A Dual Reception: Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark

Body

1

Introduction

δεῖ οὖν καὶ τὸ καθημαξευμένον καὶ φερόμενον ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις διηγήσασθαι καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν γραφῶν ἀδιήγητον μὴ καταλιπεῖν.

Therefore it is necessary both to interpret the common version extant in the churches but also not to leave the version that accords with the Hebrew without explanation.

—Origen of Alexandria[1]

1.1 Eusebius and the Question(s) of the Markan Ending(s)

It is fair to say that our reception of and hence response to a particular biblical passage will be determined in large part by the questions that we bring to the text. As an introduction to Eusebius’s reception of Mark 16:9–20, it is useful to observe the types of questions that are typically brought to this passage in our own day and how these affect reception and interpretation. For many Pentecostals, the focus is on Mark 16:17–18, which is an important source text not only for the practice of glossolalia but also for the notion that believers can perform miracles in the name of Jesus. Treating these verses as a promise to be appropriated is an answer to the implicit question, what may we expect when we are faithful to the gospel commission? For some fringe Pentecostals centered mainly in the rural United States, Mark 16:17–18 is not a promise to be appropriated but a command to be obeyed. These believers practice snake handling and the drinking of poison as tests of faith and obedience to an unfortunately literalistic interpretation of these verses. For many lay Christians, however, both Pentecostal and otherwise, the presence of critical comments in the footnotes of many modern Bible editions, or a comment inserted between 16:8 and 16:9 indicating that certain important manuscripts lack verses 9–20 creates confusion. The interpretive question that such comments elicits is whether the passage is legitimately to be read as Scripture and on what grounds. Unfortunately, most lay Christians are ill-equipped to answer this question and the confusion remains. The (perhaps) related question of what is the more likely of the several attested endings to be the earliest identifiable conclusion to the Second Gospel is something of a test case for the discipline of textual criticism. While there exists what may justifiably be called a scholarly consensus in favor of the abrupt conclusion at 16:8, this consensus has never been unanimous and debate continues between scholars who hold to the originality or authenticity of Mark 16:9–20, and the majority view.

The present study concerns Eusebius’s reception and hence interpretation of Mark 16:9–20, and, while it does not touch on the text-critical issue of the Markan conclusion—a point that I will return to in greater depth below—the modern discussion is an important backdrop to a discussion of Eusebius’s reception because it is against this backdrop that Eusebius’s comments concerning the Markan conclusion are most often read.

In response to a question concerning how best to harmonize the timing of the resurrection between Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts, Eusebius answers:

The solution to this might be double. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects as spurious the section itself, (that is to say) the pericope which says this, might say that it is not attested in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate copies specify the ending of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who was seen by the women and who said to them, Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene and what follows. Besides these, it says, And having heard, they ran away, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. For in almost all of the copies the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is specified in this way. But the things that are conveyed next, rarely in some but not in all, may be expansionary, especially if it might imply a contradiction to the testimony of the other evangelists. This is what someone who avoids and confutes an unnecessary question might say. On the other hand, someone else, who dares to reject as spurious nothing whatsoever in any way whatever of the things that are born in the text of the Gospels, declares the reading to be double, as also in many other places, and that each of the two should be received—not one at the expense of the other—since the faithful and pious have judged thus.

And what is more since this part is found to be true, it is fitting to interpret the meaning of the lection . . .[2]

Though, as we shall see, the Ad Marinum in general has attracted little scholarly attention until recently, this particular passage, in light of the modern interest in the manuscript evidence for the various endings of the Gospel of Mark, has by contrast excited much. It has been the subject of various interpretations, which, it is fair to say, have played a part not only in shaping scholarly opinion concerning the document from which it is excerpted but also in forming a picture of Eusebius himself. John Burgon, a nineteenth-century defender of the originality (and hence, for him, canonicity) of Mark 16:9–20 sees Eusebius as pious. For that reason the above passage from the Ad Marinum arouses Burgon’s suspicions concerning whether Eusebius really is the originator of the solutions proposed. Says Burgon, The entire method advocated in the foregoing passage is hopelessly vicious. The writer begins by advancing statements, which, if he believed them to be true, he must have known are absolutely fatal to the verses in question.[3] Hoping that more evidence will come to light to clarify Eusebius’s position,[4] Burgon declares himself utterly unable to understand how Eusebius can have written so inconsistently.[5] For William Farmer, who is also an advocate of the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark, and who updates and extends many of Burgon’s arguments in the twentieth century, Eusebius is loyal. Developing a proposal made by Burgon, Farmer asserts that Eusebius must simply be reporting Origen’s judgment here.[6] James Kelhoffer, whose doctoral dissertation dealt exhaustively with the question of the longer ending of Mark also offers his analysis of the Ad Marinum. For Kelhoffer, Eusebius is clever, perhaps too clever. For that reason, Eusebius is unlikely to be saying what he seems to be saying. Maybe this is not Eusebius. Maybe these are the comments of others appended to an earlier Eusebian core.[7] For Claudio Zamagni, who presented the first critical edition of the Ad Marinum as an extension of his doctoral dissertation in 2008, and who weighs in on the discussion of Eusebius’s reception of the Markan ending, Eusebius is simply careless at this point. For this reason, Zamagni suggests that Eusebius is the compiler of the Questions and Answers rather than its composer.[8] T. D. Barnes, noting the discrepancy between the Ad Marinum and the Eusebian Canons, from which Mark 16:9–20 is almost certainly missing, suggests that Eusebius’s own judgment concerning the Markan ending has developed over time. The view presented in the Ad Marinum, represents his mature reflection, while the Canons were composed in younger and more idealistic days.[9] In what follows, I will contend that many of these authors, because of their interest in Eusebius’s testimony concerning the manuscripts that were extant in the fourth century, may have missed a deeper and more profound judgment, which can be appreciated only if we first understand the questions that Eusebius is bringing to the text. Yet, in order properly to apprehend the questions themselves, it is important to understand both the literary context in which they are situated and the historic positions between which Eusebius’s solution mediates.

My point is this. If we ask Eusebius for a fourth-century opinion on which of the attested endings, in his opinion, is more likely to be original—a question that he never addresses—we may hear in response only a few lines about the manuscript tradition that seem merely to confirm what we suspected. A few pious folks refuse to accept the testimony of the more accurate manuscripts of the Second Gospel, which omit the traditional conclusion. To rush on at this point, however, instead of stopping to listen to Eusebius is to misunderstand him completely. For, in doing so, we may not hear the question that Eusebius is actually answering, which is one of Gospel harmony, not textual criticism (see chapter 4 below). We may miss the fact that Eusebius is not comparing the abrupt conclusion with the longer ending but rather with a narrow congregational or regional, and hence singular, view of the Gospel with an ecumenical[10] view that recognizes and accepts a pluriform tradition (also chapter 4). We may miss the importance of the term faithful and pious, which, for Eusebius, is a term not of condescension but of reverence and includes in his mind those ecclesiastical authors who have gone before him from whom the Scriptures have been received (chapters 2 and 3). We may also miss the other passages in the Ad Marinum and its associated fragments that bear heavily on the question both of Eusebius’s reception of the ending(s) of Mark and their interpretation (chapters 5 and 6). In short, the extent to which we are able to hear the important questions—that is, the questions that Eusebius is actually asking—is the extent to which we will read him well on this issue.

To misunderstand Eusebius at this point is not only to distort the portrait of this fourth-century author but also to misunderstand the subsequent history of interpretation of the Markan ending, a history over which the figure of Eusebius looms large. In what could perhaps be described as a brief reception history of Eusebius’s own reception of the Markan ending, Kelhoffer considers Eusebius’s comments determinative in the eventual prevalence of the longer ending in the subsequent manuscript tradition.[11] As Kelhoffer points out, Eusebius himself concedes that the longer ending was a minority tradition in his day, and his ecumenical attitude (for Kelhoffer, blatantly uncritical[12]) had the ultimate effect of turning the tables.

In order to understand how influential the comments of Eusebius concerning the Markan ending on the subsequent history of its reception have been, a brief survey is in order. Beginning with Jerome’s Ad Hedibiam, Kelhoffer discusses a number of authors and scribes who offer comments on the Markan ending that are analogous to those of Eusebius.[13] Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that most, if not all, of these are in some way dependent on Eusebius. Jerome’s answer in Ad Hedibiam, for example, like Eusebius’s own answer in the Ad Marinum advocates a double solution to a question concerning the apparent discrepancy in the timing of the resurrection between Matthew and Mark. As was noticed long ago by Burgon, Jerome’s solution is, for all intents and purposes, identical to Eusebius’s own.[14] Kelhoffer may well be correct that Hesychius of Jerusalem is not directly dependent on the Ad Marinum; however, the effect of his comments is much the same. He recognizes the ending at 16:8 yet refers to material from the longer ending elsewhere in his work.[15] In short, despite the fact that he is writing in response to different questions to Eusebius, he may well have been influenced by Eusebius’s judgment. Likewise, and perhaps more clearly, the view of Eusebius appears simply to be summarized in Severus of Antioch’s Seventy-Seventh Homily.[16] Victor of Antioch also follows Eusebius’s judgment and adds that the longer version of the Gospel is also found in the so-called Palestinian Gospel of Mark (τὸ παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον μάρκου). The passage seems to indicate that Victor, because of his understanding of Eusebius’s judgment, advocated the addition of the pericope to manuscripts that lacked it.[17]

In the same way, many of the scribes who faithfully replicated the pericope from their exemplars, despite their knowledge that it was missing from some important early copies, along with those who added it when copying exemplars that lacked it, faithfully represented either the judgment of Eusebius or else the recommendation of Victor and documented their activity in notes that occur between 16:8 and 16:9 in the manuscripts.[18] In fact, there are a number of manuscripts that name Eusebius in a comment either identical or similar to the one found between 16:8 and 16:9 in minuscule 1, which reads: ἔν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς· ἕως οὗ καὶ εὐσέβιος ὁ παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν· ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται (In some of the copies the Gospel finishes here. Also Eusebius son of Pamphilus has canonized [the ending] at this point. But in many, these things are also borne).[19] Indeed, if one listens, one may even hear the echo of Eusebius’s voice, albeit thoroughly modernized, in Bruce Metzger’s summary of the UBS committee’s deliberations on the passage:

Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.[20]

In summary, the historic importance of Eusebius to the reception of this particular passage of Scripture cannot be overstated. His reception represents something of a turning point in that history, which prior authors anticipate and later authors recall. In view of his importance, the purpose of the present work is to present a study of Eusebius’s reception of Mark 16:9–20 in the Ad Marinum. Because of the importance of understanding Eusebius as part of the continuum of interpretation of the Markan ending, however, it is important to describe in some depth the foundation on which that reception is built. Thus, the project emerges in two parts. The first is a reception history to Eusebius, while the second is an in-depth study of Eusebius’s own reception. It is important to note at this point that I use the term reception, here and throughout, to refer both to inclusion and to interpretation. My decision to represent both of these aspects with a single term is indicative of my belief that these operations cannot be so easily separated. As will be seen throughout, the decision to read Mark 16:20 (or indeed Mark 16:8) as the end of the Gospel of Mark affects the way in which the verse is interpreted. Conversely, the interpretation of Mark 16:9–20, as I will argue, can affect the decision as to whether this section should be read as the conclusion to the Second Gospel. Before I move to a clearer delineation of the scope of this project, it is necessary to introduce briefly the discussion of Eusebius’s approach to Scripture.

1.2 Limiting the Scope

In order to focus on the questions as they occur to Eusebius and those who preceded him, I have had to exclude the following modern questions and interests that are raised by Mark 16:9–20:

1.2.1 The Question of Authorship

This is not a work of textual criticism, nor indeed of biblical criticism. I do not seek to shed light on the question of the original author of Mark 16:9–20, or on the historical situation of that author, or indeed on the issue of whether the author can be said to be the same person as the author of Mark 1:1—16:8. These are not Eusebius’s questions, and since my purpose is to represent his reception of Mark 16:9–20, neither are they mine.

Much has been written about these questions in the modern period. James Kelhoffer provides a comprehensive review of studies beginning with Andreas Birch in 1801, who, according to Kelhoffer, was the first since Erasmus to comment on the absence of the pericope in Codex Vaticanus.[21] Studies typically analyze the external evidence (manuscripts, versions, and church fathers that do or do not include the pericope) and the internal evidence (the extent to which the vocabulary and style of the longer ending are consistent with the rest of the Gospel of Mark) in order to determine the probable earliest reading.[22] David Black’s recent edited volume surveys the various conclusions that are reached on the basis of this evidence.[23] These can be summarized in the following table:

Table 1: Four Views on the Ending of Mark

The testimony of the church fathers can quite legitimately be used as an important part of the brief of evidence by those who prosecute text-critical cases, as will be discussed further below. What is more, I am well aware that at least some of those with whom I will be in conversation have an approach to early Christian writers that is governed by the need to gather evidence for such cases. I refer in particular to Westcott and Hort, Kelhoffer, Burgon, Farmer, and to some extent, Steven Lynn Cox. I both sincerely laud their contributions and agree with many of their conclusions. The scope of my questions, however, does not proceed beyond the fourth century. I do not raise the question of originality or of authorship, because Eusebius does not. Rather, I am seeking to understand what issues the longer ending of Mark presented to those who read it as Scripture and those who chose not to—What text(s) ought to be read at next year’s Easter service?[28] What is the role of miracles in establishing the authority of the clergy? Does the promise of signs including inspired speech give too much ground to the Montanist heresy? How should the timing of the resurrection that Mark 16:9 appears to presume be harmonized with the timing of Matt 28:1? How many women came to the tomb? When? What did they see? and so on—and how those issues are addressed by Eusebius and those who preceded him. For that reason, the intended audience for my work is those scholars interested in the reception history of Scripture and in particular with patristic interpretation.

1.2.2 The Question of Canon

The literary problem of the longer ending of Mark and, indeed, the attestation of multiple endings throughout the variegated manuscript tradition inevitably raise the canon question—what is, and should be, considered canonical Scripture by the church, and on what basis? The position of M. J. Lagrange, existing somewhat outside the matrix in table 1, illustrates that the canon question need not necessarily be tied to the question of authorship. Like other commentators on Mark, Lagrange provides a discussion of the Markan ending. He begins with a more or less standard discussion of the external and internal evidence, though, for him, the question is not one of authorship but rather of authorization. Unlike those who have tried to defend the passage on the basis of its authenticity,[29] Lagrange accepts the apparent weight of evidence that the conclusion appears to come from a different hand, or at the very least from a later time than the rest of the Gospel. The matter of the break between verse 8 and verse 9, the fact that the longer ending appears to be a bland summary statement that lacks the richness of the rest of the Gospel, and the difference in style between 1:1—16:8 and 16:9–20 cannot be ignored.[30] Nevertheless, the evangelist cannot have intended to finish the Gospel at 16:8.[31] Mark intended to supply a conclusion but was prevented. The conclusion was certainly supplied later and by the hand of another. It is inconceivable for Lagrange, however, that an unauthorized addition could have been supplied to the Gospel without having raised the suspicion of the ecclesiastical authorities. The anonymous author of the conclusion had authored it for another purpose, and neither he nor those who appended it to the Gospel made any attempt to conceal this. This fact demonstrates sufficiently for Lagrange the independent esteem in which the passage was held. The author was either apostolic or a disciple of the Lord whose authority was recognized, and its addition to the Gospel was authorized.[32] This type of process is perhaps implicit in Brevard Childs’s suggestion that the Gospel of Mark may not have gained canonical status without the (longer) ending.[33] Kelhoffer is somewhat more critical than Lagrange in this regard. He insists that the author’s intent to create the appearance of a passage that would be accepted as an authentic part of Mark renders Mark 16:9–20 a forgery.[34] Thus, it shares with the disputed Paulines the pseudonymity of its author, deliberately attempting to write in the style of the author of the rest of the Gospel (though, as Lagrange has suggested, this may have been done with apostolic sanction). It is similar to the Letter to the Hebrews in that questions about its authorship have been raised from the early church onward. The common rejection of the (originality and hence) authority of the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark based on the presumed intent of the author of 1:1—16:8 is a much more recent phenomenon.[35]

Nevertheless, despite the importance of the contemporary canon discussion, and the legitimate debate concerning the place of Mark 16:9–20 in the canon of today’s church,[36] I have had to exclude such issues from the scope of this study in order to focus on my primary area of investigation—the reception of Eusebius as it emerges in the context of the prior reception. Of course, whether Eusebius can be shown to receive the passage as Scripture may or may not have a significant bearing on how that question ought to be answered today. Yet the leap from what Eusebius said or thought to what ought or ought not as a result to be said or thought in our own day I leave for others to make. The point, as far as the present work is concerned, is that Eusebius’s inclusion of the passage as Scripture is inextricably linked to his interpretation of the ending of Mark, and thus it is the question of his reception, in both of these senses, that will be addressed.

1.2.3 The Question of Authorial Intent

I am engaged in the study of the patristic reception of Scripture, and not the singular correct exegetical understanding of a given scriptural passage. The difference between these two approaches is that the latter finds the locus of meaning in the original authorial intent of a particular passage or book, to the extent that such can be established with certainty. For this reason, the historical situation of the author—purpose, audience, circumstances, and so on—is of primary importance. In the former case, however, we seek to understand meaning as it occurred to a later interpreter, and therefore it is the historical situation of that later interpreter that is central. Furthermore, as John J. O’Keefe and R. R. Reno have shown, the patristic authors emphasized the unity of the Bible over the individual characteristics of its contributing authors.[37] Thus, tracing the verbal and conceptual associations that the early Christian writers make within this unified whole are key to understanding their interpretation.

It will suffice at this point simply to note the important observations of a few scholars that reading Mark 16:8 as the intended ending to the Gospel fundamentally changes the experience of reading the Gospel. D. C. Parker puts it this way:

A Gospel without resurrection appearances is incomplete, for the Gospel is about the resurrection and salvation. With these endings [the intermediate and long endings] several things are changed about the whole story. For both are endings in a way that the Short Ending is not. In both, the reader’s present is made secure as part of the ending’s future. The preaching of the Gospel, through which belief comes, is the consequence of Jesus’ command to the eleven. In the Long Ending, their baptism is declared to be the means of their salvation.

In addition, the Long Ending provides a credal formula which, with Jesus’s ascension and session, establishes an ordered universe in which the limits are set. . . . By contrast, the Short Ending leaves all such issues unresolved. Where does Mark leave Jesus? His story does not give any chance of even beginning to address the question.[38]

On the other hand, a number of scholars see 16:8 as a profoundly positive, if perhaps unexpected,[39] ending to the Gospel. A few of the more interesting examples will suffice. Donald Juel sees the abrupt ending as the key to unlocking the message of the entire Gospel. He observes, Verse 8 does something radically different as an ending than does verse 20, something that shapes the whole experience of reading the Gospel.[40] Richard Bauckham engages in a little creative reading between the lines but ultimately establishes and defends a view that the final words of 16:8 should be taken neither as disobedience nor as failure on the part of the women, but rather as faithful obedience.[41] A similar approach is taken by some feminist interpreters of the Gospel. Marie Noonan Sabin finds the longer ending of Mark problematic for feminist theology because, in her opinion, it reinforces the failure of the women while rehabilitating the men. With Bauckham, she insists that the women were not afraid but rather in awe, which is a perfectly natural response to a divine encounter. Furthermore, while they initially told no one, the fact that the Gospel of Mark was written is evidence that they did in fact tell the story at some point, whereas the male disciples were unable to. The wise women, who, commissioned in 16:7, are sent forth as the first apostles and preachers of the gospel are contrasted to the foolish men.[42] Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza goes to similar lengths to portray the flight of the women as primarily positive, ultimately concluding that the women . . . become the paradigms of true discipleship.[43]

The message of discipleship is also the payoff for David Rhoads and Donald Michie, who take Mark’s identification of little people— children, women, and others—as narrative foils who ironically demonstrate the path of true discipleship in contrast to the twelve.[44] Given this construct, the abrupt ending of Mark at 16:8 presents something of an interpretive difficulty since based on the general portrayal of little people, the reader expects that the women will not fail. . . . They are to ‘go tell,’ but their reaction is fear and silence.[45] Rhoads and Michie explain that the response of the women illustrates the gap between a situation when people respond to the good news in the course of their daily lives and a situation when continuing discipleship is expected in terms of being sent, proclaiming, being handed over, and possibly put to death. The abrupt conclusion then causes the reader to focus on Jesus’s death rather than his resurrection. In this way, the message of Mark becomes one of radical discipleship that will not shrink back even from death in fear.

In a similar vein, Ched Myers characterizes the Gospel of Mark as a manifesto for radical discipleship.[46] Recognizing that the historical context for Mark is the oppressive Roman Empire, Myers offers a political reading of Mark on the basis that the tendency toward empire needs to be resisted by faithful Christians. Privileged (white, Western, and so on) interpreters must come to the Gospel on the basis of repentance and resistance—repentance for their participation in empire and active resistance against the current oppressive empire, which, for Myers, means (among other things) the militant policies of the U.S. government.[47] With his unique synthesis of sociological exegesis and literary criticism, Myers offers a subversive reading strategy.[48] For him Mark’s Gospel begins with the subversive promise of a new order made to oppressed common people.[49] Myers does not mask his disdain for the longer ending of Mark—indeed this disdain features prominently in his reading of the entire Gospel. He considers it to be an imperial rewrite designed ultimately to suppress the pure Markan ideal of radical discipleship and hence unworthy of his exegesis (which he offers nevertheless). In it the imperialists seek to tidy up the contradiction inherent in (the shorter version of) Mark, reinstate miracle working as the basis of belief and remove Jesus from earth to heaven.[50]

Dennis MacDonald broke new ground in Markan studies by comparing Mark’s Gospel to the Homeric epics. MacDonald builds an intriguing and persuasive case for Markan dependence on the epics (whether conscious or subconscious).[51] He argues that the (post-70 ce) readers of Mark needed an answer to the question of why Jesus did not warn them of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. He contends that much of the Gospel of Mark is the answer to this question. MacDonald explains that, while the Markan Jesus had indeed explained these things to the disciples before his resurrection, they had not been able to comprehend it. In spite of this, the Markan Jesus had intended for the Judean church to relocate to Galilee and had provided for this message to be relayed through the women via the angel. However, since the women remained silent, the message never got through. The church remained in Judea and never made the intended rendezvous with its Lord in Galilee. Mark wrote to reassure the devastated church that Jesus was not in fact to blame for this but rather that it was the unbelief of the pre-resurrection disciples and the fear of the women that were to blame.[52] Thus, the abrupt conclusion of Mark’s Gospel acts as a backdated warning of the impending assault on Jerusalem.

For Frank Kermode, however, the ending to Mark’s Gospel is intended to be a mystery. Indeed, Mark is never more enigmatic, or never more clumsy, than at the end of his gospel.[53] Kermode resists the various attempts to limit the awkwardness of the ending. He considers such attempts to be evidence of a desire for fulfillment and an unwillingness to embrace mystery.[54] For Kermode, the beauty of the text lies in its mystique; in its scandal. It cannot be tamed by the institution, and it therefore belongs to outsiders.[55] This, for Kermode, is not only an important theme that emerges in the Gospel of Mark but an interpretive key. Jesus’s parables are designed to exclude those outside, and yet it is outsiders in Mark who are given the insight while the insiders flounder for understanding. Read through Kermode’s lens, the abrupt conclusion of Mark has the effect of finally excluding the insiders with the implication that the gospel will now be embraced by those outside.

The various interpretations of the abrupt conclusion to the Gospel of Mark discussed above are intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. The point is that, while there is no broad-based agreement as to how the ending of Mark should be interpreted, there is agreement that the story that ends at 16:8 is quite different from the one that ends at 16:20.

My purpose in this study is not to pit modern methods and assumptions of biblical interpretation against ancient ones. However, pointing out the differences in the results reveals a gap between ancient and modern interpreters that cannot be addressed by merely subsuming the ancient discussion under the modern one. Yet this is what happens when the interpretation of the ending of Mark begins with the text-critical discussion concerning the validity of 16:9–20. When and if the early Christian writers are consulted, we are guilty of asking ancient minds modern questions and hearing in response ancient answers to questions that may never have occurred