Pages 11-13: summer 1992
DID THEY OR DIDN'T THEY?
In the Autumn 1991 issue, we began a series of articles designed to show
inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts of the four gospels. Gallons of
ink have been used in attempts to explain away these inconsistencies, but
some of the variations in the accounts are so discrepant that only the very
gullible could possibly believe the far-fetched scenarios that bibliolaters have
resorted to in trying to harmonize them. Of these discrepancies, none is more
obvious than the variations in what the gospel writers said that the women
did to spread word of the empty tomb after hearing from the angel(s) that
Jesus had risen from the dead.
Matthew and Luke both said that the women hurried from the tomb to tell
the disciples what the angel(s) had told them (Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:9). Even
John, whose version of the story differs significantly from the synoptic
accounts, said that Mary Magdalene ran to find Peter and "the other disciple"
to tell them that the body of Jesus had been taken away (20:2). Three of
the gospel writers, then, clearly depicted the eagerness of the women to
report to the disciples what they had found at the empty tomb.
Mark, however, recorded this part of the story in an entirely different
way. After telling of their encounter with an angel, who told them that Jesus
was risen and that they should go tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee
(16:6-7), Mark said that the women were too frightened to tell others what
they had seen:
And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and
astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to
anyone; for they were afraid (v:8).
The discrepancy is obvious, but it is even more obvious if Matthew's and
Luke's accounts are juxtaposed with Mark's:
And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great
joy, and ran to bring his disciples word (Matt. 28:8).
And they remembered his (Jesus's) words and returned from
the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the
rest (Luke 24:8-9).
Luke's account even recorded an alleged conversation between Jesus and two
disciples (on resurrection day) in which one of the disciples said that the
women had reported finding the tomb empty:
Moreover, certain women of our company amazed us, having
been early at the tomb; and when they found not his body, they
came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who
said that he was alive (24:22-23).
So the facts in this matter are apparent enough: three gospel writers said
that the women ran to report the empty tomb; one said that they were so
frightened by what they had seen that "they said nothing to anyone." A
rule of evidence noted in an earlier article in this series ("The Resurrection
Maze," Spring 1992, p. 12) states that two or more contradictory statements
cannot all be right. So who was right in the way this part of the resurrec-
tion story was told? Were Matthew, Luke, and John right in saying that the
women ran to report the empty tomb to the other disciples? Or was Mark
right when he said that they were so frightened that they said "nothing to
anyone"? Did they tell anyone what they had seen or didn't they? That's the
problem that inerrantists must resolve.
In my debate with Bill Jackson, he presented a completely speculative
solution to the problem:
(T)he women told no man they met by the way, but the
accounts are correct in that they told the apostles (Jackson-Till
Debate, TSR edition, p. 63).
I say that this solution is speculative for the simple reason that it assumes
something that is not explicitly stated in the text. Mark did not say, "(A)nd
they said nothing to anyone on their way to find the disciples, for they were
afraid"; he said that they said nothing to anyone, period. The Church of
Christ, which Mr. Jackson preached for, prides itself on "speaking where the
Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent." However, when
Bible inerrancy is at stake, Church-of-Christ preachers will speak volumes on
matters that the Bible is clearly silent on. This is just one example of their
willingness to break biblical silence.
At this point, inerrantists will usually argue that Mark did say that at
least one of the women reported what she had seen at the tomb:
Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out
seven demons. She went and told them that had been with him,
as they mourned and wept. And they, when they heard that he
was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved (16:9-11).
Such appeals as this, however, ignore completely the question of authenticity.
In scholarly circles, Mark 16:9-20 is known as the "Marcan Appendix," be-
cause there are sound reasons for believing that the author of Mark did not
write this passage. Textual evidence indicates that as far as original materials
are concerned Mark should end at verse 8 with the statement about the women
being too afraid to tell others what they had seen. Verses 9-20 were re-
dacted by a later scribe.
My own edition of the American Standard Version affixed this footnote at
the beginning of verse 9: "The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other
authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a
different ending to the Gospel." My NIV edition has a bracketed statement
between verses 8 and 9: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other
ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16: 9-20." Of the 17 versions of the
New Testament in my personal library, 15 of them have reference notes to tell
readers that this ending to Mark was not in the oldest and most reliable
One of the early manuscripts that did not include the Marcan Appendix
was Codex Sinaiticus (4th-century A.D.), which ended Mark's gospel at 16:8.
In Secrets of Mt. Sinai, James Bentley made this observation about the
omission of the Marcan Appendix in Codex Sinaiticus:
The scribe who brought Mark's Gospel to an end in Codex
Sinaiticus had no doubt that it finished at chapter 16, verse 8.
He underlined the text with a fine artistic squiggle, and wrote,
"The Gospel according to Mark." Immediately following begins the
Gospel of Luke (p. 139).
Codex Sinaiticus is the only ancient Greek manuscript that contains the entire
New Testament. The fact that it did not include the Marcan Appendix clearly
suggests that the 4th-century scribes who copied it had before them a ver-
sion of Mark that ended with 16:8. In the foreword to Bentley's book (p.
6), the renown pseudepigraphic scholar James H. Charlesworth pointed out
that Codex Syriacus (a 5th-century translation), Codex Vaticanus (mid-4th
century), and Codex Bobiensis (4th- or 5th-century Latin) are all early
manuscripts that exclude the Marcan Appendix. In addition to these, approx-
imately 100 early Armenian translations, as well as the two oldest Georgian
translations, also omitted the appendix (Bentley, p. 179). Manuscripts writ-
ten after Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have been found that contained the Marcan
Appendix but with scribal notes in the margins that said the verses were not
in older copies; others have been found that had dots or asterisks by the
verses in the Marcan Appendix as if to signal that they were in some way
different from the rest of the text (Bentley, p. 179). These facts give us
compelling reasons for suspecting that the Marcan Appendix was indeed the
redaction of a scribe who considered Mark's omission of postresurrection
appearances to be an inadequate way to end the gospel.
In addition to the Marcan Appendix, some manuscripts ended Mark's
gospel with other variations. Codex Washingtonensis (late 4th or early 5th
century A.D.), for example, included the addition to 16:14 that is known as
the Freer Logion. It is the underlined statement added to the following quota-
tion of verse 14:
Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sit-
ting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith
and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw
him after he had risen. And they excused themselves, saying,
"This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does
not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean
things of the spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness
now"--thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them,
"The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other
terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was
handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin
no more, that they may inherit the spiritual and imperishable
glory of righteousness that is in heaven" (NRSV).
Other manuscripts added to verse 8 still another but much shorter ending
than the Marcan Appendix: "And all that had been commanded them they
(the women who had gone to the tomb--FT) told briefly to those around
Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to
west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation" (NRSV),
to which even other manuscripts added Amen.
If anything is clear from all this it should be that the ending to Mark's
gospel has undergone considerable editing. What the original ending actually
was may now be permanently lost in the wake of all this scribal tampering,
but the scholastic consensus is that none of the variant endings--
the Marcan Appendix, the Freer Logion, and the "short ending"--were the
work of the original writer. The reasons for that consensus are summarized
in the following quotation from The New Jerome Biblical Commentary:
The longer ending, traditionally designated Mark 16:9-20,
differs in vocabulary and style from the rest of the Gospel, is
absent from the best and earliest mss. now available, and was
absent from mss. in patristic times. It is most likely a 2nd-cent.
compendium of appearance stories based primarily on Luke 24,
with some influence from John 20.... The so-called shorter
ending consists of the women's reports to Peter and Jesus' commis-
sioning of the disciples to preach the gospel. Here too the non-
Marcan language and the weak ms. evidence indicate that this
passage did not close the Gospel.
The so-called Freer Logion in Codex W at 16:14 of the longer
ending is a late gloss aimed at softening the condemnation of the
disciples in 16:14. All the endings attached to Mark in the ms.
tradition were added because scribes considered 16:1-8 inadequate
as an ending (p. 629, emphasis added).
The stylistic and vocabulary differences referred to in this quotation are
apparent even in English translations of the variant endings, but even with-
out this consideration, suspicion is cast onto their authenticity by (1) the
obvious attempt to reconcile Mark's ending with Luke's and John's accounts of
postresurrection appearances and (2) the inconsistencies between the appen-
dix and what Mark had said earlier in the chapter.
As noted in previous articles, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all referred to
women (plural) who went to the tomb and found it empty. Luke mentioned
three by name and referred to "other women" who were on the scene (24:10),
and even Mark specified that at least three women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the
mother of James, and Salome) were there. However, after declaring that the
women "said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (v:8), chapter 16 of
Mark suddenly begins to read like John's version, which focused on Mary
Magdalene's role in the story: "Now when he was risen early on the first day
of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out
seven demons" (v:9). If "Mark" really wrote this verse, one has to wonder
why, after having said that at least three women had gone to the tomb, and
seen the angel, and heard the angel's message to go tell the disciples, he
would have said that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. If other women
were there, why wouldn't they have all seen him? Indeed, Matthew claimed
that they did all see him (28:9). So this 9th verse reads suspiciously like a
statement written by someone wanting to give a twist to the story, as Mark
had begun it, that would make it at least a little more compatible with John's
If this was the redactor's intention, he failed miserably, for he later said
that Mary Magdalene "went and told them that had been with him, as they
mourned and wept, (a)nd they, when they heard that he was alive, and had
been seen of her, disbelieved" (vv:10-11). This deviates significantly from
John's version, whose Mary Magdalene went not to tell the disciples that
Jesus was risen and that she had seen him but to say, "They have taken
away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him"
(20:2). Indeed, John's Mary never saw Jesus until she had returned to the
tomb, and even then she didn't recognize him. She thought he was the
The redactor of the Marcan Appendix went on to say, "And after these
things, he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked,
on their way into the country" (v:12). This was surely an allusion to Luke's
account of the appearance Jesus made to the two disciples on the road to
Emmaus (24:13-27), at which time he wasn't recognized until he sat down with
the disciples and broke bread with them (vv:28-31). In telling this, however,
the redactor again bungled his attempt to harmonize Mark's ending with other
postresurrection accounts, because he said that after Jesus appeared to these
two disciples, "they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe
them" (vv:12-13, NRSV). This disagrees with Luke's version of the report
that the Emmaus disciples made to the apostles. Luke said that when they
realized they had seen Jesus, the disciples from Emmaus "rose up that very
hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together,
and them that were with them" (24:33). However, Luke's eleven did not
disbelieve the report of the Emmaus disciples. Even before the two from
Emmaus reported that they had seen Jesus, the eleven said to them, "The
Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (v:34). Only after this
did the Emmaus disciples (see DID, p. 16) tell "the things that happened in
the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread"
(v:34). So why would the apostles have disbelieved the report of the
Emmaus disciples if by then they themselves were proclaiming that Jesus had
risen and appeared to Simon?
What we have in the Marcan Appendix, then, is an obviously bungled
attempt to harmonize the ending of Mark's gospel with other accounts of
postresurrection appearances. The failure is so apparent that the authentici-
ty of the appendix must be rejected. So the did-they-or-didn't-they problem
is still with us. As far as we know, "Mark" wrote nothing about postresur-
rection appearances and possibly ended his gospel at 16:8. At that point, he
said that the women ran from the tomb so frightened that they "said nothing
to anyone." Matthew, Luke, and John all disputed that. So what is the
truth in this matter? Did the women go tell the disciples what they had seen
or didn't they? Both versions of the story can't be right.
Somebody has to be wrong, and the inerrantists can take their pick. The
version of Matthew, Luke, and John or the one by Mark--it doesn't matter.
If either version is wrong, then the Bible is not inerrant. One thing is sure:
the four resurrection accounts are certainly not inerrantū
FREE SUBSCRIPTION: A free one-year subscription to The Skeptical
Review can be obtained by writing to P. O. Box 617, Canton, IL 61520-0617.