Textual Criticism

[James Snapp, Jr.]

"Justin?"

That is how the 2nd edition of the UBS Greek New Testament's apparatus lists the testimony of Justin Martyr in regard to Mark 16:9-20. Yet in the list of witnesses for the non-inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, no question-marks accompany the names of Clement and Origen, even though their witness consists entirely of their silence -- a silence which, as Hort affirmed, is not necessarily reflective of the contents of their copies of Mark.

Metzger (TCotGNT, p. 124) stated that "It is not quite certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (I:45), he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20 (TOU LOGOU TOU ISCUROU ON APO IEROUSALHM OI APOSTOLOI AUTOU EXELQONTES PANTACOU EKHRUXAN)."

That is the extent of the analysis of Justin's statements that most commentators and students seem to have ever encountered: maybe Justin knew Mark 16:20 (and, by implication, the entire passage 16:9-20) but maybe not. However, a closer analysis justifies a very high degree of confidence that Justin was familiar with Mark 16:9-20 and regarded it as part of the Gospels.

Here is the entire text (in English) of the pertinent portion of Justin's First Apology ch. 45:

"And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation – hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words [from Psalm 110:1-3]. "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning have I begotten Thee." That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached 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."

In this short excerpt, Justin's comments overlap elements found in Mark 16:9-20: Justin mentions the ascension of Christ [cf. 16:19], victory over devils [cf. 16:9, 16:17], the preaching of the word everywhere [cf. 16:20], the name of Christ [cf. 16:17], and a lack of true harm done to Christians [cf. 16:18]. In Justin’s statement, “That which he [i.e., David, in Psalm 110] says, ‘He shall send to thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem,’ is predictive of the mighty word, which his apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere" the parallels are not only thematic but verbal:

Justin: went forth everywhere preaching.
Mark: went forth preaching everywhere.

Hort expressed a measure of doubt about the connection between Mark 16:20 and Justin’s statement in First Apology ch. 45 because “v. 20 does not contain the point specially urged by Justin" -- i.e., that the apostles went forth from Jerusalem. When Hort wrote those words, he was unaware of the arrangement of text in Tatian’s Diatessaron as preserved in the Arabic Diatessaron, which was published in 1888 by P. Agostino Ciasca.

J. Rendel Harris, writing in 1890, and Frederic Henry Chase, writing in 1893, both noticed that Diatessaron 55:14 states that the disciples “returned to Jerusalem” (using Lk. 24:52) and that following this, Diatessaron 55:16 says that the disciples went forth “from thence,” that is, from Jerusalem. The Diatessaron thus displays precisely the point specially urged by Justin, removing altogether Hort's grounds for hesitating to affirm Justin's use of Mark 16:20.

The presence of this feature in Tatian’s harmony does not automatically require that it was also in the text used by Justin. But Chase noted, “It will be, I think, generally admitted that the probability is that there is some kind of connexion, more or less immediate, between Tatian’s Diatessaron and Justin’s N.T. quotations.” More recently, Bellinconi has shown that Justin used some sort of Synoptic Harmony when quoting the Gospels, and William Petersen has presented evidence that Tatian's Diatessaron shares some distinctive features with Justin's quotations from the Gospels, implying that Tatian's Diatessaron was based on a model provided by Justin.

The odds that Justin was recollecting Mk. 16:20 are further increased in light of the rarity of the word PANTACOU ("everywhere"). Justin used PANTACOU twice in ch. 45. Chase observed that Justin repeats the word “as if it were a word occurring in an authority quoted by him.” Writing in 1890, J. Rendel Harris noticed the same thing that Chase did, and concluded, “Dr. Hort may therefore remove the query from the name of Justin in the tabulated evidence for the twelve verses.” (pp. 57-58, The Diatessaron of Tatian - A Preliminary Study.)

Some further evidence of Justin’s familiarity with Mark 16:9-20 may be provided by his choice of words in his Dialogue with Trypho and in the 67th chapter of First Apology. The setting of Dialogue with Trypho is in the 130’s, although Justin may have composed it later. In its 138th chapter, Justin writes:

“At the time of the flood, the just Noah, with his wife and three sons and their wives, making eight persons in all, were a figure of that eighth day (which is, however, always first in power) on which our Lord appeared as risen from the dead.”

In the 67th chapter of First Apology, Justin writes:

“Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”

Mark 16:9 is unique among the Gospels in its choice of words: whereas Mt. 28:1 and Jn. 20:19 use the phrase MIA SABBATWN, and Lk. 24:1 and Jn. 20:1 use MIA TWN SABBATWN, Mk. 16:9 uses PRWTH SABBATOU. When Matthew refers to Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, he never uses the word EFANH. Nor does Luke. In addition, Matthew and Luke do not use ANASTAS to refer to Jesus’ resurrection in their accounts of His post-resurrection appearances.

C. Taylor provided the following brief analysis:
“In each case Justin states expressly and emphatically that Christ rose on the first day of the week, and he has in each a threefold agreement with St. Mark as tabulated below:
Mark XVI. 9----------Apol. I. 67.----------Trypho 138.
ANASTAS-------------ANESTH--------------ANASTAS
PRWTH---------------PRWTH---------------PRWTHS
EFANH----------------FANEIS----------------EFANH.”

All things considered, as long as Origen and Clement of Alexandria are cited as witnesses for the non-inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, there is no reason whatsoever to attach an expression of doubt to Justin's attestation of Mark 16:9-20. In addition, inasmuch as Justin appears to cite the passage from a Synoptics-Harmony, the passage must have stood the copy of Mark which he used when constructing his Synoptics-Harmony -- a Synoptics-Harmony which Justin used not only when writing First Apology but also when writing Dialogue with Trypho. This pushes the testimony for Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark backward at least a couple of decades.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
Tipton, Indiana (USA)

[wie]

It is possible that Justin is quoting from Mk, but it is not certain.
It is also not certain that Justin really used a Harmony. There is some relationship between Justin and the Diatessaron, but what exactly this is, we don't know.
Justin had probably much catechetical materials at his disposal. Also extracanonical texts (remember the fire on the Jordan in Mt 3:15 etc.).
Perhaps one of these texts contained this phrase. Perhaps from this text the long ending was composed? Who knows?

[James Snapp, Jr.]

Wieland,

Have you considered the evidence presented by A. J. Bellinzoni (I think I wrote “Bellinconi” earlier) in The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, Suppl. to Novum Testamentum, Vol. XVII, and Petersen’s essay "Tatian's Dependence upon Justin's APOMNHMONEYMATA," in New Testament Studies 36 (1990), pp. 512-34?

WW: “Justin had probably much catechetical materials at his disposal.”

Maybe. As soon as someone has actual evidence that Justin had such catechetical material and that it included phrases resembling the contents of Mark 16:20, we can use that in our analysis of non-imaginary things.

WW: “Also extracanonical texts (remember the fire on the Jordan in Mt 3:15 etc.). Perhaps one of these texts contained this phrase. Perhaps from this text the long ending was composed? Who knows?”

First, there's an obvious difference between the addition of one short phrase about the fire in the Jordan, and the use of a phrase which implies the addition of 171 words.

Second, perhaps some extracanonical text also mentioned that Jesus named James and John Boanerges, the sons of thunder. Who knows? It’s possible, in theory. Nevertheless researchers of Justin routinely use his mention of that snippet of information as Exhibit A that Justin knew and used the Gospel of Mark. To treat the parallels between Justin and Mark 16:20 differently, merely because a source-document can be imagined, would not be an equitable approach.

The fact is that Hort’s punch (i.e., his note of hesitation) has been blocked and strongly counter-punched by evidence acquired subsequent to 1881. As Harris and Chase pointed out, Justin’s comment in First Apology 45 is exactly what we would expect of someone using a Gospels-Harmony (similar to the Diatessaron) which incorporated Mark 16:9-20.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[wie]

Yes, Jim, I know the material about Justin quite good. He quoted many things and sometimes loosely.
That he writes somewhere "EXELQONTES PANTACOU EKHRUXAN" does not necessarily mean that this comes from the long ending of Mk. It is possible, yes, but it is not certain. As you said, it resembles the contents of Mark 16:20, but nothing more.
I wouldn't set "James and John Boanerges" and "went forth everywhere preaching" on the same level. "Boanerges" is much more distinct.

"there's an obvious difference between the addition of one short phrase about the fire in the Jordan, and the use of a phrase which implies the addition of 171 words."

No. The use of the phrase does not imply any addition. It is just a phrase as the one about the fire in the Jordan. You can equally say that the fire quote imples that he knows some other long apocryphal text.

I would accept the quote as possbible reference to the long ending but not as a certain reference.

[James Snapp, Jr.]

Wieland,

Then you know that Bellinzoni's evidence shows that Justin used a Harmony, and that Petersen's evidence shows that the Diatessaron echoed Justin's Harmony in some respects. So when we see that (a) the Diatessaron incorporates Mk. 16:9-20, and that (b) when Justin describes the apostles going forth from Jerusalem, preaching everywhere, this is exactly what a person quoting a Harmony like the Diatessaron would say/write (combining part of Mk. 16:20 and part of Lk. 24:52), what is there to prevent the identification of First Apology 45 as a strong allusion to, or usage of, Mark 16:20?

WW: "I wouldn't set "James and John Boanerges" and "went forth everywhere preaching" on the same level. "Boanerges" is much more distinct."

It is? "Boanerges" occurs once in the NT. How often do the exact words EXELQONTES and EKHRUXAN and PANTACOU occur in close proximity, as they do in Mk. 16:20?

Also, why does Justin repeat the word PANTACOU, using it in the phrase "we everywhere both salute and teach" the name of Christ, if not, as Chase surmised, because it is a word that occurs in an authority quoted by him?

WW: "The use of the phrase does not imply any addition. It is just a phrase as the one about the fire in the Jordan. You can equally say that the fire quote implies that he knows some other long apocryphal text."

If Justin used Mk. 16:20 as part of a citation from his Gospels-Harmony, then obviously Justin knew Mk. 16:9-20 as part of his text of the Gospels, and there are no grounds for supposing that it was part of any Gospel other than the Gospel of Mark. As for the possibility that that the phrase about the fire in the Jordan implies that Justin knew some other long apocryphal text (say, the Gospel of the Hebrews), that may be the case -- but we don't have such a text extant, while in the case of Justin's phrase about the apostles going forth everywhere preaching, we do have such a text.

WW: "I would accept the quote as possible reference to the long ending but not as a certain reference."

What about Tertullian? When he writes, in Scorpiace 15,
...et si mortiferum quid biberint, non eis nocebit...
is that sufficiently close to
...et si aliquid mortiferum quis biberint non illos nocebit...
to conclude that Tertullian was using Mk. 16:18?

When I look at how meagre and inexact verbal similarities between Mk. 16:9-20 and parallel-passages are used in commentators' attempts to support the "pastiche" theory about Mk. 16:9-20, I can scarcely believe my eyes when the same commentators look at First Apology 45 and categorize it as a merely possible use of Mk. 16:20.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.