36 

The Fitting End to Mark’s Gospel
(Mark 16:9–20) 

Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country. They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed. (16:9–20)

This final section of Mark’s gospel is missing from the most reliable ancient manuscripts, and that has caused a lot of unnecessary consternation in some circles. Careful students who have made a serious study of the transmission of the biblical text would virtually all agree that verses 9–20 are a gloss—a later uninspired scribal addition appended to the original inspired text. Indeed, those last twelve verses bear the hallmarks of an attempt to cover up a perceived imperfection. That section does not fit the style and structure of the rest of Mark.

And yet, without those closing verses, Mark’s gospel seems to end early and hurriedly, with Mark’s description of the disciples’ fearful flight from the empty tomb. The angel at the tomb is the only one who even mentions the resurrection (v. 6). And the closing words of verse 8 tell us the disciples said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. Without verses 9–20, Mark’s ending sounds abrupt and incomplete. We know that is not the end of the story. Why would Mark stop there?

Before discussing the answer to that question, it is necessary to consider the reliability of the biblical text and why the presence of variations in some biblical manuscripts is no threat to the authority, reliability, and inerrancy of Scripture.

No ancient book has been better preserved through the centuries than the Bible. By way of comparison, consider Herodotus’s History, of which only eight manuscripts have survived, the oldest dating to approximately thirteen hundred years after the original. Of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, a mere ten manuscript copies have been discovered, the earliest of which is a thousand years removed from its author. There are likewise only eight surviving manuscripts of the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, all of them dating more than thirteen centuries after the original. Many similar examples could be given, from the writings of Aristotle to Tacitus, but the point remains the same: When it comes to the preservation of ancient manuscripts, no other text comes close to the writings of Scripture. In the words of the renowned scholar F. F. Bruce, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament” (F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1963], 178).

The second most well-attested work of antiquity is Homer’s Iliad, of which 643 surviving copies have been found. But even the manuscript evidence for the Iliad falls far short of that for the Bible. Ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament number more than five thousand, ranging from small fragments of papyri to complete codices containing all twenty-seven books. A few of those manuscripts are only twenty-five to fifty years removed from the original autographs. When ancient translations (such as Latin and Ethiopic) are included, the number of manuscripts mushrooms to nearly 25,000. Additional testimony comes from the ante-Nicene church fathers, whose writings contain some 32,000 citations or allusions to the New Testament text. (cf. Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999], 34–45.) In His sovereign providence, the Spirit of God preserved a myriad of ancient witnesses to the biblical text so that, after two millennia, believers can rest assured in the trustworthiness of their copies of Scripture.

The science of textual criticism analyzes and compares ancient biblical manuscripts to determine the contents of the original autographs. Before the invention of the printing press around 1450, biblical manuscripts were copied entirely by hand, sometimes resulting in scribal errors. But through the careful process of textual analysis, such errors and embellishments can be identified and corrected by comparing the manuscript in question with other, earlier manuscripts. Because so many New Testament manuscripts have survived, biblical scholars are able to determine the original text with an extremely high degree of accuracy (cf. Archibald T. Roberston, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament [Nashville: Broadman, 1925], 22). Such textual scholarship gives believers today great confidence in the integrity of their Bibles, because it not only identifies what was original to the text but also exposes any errors or alterations.

All of this has a direct bearing on the final section of the gospel of Mark because it demonstrates that these verses (16:9–20), known as the “longer ending” of Mark, were almost certainly not part of the original divinely revealed text. Like the well-known account in John 7:53–8:11, this passage was inserted into the gospel at a later date. Both external evidence (from the Greek manuscripts, early versions, and church fathers) and internal evidence (from the passage itself) call its authenticity into question, which is why modern English translations place these verses in brackets.

Regarding external evidence, the earliest and most important New Testament manuscripts do not contain this section. For example, the famous fourth-century codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both end Mark’s gospel at 16:8. Summarizing the external evidence, William Lane explains:

Additionally, some manuscripts contain a different ending, known as the “shorter ending” (cf. the further discussion below). The fact that multiple possible endings to Mark’s gospel circulated in the early centuries of church history casts further doubt on the authenticity of the longer ending.

Evidence from the church fathers also weighs against the authenticity of the longer ending. The church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265–340), along with the Bible translator Jerome (c. 347–420), both explain that almost all of Greek manuscripts available in their day omitted verses 9–20. Though some of the church fathers (like Irenaeus and Tatian) show a familiarity with the longer ending, others (such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian) seem unaware of its existence.

Regarding internal evidence from the passage itself, several factors cast further doubt on its authenticity as part of Mark’s original gospel. First, the transition between verse 8 and verse 9 is awkward and disjointed. The conjunction now (from the Greek word de) implies continuity with the preceding narrative, but the focus of verse 9 abruptly shifts to Mary Magdalene rather than continuing a discussion of the women referred to in verse 8. Moreover, it would be strange for Mark to wait until the end of his narrative to introduce Mary Magdalene, as if for the first time (noting that she was the woman from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons) when she was already mentioned three times in the prior context (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1). A similar discontinuity regards Peter, who is singled out in verse 7 yet not mentioned again in verses 9–20. The “shorter ending” (which circulated as an alternative to the longer ending, and was sometimes combined with it) attempts to rectify those incongruities by highlighting both Peter and the other women. It states, “And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” But this shorter ending has even weaker manuscript evidence to support it than the longer ending. Moreover, as one commentator observes, it “reads like an early attempt to tidy loose ends; the last clause in particular does not sound Marcan in its expression” (R. Alan Cole, The Gospel According to Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], 334).

Second, the vocabulary, style, and structure of the longer ending is not consistent with the rest of Mark’s gospel. There are eighteen words in this section that are not used elsewhere in Mark. For example, the title “Lord Jesus” is used here (v. 19) but is never used anywhere else in Mark’s account (cf. James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 498–99). The obvious differences in these verses from the rest of Mark’s narrative have led most scholars to agree with the conclusion of C. E. B. Cranfield, who writes, “In style and vocabulary they are obviously non-Markan” (The Gospel According to Saint Mark [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972], 472).

Third, the inclusion of apostolic signs does not fit the way the other three gospels conclude their accounts of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Though many of the signs mentioned in this section parallel portions of the book of Acts (cf. Acts 2:4; 9:17; 10:46; 28:8), some are clearly without biblical support, such as being able to pick up venomous serpents (though perhaps loosely based on Paul’s experience in Acts 28:3–5) or drink any deadly poison (cf. Walter W. Wessel and Mark L. Strauss, “Mark,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010], IX:988).

The evidence, both external and internal, conclusively demonstrates that verses 9–20 were not originally part of Mark’s inspired record. While they generally summarize truths taught elsewhere in the New Testament, they should always be evaluated in light of the rest of Scripture. No doctrines or practices should be established solely on them. The snake-handling preachers of the Appalachians provide a prime example of the errors that can arise from accepting these verses as authoritative.

Nonetheless, knowing that Mark 16:9–20 is not original should give believers more confidence in the accuracy of the New Testament, not less. As noted above, the science of textual analysis makes it possible for biblical scholars to identify the very few passages that were not part of the original. Such places are clearly marked in modern translations, making it easy for students of Scripture to identify them. Consequently, believers can approach the rest of the text with the settled assurance that the Bible they hold in their hands accurately reflects the original.

The reality that these verses were not part of Mark’s original gospel raises at least two questions that must be answered. First, since Mark did not write this section, where did it originate? And, second, if Mark’s narrative ends at 16:8, why did he conclude his gospel so abruptly?

WHERE DID THIS SECTION ORIGINATE?

Because Mark’s narrative ends abruptly in 16:8, and because it does not include the postresurrection history found in the other three gospels, some early Christians apparently felt it was incomplete. Consequently, at some point in the early to mid-second century, the content of verses 9–20 was added to give Mark’s account a more fully developed conclusion. In the words of one commentator,

No one knows who the scribe or scribes were who added verses 9–20. But it is obvious where they obtained their material. A survey of the longer ending evidences that most of its content was summarized or borrowed from other places in the New Testament, as the following verse-by-verse comparison demonstrates:

The result in Mark 16:9–20 is a concise patchwork drawn from various New Testament texts (especially from the other gospels and Acts). As demonstrated above, the content of the longer ending generally reflects biblical truths, with the notable exceptions of snake handling and drinking poison (v. 18), which have no scriptural precedent. It should also be noted that verse 16 does not teach the necessity of baptism for salvation, since the second half of the verse clarifies that condemnation is for unbelief, not a lack of being baptized. Beyond those points of clarification, an exposition of these verses is not warranted, since they are not original to Mark’s inspired account. Though they reflect traditions from early church history, they are not part of the inerrant and authoritative Word of God.

WHY DOES MARK’S GOSPEL END SO ABRUPTLY?

Though most scholars agree verses 9–20 are not original to Mark’s gospel, they differ on whether Mark intended his narrative to end with verse 8. Those who think Mark wrote more beyond verse 8 insist that his original ending was and is still lost. But that claim is entirely speculative, since no historical evidence suggests that any such ending ever existed. A better approach is to see verse 8 as the true ending to Mark’s gospel. After all, it is the ending the Holy Spirit chose in His sovereign providence to preserve for subsequent generations of Christians to read. Thus, no matter the intentions of the human author, it was clearly God’s plan to end this gospel with verse 8: They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

The dramatic trauma of what the women experienced is captured by Mark with four descriptions. First, they were trembling (from the Greek word tromos), meaning they were physically shaking in response to the news from the angel (cf. vv. 6–7). Second, they were gripped by astonishment (from the Greek word ekstasis, from which the English word “ecstasy” is derived). Third, they were stunned into silence, saying nothing to anyone. And finally, they were afraid (a form of the Greek verb phobeō, from which the English word “phobia” is derived). Overwhelmed by the shocking and wondrous reality of the resurrection, the empty tomb left the women shaking and speechless. It had the same effect on Mark. How fitting that the end was so dramatic and powerful that neither the women nor the narrator could speak.

Mark’s ending is abrupt but it is not incomplete. The tomb was empty; the angelic announcement explained that Jesus had risen; and multiple eyewitnesses confirmed those events. The purpose of Mark’s gospel was to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (1:1). Having amply made that point, no further proof was necessary. By the end of Mark’s narrative, the declaration of the centurion standing at the cross echoes in the mind of any honest reader: “Truly this man was the Son of God!” (15:39). In fact, Mark’s sudden ending is consistent with the abrupt nature of his beginning, in which he skips the birth of Christ and begins directly with the ministry of John the Baptist. It also fits his staccato style and the repeated use of the word “immediately” to push the narrative along quickly (cf. 1:10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 42, 43; 2:8, 12; 3:6; 4:5, 15, 16, 17, 29; 5:2, 29, 30, 42; 6:25, 27, 45, 50, 54; 7:25; 8:10; 9:15, 20, 24; 10:52; 11:2, 3; 14:43, 45, 72; 15:1).

Verse 8 ends on a striking note, with the words for they were afraid. The women were not in fear for their safety. Rather, they were experiencing bewildered astonishment mixed with profound joy (cf. Matt. 28:8) at the thought of the risen Savior. Mark’s gospel, then, ends on a note of wonder, awe, and amazement about the Lord Jesus Christ. That same theme pervades his gospel account (cf. James H. Brooks, Mark, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman, 1991], 274). In 1:22, the crowds responded to Jesus’ instruction by being “amazed at His teaching.” After He cast out an unclean spirit, “they were all amazed” (1:27). When He healed the paralyzed man, those who witnessed the miracle “were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this’” (2:12). His disciples “became very much afraid” (4:41) of Jesus after He instantly calmed a storm on the Sea of Galilee. When the residents of Gerasa observed the calm demeanor of the man whom the Lord delivered from a legion of demons, “they became frightened” (5:15). The woman who was healed of her twelve-year hemorrhage fell down before Him, “fearing and trembling, aware of what had happened to her” (5:33). Jairus and his wife, upon witnessing the resurrection of their daughter, “were completely astounded” by Jesus (5:42). After He walked on water and calmed the tempest, the disciples in the boat “were utterly astonished” by what He had done (6:51). At His transfiguration, Peter, James, and John “became terrified” (9:6). The crowds “were amazed” by His presence (9:15); His disciples were “afraid to ask Him” about the suffering He predicted (9:32); they “were amazed” when He confronted the rich young ruler (10:24); and as they made their final trek to Jerusalem, “Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful” (10:32). Even His enemies were amazed by Him, including the chief priests and scribes (11:18; 12:17) and the Roman governor, Pilate (15:5). After all those references, it is hardly surprising that the women would be similarly “amazed” and “afraid” when they found the tomb empty (16:5) and heard the astounding news of Jesus’ resurrection (16:8).

Throughout his gospel, Mark consistently punctuated key events in the life of the Lord Jesus by emphasizing the wonder He evoked in the hearts and minds of others. Mark simply moves from one point of amazement about Christ to the next. So the narrative ends where it ought to end. It climaxes with amazement and bewilderment at the resurrection of the crucified Savior (cf. John 20:31). In so doing, it leaves the reader in a place of wonder, awe, and worship, centered on its glorious subject: the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.