Mark's Alternate Ending--Why is it in my Bible?

The Longer Ending in Mark…

Main Point: We need not worry or stress over the last verses in Mark, though not scriptural, such verses are neither erroneous or dangerous.

How do we know these verses are not original to Mark?

Why Had

What do these verses say?

Mark 16:9–20 ESV

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

How do we know this verses are not original to Mark?

The earliest copies of Mark end abruptly and without these verses:

Vaticanus (B)

Sinaiticus (aleph)

The Old Latin MS k

Sinaitic Syriac

Several Armenian manuscripts

And numerous Ethiopian copies

The evidence excludes all other opinions and assumptions—these verses were not present in the original (William Lane)

The Early Church Fathers Do Not Attest to its Existence:

Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen shows any awareness of the existence of the longer ending, and Eusebius and Jerome attest that vv. 9–20 were absent from the majority of Greek copies of Mark known to them. An ingenious system of cross-referencing parallel passages in the Gospels that was devised by Ammonius in the second century and adopted by Eusebius in the fourth century (hence the name Eusebian Canons) does not include .

The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel according to Mark Chapter Sixteen: The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20)

Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen shows any awareness of the existence of the longer ending, and Eusebius and Jerome attest that vv. 9–20 were absent from the majority of Greek copies of Mark known to them. An ingenious system of cross-referencing parallel passages in the Gospels that was devised by Ammonius in the second century and adopted by Eusebius in the fourth century (hence the name Eusebian Canons) does not include Mark 16:9–20.

The Language and Style do not support Markian origin:

The way Jesus is referred to within the ending is not consistent with Mark (Edwards, PNTC)

“Lord Jesus” (Only in the Ending) vs. “Jesus” (Mark)

In the ending, a total of 54 words are new—34 in vs. 9 and 18 in the rest of the verses (Edwards)

Mark’s style seems absent, especially the way he use (kai) “and” to start the sentence.

Certain stylistic themes are in opposistion to Markian themes:

The disciples are chastised for disbelief

Charismatic signs are given prominence over Jesus’ reserve to use such (Edwards)

With absolute certainty we can say that verses 9-20 are not original to Markian authorship!

Why add these verses?

The abrupt ending is hard for some (William Lane)

Why do some people think the ending is difficult for the reader? (Edwards, PNTC)

The Resurrected Jesus is not present within the text!

The open-ended style of the text has challenges and numerous options for thoughts following the ending:

We must supply the post-resurrection information from other texts

The way the story ends forces unconventional responses

The ending demands the reader to ponder the cross and discipleship rather than enthusiasm and triumphalism

Some argue it points us to the Gentile gospel (Luke) since the Jews rejected Jesus.

The final word “fear” leaves us in a position to respond in faith like the women.

The reader must supply the response…

The ending of Mark (at verse 8) appears to end mid-sentence; therefore, implying that something happened to the ending in the original manuscript.

Consequently… it appears that an attempt at reconciliation of the ending was made very early on in the history of the church…

The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel according to Mark Chapter Sixteen: The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20)

Although the longer ending is clearly secondary, it is nevertheless very old. The earliest witnesses to the longer ending come from the Epistula Apostolorum 9–10 (c. 145), perhaps Justin Martyr (Apol. 1.45; c. 155), Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. 170), and Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.9–12; c. 180). This means that the longer ending “must be dated to the first decades of the second century.”

Do these verses promote false teaching, new doctrine, or erroneous information?

No!

The only addition that cannot be supported throughout the rest of the New Testament is that they would drink “deadly poison and not be harmed”.

What is the ending about?

The Disciples Do Not Believe Jesus is Risen:

Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, she tells the disciples but they do not believe.

Jesus appears to two disciples, they tell the others disciples, but they do not believe.

Jesus appears to the eleven and rebukes them for unbelief

Jesus Entrusts His Work to the Disciples:

Jesus commissions the disciples and promises His powerful presence

Jesus ascends

The church multiplies because the disciples preach the gospel

Jesus shows his presence among the disciples with signs.

Nothing in this passage undercuts what has taken place in other pages of the Scripture:

Jesus appears to the women—but the disciples do not believe ()

Jesus appears to two travelers ()

Jesus appears to the eleven ()

Jesus Commissions the Disciples ()

The Holy Spirit empowers the disciples and works among them ()

The Church grows through the gospel (The rest of the New Testament)

Paul is bitten by a viper but does not die ()

Jesus gave the apostles authority to tread on serpents ()

The Ascension of Christ ()

The Apostles preach boldly with great signs ()

IN SHORT, NOTHING IN THIS PASSAGE CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE.

What does this mean for us in regards to the validity of Scripture?

First… How did we get the Bible we have?

Old Testament: (1450-400 BC)

Progressive recognition and preservation of the writings of the prophets being the word of God.

How did they know the prophets were literally speaking for God? MIRACLES/SIGNS performed by the prophets and attested by others.

Jesus and the apostles affirmed it through quotation!!!!

New Testament:(AD 40’s-90’s)

Inherent Authority (Protestant) vs. Ascribed Authority (Catholic)

We recognize what is Scripture, we do not decide what is Scripture!

Remember...Peter refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture—we recognize this!

What is the test of authenticity?

Apostolic Authority

Written by an apostle or under the authority of an apostle

Orthodox

Coherent in teaching

Not contradictory of other Scriptures

Catholicity

Widely accepted by the church

Widely copied

Widely applied as authoritative

Historicity:

For example, the church fathers (1st Generation after the apostles), quote 46% of our New Testament in their writings.

The 27 books of the New Testament are the earliest writings we have in Christianity (Michael Kruger)

We literally have thousands of early copies of the New Testament letters

Second… why include sections within the Bible that we know are not original to the author?

Two Major Texts that are NOT original:

Why keep these?

We know the texts are not original, therefore we know these texts are not authoritative

However, we know these texts are old, and usually serve to highlight or summarize a thought/idea

Thirdly, to keep it, shows integrity and consistency—we are desperate to demonstrate both rationality and honesty

Fourthly, viewing these two text as

These text do not contradict, undermine, or distort Biblical doctrine.

Most trained teachers/pastors do not teach these texts as authoritative or extend the same weight to these passages as Scripture.

Lastly, What do I do with these?

Acknowledge that we know these texts are not original and, therefore, do not use doctrinally

Acknowledge that these texts prove to us that God guards His word and allows us to discover what is inauthentic

Acknowledge that we are not “dumb theists” who believe blindly—faith includes reason

Let’s talk briefly about Faith:

Faith without logic is stupidity.

Faith without logic is reckless

Faith without logic contradicts the nature of God

Faith without logic offers little comfort

Faith contains logic and bridges the gap (adequately) of our ignorance—it is why we will not have faith in heaven.