Many people who’ve read the Bible get to the end of the Gospel of Mark and feel the same way. They think there’s something not quite right about it. It turns out that it’s not mere imagination, as historians like Bruce Metzger believe that the final twelve verses of Mark were actually added later. They don’t think that Mark 16:9–20 was actually part of the original text. Instead, many historians believe that these were added later as a way of giving the book a more complete ending.
The specific aspect in question is the part at the end of Mark, whether readers get a closing summary of the events & a post-resurrection appearance. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene during this scene. He also appears to two of his followers who are traveling in the countryside, and then later with the eleven disciples while they’re eating. Jesus gives them some instructions about preaching and baptism.
He also tells them about the signs that’ll accompany believers. This section goes into detail about speaking in new tongues & casting out demons. It mentions handling snakes, drinking deadly poison without being harmed, and also laying hands on sick people to heal them. It all ends with Jesus going up into heaven. The disciples leave to preach the Good Word to other people, and the whole section ends in a way that contrasts quite a bit with the earlier tone in Mark.
So why do historians think it’s not a part of the original text? The biggest piece of evidence comes from the actual manuscripts. Two of the earliest & most complete Greek copies of Mark are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Both of these come from the fourth century, and both of them stop at Mark 16:8.
Yes, they end with the women fleeing the empty tomb and saying nothing to anyone. It’s quite an abrupt ending. It’s something that Bruce Metzger noted in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, stating that both codices finish at verse 8 without any trace of verse 9-20.
There’s also more historical evidence that suggests this part of Mark came later. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote in the fourth century that the longer ending of Mark wasn’t in the majority of Greek manuscripts that he had access to. Jerome said the same thing. He noticed that nearly all Greek copies of Mark ended at 16:8, and it’s a fact that he shared while he was preparing the Latin Vulgate. Scholars like Metzger have also said that the final section includes vocabulary & word choices that don’t appear earlier in the book. They take that as a sign that it wasn’t part of the original text.
Other early Greek writers, including Clement of Alexandria & Origen, quoted the Gospels in a lot of detail. They never mention Mark 16:9-20 in any of their surviving works.
Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as the ending being entirely absent from every copy. A few later manuscripts have Mark 16:9-20, while a select few others have a different ending that’s shorter than the one we have today. It summarizes what happened during the resurrection without any mention of appearances or signs. In fact, a few versions of Mark actually include both endings back-to-back.
Such a detail is important because it shows how people were actively copying & editing the Bible over time. There’s no single ending that the texts have managed to preserve.
You also don’t need any technical training to see that there seems to be somewhat of a reset at verse 9. It reintroduces Mary Magdalene directly by name, despite the fact that she was already mentioned only a few verses earlier. The narrative also restarts with a tone that reads a little like a summary. It doesn’t flow neatly from people’s fear at seeing the tomb empty to the appearance.
The fact that Mark 16:9-20 may have been added later might not seem like a big deal. But think about it. Ending Mark at 16:8 would’ve meant that the final sentence of the Gospel is a hard stop that leaves readers with an entirely different feeling than 16:20. The latter closes with a summary of preaching & confirmation. It puts the reader in a different place and affects how the whole book feels once you’ve finished reading.
