ending of Mark usage - Eusebius to Jerome and dozens of post Nicea church writers

Steven Avery

Jil De La Tourette places on NT Textual Criticism

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - Feb 12, 2021

... two new attestations (add it to the long list) for the "Long Ending of Mark" :
Palladius of Ratiara (4th century) and Romanos the Melodist (6th century)

PALLADIUS : he says that in the gospel of Mark it is written (so and so from the long ending)

ROMANOS : In his hymn for the mission of the apostles, he uses the same wording of Mark 16.15 "poreuthentes eis panta ton kosmon" / "poreuthentes eis ton kosmon hapanta"

Thanks ! (Karim al-Hanifi from Belgium and France)

Palladius of Ratiara

More planned to bring to this post!

Facebook - Pure Bible

The scholar Roger Gryson is supposed to have found a quotation from the fourth-century Arian writer Palladius of Ratiaria in a little-known manuscript, Ms. Lat. Parisinus 8907. (published by F. Kaufmann in 1899.) The quotation is from somewhere in Mark 16:9-20 [Edit: Mark 16:19].
Our task: (1) test Gryson's claim that Palladius made this quotation, (2) ascertain what the quotation is, in Latin, and (3) translate the quotation from Palladius in English and (if possible) summarize the setting in which it was given.

James Snapp

Book source


Isaac the Syrian quotes the long ending of Mark in his "Ascetical Homilies", number 62. He quotes Mark 16.17 in full letters and Its a 7th century testimony ^^


same century of a lot of Uncials, the 9th. Ibrahim at-Tabarani tells us in a debate with muslims, that christians can consume poison and have nothing....its a clear reference to the Long Ending of Mark in Arabic in the ninth century and earlier because the text spokes about an earlier debate.
Source : The Disputation of Ibrahim at-Tabarani


"Gospel of Barnabas", ... from the 1 st century, in his chapter 222, the last one, jesus sent his disciples in the world (to evangelize), and it's a very powerfull allusion of Mark 16.20 - Karim al-Hanifi


-Cassiodorus, (5-6th centuries), quotes Mark 16.15-16 in his "Expositio in Psalterium", on Psalm 29.



"Zacharias Chrysopolitanus" (Zacharie le Chrysopolitain or Zacharie de Besançon in french), in the twelve century, has a work intitulate "In Unum Ex Quattuor" (one in four). He uses a copy of the Latin Diatessaron and...he has the Long Ending of Mark, in his book 1, and he quotes Mark 16.9 and 15.
Its another witness for Tatian's Diatessaron !




- Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel (8-9th centuries), quotes Mark 16.16 in his "Collections of Comments on the Epistle and Gospel for each holy day in the year", on the gospel of Luke chapter 2.

- Amalarius Metensis (8-9th centuries), quotes Mark 16.15 in his "De Ecclesiasticis Officius", Book 4, chapter 18.

- Rabanus Maurus (8-9th centuries), quotes Mark 16.19 in his "Commentary on Matthew", book 8. And in his "Homiliae de Festis Praecipuis", Homily 21 is a complete homily on the ending of Mark...the long one !

- Eulogius of Cordoba (9th century), in his "Memoriale Sanctorum", Book 1, 14, quotes Mark 16.13.

- Haymo of Halberstadt (9th century), in his "Homiliae de Tempore", Homily 79, quotes Mark 16.9.

- Paschasius Radbertus (8-9th centuries), in his "Expositio in Matthaeum", book 12, chapter 26, quotes Mark 16.19.

- Ratramnius of Corbie (9th century), in his "Contra Graecorum Opposita", book 3, chapter 1, quotes Mark 16.15.

- Remicius Lugdunensis (9th century), in his "Liber de Tribus Epistolis", chapter 15, quotes Mark 16.16.

- Hincmar of Rheims (9th century), in his "De Praedestinatione Dissertatio Posterior", chapter 26 and others, quotes Mark 16.15-16 several times

- Ps-Isidorus Mercator (9th century), quotes in his pseudo "Decretalium Collectio", chapter 42, Mark 16.16.

(Karim al-Hanifi from Belgium)

With pics

Buck Daniel
How are you finding all this, Karim?

Jil De La Tourette
Buck Daniel hi Daniel, i'm french, so, Latin is easy for us ^


this is the final session on the latin fathers and latin christian writers from the first 9 centuries in the latin world (i speak about the new adds in the long list of witnesses for the "long ending of Mark"). Now, i will do the same for the first millenium of greek fathers and christian writers, God willing.

- Julian of Toledo (7th century) quotes Mark 16.19 in his "Antikeimenon", book 2, interrogatio number 18.

- Bede the Venerable (7-8th centuries) quotes Mark 16.14 in his "Hexaemeron", book 2. In another place, in the same book, he quotes Mark 16.15. And a last one, in the same book, Mark 16.16.

- Alcuin (8th century) quotes Mark 16.20 in his Beati Flacci Albini seu Alcuin, in his commentary on John, book 3, chapter 12.
(Karim al-Hanifi from Belgium)



Sancti Galli (Saint-Gallen in english ? / "Saint-Gall" in french) in the 7th century, quotes Mark 16.16 in full letters, in his "Sermo Habitus Constantiae", chapter 20.
(Karim al-Hanifi from belgium)



"Taius, bishop of zaragoza" (7th century), in his "Sententiarum", book 2, chap 27 "De Fide". He quotes Mark 16.16 from the gospel directly.
(Karim al-Hanifi from Belgium, for James Snapp ^^)



"Anastasius of Sinai" (7th century) quotes in full letters the long Ending of Mark (Mark 16.15)...in his "Hexaemeron" book 3.XI.6
(Karim al-Hanifi from Belgium)




If the long ending of Mark is not accepted in textual criticism as authentic (not automaticaly from Mark, but before the final edition, diffusion and transmission), none of the variant readings can be. BECAUSE if we take all the evidences, i am not aware of any of the important variant readings of the NT to have this support of witnesses.
We have seen that 99.5%, if not more, of all the manuscript traditions (versions, patristic, and so on) have the long ending of Mark.
We have seen that the manuscript of almost all the church fathers from 2nd century to the last one of them (fathers) have this long ending.
We have seen that the argument of the hapax of the long ending was definitly burried forever in 2020 by Karim al-Hanifi on academia
We have seen...
We have seen...
So in term of textual criticism, it is very hard to say that this long ending is not authentic (in terms of external evidences of the textual criticism. For internal, we can have a debate but for the external : case closed from my point of view.
Sorry i am a french speaker, so my english is not very good ^^ but i understand it very well.

Last edited: