What About the Longer Ending of Mark (16:9-20)?
Question 1048
If you open your Bible to the end of Mark’s Gospel, you will likely find a note indicating that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. Some Bibles place these verses in brackets; others include them with a footnote. This raises an obvious question: are these verses part of Scripture or not? Should we preach from them? Can we trust what they say?
The Manuscript Evidence
The textual situation is genuinely complicated. The two oldest complete manuscripts of the New Testament—Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ) and Codex Vaticanus (B), both dating to the 4th century—end Mark’s Gospel at verse 8 with the words “for they were afraid” (ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, ephobounto gar). This is an abrupt ending, finishing with a conjunction (γάρ, “for”), which is grammatically unusual for concluding a book.
However, the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts include verses 9-20, known as the “Longer Ending.” This includes Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), Codex Ephraemi (5th century), and virtually all Byzantine manuscripts. The early church fathers knew of these verses: Irenaeus (c. AD 180) quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, and Justin Martyr (c. AD 160) may allude to verse 20. The verses were clearly circulating by the mid-second century at the latest.
But there are complications. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 325) noted that the longer ending was absent from “almost all” the Greek manuscripts available to him. Jerome (c. AD 400) made similar observations. Some manuscripts include a “Shorter Ending” instead of or in addition to the Longer Ending. One manuscript (Codex Washingtonianus, 5th century) includes an additional insertion between verses 14 and 15, known as the “Freer Logion.” This diversity suggests that early scribes were aware that Mark’s ending was problematic and attempted various solutions.
The Internal Evidence
Beyond manuscript witnesses, scholars have examined the vocabulary and style of verses 9-20. The evidence here is also complex. The passage contains numerous words and phrases not found elsewhere in Mark. For example, the word πορεύομαι (poreuomai, “to go”) appears three times in verses 9-20 but never in Mark 1:1-16:8. The phrase “after he rose” (ἀναστὰς δέ, anastas de) in verse 9 is an unusual construction for Mark. The transition from verse 8 to verse 9 is awkward: verse 8 speaks of the women, but verse 9 suddenly introduces Mary Magdalene as if for the first time, even though she was mentioned in verse 1.
Defenders of the passage’s authenticity point out that vocabulary statistics can be misleading with such a short text, and that Mark may have intentionally varied his style in a concluding section. Some argue that the unusual vocabulary indicates Mark was summarising appearances recorded elsewhere, naturally leading to different terminology.
Did Mark Intend to End at Verse 8?
One of the key questions is whether Mark intended his Gospel to end at verse 8. If so, the longer ending would be a later addition, however early. If not—if Mark intended to write more but was prevented, or if his original ending was lost—then verses 9-20 might represent an attempt to supply what was missing.
Ending at verse 8 is certainly abrupt: “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.” Some scholars argue this abruptness is intentional, fitting Mark’s literary style of leaving readers with questions and inviting them to respond. Mark’s Gospel begins without a genealogy or birth narrative, plunging immediately into the ministry of John the Baptist; perhaps it ends with similar abruptness, challenging readers to move from fear to faith.
Others find this explanation unsatisfying. Would Mark really end without any resurrection appearance, when he has predicted such appearances (Mark 14:28, “after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee”)? Would the first Gospel written really conclude with the women’s failure and fear? It seems plausible that Mark’s original ending was somehow lost—perhaps the final portion of the scroll was damaged—and that the longer ending was added to supply the missing conclusion.
The Theological Content of the Longer Ending
What about the content of verses 9-20? Do they teach anything problematic? Let’s consider the key elements:
Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (vv. 9-11) — This is confirmed by John 20:11-18.
Jesus appears to two disciples walking in the country (vv. 12-13) — This parallels the Emmaus road account in Luke 24:13-35.
Jesus appears to the eleven and rebukes their unbelief (v. 14) — This fits the pattern in Luke 24:36-43 and John 20:19-23.
The Great Commission (vv. 15-16) — “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” This is consistent with Matthew 28:19-20, though the emphasis on baptism is noteworthy. Importantly, the text does not teach baptismal regeneration; it mentions baptism as the normal accompaniment of belief, not as the means of salvation. The condemnation is for unbelief, not for failure to be baptised.
Signs accompanying believers (vv. 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 is perhaps the most debated portion. We do see demon exorcism and tongue-speaking in Acts. Paul was bitten by a viper and suffered no harm (Acts 28:3-6). The sick were healed through the apostles’ hands. These verses describe what did happen in the apostolic church, though they should not be taken as normative commands for all believers to seek out snakes or poison.
The Ascension (v. 19) — “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.” This aligns with Luke 24:50-51 and Acts 1:9-11.
The disciples’ worldwide mission (v. 20) — “And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.” This summarises what we read in Acts.
Nothing in these verses contradicts the rest of Scripture. Every element finds parallel or confirmation elsewhere in the New Testament. Even if these verses were added by someone other than Mark, they accurately summarise the apostolic testimony.
How Should We Treat These Verses?
This is a matter on which genuine believers disagree, and we should hold our conclusions with appropriate humility. Here are some principles:
First, we should be honest about the textual evidence. The earliest manuscripts we have do not contain these verses. This does not mean they are not inspired, but it does mean we should acknowledge the question rather than ignore it.
Second, we should not build unique doctrines on these verses. Any teaching found only in Mark 16:9-20 should be treated with caution. Fortunately, nothing in these verses is without parallel elsewhere in Scripture. The snake-handling practices of some fringe groups misuse this text, treating descriptive signs as prescriptive commands, which is hermeneutically unsound regardless of the textual question.
Third, we can preach and teach from these verses while noting the textual question. The content is theologically sound, and the passage was accepted by the church for many centuries. If it was not written by Mark, it was almost certainly written by someone in the apostolic or sub-apostolic period who accurately summarised the resurrection appearances and Great Commission.
Fourth, the uncertainty should increase our confidence, not diminish it. The fact that modern Bibles honestly note textual variants demonstrates that Scripture has been transmitted carefully and that scholars are committed to giving us the most accurate text possible. We are not hiding problems; we are addressing them openly.
Conclusion
The longer ending of Mark presents a genuine textual puzzle that Christians have wrestled with for centuries. The earliest manuscripts end at verse 8; the majority of later manuscripts include verses 9-20. The content of the longer ending is consistent with the rest of Scripture and was accepted by the early church. Whether Mark wrote these verses, whether his original ending was lost, or whether they were added by a later hand to complete the narrative, we can be confident that they accurately reflect the apostolic witness to Christ’s resurrection, commission, and ascension. We should read them thoughtfully, teach them carefully, and trust that God has preserved His Word for us.
“And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.” Mark 16:20
Bibliography
- Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.
- Wallace, Daniel B. “Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel.” In Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, ed. David Alan Black. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008.
- Lunn, Nicholas P. The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014.
- Kelhoffer, James A. Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.
