The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-10

Copies of the research paper are available on request by e-mail: james.snapp@gmail.com.

 There are over 1,700 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. A small percentage of them, such as the very earliest copy (Papyrus 45,
from around 225) has undergone damage and offers no evidence about the text of Mark 16. Of all the rest, only two Greek manuscripts
clearly end the text of the Gospel of Mark at the end of 16:8. It would be very misleading to describe two things as “Some” while
describing over 1,500 things as “Others.” Unfortunately such vagueness is found in several major Bible translations’ descriptions of
manuscripts in footnotes abut the ending of Mark.

 In some translations, Mark 16:9-20 is placed within brackets. The Revised Standard Version, in its first edition (1952), even moved the
passage into the footnotes. A few translations present 16:9-20 and a short text called the “Shorter Ending,” which appears in six Greek
manuscripts along with 16:9-20. (More about the “Shorter Ending” later.) The treatment of Mark 16:9-20 in English translations is far
from uniform.

Now let’s look at the evidence against Mark 16:9-20.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST MARK 16:9-20

The external evidence against Mark 16:9-20 is not as impressive as some Bible footnotes make it seem. The two Greek manuscripts in
which Mark 16:8 is followed by the closing-title are Codex Vaticanus (from c. 330) and Codex Sinaiticus (from c. 350). These are two
heavyweight copies. But at the end of Mark they both contain unusual features that lightens their usual weight.

Codex Vaticanus does not contain Mark 16:9-20, but following Mark 16:8 and preceding Luke 1:1, it contains a prolonged blank space,
including an entire blank column. No other blank columns appear in the entire New Testament in this manuscript. The blank space after
Mark 16:8 is not quite long enough to contain the text of verses 9-20 in the copyist’s normal handwriting, but if a copyist were to use
compressed lettering, the entire passage would fit. It appears that the copyist was copying from an exemplar, or master-copy, which did
not contain verses 9-20, but he recollected them, and attempted to reserve space for them, in case his supervisor or an eventual user of
the manuscript wished to include them.

In Codex Sinaiticus, the four pages that contain Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 were not written by the same copyist who produced the
surrounding pages. All four of these pages, including the page on which Mark ends, were made by someone else, probably the
supervisor/proofreader at the place where the manuscript was made, before the pages were sewn together. The pages made by the main
copyist were removed, their contents were corrected and rewritten on new parchment, and the new pages were added. Why? Almost
certainly, the four replaced pages made by the main copyist did not contain Mark 16:9-20. The 16 columns on the four replacement-
pages (four columns per page) would not have been enough to contain Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 in the main copyist’s normal handwriting,
and he would have had no obvious reason to compress his lettering.

Probably, the main copyist accidentally skipped from the end of Luke 1:4 to the beginning of Luke 1:8, omitting Luke 1:5-7, and the
supervisor decided that the best way to fix this mistake was to replace the entire four-page sheet. But we can’t know for certain. What
we can deduce, though, is very significant: the individual who made Sinaiticus’ replacement-pages was one of the copyists who made
Codex Vaticanus. The handwriting, the distinctive spelling, the ornamental decoration, and other features on the replacement-pages in
Sinaiticus are remarkably similar to the same features in Codex Vaticanus. So the evidence from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, while ancient
and valuable, shows us only one narrow channel of the text’s transmission. In the case of the ending of Mark, it may attest to one
individual copyist who worked at Caesarea in the 300’s.

One Old Latin manuscript, Codex Bobbiensis (from about A.D. 430), contains the “Shorter Ending” at the end of Mark instead of verses
9-20. The “Shorter Ending” says (with some variations), “They related unto Peter and his companions everything that had been told to
them. And after this Jesus Himself [appeared to them] sent forth through them, from east [even] unto west, the sacred and imperishable
proclamation of eternal salvation. [Amen.]” When considering this evidence, it should be noted that the text of Codex Bobbiensis is
really messed up in the last part of Mark. Between 16:3 and 16:4 it contains an interpolation which seems to have an affinity with
another text called the “Gospel of Peter,” a forgery made in the 100’s. In the interpolation, Jesus appears to ascend to heaven at the
same time that He rises from the dead. Also, Codex Bobbiensis is missing the last part of verse 8. And, the copyist made eccentric and
remarkably careless mistakes in the Latin text of the “Shorter Ending.”

Codex Bobbiensis and the other manuscripts that contain the “Shorter Ending” appear to descend from an ancestor-manuscript that
contained a text that ended with 16:8. The “Shorter Ending” is exactly what it looks like: a short flourish designed to relieve the
abruptness of the ending at the end of verse 8. The vocabulary of the Shorter Ending weighs in against Marcan authorship, and the
textual genealogy of most of the manuscripts that contain the Shorter Ending can be traced back to the channel of transmission in Egypt
which contains the abrupt text.

Now about the evidence from the writings of leaders in the early church. Some commentaries list Clement of Alexandria and Origen as
witnesses against Mark 16:9-20, merely because they do not use the passage. This is, however, an argument from silence, and it has no
real value as evidence when one considers how rarely those two writers used the Gospel of Mark. Clement — who might even allude to
Mark 16:19 in a statement in Adumbrationes on Jude v. 24, as cited by Cassiodorus in Latin — only used about 23 verses from the Gospel
of Mark, mostly from chapter 10. Shall we conclude that his copies of Mark only contained 23 verses? Similarly regarding Origen, if we
divide the Gospel of Mark into 56 or 57 pieces, each piece consisting of 12 verses, Origen does not use 34 of those pieces in his extant
writings. Shall we conclude that these other 33 twelve-verse sections were not in Origen’s copies of the Gospel of Mark? The silence of
Clement and Origen merely tells us how rarely they quoted the Gospel of Mark. It is not valid text-critical evidence.

Several commentators have falsely stated that Eusebius of Caesarea, in the early 300’s, wrote that Mark 16:9-20 was absent from all
Greek copies of Mark known to him. An examination of Eusebius’ composition Ad Marinum reveals, instead, that Eusebius, replying to a
question about how to harmonize Matthew 28:1 with Mark 16:9, claimed that someone could say that “the accurate copies” and “almost
all the Greek copies” lacked verses 9-20. (This was a description of manuscripts known to Eusebius; in the decades that immediately
followed the Diocletian persecution, no one had the means to discern the contents of the majority of surviving manuscripts throughout the
Roman Empire.) But Eusebius proceeded to show Marinus how to harmonize Mark 16:9 with Matthew 28:1 by punctuating Mark 16:9 a
certain way. This means that when Eusebius wrote Ad Marinum, he preferred the reading of a group of manuscripts at Caesarea in which
the Gospel of Mark ended at the end of 16:8 but, realizing that Marinus used a text that included 16:9-20, he acquiesced to the inclusion
of the passage, for otherwise there would be no reason to show how it could be harmonized with Matthew. In addition, further along in Ad
Marinum, Eusebius refers to Mark 16:9 by stating that “some copies” of Mark include the statement that seven demons had been cast
out of Mary Magdalene.

Jerome has also been sometimes cited as a witness against Mark 16:9-20. However, when Jerome produced the Vulgate Gospels (in
383), he included the passage. In about the year 407, Jerome wrote Epistle 120, Ad Hedibiam. This letter is the basis for the claim that
Jerome stated that almost all Greek manuscripts lacked Mark 16:9-20. However, when Jerome’s letter to Hedibia is compared to
Eusebius’ earlier letter to Marinus, it becomes obvious that Jerome essentially borrowed and summarized Eusebius’ comments. Jerome’s
statement is not his own independent observation; it is part of his loose translation (delivered by dictation) of part of Eusebius’ earlier
composition. Jerome’s use of Ad Marinum becomes clear when we observe that three of the questions that Marinus asked Eusebius are
repeated in Ad Hedibiam, in the same order! In Jerome’s Epistle 75, written to Augustine, Jerome candidly admitted that he sometimes
issued hasty replies by dictation, mixing his own thoughts with the contents of materials that he had read, without being careful to identify
his sources or to ensure that he shared only his own opinions. Some of the contents of Ad Hedibiam seem to be an example of that
practice.

Furthermore, in Against the Pelagians 2:14, Jerome quoted an interpolation (now known as the “Freer Logion”) by referring first to the
text of Mark 16:14. He stated that the interpolation is present “in some copies, especially in Greek codices,” which means that the
surrounding verses were also in those copies.

Two other writers, Heschius and Severus, are also cited as evidence for the abrupt text, but this is feathery evidence because, among
othe reasons, the writing attributed to Hesychius and Severus, like Jerome’s Ad Hedibiam, was a re-presentation of the contents of Ad
Marinum. (John Burgon, in 1871, showed that one composition had been erroneously attributed to both of these individuals.) If
Hesychius or Severus wrote today, he might be convicted of plagiarizing Eusebius’ Ad Marinum. Plus, Severus used Mark 16:19
independently in another passage in his writings.

There are a few other witnesses against Mark 16:9-20. One is the Sinaitic Syriac palimpsest. The Syriac Gospels-text in this copy from
c. 400 shares some special readings with Codex Bobbiensis, and must share a common ancestor with it. Many copies of the Armenian
version (none of which pre-date the 800’s) do not contain Mark 16:9-20. Two medieval Old Georgian manuscripts do not contain Mark
16:9-20. And about a dozen Greek manuscripts are sometimes cited as if they contains notes that state that the ancient manuscripts do
not have verses 9-20. We will take a closer look at some of these pieces of evidence soon. But now let’s proceed to an examination of
external evidence in favor of the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.

Many ancient manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20. They include Codex Codex Washingtoniensis

(c. 400, which has verses 9-20 with an interpolation between v. 14 and v. 15), Codex
Alexandrinus (c. 450), Codex Ephraemi (c. 450), and Codex Bezae (c. 400-500, which does not
contain verses 16-20, due to damage). These are just a few of the more than 1,500 manuscripts
that include Mark 16:9-20.

This numerical avalanche in favor of the inclusion of 16:9-20 is not as decisive as the evidence

that shows that Mark 16:9-20 circulated in different text-types. Theoretically, a large number of

manuscripts that share the same readings may be merely a large numbers of echoes of an earlier

ancestor. But the manuscripts that support the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 are from different
text-types, representing different ancestor-manuscripts. The situation may be compared to
branches on a tree: if one branch has more fruit than other branches, this may simply mean that
the fruitful branch enjoyed more favorable conditions than the others. But when the same kind
of fruit is found on several branches, while a different kind of fruit is primarily on a single
branch, then it is more likely that the fruit on the single branch is not the tree’s natural fruit,
even if that branch is more fruitful than the others. Mark 16:9-20 is found in all four major text-
types, or branches — the Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. In addition, in major
representatives from each text-type, Mark 16:9-20 contains textual variants that are not present
in the other branches, indicating that the passage was not grafted on from another text-type.

Furthermore, we must also consider evidence found in patristic writings — the writings of leaders

in the early church. The earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 are not the earliest evidence. Not
even close! There are several quotations of, or uses of, material from Mark 16:9-20 in

patristic writings which were composed quite a bit earlier than the production-date of Vaticanus.

Justin Martyr, who died in A.D. 165, wrote in his First Apology ch. 45 that the

apostles “going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere,” as he explained

the fulfillment of Psalm 110:1-2. The words in red here represent three Greek

words identical to Greek words used in Mark 16:20, including the word

pantachou, which Justin uses twice in this chapter, as if to emphasize the point.

A comparison of this paragraph of Justin’s work to the contents of Mark 16:9-20

shows that it is highly likely that he was borrowing his terms from Mark 16:20.

Justin typically drew his Gospels-citations not from the separate Gospel of

Matthew, Gospel of Mark, and Gospel of Luke, but from a text which consisted

of the texts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke blended together — a “Synoptics-

Harmony.” Justin’s statement in First Apology blends Mark 16:20 and Luke

24:52 in precisely the way that one would expect to find in such a Harmony.

Thus Justin clearly used Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark.

Tatian was a second-century writer who, building on the work

of Justin, interwove the texts of the four Gospels into one

continuous narrative, called the Diatessaron, in about A.D.

172. He included material from Mark 16:9-20 in the Dia-

tessaron, blending it with the parallels in the other Gospels.

Irenaeus was a Christian bishop in the second century. He

wrote in Against Heresies (A.D. 184), Book III, 10:5-6,

“Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says:

‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was

received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God.”

This is clearly a quotation of Mark 16:19.

Papias, a writer in the early 100’s, recorded that Justus Barsabbas

(the individual mentioned in Acts 1:23) once drank a poisonous

drink and suffered no ill effects. (This statement is preserved by

Eusebius of Caesarea and by Philip of Side). His motivation for

mentioning this story may have been to provide an example of the

fulfillment of Mark 16:18. (This is not strong evidence, but it should

not be overlooked, especially in light of attempts to use the silence

of Clement and Origen as evidence against Mk. 16:9-20.) Also,

Papias wrote that Mark did not omit any of what Peter had preached;

this is significant inasmuch as Peter is depicted in Acts preaching

about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances and ascension.

A work from the mid-100’s called the Epistula Apostolorum (Letter of the

Apostles), which was unknown until the early 1900’s, has been affirmed by

several scholars, including Robert Stein, to have used Mark 16:9-20.

At the seventh Council of Carthage in 256, a bishop named Vincentius of Thibaris

said, “We have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept

commanded to His apostles, saying, ‘Go ye, lay on hands in My name, expel

demons.’ And in another place: ‘Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the

name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'” Vincentius’ second quotation

is from Matthew 28:19. Despite attempts by some interpreters to connect the first

quotation to Matthew 10:8, the references to going, laying on hands, expelling

demons, and doing so in My name add up to a reference to Mark 16:15-18, especially

when placed side-by-side with the parallel passage from Matthew.

Either Porphyry (an early opponent of Christianity who died in A.D. 305) or Hierocles

(a student of Porphyry, writing in the very early 300’s) was cited by another writer

(Macarius Magnes, c. 405) as having attempted to use Mark 16:18 as an example of

absurdity in Christian teachings.

A composition called De Rebaptismate, written c. 258, strongly alludes to Mark 16:14

in its ninth chapter. Some researchers assigned this text a date about a century later,

but strong internal evidence indicates that it was written around the time of Cyprian.

Prominent writers in the 300’s and 400’s also used Mark 16:9-20. Here are some

examples:

Aphraates (also known as Aphrahat), writing in 336, quoted from Mark 16:17-18 in
Demonstration One: Of Faith, stating, “And again He said this: ‘This shall be the

sign for those that believe; they will speak with new tongues and shall cast out

demons, and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall be made whole.'”

An anonymous composition called the Acts of Pilate, composed no later than the mid-

300’s, made use of Mark 16:15-16.

Eusebius and Marinus (c. 330) both reflect knowledge of the existence of Mark

16:9-20, in Eusebius’ work Ad Marinum. Marinus took for granted that it was

part of the text; Eusebius stated that it was not in his “accurate copies” but it was

in “some” copies.”

Ambrose, who worked in Milan (and died in 397), used parts of 16:9-20 as

Scripture (one example is his use of Mark 16:18 in his work The Prayer of Job

and David).

Didymus the Blind, who worked in Egypt (and died in 398), or an author in the

same area and era, wrote De Trinitate, in which, in Book Two, chapter 12, Mark

16:15-16 is quoted.

Augustine, who worked in Hippo, North Africa (and died in 430), used Mark

16:9-20 in Easter-time sermons, showing that by the early 400’s the passage

was established as a regular reading in the church-services there. He quoted the

entire passage in his Harmony of the Gospels (c. 400), and cited both Latin and

Greek manuscripts when commenting on Mk. 16:12.

Saint Patrick (mid-400’s) used Mark 16:16 twice, in Letter to Coroticus, part 20,

and in Confession, part 40.

Apostolic Constitutions (380), The Doctrine of Addai (c. 400, but using earlier

source-materials), Marcus Eremita (c. 425), Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 440), Peter

Chrysologus (c. 450), Marius Mercator (c. 450), Nestorius (early 400’s, as cited

by Cyril of Alexandria), and Leo the Great (453) also used the passage.

When the patristic evidence (which is not mentioned by most Bible footnotes) is

added to the equation, the earliest evidence for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 is

over a century older than the earliest evidence for its non-inclusion. The evidence

for Mark 16:9-20 is spread over a broad geographical area: Rome (Justin), France

(Irenaeus), North Africa (Vincentius and Augustine), Israel (Eusebius), Syria (Tatian

and Aphraates), Cyprus (Epiphanius), Egypt (Didymus), and Armenia (Eznik of Golb).

Against this, the ancient Greek evidence for non-inclusion is confined to Egypt and

Caesarea, and Caesarea’s testimony is essentially an echo of manuscripts that had

been taken to Caesarea from Egypt. Copies of Mark containing 16:9-20 were in use

at all these locations.

Some evidence from early translations, especially the Sahidic (an Egyptian dialect),

Gothic, Old Latin, Syriac, and Armenian versions, may be considered here.

The earliest Sahidic copy of Mark, from c. 425, attests to a form of Mark that ended

at the end of 16:8. The next-earliest copies contain the Shorter Ending followed by

16:9-20. This indicates that the Sahidic version of Mark was initially translated from

a text that ended at 16:8; later on, copyists had some exemplars that ended with the

Shorter Ending, and some exemplars that ended with 16:9-20, so they included both

readings, placing the Shorter Ending first where it could serve as a liturgical flourish.

The Gothic version was translated by Wulfilas (who was originally from Antioch) in

about A.D. 350. The most important Gothic manuscript, Codex Argenteus, includes

Mark 16:9-20. (For a long time the last page of Mark in Codex Argenteus was

missing, but it was rediscovered in Germany in 1970.)

Quite a few Old Latin manuscripts are damaged, but all undamaged Old Latin manu-

scripts of Mark 16 except Codex Bobbiensis contain Mark 16:9-20. Also, the Old

Latin lists of chapter-titles of Mark include references to Jesus’ post-resurrection

appearances to the disciples, and to His ascension.

The Syriac evidence is divided: the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript (c. 400) ends the text

of Mark at 16:8. The Curetonian Syriac manuscript (c. 425) is mutilated but pre-

serves part of Mark 16:17-20 (the only part of Mark in the manuscript!). The

Peshitta (a Syriac version made sometime in the 300’s), extant in hundreds of copies,

contains contains all of Mark 16:9-20.

The Armenian version is rather complex. An Armenian version of the Gospels was

made from Syriac around 410, but in 430, cherished Greek copies were taken to

Armenia from Constantinople, and the Greek text was used as the basis for a

revision of the Armenian text. What seems to have happened is that the Greek

copies from Constantinople included one of the 50 codices which Eusebius of

Caesarea had prepared for Emperor Constantine 100 years earlier; as a result, the

revised Armenian text agreed closely with that codex. Most Armenian Gospels-

manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, but most of the oldest accessible Armenian

manuscripts end the text of Mark at the end of 16:8. Some Armenian copies

display a blended text in which the closing-title “End of the Gospel of Mark”

appears after 16:8, followed by verses 9-20, after which the closing-title appears

again. Some Armenian manuscripts format 16:9-20 in other unusual ways.

The Armenian manuscript Matenadaran 2374 (formerly known as Etchmiadzin 229)

includes a note stating that it was copied from ancient and reliable exemplars

(probably no later than the 500’s). This manuscript, produced in A.D. 989, contains

the words “Aristou eritzou” written between the lines between Mark 16:8 and 16:9.

This may be based on a tradition, or a guess, that Mark 16:9-20 was the work of a

first-century Christian named Aristion. Another possibility, however, is that this

note appeared alongside 16:18 in an older manuscript, and was intended only to

mean that Aristion had handed down the story, mentioned by Papias, about Justus

Barsabbas’ imperviousness to poison, which seems to fulfill one of the prophecies

about signs in Mark 16:18. Later, after the question was raised regarding whether

or not Mark 16:9-20 ought to be included, the note was misinterpreted to mean that

Aristion had composed the entire passage. (Somewhat surprisingly, another medieval

Armenian manuscript contains the Shorter Ending attached to the end of Luke.

This is probably a result of a later distribution of manuscripts between Egyptian and

Armenian monks.)

The Coptic versions are divided. The earliest manuscript of Mark in the Sahidic

version (which is the earliest Coptic translation), from c. 425, ends the text

of Mark at the end of 16:8. The next layer in the Sahidic tradition has both the

Shorter Ending and 16:9-20. Then 16:9-20 appears without the Shorter Ending.

All of the Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark include verses 16:9-20, frequently with

the Shorter Ending between 16:8 and 16:9. Some scholars in the late 1800’s

erroneously stated that two or three Ethiopic manuscripts housed at the British

Museum do not contain 16:9-20, and this claim was frequently repeated in the

1900’s. In 1972 Bruce Metzger discovered that this claim is incorrect; in 1980,

after more research, he noted that out of 194 Ethiopic manuscripts, 131 contain

both the Shorter Ending and 16:9-20; all the other copies of Mark contain

16:9-20 except for one copy that had been made in the 1700’s and had been

damaged. Unfortunately the false claim that some Ethiopic copies lack Mark

16:9-20 continues to circulate in commentaries today, even in the fourth edition

(2005) of Metzger’s own handbook The Text of the New Testament. Recently

the production-date of the oldest Ethiopic copy of the Gospels, the Garima

Gospels (which contains 16:9-20 after 16:8, without the Shorter Ending), was

determined by carbon-dating to be no later than the mid-600’s.

For any manuscript of Mark, the less it is connected with the early Alexandrian

channel of textual transmission and the Caesarean channel related to it, the more

strongly it supports Mark 16:9-20. The same thing is true of patristic testimony

and versions. This suggests that the loss of these twelve verses occurred either in,

or en route to, Alexandria, perhaps in the mid-second century. How could such a

loss have occurred? We will answer that question in Part Three, after addressing

a few questions about some other pieces of evidence.

Shorter Ending and notes between 16:8 and 16:9

A scrawled note identifies 16:9 as the beginning

of the reading for a feast-day.

interlinear rubric between Mk. 16:8 and 16:9,
“Aristou eritzou.” The text continues on the next
two pages, concluding at the end of 16:20.

(Part Three)

manuscript, one Syriac manuscript, and an early stratum of the Armenian version do not contain

Mark 16:9-20, let’s briefly diverge to consider some pieces of evidence which commentators

have described in ways which might have given readers false impressions:

(1) The Old Georgian version: the two oldest Old Georgian manuscripts of Mark 16 do not

include Mark 16:9-20. However, when placing that evidence on the scales, we should consider

that these two copies are not particularly old; they are from 897 and 913. Several Old Georgian

copies that are only slightly younger include verses 9-20. More importantly, since the Old

Georgian version was translated from an early Armenian text, this Old Georgian evidence

should not be treated as if it is independent of its Armenian ancestor-text.

(2) About a dozen manuscripts, especially members of the Caesarean group called family-1,

contain scribal notes and marks before verse 9; Metzger vaguely described these as “Not a

few manuscripts.” He also stated that the notes say that “older Greek copies lack” Mk.

16:9-20, and that the marks they contain were used “to indicate a spurious addition to a

document.” However, the notes take the following forms: (A) In MSS 20, 215, and 300:

“From here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. In the ancient copies,

however, it all forms part of the text.” (B) In MSS 1, 205, 205abs, 209, and 1582: “In some

of the copies, the evangelist’s work is finished here, as is also Eusebius Pamphili’s canonization.

But in many, this also appears.” (C) In 15, 22, 1110, 1192, and 1210 : “In some of the copies,

the evangelist’s work is finished here. But in many, this also appears.” (D) In one manuscript,

Codex 199, “In some of the copies this does not appear; it stops here.”

Forms B and C are related; sometime/somewhere after the Eusebian

Canons were adjusted to include Mark 16:9-20 the phrase about the

Eusebian Canons in Form B was omitted, resulting in Form C. So: we are

dealing with a smattering of medieval manuscripts. We are not dealing with

a dozen independent copyists, but with four annotations which were copied

along with the text, two of which are obviously related. Form A, while

mentioning that some copies lack Mk. 16:9-20, affirms that the ancient

copies include the passage – hardly the impression one gets from Metzger’s

claim that the notes state “that the older Greek copies lack it.” And on

balance, Forms B and C vindicate rather than indict the passage, stating that

while “some” copies lack the passage, “many” include it. Regarding the

claim that some copies contain an asterisk or obelus to indicate that the

passage is spurious: this claim is difficult to verify. Some annotated MSS

have asterisks to draw attention to an annotation, and some MSS have

liturgical marks to signal the beginning of a new lection. The claim that any

unannotated MSS contain doubt-indicating asterisks at Mk. 16:9-20 is yet to

be proven.

(3) Three medieval manuscripts – 1420, 2386, and 304 – are sometimes enlisted as

evidence against Mk. 16:9-20. However, 1420 is missing Mk. 16:9-20 only

because it is missing the pages upon which they were written. In MS 2386,

someone removed the page that contained Mk. 16:9-20 in order to steal the

valuable illustration that occupied the other side of the page. As for 304, it is a

copy of Matthew and Mark accompanied by a commentary interspersed with the

text. Its text of Mark ends abruptly at the end of 16:8, but the commentary-

material also ends abruptly, and there is no closing-title after 16:8. MS 304’s

text-type is Byzantine. Hort noted that its annotations “are almost identical with

those that are attributed to Theophylact [an author/compiler of the 1100’s], which

certainly cover vv. 9-20.” All things considered, 304 is not a clear witness to the

abrupt ending; it may have initially been a complete Gospels-manuscript which

was rebound into two volumes for easier use; if the last bit of Mark was on the

same pages as the beginning of Luke, the text of Mark would resume at the

beginning of the second volume, now lost.

(4) The Greek text of Mark 16:8 ends with the word “gar.” It has been

claimed that this is not exceptional, because other books have been found

which also end with the word “gar.” However, one of those other “books”

is a speech, in which the speaker (Protagoras of Abdera) adds a parenthetical

qualification before concluding. Another one is a portion of a composition by

Plotinus (Enneads 32:5, c. 250) which was edited and arranged into chapters

by his assistant Porphyry. These are not narratives. They show that it was

grammatically acceptable to end a sentence with “gar” but that does not make

it stylistically probable that Mark, or anyone else, would deliberately end a

narrative with “gar.”

Now let’s return to the question about the abrupt text in the Alexandrian

transmission-stream.

HOW WAS MARK 16:9-20 LOST IN THE EARLY ALEXANDRIAN TEXT?

Although the support for Mark 16:9-20 is early and widespread, there is a

concentration of support for the non-inclusion of the passage in

representatives of the early Alexandrian text and in representatives of the

Caesarean Text influenced by the Alexandrian Text: the Sahidic version,

non-extant manuscripts mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea, Codices

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and non-extant ancestor-manuscripts of some of the

witnesses that contain the Shorter Ending. There are three ways in which the

passage could have been lost: by accidental damage to an exemplar, by an

accidental misreading, or by deliberate removal. Let’s explore each possibility.

(1) ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE. Damage could easily occur to the text at the

end of a scroll that was not rewound after reading. Similarly, in book-form, the

last page would be vulnerable to accidental loss, especially if the book was made

of cheap papyrus. Some manuscripts of the Gospels arrange the books in the

order Matthew-John-Luke-Mark, so even after the Gospel of Mark was collected

with the others, its last page would be especially susceptible to accidental damage.

If a copy that had been damaged in such a way had thus lost its final portion, on

which Mk. 16:9-20 had been written, and that copy was the lone exemplar in an

isolated locale in Egypt, this could explain why the abruptly-ending text had a

temporary popularity in Egypt. By the time undamaged copies of Mark arrived,

Egyptian copyists who were used to the abrupt declined to include the new ending,

perhaps in some cases because the Shorter Ending had already been devised to

bring the text to an acceptable close.

(2) ACCIDENTAL MISREADING. The eleven Heothina-readings are an

especially early liturgical series. Liturgical notes about the Heothina-readings

could elicit the loss of Mark 16:9-20 under some unusual circumstances: if an

inexperienced copyist used a lector’s copy of Matthew and Mark as his

exemplar and had no one to help him interpret its liturgical symbols and rubrics

(a situation which may have arisen when church-leaders were martyred, as

occurred in Alexandria in the early 200’s), then he may have found, at the end of

the Gospel of Matthew, a liturgical note that meant “End of the first Gospel-

reading.” Although this note had been intended to refer to the end of the first

Heothina-reading, the novice copyist would misinterpret it as if it referred to the

end of the Gospel itself. Later, when he reached the end of Mark 16:8 and

found a liturgical note that meant “End of the second Gospel-reading,” he would

misinterpret it to mean that the second Gospel ought to end there. So he would

add the closing-title at that point. What would he do with verses 9-20? We might

wish that he would realize his mistake, but two other possibilities are that he would

assume that the passage constituted another, shorter composition, or that it was

a stray portion of text from the third Gospel, inasmuch as it concluded with a liturgical

note, “End of the third Gospel-reading.” Thus the manuscript of Matthew and Mark

that he produced would end at the end of Mark 16:8.

(3) DELIBERATE REMOVAL. This theory is built on a special premise about the production of the Gospel of Mark. We have
been considering the external evidence, but internal evidence is also extremely important. Metzger, along with the many
commentators who have relied upon his statements, stated that “The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan.” This
claim about vocabulary is questionable, because while 16:9-20 contains 17 words not used elsewhere by Mark, Dr. Bruce Terry
has discovered that another 12-verse section of Mark (15:40-16:4) contains 20 words not used elsewhere by Mark. Some stylistic
features suggest that 16:9-20 was not written to continue the narrative that otherwise stops at the end of verse 8. Although the
three women appear to depart the tomb together in v. 8, Mary Magdalene is suddenly pictured by herself. Although Mary
Magdalene was introduced in 15:40, she is described in v. 9 in a way that is consistent with a first-time introduction. Although
Jesus, in 14:28, and the angel at the tomb in 16:7, tell about a future reunion with the disciples in Galilee, the scenes throughout
16:9-20 appear to take place in or near Jerusalem.

If we interpret this internal evidence to mean that 16:9-20 was not attached by Mark, would that make the passage spurious? No.
The premise that a single book must have a single author has never been the standard by which the canonical shape of a Biblical
text has been determined. The book of Psalms, and the book of Proverbs, are both composite works of several authors. Jeremiah
51:64 exlicitly states that Jeremiah’s words end there, but chapter 52 is nevertheless part of the canonical text. Other examples of
this principle could be supplied. The original text of a book is not established by determining which parts were written by its
primary author; the original text is the contents of the book when its production-stage ended and its transmission-stage began. If
Mark 16:9-20 was attached in the production-stage, then it is as original as any other part of the original text.

It is not difficult to picture the following scenario: in the mid-60’s in Rome, shortly after the death of Peter, Mark was forced by
persecutors to suddenly flee the city and escape. (Traditions state that Mark went from Rome to Alexandria, where he was later
martyred.) He left behind the unfinished text of the Gospel of Mark. His Roman colleagues, unwilling to release it in its
unfinished form (16:8 ends virtually mid-sentence, an unheard-of feature as the last sentence of a narrative text), but equally
unwilling to add their own words to those of Peter’s assistant, chose a third option: they attached a short composition about Jesus’
post-resurrection appearances that Mark had written at an earlier time — a composition which we know as verses 9-20. Then, and
only then, the text’s production-stage ended and it began to be disseminated for church-use. Sometime later, an overly meticulous
copyist removed these added verses — perhaps having encountered them in their earlier form as a freestanding document — on the
grounds that they were not added by the primary author. (An effect of such an overly meticulous mindset is displayed in Codex
Sinaiticus at the end of John; the copyist initially rejected John 21:25, regarding it as secondary, but then reconsidered and
retained the verse.)

There may be more to the story, although this additional hypothesis is not a key part of the basic theory: possibly, shortly after
Mark’s departure from Rome, an early copy of Mark 1:1-16:20 was taken to Ephesus by someone who regarded the addition of
verses 9-20 as a temporary measure; this individual went to ask John to write a more authoritative ending. If John complied with
this request, producing a short text that resembled John 20:1-19, this would explain why John 21:1 introduces a new scene after
the Gospel of John is brought to a close at the end of chapter 20. It would also explain why John 21:1-19 forms an appropriate
ending to Mark 1:1-16:8, telling how Jesus met the disciples in Galilee and restored Peter, just as foreshadowed in Mark 14:28
and 16:7. Then when it became clear that Roman copies of the Gospel of Mark would continue to contain 16:9-20, a decision was
made to recast John’s ending to Mark’s account, and it became part of an extra chapter of the Gospel of John. But some
individuals, aware of the original reason why John had written the extra material, continued to regard it as a better ending to the
Gospel of Mark than 16:9-20, so, regarding 16:9-20 as superfluous, when they collected together the four Gospels in the early
100’s, they decided not to include Mark 16:9-20, preferring instead John 21 as the proper conclusion to Mark’s account. Without
the understanding that John 21 should be read after Mark 16:8, such a form of the Gospels-text would tend to invite an addition
after 16:8; this happened in Egypt, where the Shorter Ending was composed to round off the otherwise abrupt ending. From Egypt,
the abruptly-ending form spread to Caesarea, and later, from Caesarea to Armenia. Everywhere else, though, the original Roman
form of the Gospel of Mark was accepted, including 16:9-20.

I consider possibility #3 the most likely explanation for the abrupt Egyptian form of Mark: an overly meticulous copyist declined
to include it because of a strong suspicion, or awareness, that it had not been added personally by Mark.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

In 1881, Hort observed that the contents of Mark 16:9-20 “are not such as could have been invented by any scribe or editor of the
Gospel in his desire to supply the observed defect by as substantial and dignified ending.” Hort proposed that Mark 16:9-20 was
added by someone who, “unwilling to change the words of the text before him or to add words of his own, was willing to furnish the
Gospel with what seemed a worthy conclusion by incorporating with it unchanged a narrative of Christ’s appearances after the
Resurrection which he found in some secondary record.” Metzger similarly stated, “It is unlikely that the long ending was
composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document.” In other
words, these 12 verses were not composed to complete Mark’s Gospel; they were attached to do so. This explains the lack of a
transition between v. 8 and v. 9, and the re-statement of the time, the re-introduction of Mary Magdalene, and the non-appearance
of her companions in v. 9. It also explains why, although a post-resurrection appearance in Galilee is forecast in 16:7, verses 9-20
describe post-resurrection appearances in and around Jerusalem. The question is, did the attachment of verses 9-20 occur during
the production-stage of the Gospel of Mark, or later, in the second century?

A second-century origin of Mark 16:9-20 seems less probable than an earlier one. Although several commentators have proposed
that Mark 16:9-20 is a patchwork based on parallel-passages in the other Gospels, a careful comparison to the parallel-passages
indicates that the author was unaware of the other Gospel-accounts. Some verbal similarities are inevitable because the authors
report some of the same events. But no one who relied upon Matthew 28 (in which the eleven disciples follow the women’s
instructions to go to Galilee) would assert that the disciples did not believe the women. No one who relied upon Luke 24 (in which
no post-resurrection encounter between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is mentioned) would state that Mary Magdalene had seen
Jesus after His resurrection; no one familiar with the scene in Luke 24:33-43 (in which Jesus appears to the disciples as the two
travelers are speaking) would arbitrarily split it into two scenes, stating instead that the eleven disciples initially did not believe the
two travelers, and that Jesus appeared to them later. And no one who relied upon John 21 would decline to use its highly
appropriate contents.

In addition, several details in Mark 16:9-20 have no basis in the parallel accounts about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances:
only in Mk. 16:9 are the disciples depicted mourning and weeping. Only in Mk. 16:9 is it stated that Mary Magdalene was not
believed when she reported that she had seen Jesus. Only in 16:14 does Jesus rebuke the entire group of eleven disciples
because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. Only in 16:17-18 does Jesus predict that His followers
will be accompanied by specific signs such as taking up serpents and being invulnerable to poison. And only in 16:20 do the
disciples depart to preach after Christ’s ascension. None of this suggests that the text was written by a second-century copyist
who relied upon Matthew, Luke, and John. Instead, it all supports the theory that verses 9-20 were written independently as a
summary of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, before being attached to finish the text of the Gospel of Mark.

Some interpreters who favor 16:8 as the original ending (very few of whom have described the external evidence accurately) have
attempted to see it as a deliberate “suspended ending,” supposing that Mark thus invited the reader to be challenged by the
sudden stoppage of the narrative. However, these interpreters have not convinced one another about exactly what it is that
readers were supposed to be challenged to do; on this point they wildly disagree. Nor have they plausibly explained why Mark, as
preserver of Peter’s recollections about Jesus, would intentionally end his narrative at a point when Jesus’ own prophecy in 14:28
is unfulfilled, and the disciples were last seen fleeing in Gethsemane, and Peter was last seen weeping about his triple-denial of
Jesus, and the women who visited the tomb were failing to deliver the angel’s message to the disciples — even though Mark knew
that Jesus met the disciples in Galilee, and that Peter was restored to service, and that the women delivered the angel’s message.
A more realistic interpretation is that 16:8 looks like an unintentionally unfinished sentence because that is what it is: the last
words written by Mark before he was forced by an emergency to suddenly stop writing and leave Rome. Mark’s colleagues
respected Mark’s message too much to leave it unfinished, and they respected Mark’s words too much to add to them except by
adding words from a text which Mark had either written or which he and/or Peter had approved.

One more thing should be said before some brief concluding thoughts. Some commentators appeal to the Gospel of Matthew and
the Gospel of Luke as the earliest evidence that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at 16:8, on the grounds that the narratives in
Mt. 28 and Lk. 24 run parallel up to the point where the narrative ends in Mark 16:8 but diverge from that point on. The idea is
that Matthew and Luke both used, as a source, a form of Mark that ended at 16:8. There are some problems with this proposal.
One is that it constructs a lose-lose scenario for Mark 16:9-20. If sustained parallels existed between Mt. 28 and Mk. 16:9-20, or
between Lk. 24 and Mk. 16:9-20, this could/would be employed as evidence that the author of Mk. 16:9-20 borrowed material from
Mt. 28 or Lk. 24. Another problem is that Luke did not use Mk. 6:45-8:26, 10:1-10, 14:28, or 15:44-45. If this means that these
verses were unknown to him, then so much for the premise that Luke used the text known as the Gospel of Mark.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Although a scholarly consensus has developed in favor of the view that Mark 16:9-20

is not part of the original text of Mark, no scholarly consensus can be considered valid

if its advocates have used false statements as stepping-stones toward their conclusions.

Widespread errors about Mark 16:9-20 in popular and influential commentaries indicate

that this is the case. [A few examples: the passage is falsely said to be lacking in most

lectionaries (James A. Brooks). It is said to be missing from MS 274 (A. T. Robinson).

It is claimed to be absent from “many of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts”

(Norman Geisler). Codex W is said to contain “a different ending entirely” (Robert

Grant). It is said to be absent from “very many Greek manuscripts of the Gospel”

(Wilfrid Harrington). It is said to be absent from Codex Alexandrinus (Ron Rhodes).

It is said that Mark ends at 16:8 “in many ancient Greek manuscripts” (Lawrence O.

Richards). It is claimed that “Eusebius and Jerome both tell us these verses were absent

from all Greek copies known to them” (Ben Witherington III; NIV-translator Ralph

Martin made the same claim).]

Evidence from Bible-footnotes also indicates this. Most Bible-footnotes about the passage

are deceptively vague, such as the one in the New American Standard Bible Update which

states, “Late mss add vv. 16:9-20.” Some of them are false. A footnote in The Jerusalem

Bible states that “Many MSS omit vv. 9-20.” A footnote in The Message states that

Mk. 16:9-20 “is contained only in later manuscripts.” A footnote in the English Standard

Version states that “A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14.” These

notes need to be withdraw and improved.

In conclusion: without fully resolving the question about the authorship of Mark 16:9-20

(except to note that the internal evidence is not sufficient to disprove the idea that Mark

composed the passage as a separate document), I believe that the external and internal

evidence support the view that Mark 16:9-20 was in the Gospel of Mark in the form in

which it was first transmitted for church-use. The passage is more likely to have been

attached in the production-stage than at a later stage. It was accepted as Scripture every-

where except in Egypt, probably after an overly meticulous copyist declined to include it

on the grounds that it had not been added personally by Mark. Mark 16:9-20 deserves its

status as part of the canonical text. It should be fully included in all translations of the

New Testament.

THE END

produced in the late 700’s, displays

(with minor variations) the text of the

Vulgate which Jerome compiled in 383.

The list of chapter-titles in the book of Kells
echoes an Old Latin text, which

also included Mk. 16:9-20.