body { font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 900px; margin: 2em auto; padding: 0 1em; }
h2, h3 { color: #2c3e50; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.3em; margin-top: 2em; }
blockquote { background: #f9f9f9; border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
An Exegetical Examination of Mark 16:9: Syntactic Modifiers and Textual Considerations within the Longer Ending of Mark
The conclusion of the Gospel of Mark, specifically verses 16:9-20, presents one of the most significant textual critical challenges in the New Testament. While scholarly consensus generally regards the longer ending as a secondary addition, its pervasive presence in the manuscript tradition necessitates careful exegetical consideration. This analysis will briefly address the broader textual status of Mark 16:9-20 before focusing on a specific syntactic ambiguity within verse 9: the precise relationship between the temporal phrase “early on the first day of the week” and its modifying verb, either the resurrection of Jesus or his appearance to Mary Magdalene. This exegetical issue, though seemingly minor, carries implications for understanding the narrative’s emphasis and offers insights into the interpretive choices reflected in various translations.
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ …
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The Nestle 1904 text, as representative of an earlier critical tradition, includes Mark 16:9-20 within its main body without brackets, presenting it as an integral part of the Gospel.
- Conversely, the SBLGNT (2010), a modern critical edition, like the NA28, includes Mark 16:9-20 but typically employs double square brackets or explicit notes in its apparatus to indicate that this pericope is not attested in the earliest and most significant manuscripts, thereby identifying it as a later addition to the Gospel.
- Regarding the specific wording of Mark 16:9 itself (Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ), the SBLGNT generally concurs with the Nestle 1904 text; the primary textual difference lies in the critical assessment and presentation of the entire longer ending (verses 9-20) rather than the individual words of this particular verse.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
From a textual critical perspective, the NA28 (Nestle-Aland, 28th edition) places Mark 16:9-20 in double square brackets, signifying the strong evidence against its originality. The NA28 apparatus further details other textual phenomena, such as the “Shorter Ending” and the “Freer Logion,” which demonstrate the scribal uncertainty surrounding the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel. However, within the textual tradition that *does* include Mark 16:9-20, significant internal variants for the specific words under examination in verse 9 (ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον) are not attested. The issue is therefore not one of internal corruption within verse 9, but rather the pericope’s overall authenticity.
Lexically, the key terms in Mark 16:9 provide important contextual information:
- Ἀναστὰς (anastas): This is an aorist active participle from the verb ἀνίστημι (anistēmi), meaning “to rise” or “to stand up.” In the New Testament, particularly in Christological contexts, it is a crucial term for the resurrection of Jesus (BDAG, “ἀνίστημι,” 2.b). KITTEL (TDNT, Vol. 1, pp. 368-372) extensively details its various uses and its theological significance as the act of rising from the dead, often with divine agency.
- δὲ (de): A postpositive conjunction, often translated “but,” “and,” or “now.” It functions to connect the current clause to the preceding narrative, indicating a logical or temporal sequence. In this context, it smoothly transitions from the preceding events (the women finding the empty tomb in Mark 16:8) to the resurrection and subsequent appearance.
- πρωῒ (prōi): An adverb meaning “early in the morning,” typically referring to dawn or the period just after (BDAG, “πρωῒ”). This temporal indicator is consistently used across the Gospels to describe the time of the resurrection discovery or first appearances.
- πρώτῃ σαββάτου (prōtē sabbatou): This dative phrase translates to “on the first day of the week.” πρώτῃ (prōtē) is the dative feminine singular of πρῶτος (prōtos, “first”), and σαββάτου (sabbatou) is the genitive singular of σάββατον (sabbaton, “Sabbath” or “week”). The idiom “first of the Sabbath” refers to the first day following the Sabbath, i.e., Sunday (BDAG, “σάββατον,” 2.b). KITTEL (TDNT, Vol. 6, pp. 863-864 for πρῶτος) discusses its ordinal sense.
- ἐφάνη (ephanē): This is an aorist passive indicative, third person singular, from the verb φαίνω (phainō), meaning “to appear” or “to become visible” (BDAG, “φαίνω,” 1). KITTEL (TDNT, Vol. 9, pp. 1-10) addresses its use in contexts of manifestation, including divine appearances.
- πρῶτον (prōton): An adverb meaning “first” in terms of sequence or order, indicating the initial event in a series (BDAG, “πρῶτον,” 2). Here it clearly specifies that the appearance to Mary Magdalene was the *first* of the post-resurrection appearances.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The central exegetical issue in Mark 16:9 revolves around the syntactic attachment of the temporal phrase πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου (“early on the first day of the week”). Does it primarily modify the participle ἀναστὰς (“having risen”), or the main verb ἐφάνη (“he appeared”)?
-
Traditional Reading: Temporal Phrase Modifies the Participle (Ἀναστὰς)
In this common interpretation, the phrase πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου is understood to specify the time of Jesus’ resurrection. The sentence structure would then create a circumstantial participial clause: “Having risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene…”
- Grammatical Analysis: This is a syntactically sound construction in Greek. A circumstantial participle (ἀναστὰς) can easily take an adverbial modifier (πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου) to specify the circumstances of the action it describes. The entire participial clause then functions as an adverbial modifier to the main verb, setting the temporal framework for the subsequent appearance. The presence of δὲ after ἀναστὰς further anchors this participial clause to the preceding narrative, making it a cohesive unit.
- Rhetorical Analysis: This reading emphasizes the precise timing of the resurrection event itself. By specifying “early on the first day of the week” as the moment of rising, it aligns with a consistent theological understanding across the Gospels that Jesus’ resurrection occurred on Sunday morning. The appearance to Mary Magdalene then follows directly from this already established temporal context.
-
Alternative Reading: Temporal Phrase Modifies the Main Verb (Ἐφάνη)
This interpretation would separate the temporal phrase from the participle, instead linking it directly to the appearance. The rendering would be something like: “Having risen, early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene…” This possibility was acknowledged by A. T. Robertson, who noted that it “makes good sense with ‘appeared’ (ephane)” (Robertson’s Word Pictures).
- Grammatical Analysis: While grammatically permissible, this reading is considered less natural. The aorist participle ἀναστὰς would describe a prior, completed action (“having risen”), and the subsequent temporal phrase would then modify the main verb ἐφάνη (“he appeared”). However, the immediate proximity of πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου to ἀναστὰς δὲ makes a direct connection between the temporal phrase and the participle more syntactically intuitive. To detach the phrase and connect it solely to ἐφάνη would create a slight awkwardness in word order without a clear syntactical marker (like a comma in English translations) or a strong rhetorical cue in Greek to do so. The adverb πρῶτον clearly modifies ἐφάνη (“appeared *first*”), but this does not definitively resolve the scope of the earlier temporal phrase.
- Rhetorical Analysis: This interpretation would place the primary emphasis on the timing of the *appearance* to Mary Magdalene, rather than the resurrection itself. It would highlight that it was specifically “early on the first day of the week” when she experienced the initial encounter with the risen Christ. The act of rising would be stated as a fact, with its timing left less explicitly defined by this specific phrase.
The argument presented by some scholars, that πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου belongs with ἀναστὰς, while πρῶτον belongs with ἐφάνη, offers a syntactically elegant solution that respects both adverbial elements. This allows for a precise understanding: the resurrection occurred early on the first day, and the first appearance (among a series of appearances) also occurred at that general time to Mary Magdalene.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The textual critical landscape of Mark 16:9-20 remains a significant discussion point, with strong evidence from early and weighty manuscripts pointing to the non-originality of the longer ending. Nonetheless, its presence in a large number of manuscripts necessitates its consideration for historical and reception-history studies. Within this disputed pericope, Mark 16:9 presents a minor but interesting syntactic challenge regarding the scope of its temporal modifiers.
Based on grammatical probability, the natural flow of Greek syntax, and consistency with broader New Testament narratives regarding the timing of the resurrection, the most compelling reading is that πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου modifies the participle ἀναστὰς, while πρῶτον unequivocally modifies the main verb ἐφάνη. This construction specifies the timing of the resurrection and then details the first of the subsequent appearances.
Translation Suggestions:
- “Having risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene…”
This translation maintains the traditional and most syntactically natural connection, clearly linking the temporal phrase “early on the first day of the week” to the act of rising, and establishing the setting for the subsequent initial appearance. - “And when he had risen, he appeared early on the first day of the week, first to Mary Magdalene…”
This option explicitly separates the act of rising from the precise timing of the appearance, allowing “early on the first day of the week” to directly qualify the appearance event. This reflects the possibility of shifting emphasis as discussed, though it requires a slight rephrasing for clarity in English. - “Now, after his resurrection, it was early on the first day of the week that he appeared initially to Mary Magdalene…”
This more interpretative rendering prioritizes the timing of the appearance to Mary Magdalene by using a cleft construction (“it was… that…”) to emphasize the temporal aspect of the manifestation, while still acknowledging the prior act of rising. It aims to capture a potential rhetorical emphasis on the moment of the encounter.
KJV with Strong’s
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week he appeared
first to Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven devils
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ …
ANASTAS DE PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU EFANH PRWTON MARIAi THi MAGDALHNHi
I would agree with Robertson, making specific when He appeared first to whom.
Sabath is not the first but the last day of the week.
As of πρώτῃ I think refers the hour, making specific that was not
later in the morning but the first hour of the morning.
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
So you think that the resurrection occurred on the Sabbath? It is generally understood
that it occurred on the first day of the week and that SABBATOU here means “week.”
(BDAG sv. SABBATON 2.)
CWC
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
If we agree, according to b-greek protocol, to avoid the subject of textual
criticism here, it should be noted that the word σάββατον SABBATON appears 12
times in 11 verses of Mark. Of these occurrences all but that in 16.2 and
possibly 16.9 refer to the Sabbath day. It would appear likely, however, that
in 16.2 it definitely is used to designate not the Sabbath day but rather is
used to signify the week (which happens to be one of the usages of σάββατον
SABBATON). To me it also appears that σάββατον in 16.9 refers to the week
rather than to the Sabbath day. It should be noted that in 16.2 μιᾷ MIAi is
used to designate the first day of the week whereas here in 16.9 the word used
is πρώτῃ PRWTHi. This could be an argument in defence of understanding the
designation as referring to the first hour of the day rather than to the first
day of the week whereas in 16.2 the understanding would be “on day one of the
week.” I nevertheless feel constrained to understand πρώτῃ PRWTHi in 16.9 as
equivalent to μιᾷ MIAi in 16.2 since otherwise πρωῒ would appear somewhat
redundant — is it early in the first hour? I think it more likely that it is
early on the first day of the week.
The question as originally framed, however, was not regarding the understanding
of πρώτῃ PRWTHi but regarding whether πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου PRWÏ PRWTHi
SABBATOU construes with ἀναστὰς ANASTAS or with ἐφάνη EFANH. It would seem
likely that by position it would construe with ἀναστὰς ANASTAS rather than
with ἐφάνη EFANH. What is being conveyed thus is that the resurrection is to
be conceived as occurring on the first day of the week rather than that the
appearance to the women took place on the first day of the week.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Cc: B-Greek
Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 5:12:45 AM
EFANH?
KJV with Strong’s
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week he appeared
first to Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven devils
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ …
ANASTAS DE PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU EFANH PRWTON MARIAi THi MAGDALHNHi
I would agree with Robertson, making specific when He appeared first to whom.
Sabath is not the first but the last day of the week.
As of πρώτῃ I think refers the hour, making specific that was not
later in the morning but the first hour of the morning.
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
With the syntax of ANASTAS DE PRWÏ PRWTHi SABBATOU in Mk, is it
possible to see some help from the example of the syntax of Mt 28:1?
OYE DE SABBATWN TH EPIFWSKOUSHi EIS MIAN SABBATWN, HLQEN MARIAM hH
MAGDALHNHi KAI hH ALLH MARIA.
I wonder whether I can see ANSTAS DE in Mk to correspond to OYE DE SABBATWN
in Mt so as to make the phrase PRWÏ PRWTHi SABBATOU in Mk be more
likely construed kataphorically with EFANH.
Personally it seems to me very natural to read it anaphorically
construed as most of English translations render, taking also ‘early’
as ‘early in the morning’ not ‘early in a Jewish day right after the
sunset’.
Oun Kwon.
—
KJV with Strong’s
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week he appeared
first to Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven devils
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ …
ANASTAS DE PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU EFANH PRWTON MARIAi THi MAGDALHNHi
I would agree with Robertson, making specific when He appeared first to whom.
Sabath is not the first but the last day of the week.
As of πρώτῃ I think refers the hour, making specific that was not
later in the morning but the first hour of the morning.
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
So you think that the resurrection occurred on the Sabbath? It is generally understood
that it occurred on the first day of the week and that SABBATOU here means “week.”
(BDAG sv. SABBATON 2.)
CWC
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
If we agree, according to b-greek protocol, to avoid the subject of textual
criticism here, it should be noted that the word σάββατον SABBATON appears 12
times in 11 verses of Mark. Of these occurrences all but that in 16.2 and
possibly 16.9 refer to the Sabbath day. It would appear likely, however, that
in 16.2 it definitely is used to designate not the Sabbath day but rather is
used to signify the week (which happens to be one of the usages of σάββατον
SABBATON). To me it also appears that σάββατον in 16.9 refers to the week
rather than to the Sabbath day. It should be noted that in 16.2 μιᾷ MIAi is
used to designate the first day of the week whereas here in 16.9 the word used
is πρώτῃ PRWTHi. This could be an argument in defence of understanding the
designation as referring to the first hour of the day rather than to the first
day of the week whereas in 16.2 the understanding would be “on day one of the
week.” I nevertheless feel constrained to understand πρώτῃ PRWTHi in 16.9 as
equivalent to μιᾷ MIAi in 16.2 since otherwise πρωῒ would appear somewhat
redundant — is it early in the first hour? I think it more likely that it is
early on the first day of the week.
The question as originally framed, however, was not regarding the understanding
of πρώτῃ PRWTHi but regarding whether πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου PRWÏ PRWTHi
SABBATOU construes with ἀναστὰς ANASTAS or with ἐφάνη EFANH. It would seem
likely that by position it would construe with ἀναστὰς ANASTAS rather than
with ἐφάνη EFANH. What is being conveyed thus is that the resurrection is to
be conceived as occurring on the first day of the week rather than that the
appearance to the women took place on the first day of the week.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Cc: B-Greek
Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 5:12:45 AM
EFANH?
KJV with Strong’s
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week he appeared
first to Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven devils
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ …
ANASTAS DE PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU EFANH PRWTON MARIAi THi MAGDALHNHi
I would agree with Robertson, making specific when He appeared first to whom.
Sabath is not the first but the last day of the week.
As of πρώτῃ I think refers the hour, making specific that was not
later in the morning but the first hour of the morning.
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
With the syntax of ANASTAS DE PRWÏ PRWTHi SABBATOU in Mk, is it
possible to see some help from the example of the syntax of Mt 28:1?
OYE DE SABBATWN TH EPIFWSKOUSHi EIS MIAN SABBATWN, HLQEN MARIAM hH
MAGDALHNHi KAI hH ALLH MARIA.
I wonder whether I can see ANSTAS DE in Mk to correspond to OYE DE SABBATWN
in Mt so as to make the phrase PRWÏ PRWTHi SABBATOU in Mk be more
likely construed kataphorically with EFANH.
Personally it seems to me very natural to read it anaphorically
construed as most of English translations render, taking also ‘early’
as ‘early in the morning’ not ‘early in a Jewish day right after the
sunset’.
Oun Kwon.
—
A translation question posed by a poster who doesn’t read Biblical Greek. After giving it some thought, however, I think that the question itself is worthy of some discussion by you B-Greekers. Here’s the text:
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ …
[ANASTAS DE PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU EFANH PRWTON MARIAi THi MAGDALHNHi … ]
While it seems most likely to me that the two adverbial elements here, PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU and PRWTON, must construe respectively: PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU with the initial participle ANASTAS, PRWTON with the finite verb EFANH, A. T. Robertson has argued (“Word Pictures”) that PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU could conceivably be construed with EFANH, and I note that at least a couple versions either convert the Greek text as ambiguous (NET) or do in fact read PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU with EFANH (Peterson’s Message). If list-members take that possibility seriously, what reasons might be offered in defense of its probability?
A translation question posed by a poster who doesn’t read Biblical Greek. After giving it some thought, however, I think that the question itself is worthy of some discussion by you B-Greekers. Here’s the text:
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ …
[ANASTAS DE PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU EFANH PRWTON MARIAi THi MAGDALHNHi … ]
While it seems most likely to me that the two adverbial elements here, PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU and PRWTON, must construe respectively: PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU with the initial participle ANASTAS, PRWTON with the finite verb EFANH, A. T. Robertson has argued (“Word Pictures”) that PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU could conceivably be construed with EFANH, and I note that at least a couple versions either convert the Greek text as ambiguous (NET) or do in fact read PRWI PRWTHi SABBATOU with EFANH (Peterson’s Message). If list-members take that possibility seriously, what reasons might be offered in defense of its probability?
Howard Gardner Isaac Coverstone Mark long ending begins … in v 9
Pls someone take the time to tell us WHAT in the Greek of the longer ending or even of the several longer endings added later in latin resembles any of Matthew’s Greek? //sure OR Aramaic
Cameron C Smith did the knowledgeable man take the time to tell you how many of the 620 Mk MSS were written in 2-3 AD and how many 10 centuries later?
Nobody is saying that the last 12 verses of Mark were taken from Matthew. Again the only reference we have is in regards to Ariston. Take a deep breath and consider what you are saying before posting any more nonsense. You just make yourself look silly.
Some latin version have way more than 12 Again your original claim was that Mt 28 was written before Mk 16 I’ve shown that simply cannot be the case as far as the original text is concerned
Troy Day NO. My original claim was that of John A. T. Robinson. That being that the missing original from Mark 16 IS practically if not entirely the same as Matthew 28. That follows the schematic exactly. The two books parallel one another exactly UNTIL you get to the last 12 verses of Mark and Matthew 28:9. Then suddenly there is a dramatic change. Now if they were both borrowing from the same source why would they stop there? Mark suddenly leaves the reader hanging and Matthew, by your account, suddenly switches over to another source? Not buying it. Again it seems logical to me that Mark 16 originally read virtually the same as Matthew 28:9 and afterwards. This is true pf the previous chapters. Why stop there?
I appreciate this discussion so very much today