Snake Handling
The Longer Ending of Mark
By Brandon Scott
The Challenge of an Ending
The Gospel of Mark originally ended abruptly at 16:8.
And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid (KJV).
And once they got outside, they ran away from the tomb, because great fear and excitement got the better of them. And they didn’t breathe a word of it to anyone: talk about terrified . . . (Scholars Version)
This ending of the Gospel of Mark at 16:8 provokes a profound challenge. What is the reader to make of an ending in which the women tell no one because they were afraid? If they told no one, where did the story come from?
The authors the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke had trouble with Mark’s conclusion. Matthew edits the last line in Mark to read: “And they hurried away from the tomb afraid and filled with joy and ran to tell his students” (Matthew 28:8). Instead of not telling anyone, they ran to tell his students. Luke simply omits the problematic ending and adds: “And returning from the tomb, they related everything to the Eleven and to everybody else” (Luke 24:9).
Manuscripts
The manuscript evidence that Mark’s Gospel originally ended at 16:8 is convincing, but not overwhelming. The manuscripts of Mark that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used ended at 16:8. They follow and edit Mark’s narrative of the empty tomb until 16:8 and then go their different ways. Mark is clearly the source, and the narrative ended at 16:8.
The two oldest and most important uncial (capital letters) manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Vaticanus (fourth century), end at 16:8. The early papyrus evidence for Mark is sparce and none for the Gospel’s ending. Clement of Alexandria (about 150–215), Origen (about 185–253), and Eusebius (about 260–340) witness to Mark’s Gospel ending at 16:8.
Matthew and Luke’s use of Mark, the manuscript evidence, and the witness of early commentators provide strong and convincing but not overwhelming evidence that Mark’s Gospel ended at 16:8.
Lost Ending?
Was the original ending lost? Is it possible that the Gospel of Mark’s original ending was somehow lost before Matthew and Luke used it? Could the last part of the scroll have been dropped, been cut off, or lost? There is one small piece of evidence for this. The final word in the Greek text is gar, a conjunction meaning “for” or “because.” Typically, gar is in the second position in its clause, as it is here, but normally not in the final position, the last word, which it also is here. Ending a scroll with gar is unusual, which would suggest there was more to come. Scholars have picked up on the final gar and the strangeness of Mark’s ending to suggest that there had to be a lost ending. But this is not necessarily so. There are examples of gar in the final position. And the strangeness of Mark’s ending is based on the fact that Matthew and Luke found it lacking and constructed new endings. But that does not mean that the original ending was lost. More recent scholarship finds Mark’s ending challenging, but not incomprehensible. Its point was to challenge the reader.
The Longer Ending Dominant
Scribes have provided several different endings to Mark, but by far the best attested is the so-called Longer Ending (verses 9–20), printed in almost every modern translation of the New Testament. Most Greek manuscripts support the Longer Ending, with the important Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century) leading the pack. Many of the earliest patristic writers support the Longer Ending. Jerome followed the majority of manuscripts with his translation of the Bible into Latin (about 342–45), known as the Vulgate, which became the official translation in the West.
When the great humanist scholar Desiderius Erasmus published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516, he based his Greek text on late Byzantine Greek manuscripts, the best available to him. These late Greek manuscripts all ended Mark with the Longer Ending. Erasmus’ printed text became Textus Receptus (“The Received Text”), which in turn became the basis for the first modern translations into German (Martin Luther, 1522) and English (King James Version, 1611). These hugely influential translations cemented the Longer Ending as the conclusion to Mark. Critical Greek editions and modern translations, on the other hand, have been trying to remove it or bracket it as not part of the Gospel. It took three hundred years to even start restoring the original ending of Mark’s Gospel, a testament to the power of the printing press.
Evidence Against
The Longer Ending is clearly ancient, probably from the late second century or early third century. The number of manuscripts supporting this ending is vast. If manuscripts had a vote like voters in a democratic election, the outcome would be obvious. But that is not the way it works. Most Greek manuscripts are late and witness to what was standard in the ninth to twelfth centuries. Quality, not numbers, is the determining point. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both fourth century manuscripts, are the two highest quality witnesses to the Greek New Testament. The fifth century Codex Alexandrinus is an important witness, but not of the quality of Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If these three manuscripts agree, that is a very strong reading. But if two manuscripts agree against one, the two agreeing manuscripts’ reading is the preferred one.
Internal evidence also speaks against the Longer Ending. The vocabulary in the Longer Ending is non-Marcan. For example, apisteō, “to refuse to believe” (16:11) appears in Mark only in the Longer Ending. The description of those who follow Jesus as “who had been with him” (16:10) only occurs in the New Testament here. The transition between verses 8 and 9 is particularly harsh. 16:9 appears to start the resurrection story over again and only Mary Magdalene is present, in agreement with the Fourth Gospel from which it probably borrows the idea. The note that she is the one out of whom Jesus had cast seven demons comes from Luke 8:2, as does the reference to the Emmaus story (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13–35). These references indicate that the Longer Ending knows the Gospel of Luke. Therefore, the Longer Ending was composed after the Gospel of Luke, which uses the Gospel of Mark as one of its sources. Therefore, yet again, the Longer Ending is a later addition to the Gospel of Mark.
Longer Ending’s Outcome
Regardless of its status, the Longer Ending has fed the Christian imagination. The image of the Master Jesus who “was taken up into the sky and sat down at the right hand of God” (16:19) is prominent in Christian art. And handling poisonous snakes and drinking poison as proof of faith (16:18) has often had tragic outcomes.
This Longer Ending has had a pernicious effect on Mary Magdalene’s reputation. Pope Gregory the Great in 591 CE used the Longer Ending to cement together his image of Mary Magadelene as a prostitute:
She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. . . . It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner. (Homilies on the Gospels)
This image of Mary Magdalene is absent in the picture of Mary Magdalene in individual gospels. It comes from the male Christian imagination and is imposed on the gospels. The Longer Ending is the linchpin that draws this negative image together.
Text criticism is the discipline of comparing ancient manuscripts, like the Codices of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, to attempt to discern the original wording of a text. It may seem boring, but its results can be illuminating, transforming, and on occasion liberating.
This work is published for educational purposes. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the positions of the publishing organization, its board, or sponsors.
Oh, we have Mark choosing to end his narrative at the point of fear, silence, and unresolved tension. Can we assume that Mark is not simply reporting a bare historical silence but is crafting a literary and theological effect? Is Mark just leaving the reader facing a question: Will you, unlike the women at that moment, respond with fear and silence, or with faith and proclamation?
I agree 16:8 is open-ended enough. I agree with you in this explanation, and that leaves us with three main explanations for scholars, both historical and theological, to discuss:
1. Mark intentionally ended at 16:8 to create a stark, unsettling conclusion.
2. The original ending was lost.
3. A later ending was added because readers found 16:8 too abrupt.
So from the theological point...The ending pushes the reader beyond the text. The last word is not really "fear," but the challenge posed by the empty tomb. The risen Jesus cannot remain hidden, and silence cannot be the final human response.
Or can we say...
Does the ending, from a theological perspective, prevent the resurrection from becoming a closed, triumphalist story? Or, instead, it ends in fear and silence, so the proclamation must come from the follower's ongoing witness, not from a neatly wrapped-up narrative? Does this then make the theological reading real and fruitful, even if the compositional history remains uncertain?