Trent, the Vulgate, Mark 16, and John 8

[sardegnr]

The Council of Trent defined the canon of Scripture and stated that it included the listed books as they appeared in the Latin Vulgate. Therefore, such passages as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 were included in the canon, though they did not appear in the earliest manuscripts. Later, Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu that the council’s decision to affirm the authenticity of the Vulgate was a “juridical” one, not a critical one. That is to say, the council’s affirmation of the Vulgate text was not because the Vulgate was better than any other version but rather because the Church needed a single Bible for use throughout the Church, and that was the one it council chose for lack of a better alternative. Pope Pius then went on to encourage the composition of new translations of the Bible, based on the original languages rather then the Vulgate.

From this may we say then that while Mark and John are clearly in the canon, that such passages as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11, which may not be in original language texts, and therefore may not be in other Bible translations, are not necessarily part of the canon? And what do we do about other, more minor, variations? I’ve always thought that the Woman Caught in Adultery was one of the most beautiful & powerful passages in Scripture. What a shame to come to find it might not be authentic or legitimately part of the canon. Moreover, to say that Mark’s discussion of the resurrection is non-canonical gives a great deal of ammunition to those who subscribe to the priority of Mark and claim that the resurrection was a story that developed over time rather than an actual event in history.

 

[patrick457]

As for Mark 16, I would be quoting what I wrote yesterday in another thread:

Well, it is true that the undisputed part of St. Mark’s Gospel end with verse 8 in a cliffhanger. The ‘young man’ in white has announced that Jesus has been raised and is going ahead of the disciples to Galilee. The women, afraid, flee from the tomb and keep quiet about what they saw. Verse 8 ends, when translated literally: “they were afraid, for…”

For the record, there are actually two extant endings to the Gospel: the ‘Longer’ and ‘Shorter’ Endings. The one most people are familiar with (Mark 16:9-20) is termed the ‘Longer Ending’. As mentioned, St. Justin Martyr in the mid-2nd century seems to already be familiar with it, showing that the ending was already in existence then. The patristic evidence for the ending is over a century older than the earliest copy of Mark 16, which may show that if it is an addition to the original text written by Mark, it would have been added pretty early. The shorter ending, present in some manuscripts, is the one that goes like: “And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter’s companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.” (NAB)

The last twelve verses are not present in two 4th-century manuscripts, Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the earliest complete manuscripts of Mark. (Papyrus 45, from circa AD 250, is the oldest extant manuscript that contains text from Mark, but it has no text from chapter 16 due to extensive damage). Codex Vaticanus has a blank column after ending at 16:8 and placing kata Markon, “according to Mark.” There are three other blank columns in Vaticanus, in the Old Testament, but they are each due to incidental factors in the production of the codex—a change to the column-format, a change of scribes, and the conclusion of the Old Testament portion of the text—whereas the blank column between Mark 16:8 and the beginning of Luke is deliberately placed. Although it has been suggested that Codex Vaticanus may be reflecting a Western order of the gospels with Mark as the last book (Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark), the scholars making this suggestion (such as Daniel Wallace) have not explained why any scribe would feel that the normal blank space at the end of a Gospels-codex would be worth perpetuating in a new copy in which the Gospels were arranged in a different order.

Sinaiticus also ends with 16:8 and the words euangelion kata Markon, “the Gospel according to Mark.” The scribe who made this replacement-page in Codex Sinaiticus was very probably one of the scribes who helped produce Codex Vaticanus. Aside from this, we have 100 Armenian manuscripts, as well as two Georgian manuscripts which also omit the appendix. Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Jerome (who was repeating part of Eusebius’ statements, condensing them as he loosely rendered them into Latin) also testify to others which omit the ending.

Another 12th century manuscript, minuscule 304 also omits the last twelve verses in question. Codex Washingtonianus (late 4th-early 5th century) includes verses 9–20 and features an addition between 16:14-15 known as the “Freer Logion” (which you can see in the NAB).

Meanwhile, the group of manuscripts known as Family 1 and others add a note to Mark 16:9–20, stating that some copies do not contain the verses. Codex L adds the ‘Shorter Ending’ after 16:8 and then follows it with vv. 9–20. [/sup]1 has text of Mark 16:9-10 without numbered kephalaia (chapters) at the margin and their titloi (titles) at the top (or the foot).

Mark 16:9–20 is preserved in its traditional form in about a dozen uncials (the earliest being Codex Alexandrinus from the early 5th century) and in all undamaged minuscules.

The Latin Codex Bobbiensis (ca. 4th-5th century) is the only manuscript which has the Shorter Ending alone, with a unique interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4 and with the last phrase of 16:8 omitted.

Various theories have been proposed as to why the ending is so abrupt. Either Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, or he was somehow prevented from finishing it (at which someone else stepped in to fill the gap), or he did write an ending which was either accidentally lost or was deemed to be inadequate for some reason and was suppressed, with a new one being written. Then there is also the one which posits that verses 16:9–20 were indeed written by Mark, and were omitted or lost from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidental, perhaps intentional.

 

[sardegnr]

Thank you.

So if I understand correctly, the long ending to Mark existed by the time of Justin Martyr in the second century but, for some unknown reason, it does not appear in the two oldest extant manuscripts. Do I have that right? What makes you say Justin Martyr was familiar with it?

And does anyone have any info on John 8:1-11?

More to the point, however, in light of Pope Pius’ encyclical, are these two passages necessarily part of the Canon?

 

[patrick457]

Thank you.

So if I understand correctly, the long ending to Mark existed by the time of Justin Martyr in the second century but, for some unknown reason, it does not appear in the two oldest extant manuscripts. Do I have that right? What makes you say Justin Martyr was familiar with it?

The two extant oldest COMPLETE manuscripts of Mark (both dating from the 4th century), I should say. The oldest manuscript containing text from Mark is Papyrus 45, dating from ca. AD 250, but it doesn’t have any text from chapter 16 due to extensive damage (it only contains text from chapters 4-9 and 11-12).

Well, as for Justin Martyr, he wrote in his First Apology (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: The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool. The Lord shall send to You the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule You in the midst of Your enemies. With You is the government in the day of Your power, in the beauties of Your saints: from the womb of morning have I begotten You. That which he says, He shall send to You 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.

That phrase there is suspiciously close to Mark 16:20 (“And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following”), hence it is theorized that Justin may have known of it. In any case, Justin’s student Tatian (ca. 120-180) incorporated the Longer Ending into his Diatessaron, a blended narrative consisting of material from all four canonical Gospels. As a sample, section 55 of the work:

But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain s where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but there were of them who doubted. And while they sat there he appeared to them again, and upbraided them for their lack of faith and the hardness of their hearts, those that saw him when he was risen, and believed not. (Arabic) Then said Jesus unto them, “I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father hath sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world. For whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but whosoever believeth not shall be rejected. And the signs which shall attend those that believe in me are these: that they shall cast out devils in my name; and they shall speak with new tongues; and they shall take up serpents, and if they drink deadly poison, it shall not injure them; and they shall lay their hands on the diseased, and they shall be healed. But ye, abide in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high.”

And our Lord Jesus, after speaking to them, took them out to Bethany: and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And while he blessed them, he was separated from them, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and at all times they were in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

And from thence they went forth, and preached in every place; and our Lord helped them, and confirmed their sayings by the signs which they did. And here are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one of them, not even the world, according to my opinion, would contain the books which should be written.

Also, book 3 and chapter 10 of St. Irenaeus’ (d. 202) Adversus Haereses, written around AD 180 - around 70 years before Papyrus 75 was written, and well a century before Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus even existed.

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God;” confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool.” Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

For a more detailed information about Mark’s ending(s) - the manuscripts and patristic quotes - see this PDF: , by Wieland WillkerThe various endings of Mark

 

[Curious1324]

T

From this may we say then that while Mark and John are clearly in the canon, that such passages as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11, which may not be in original language texts, and therefore may not be in other Bible translations, are not necessarily part of the canon?

No, the Catholic Church decided that they are part of the canon, regardless of the textual history.

 

[Curious1324]

T

More to the point, however, in light of Pope Pius’ encyclical, are these two passages necessarily part of the Canon?

Yes, for Catholics.

 

[sardegnr]

To Patrick 457:

Thank you for Post 4. Quite illuminating. So, the long ending to Mark came quite early it seems.

What do you or anyone else know about the Woman Caught in Adultery?

 

[sardegnr]

No, the Catholic Church decided that they are part of the canon, regardless of the textual history.

The Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, infallably found John & Mark to be part of the Canon, and they stated that the versions of those books to be used were those found in the Vulgate.

The encyclical, however explicitly states that the later of the two decisions was not a critical one. The Church needed to have one version of the Bible, and this was going to be it, not b/c it was inherently “right,” “correct,” or of itself inspired, but rather b/c it was the best option available. The encyclical then goes on to encourage the creation of new Bible translations.

I guess the question is “what force does the encyclical have?” Is it itself infallable? This is important b/c what it in effect says is that the Council of Trent’s decision to include Mark & John in the Canon is infallible, but the determination to use the Vulgate version of those books was not. If the encyclical constitutes the infallable teaching of the Church, then the Church is free to utilize versions of the Bible that do not include those passages, and others, that are contained in the Vulgate. If the encyclical is not infallable, then we are still bound to include all passages contained in the Vulgate in any new translation.

Does anyone see my point?