Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis reveals Julian and Cyril's texts support the short ending of Mark, suggesting overlooked historical significance.
A Syriac MS (British Museum Add. 17214, fol. 65a–65b) preserves an excerpt from Julian’s Contra Galilaeos and Cyril’s response (the Contra Iulianum), which indicates that both authors either did not know the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20) or regarded it as spurious. The evidence has apparently been overlooked in studies of the longer ending of Mark. If the argument is sound, then Julian should be added to the apparatus criticus of Mark as a witness to the short ending (16:8). Cyril should be reevaluated as a patristic father who probably knew MSS that omitted the longer ending, but unlike Jerome and Eusebius, did not assert that fact about the MSS in the surviving text.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John Granger Cook (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: