•Feed
LESSON 20: Mark 16:9-20
Mark 16:9-20 is called the ‘Longer Ending’. None of the earliest and most reliable NT manuscripts have verses 9-20. It was missing from nearly all of the Greek manuscripts used by Jerome in his Latin translation. Clement and Origen do not reference these verses. The earliest mention comes from Irenaeus and Tatian’s Diatessaron. The evidence seems to indicate that it was not in circulation until the middle 2nd century.
The words, style, and content of verses 9-20 have lead many scholars to conclude that these verses were written by a different author. Nearly 1/3 of the words in the twelve verses were not used in the rest of the Gospel of Mark. Verse 9 abruptly continues the story and then changes the direction. The angel in the tomb tells the women that Jesus will see the disciples in Galilee. However, all the appearances of Jesus in these verses is confined to Jerusalem and the immediate area.
Many scholars believe that a final page of the original manuscript may have been lost since the Gospel does not seem to end very well at verse 8. The manuscript evidence shows that there have been several attempts to ‘finish’ the Gospel besides verses 9-20.
There is also an alternate ending called the ‘Shorter Ending’. The evidence for this ending is even later, starting in the 7th century. Here’s the entire reading:
“But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from the east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
The Shorter Ending is also used as a transition between verse 8 and 9-20 in several manuscripts.
Conclusions: The original ending must have been lost if it didn’t end at verse 8. The earliest manuscripts and the earliest Christian writers do not reference verses 9-20. These verses must be seen as an attempt to finish the Gospel in better form.
16:9-20 The Longer Ending: The Appearances and Ascension of Jesus
Vs. 9-11 The mention of the ’seven demons’ in connection with Mary Magdalene is information that was never given earlier in Mark. It actually comes from Luke 8:2. Though earlier, the women didn’t tell anyone, here Mary Magdalene tells the disciples that she has seen Jesus but they do not believe her.
Vs. 12-13 Here the appearance to two traveling on the road is mentioned in the longer ending. The whole story also recorded in Luke: 24:13-35. The disciples don’t believe them either.
Vs. 14 Jesus finally appears to the eleven and rebukes them for their unbelief.
Vs. 15-16 Here a shorter version of The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) is given: “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation”.
Vs. 17-18 The promise of signs is distinctive to the longer ending and is not found in any other Gospel. It is reflective of the experience of the early church in the book of Acts and in church history.
Tongues are mentioned here but they don’t appear till Pentecost (Acts 2). Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake and survived with no symptoms (Acts 28:4-5). He healed the sick through laying on of hands (Acts 28:8-9).
While drinking deadly poison is never mentioned in scripture, stories about the Apostles being forced to drink poison and surviving are recorded in early Christian literature.
Vs. 19 Here the ascension of Jesus is recorded. It does not appear in any other Gospel but is recorded in Acts 1:9. Also, ’sitting at the right hand of God’ was observed by Stephen as he was being martyred (Acts 7:56).
Vs. 20 The longer ending finishes with a clear response by the disciples. They went out and followed through preaching the Gospel everywhere. There is nothing like this verse in the other three Gospels. It is like a summary of what the Apostles did in the book of Acts.
Conclusion: So much of the ‘longer ending’ is reflective of the book of Luke-Acts which was written much latter than Mark. For this reason, many scholars conclude that the original ending was lost somehow. Then later someone tried to complete the book with a new ending using material from Luke-Acts (which was originally one book) and early church literature.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
This article on Mark 16:9-20 contains several errors, inaccuracies, and unbalanced statements.
>> “None of the earliest and most reliable NT manuscripts have verses 9-20.” <> “It was missing from nearly all of the Greek manuscripts used by Jerome in his Latin translation.” <> “The earliest mention comes from Irenaeus and Tatian’s Diatessaron.” <> “The evidence seems to indicate that it was not in circulation until the middle 2nd century.” <> “Nearly 1/3 of the words in the twelve verses were not used in the rest of the Gospel of Mark.” <> “The angel in the tomb tells the women that Jesus will see the disciples in Galilee. However, all the appearances of Jesus in these verses is confined to Jerusalem and the immediate area.” <> “The manuscript evidence shows that there have been several attempts to ‘finish’ the Gospel besides verses 9-20.
There is also an alternate ending called the ‘Shorter Ending’.” <> “The evidence for this ending is even later, starting in the 7th century.” <> “The Shorter Ending is also used as a transition between verse 8 and 9-20 in several manuscripts.” <> “‘Sitting at the right hand of God’ was observed by Stephen as he was being martyred (Acts 7:56).” <> “So much of the ‘longer ending’ is reflective of the book of Luke-Acts which was written much latter than Mark.” <<
Mk. 16:9-20 contains several items not found in Luke-Acts: (1) The time of Jesus’ resurrection, (2) the disciples’ rejection of Mary Magdalene’s report that she had seen the Lord, (3) the disciples’ rejection of the two travelers’ report, (4) Jesus’ rebuke of the Eleven on account of their disbelief of those who had claimed to have seen Him after He had been raised, (5) the statement about poison-drinking.
So a reconsideration of this subject may be in order.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:05 am
Good Points James; that is why 9-20 should still be in the canon. A reconsideration of this subject is always in order.
You said that the article contained: “several errors, inaccuracies, and unbalanced statements.” Please spell these out. I did not say that all of the 9-20 material came from Luke-Acts. Much of it could of come from early Christian tradition and early literature.
e.g.:There are several early accounts of Christians who were given poison to drink and survived.
One would hope that an earlier MS find would put this issue to rest. Barring that, it will probably not be resolved to everyones satisfaction until our Lord comes.
Michael
June 30th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Dear Dr. Davis,
Here are the main errors, inaccuracies, and unbalanced statements currently in the lesson/essay:
MD: “None of the earliest and most reliable NT manuscripts have verses 9-20.”
Although this claim has been repeated by several popular commentators (including William Barclay), it is false. Taking severely damaged MSS out of the equation, only two early Greek manuscripts and one medieval manuscript do not contain Mk. 16:9-20.
MD: “It was missing from nearly all of the Greek manuscripts used by Jerome in his Latin translation.”
This claim is a mistaken assumption; Jerome released the Vulgate Gospels in 383; his comment that almost all Greek copies lack the passage was made later in his career.
MD: “Clement and Origen do not reference these verses.”
Inasmuch as neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen explicitly quote from Mk. 16:9-20, this is true. But is this a specially significant observation, or is it something that can be said about many 12-verse sections of the Gospel of Mark?
MD: “The earliest mention comes from Irenaeus and Tatian’s Diatessaron.”
Which is very early evidence indeed! Irenaeus’ citation of Mk. 16:19 was made in 184; Tatian’s incorporation of Mk. 16:9-20 into the Diatessaron was in 172! In addition, Justin Martyr (160) and the author of Epistula Apostolorum (150/180) provide evidence that each was aware of the existance of Mark 16:9-20. Justin’s evidence is particularly noteworthy, since he seems to strongly allude to the passage in a Gospels-Harmony of his making (which Tatian later used as a model), implying that 16:9-20 was in the text of Mark not only when Justin wrote his First Apology but at an earlier date when the Gospels-Harmony was developed.
MD: “The evidence seems to indicate that it was not in circulation until the middle 2nd century.”
This is a bit like saying that the discovery of the footprints of a full-grown man seems to indicate that he was never a child.
“Nearly 1/3 of the words in the twelve verses were not used in the rest of the Gospel of Mark.”
The 12-verse passage consisting of Mark 15:40-16:4 has more once-used words than Mark 16:9-20 has. ‘Nuff said.
MD: “The angel in the tomb tells the women that Jesus will see the disciples in Galilee. However, all the appearances of Jesus in these verses is confined to Jerusalem and the immediate area.”
Only by comparing Mk. 16:9-20 to the other Gospel-accounts can one become aware of the precise location of the events recorded in Mk. 16:9-20. Plus, the “Later” which begins 16:14 allows for a shift of scene.
MD: “The manuscript evidence shows that there have been several attempts to ‘finish’ the Gospel besides verses 9-20.”
That is not the case. Mark 16:9-20 is supported by all Greek copies of Mark 16 but 3 — Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and medieval commentary-manuscript 304: Vaticanus has a unique prolonged blank space after 16:8; Sinaiticus does not have its original pages from Mk. 14:54-Luke 1:56, and MS 304 is probably a damaged manuscript which has been rebound. Six Greek manuscripts, plus many Ethiopic copies, contain the Shorter Ending followed by 16:9-20. Only one Latin copy (no Greek MSS) contains the Shorter Ending after (most of) 16:8. That’s the only other extant attempt at ending the Gospel of Mark. There’s an interesting interpolation in Codex W between Mk. 16:14 and 16:15 (the “Freer Logion”), but to call Mk. 16:9-20 with an interpolation between v. 14 and v. 15 would be like calling me a different person when a cat is in my lap.
MD: “There is also an alternate ending called the ‘Shorter Ending’. The evidence for this ending is even later, starting in the 7th century.”
The Old Latin codex Bobbiensis (“k”) which contains the Shorter Ending is from 430. The *Greek* evidence is later, but the Shorter Ending itself is clearly earlier.
MD: “The Shorter Ending is also used as a transition between verse 8 and 9-20 in several manuscripts.”
The Shorter Ending is attached to the end of 16:8 in one way or another (either following it immediately, or preceded by a short note, or appearing in the margin, linked to 16:8 by asterisks) in all of the Greek MSS which contain it. The Old Latin codex Bobbiensis is the only extant copy in any language in which *only* the Shorter Ending appears.
MD: “The earliest manuscripts and the earliest Christian writers do not reference verses 9-20.”
You’ve already stated that Irenaeus and Tatian reference verses 9-20. Also, the earliest Greek MS of Mark is Papyrus 45. Since it is extensively damaged — so much so that it contains no text from Mark 16 — it is impossible to confidently say whether it did or did not originally contain Mark 16:9-20.
MD: “The mention of the ’seven demons’ in connection with Mary Magdalene is information that was never given earlier in Mark. It actually comes from Luke 8:2.”
If the author is Mark, then he and Luke may be sharing a common tradition here, independently. Ditto for the account of the two travelers on the road to Emmaus.
MD: (about v. 19) “Here the ascension of Jesus is recorded. It does not appear in any other Gospel but is recorded in Acts 1:9. Also, ’sitting at the right hand of God’ was observed by Stephen as he was being martyred (Acts 7:56).”
Luke 24:51 records the ascension of Jesus. Also, in Acts 7:56 Stephen observed Jesus standing, not sitting, at the right hand of God.
MD: “So much of the ‘longer ending’ is reflective of the book of Luke-Acts which was written much latter than Mark.”
On the contrary: the author of Mk. 16:9-20 was clearly unaware of the contents of Luke 24. For what author, after reading Luke 24, would imagine that the main group of disciples initially disbelieved the report of the two travelers, and that Jesus appeared to the eleven “later,” when the natural understanding of Luke 24 is that the report of the two travelers, and Jesus’ appearance to the disciples, are parts of a single scene? And why would the author of Mark 16:9-20, after reading in Luke 24 that the women had seen angels but not Jesus, have reported that Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus? Someone might suggest that the author had read John as well. But if the author had read John, why didn’t he make more use of John 21, which provides the perfect material to adapt to 16:8 — an appearance of Jesus in Galilee to Peter and (some of) the others?
Write to me
– office (at) curtisvillechristian.org –
and I will be happy to send you a very thorough essay about the origin of, and evidence for, Mark 16:9-20.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Thanks James for your very helpful comments, I am obviously going to have to rewrite the lesson.
However there are a couple of things you said that I continue to have a problem with:
1.It is not just a few commentators like William Barclay (a liberal who can’t even get the Trinity right) who make these observations as you portray:
-All of the textual critics in the last 50 yrs. who have spent a lifetime looking at the ancient texts in the original languages have problems with 9-20
-every major Bible scholar from every major seminary including all of the Evangelical and conservative schools I am aware of cite problems with 9-20.
-Every bible translating committee of every new translation made in the last 50+ yrs., some with 100’s of respected scholars, have all noted problems with 9-20.
This does not mean that you are necessarily incorrect, only that your’s is clearly a minority opinion even among scholars that believe in Biblical infalibilility.
2. As for 172 being an early date, it is a matter of perspective. I have been consistent in that regard. Last year a wrote a series on the ‘Gospel of Judas’,
http://apologetica.us/the-gospel-of-judas
which can be dated around 150, yet I find nothing in that work reflecting anything from the first century.
The Shepherd of Hermas and some gnostic documents are even earlier, but I do not propose that they be part of the canon.
I do believe that 9-20 was probably written in the first century before 70 AD and does reflect early Christian apostolic tradition and should continue to be part of the canon.
I would caution however, that these verses should never be a major stand alone text for creating theology and practice.
For example, the sects who use snakes in their worship and cite 9-20 are beyond the pail.
Blessing,
Michael