S. Michael Houdmann Supporter Got Questions Ministries

Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Va...

Login or Sign Up to view the rest of this answer.

July 01 2013 • 8 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Jack Gutknecht ABC/DTS graduate, guitar music ministry Baptist church

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

My opinion is no, Mark 16:9-20 should not be in the Bible, but that the ending of the scroll somehow was lost. It kind of leaves you hanging. If it is not included (the disputed verses), then Mark does not include in his ending any appearances of Christ after his resurrection like all the other gospel writers do Matthew, Luke, and John. That is strange, kind of leaving us without hope. That is so not like God.

January 04 2022 • 1 response • Vote Up • Share • Report

John Appelt

Although some manuscripts have a shorter and different ending and it is known this was not the original ending, Mark 16:9-20 should definitely be in the Bible. Here is why. 

Without this ending, the account ends quite abruptly at Mark 16:8, with the disciples in a state of fear. It does not satisfactorily complete the story of Christ who is the focus. Furthermore, in the Greek, verse 8 ends with the word 'gar' which means 'for.' This is allowable at an end of a sentence, but debatable for the end of a book. So, it seems there was something else ending the gospel of Mark. 

John Mark, known as Peter’s interpreter, decided to put down Peter’s remembrances of the Lord and ministry. It is surmised that he did not finish it, perhaps driven from Rome when persecution became severe under Nero. It is said he fled to Alexandria, where he had ministered before, but he was martyred in AD 68. 

James Snapp, Jr., specializing in New Testament textual criticism, suggested that the unfinished work of Mark was still in the hands of Christians in Rome who desired to release it but were hesitant to do so without an ending. According to James Snapp, Jr., they took a passage from Mark’s previous writings and added it, making up what is the current 16:9-20. That explains the different style so that some believed it was a forgery. It also explains why Alexandrian copies omitted it because it was obviously distinct. Although it is older it is still Mark’s writings – a good reason to keep it in. 

There is more evidence that this ending belongs. Wilbur N. Pickering, very much involved with textual criticism, noted it is wrongly rejected even though it is contained in every extant Greek manuscript except three, every extant Syriac manuscript except one, every Latin manuscript except one, and every extant Coptic manuscript except one and every extant Greek Lectionary. He claimed, “We have no such hard evidence for the exclusion.” 

Some scholars believed it to be an authentic passage dated to a very early time. Kurt and Barbara Aland, well-known scholars and textual critics, wrote this assessment: “It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark.” 

James Snapp, Jr. conjectured that someone took the unfinished Gospel of Mark to the apostle John in Ephesus asking him to write an ending especially noting other details of Peter’s life. However, it was not generally accepted and later was edited and placed to the end of the Gospel of John. That is why John 20:31 seems to bring the book to a conclusion and then goes into chapter 21, an account much about Peter, so the book of John ends with two conclusions. 

Mark’s ending is genuine, belonging in the Bible.

January 03 2022 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report