Mark 16:4

“`html

body {
font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, Times, serif;
line-height: 1.6;
max-width: 850px;
margin: 20px auto;
padding: 20px;
color: #333;
background-color: #fdfdfd;
border: 1px solid #eee;
box-shadow: 0 0 10px rgba(0,0,0,0.05);
}
h2, h3 {
font-family: Georgia, serif;
color: #2C3E50;
margin-top: 1.8em;
margin-bottom: 0.8em;
border-bottom: 1px solid #eee;
padding-bottom: 5px;
}
h2 { font-size: 1.8em; }
h3 { font-size: 1.4em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: justify; }
blockquote {
border-left: 4px solid #bbb;
padding-left: 20px;
margin: 1.5em 30px;
font-style: italic;
color: #555;
background-color: #f9f9f9;
}
ul {
list-style-type: disc;
margin-left: 25px;
padding-left: 0;
margin-bottom: 1em;
}
ol {
margin-left: 25px;
padding-left: 0;
margin-bottom: 1em;
}
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }

An Exegetical Study of Mark 16:4

This exegetical study of Mark 16:4 is based on a b-greek discussion from May 2, 2005. The initial inquiry sought insight into a textual discrepancy in Mark 16:4 concerning the verb describing the rolling of the stone from the tomb. Specifically, the Westcott-Hort text presents ἀνακυλίω (“rolled up” or “rolled back”), whereas the United Bible Societies (UBS) and Byzantine (Byz) texts feature ἀποκυλίω (“rolled away”). The original post highlighted that if the Westcott-Hort reading is unique to Mark among the Synoptics, it could significantly influence the exposition of the resurrection narrative. The author expressed a need for textual commentary regarding the Westcott-Hort reading.

The main exegetical issue at stake in Mark 16:4 revolves around a significant textual variant concerning the verbal prefix attached to κυλίω (“to roll”). The choice between ἀνα- (ana-, “up” or “back”) and ἀπο- (apo-, “away” or “off”) profoundly impacts the perceived action of the stone’s movement. This seemingly minor difference carries potential implications for the narrative’s specific detail, Mark’s unique literary style, and its relationship to parallel accounts in the other Gospels. Understanding which reading is more likely original requires careful textual criticism, while the semantic distinctions inform the grammatical and rhetorical analysis of the passage.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν ὅτι ἀνακεκύλισται ὁ λίθος· ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• SBLGNT reads ἀποκεκύλισται (apokekylistai) instead of ἀνακεκύλισται (anakekylistai).

Textual Criticism (NA28):

The textual critical apparatus for Mark 16:4 presents a notable divergence concerning the compound verb describing the stone’s movement. The reading ἀνακεκύλισται (from ἀνακυλίω, “to roll up/back”) is attested by significant early uncials such as א (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), and L (Regius/Parisian). These manuscripts are generally considered among the most important witnesses for the New Testament text, particularly in Mark.

Conversely, the reading ἀποκεκύλισται (from ἀποκυλίω, “to roll away/off”) enjoys broader support from a wider range of manuscripts, including A (Alexandrinus), D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis), W (Washingtonianus), Θ (Koridethi), Ψ (Athous Lavrensis), and numerous minuscules (e.g., 01, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 2358) as well as the Byzantine text-type. Some textual critics suggest that witnesses like D, Θ, and 565 may have assimilated the reading to the parallel accounts in Matthew 28:2 (where ἀπεκύλισεν is used) and Luke 24:2 (where ἀποκεκυλισμένον appears).

Arguments for ἀνακεκύλισται often appeal to its more challenging nature (lectio difficilior) and its limited attestation, suggesting it might be less likely to be a scribal harmonization. Furthermore, it has been proposed that scribes of B and L might have assimilated the prefix ἀνα- from the preceding word ἀναβλέψασαι (“having looked up”). However, the argument for harmonization could also be applied to ἀποκεκύλισται, as it aligns with the other Synoptic Gospels. While key early witnesses like א, B, and L are highly valued in Markan textual criticism, the widespread support for ἀποκεκύλισται, especially outside of potential harmonization, leads modern critical editions such as NA28 and SBLGNT to prefer it as the more probable original reading, reflecting its strong external and internal support.

Lexical Notes (BDAG):

• κυλίω (kylio): Basic verb meaning “to roll.”
• ἀνακυλίω (anakylio): To roll up, roll back. This compound emphasizes a reversal of direction or movement up/back. In the context of the tomb, it would mean the stone was rolled from its sealing position, possibly back into a groove or simply reversed its previous movement. BDAG lists its occurrence primarily here in Mark 16:4, supporting its rarity.
• ἀποκυλίω (apokylio): To roll away, roll off. This compound emphasizes removal, separation, or movement away from a place. In the tomb context, it implies the stone was moved entirely away from the entrance, clearing it. BDAG notes its use in Matthew 28:2 and Luke 24:2, indicating its more common usage in this specific narrative.

Translation Variants

The grammatical form for both variants, ἀνακεκύλισται and ἀποκεκύλισται, is the perfect indicative passive, third person singular. The perfect tense signifies a completed action with ongoing results: “it has been rolled” and is now in that state. This highlights the women’s discovery of an accomplished fact upon their arrival at the tomb.

Rhetorically, the choice of prefix significantly nuances the description:

• ἀνακεκύλισται (anakekylistai): This reading implies the stone was “rolled up” or “rolled back.” This could suggest a more specific and potentially vivid detail, where the stone was not entirely removed from the area but merely repositioned to clear the entrance. Commentator H.B. Swete (1920) argued that this rarer form suggests Mark’s “care for accuracy in detail; the stone was not rolled right away, but rolled back so as to leave the opening free.” This could evoke an image of the stone being a barrier that was simply moved aside rather than completely removed from the scene. Its uniqueness to Mark (if accepted) lends it a certain narrative force, possibly indicating a distinct eyewitness perspective or a deliberate choice by Mark to highlight the manner of the stone’s displacement.
• ἀποκεκύλισται (apokekylistai): This reading implies the stone was “rolled away” or “rolled off.” This is a more general and definitive statement of removal. It suggests the stone was completely displaced from the tomb entrance, leaving it fully open. This reading harmonizes with the accounts in Matthew (28:2, ἀπεκύλισεν) and Luke (24:2, ἀποκεκυλισμένον), which also describe the stone being rolled away. Its prevalence across a wider range of manuscripts, coupled with its use in parallel accounts, suggests it might be the more standardized or common description of such an event, focusing on the outcome (the entrance being clear) rather than the precise mechanics of the rolling.

The perfect tense, regardless of the prefix, underscores the dramatic discovery by the women: they arrive expecting to find the tomb sealed but instead encounter an already accomplished and significant alteration of the scene, setting the stage for the revelation of the resurrection.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the textual evidence, particularly the widespread support for ἀποκεκύλισται in critical editions like NA28 and SBLGNT, despite the strong Western witnesses for ἀνακεκύλισται, the former is generally preferred as the more probable original reading. However, the arguments for ἀνακεκύλισται as the lectio difficilior and potentially Mark’s original, more precise detail, should not be entirely dismissed. Ultimately, both readings convey the same essential message: the tomb entrance was no longer sealed.

1. “And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, for it was very large.”
   This translation favors the more widely attested reading ἀποκεκύλισται, emphasizing the complete removal of the stone from the tomb entrance, aligning with most modern critical texts.
2. “And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back, for it was very large.”
   This translation reflects the reading ἀνακεκύλισται, suggesting the stone was merely moved aside or repositioned to clear the opening, potentially highlighting a more specific and perhaps unique detail in Mark’s narrative.
3. “And looking up, they saw that the great stone had been moved aside, for it was very large.”
   This rendering offers a more neutral interpretation, encompassing both “rolled away” and “rolled back” by focusing on the effect (the stone’s displacement) rather than the precise direction of its rolling, thus accommodating the textual ambiguity while retaining the dramatic impact of the women’s discovery.

“`