The Gospel of Mark features five distinct conclusions, which are as follows:

Ending at 16:8 – In this conclusion, the women flee from the tomb in terror and amazement, not telling anyone about the empty tomb because they are afraid. This ending is supported by various ancient manuscripts and sources, such as א B 304 and several Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts.—(א B 304 syr cop (l MS) arm geo (2 MSS) Hesychius Eusebian canons
MSS^{according to Eusebius} MSS^{according to Jerome} MSS^{according to Severus})

1. Shorter Ending – This version briefly states that the disciples relayed the message they received at the tomb to Peter and others. Afterward, Jesus sent them out to proclaim the eternal salvation to the whole world. The shorter ending is found in some Old Latin manuscripts.—it^k
2. Traditional Longer Ending (Mark 16:9–20) – This ending is the most familiar and widely accepted conclusion to the Gospel of Mark. It narrates various post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, His ascension, and the commissioning of the disciples to spread the Gospel. This ending is supported by a vast number of manuscripts, including A C D Δ Θ, as well as early church fathers like Irenaeus, Ambrose, and Augustine.—(A C D Δ Θ f 33 Maj MSS^{according to Eusebius} MSS^{according to Jerome} MSS^{according to Severus} Irenaeus Apostolic Constitutions (Epiphanius) Severian Nestorius Ambrose Augustine
   all)
3. Traditional Longer Ending with an Addition after 16:14 – This ending includes an extra passage, in which the disciples express their concerns about the world being under the influence of Satan. Jesus responds by assuring them that Satan’s power is coming to an end, and He was handed over to death to redeem humanity from sin. This addition is found in the manuscript Codex Washingtonianus (W).—W (MSS^{according to Jerome})
4. Both Shorter Ending and Traditional Longer Ending – Some manuscripts, like L Ψ 083 099, contain both the shorter ending and the traditional longer ending.—(L Ψ 083 099 274^mg 579 syr cop^,bomss)

Each of these endings has its unique characteristics and is supported by various ancient manuscripts and sources. The diverse conclusions of Mark’s Gospel have been a subject of scholarly debate and analysis for centuries.

The fourth edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (UBS4) underwent significant revisions in its citations of patristic witnesses compared to the third edition. This has led to a fascinating conundrum for scholars studying the text of Mark’s gospel: Which of the five known endings did Mark originally write? Alternatively, has the authentic ending been lost, leaving none of the current endings as the original?

The textual evidence supporting the first reading, which concludes at verse 8, is the strongest. Early extant manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B), along with early translations in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian, all attest to this reading. Additionally, several church fathers, including Clement, Origen, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem, display no awareness of verses beyond 16:8. Eusebius stated that accurate copies of Mark ended with verse 8, adding that verses 16:9-20 were absent from almost all manuscripts. Jerome also confirmed that the majority of Greek codices lacked verses 16:9-20.

Several minuscule manuscripts containing verses 16:9-20 have marginal notes indicating that more ancient manuscripts do not include this section. Other manuscripts mark the longer reading with obeli, symbols that denote questionable authenticity. Thus, the textual evidence demonstrates that many ancient copies of Mark’s gospel concluded at verse 8. However, this ending seemed too abrupt for many readers, prompting the addition of various endings.

One short ending was appended to smooth the transition from verse 8 and to suggest that the women followed the angels’ instructions, relaying the news to Peter and the disciples. However, to incorporate this addition, the phrase “and said nothing to no one” must be removed from verse 8, which is precisely what happened in the Old Latin manuscript itk.

The longer, traditional ending of verses 16:9-20 is perhaps the most well-known. The earliest evidence for this ending comes from Irenaeus, with other patristic witnesses appearing from the fourth century onwards. This ending likely circulated in the third century, gaining popularity after the fourth century and eventually being accepted as canonical by the Council of Trent.

However, the longer ending does not stylistically align with verses 16:1-8. Objective readers will notice differences in style, tone, and vocabulary in verses 16:9-20. For example, the Greek verb αναστας (“having risen”) used in 16:9 is an active aorist participle, whereas the passive form is typically used in other gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. Additionally, the longer ending lacks narrative continuity, as evidenced by the disconnection between verses 8 and 9.

Codex Washingtonianus (W) contains an even longer ending, with an addition after 16:14. This longer ending, known as the Freer Logion, expands upon the account provided by Jerome. The disciples, blaming Satan for their unbelief, request Jesus to reveal his righteousness. In response, Jesus declares that Satan’s time has already ended, but a period of “terrible things” must precede his righteous kingdom’s revelation.

Some manuscripts, such as Codex Regius (L) and Codex Athous Lavrensis (Ψ), include both the shorter and traditional longer readings. Some ancient versions also contain both endings. This combination is likely the result of scribal uncertainty, a phenomenon reflected in modern English translations that include both endings in the text.

Considering the available evidence, scholarly consensus agrees that Mark did not author any of the endings (2–5 above); these were written by others. Farmer’s (1974) defense of Mark 16:9–20 as an original part of Mark’s gospel, later removed by Alexandrian scribes, fails to persuade. He contends that these scribes took issue with references to handling snakes and drinking poison, leading them to delete the passage. If this were the case, only those specific verses would have been removed, not the entire passage. No compelling arguments have been made for the originality of any of the various additions. It seems that readers, uncomfortable with the abrupt ending of Mark, completed the Gospel with different additions. Aland (1969, 157–180) suggests that the shorter and longer endings were independently composed in distinct geographical areas, likely circulating in the second century. Metzger (1992, 297) points out that the longer ending’s vocabulary indicates it was likely written at the end of the first century or in the middle of the second century.

The creation of the shorter ending has already been discussed. The longer ending was either crafted anew or taken verbatim from another source to fill a perceived gap in Mark’s text. This author provided an extended conclusion drawn from various sources, including other gospels and Acts, while incorporating their own theological nuances. The longer ending’s popularity can be attributed to its collage of events found in other gospels and the book of Acts.

Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene (16:9) was adapted from John 20:11–17, and her report to the disciples (16:10) was taken from Luke 24:10 and John 20:18. However, the author of the longer ending relates Jesus’ appearance to Mary differently than in John, where her report comes after seeing the empty tomb. This account contradicts the authentic gospels and should be disregarded.

The longer ending also includes Jesus’ appearance to two disciples walking from Jerusalem into the country (16:12), taken from Luke 24:13–35. The report of further unbelief (16:13) was the composer’s interpretation, as Luke does not mention disbelief of the two disciples’ report. Jesus’ first resurrection appearance to the disciples (16:14) was borrowed from Luke 24:36–49, with added emphasis on their unbelief, perhaps adapted from Matt 28:16–20. Jesus’ great commission (16:15–16) is loosely based on Matt 28:19–20, stressing baptism as a prerequisite for salvation. The promise of signs accompanying believers (16:17–18) comes from the record of events in Acts, such as speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4; 10:46) and protection against snakes (Acts 28:3–6). The ascension (16:19) is adapted from Luke 24:50–53, and the final verse (16:20) appears to be a summary of the book of Acts, which seems inappropriately placed in a gospel, indicating its dubious nature.

Though much of the longer ending is derived from other gospels and Acts, the composer places unusual emphasis on the disciples’ unbelief in Christ’s resurrection. In this aspect, they may have been building upon the Markan theme of highlighting the disciples’ unbelief and stubbornness. The longer ending also emphasizes belief and baptism as prerequisites for salvation and a heightened view of signs. Christians should be cautious about using this text for doctrine, as it does not hold the same weight as verifiable New Testament Scripture.

The longer ending of W (also noted by Jerome) was likely a third-century marginal gloss that eventually found its way into the text of some manuscripts prior to the fourth century. This gloss was probably created by a scribe who wanted to provide a reason for the prevalent unbelief in the longer ending. Satan is blamed for the faithlessness, and an appeal is made for Jesus to reveal his righteousness immediately. However, this revelation would be postponed until after a period of terrible events. This interpolation may have been drawn from various sources, including Acts 1:6–7, 3:19–21, and Barnabas 4:9, 15:7. In any case, it is quite evident that Mark did not write it. The style is distinctly non-Markan.

After concluding that Mark did not write any of the endings, we are still left with the question: Did Mark originally conclude his gospel with verse 8 or was an original extended ending lost? There are arguments in favor of both possibilities. Some scholars believe that Mark intentionally ended his gospel at verse 8, while others argue that an original extended ending might have been lost during the early phase of textual transmission.

In defense of the view that Mark originally ended his gospel at verse 8, several arguments can be made, such as: (1) the Gospel ends with an announcement of Christ’s resurrection, which may be sufficient without an actual appearance; (2) Mark may have purposely ended abruptly to engage the readers’ imaginations; (3) the ending may be a culmination of the secrecy motif found throughout the Gospel; and (4) the ending is consistent with the theme of discipleship failure.

However, many readers, having read the other gospels, expect a different conclusion for Mark. These readers have questioned whether it was Mark’s original design to conclude with verse 8. They argue that the pattern in Mark’s Gospel is to fulfill every one of Jesus’ predictions in narrative form, and thus, an actual appearance of the risen Christ to his disciples in Galilee would be expected.

Some readers have suggested that an original extended ending might have been lost early in the textual transmission process—perhaps because it was written on the last leaf of a papyrus codex that was torn away from the rest of the manuscript. However, it seems unusual that this ending would not have survived in any manuscript. If there was such an ending, it must have been lost very soon after the composition of the Gospel.

It is also possible that Mark intended 16:7 to be the concluding verse of the first paragraph of his original last chapter, with 16:8 beginning the next paragraph. The last two words of 16:8, εφοβουντο γαρ (“for they were afraid”), could have been the first two words of a new sentence. If this is the case, Mark’s narrative would have likely continued to relate Jesus’ appearances to the women and the disciples in Jerusalem and Galilee, similar to the pattern found in the other gospels.

With regard to the inclusion of the various endings of Mark in WH NU, it would be more accurate if these editions reflected the evidence of the earliest manuscripts, concluding the Gospel at 16:8 and placing all the endings in the textual apparatus. English translators should do the same: conclude the Gospel at 16:8 and place all the endings in an extended footnote or endnote.

ON MARK END BRUCE M. METZGER WRITES

16:9–20    The Ending(s) of Mark

Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it^k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” All of these witnesses except it^k also continue with verses 9–20.

(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f  28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20 (τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ ὃν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ οἱ ἀπόστολοι αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν).

(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’—thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.’ ”

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, ἁμαρτάνω, ἀπολογέω, ἀληθινός, ὑποστρέφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινός, ὅρος, προσλέγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9–20 are non-Markan (e. g. ἀπιστέω, βλάπτω, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω, θεάομαι, μετὰ ταῦτα, πορεύομαι, συνεργέω, ὕστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανάσιμον and τοῖς μετʼ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9–20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15:47 and 16:1); the other women of verses 1–8 are now forgotten; the use of ἀναστὰς δέ and the position of πρῶτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1–8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1–8 and 9–20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark’s Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9–20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9–20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with a few lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9–20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.

Shorter Ending

For a discussion of the shorter ending, see the section (2) in the comments on verses 9–20 above. The reading Ἰησοῦς is to be preferred to the others, which are natural expansions. It is probable that from the beginning the shorter ending was provided with a concluding ἀμήν, and that its absence from several witnesses (L cop ^ms eth^most eth^mss) is due either to transcriptional oversight or, more probably, to the feeling that ἀμήν is inappropriate when verses 9–20 follow.

Variant Readings Within [Mark] 16.9–20

Since the passage 16:9–20 is lacking in the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make decisions among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the several levels of certainty ({A}, {B}, {C}) are within the framework of the initial decision relating to verses 9 to 20 as a whole.^[1]

^[1] Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 102–106.

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION