by Dudley Ross Spears<\/p>\n
The last verses from Mark’s gospel, (Mark 16:9-20) have been called “The Longer Ending of Mark.” The first time I came across this criticism it was in response to quoting verses 15 and 16. Mark 16:16 affirms, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be condemned.<\/em>” The statement is so plain, the only way to avoid its force is to discredit it. Nothing is more clearly taught in the New Testament than the absolute necessity of a believer being baptized to be saved.<\/p>\n In addition to the criticism that seeks to avoid the strength of verse 16 regarding the necessity of baptism, other critics have offered their reasons for rejecting the “Longer Ending.” Probably the two more important persons who rejected it are Eusebius and Jerome.<\/p>\n Eusebius was one of the greatest minds of his day. He participated in the famous Council of Nicea (325 AD) and attempted to shelter a man named Arius from severe persecution. Arius agitated the question of the deity of Jesus for years. He did not believe Jesus was God manifest in a fleshly body. In his rejection of the final verses of Mark 16, he also rejected Mark’s account of the ascension. Both of these prominent figures of the past were successful in establishing what history has called “The Arian Heresy.”<\/p>\n There are things one ought to consider before discarding the debated passage.<\/p>\n Among the major manuscripts from which the New Testament is translated two major ones do not include Mark 16:9-20. English translations based on such manuscripts either put a space after verse 8, or a footnote stating the fact that some of the oldest manuscripts do not contain the verses. Two of the oldest manuscripts are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Both of these appear to be fourth-century manuscripts of the New Testament. Codex Regius, an eighth-century manuscript. It also omits the last verses of Mark’s gospel. Out of all the great manuscripts, only Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit verses 9-20 altogether.<\/p>\n Even though the Vaticanus omits the verses, it leaves space at the end of Mark’s gospel for an ending. The great German scholar, Lobegott Frederick Constantine Tischendorf held that both ancient manuscripts were from the same pen. Other accepted manuscripts such as the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century include the disputed passage. The fact that the older manuscripts leave space for an ending to the Gospel indicates the scribes knew it was incomplete. Other manuscripts contain the ending making the Gospel whole and complete.<\/p>\n Through the centuries the New Testament has been translated over and again into many dialects and languages. We have a great abundance of translations or versions of the Bible. It is a fact that nearly every version into which the New Testament has been translated contains the ending of Mark 16:9-20.<\/p>\n A large number of men, who lived during the lifetime of those guided directly by the Holy Spirit to compose and record the New Testament, are witnesses to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20. They were students who followed the apostles from place to place, listening to them as they revealed God’s will. Many of them took copious notes; quoted the words they heard; wrote commentaries and dissertations on what they heard. We call these the “Church Fathers.”<\/p>\n Among the earliest writers, the passage under consideration was quoted or alluded to without question. Their writings date back to as early as 70 AD. Some of them are The Epistle of Barnabas<\/em>, Papias, Justin Martyr, and the Shepherd of Hermes<\/em>. Justin Martyr made no less than four direct references to the passage.<\/p>\n Between 150 and 200 AD, Irenaeus and Tatian used the passage as a genuine part of divine revelation. One named Dionysius of Alexandria, Egypt, and a companion, Hippolytus, mention the passage as if it was genuine. Only Jerome, who put the Latin Vulgate together considered it not genuine. Jerome was obviously not so sure about it because he included it in the Vulgate.<\/p>\n Some critics reject the section because of a perceived difference in style in the close of Mark 16 and previous words. Henry Alford, a brilliant commentator, rejected it because he claimed there were twenty-one words and expressions not found anywhere else in the Gospel of Mark. In response to that claim, others have shown clearly the fallacy of that idea. J.A. Broadus showed that in the twelve verses prior to the disputed passage there are seventeen words never used before by Mark.<\/p>\n Brother J.W. McGarvey showed the same regarding the conclusion of Luke’s Gospel. He found nine words that the writer had never used before, four of them not found anywhere in the New Testament. If one rejects the disputed passage on the basis of style, why not reject the last section of Luke?<\/p>\n No one needs to doubt the authenticity and genuineness of the passage in Mark. They are just as much a part of divine revelation as all the previous verses in the Gospel record.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Dudley Ross Spears The last verses from Mark’s gospel, (Mark 16:9-20) have been called “The Longer Ending of Mark.” The first time I came across this criticism it was in response to quoting verses 15 and 16. Mark 16:16 affirms, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[568,121],"class_list":["post-56401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-accuracy-of-the-bible","tag-mark"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":627,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/the-authenticity-of-mark-169-20\/","url_meta":{"origin":56401,"position":0},"title":"The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"October 11, 2003","format":false,"excerpt":"by Jim Snapps II \"Does\u00a0Mark 16:9-20\u00a0belong in the Bible?\" The church has answered \"Yes\" for centuries. Many in the church still do. But in the 1800s, scholars questioned the originality of these 12 verses. Many scholars today take it for granted that the Gospel of Mark originally did not contain\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2003\/10\/64ManuscriptsChart.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2003\/10\/64ManuscriptsChart.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2003\/10\/64ManuscriptsChart.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2003\/10\/64ManuscriptsChart.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":92809,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/the-elephant-in-mark-16\/","url_meta":{"origin":56401,"position":1},"title":"The Elephant in Mark 16","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"December 27, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"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,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":33351,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/is-mark-169-20-inspired\/","url_meta":{"origin":56401,"position":2},"title":"Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"March 16, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"by Kyle Pope via\u00a0Biblical Insights, Vol. 9, No. 8, August 2009 Many students of the New Testament have found themselves puzzled by notes encountered at the close of the Gospel of Mark, claiming, \"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20\"[1]. Should we question\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":623,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/is-mark-169-20-spurious-or-genuine\/","url_meta":{"origin":56401,"position":3},"title":"Is Mark 16:9-20 Spurious or Genuine?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"October 11, 2003","format":false,"excerpt":"by Howard See Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 454-455,\u00a0May 29, 1975 In a recent, late-night television interview of a snake-handling preacher from East Tennessee, the text of Mark 16:9-20 was attacked as being spurious. This was an effort to try to offset the teaching in Mark 16:18, \"'They shall take\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":621,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/is-mark-169-20-genuine\/","url_meta":{"origin":56401,"position":4},"title":"Is Mark 16:9-20 genuine?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"October 11, 2003","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Does\u00a0Mark 16:9-20\u00a0really belong in our Bibles? Answer: \"Is Mark 16:9-20 Spurious or Genuine?\" by Howard See is an excellent review of the question.\u00a0 For details on the question, see\u00a0The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20\u00a0by Jim Snapp. \"Some Bible scholars doubt the authenticity of 16:9-20, insisting that Mark did not write\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":53697,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/views-of-mark-1616\/","url_meta":{"origin":56401,"position":5},"title":"Views of Mark 16:16","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"July 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"by Jeffrey W. Hamilton Text: Mark 16:14-20 \u00a0 I.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Jesus had just one meaning in mind when he spoke Mark 16:16. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It isn\u2019t for men to put their own spin on Jesus\u2019 words - II Peter 1:20-21 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Not that this has ever stopped people from trying \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0God doesn\u2019t author confusion -\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Audio"","block_context":{"text":"Audio","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/audio\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
Ancient Manuscripts<\/h2>\n
Earliest Christian Writers<\/h2>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n