The Elephant in Mark 16
by Edwin Crozier
Is It Even Supposed to Be There?
Some of the newer translations, such as the ESV I commonly use, have made it abundantly clear there is a huge question about whether or not Mark 16:9-20 are originally part of Mark. Smack in the middle of the page, we find the message: “Some of the Earliest Manuscripts Do Not Include 16:9-20.”
I’m no textual critic. I’m no Greek scholar. There are plenty of people smarter than me and more informed about textual criticism who are faithful Christians who believe Mark 16:9-20 is the original ending. However, there are plenty of people smarter than me and more informed about textual criticism who are faithful Christians who believe it is not. As the old politician said, “I’m for my friends.”
I’m honestly out of my depth to try to make a case either way. However, like all Bible readers, I have to decide what to make of this.
Four Points that Help Me
The Exception that Proves the Rule
Don’t let the skeptical critics lead you astray about what this message means. Some say we can’t even know what was originally in the Bible because of passages like this one. They will turn to this passage and a couple of others to claim we don’t know if they should even be there, as if we can’t tell if any passage should be in the Bible.
That just isn’t true. In fact, far from indicating the Biblical text is an unknowable mess, this indicates the wealth of evidence we have about what is in the Bible. This question about the ending of Mark didn’t come about because skeptics dug in where believers feared to tread. Not at all. Bible believers who study manuscripts have brought to light much evidence regarding what is and what is not in the Bible. This question has come about not because we don’t have enough evidence, but because we have so much evidence. In fact, the very few passages that have this kind of doubt are actually a testimony to how much evidence we have for the certainty of what is in the Bible.
Nothing Lost, Nothing Added
Read and reread the final paragraphs in Mark as we now have it. What would be lost if we proved Mark originally ended his gospel at verse 8? Absolutely nothing.
What is added to Christian doctrine and teaching if we read these verses as if original? Absolutely nothing.
In other words, the argument about Mark 16:9-20 is an interesting scholarly debate. But pragmatically speaking, it makes little difference. Take it or leave it. Christianity will be the same. Giving allegiance to Jesus will look the same. Worshipping God will look the same.
The Testimony of Very Early Christians
Even if it is proven that Mark did not actually pen Mark 16:9-20, we recognize that very early Christians believed the gospel account didn’t end at verse 8. Further, if these verses don’t represent what Mark originally wrote, they represent what very early Christians generally believed.
Think about that for a moment. Some people like to question these final paragraphs because of the strong teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation. However, if they want to claim Mark didn’t originally write these paragraphs, they have to admit what these verses include was so fully believed by early, post-Biblical Christians a later editor could add it and the general Christian population accepted it.
Addition by a Second Writer or Editor Does Not Deny Inspiration
Honestly, based on the three points above, I don’t have a dog in this fight about whether Mark 16:9-20 was originally written by Mark. Even if we proved it wasn’t inspired and needed to cut it out of our Bibles, I wouldn’t sweat it. Everything I want to teach from this passage, I can teach from the rest of Scripture.
However, let's note that while no one can add to the Word of God, having a later editor, redactor, or even supplementary author does not deny inspiration. In Mark 10:2-4, Jesus attributes the authorship of Deuteronomy to Moses. However, read Deuteronomy 34. Virtually no one believes Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34. Yet, I am unaware of anyone who believes in the inspiration of Scripture and the general authorship of Moses for the Pentateuch who says Deuteronomy 34 is uninspired or shouldn’t be there.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that means Mark 16:9-20 is necessarily in the same boat as Deuteronomy 34. I’m just saying, given the first three points above, we don’t have to be in a faith-shattering bind about these paragraphs.
Wrapping Up
I realize I haven’t walked the elephant out of Mark 16. It’s still there. Folks still need to study it and talk about it. But I hope we’ve demonstrated it is a tamed elephant, not one to be frightened of. And I hope you found these points helpful as well.
