« AnteriorContinuar »
should not have mentioned the circumstance, and it is also strange that Aristion should have taken the trouble to compile so second-hand and loose a narrative." Still it may have actually come from his dunyoels (cf. Lk 11), in which case its date would be towards the beginning of the second century or slightly later. Resch (TU, X. 2, pp. 449-456; Th St, pp. 109, 110) suggests Ariston of Pella as the author, a JewishChristian presbyter who-on Resch's very shaky hypothesis-edited the first canon of the gospels, C. 140 A.D. For less conjectural reasons, Warfeld dates the fragment not later than the first thirty years of the second century. He imagines that it was taken, along with the pericope Jn 753_811, from the book of illustrations of the gospel narrative composed by Papias, c. 120 A.D. (Textual Criticism of the NT, pp. 199–205). Rohrbach, again, conjectures 110-120 A.D. as the period when the incomplete gospel was furnished in Asia Minor with its unauthentic conclusion, at the same time as the appendix (21), in which that conclusion was used, was added to the fourth gospel.
Here as elsewhere, however, while there is plenty of good argument to prove that the passage is an interpolation, signs fail for its date. Further, it must be borne in mind that a passage may have existed in written form before it was inserted in its present place in the MSS, as is the case with the Homeric catalogue of the troops in the second book of the Iliad (lines 484-877); also, that it represents in all likelihood a tradition older than itself. Relatively, indeed, limits can be fixed within which it must lie. The fragment presupposes Luke
12-13 with Luke 2413-33 , : I p. 17-18 with An 91.13 293-6), if not John. It is an echo of the preceding traditions, inserted at the close of Mark by an early editor in order to supplement the defective resurrection-narrative.? Upon the other side, if its use can be traced in Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 45), a terminus ad quem would be established. The evidence for this, however, is too indefinite.
1 So much so that Zahn, who had already (GK, i. p. 913 f.) referred vers. 15, 16 to an extra-canonical source, now prefers to confine Aristion's share to vers. 14–18. He appeals, in confirmation of this, to the marginal gloss written by a Scholiast in Rufinus's translation of Eusebius, which quotes Aristion's authority for a story of Justus, surnamed Bar-Sabbas (Ac 123), who miraculously recovered after drinking some deadly poison (= Mk 1618). Bacon (Journ. Bibl. Lit. 1898, pp. 176-183) now conjectures that Papias's description of Aristion and John the presbyter as disciples TOű zupiou originally read rottws (i.e. Tây á tortów). In any case the oral tradition from which a fragment like this sprang, must have been exposed to contamination. Even Papias was tainted with millenarianism, and we may be sure this penchant was not in conflict with the teaching of the elders upon whom he leaned so heavily and from whom he repeated legendary tales like that of Justus Bar-Sabbas and his poison, besides ξίνας τινας παραβολάς του Σωτήρος και διδασκαλίας αυτού και τινα άλλα Meuberótipa, if we can trust the unsympathetic notice of Eusebius (HE, 111. 39).
2 Add Jn 201-18 + Lk 82 = Mk 169-11, while vers. 19, 20 are a colourless review of previous apostolic history (Lk 2450. 51, Ac 19-11). I do not see any convincing evidence for the use of Mk 169-20 in Jn 21.
31 append a table, re-arranged from Loofs (Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert, 1898), to bring out the rôle of this fragment in the cycle and growth of the resurrection stories. The correct inference from these in general is that the tradition was largely fluid and for a long time indeterminate, while the Galilaean appear. ances do not rest upon very arlequate historical evidence. For a more conservative statement, cp. Beyschlag, SK (1899), pp. 507–539, and Schwartzkopff, Prophecies of Jesus Christ, pp. 87-124. The radical view in Schmiedel, EBi, ii. 1878 f.
4 Dr. C. Taylor (Exp.4 viii. pp. 71-80, argnes for such a use even earlier, in Barnabas and Clem. Rom., but the evidence is far from conclusive. The same holds true of the gospel of Peter. It is a disputed point whether the resurrection narrat
[Continued on page 553.
“A fact so stupendous as the Resurrection needs to be supported by strong evidence, and very strong evidence both as regards quantity and quality is forthcoming ; but all parts of it are not of equal value, and it is well that the authorities should be compared with each other and critically estimated. ... Whichever way we turn, difficulties meet us, which the documents to which we have access do not enable us to remove.”-Sanday.
Dr. Chase (Syriac Element in Codex Bezae, pp. 150–157) thinks that a Syriac version of the section can be proved to have existed by the middle of the second century, and that consequently the primitive Greek text is to be dated almost in the first quarter of the century. Upon some such date, at any rate, the various probabilities of the evidence converge. Certainly neither Matthew nor Luke had before them any text of Mark that went beyond 168 (cp. Wernle, op. cit. pp. 36, 177, 218, 219), nor does the passage reflect an independent source. It is a vague, meagre, and secondary summary of previous traditions, a knpúyua or dinynois, though scarcely to be dismissed as a fragment of a thoroughly poetic nature, in keeping with the gospel to which it has been added (W. Brückner).
© The removal of Mk 169-20] leaves the conclusion of that gospel in a state which demands some hypothesis to account for its unfinished or mutilated condition. On all hands it is admitted that no author could have intended his work to close with the words époßoūvTo váp. Either then, (i.) the original conclusion has been lost, or (ii.) the author was prevented by accident or death from finishing his book. In the former case (i.) the continuation must have been lost at a very early date, previous to the transcription of the earliest copy, as no trace of it exists. This difficulty, however, is not insuperable. A leaf may have been detached, or some accident may have occurred to the original autograph. Zahn, however (GK, ii. p. 928 f.), has recently contended for (ii.), principally on the ground that the existence and disappearance of such an x as the other theory requires, must be held incredible. Mark, he thinks, was prevented by Peter's death from completing the volume; then, before he could interfere, his friends had read and copied the unfinished work.1 Blair (Apostolic Gospel, pp. 372–385) more sensibly concludes that the lost ending could not have been longer than Mt 289-20, as Matthew usually enlarges his sources; also that Lk 249. 11. 12 preserve in their integrity the details which were contained in the lost ending. The verbal contradiction between the one passage (Lk 248) and the other (Mk 168) led, as he thinks, to the deliberate rejection of the original conclusion in order to avoid a discrepancy. But it is possible also that if the original ending of Mark was brief, it failed to satisfy the needs of later generations, and was consequently superseded (Réville). When the passage is taken as an integral part of the gospel, its phenomena affect the date of the whole work, and leave no alternative except (with Dr. Salmon, INT, pp. 143-151) to bring the gospel down to a period anterior to Matthew and Luke. In face of modern criticism upon the synoptic problem, this is of course an indefensible position. ive of that gospel goes back to Mk 169-20, or-as has even been conjectured-to the lost original conclusion of Mark. The double stream of tradition upon the resurrection is best traced by Réville (11. pp. 428-452), and by Rohrbach in his Die Berichte über die Auferstehung J.C. (1898); cp. also Harnack, Th L: (1899), pp. 174-176. W. Brückner's articles (PM, 1899, pp. 41-47, 96-110, 153-160) give a review and discussion, largely of Rohrbach's position. Add Abbott, EBi, ii. 1781-1787.
1 Something of this kind occurred in the case of the notes taken by Arrian during the lectures of Epiktetus. Like the first edition of the Religio Medici, they were afterwards published surreptitiously, or at least apart from the connivance of the author.
At the opening as at the close of an ancient writing it was not difficult for the text to be corrupted or impaired, by the detachment of a leaf or otherwise. Ryle and Janes, for example, conjecture that in the archetype of the Psalmıs of Solomon at least one leaf had disappeared at the close of the MS.; if tenable, this would be an interesting parallel to the case of Mk and Mk 169-20. Schmiedel leaves it an open question (EBi, ii. 1880-1881), and Bacon (INT, 42, 205) simply refers the fragment to Ariston.
Whether they are historically trustworthy or not, their contents are not such as could have been invented by any scribe or editor of the gospel (of Mark) in his desire to supply the observed defect by a substantial and dignified ending. . . . There is, however, no difficulty in supposing that a scribe or editor, unwilling to change the words of the text before him or to add words of his own, was willing to furnish the gospel with what seemed a worthy conclu. sion, by incorporating with it unchanged a narrative of Christ's appearances after the Resurrection, which he found in some secondary record then surviving from a previous generation. . . . It is shown by its language and structure to be complete in itself, beginning with the Resurrection and ending with the Ascension. It thus constitutes a condensed fifth narrative of the forty days. It manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority ; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age.-Westcott and Hort.
[Mk 169-20] After death.
the eleven : his commission to them. 19. 20 Summary of apostolic preaching.
A FRAGMENT OF EVANGELIC TRADITION Mk 16
9 Now after he had arisen early on the first day of the week, he appeared 10 first to Mary of Magdala from whom he had cast out seven daemons. She
went and brought word to those who had been with him, as they 11 mourned and wept ; yet although they heard he was alive and had been 12 seen by her, they disbelieved.
Now after this he was disclosed in a different form to two of them, who were walking on their way into 13 the country. And they went off and brought word to the rest ; yet they 14 would not believe even them.
Afterwards 1 he was disclosed to the eleven themselves, as they reclined at table; and he reproached them
for their unbelief and stubbornness of heart, because they would not EISTER
15 believe those who had seen him after he rose. And he said to them,
“Go into all the world and preach the glad tidings to all the
But he who disbelieves shall be condemned.
In my name they shall cast out daemons,
They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”
everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the
2 Omitting l’Inocüs]].