Part III, Case Studies in Interpolation . . . Example #1, Mark 16:8ff (in the series, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: an interpolation?)

The so-called Long Ending of Mark (16:9-20) has Long been a matter of Endless controversy. Is it part of the original Gospel, or an interpolation? To the one side stand almost all the highly respected scholars of academe, and to the other, almost all the Greek manuscript evidence. The minority on either side could be counted on a pianist's functional opposable digits.

First of all, let's look at the internal evidence: the evidence of the text itself, verses one to eight of the New King James Version.

¹ Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. ² Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. ³ And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” ⁴ But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 
 ⁵ And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.⁶ But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. ⁷ But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”
⁸ So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Note the context in vv. 1-7: The 'young man' (v.5) told Mary, Mary, and Salome (v.1)
a) Don't be afraid;
b) Go tell his disciples and Peter that Jesus would soon be in Galilee;
c) They would all see Him there.

But instead of obeying the angel, they:
a) did get afraid;
b) didn't tell anyone;
c) ran off instead of going to Galilee.*

Verse 8 sure sounds like an interpolation, doesn't it? Let's run it through a shortened version of the checklist.

1. - abrupt changes in the subject matter or interruptions in an otherwise continuous train of thought;
2. - seeming inconsistencies or contradictions that conflict with other material in the document;
3. - the presence of certain formulae in supposedly inappropriate or uncustomary contexts;
4. - repetition of redundant elements or perceived changes in tone or style;
5. - the supposed assumption by the writer of different circumstances on the part of the intended audience.

1. No. Same characters, same scene.
2. Absolutely.
3. Yes. The sentence ends with γάρ; that's kind of like ending a sentence in English with 'because of'; an object is always expected.
4. No.
5. No.

So, verse eight scores high enough to be an alleged interpolation to the text. But there's one problem--no one alleges it to be an interpolation. No one! Even Westcott and Hort, who double-bracketed vv. 9-20 as an appendix to the book of Mark, had no problems accepting v. 8 as genuine.

Why not? Well, now we come to the matter of external evidence--the evidence of the manuscripts themselves. There are two considerations when it comes to external evidence: a) the 'character' of the manuscripts that don't contain the alleged interpolation; and b) the variety of readings in the manuscripts that do contain the alleged interpolation.  You see, for the twelve verses following v. 8, it mattered not that 99% of them contain the alleged interpolation. For Westcott and Hort, all that mattered is that the two manuscripts they esteemed the most didn't have it.** And since all the Greek manuscripts include v. 8, bingo--it's original, internal evidence notwithstanding.

I hope you can see just how subjective is the matter of using internal evidence to identify interpolations in the Bible. What usually happens is that internal evidence only comes into play to support a conclusion drawn from one's evaluation of the external evidence. Since people in turn use internal evidence to evaluate the external evidence, a vicious cycle ensues, insuring that there will always be at least as many people on one side or the other as there are manuscripts supporting an alleged interpolation.

But at any rate, we should expand our checklist to account for the great weight of external evidence in judging an alleged interpolation. Handy that we are back up to seven items, is it not?

1. - abrupt changes in the subject matter or interruptions in an otherwise continuous train of thought;
2. - seeming inconsistencies or contradictions that conflict with other material in the document;
3. - the presence of certain formulae in supposedly inappropriate or uncustomary contexts;
4. - repetition of redundant elements or perceived changes in tone or style;
5. - the supposed assumption by the writer of different circumstances on the part of the intended audience;
6 - the perceived character of the manuscripts that don't contain the alleged interpolation;
7 - the variety of readings in the manuscripts that do contain the alleged interpolation.

I should note here that Gordon Fee (JETS 21.1, p. 19) has defined internal and external evidence slightly differently than I have used it here. In fairness to industry standards, I give his definitions:

internal evidence: matters of author's style and scribal habits

external evidence: value placed on the manuscripts that support a variant

However, Fee goes on to say that if all textual decisions were made on external evidence alone, the result would be the Byzantine text--as if opponents of the Byzantine text don't place extraordinary value on the handful of manuscripts that line up against the readings common to the Byzantine text.

*one more note here: I suppose the Greek could be read to mean (with hoti as a quotation marker), 
“But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.'” In which case they only disobeyed two, not three, instructions.

**In fairness to Westcott, Hort, and their modern disciples, their decision to retain v. 8 on the one hand, and dispose of vv. 9-20 on the other, rests on more ancient documentation than that. But we are speaking here strictly of Greek manuscript evidence, whether internal or external.