The Ending to Mark’s Gospel
The so called “Longer Ending” of Mark’s Gospel (16:9-20) is included in some early manuscripts, but not in all, and is missing from a few of the most completed manuscripts. The fourth century church fathers, such as Eusebius and Jerome, were aware of the different traditions. In the century earlier, Clement and Origen of Alexandria, did not make reference to them, yet they were known by Irenaeus in the West.1 This longer ending is in over ten manuscripts from those first few centuries, but there scribal notation is present indicating doubt as to their authenticity.2
Aside from the presence or absence of the text in those earliest manuscripts, scholars have two additional clues to consult: first, the external evidence of whether the text was referenced by the most immediate church fathers; second, the internal evidence of any abrupt shifts or incoherence with the surrounding context. Verses 9-11 especially seem to many as a later addition. There was already a narrative of multiple women going to the tomb following the resurrection (vv. 1-8), and now Mary Magdalene seems signalled out, and the verse makes it seem as if the same narrative is being revisited.
There is also a “Shorter Ending” aside from the main tradition ending simply at verse 8. This is in four manuscripts dated from the seventh through ninth centuries.3 In this ending “the last six words of v. 8” are omitted and thirty-four additional words speak of “how the women took the news to the disciples and how Jesus sent out by them to all the world ‘the holy and immortal proclamation of eternal salvation.’”4 That last phraseology, together with nine other words that are “not found elsewhere in Mark”5 constitute the case against this ending based on style. Two seventh century manuscripts even take all of the Shorter and part of the Longer together. If we add the words of the Longer Ending, the number of words that are nowhere else in Mark rises to eighteen.
As to speculations about where the Longer Ending came from, the most plausible theory seems to be that by the second century someone (or group) found the sudden ending to the Gospel at verse 8 to be too unlike the rest of the Gospels, or open to a false interpretation. As R. C. Sproul points out in his commentary, “That terse conclusion would leave out information about the disciples’ encounters with the risen Christ and about his ascension.”6 As to its universal reception in our modern English Bibles, Stein notes that, “Because the longer ending was found in all the Greek MSS available to Erasmus, he included it in his Greek text of the NT known as the Textus Receptus.”7 Hence the inclusion of the Longer Ending in the original King James translation of 1611, which relied heavily on the work of Erasmus.
If one comes to the conclusion that this is not part of the inspired canon, should they not preach on it?
Some would say we should never preach on it. Many conservative Evangelical preachers would not take that route, but instead alert the congregation to the issues and treat each idea contained in it from “whole Bible” perspective, but not to derive doctrine from it. The problem with skipping it is that it creates an “elephant in the room” scenario, where people know it's there but now they also know they have a pastor who is afraid to address it. The fact that it is in brackets in our study Bibles, complete with notes about the text-critical issues tells us much about the integrity of the Christian religion as well as the openness of the study of textual criticism.
________________
1. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 685, 686.
2. Robert H. Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 727.
3. Stein, Mark, 727.
4. France, The Gospel of Mark, 685.
5. Stein, Mark, 727.
6. R. C. Sproul, Mark (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2011), 419.
7. Stein, Mark, 727.
