Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

The ending of the Gospel of Mark has been the subject of much debate among biblical scholars. Mark 16:9-20, also known as the “Longer Ending of Mark,” describes several resurrection appearances of Jesus and his ascension into heaven. However, some of the earliest and most reliable ancient manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel end at verse 8, leading many scholars to conclude that verses 9-20 were added later by scribes. So should Mark 16:9-20 be considered part of the inspired biblical text or not? There are good arguments on both sides of this issue.

The Case Against Mark 16:9-20 as Original

There is significant textual evidence suggesting Mark 16:9-20 was not originally part of the Gospel. Some key points are:

• The earliest and best Greek manuscripts of Mark, like the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, end at 16:8.
• Many early church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius, are aware of the absent verses in their copies of Mark.
• There are many stylistic and vocabulary differences between 16:9-20 and the rest of Mark, suggesting a different author.
• There are no clear references to the disputed verses in the writings of the early church fathers, even when referencing the resurrection.
• Some manuscripts have scribal notes after 16:8 explaining the abrupt ending, implying that verses 9-20 were missing.
• Verse 8 has traits of being the original ending, with the women afraid and not telling anyone matching the secrecy theme in Mark.

Due to this evidence, most modern English Bibles either omit Mark 16:9-20 altogether or include it with brackets and a note explaining that it is probably not original. Most scholars conclude that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at verse 16:8.

The Case For Mark 16:9-20 as Original

However, there are also arguments in favor of Mark 16:9-20 being part of the original text:

• The verses are present in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, including the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus.
• Some church fathers seem to be aware of the verses, like Irenaeus, though references are sparse.
• The verses contain nothing doctrinally contradictory or theologically problematic.
• Stylistic and vocabulary differences could be because this section summarizes resurrection events.
• If the Gospel originally ended at 16:8, it seems to end abruptly on a strange note.
• Adding to a Gospel would be an unusual move, so inclusion supports originality.

So while the textual evidence is weighted against Mark 16:9-20, its presence in the majority of manuscripts and church tradition leads some to argue it should remain part of the biblical text.

Four Key Perspectives

There are four main views held by scholars and church traditions regarding this disputed passage:

1. Exclude as Not Original – This view sees Mark ending at 16:8 based on the textual evidence, arguing the longer ending was added later by scribes. This is the view of most modern scholars and English Bible versions.
2. Include as Original – This view considers Mark 16:9-20 as part of the inspired text, either arguing the evidence is inconclusive or prioritizing its manuscript distribution and church tradition. This is the view of the King James Version and some church fathers.
3. Accept as Canonical – This view acknowledges the verses are probably not original to Mark, but still accepts them as canonical Scripture. Some church councils and the Byzantine manuscript tradition held this perspective.
4. Omit as Not Canonical – This view sees Mark 16:9-20 as a later, non-original addition that should not be considered part of Scripture. Some modern English Bibles and a minority of scholars hold this position.

So there is disagreement between scholars, church traditions, and Bible versions whether to include, exclude, or bracket Mark 16:9-20 as both original and canonical.

Examining the Disputed Verses

Looking more closely at Mark 16:9-20 itself shows some key details influencing the debate:

• It contains accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances not found in the other Gospels, like drinking poison without harm (16:18).
• It describes Jesus’ ascension, while Luke places this event 40 days after Easter (Luke 24:50-51).
• The commissioning of the disciples mirrors Matthew 28:16-20 but adds miraculous signs as proof.
• The vocabulary includes many words not used elsewhere in Mark, like “behold” and “world.”
• The connection between 16:8 and 16:9 is abrupt, not transitioning smoothly.

So while the content is theologically consistent, the differences in details, writing style, and flow from the rest of Mark contribute to scholarly skepticism over its originality. But defenders argue the unique resurrection accounts and commissioning are not incompatible with the rest of the New Testament.

External Evidence For and Against

Beyond the internal evidence within the text itself, scholars also look to external sources in the early centuries of church history for clues about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20:

External Evidence Against

• Eusebius and Jerome (4th century) both acknowledge most Greek manuscripts available to them omit verses 9-20.
• Many early church fathers, such as Origen, Clement, and Cyprian, show no awareness of the disputed passage in their writings.
• An Old Latin manuscript from the 5th century omits the verses, evidence it was also absent from early Latin translations.
• A 4th century Armenian translation ends Mark at verse 8 and has a scribal note saying older Greek copies lack the longer ending.
• Theologians like Calvin and Beza question the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 based on the textual evidence available in the 16th century.

External Evidence For

• Irenaeus possibly makes an allusion to Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies (late 2nd century).
• Tatian includes the longer ending in his Diatesseron harmony (late 2nd century).
• Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17-18 in Treatise on Christ and Antichrist (early 3rd century).
• Vincentian Canon (4th century) says to hold to what has been believed everywhere by all.
• Church councils like the Synod of Rome (5th century) accept the passage as canonical.

So patristic citations are sparse but appear on both sides of the debate. Theologians appealing to historical widespread acceptance of the verses argue this favors originality.

Interpretive Implications

Thequestion of whether Mark 16:9-20 belongs in Scripture also impacts its interpretation and application. Views differ on how much doctrinal and practical importance should be attributed to the disputed passage.

Minimal Importance

Many give the verses minimal interpretive significance since the other Gospels have similar post-resurrection accounts. Key details include:

• Nothing essential to Christian theology hinges on Mark 16:9-20 alone.
• Other passages affirm Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and the disciples’ eyewitness testimony.
• The commissioning and miraculous signs match accounts in other Gospels.
• Practical details like handling snakes are not promoted elsewhere in the New Testament.

This view sees Mark 16:9-20 as repeating what is found elsewhere rather than introducing anything new. So excluding or questioning its authenticity does not undermine core Christian doctrines or practices.

Greater Importance

Others grant more significance to the disputed verses, arguing key points include:

• As canonical Scripture, it holds authority regardless of its authorship.
• The Great Commission in 16:15-16 carries great missionary importance.
• It provides details about resurrection appearances absent from other accounts.
• Believers can have boldness from the promise of miraculous signs.

This view sees Mark 16:9-20 as inspired Scripture with its own emphases, and considers its exclusion a loss of biblical testimony and application. But defenders acknowledge core doctrines remain intact without it.

Summary of the Major Positions

In summary, there are good arguments on both sides regarding Mark 16:9-20. Here are the major positions:

• Exclude as not original – The abrupt ending at 16:8 fits Mark’s style, and the external evidence strongly suggests 16:9-20 was a later addition. Most scholars hold this view.
• Include as original – The majority of manuscripts contain the longer ending, and it is theologically congruent with the rest of Scripture. Some church traditions accept its authenticity.
• Accept as canonical – While probably not original to Mark, it remains inspired Scripture. Its wide attestation led some early councils to canonize it.
• Omit as uncanonical – Since it was likely not part of the original text, it should not be considered part of inspired Scripture. A minority view.

So there are reasoned perspectives on both sides of the issue from scholars and church history. Faithful Christians have come to different conclusions. But what is most important is that the truth of the gospel remains intact even without the disputed ending.

Principles for Discerning Canonical Texts

This debate highlights key principles scholars apply when evaluating the canonical status of biblical texts:

• The quality and consistency of manuscript evidence.
• The coherence of the text with the rest of Scripture.
• Quotes, allusions and citations in early Christian writings.
• The doctrines and practices taught by the text.
• Internal style, vocabulary and transitions compared to the rest of the book.
• How widely the text was received and used in the early church.

These help assess both the textual authenticity and spiritual authority of disputed passages. Reasoned analysis of both internal and external evidence is key.

Conclusion

The debates over Mark 16:9-20 highlight important discussions about the New Testament text while also demonstrating boundaries. Core Christian truths remain intact whether one retains the passage as original or regards it as a later addition. The resurrection of Jesus, the call to gospel mission, and the disciples as eyewitnesses are affirmed throughout the New Testament. So Christians need not divide over this textcritical issue. There are strong cases on both sides, and scholars and churches have come to differing conclusions while affirming the same essential truths.