Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

Much has been written concerning the last verses of the gospel (chap. 16:9-20), the reason being that they are missing in some of the old Greek manuscripts of the New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). Other manuscripts, again, contain a shorter version. The editors of the scientific edition of the Greek NT (Nestle-Aland) do list verses 9 to 20 but they list the verses in double brackets, which means that they are very old but not considered to be original by the editors. As these verses are contained in most of the Greek manuscripts and old translations there is little doubt that the paragraph predates the manuscripts which omit or question it. The various scientists who do not consider the paragraph as original try to defend this opinion by advancing arguments to do with the style and contents of this passage. In my view, however, these have been contradicted sufficiently in the 19th century, amongst others, by H. Olshausen, J.P. Lange, J.W. Burgon, C.F. Keil and W. Kelly and in more recent times by W.R. Farmer and J. van Bruggen.

The Revisers put most undeservedly a certain stigma on Mark 16:9-20, because ℵ B omit these verses, L with a break adding a miserable compendium, and many cursives giving them with more or less doubt. No good version of antiquity omits. But few fathers on harmonistic grounds talk of the accurate copies ending with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. We need not now discuss the alleged internal reasons against the paragraph. The positive external proofs are really overwhelming; and the internal prove not only that it is inspired scripture, but from none other than Mark himself.

As every one knows, doubt has been cast upon the authenticity of the last twelve verses of this Gospel; and if they are, as Meyer calls them, but an "apocryphal fragment," a waif without parentage known; introduced into Mark we know not how, to mend the ragged end of his mutilated or unfinished work, doubt would naturally be cast on more than its authenticity, and most of all for those who are slow to believe in inspiration moving after this fashion. We need not, however, discuss it here, as the authority for the full text is abundant in both MSS. and Versions. The spiritual relationship of the closing verses to the Gospel as a whole is perfect; and this, if proved, is a better argument of itself in favor of authenticity than all besides that has ever been produced against it.

Thus far (16:8) all are agreed that Mark wrote. Did his Gospel end there? If that be the case, it ended most abruptly; so different from the other Evangelists, whose histories are not in any such manner cut short. The genuineness of what follows (9-20) has been much questioned. Of several manuscripts, the two oldest omit the remainder; on the other hand, by far the greater number have it, though in some few it appears with variations; and versions, of greater antiquity than any manuscript that we possess, have the passage as part of the Gospel of Mark.

Attempts have been made to discredit its genuineness on the ground of words found in this section not elsewhere met with in the Gospel. Against this we would remark, that certain characteristics of Mark's Gospel are found in this portion. First, like other parts of the book, the passage manifests a perfect independence of the other historians, narrating facts not mentioned by them. Second, in common with that which we have remarked from time to time, we find the writer remarks on the feelings of some to whom he refers (ver. 10). And, third, the Lord's address (15-18) is professedly given as He delivered it. We have seen that Mark has elsewhere done that. With these remarks we leave this question as one not suited for further discussion in these pages, belonging, as it does, to the domain of textual criticism. But believing the verses in question are part of inspired Scripture, and as they have always been found at the end of the Gospel of Mark, we shall notice the chief features of this section as belonging to it.

In Matthew's Gospel we have the meeting mentioned (and nowhere else) of the Lord and the Eleven in Galilee on the mountain where He had appointed, and the commission entrusted to them, to make disciples of all the nations. In Luke we meet with incidents of the day of the Lord's resurrection illustrative of grace, which is such a characteristic feature of that Gospel. Here, in Mark, we have prominence given to the unwillingness of the disciples to accredit the testimony of Mary that she had seen the Lord, as well as that of the two who had journeyed that day to Emmaus. That the Lord had appeared to Peter, an apostle, was credited (Luke 24:34). His appearance to the others was not. Of this, these verses are the only clear witness. The state, too, of the disciples when Mary went to them we also here only learn. "They mourned and wept" (ver. 10). This is in perfect character with the behavior of Cleopas and his companion, who, when accosted by One, as they thought a stranger, "stood still, looking sad" (Luke 24:17).

Mark 16:9-20. The question involved here touches the importance of retaining or rejecting a long sentence of eleven verses. Some copies close the gospel with the words "for they were not afraid" (ver. 8), an ending which would strike every person, one would think, as very strange and undignified. Still of course such questions must be decided by the evidence.

What makes this instance a little more embarrasing is that some copies have another ending differing also from the common text, and one copy at least has both endings. Thus, L gives, at the end of verse 8, "And this also is somewhere extant: 'And they briefly announced all that was bidden them to Peter and his company. And after this also Jesus Himself from the east even to the west sent forth through them the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation.' And this also is extant after 'for they were afraid,' and then follow verses 9 to 20 as in the common text.

There can be no doubt that the shorter ending given above may be dismissed as without authority; though it is found in a few copies of minor weight; the only real question is, are verses 9 to 20 to be retained or rejected?

Against the passage are א B (two of the great uncials). In B after verse 8 there is a large blank left (which is quite unusual in this manuscript), as if the passage was in the copy from which B was taken, but was left for further consideration as to whether or not it should be inserted; the passage being marked with an asterisk in some copies. So that B is sometimes claimed for the passage rather than against it. Why was the blank left, if there was nothing to fill it in the copy from which Β was taken? L has already been mentioned as containing two endings. The Old Latin k gives a loose translation of the note in L, which note is also found in some of the versions.

With so much for and so little against, one might well wonder why any one could advocate its expulsion. One reason is that it was doubted by some of the Fathers. The earliest one is Eusebius, who in forming his canons for harmonizing the Gospels (hereafter to be considered) found a difficulty in reconciling the resurrection as given in Matthew 28:1 with that in Mark 16:9. Eusebius says some copies end the gospel at the words "they were not afraid." "At this point, in nearly all the copies of St. Mark's Gospel, the end is circumscribed. What follows, being met with rarely in some, but not in all, would be superfluous, especially if it contained a contradiction to the testimony of the other evangelists. This [any] one would say if he deprecated and would entirely get rid of a superfluous question."

Even Mr. Alford, who certainly does not err on the side of credulity, admits that the authority of the close of Mark is hardly to be doubted. Eusebius and the Vatican MS. omit it, and several others note its absence in certain copies, but generally add that it appears in the oldest and best. All else of the Greek MSS. all the Evangelistaria, all the Versions (except the Roman Edition of the Arabic), and a large proportion of the earliest and most trustworthy Fathers, are allowed to be in its favour. Lachmann, in spite of his notorious tendency to follow the very slips of the most ancient copies, edits the entire section without hesitation.

In his notes Mr. A. urges that the passage is irreconcileable with the other Gospels, and is disconnected with what goes before; that no less than seventeen words and expressions occur in it (some of them repeatedly) which are never elsewhere used by Mark, whose adherence to his own phrases is remarkable, and that consequently the internal evidence is very weighty against his authorship; that is, he believes it to be an authentic addition by another hand.

Even Dean Alford, who certainly does not err on the side of credulity, admits that the authority of the close of Mark is hardly to be doubted. Eusebius, and the Vat. and Sin. MSS., omit it; and several others note its absence in certain copies, but generally add, that it appears in the oldest and best. All else of the Greek MSS., all the Evangelistaria, all the Versions (except the Roman edition of the Arabic), and a large proportion of the earliest and most trustworthy Fathers are allowed to be in its favour. Lachmann, in spite of his notorious tendency to follow the very slips of the most ancient copies, edits the entire section without hesitation.

In his notes the Dean urges that the passage is irreconcilable with the other gospels, and is disconnected with what goes before; and that no less than twenty-one words and expressions occur in it (some of them repeatedly) which are never elsewhere used by Mark, whose adherence to his own phrases is remarkable, and that consequently, the internal evidence is very weighty against his authorship. That is, he believes it to be an authentic addition by another hand.

Mark 16:9-20. — Lachmann, usually presumptuous, did not dare even to bracket a concluding scene worthy of, and inseparable from, the Gospel to which it belongs. … Is the omission of B [as to ℵ see below] and some copies of the Armenian and Arabic vv., with a single Latin manuscript, is the silence of the Eusebian and Ammonian sections, with the marks in L, etc., to overthrow the vast mass of positive testimony? It seems probable that much of this, if not all, may be accounted for by the difficulty found in harmonizing the passage with others (B.T., vol. i., December, 1857). Possibly it may have been added later by the same hand; for certainly the last verse indicates a date considerably later than that which is usually assigned to the publication of this Gospel. Language can be easily imitated in so short a fragment, whereas writers would freely describe new facts with new expressions, while underneath the surface lie, in my opinion, the most indelible traces of connection with the character and aim stamped on this Evangelist by the Holy Spirit. Would this organic link have been kept up had Apostolic men, during Apostolic times, added the general compendium of the events of the resurrection with which the present Gospel concludes? (B.T., vol. vii., p. 256, April, 1869). I admit that there are certain differences between this portion and the previous part of chapter 16. But, in my judgment, the Spirit purposely put them in a different light. Here it is a question of forming the servants according to that rising from the dead for which He had prepared them. Had the Gospel terminated without this, we must have had a real gap. … This wonderful Gospel of His ministry would have left off with as impotent a conclusion as we could possibly imagine … For they were afraid: what conclusion less worthy of the servant Son of God? What must have been the impression left if the doubts of some learned men [see note 168] had the slightest substance in them? Can anyone who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women? [cited in Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," vol. ii., p. 343]. The very freedom of the style, the use of words not elsewhere used, or so used by Mark, and the difficulties of some of the circumstances narrated, tell, to my mind, in favour of its genuineness; for a forger would have adhered to the letter, if he could not so easily catch the spirit of Mark. … I am not aware that in all the second Gospel there is a section more characteristic of this Evangelist that the very one that man's temerity has not feared to seize upon, endeavouring to root it from the soil where God planted it. These words are not of man. Every plant that the heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up. This shall never be rooted up, but abides for ever, let human learning, great or small, say what it will ("Introductory Lectures on the Gospels," p. 233 ff.). The Revisers put, most undeservedly, a certain stigma on chapter 16:9-20, because ℵB omit these verses, L, with a break, adding a miserable compendium (see Nestle's Greek Text "[British and Foreign Bible Society], and Bagster's Workers' New Testament," p. 108), and many cursives giving them with more or less doubt. No good version of antiquity omits. But a few Fathers, on harmonistic grounds, talk of the accurate copies ending with εφοβουντο γαρ. The positive external proofs and the internal prove not only that it is inspired Scripture, but from none other than Mark himself (B.T., vol. xiii., p. 302).

The narrative would close here with apparent abruptness, if indeed we are to accept the view of a large number of authorities who claim that the oldest manuscripts do not have the remainder of chap. 16. This is not the place to enter into the question of manuscript authority in detail; we will only say that there is no sufficient reason to warrant our refusal of what follows. It could easily have been omitted in some of the earlier manuscripts because of the apparent difference between it and what had gone before; but when we see that these remaining verses evidently give us a summary of various appearings of our Lord, and not a continued narrative of what took place after the resurrection, the difficulty is removed.

Verses 9-20 therefore give us a summary of various appearings of our Lord to different persons after His resurrection: First, to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons (vers. 9-11). How beautiful it is that the one who had been so absolutely under the power of Satan should be the first to witness our Lord's triumph over him. She comes to tell the others and they do not believe her. This narrative coincides with that in the Gospel of John.