Mark 16:9-20

Intro to the Controversy 

This past week our pastor ended his multi-year series through Mark’s gospel with Mark 16:9-20. When I went to college, that initial sentence would have meant no more to me than a simple statement of fact. However, now that I have a little more historical and theological backing, I understand the theological tension surrounding Mark 16:9-10. 

I’ll share the controversy and then explain some of the perspectives. It is very likely that Mark 16:9-20 was not in fact written by St. Mark, but by a scribe or team of scribes in a later century. 

The ESV (and most other modern translations) include this caption above verse 9, 

“Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20.”

External Evidence: Earliest Manuscripts

While there are certainly earlier portions of biblical manuscripts, these two entire codices are extremely important because they are the earliest entire copies of the New Testament that exist, and they are in remarkable condition! It is these two codices that hurt the credibility of Mark 16’s extended ending, because they do not contain those extra verses.                

The earliest manuscripts that include the longer ending of Mark are the Codex Bezae (~400 AD) and the Codex Alexandrinus (~440 AD).  While that difference does not seem like that long of a time, over 20 years is plenty enough time for records to be confused, lost, or added. There are certainly many partial manuscripts that provide evidence of both ending options, but in this situation, older is more reliable.

Internal Evidence: Language/ Grammar and Confusing Theology

Looking internally at the 11 verses ending Mark 16 also provide some challenges. Textually, the language and grammatical breakdown changes drastically from what is found in the previous 15.5 chapters. 

Other awkward examples are the specific references to Mary Magdalene in 16:9-10 after she was already included in the narrative in Mark 16:1, his title of “Lord Jesus” in 16:19 does not occur anywhere else in the book, and of course the challenging items in 16:18. 

Mark 16:17-18, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

This passage has been a source of much confusion and, frankly, insanity among some churches. Nowhere else in Scripture is someone instructed to prove the veracity of the gospel message by drinking poison or allowing poisonous snakes to bite them. 

Why Would Someone Add to Mark’s Account?

The nefarious answer is that someone may have wanted to deceive and bring discredit to Christianity and it’s adherents. I do not think that is why the longer ending of Mark was created. 

Most likely, one or several scribes did not like the abruptness of Mark’s own ending. 

Mark 16:7-8, [Speaking to the women] “‘But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”

I’ll admit, unless you understand what Mark is doing, it does feel like that can’t possibly be the ending of His divine version of the greatest story ever told! The women running off in fear?! Really?

However, for a brief moment, let’s look at two of the most important claims in Mark’s gospel. One comes from Mark himself and the other comes from perhaps the most unlikely person possible. 

Mark began his gospel, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mk. 1:1) Here Mark shows his hand. He believes that Jesus Christ is in fact the very Son of God, the Savior. However, for the remaining book, he will keep his opinion to himself and allow the readers to decide for themselves. Only one more time does he include such a confession. 

Following Jesus’ final breath on the cross, the Roman Centurion looks up at His lifeless body and confesses “Truly this man was the Son of God!” (Mk. 15:39) Apart from that it is up to us as the readers and observers of the testimony, just like the women at the tomb to decide if we will believe and confess that same truth. Mark leaves his account on a cliffhanger because he wants us to feel the same tension as the women at the empty tomb. 

I don’t think the scribes, who made the decision to include an extended ending –that for the most part corroborates material included in the other gospel accounts– understood Mark’s purpose. They certainly didn’t want to leave any doubt in the readers mind that Jesus did rise, appear to His disciples, and commission them to make disciples. 

Takeaway

So, should you tear those verses out of your Bible and burn them? I wouldn’t. 

I wouldn’t teach those verses as if they were the inspired text and thus deserving of the same respect and obedience as the rest of Mark’s gospel, but I wouldn’t view them as heretical either. I think it is an interesting opportunity to appreciate the extreme care and belief that late first to second century scribes placed on believing and sharing the message that Jesus had risen! They probably initially included it as a supplemental note which was included over the next centuries with the remainder of Mark’s work. I would not encourage someone to build any new doctrine from those verses (i.e., purchasing snakes and letting them bite you, please, if you don’t take anything else from this... don’t play with poisonous snakes!!!!) 

We can rest assured that our English translations contain the inspired Word of God which contains the hope of Jesus Christ for the world! And when it comes to the ending of Mark 16, they also contain a bit extra. 

Return to Blog Feed