The variant endings of Mark 16 continue to capture the interest of scholars and readers alike. The two main contenders for the authentic ending to Mark’s Gospel are the Short Ending (16:1-8) and the Longer Ending (16:1-20). Although some struggle with whether vv. 9-20 should even be read and preached in church, it is the goal of this paper to put such confusion and doubts to rest. This paper contends that the overall text-critical evidence (both external and internal) points to the authenticity of Mark’s Longer Ending. It also explores how the other variant endings entered the manuscript record and concludes with a final defense of the Longer Ending as the divinely inspired and canonically authoritative ending to Mark’s Gospel. As such, the Longer Ending, as with the rest of Scripture, remains “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, NIV).
Secondly, there is the issue of the SEs rather abrupt ending that seems to bring little closure to the Gospel. For one, it leaves the Gospel without a record of Jesus post-resurrection appearances, which is arguably the event that precipitated the spread of Christianity and the writing of the Gospel accounts. Furthermore, Mark seems to exhibit a consistent habit of demonstrating the reliability of Jesus words by narrating their fulfillment,38 so it is strange that Christ would prophesy his resurrection three times (8:31, 9:31, 10:34) only for his words to remain unfulfilled.39 Other themes left without closure by the abrupt ending at v. 8 35 See Wallace, Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel, 35 and Bock, The Ending of Mark: A Response to the Essays, 132. On the other hand, Elliot maintains that a roll was just as likely to be damaged on both ends as a codex. Elliot, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, 81.
id: 451800bd4aace64336fc5dd96c57cfc2 - page: 10
36 As for deliberate excisions of the original reading early in the transmission process, scribal alterations of that magnitude are extremely unlikely. See Robert D. Marcello, Myths About Orthodox Corruption and Zachary J. Cole, Myths About Copyists in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019). 37 See P.W. van der Horst, Can a Book End with a ? A Note on Mark XVI.8, JTS 23 (1972), 121-124 and J. Lee Magness, Marking the End: Sense and Absence in the Gospel of Mark (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002), 84. Those who still maintain the unlikelihood of Mark ending with include Croy, The Mutilation of Marks Gospel, 48; Elliot, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, 89, 93; Parker, The Endings of Marks Gospel, 142. 38 Croy, The Mutilation of Marks Gospel, 58. See also Snapp, Authentic, 150 and
id: 1db465b0c07d40502cbbc324f33d5e2e - page: 10
Robinson, The Long Ending of Mark as Canonical Verity, 67. 39 See Parker, The Endings of Marks Gospel, 143-144; Wallace, Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel, 14. Volume 7 Issue 2 December 2023 Page 12 include the following: a potential Elijah motif,40 a Son of God and enthronement motif,41 and a messianic secret motif.42 The abrupt break in such thematic patterns suggests that the SE was not the way Mark intended his Gospel to end, and the closure that many of these themes find in the LE demonstrate that vv. 920 may not be as non-Markan as some make them out to be.
id: 98123802d291364ed5d012ed9ab8a50b - page: 10
Nevertheless, many who have continued to support the SE have argued that the abrupt ending at v. 8 was intentional, designed to draw the reader into the story,43 to spur readers to action, [and] to continue the story in their own lives.44 Mark does seem to take a more realistic, boots on the ground approach to his Gospel and does seem to take special care to make his readers feel as if they are present at these events, watching them unfold. However, it is difficult to see how the abruptness of the SE and the absence of a resurrection account are truly in keeping with Marks realistic style and are consistent with his motifs of fear and astonishment.45 Furthermore, if Mark had truly intended to conclude his Gospel with v. 8, his compositional design and literary subtlety were apparently lost on his immediate followers and the later scribal copyists, who found the abruptness of the SE to be dissatisfying, even wrong, as evidenced by scribal additions such as the IE.46 Such literary argume
id: d74e695cc862913a21783b26eeb33699 - page: 11