Joe is not offering a theory.
It is a simple question.
What is the theory of when, where, how and by who were the verses added.
Even just the when.
Also, was there an original Markan ending, lost?
The Aristonian theory of the LEInternally, there are three sets of evidence weighing against authenticity [of the Long Ending (the LE) of G.Mark]
- The transition from verse 8 to verses 9-12 is structurally illogical. It’s more improbable the original author would have composed this than an interpolator.
- The LE is a creative summary of the other three Gospels (even including, just as suspiciously, Acts) that are now in the canon, yet they had not been written or combined into a common edition when Mark composed his Gospel. It is unlikely Mark could presciently know which three Gospels would be merged with his in that future edition, much less what would be said in them.
- Most importantly, the grammar and vocabulary is so deviant from the rest of the Gospel of Mark as to alone render Markan authorship extremely improbable.
Externally, there are several sets of evidence weighing against authenticity -
- All the earliest manuscripts extant, including the earliest complete bibles to survive, lack the LE; it begins to appear in the extant manuscript record only in the 4th century, which means it can only have been a rare reading before that
- Even in translations, the earliest manuscripts (e.g. in Syriac and Latin) lack the LE; and later traditions that contain it show textual evidence of it not having originally been there (e.g. in Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgic, and Armenian); only the late 4th century Gothic likely originated from a text including the LE
- most later manuscripts that do contain the LE place it after another forged ending, the so-called “Short Ending” (or SE, designated verse 16:9a or 16:20b), a sequence highly improbable unless the LE was added after that verse was, and thus not original to the text
- We also have physical evidence, actual annotations, gaps, and marks in extant manuscripts indicating the LE was an additional reading, or where the LE was explicitly added by a later scribe
- We have the testimony of Christian authors. No second century author evinces any knowledge of the LE being in Mark, even though in several places they would likely have mentioned that fact. Only a medieval Latin translation of Irenaeus includes mention of it, and there is strong evidence that’s an interpolation of a marginal note not written by Irenaeus. Third century authors all fail to mention the LE even when they should have (e.g. Hippolytus, Origen, Clement, Vincentius), while fourth century authors (e.g. Eusebius and Jerome) outright tell us it was a rare reading. A later medieval author even admitted to adding it to manuscripts he found lacking it
More here https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14999that it came from [Ariston's] lost Biblical commentary on Mark, and someone else transposed it to their copy of the Gospel. Subsequent church communities then started regarding it as a lost original reading and added it (the same way the SE came to be widely disseminated, again without any notice or protest in the record). Only a few had done so by the time Eusebius noticed, and he regarded it as an interpolation. It thus only became widely disseminated after Eusebius, indeed after even Jerome. It wasn’t a common reading until after the 4th century.
|P137||c. 200||1:7-9, 16-18||-||A little piece but the cumulative effect of little pieces will have some weight.|
|P45||c. 250||4:36-40; 5:15-26, 38-43 6:1-3, 16-25, 36-50; 7:3-15, 25-37 8:1, 10-26, 34-38, 9:1-9, 18-31; 11:27-33, 12:1, 5-8, 13-19,24-28;||-||The prize of the early witness as it is before the Lucian Recension. It contains a minority of GMark but as I've previously indicated Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings it suggests that lack of excerpts containing difficult readings was intentional. A related observation is that p45 appears to have originally contained about a Chapter more than orthodox GMark, suggesting Secret Mark.|
|Sinaiticus||c. 350||All||-||Ends at 16:8. Note that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both after the Lucian Recension and as noted Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings both are usually on the wrong side of difficult readings.|
|Vaticanus||c. 350||All||-||Ends at 16:8. GMark was likely written c. 100 so up to 250 years later there is no extant Greek Manuscript support whatsoever for the LE. c. 300 Eusebius famously testifies that the LE is rare and in bad company and Jerome later confirms. Presumably Lucian and the scribes of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are aware of the LE but it is just too weakly attested to use.|
|Washingtoniensis||c. 400||Almost all including 16:9-20||After 16:14 has Freer Logion (For we are many (sentences))
Significant Textual Variation, especially after the above =
16:17 ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει
16:17 λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς
16:19 κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
16:20 σημείων. ἀμήν
Western order = Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. After Eusebius not so famously commented that "Mark" and "Luke" did not write any post resurrection sightings leaving that to the superior witnesses "Matthew" and "John".
Text type eclectic (harmonistic). Supporting eclectic ending.
Caesarean/Westen text type for "Mark" as a whole. But textual variation for LE tends to agree with the inferior (later) Byzantine.
|Note that this is the first extant Manuscript that contains the LE. About 100 years after Eusebius famously opined that it was acceptable to choose whichever earlier ending you preferred. The main takeaway of the Freer Logion is that at this time it was considered okay to ADD to the ending of GMark and secondarily that it was okay to add the LE. Supporters of LE simply include Washingtoniensis along with the overwhelming quantity of Greek support without giving it qualification. Again note that this qualification is not only content but timing = c. 400 it's become acceptable to add to the ending of GMark but specifically the LE is not considered sufficiently authoritative to limit the ending to only it. Can you say "transition"?|
Washingtoniensis specifically and the following witnesses for LE generally, show significantly more Textual Variation after 16:15. This suggests that in the development of the LE 16:15 was a natural stopping point =
The main underlying issue of Textual Criticism is for each candidate, which has the best explanation for change? For supporters of LE Washingtoniensis is a claimed star witness as it is near in date to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But Washingtoniensis, with its significant variation from the LE, also provides quality evidence for change to the LE. So which is it better evidence for?
|Alexandrinus (CA)||c. 450||Almost all including 16:9-20||The Text-type is Byzantine which is the weakest of all the Greek Text-types. |
CA contains the Eusebian Canons in an early form. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE. So while CA does include most of the LE it also indicates that earlier evidence did not include it.
A short space appears between 16:14 and 16:15, and the “T” in the αυτοις(autois) in 16:15 is enlarged in the margin. This is exactly where The Freer Logion was. Jerome c. 400 and Codex Washingtonianus c. 400 evidence the existence of The Freer Logion. So CA likely shows awareness of even more textual variation in the LE here.
In its text of Mark 16:9-20, Codex A has the variant εκ νεκρων (ek nekron), “from the dead,” in 16:14. Textual variation. Evidence of unoriginality.
And does not have the phrase και εν ταις χερσιν (kai en tais chersin), “And in their hands,” in 16:18. Textual variation. Evidence of unoriginality.
|In summary, while CA is probably the best Manuscript witness for the LE it has every characteristic of a later Manuscript reading:
|Ephraemi Rescriptus (ER)||c. 450||Most including 16:9-20||The text has been erased and written over making it very difficult to determine what was original. The Text-type is weak Alexandrian. ER contains the Ammonian Sections. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE. So while ER does include most of the LE it also indicates that earlier evidence did not include it.||In summary, while ER is a good Manuscript witness for the LE it has some characteristics of a later Manuscript reading:
|Codex Bezae (D)||c. 450||Original Missing 16:15-20||16:15-20 was added much later and the accompanying Latin version likewise originally was missing 16:15-20 which was also added much later. In verse 9, D has εφανερωσεν πρωτοις (efanerosen protois) instead of εφανη πρωτον (efane proton); in verse 10, D has αυτοις (autois) after απηγγειλεν (apengeilen); in verse 11, D has και ουκ επιστευσαν αυτω (kai ouk episteusan auto) instead of ηπιστησαν (epistesan); D adds και (kai) at the beginning of verse 12; near the beginning of verse 15 D has προς αυτους (pros autous) instead of αυτοις (autois); in the same verse D omits απαντα (apanta) and inserts και (kai) before κηρυξατε (keruxate). The added
16:15-20 is the standard LE text. The Text-type is Western which is inferior to Alexandrian. D contains the Ammonian Sections. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE.
|We have the following reasons to think that 16:15-20 was either not original to D or had significant variation compared to the standard wording:
|P069||c. 450||10:50-51; 11:11-12||-||-|
|P0274||c. 450||6:56- 7:4,6-9,13-17, 19-23, 28-29, 34-35; 8:3-4,8-11; 9:20-22,26-41; 9:43- 10:1, 17-22||-||-|
|P0313||c. 450||4:9, 15||-||-|
|072||c. 500||2:23- 3:5||-||-|
|P84||c. 550||2:2-5, 8-9, 6:30-31, 33-34, 36-37, 39-41||-||-|
|P024||c. 550||1:2-11; 3:5-17; 14:13-24,48-61; 15:12-37||-||-|
|042||c. 550||All except 16:14-20||Missing 16:14-20 |
references the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons
|That it is only missing the second half of the LE suggests it was intentional.|
The references to Ammonian and Eusebian indicate awareness of an earlier ending.
As we have already seen there is significantly more textual variation starting at 16:14 suggesting what follows was an even later addition.
|043||c. 550||1:1- 14:62||-||-|