Why We’re Not Preaching Mark 16.9-20
Josh Pool
Perhaps your Bible does the same thing mine does. In between Mark 16.8 and 16.9, the publishers include this note: ‘Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16.9-20.’ And then, there are double brackets around v 9-20. What’s up with that?
The basic answer: Mark 16.9-20 is most likely (we might even say, almost certainly) not a part of Mark’s original Gospel. Whether it was intentional[1] or unintentional[2], the most compelling ending of Mark’s Gospel is v 8, with women trembling, silent, and afraid.
But that is an unusual place for a Gospel about Jesus Christ to end—so unusual, in fact, that several, alternate ‘endings’ of Mark starting popping up in the ancient world. Scribes sought to smooth out the seemingly rough-edge finish found in 16.8. I’ll certainly give them that: unlike any other Gospel, Mark takes our breath away with his finale.
The earliest and most widespread[3] of these variant endings is what we have bracketed in our Bibles, v 9-20. Nonetheless, we should not embrace them as original to Mark’s Gospel.
Here’s why:
1. The oldest manuscripts do not contain it and early church fathers question it.[4]
The two earliest manuscripts[5] that contain Mark’s Gospel do not include this ending. And though church fathers like Irenaeus refer to it, others have no knowledge of it (e.g. Clement, Origen). And some who did know about the longer ending note that a majority of the Greek manuscripts they saw did not contain it.[6]
And it’s worth noting that many ancient manuscripts that do include 16.9-20 have scribal notes and markings that regard this ending as counterfeit, or at least, worthy of caution.[7]
Overall, the external evidence argues against 16.9-20’s inclusion in the original text.
2. The language—the vocabulary, even the grammar—don’t fit Mark’s style.
That is, the way 16.9-20 reads and the way Mark writes are incongruent. Consider:
The transition from v 8 to v 9 is very awkward. It’s as if we’re introduced to Mary Magdalene for the first time, but with details we don’t have anywhere else in the Gospel (‘from whom he had cast out seven demons’).
Mark never calls Jesus ‘Lord’ in 1.1-16.8, but now ‘Lord’ is used twice (v 19-20).
There are a notably high amount of new words introduced in a very short amount of space—over 30![8] The word choice and grammar favor the tendencies of Matthew and Luke.
Jesus’s rebuke for the disciples’ disbelief (v 11-14) seems protracted and out of place, considering the restorative implications of 16.7.
The signs of v 17-18 are extreme compared to the reserve Mark typically shows in his Gospel account. These signs seem to be more informed by the events in the Book of Acts than the pen of Mark.
Summary: Both external and internal evidence—textual and literary work—point us away from embracing Mark 16.9-20 as a part of his original. Instead, we should ‘settle’ for 16.8’s ending. But that’s fine, if you ask me. Mark ends right where he wants to: with a surprising, challenging, discipleship-oriented, implicit question, ‘How will you respond to this news about risen Christ?’
Lastly, we may wonder: what does this say about the reliability of the Bible? It strengthens it! To know that every word of the Bible we hold in our hands has been examined, compared, and located within a strong line of manuscripts puts us at ease. Not only can we rest in the truth of the words we read, we can also rest in the legitimacy of their preservation. Bottom line: Just as we can trust God that his Word is true (= the content), so also can we trust him to preserve that Word for us to know, believe, and obey (= the composition).[9]
Sola Scriptura, church family!
[1] Intentional: Mark wanted to end at 16.8. It was purposeful, pastoral, and specific. This is where I personally land. For a good summary of both views, plus a case for 16.8’s intentional ending, see Strauss, Mark, 720-22 (ZECNT; Zondervan 2014).
[2] Unintentional: Mark did not want to end at 16.8. A couple options here: (1) The ending was lost or stolen, and never returned or added back. (2) Something happened to Mark before he could finish: illness, death, persecution, etc. For compelling cases here, see France, The Gospel of Mark, 670-76 (NIGTC; Eerdmans 2002); and Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, 497-504 (PNTC; Eerdmans 2002).
[3] Irenaeus, a second-century church father references this longer ending (170 AD). So, by the 2nd century AD, 16.9-20 had somehow found its way into certain regions of the ancient world. In terms of its reach: Erasmus, a contemporary of Martin Luther, included this ending in his composite Greek NT, 1516. Thus, it became the dominant ending of Mark until the 19th century!
[4] We learn this through a process called ‘textual criticism,’ which is the process by which we find the original words of a Bible passage. If God’s Word is something we trust, we must be willing to carefully engage with this Word—not only weighing its content, but also its composition.
[5] Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus
[6] See Schnabel, Mark, 21 (TNTC 2017).
[7] Edwards, 498.
[8] You might be thinking, What’s the big deal here? How does that help the case? Answer: It’s one thing to add 2 or 3 new words. But it’s another thing to be so different in your language choice that it feels like we have a change in author. Perhaps we do!
[9] For a brief, very accessible, look into the reliability of Scripture, see Greg Gilbert’s Why Trust the Bible? (Crossway 2015). For CBC’s view on the inerrancy of Scripture, see here: https://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf.