О Подлинности заключения к Евангелию Марка (Мк.16:9–20)

Authenticity, i.e. The attribution of this section to the Evangelist Mark is subject to serious suspicion from biblical criticism. The grounds for such suspicion are as follows. 1. This section is not found in such respected codes as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and some Armenian, Ethiopian and Arabic translations of the Gospels. In the same way, Eusebius of Caesarea (“Evangelical Questions to Marinus”: Eusebii Caesariensis, Quaestiones evangelicae ad Marinum, PG.22, c. 937, 19-33) says that the Gospel of Mark in almost all copies ended with the words of our 8th verse of the 16th chapter. The same is almost testified by Blessed Jerome (letter 120 to Gedibia), St. Gregory of Nyssa (2nd speech on the Resurrection of Christ) and some others. 2. These historical grounds are strengthened by the nature of the passage under consideration. In it, critics do not at all find expressions characteristic of the Evangelist Mark (“immediately,” “again”) and, on the contrary, they find enough that is completely alien to Mark in language and presentation. That is why modern critics consider this section to be inauthentic, and Tischendorf completely excluded this section from the text in the 8th edition of his New Testament. But the above grounds are not sufficient to argue that verses 9-20 of the 16th chapter of Mark's Gospel represent an addition made by some other person than Mark himself. Firstly, the controversial section is found in all the ancient Greek codices of the New Testament (excluding Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), as well as in the oldest translations - the Syriac Peshitto, the Old Italian and the Vulgate. Further, Saint Irenaeus knows about him (Irenaeus of Lyons. “Against Heresies”, III, 10, 6). The testimony of Eusebius, Jerome and others is significantly weakened by the message of Victor of Antioch and many conversations that the “Palestinian Gospel” had this section. Moreover, it is unnatural to assume that Mark’s Gospel ends with the words: “because (the women) were afraid.” The fact is that the event of the Resurrection of Christ was undoubtedly the most important fact of gospel history. Meanwhile, the significance of this fact would be greatly weakened if the Evangelist Mark limited himself to only bringing the testimony of the Angel to the women and did not say anything about the appearance of Christ after the resurrection to all His apostles. Then. To explain the lack of a conclusion to the Gospel of Mark, one of two things can be assumed - if, of course, we accept the evidence of those codes where this conclusion is not available as more correct - either that this conclusion was lost without a trace, or that Mark did not make such a conclusion, having died at a time when he still had to finish writing his Gospel. But both of these assumptions are unacceptable. Church tradition speaks against the second, according to which Mark, having finished his Gospel in Rome, left this city and went to Alexandria, and preached there (Eusebius of Caesarea, “Church History”, 11, 16 and other writers). From this tradition we see that the idea that Mark could leave his Gospel unfinished was alien to the ancient Church. As for the first assumption, the improbability of such an ending to the Gospel as is found in those manuscripts where the Gospel ends with the words: “for they were afraid” speaks against it. But this has already been said above. As for the internal grounds on which the newest criticism bases its doubts about the authenticity of the last section of the Gospel of Mark, we must admit that, indeed, we do not find in this section those peculiar features of style that generally characterize the Evangelist Mark, that here we do not find Mark’s favorite particles “again”, “suddenly”. But it is necessary, on the other hand, not to lose sight of the fact that the content of this section did not give rise to the use of the words indicated by Mark’s favorite words. The three appearances of the Risen One are depicted here in the form of a “ladder,” and this form is not alien to Mark, and, on the other hand, it required those connecting particles (μετὰ ταῦτα and ὕστερον), which he uses here instead of the particle “again” (verses 9, 12, 14). Also, the use of the verbs ἀπιστεῖν and ἐφανερώθη, which are not found in Mark elsewhere, are required here by the very subject of the narrative. We also find the verb ἀπιστεῖν in the Gospel of Luke only in Luke 24:11, 41 and the verb ἐφανερώθη in the Gospel of John only in John 21:1, precisely in the narration of the appearances of the Risen One. The verb ἐθεάθη, also first used here by Mark (verse 11), is a completely accurate designation of people’s contemplation of the Risen One in His glorified body. The verb πορεύεσθαι used here three times by Mark (verses 10, 12, 15) also cannot be called an expression completely alien to Mark, since the complex verb παραπορεύεσθαι is used by him often (Mark 2:23, 9:30, 11:20, 15:29). Moreover, this verb πορεύεσθαι is a completely suitable term in all three cases. The remaining expressions, not previously found in Mark, either could not have been previously used by the evangelist (for example, γλώσσαις λαλεῖ ν καιναῖς - verse 15), or represent an extremely insignificant deviation from the expressions found in Mark (for example, κόσμον ἅπαντα, verse 15, cf. ὅλον τόν κόσμον in Mark 15:36). It just seems strange that the Evangelist Mark uses in verse 9 the expression πρώτῃ σαββάτου - “on the first day of the week,” whereas in verse 2 he uses another expression about the same thing: τῇ μιᾷ σαββάτου. Moreover, the expression τὸ σάββατον in the sense of “week” is not found in him, or in the other Gospels, with the exception of Luke 18:12. But this strangeness can also be explained by the fact that in the circle of believers to which Mark belonged, the word σάββατον in the sense of “week” could already have come into use, and the evangelist here used this, so to speak, new expression, while in verse 2 he uses another, old, parallel expression, which was probably used by the Apostle Peter when he told Mark about the Resurrection of Christ. They also point out that the evangelist mentions the expulsion of seven demons from Mary (verse 9). “Why,” they say, “would Mark mention this, since he has already said it before”? But here this repetition is very appropriate. The Evangelist wants to explain by this why the Lord, after His Resurrection, appeared specifically, earlier than others, to Mary Magdalene. They then point out the excessive brevity and ambiguity of this section. But even earlier we find in Mark the same brief overview of events, namely, in the story of the baptism and temptation of Christ (Mark 1:9-13), which, however, is not recognized by criticism as inauthentic. They also say that the conclusion of the Gospel gives the impression of a narrative that is completely unrelated to the previous one; it seems to have arisen completely independently of verses 1–8, chapter 16. But the expression of verse 9: “rising up” (ἀναστάς δέ), on the contrary, indicates that the writer of the Gospel intended to connect the conclusion with the previous one. He wants to say: “Until now I have spoken about the Resurrection of Christ, but now I must talk about His appearances.” On the other hand, it is impossible not to note those features present in the conclusion to the Gospel of Mark that are characteristic in general for the entire Gospel of Mark. Thus, in verse 9, the evangelist omits the name Jesus, as he does in other places (Mark 1:21, 2:1, 23, 3:1), calls the disciples and followers of Christ: τοῖς μετ´ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις (verse 10), which resembles the expression: οἱ παρ´ αὐτοῦ (Mark 3:21), describes Christ’s rebuke of the “hardness of heart” of the disciples (verse 14), in accordance with Mark 6:52, 7:18, 13:17 et seq. It is difficult to say anything meaningful on the question of how it could have happened that in many ancient codices the conclusion to the Gospel of Mark was omitted. Perhaps some copyists deliberately omitted it, tempted by the same considerations that the newest criticism puts forward... It should be noted that in some ancient codes, instead of our conclusion, there is a more abbreviated one, which reads: “and everything that they (the women) were entrusted with, they announced briefly to Peter and his companions. Then Jesus appeared and sent Himself from the rising (of the sun) to the west through them (i.e., through the apostles) a holy and unceasing sermon about eternal salvation. Amen". There is also a brief conclusion to the Gospel of Mark in the work of Blessed Jerome “Against Pelagius” (II, 15), which is a continuation of the 14th verse of the 16th chapter. In this conclusion, the Apostles, in response to the Lord’s reproach for lack of faith, point to the power of Satan, from which they ask Christ to free them. The same idea is conveyed in a monument of Christian writing found in Egypt in 1907 and known under the name λογία. Here Christ, in addition to what was said above by Jerome, tells the apostles that He will soon defeat all hostile forces. It is clear that all these conclusions do not have any sufficient evidence for themselves in church tradition. You might be interested in: