Was Mark 16:9-20 originally part of the Gospel of Mark? |

If you’ve ever read the Gospel of Mark in its entirety, you may have come across an unusual note near the end. For example, between verses 16:8 and 16:9 certain versions add this note: “Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include verses 16:9-20.” While there aren’t many places where an intrusive note about multiple verses would interrupt the text, this information can be alarming.

It is important to know that including a note in this place is not something that has recently developed in the history of the church. Christians have known for centuries that Mark 16:9-20 may not have been part of Mark’s Gospel originally.

A brother in Christ, a monk named Ephraim who lived in the 900s, wrote the following words in a manuscript of the Gospels between Mark 16:8 and 16:9: “In some copies, the evangelist ends here, and even this ( point) also Eusebius Pamphilius made sections of the canon. But in many the following is also contained.

We know of Ephraim because several manuscripts that he wrote are still extant. Some still have his signature. Others we can identify by their handwriting and dexterity. Ephraim was not the original author of these particular words. He often copied notes in the margin that were already in the manuscripts he used, and this note was in one of them. Furthermore, the Ephraim manuscript is not the only copy of Mark to have that note between 16:8 and 16:9. There are at least 11 others in Greek. The note probably predates Ephraim’s, from the tenth century, by a few hundred years.

Ephraim’s approach to Mark’s ending was the same as that of modern translations and editions. The New Testament in Greek Tyndale House he even prints Ephraim’s note as a word of caution that Mark 16:9-20 may not originally be in Mark’s Gospel. In my opinion, this is the best solution.

Allow me to explain.

Evidences in favor of Mark 16:9-20

The evidence for including these verses is overwhelming. When we look at the manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark that have survived to this day, more than 99 percent contain Mark 16:9-20. This includes not only more than 1,600 Greek manuscripts, but also most of the manuscripts with early translations of Mark.

Furthermore, around AD 180, Irenaeus unequivocally quoted Mark 16:19 as Scripture in (3.10.6). Justin Martyr and Tatian probably also knew the verses at the beginning of the second century. It is undeniable that Mark 16:9-20 was considered part of the Gospel of Mark by many early Christians.

In view of all the evidence supporting Mark 16:9-20, why would anyone question its authenticity?

Evidences against Mark 16:9-20

Indeed, only two Greek manuscripts exist that lack Mark 16:9-20. These are the Sinaitic (ℵ01) and Vatican (B03) codices, two important manuscripts from the 4th century. It is almost impossible to imagine that the copyists who produced them did not know of Mark 16:9-20, yet in the end, they left it out of their Bibles.

When we look beyond ℵ01 and B03 to Mark’s more than 1,600 manuscripts, the picture becomes more complicated. At least 23 Greek manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 also have anomalies such as extra endings, or notes expressing doubt about the authenticity of these verses. An important fourth-century Latin manuscript has a brief addition after verse 8, and then ends without verses 9-20. A valuable fourth-century Syriac manuscript also ends Mark at 16:8. A Coptic Sahidic manuscript (probably from the 5th century) also ends at Mark 16:8. In 1937, EC Colwell identified 99 Armenian Mark manuscripts (out of 220 examined) ending in 16:8, and another 33 containing verses 16:9-20 but with notes expressing doubt about their authenticity.

At least 23 Greek manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 also have anomalies such as extra endings, or notes expressing doubt about the authenticity of these verses.

Also, although more than 99 percent of the manuscripts available to us contain Mark 16:9-20, this may not always have been the case. A Christian named Marinus wrote to Eusebius (circa AD 265-339) asking for help in resolving a perceived contradiction between Matthew and Mark. Marino was asking why Matthew 28:1 says that Jesus appeared “late on the Sabbath,” but Mark 16:9 says that Jesus appeared “early on the first day of the week.” Eusebius responded that a possible solution to this problem was simply to reject Mark 16:9 as part of Mark’s Gospel. “The copies that are exact define the end of the story according to Mark … in this way the end of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in almost all copies.”

Think about it. Eusebius told a Christian whose Bible contained Mark 16:9-20 that “almost all copies” of Mark, including “the exact ones,” lacked those verses, so they may not be inspired Scripture. And Eusebio had no problem saying something like that! This was the life of a Christian at a time when inerrant copies of the Scriptures were made by inerrant hands. It was not an empty academic exercise, but a pastoral textual criticism.

Eusebius’s work was repeated by Jerome (about AD 347-419) and also by Severus of Antioch (about AD 465-534). Although Jerome and Severo were clearly following Eusebius’s work, there is nothing in their experience with manuscripts to prevent them from repeating Eusebius’s claims that most (Jerome’s) manuscripts, or at least the most accurate (Jerónimo and Severo), lacked those verses. Apart from Eusebius, Father Hesychius of Jerusalem (5th century), claimed that the “most exact copies” of Mark also ended at 16:8.

The scribes: were they more likely to add or omit these verses?

In the copying process, omissions were more likely than additions, but omissions are often short, often accidental. In addition, there are many conditions for this tendency to add. One is that material could be added when the change involved harmonizing with a parallel passage. In a broad sense, Mark 16:9-20 does just that; it takes the only Gospel that lacks a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus and makes it like the other three.

More than that, we know that, at least once, someone added Mark 16:9-20 to a text that lacked it. The compiler of a commentary from the 500s, attributed to Victor of Antioch, admitted that most of the copies known to him did not contain Mark 16:9-20. However, in his opinion (and contrary to Eusebius), the “more carefully edited” ones contained these verses, and as a result, he added verses 16:9-20 to his Gospel. Here we have a case in which a Christian did not accept the text that he had received. He added something that he thought was missing.

Because Mark 16:9-20 is of an early date, it is present in 99 percent of the manuscripts, and has traditionally been considered canonical, but it is probably not Mark’s.

In short, it is difficult to explain why Mark 16:9-20 came to be deleted. However we find it missing from early manuscripts in multiple languages, and it is absent from most Greek manuscripts according to Eusebius, whose insights were echoed by Jerome. It is much easier to explain why 16:9-20 would be added to the only Gospel that seems to be missing something, which is precisely what the compiler of a sixth century commentary did. Without verses 16:9-20, there is an empty tomb, but where is Jesus? It seems to me that the women who left the grave weren’t the only ones worried about being left on hold.

Trusting God in uncertainty

Since Mark 16:9-20 is undoubtedly of early date, is present in 99 percent of the manuscripts, and has traditionally been considered canonical, I recommend keeping it in the text.

But it’s probably not from Marcos.

Some have suggested that the verses may be apostolic, but not by Mark himself. The best solution in my opinion is Ephraim’s: include the verses, but with a word of caution explaining that they may not be original. That allows us to be honest about early Christian Bibles that ended in Mark 16:8.

With or without Mark 16:9-20, the tomb is empty, Jesus has purchased our forgiveness, and we can be sure of that.

The verses are undoubtedly of early date and have been considered part of Scripture throughout the church since at least the second century. Still, a German monk knocking on the door of Wittenberg in 1517 might remind us that tradition isn’t always correct. The same group of Greek-speaking Christians who accepted Mark 16:9-20 as canonical also accepted Psalm 151 as a canonical part of the psalter, but I don’t know of any Protestants who would suggest we should add it’s to our Bibles.

In his providence, God allowed many Christians to have copies of Mark ending in 16:8. Not many have survived, but as far as we know, they were real bibles used in real churches where Christ was worshipped. If God’s promise to preserve his Word means that he will make all of it available to us, and if that promise extends to Mark 16:9-20, did God fail those believers? Never! Those Christians understood that God has given us the treasure of the gospel from him in clay vessels (2 Cor. 4:7), and part of that stewardship included understanding the divergent copies of Scripture. They trusted that God would give them everything they needed (just as we must) even when the fullness of his purposes remained unseen.

Mark 16:9-20 would not be the only record of Jesus’ bodily resurrection in Scripture, not even the earliest (Paul probably wrote 1 Cor. 15 in the mid-1950s). Luke includes the ascension of Jesus in Luke and Acts. Even snake handlers have nothing to lose if Mark ends at 16:8, because they could still interpret Paul’s encounter with the viper in Acts 28:3 as normative. (Not that they should!)

The uncertainty here makes us uncomfortable, but we lose none of our faith if Mark ends at 16:8, and God often calls us to trust Him in the face of uncertainty. Without faith, after all, it is impossible to please him. Since faith is the certainty of what is expected (Heb. 11:1), and the hope that is seen is not real hope (Rom. 8:24), it would not be walking by faith if God answered all our questions. It would be walk by sight. With or without Mark 16:9-20, the tomb is empty, Jesus has purchased our forgiveness, and we can be sure of this.

Author’s note: There is a third Greek manuscript (after ℵ01 and B03) which is often…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.