WAS MARK 16:9-20 IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF MARK’S GOSPE? THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE Here is a good article that I suggest you read on this topic https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html I am not a Greek scholar, but a couple of key points stand out. “Two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, do not contain the longer ending to the Gospel of Mark. Both of those ancient Greek manuscripts end at Mark 16:8. They are given credence because, the older the manuscript, the closer it is to the original autographs. The fewer generations of copies, the fewer opportunities for deviation, and thus an older manuscript can be assumed to be more accurate than a newer one. Since the oldest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9–20, many scholars doubt that these verses were in the original Gospel of Mark.” There are also 2 shorter endings to Mark 16 that appear in some ancient manuscripts, which to me suggests that some copyists thought that the book ended abruptly and sought to add something to the ending. That would support the idea that it ended with 16:8.  However, the Long Ending is present in over 95% of other Greek manuscripts, That makes you wonder how so many other manuscripts would have it if it was not in any of the oldest manuscripts. That would be strong support for the long ending. So the question is whether to rely on its absence in two of the very oldest manuscripts versus its presence in the vast majority of manuscripts. Almost all scholars reject the long ending of Mark.

EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST THE LONG ENDING FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS: The evidence from the early church fathers is mixed. “Evidence from the church fathers in favor of Mark 16:9–20 is even earlier than the oldest manuscript evidence. Irenaeus wrote book three of Against Heresies when Eleutherius was bishop of Rome (174–189)—at least a century before Vaticanus was produced. There Irenaeus wrote, “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God” (3.10.5). Irenaeus’s copy of Mark obviously included Mark 16:9–20, since he is quoting here from Mark 16:19.” (James Snapp, Jr) Also, Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. 170) (a harmony of the 4 gospels) also included it.So that is strong 2nd century proof in support of the long ending. However, “both (church fathers) Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome specifically commented on the long ending of Mark (16:9-20), noting that it was absent from the majority of Greek manuscripts available to them in the 4th and 5th centuries. They recognized that the most accurate copies ended at Mark 16:8.” (AI) Jerome did include it in his 4th century Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, which is interesting. That is strong proof against the long ending since it shows that many of the early church fathers rejected the long ending. On the other hand, “some arguments suggest that while only a few very early fathers (2nd century) explicitly cite it, over 40 patristic sources across the early church period use material from Mark 16:9-20 in some form.” (AI) As I said, the. evidence from the early church fathers is mixed.

DOES THE CONTENT OF THE LONG ENDING SUPPORT OR REJECT ITS AUTHENTICITY? Those refuting the long ending also say that the long ending introduced questionable new doctrines like baptism before a believer is saved, drinking of poison, and handling of snakes. That argument doesn’t help decide if the text is genuine or not, which must be determined by manuscript evidence alone. The rest of the New Testament supports baptism before salvation (Acts 2:38) so that is not an issue. The healing of the sick, speaking in tongues, and casting out demons are signs in the book of Acts. The drinking of poison and handling of snakes as signs following the conversion of believers does seem unusual. The only mention in the New Testament of snakes is Paul being bitten by a poisonous snake in Malta and not being harmed. But there is none of the “snake handlng” practiced by some groups in church history. “Snake handling churches are independent, fundamentalist Pentecostal congregations, primarily located in the rural Appalachian region of the United States, that incorporate the handling of venomous snakes into their worship services. Based on a literal interpretation of Mark 16:17-18, followers believe that taking up snakes serves as a test of faith, a demonstration of the Holy Spirit’s power, and a sign of protection for true believers.” (AI) There is no mention of drinking poison in the New Testament. Some of the same snake handling groups also practice the drinking of poison. “While many participants claim to be unharmed, there have been documented cases of illness and death resulting from both snakebites and poison consumption. Adherents generally refuse medical attention, believing that if they are harmed or die, it was God’s will or a sign of insufficient faith.” (AI) The introduction of these two unusual new doctrines doesn’t support or refute the authenticity of the long ending, but it is an interesting discussion. If the long ending was not in the original text of Mark but added later, it makes me wonder why the person(s) adding the long ending would add these 2 unusual doctrines about snakes handling and drinking poison as signs. If the long ending was added after the first century, then the person(s) adding it would have access to the New Testament books (all of which were written before 70 AD) and would know that those 2 signs were not mentioned in the book of Acts or the letters (other than Paul being randomly bitten by a snake).

CONCLUSION I lean toward rejecting the long ending based on the evidence discussed above. But one of thee points sticks out to me in support of the long ending. If 95% of the other Greek manuscripts have the identical long endings, how could that be if it was not in any of the oldest manuscripts. At what point in time would someone have added the long ending and then almost all copyists after that started including the long ending in their copies? If the long ending was not in the original Mark text, that takes away a great verse on baptism being essential to salvation that we Church of Christ like to use (“he that believes and is baptized shall be saved”, Mark 16:16), but, as I said, the rest of the New Testament supports that doctrine of baptism before salvation. Acts 2:³⁸ Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In that verse, baptism comes before the remission of sins. In Acts 22, Saul was told ¹⁶ Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name.” In that verse, baptism comes before the washing away of sins. Many say that baptism is an outward sign to show that your sins have been washed away, but that’s not what Acts 22:16 says. Paul says in Romans 6:3-5 that we rise from baptism to walk in newness of life (thus new spiritual life after baptism). 1 Peter 3:²¹ Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Peter is comparing Noah being saved by (not “from” although that would also be true) the flood waters from the sinful environment on the e Peter says that in like manner baptism saves and the obvious comparison is to water baptism that saves us from sin, not fleshly dirt. Often I’ve heard preachers boldly teach “baptism does not save” and I wonder if they’ve read 1 Peter 3:16. Now if they mean that baptism alone does not save, I agree. If they mean that baptism is not a work to earn salvation, I agree. But in the new Testament salvation is by grace through faith but baptism is an essential part of faith that saves, so Peter is correct to say that “baptism saves you”. So, we don’t need Mark 16:16 to support baptism before salvation.

SHOULD IT BOTHER US IF THE LONG ENDING WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL MARK TEXT? So should it bother us that so many verses in 95% of the manuscripts might not even be in the original Mark text? It doesn’t bother me. We don’t have the originals and we know there are many variants in the over 5,000 copies. Those variants are almost always minor and of no consequence or impact on major doctrines. Some say we have over 99% of the originals in our best translations. The early church fathers quoted or cited all but 11 verses of the New Testament. So if the long ending in Mark is just a longer variant that might not be in the original Mark, that doesn’t bother me. The same goes for the story in John 8 of the woman caught in the act of adutery which almost everyone believes was not in the original text of the gospel of John.