Difficult Passages

A Pastoral Reference
All Entries
18 Gospels / Textual Criticism

The 'Long Ending' of Mark (16:9–20)

Mark 16:1–8 vs. 16:9–20

The Difficulty

The two oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of Mark (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both 4th century) end at 16:8, with the women fleeing the tomb in fear: “They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” The familiar “long ending” (16:9–20) — with resurrection appearances, the Great Commission, handling snakes, and drinking poison — appears in later manuscripts and is stylistically different from the rest of Mark. Did Mark intend to end at 16:8? Was the original ending lost? Is the long ending Scripture?

Responses

Mark Intended to End at 16:8

Tradition: Academic / Majority Summary: The abrupt ending is deliberate — it’s Mark’s final narrative act, leaving the reader to complete the story.

Many scholars (N.T. Wright, Joel Marcus, R.T. France, Adela Yarbro Collins) argue that Mark deliberately ended at 16:8. The Greek word gar (“for”) at the end is unusual but not unprecedented as a sentence-ender. The abrupt ending fits Mark’s literary style — his Gospel begins abruptly too (no birth narrative) and is full of unresolved tension, secrecy motifs, and fear. The women’s silence is ironic: the reader knows the story did get told, because they’re reading it. Mark’s ending forces the reader out of the role of spectator and into the role of witness: you must now tell the story the women initially couldn’t.

Strengths

  • Explains the manuscript evidence cleanly
  • Fits Mark’s literary style and secrecy motif
  • The “open ending” is powerful theologically and narratively
  • Increasingly the scholarly consensus

Weaknesses

  • Ending a book on a note of fear and silence with the word “for” is genuinely strange
  • Some argue it’s too strange even for Mark
  • If the ending is intentional, Mark’s theology is darker and more ambiguous than the other Gospels

Further Reading

  • Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16 (Anchor Yale, 2009), on Mark 16:1–8
  • R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC, 2002), excursus on the ending
  • Andrew Lincoln, “The Promise and the Failure: Mark 16:7–8,” JBL 108 (1989): 283–300
  • N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), pp. 617–24

The Original Ending Was Lost

Tradition: Conservative / Moderate Summary: Mark wrote a longer ending that was lost when the original scroll was damaged; 16:9–20 is a later attempt to supply what was missing.

Some scholars (C.E.B. Cranfield, William Lane) argue that Mark would not have ended with frightened, silent women — the Gospel needs resurrection appearances to be complete. The most likely scenario is that the original ending of the scroll was physically damaged or lost before it could be widely copied. The long ending (16:9–20) was composed later (possibly early 2nd century) to fill the gap, drawing on material from Matthew, Luke, and John. Other early attempts also exist (the “shorter ending”). The long ending is valuable but secondary — a summary of resurrection traditions, not Mark’s own composition.

Strengths

  • Explains why the long ending exists and why it reads differently from the rest of Mark
  • “Scroll damage” is a plausible physical explanation
  • Accounts for the early church’s discomfort with 16:8 as an ending

Weaknesses

  • No physical evidence of the lost ending exists
  • The “lost ending” theory is unfalsifiable
  • If Mark’s ending was lost early, it’s strange that none of the other evangelists seem to know it

Further Reading

  • C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge, 1959), on the ending
  • William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT, 1974), excursus
  • Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS, 2nd ed., 1994), on Mark 16 — the standard textual-critical discussion

The Long Ending as Canonical

Tradition: Byzantine / Traditional Summary: Regardless of authorship, 16:9–20 has been received as Scripture by the church for most of its history and carries canonical authority.

The Byzantine text tradition (the basis for the KJV) includes the long ending without question, and it was treated as authoritative throughout the medieval period. The Council of Trent (for Catholics) and widespread Protestant usage accepted it. Some scholars (Maurice Robinson, Wilbur Pickering) defend Markan authorship of the long ending. Even those who acknowledge it as secondary argue that the church’s reception of the text gives it canonical status — the Holy Spirit guided the church in recognizing it as Scripture, regardless of who wrote it. The long ending contains the Great Commission in Mark’s version and is the basis for snake-handling traditions in Appalachian Christianity.

Strengths

  • Honors the church’s long reception of the text
  • The Great Commission passage is theologically important
  • Avoids the disruption of telling congregations that their Bible contains “inauthentic” material

Weaknesses

  • The manuscript evidence is clear: the earliest and best witnesses lack it
  • Stylistic analysis confirms it’s not by Mark
  • The snake-handling and poison-drinking claims (16:17–18) have caused real harm
  • “The church accepted it” is a different argument from “Mark wrote it”

Further Reading

  • Maurice Robinson, “The Long Ending of Mark as Canonical Verity,” in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (B&H Academic, 2008)
  • David Alan Black, ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views (B&H Academic, 2008) — excellent multi-view volume
  • Nicholas Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark (Pickwick, 2014) — defense of Markan authorship
  • For the snake-handling tradition: Ralph Hood and W. Paul Williamson, Them That Believe: The Power and Meaning of the Christian Serpent-Handling Tradition (University of California Press, 2008)