Zeitschrift 27 (1971) 255-262. Though dated, Clarence Rüssel Williams, 'The Appendices to the Gospel According to Mark: A Study in Textual Transmission," Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 18 (1915) 347-447, gives a detailed description of each manuscript that testifies to the omission of the longer ending. This should be supplemented by the following on the versions: E. C. Colwell, "Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian Version,"


this "shorter" ending raises the question as to why such was needed if the longer ending had always been a part of the text. McGarvey would have understood the significance of this.

Having read both Burgon's work and Westcott-Hort's treatment of the passage, McGarvey would have known the complexity of the patristic evidence for and against the passage. Eusebius, in particular, referred to "accurate" manuscripts which lacked the ending.19 This tradition, as both Burgon and Hort suggest, may reach back to Origen. Jerome modified the tradition in his epistle to Lady Hedibia noting that "almost all of the Greek codices lack the longer ending" (omnibus Graeciae librispene hoc capitulum non habentibus).20 Jerome, since he is repeating Eusebius, does not stand as an independent witness, but he cannot be ignored. Instead his testimony should be balanced against his inclusion of the longer ending in the Vulgate, which was itself a revision of the Old Latin, not the Greek. Still later the Eusebian tradition is repeated in an Oration on the Resurrection, variously attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, Hesychius of Jerusalem, or Severus of Anüoch.21 This tradition found its way into the earliest extant commentary on the gospel of Mark by Victor of Antioch, who wrote in the fifth or sixth century. Victor's commentary must have been very popular during the Medieval period as it has been copied repeatedly and in various forms. His

Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 55 (1937) 369-386; P. E. Kahle, "The End of St. Mark's Gospel: The Witness of the Coptic Versions," Journal ofTheological Studies (JTS) 11 (1951) 49-57; Bruce M. Metzger, "The Ending of the Gospel According to Mark in Ethiopie Manuscripts," in Understanding the Sacred Text. Festschrift for Morton Scott Enslin; John Reumann, ed. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1972) 165-180; C. H. Turner, "Did Codex Vercellensis (a ) Contain the Last Verses of St. Mark?" JTS (1928) 16-18; and Arthur Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament (Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society, 1954).

19Eus. Quaestiones ad Marinum. See discussion in Burgon, 44-46, and in William F. Farmer, 3-13.

20Jer. Ep. 120, 3; Patrologia Latina, ΧΧΠ, Cols. 980-1006. Before 1907 when Charles Freers acquired Codex Washingtonianus (W), Jerome was the only witness to the "Freer Logion," following Mark 16:14,... in quibusdam exemplaribus et maxime in Graecis codicibus iuxta Mar cum infine eius evangelii scribitur: Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis Iesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum quia his qui videront eum resurgentem non crediderunt. Et Uli satisfaciebant dicentes: Saeculum istud iniquititis et incredulitatis substantia est quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem. Idcirco iam nunc revela institiam tuam... (Contra Pelagium 2.15). Incidentally, Jerome attributes this to Mark, but this should not be taken as a critical assessment of authorship on the part of Jerome.

^Patrologia Graeca, XLVI, Cols. 644-645, attributed to Gregory of Nyssa.


commentary not only passed on the tradition from Eusebius, but also lacked any direct comment on vss. 9-20, suggesting that the gospel text from which Victor worked lacked them.22 This Eusebian tradition was destined to be repeated up to Erasmus,23 then on into the modern period.

But just as telling as the explicit mention of the omission of these verses in "accurate" (Eusebius), or in "almost all of the Greek manuscripts" (Jerome), is a number of Fathers who make no mention or allusions to Mark 16:9-20, even when such would have been advantageous to their case. These Fathers include (according to Hort) Clement, Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hillary, and others.24 That several of these lack any reference to the longer ending is baffling, if it was original to Mark's Gospel. For instance, Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 349), lecturing catechumens on baptism, culls all the NT references to Christ's session at the right hand of God. He cites every occurrence of the phrase και καθίσαντα έκ δεξιών του πατρός," except the parallels in Luke and Mark to Matt 22:43, Heb 8:1 which add nothing over Heb 1:3, Acts 7:55 which speaks of "standing" rather than "sitting," and Mark 16:19 which has no parallel.25 Tertullian is another example. In his De baptismo Mark 16:15-16 would have served his point well. In the end the only ante-Nicene Father to cite explicitly any portion of 16:9-20 is Irenaeus (ca. 188), who quotes 16:19, assigning it to the end of Mark's Gospel.26

Given these observations, McGarvey's shift is reasonable and explainable (though his contemporary Lipscomb, oblivious to the details of the discussion, continued to make authoritative statements concerning the authenticity of the longer ending).27

22Westcott and Hort, Appendix 40-44. 23Erasmus, Annotations on the New Testament: The Gospels (Facsimile of the

final Latin text [1535] with all earlier variants [1516, 1519, 1522, and 1527]; Anne Reeve, ed., London: Duckworth, 1986) 147-148.

^In addition to Westcott and Hort, see Farmer, 47. 25Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 14.27-30, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,

2d ser., Vol. 7,101-102. 26Adv.Haer. 3.10.6. 2 7 See David Lipscomb, editorial comment on C. E. Stowe, "The New

Testament in Its Completeness," GA 40 (1898) 652. Lipscomb and others at this time found the very quest for the authenticity of these verses incredible. Lipscomb wrote later, "The probability is, the question of its being a part of Mark's Gospel would never have been raised if a manuscript in which it was wanting had not been found. It was found with the column marked for it, but for some reason it had not been filled. Persons then began to hunt for reasons that it was left out," in GA 51 (1909) 781.


Hort offered other evidence which only accentuates the above-mentioned patristic testimony. Hort's case depends on the culminative force of the evidence (McGarvey understood this), the half of which was not yet known in 1896. But it might be objected that McGarvey stated his revision so ambiguously that one cannot conclude as confidently as I have. McGarvey, only a month earlier in his reply to Thompson's question, answered "a brother in West Virginia," who inquired,

I was in conversation with a gentleman today who said that Mark xvi. 15, to the close of the chapter is not to be found in the oldest MSS., specifying the Sinaitic, and one other, the name of which I did not catch. Will you please tell me privately or through the CHRISTIAN STANDARD if there is any truth in this statement?

McGarvey answered, Yes; the statement is true; and it is true of more verses than the gentleman said; for the last twelve verses are absent from the Sinaitic and the Vatican MSS., the two oldest now extant, both belonging to the fourth century. They are also absent from some later MSS., and in some others they appear in various forms. The question whether this negative evidence proves that these verses are not genuine, has excited much controversy among textual critics. Some contend that they have been accidenüy lost from the few MSS. which have a gap here, while others contend that the original gospel did not contain them. I think that the trend of opinion in recent years is in favor of the suggestion first made by Alford—that the fragment was not originally a part of Mark's Gospel but that it is an authentic piece of history appended by a contemporary writer. This would account for its absence from some MSS. and its presence in others.28

This comment comes from one who had set out in his commentary to offset Alford's arguments.

McGarvey's Original Conclusion as Tradition Within the debating tradition of the twentieth-century Churches of

Christ it became necessary for the debaters to "prove" the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 in order to use verses 15 and 16 to demonstrate the essentiality

28McGarvey, "An Oft Repeated Question," CS 32 (1896) 1239. For Alford, see The Greek New Testament, Vol. 1, 431-435, who concluded much like McGarvey; on p. 435, Alford states, "It is an authentic fragment, placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early times: by whom written, must of course remain wholly uncertain: but coming to us with very weighty sanction, and having strong claims on our reception and reverence."

HELTON/CHURCHES OF CHRIST & MARK 16:9-20 41

of baptism.29 In this context of debate the text-critical issues became secondary to the polemical concern to prove the essentiality of baptism. Consequently the debaters selectively sorted and misrepresented the data, even to the point of fabricating evidence.

In 1933, before the tradition around Mark 16:9-20 solidified, J. T. Hinds, while affirming authenticity, noted that the English revisers could not determine with certainty "whether Mark himself wrote these words or not, but they were certain they were written by some one in the circle of the apostles, and they were inserted without any misgivings as to their canonical authority. That, of course, is final that they are a part of the divine record."30

Despite the dogmatism of the last sentence, Hinds shows more flexibility— acknowledging that Markan authorship and canonical status are two separate questions—than the debaters of the following decade.

Two years later, Charles H. Roberson, of Abilene Christian College, even presented the evidence which negated his own position and attempted to explain its presence. After noting the omission in Κ and B, he proffered, "Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices and two of the Ethiopie, Κ of the Old Latin, and an Arabic Lecüonary No. 13.31 Cursive Greek Manuscripts 137, 138 contain marginal annotation which claim the passage genuine, and others contain marginal scholia respecting it."32 Yet his wording "in none but some" betrays that he summarily dismissed this as immaterial. But Roberson still serves as an example of one who knew the importance of explaining the presence of contrary evidence. He also acknowledged the work of Tregelles, Tischendorf, and that of Westcott-Hort, something quite rare in later discussions. But

29This occurs as early as B. A. Howard, "Gospel Mutilators," CS 18 (1883) 87, and as late as 1988, Woods, 34.

30J.T.Hinds, "Mark 16:16,"GA 73 (1931)364. 31This last mentioned manuscript had been cited by Tischendorf and Tregelles;

the original hand however stops short of 16:8 and so provides no evidence either way. On this see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3d ed. (London and New York: United Bible Society, 1975) 123, n. 3, and Williams, "The Appendices to the Gospel According to Mark," 398-399. Roberson erroneously cites it as a lectionary following Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, Π, 338. For an explanation as regards the confusion around this manuscript see Williams, 398-399. The evidence concerning the Ethiopie version is erroneous; it shows every indication of having always contained the appendix.

32Charles H. Roberson, "Mark 16:9-20," GA 75 (1933) 1233. See also J. M. Powell, 'The Story of the English Bible," GA 94 (1952) 113, who notes that the "old Latin MS K" does not contain the longer ending but only a paragraph later contradicts this by saying "All the ancient versions contain it." Roberson is quoting Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, Vol. Π, 338.


Roberson relied heavily upon Burgon for his understanding of the evidence concerning Severas, Hesychius, and Euthymius, which Burgon discredited because of their dependence on Eusebius.33

Ironically, in Bible vs. Modernism, Roberson, with coauthor A. N. Trice, chided "critics" for rejecting the ending of Mark, mentioning that several versions, including the Syriac, contained the disputed ending. Yet, on the next page, even the very next paragraph, the authors extol the discovery of the Syriac Gospels by Agnes Smith Lewis and her sister Margaret Dunlop Gibson. This, the earliest Syriac MSS (though Roberson and Trice never say) did not contain the Markan appendix at the end of the gospel.34

Later that same decade, by 1938, a notable shift was already occurring. Polemical needs supplanted serious concerns over weighing the still-growing body of textual evidence. N. B. Hardeman, arguing for the necessity of baptism, attempted to discredit his adversary in debate, Ben M. Bogard, for his inconsistent position on the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20.35 Hardeman charged, "Mark 16:16 was good in 1910, bad in 1915, good again in 1929, bad again in 1930, and then what—in 1934 in his debate with 'dear Aimee [Semple McPherson],' it becomes good again. So it is off again, on again, gone again, Flanagan. I want to know, Dr. Bogard, how is it in 1938?" But this was the extent of the argumentation; the text critical data was not presented. Even in Hardeman's quote, the text had been narrowed from 16:9-20 to simply vs. 16, or vss. 15 and 16, as also in Frank Van Dyke's "Is Mark 16:15-16 Spurious?"36

33Burgon, 38-69. 34Allison N. Trice and Charles H. Roberson, Bible vs. Modernism: A

Compendium of Sundry Critical Hypotheses and Their Refutation, 2d rev. ed. (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1946) 234-235.

3 5N. B. Hardeman and Ben. M. Bogard, Hardeman-Bogard Debate (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1938) 146-147.

36Frank Van Dyke, "Is Mark 16:15,16 Spurious?" GA 84 (1942) 435. Textual criticism, however, is concerned about the whole passage, not simply two verses. He writes, "The sectarian quibble on Mark 16:15-16 implies, though they may not always say this, that the interpolation was made in a manuscript subsequent to the Vatican and Sinaitic. However, we have seen that the passage existed in versions and even in Greek manuscripts as early as the second century. This does away with the argument as it is usually made, and forces the one who makes it to take this position: Mark 16:15, 16 was interpolated in some Greek manuscript prior to the second century. There is not one thread of evidence for this affirmation. Let him who says there is bring proof! Let him present a manuscript dated prior to the second century-one older than ¿hat from which the Peshito was translated-in which Mark 16:15, 16 was missing. Until this is done, no man has a right to say that the passage was interpolated."


The next major debater to take up the defense of Mark 16:9-20 was

Foy E. Wallace, Jr. The debate with J. Frank Norris, a leading Fundamentalist

Baptist, occurred November 5-7, 1934, in Ft. Worth, Texas, but due to

Norris' unscrupulousness, Wallace's side of the debate was not published.37

In 1944, Wallace addressed this injustice in his Bible Banner.3* In the midst

of an ad hominem attack on Norris, Wallace offers eight points on the Mark

16 question. Summarized, these are "1. Authenticity of the passage has never

been questioned, only 'its genuineness,' that is, Markan authorship." 2. The

passage "is in practically all of the [other] manuscripts-except 'the Vatican

and the Sinaitic,'... including the Alexandrian, which is next to the Vatican

and Sinaitic in age and accuracy. 3. The passage was quoted by Irenaeus,

showing that it was a part of Mark at that time. 4. All of the ancient versions,

. . . the Peshito Syriac, Old Italic, Sahidic, Coptic, contain it. 5. The facts

mentioned in the passage are mentioned in the other gospels 6. The same

two manuscripts that leave out Mark 16:16 [ Κ and B] also leave out portions

of the New Testament... which have never been called in question for that

reason 7. The forty-seven translators of the Authorized Version... [and]

Van Dyke's rash challenge concerning the syrp, however, had already been met; a Syriac manuscript (syrs) which is older than the Peshitta, had been discovered in 1892 by Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibson, and it concludes Mark at 16:8. (For a description of this MS, see Williams, 366-374. Cf. also Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 189-190). See also F. L. Paisley, "Do You Believe Mark 16:16?" GA 89 (1947) 997, where Paisley challenges, "*Do you believe Mark 16:16?' The chances are, in debate, you would do what your best men [Baptist debaters] in the South have done—deny its being a part of the inspired record.'" This allegation continues up to the present; for an example, see Woods, 34, where he says, "Denominational theologians, unable to avoid the obvious conclusion that is drawn from Mark 16:15, 16 regarding the design of baptism in God's plan to save, sought refuge in unbelief, alleging that Mark 16:9-20 is spurious, and thus is not a part of Mark's original inspired production." (I am unaware of any scholar past or present who reasons thus.)

37The title page of the Norris publication stated, "Read the debate that so thoroughly annihilated the opponent that he refused to have his side published." See J. Frank Norris and Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Ν orris-Wallace Debate (Fort Worth: Fundamentalist Publishing Co., 1935). On the debate, see Robert E. Hooper, A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th Century (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing, 1993) 146-147, and Earl I. West, The Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 4 (Germantown, TN: Religious Book Service, 1987) 195-199.

3*Bible Banner 6 (July-August 1944). This and other documents have been collected by Wallace in The Story of the Fort Worth Ν orris-Wallace Debate (Nashville: Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications, 1968).


the one hundred and one translators of the American Standard Version put Mark 16:16 in the text 8. The author of the Hebrew letter quoted from Mark 16 in Heb. 2:5 [sic 2:36-4]." Wallace then continues, "It is, indeed, strange that preachers like Norris in their bitter opposition to Mark 16:16 will turn infidel and deny its inspiration in an effort to get rid of it. In so doing they are no better than any other modernist or infidel who denies other sections of the Word of God"-a strange accusation against a prominent Fundamentalist of the day.39

Of all these points, only the third can stand uncontested, though the provenance of the Irenaeus quote raises questions to how universally the appendix was known. That Mark 16 is quoted by the author of Hebrews is an unusual argument, even setting aside the problem of date. When these texts are compared, only two words (βεβαιόω and σημβΐον) are shared by them. This is not enough to establish the dependence of Hebrews on the appendix.

More recently Wallace himself attempted to revive his views, though now heavily dependent on Burgon and (since Wallace's death) George DeHoff quotes in full Wallace's eight points to support the authenticity of Mark 16-.9-20.40

Beginning no later than 1953, Thomas B. Warren would misconstrue, even more than Wallace, the textual data towards his polemical ends. That year he debated L. S. Ballard over the necessity of baptism.41 When Ballard wished to dismiss the use of Mark 16:15-16 because it was a part of a "spurious section," Warren found himself in the position of defending the authenticity of the passage. Warren summarized his textual data in a chart, (reproduced below) that he used in the debate.42

39Wallace, 40. 4 0Foy E. Wallace, Jr., A Review of the New Versions: Consisting of the

Exposure of the Multiple New Translations (Ft. Worth: Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications, 1973) 340-346; George DeHoff, 'The Church's Commission," in Mark: Jesus-The Servant of Jehovah, Jim Laws, ed. (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications, 1989) 454-456.

41Thomas B. Warren, Warren-Ballard Debate (Longview, WA, 1953). The pertinent pages are 127-128; 103-106; and 180-184. See also his Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired? (Wolfe City, TX: Ralph Edmunson, nd). In the latter Warren confesses, "The author of this tract makes no claim at all to be a scholar in this field [textual criticism], but rather efforts shall herein be made to give the reader what outstanding scholars in the field have said and do say. No position will be taken or evidence set forth which cannot be shown to be true by an authority in the field (p. 1)."

42Warren, Warren - Ballard Debate, 104,127, and 182.


CHART ON MARK 16:9-20

Century

I ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF NEW TESTAMENT

II Manuscripts Versions Church

"Fathers" II * Peshitto

* Curetonian * Coptic * Sahidic * Tatian's Diatessaron

* Irenaeus * Papias * Justin Martyr

m * Hyppolytus * Celsus ° Eusebius

IV

* Hyppolytus * Celsus ° Eusebius

IV

0 Vaticanus β Sinaiticus * Washington

* Vulgate * Gothic * Aethiopic

* Aphreates * Cyril of Jerusalem * Ephipanus * Ambrose * Chrystom * Augustine * Calendar of church

services

V * Alexandrian * Ephraemi

* Jerusalem Syr.

VI * Bezae * Philoxenian

* Georgian

vn VIII * Basiliensis IX • Tischendorfianus

* Sangallensis * Monancensis • Cyprius

X * Vaticanus 354 * Nanianus

# Contains Mark 16:9-20 or quotes therefrom. [ ° Does not contain Mark 16:9-20.

Warren's "Chart on Inspiration of Mark 16:9-20," presupposing much more than the question of authenticity, combined the very issues McGarvey kept separate, that is, canonicity and authorship. Warren set forth the evidence for and against the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20. He, however, selected only three of the witnesses lacking the ending, none of the witnesses which critically marked the passage, and omitted it^ which has only the shorter ending. He dated Codex W a century too early, and, even though he claimed to have seen the actual manuscript while in Washington, he failed to mention the "Freer Logion," an addition after verse 14, which occurs only in that manuscript. His citations of the "Church Fathers" are fraught with inaccuracies. For example, he placed the second century in the order "Irenaeus, Papias, and Justin Martyr," giving the appearance that Irenaeus is


earlier than the others. Warren's use of Papias as a witness shows dependence

ultimately upon Burgon and cannot be supported.43 "Hyppolytus" should be

Hippolytus. This last criticism sounds trivial, but later Guy N. Woods would

also spell the name in the same way.44 Also there are questions as to whether

or not KBppolytus may be regarded as a witness for the ending of Mark.45

Regarding Celsus there is nothing definite to indicate that he knew the pas

sage; it is based on an inference and Burgon. Moreover, Celsus should be

placed in the second century, not the third. Eusebius, incorrectly dated to the

third century instead of the fourth, could be cited as both a witness for and

against the passage, as well as Jerome, whom Warren omits altogether. The

"calendar of church services" appears to be (though Warren never clarifies)

the lectionaries.46

Warren argued against the character of Codex Κ and Β because the

former contains apocryphal books and the latter is not extant for the portion

43Burgon, 23. This, however, is one of Burgon's more strained points. For though Papias, according to Eusebius (H.E. 3.39.9), cites an example of one drinking poison and not being harmed, the citation lacks the verbal parallels necessary to prove that Papias knew the traditional ending of Mark. In spite of this Burgon (p. 23) asserts, "...and yet the allusion to the place just cited is manifest" He later admits, however, that the reference to Papias is "precarious" and that of Justin Martyr "too fragmentary to be decisive" (p. 36).

"Woods, 34. 45The Apostolic Tradition is perhaps Hippolytan, but that he is quoting or

citing Mark 16:9-20 is problematic when the texts are compared. It could be a free paraphrase-it is not a quote-but the context of the Apostolic Constitution has reference to the sacramental efficacy of the Eucharist, while Mark 16:17-18 has reference to the prophetic witness of the early church. The Apostolic Constitutions, once attributed to Hippolytus, is certainly not by him. It does contain clear reference to Mark 16:9-20, but these writings also originated in Syria ca. 380. See Farmer, 32-35, and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 171. Biblica Patristica notes three other references to Hippolytus: Demonstratio de Christo et Antichristo 46; Refutio 7.38.5 and 8.17.3; and Contra Noetus 18, all referring to the ascension of Christ, and some of these also mention Christ sitting at the right hand of God. But they may all be dependent on other NT passages, not the passage from Mark. For texts see H. Achelis, "Hippolytus: Demonstratio de Christo et Antichristo" (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller 1, 2; Leipzig/Berlin: J. C. Heinrich, 1897) 29; P. Wendland, "Hippolytus: Refutatio omnium haeresium" (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller 26; Leipzig/Berlin: J. C. Hienrich, 1916; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1977) 225, 237 ; and P. Nautin, Hippolyte: Contre les hérésies (Études et Textes Pour L'historié du Dogme de la Trinité 2, Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1949) 256.

46Here Warren follows Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, Π, 341, where the reference to the "Calendar of Greek Church Lessons" is found.


beyond Heb. 9:14 (argumentation going back to Burgon).47 (He failed to mention that Codex Κ is the only complete uncial containing the whole New Testament).48 Rubel Shelly and Foy E. Wallace, Jr., also attempted to question the character of Κ and B.49

The date to which Warren assigned the versions is subject to serious questioning. For instance, the Syriac, which may have originated in the second century, is preserved in manuscripts of a later date. The oldest extant portion of this version (Ms. Par. syr. 296) is a Peshitta manuscript transcribed by a hand known to have written another codex dated AD 463/4. Similarly, the Curetonian dates from the fifth century and the Philoxenian from the eighth. The Gothic dates from the fifth or sixth century, the earliest of the Ethiopie from the thirteenth, and the two oldest of the Georgian to the years 897 and 913. The Sahidic manuscripts date from the fourth to the fourteenth century.50 Warren does not explain that with the versions, there are two dates of concern: the date of the manuscript and the date of the text. The former is more easily derived than the latter. Sometimes a manuscript will have the date it was copied at the end, but usually the date must be determined from the style of writing and the materials used by the scribe. The second date, that of the text, is concerned with the text-type behind the translation. This brings up at least two inherent problems. First, the text from which the translation was made is usually not extant for comparison and, second, the exact Greek words are often lost or obscured in the translation. The date of the translation is more conjectural than the date of the manuscript.

Warren designed his chart to favor the inclusion of the disputed text. His approach is not an objective assessment of the evidence, but polemical tactics. Presumably, sometime after the debate Warren composed a tract, Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired? A Defense, in which he sets forth more systematically his understanding of the text-critical information. Here Warren quotes McGarvey as a supporter of his view.51

In 1969 Rubel Shelly, a former student of Warren, added the Chester Beatty Papyri, which had been discovered in 1930-31. The Chester Beatty

47Warren, 183. 48Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,

Corruption, and Restoration, 2d ed. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968) 42.

49Rubel Shelly, "The Reliability of Mark 16:9-20," GA 111 (1969) 651, and Foy E. Wallace, A Review of the New Versions: Consisting of the Exposure of the Multiple New Translations (Ft. Worth: Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications, 1973) 345.

50Vööbus, 73, 89,104,185,217,265, and 303. 51Warren, Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?, 13.


Papyri "are," he wrote, "older than either the Vatican (AD 325-350) or the Sinaitic (AD 340) manuscript." Then Shelly notes, "The Chester Beatty Papyri contain the entire text of the passage in dispute."52 Not that the finding of one papyrus manuscript would prove the matter, but this is simply not the case. The papyri of which Shelly writes is designated p 4 5 and it does contain portions of Mark, fragmentary folios of 4:36-9:31 and 11:27-12:28.53 Not enough of p 4 5 is extant to know how Mark's Gospel ended.54 Shelly closed his article with an appeal to McGarvey's "final conclusion."55

Others could be added to the above, but these are sufficient to show that a tradition of text-critical data had developed apart from any serious scholarship. The writers and debaters surveyed are important, not only for what they said, but for what they did not say, i.e., the evidence which demands an explanation if authenticity, that is, Markan authorship, be accepted.

But not all in the Churches of Christ chose to follow the path of the debating tradition in evaluating the data along traditional lines.56 Neil R.

52Shelly,651. 53Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, 98-99, and Bruce M. Metzger, Text of the

New Testament, 251-252. 54Shelly does not reveal his source. Shelly also adds something new to the

polemic: "Modernists want to omit these verses from the text of the NT because they contain a definite promise of miraculous signs" (p. 651). I find it odd that the "modernist" would object to this and allow the whole of the NT to stand. For information on the acquisition and contents of the Chester Beatty Papyri, see Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 36-38. In a telephone conversation (September 13,1990) I spoke with Shelly concerning this article. He acknowledges that this was done when he was much younger and that he had retracted it orally in more recent presentations. He asserts that this was based on information furnished by Thomas Warren.

55As late as 1988, Guy N. Woods, standing squarely in this tradition, could write on this subject without much objection to his lack of critical acumen. Woods concluded (following his citation of McGarvey's "final conclusion"), "The best and most conservative scholars through the ages have accepted the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Infidels, despisers of truth, and rationalistic 'scholars' reject it. Each must decide into which camp his views lead." (See Woods, 34). Where would McGarvey have pitched his tent?

56Several years prior to McGarvey, Robert Milligan had acknowledged that the discovery of Sinaiticus only substantiated that Mark 16:9-20 was a later appendix. Milligan is the earliest Disciple to address the subject, and he found the evidence unfavorable to Mark 16:9-20 as belonging originally to the Gospel, this as early as 1867. See Robert Milligan, Reason and Revelation: or The Province of Reason in Matters Pertaining to Divine Revelation Defined and Illustrated; and the Paramount Authority of the Holy Scriptures Vindicated (8th ed. rev. and enlarged; St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company, 1867) 262.


Lightfoot in his primer on textual criticism, How We Got the Bible, argued that the evidence is confused and points in two directions. The witnesses he cites need some revision, but he knew that the evidence against Mark 16:9-20 as original must be explained, especially the "earliest known manuscript of the Old Syriac."57 My research challenges Lightfoot's assessment of McGarvey's defense, for, as we have seen, McGarvey himself later refined his position.

Jack P. Lewis' position, as presented at the 1972 Lubbock Christian College Lectures, was similar to that of Lightfoot, but in 1988 he delivered his most informed presentation, demonstrating a full knowledge of the evidence.58 His latter presentation concluded with the predicament of uncritically accepting Mark 16:9-20:

If Mark contained the long ending from the beginning, it is difficult to see why a scribe omitted these verses as the manuscripts show that some did. On the other hand, if the copy ended abruptly at verse 8, it is easy to see that there was felt need for supplementation.59

But even Lewis' thorough survey is not beyond the constraints of the pervasive debating ambience of the past, as well as other criticisms. For example, in response to his 1972 paper and its 1991 revision, McGarvey should now be listed with Westcott and Hort instead of with Burgon, as one who questioned Markan authorship.60 In reference to the priority of the shorter ending, Lewis notes the recent defense of Kurt Aland in favor of the shorter ending.61 This, however, should be modified to show that Aland seeks to demonstrate not that the shorter ending is Markan—only that it is more

57Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963) 58-59.

58Jack P. Lewis, "Verses Involving Textual Critical Problems," in Great Verses in the Bible (Lubbock, TX: Lubbock Christian College, 1972) 193-209, and "The Ending of Mark," in The Lifestyle of Jesus According to the Gospel of Mark (Searcy, AR: Harding University, 1988) 597-603. The first essay has been recently revised and republished by Lewis in Questions You've Asked About Bible Translation (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 1991) 115-125.

59Lewis, 44The Ending of Mark," 601. 60Lewis, "Verses ," 197 [^Questions, 116]. 61 Lewis, "Verses," 200 [^Questions, 120].


ancient than the longer ending.62 As regards the γάρ at the end of Mark, Lewis missed the important work of P. W. van der Horst63

In the spirit of McGarvey, Lewis assured his audience that "the material contained in the long ending is largely not unique to Mark so that the Gospel is not impoverished should the dominant opinion on these verses prove true." But following McGarvey in rejecting the longer conclusion's possible dependence on other canonical texts such as Matthew, Luke, or Acts is an unnecessary conclusion.64

If, as has been demonstrated above, McGarvey came to see the appendix as the work of a later hand, then where does that lead in understanding its function today? In the past it functioned as a key text in supporting essentiality of baptism. Warren, to cite one example, sought to frame the question in terms of "inspiration," deducing from the premise that if it is Markan, then a priori it is inspired scripture. But this approach helps little. Several books in the NT, and especially in the Old, are the work of unknown authors. In reference to the Gospels themselves, it should not be forgotten that they are anonymous, authorship being based soley on tradition. Furthermore if a document is deemed inspired, that still does not free it of text-critical difficulties leading back to the evaluation of the textual evidence.

McGarvey's Revised Conclusion in Current Debate

McGarvey had anticipated by a hundred years Bruce M. Metzger's alternative: Mark 16:9-20 can be considered "canonical," thus allowing it to function in the church as it has throughout the centuries, but not the original conclusion to the Gospel of Mark. Metzger suggests:

There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.65

But Metzger is speaking of canonical status and not literary function.

62Kurt Aland, "Bermerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums," in Neotestamentica et Semitica, E. E. Ellis and Max Wilcox, eds. (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1969), and Kurt and Barbara Aland, 288.

63Lewis, "Verses," 200 [^Questions, 121] ; P.W. van der Horst, "Can a Book End with ΓΑΡ? A Note on Mark XVI. 8," 775 23 (1972) 121-124.

64Cf. Lewis, "Verses," 202 [^Questions, 124-125] with McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark, 377-378.

65Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) 270.


Literary analysis, then, would seek to understand the Gospel of Mark without the appendix. However valid the question of why the longer ending was seen as a fitting conclusion, the interpreter's job is to explain why this Gospel ended with the ominous words έφοβοΰτο γάρ, which itself makes for two additional problems: (1) Can a book end with γάρ? and (2) How is it possible to end a "Gospel" on a note of fear? Some scholars conclude in reference to the former that a book cannot have ended this way, and several have attempted to alleviate this. For example, C.F.D. Moule suggests that the last clause is to be understood parenthetically, making the point of vs. 8 that because of the women's fear, they ran straight to the disciples.66 Frederick W. Danker theorized that Mark 16:8 contains a very early scribal error. The text, according to Danker, originally read ΦΟΒΟΎΜΕΓΑΝ ("out of great fear") not ΦΟΒΟΜΑΙΓΑΡ ("For they were afraid").67 P. W. van der Horst attempts to end the debate over γάρ; he shows from Plotinus (AD third century), who ended his thirty-second treatise with γάρ, that a book can so end.68 Though this alleviates the problem of the book ending in γάρ, the book still ends on a note of fear. J. Luzarraga explains that Mark mistranslated the original Semitic word Ihb as φοβέομαι; it may also mean "to make haste."69

But this remains a conjecture since the original Aramaic is unknown, if it existed at all. Mike Holmes posits that since the Gospel of Mark was addressed to believers there was no need for an explicit conclusion, while Alfred Haefner suggests that Mark 16:1-8 originally continued with Acts 1:13-14.70 Haefner's suggestion is unacceptable as there is no textual evidence that such an arrangement ever existed. Still others propose that Mark's original ending has been lost, which is where McGarvey would have stood, since this is also Alford's and Hort's understanding. But this last suggestion is hypothetical, based on presuppositions about how Mark had to end his literary production.

66C.F.D. Moule, "St Mark XVI. 8 Once More," New Testament Studies 2 (1955) 58-59.

6 7 F. W. Danker, "Post-script to the Markan Secrecy Motif," Concordia Theological Monthly 38 (1967): 26.

68Van der Horst, 121-124, who comments, "It is curious, however, to see that many scholars do not find this convincing proof that a book can end with γάρ, because it is obvious that, if a sentence can end with γάρ, a book can end with such a sentence (122)." Cf. Mark 9:6.

69J. Luzarraga, "Retraducción semitica de φοβέομαι en Me 16,8," Biblica 50 (1969) 497-510.

70Mike Holmes, 'The Ending of Mark 16:8: Intentional or Accidental?" Trinity Journal 5 (1976) 102-108, and Alfred Haefner, 'The Bridge Between Mark and Acts," JBL 77 (1958) 67-71.


Literary critics have reexamined the possibility that Mark intentionally ended at 16:8. Boomershine and Bartholomew, for example, explain the abrupt ending of Mark in literary terms. They find this ending consistent with three elements characteristic with Mark: "(1) the use of extensive narrative commentary; (2) the use of intensive inside views; and (3) the use of short sentences."71 In another article, Boomershine argues that the abrupt ending functions as an invitation for the church not to be afraid to proclaim the news as had the women.72 To this should be added Norman R. Petersen, who finds that ending at vs. 8 does, indeed, satisfy literary criteria for closure.73 Taking these literary suggestions, one would need to analyze the function of φοβέομαι. (4:41; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:20, 50; 9:32; 10:32; 11:18, 32; 12:12; and 16:8) in the overall context of the Gospel to find if there is a reason the author would want to end here.74 But this must wait. Here the concern has been to suggest routes of inquiry opened if McGarvey's revised conclusion is heard.

7Thomas E. Boomershine and Gilbert L. Bartholomew, 'The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8," JBL 100 (1981) 213-223.

72Thomas E. Boomershine, "Mark 16:8 and the Apostolic Commission," JBL 100(1981)225-239.

73Norman R. Petersen, "When Is the End Not the End? Literary Reflections on the Ending of Mark's Narrative," Interpretation 34 (1980) 151-166.

74WilloughbyC. Allen, "Tear' in St. Mark," 773 48(1947): 201-203 and his "St. Mark XVI. 8: 'They Were Afraid.' Why?" JTS 47 (1946): 46-49: See also Roger Anthony Bush. "Mark's Call to Action: A Rhetorical Analysis of Mark 16:8" in Church Divinity, John H. Morgan, ed. (Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press, 1986) 22-30.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20

Documents