Did Mark Write Mark 16:9-20?

Good Christians disagree on this, so don't make it a test of orthodoxy.  The point is that we have the evidence to examine and debate, meaning that the text is trustworthy (a lack of debatable evidence would imply collusion and tampering).  Still, the evidence seems to point to Mark's Gospel ending on v. 8. 

Here are a few resources I used in preparation for this topic.  They may help you to better understand the issue.  The first is a section from the MacArthur Study Bible:
The external evidence strongly suggests these verses were not originally part of Mark’s gospel. While the majority of Gr. manuscripts contain these verses, the earliest and most reliable do not. A shorter ending also existed, but it is not included in the text. Further, some that include the passage note that it was missing from older Gr. manuscripts, while others have scribal marks indicating the passage was considered spurious. The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Gr. manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20. The internal evidence from this passage also weighs heavily against Mark’s authorship. The transition between vv. 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Gr. particle translated “now” that begins v. 9 implies continuity with the preceding narrative. What follows, however, does not continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, but describes Christ’s appearance to Mary Magdalene (cf. John 20:11–18). The masculine participle in v. 9 expects “he” as its antecedent, yet the subject of v. 8 is the women. Although she had just been mentioned 3 times (v. 1; 15:40, 47), v. 9 introduces Mary Magdalene as if for the first time. Further, if Mark wrote v. 9, it is strange that he would only now note that Jesus had cast 7 demons out of her. The angel spoke of Jesus’ appearing to His followers in Galilee, yet the appearances described in vv. 9–20 are all in the Jerusalem area. Finally, the presence in these verses of a significant number of Gr. words used nowhere else in Mark argues that Mark did not write them. Verses 9–20 represent an early (they were known to the second-century fathers Irenaeus, Tatian, and, possibly, Justin Martyr) attempt to complete Mark’s gospel. While for the most part summarizing truths taught elsewhere in Scripture, vv. 9–20 should always be compared with the rest of Scripture, and no doctrines should be formulated based solely on them. Since, in spite of all these considerations of the likely unreliability of this section, it is possible to be wrong on the issue, and thus, it is good to consider the meaning of this passage and leave it in the text, just as with John 7:53–8:11. 
John MacArthur Jr., ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed. (Nashville, TN: Word Pub., 1997), 1502.
For a brief video discussing these issues, I recommend a couple.  First, Dr. James White explains the issues in a very understandable way, better than I did:


An even briefer video is on the Daily Dose of Greek site.  Rob Plummer cites a couple of interesting resources, especially in regards to Mark ending on the Greek word gar.


The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?For more reading from him related to this subject, I recommend The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?  In this book addressing a false teaching you'll undoubtedly encounter at some point, White deals directly with the question of the ending of Mark in a readable way.  I strongly recommend it to you.  (An earlier version of this book converted me from the false doctrine of King James Onlyism.)


Finally, for a scholarly article on the subject, here's one on the Alpha and Omega website.  It's by Colin Smith titled, "Did Mark Write Mark 16:9-20? A Textual Criticism Case Study."  It's a balanced article, focusing on the evidence and doesn't overstate the case.

I hope all this helps!

Popular posts from this blog

SERMON: What is True Discipleship? | Mark 8:34–38

SERMON: Essential Discipleship Lessons, Part 2 | Mark 9:42–48

Is Reformed Worship Eurocentric? Interacting with the Idea of 'White Worship'