He is risen…
Easter is the time when we come together to focus on the central event of Christianity — the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. But, when reading a modern translation of Mark 16, it is easy to notice that vv. 9-20 distinguished in some way — bracketed, double bracketed, horizontal lined, or footnoted — with an explanation about the verses being absent in the earliest Greek manuscripts. This prompts the question: “Did someone add or remove the ending of Mark?”
Dr. James Tabor, Professor of Judaism and early Christianity at University of North Carolina, describes Mark 16:9-20 as “bogus,” “forged,” and “patently false.”[1] The very word “forged” implies an attempt to imitate the genuine with the nefarious attempt to defraud. His big take away is this: “Since Mark is our earliest Gospel, written according to most scholars around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, or perhaps in the decade before, we have strong textual evidence that the first generation of Jesus followers were perfectly fine with a Gospel account that recounted no appearances of Jesus” and “Mark knows of no accounts of people encountering the revived corpse of Jesus, wounds and all, walking around Jerusalem. His tradition is that the disciples experienced their epiphanies of Jesus once they returned to Galilee after the eight-day Passover festival and had returned to their fishing in despair” (emphasis in original).[2] I disagree with the conclusion.
Out of all the existing ancient Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark there are basically four ways chapter 16 ends. First, there is the finish at v. 8 and omission of vv. 9-20. The women departing the empty tomb trembling, astonished and afraid about telling anyone what they witnessed is abrupt but this is the way Mark ends in two of the oldest surviving Greek codices —Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B).
The vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark include vv. 9-20. This is the traditional longer ending to Mark. Even the Greek manuscripts used in the translation of the 1611 King James Version included vv. 9-20. Early church fathers from the 2nd through the 5th centuries knew of passages from the traditional long ending. For example, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 135-c. 202) cites v. 19 (Against Heresies, 3.10.5), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260/263-340) indicates knowledge of some copies of Mark had vv. 9ff yet points out the majority of other copies ended at v. 8 (Questions to Marinus 1), and Jerome (v. 347-420) shows knowledge of v. 14 (Against the Pelagians 15).
A group of ancient manuscripts appends this extension to v. 8: “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” These manuscripts then continue with vv. 9-20. There is a single Latin version of Mark that ends with the extended form of v. 8 omitting vv. 9-20. This addition to the ending of Mark is typically referred to as the “shorter ending.”[3]
One fourth century Greek manuscript called Codex Washingtonianus includes vv.9-20 but appends this extension to v. 14: “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’—thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, that they may inherit the spiritual and imperishable glory of righteousness that is in heaven.’”[4] This extension to v. 14 is called the Freer Logion.
Evidence weighs against vv. 9-20 being the original ending to the Gospel of Mark. Here is a summary of the reasons why the traditional longer ending ought to be consider a later addition to the text:
First, it is missing from what are generally considered the two most important manuscripts (the uncials א and B), as well as several others. Second, Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain this longer ending. Third, two other endings to the gospel exist: a shorter ending (attested in the uncials L, Ψ, C, 099, 0112, and some other witnesses), and the longer ending combined with an interpolation (attested in the uncial W and mentioned by Jerome). The presence of these alternative endings suggests that there was uncertainty about the ending of Mark for some time. Fourth, the longer ending contains several non-Markan words and expressions. Fifth, the longer ending does not flow naturally after 16:8: Jesus is presumed to be the subject in verse 9 (the Greek does not have an expressed subject), although “the women” is the subject in verse 8; Mary is introduced in verse 9 as if she has not been mentioned in verse 1; and “when Jesus rose early on the first day of the week” (v. 9) sounds strange after “very early on the first day of the week” (v. 2). With the great majority of contemporary commentators and textual critics, then, we do not think that verses 9–20 were written by Mark as the ending for his gospel.[5]
Bruce Metzger, a renowned Bible scholar and textual critic, believes vv. 9-20 to be something “added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion.”[6] Elsewhere Metzger states, “whether [Mark] was interrupted while writing and subsequently prevented (perhaps by death) from finishing his literary work, or whether the last leaf of the original copy was accidently lost before the other copies had been made, we do not know. All that is known is that more than one person in the early Church sensed that the Gospel is a torso and tried in various ways to provide a more or less appropriate conclusion.”[7]
Most of the elements in vv. 9-20 are communicated elsewhere in the New Testament:
- The resurrected Christ appearing first to Mary Magdalene (Mk 16:9-11; cf. Jn. 20:11-18).
- The resurrected Christ appearing to the two disciples (Mk. 16:12; cf. Lk. 24:13-35).
- The resurrected Christ appearing to the eleven (Mk. 16.14; cf. Lk. 24:36; 1 Cor. 15:5)
- The disciples being doubtful (Mk. 16:11, 12, 14, 15; cf. Matt. 28:16-17; Lk. 24:38).
- The commission to proclaim the gospel throughout the world (Mk. 16:15-18; cf. Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8).
- The ascension of Christ (Mk. 16:20; cf. Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-11).
- The disciples proclaiming the gospel accompanied by the miraculous signs — exorcising demons, speaking in tongues, and healing the sick (Mark 16:16-18, 20; cf. Acts 1-28; 1 Cor. 12-14).
What other New Testament writers communicate about the post-resurrection appearances of Christ harmonizes well with what is communicated in the traditional longer ending to the Gospel of Mark.
The statement about picking up snakes and drinking deadly poison in v. 18 is peculiar. Luke tells of Paul unwittingly picking up a deadly viper, and being bitten without suffering any harmful effects from the venom (Acts 28:3-5) but this is an isolated incident as opposed to anything routinely taking place in the community of Christ. Neither is there ever mention of any of the first followers of Christ regularly consuming poison without ill-effect. Supernatural protection from evils like snake bites and poisoned drinks is provided by the Lord — all things are possible with God — but they are never guaranteed on this side of eternity, and historic Christianity maintains that Christ is resurrection and the life, whosoever believes in Him, even if they die, they will live again (Jn. 11:25-26). Evil can end a life, but God raises the dead.[8]
The existence of variant endings to the Gospel of Mark never really calls into question the transmission of the biblical text through ancient copyists. There are actually over 5,500 existing ancient manuscript of the New Testament in Greek, plus many more ancient translations, which testify to the accuracy of the transmission of the biblical text through copyist with quill and ink on papyri and parchment.[9] In fact, “the overwhelming majority of the textual variants are so insignificant that they aren’t even noticeable in translations,”[10] and “the science of textual criticism can almost always recover the original reading of the text.”[11] The ending of Mark is really just one example of a very small number of noticeable textual variants that exists among the ancient manuscripts. It is an exception to the rule. We can still be confident that the Scriptures read today were faithfully reproduced by copyist centuries prior to the advent of the printing press.
It really stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to just point out the abrupt ending of the Gospel of Mark at 16:9 and conclude “we have strong textual evidence that the first generation of Jesus followers were perfectly fine with a Gospel account that recounted no appearances of Jesus,” as Tabor asserts. Keep in mind that “the resurrection of Jesus and His subsequent appearances to His disciples are still implied throughout Mark’s Gospel (Mark 9:9; 14:28).”[12] Moreover, the tradition of confessing that the resurrected Christ appeared to His followers became well-established within the Christian community prior to AD 70.
The Apostle Paul writes:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed (1 Cor. 15:3-11).
The statement, “For I delivered to you…what I also received” signifies the perpetuation of a preexisting tradition. “Jewish teachers would pass on their teachings to their students, who would in turn pass them on to their own students,” writes Craig Keener.[13] 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 actually preserves a Christian creed which is believed to date “from three to eight years after Jesus’ crucifixion,”[14] or perhaps even earlier, say just months after Jesus’ death.[15] Christians were affirming “he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” since around AD 30-33.
Composition of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles can even be dated prior to AD 70. Both were penned by the same author (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2). The abrupt ending in Acts with Paul under house arrest in Rome but having the opportunity to evangelize visitors which suggests an early date of composition around AD 60-62. It also can be pointed out that “Acts makes no mention of several key events from the period 65–70 that we might have expected it to mention: the Neronian persecution, the deaths of Peter and Paul, and the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans,”[16] and “especially important is the lack of mention in either Luke or Acts of the fall of Jerusalem. So cataclysmic an event in the history of the Jewish people is unlikely to have gone completely unmentioned in books that focus so much on the nature and theological continuity of Israel and the people of God.”[17] The composition of Acts can be dated around AD 62 and Luke prior to that. Moreover, Luke 24 is additional evidence showing that belief that Christ died, resurrected on the third day, and appeared to many was part of the theological DNA of the Christ well before AD 70.
My humble opinion is that Mark never intended to end his composition at v. 8. It is a mystery as to how the original ending was lost, but clearly there have been attempts to reconstruct the missing portion. Despite the fact that the traditional longer ending is a subsequent addition to the ending of Mark, this is the closing most familiar to the Christian community both past and present. The question of whether or not Mark 16:9-20 ought to be recognized as part of the New Testament Canon of Scripture is certainly up for debate. What it communicates is in general harmony with the rest of the Scriptures. We can still certainly find solace and comfort through reading and reflecting on what it communicates concerning the post resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ.
…He is risen indeed!
— WGN.
Notes:
[1] James Tabor, “The ‘Strange’ Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference,” https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
[2] Ibid.
[3] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Society, 1971) 123-124
[4] Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 124.
[5] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 189. Technical discussion on why vv. 9-20 along with the extensions to v. 9 and v. 14 are to be considered additions to the ending of Mark’s Gospel can be found in Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 124-126, and William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark, vol. 10, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 682–687. See also comments in Walter W. Wessel, Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Mark, vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 791-793.
[6] Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 125.
[7] Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 229.
[8] Cf. “Does Isaiah 53:5 guarantee our healing today?” by Hank Hanegraaff in The Complete Bible Answer Book: Collector’s Edition Revised and Updated (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2008, 2016), 182-183; https://www.equip.org/bible_answers/does-isaiah-535-guarantee-our-healing-today/. See also Walt Russell, “1 Peter 2:24: Is There Healing in this Application,” Christian Research Journal, 27, 1 [2004]: https://www.equip.org/article/1-peter-224-is-there-healing-in-this-application/ and Elliot Miller, “Healing: Does God Always Heal?” Forward, 2, 3 [1979]: https://www.equip.org/article/healing-does-god-always-heal/
Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) took the statement about drinking deadly poison without being harmed to mean that the faithful and discerning can read and recall false teachings communicated in heretical writings without really being misled (On the Soul and Its Origin 2.23). Interestingly, this early church father takes drinking poison from v. 18 in a figurative sense.
Congregations known to observe the literal handling of snakes and drinking of strychnine have actually only been around since the early twentieth century (cf. H. D. Hunter, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements,ed. Stanley M. Burgess et al. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998], 777-778) but the strictly literal sense in which they take those lines in v. 18 is reckless and unwarranted.
[9] Cf. Clay Jones, “The Bibliographical Test Updated,” Christian Research Journal, 35, 3 [2012]: https://www.equip.org/articles/the-bibliographical-test-updated/
[10] Timothy Paul Jones, Conspiracies and the Cross: How to Intelligently Counter the Ten Most Popular Theories that Attack the Gospel of Jesus (Lake Mary, FL: Front Line, 2008), 74
[11] Ibid. 78.
[12] Ibid., 84.
[13] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 1 Co 15:3.
[14] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 124.
[15] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, InterVaristy Press, 2010), 234.
[16] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 207.
[17] Ibid., 208
Love Truth Blog 
One thought on “Added or Removed: What Happened to the Ending of Mark?”