The Last Verses of Mark

Modern textual criticism often seeks to undermine the authenticity of God’s word. One of the paths to this goal is an attempt to say that certain scriptures do not belong in the Bible. There are some passages that are more difficult to authenticate (i.e. John 7:59-8:11, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7-8), but some of the harshest criticism has been leveled against Mark 16:9-20.

For many years, textual critics have stated that the last verses of Mark do not belong in his gospel. In fact, even some study Bibles go so far as to say that Mark 16:16 can be discounted because it was not originally in the Bible. Although all doctrine found in the last verses of Mark can found in other places, the argument that the verses do not belong is a serious blow to the reliability of the scriptures. This two-part article will examine the internal and external evidence of verses 9-20 to determine if they belong in our Bibles.

As far as attestation of the gospel of Mark, we have three papyrus manuscripts, from the third, fourth, and eighth century, but all of these are fragmentary and none contain the last chapters. There are 31 uncial (all capital letters) manuscripts that contain chapter 16. The oldest of these are codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which date from the fourth century. Four others date from the fifth century, and the rest range from the sixth to the eleventh centuries. Then we have a large number of minuscule (cursive) manuscripts that date from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries. In addition to these Greek manuscripts of Mark’s gospel, we also have witnesses to its text in the ancient versions and in citations from early Christian writers. The gospel of Mark has five different endings in the manuscript tradition. They are, from shortest to longest:

• The ones that end at our 16:8.
• The one that ends with a “shorter ending.”
• Those that contain the “longer ending,” familiar to us as verses 9-20.
• Those that contain both the “shorter ending” and the “longer ending.”
• The expanded version of the “longer reading” found in one manuscript.

Scholars generally dismiss (2) and (5) as being too poorly attested to be probable. The fourth can also be dismissed as being a mixture of (2) and (3). That leaves (1) and (3) as the more probable of the five. The first ending is the “harder” reading. But as it stands, it leaves the gospel of Mark sounding incomplete. It contains no resurrection appearances, as in the other three gospels. If this were the true rendering, it might be easy to see how a scribe might, somewhere along the line, add a more appropriate ending to Mark. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine a scribe cutting out these verses, which include resurrection appearances and the commission to teach the gospel, and leaving it to end with the words, “For they were afraid.” Also, the vocabulary is noticeably different from that of the rest of the gospel of Mark. Additionally, verse 9 strangely refers to “Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had seven devils,” when Mary had already been introduced in verse one.

For these reasons, textual critics today generally reject the “longer ending” as an independent composition. They conclude that these verses were added later, probably to finish what seemed to be an uncompleted book. But is this correct? Let’s review the internal evidence.

The first internal evidence argument involves Mark’s vocabulary. Of the 75 significant words in verses 9-20, Alford showed that 17 do not appear elsewhere in Mark. In other words, the claim is made that more than a third of the words are not normally used by Mark. Textual critics say that this difference in makes it difficult to believe that they both came from the same author. But John Broadus demonstrated that 17 words occur in the twelve preceding verses of Mark that are not found anyplace else in the gospel either! This is a startling exposure of the fragile foundation upon which this critical structure has been erected. Moreover, McGarvey discovered that there are nine words in the last twelve verses of Luke’s gospel that are not elsewhere used in his narrative, yet no textual critic has ever raised a doubt as to their authenticity. John William Burgon wrote:

Nothing I presume can be fairer than to elect that, once more, our attention be chiefly directed to what is contained within the twelve verses (verses 9-20) of Mark’s first chapter which exactly correspond with the twelve verses of his last chapter (verses 9-20) which are the subject of the present volume. Now between these two sections of the gospel, besides (1) the obvious verbal resemblance, I detect (2) a singular parallelism of essential structure. And this does not strike me the less forcibly because nothing of the kind was to have been expected.

Now this, to say the least, shows that there exists an unmistakable relation of sympathy between the first page of Mark’s gospel and the last. The same doctrinal phraseology, the same indications of Divine purpose, the same prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both: (i.) A gospel to be everywhere preached; (ii) Faith to be required of all; (iii) Baptism to be universally administered; (iv) “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” — is not this the theme of the beginning of Mark’s gospel as well as the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the two extremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether the fabric is identical or not, it were discovered that those extremities are even meant to clasp.

Furthermore, the concluding section agrees with all other accounts of the resurrection and, as Lenski argues, with the beginning of Mark’s work. The second internal evidence involves Mark’s style. Five objections have been raised concerning the “awkward” juncture of verses 8 and 9 because: (1) the subject of verse 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject of verse 9; (2) the other women of verses 1-8 are forgotten in verses 9-20; (3) in verse 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned in verse 1; (4) the use of anastas de (“Now risen”) and the position of proton (“first”) do not fit in a continuation of verses 1-8; and, (5) the use of the conjunction gar (“for”) at the end of verse 8 is very abrupt.

With regard to juncture, the transition between verses 8 and 9 does seem awkward. An exact parallel cannot be found elsewhere in Mark; however, the first two features are found together several times in the book (2:13; 6:45; 7:31; 8:1; 14:3). Thus the first two objections are not valid.

The third objection is that Mary Magdalene is identified in verse 9 as “out of whom he had cast seven devils” even though she has been mentioned in verse 1. However, this is not an identifying phrase; it is rather a type of flashback that gives additional information. This occurs four other times in Mark (3:16, 17; 6:16; 7:26). Thus we see that giving additional information is not foreign to Mark. Therefore, the third objection is not valid either.

The fourth objection to the juncture between the two sections of Mark is that the use of anastas de (“Now risen”) and the position of proton (“first”) in verse 9 do not fit in a continuation of verses 1-8. But verse 9 is not a continuation of the section found in verses 1-8; it is the start of a new one. The resurrection of Christ is established by two facts: the empty tomb (vv. 1-8) and His appearances (vv. 9-14). Thus the words are appropriate, because it starts a new section. The fourth objection is not valid either.

Perhaps the most serious objection with regard to juncture is that verse 8 ends with the conjunction gar (“for”), which is very abrupt. The final clause of verse 8 (“for they were afraid”) has only two words in Greek. Since the word gar cannot stand at the beginning of a Greek sentence, it is found at the end. There are no other two word clauses containing gar in Mark, but there are word clauses including three and four words (Mark 1:16, 38; 3:21; 5:42; 9:49; 11:18; 14:70; 15:14; 16:4) that contain gar.

Thus Mark did know how to use gar in short sentences. Although all the stylistic features of this section are not found together elsewhere in Mark, they are found elsewhere in Mark and thus this juncture is indeed his in style. But now let’s turn our attention to the external evidence.

The external evidence comes from three sources: (1) manuscripts; (2) versions; and, (3) the early Christian writers, known as “the Fathers.” Again, John William Burgon writes: It is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is proposed to get rid of twelve verses which for 1,700 years and upwards have formed the conclusion of Mark’s gospel. This assumption that a work which has held to be a complete work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete, of course requires proof. I can only imagine one other thing which could induce us to entertain such an opinion [to brand Mark 16:9-20 as spurious] and that would be the general consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions.

The oldest manuscripts do not contain the last verses of Mark’s gospel. Our two oldest complete copies of Mark, codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which also happen to be our oldest copies of the complete New Testament, end the gospel of Mark at verse 8. But there are also other manuscripts which do not contain vss. 9-20. The twelfth century Greek minuscule 304 does not contain them. The fourth century Old Latin manuscript “k” also does not contain these verses. Instead, it contains the “shorter ending.” Several other manuscripts also include the “shorter ending,” and then proceed to include the “longer ending.” Along with all that, eleven minuscule manuscripts of Mark that do contain the passage, include with it an asterisk, obelisk, or some other indication that the passage is doubtful. But its absence from some copies can be accounted for by considering the many accidents by which the last leaf of a manuscript may be lost.

On the other hand, the passage is found in nearly all of the other ancient manuscripts, including the Alexandrian, which stands next to the Vatican in accuracy. These include all the uncials (numbered at 18) except three (including the fifth century uncial codices Alexandrinus, Ephraemi and Bezae) and virtually all the minuscule copies of Mark (numbered at 600). Furthermore, the abundance of manuscripts which contain the “longer ending” implies the earlier existence of their ancestors. Of all undamaged Greek copies of the gospel of Mark (over 1500), only a relative few can be shown to have not contained Mark 16:9-20 when they were made.

The versions are early translations into different languages based off of Greek manuscripts. They are helpful because they were in existence earlier than the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, and before the time of Jerome. White attempted to use versions as opponents of these verses, but this is fruitless for the versions are excellent witnesses, beginning in the second century. These verses are included in all the versions except two. The following are some examples:

• The Syriac. The oldest is the Syriac in its various forms: the “Peshitto” (cent. 2), and the “Curetonian Syriac” (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek manuscript in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. As also does the “Philoxenian” (cent. 5) and the “Jerusalem” (cent. 5) contain these twelve verses.
• The Latin Versions: Jerome (A.D. 382), who had access to Greek MSS. older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the Vetus Itala, which is believed to belong to cent. 2, and also contains these verses.
• The Gothic Version (A.D. 350) contains all of the verses.
• The Egyptian Versions: the Memphitic (or Lower Egyptian, otherwise known as “Coptic”), belonging to cent. 4 or 5, contains them; as does the “BMC” (or Upper Egyptian, otherwise known as the “Sahidic”), belonging to cent. 3 contains them.
• The Armenian (cent. 5), the Ethiopic (cent. 4-7), and the Georgian (cent. 6) also contains them and attests to the genuineness of these verses.

In determining actual words, the evidence by the early Christian writers, known as “the Fathers,” is more valuable than even the manuscripts or the versions. There are nearly 100 writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600 there are about 200 more, and they all refer to these twelve verses. The following are some examples:

• Papias (about A.D. 100) refers to vs. 15 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. iii. 39).
• Justin Martyr (A.D. 151) quotes vs. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).
• Irenaeus (A.D. 180) remarks on vs. 19 (Adv. hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).
• Hippolytus (A.D. 190-227) quotes vss. 17-19 (Lagarde’s ed., 1858, p.74).
• Vincentius (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage, held under Cyprian.
• The Acta Pilati (cent. 2) quotes vss. 15-18 (Tischendorf’s ed., 1853, pp. 245, 351).
• The Apostolical Constitutions (cent. 3 or 4) quotes vss. 16-18.
• Eusebius (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by Marinus from a lost part of his History.
• Aphraartes (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted vss. 16-18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright’s ed., 1869, i., p.21).
• Ambrose (A.D. 374-397), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vss. 15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and vs. 20 (once).
• Chrysostom (A.D. 400) refers to vs. 9; and states that vss. 19-20 are “the end of the gospel.”
• Jerome (A.D. 331-420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation, besides quoting vss. 9 and 14 in his other writings.
• Augustine (A.D. 395-430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of Mark, and says that they were read in the churches.
• Nestorius (cent. 5) quotes vs. 20, and Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 450) accepts the quotation.
• Victor of Antioch (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Ensehius, by referring to very many MSS., which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.

So there are over a dozen witnesses to the last verses of Mark among the early writers, dating back to the second century. Why did none of these illustrious early writers claim that these verses were spurious? The earliest evidence for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 pre-dates the earliest evidence for its non-inclusion.

Also, the evidence for the early writers’ use of the “longer ending” is spread over a broad geographical area: Justin (Rome), Irenaeus (Gaul), Eusebius (Caesarea), Vincentius (North Africa), and Tatian and Aphraates (Syria). Against this, the ancient Greek evidence for non-inclusion is confined to Egypt (and Caesarea, but this is because the library at Caesarea included Egyptian manuscripts). The implication of this is that copies of Mark containing the “longer ending” were in use in these locations.

It is a fact that these last twelve verses of Mark have more verifying evidences than other parts of Mark. W.R. Farmer wrote, “In fact, external evidence from the second century to Mark 16:9-20 is stronger than for most other parts of that gospel.” Van Bruggen added, “If it still remains uncertain whether Mark 16:9-20 is well attested textually, then very little of any of the rest of the New Testament is well attested.”

Though the evidence for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is overwhelming, it is consistently tossed aside as questionable (at best) by modern textual critics. For example, in a recently published Moody Press commentary on Mark, Louis Barbieri, a former professor at Moody and Dallas Theological Seminary, makes this strange observation: “Since these verses are disputed, it certainly seems that one would not be wise to base any matter of doctrine or experience on a verse that was found only in this section” (p. 372). Perhaps prejudice enters the discussion more often that many would like to admit. For instance, because of the plain teaching of Mark 16:16 regarding baptism, many denominationalists would love for these verses to be removed. By taking the position that these verses were not a part of Mark’s original gospel, they can!

Kyle Campbell