Frankly Answered Questions - FAQs

Is Mark 16:9-20 part of God's Holy Word?

Q: Please share with me your belief regarding Mark 16:9-20? Are these verses part of God's Holy Word or not?

A: I believe that ALL that God's apostles and prophets wrote is inerrant, infallible, completely true and trustworthy. I was asked to leave a liberal denomination because of that conviction. I am entirely committed to inerrancy of the original writings.

However, there is a question among people who believe in the inerrancy of God's Word about whether Mark 16:9-20 was actually written by Mark or any other apostle or prophet. This issue is not really a conflict between orthodoxy and liberalism. It is a question about whether these verses were ever part of Mark's original writing or were mistakenly added by a copyist at a later time. In my opinion, this is a legitimate debate about what Mark wrote or didn't write. Bible-believing Christians don't deny any of the truths written in Mark 16:9-20. They are only questioning whether it was written by Mark (or any person connected with Jesus).

Here are the two sides of the debate:

• On the one side are those who question Mark's authorship of verses 9-20. The reason this whole subject was even raised was because these verses are lacking in some of the early manuscripts (copies of the Bible) that we have. These verses are absent in the two earliest complete copies of the Bible (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). The verses also do not appear in the earliest African Old Latin text, the Sinaitic Syriac text and other very early manuscripts.
  
  People who question Mark's authorship of verses 9-20 also point to the early church fathers. They say that Clement of Alexandria and Origen seem not to have known these verses. Eusebius, the famous church historian who died about 340, mentions the possibility that they are not part of Mark's original writing. Jerome, writing a little later, said that almost all the Greek copies he knew of lacked verses 9-20.
  
  This group also points to what they see as changes in language and style that occur in verses 9-20: the change from personal style to prosaic summarizing, fourteen different words not found in previous portions of the book, words used in a different manner (ekeinos and phaivo), Mary Magdalene being introduced as if she had not been mentioned before, etc..

• On the other side of the issue are those who think verses 9-20 were written by Mark. A good example of a pastor/scholar who believes Mark wrote verses 9-20 is Jim Snapp II. You can get see his arguments at http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html. Basically he argues that the ancient manuscripts which don't contain verses 9-20 all have something strange about them. For example, Vaticanus contains an entirely blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1!
  
  He also correctly points out that silence regarding verses 9-20 from Clement of Alexandria and Origen is an argument from silence which is not very weighty. Eusebius' comment about these verses is presented by Eusebius as one of two hypothetical responses by which one may resolve a question of how to harmonize Mark 16:9 with Matthew 28. Eusebius goes on to show, in the same text (Ad Marinum), that a harmonization is possible by punctuating Mark 16:9 a certain way. This means that Eusebius acquiesced to the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, for there would otherwise be no reason to show how it could be harmonized with Matthew. Regarding Jerome, Pastor Snapp points out that he himself included Mark 16:9-20 in his translation (the Vulgate), and on one occasion cited Mark 16:14.
  
  Pastor Snapp also directs us to Irenaeus, a man taught by Polycarp, who had been taught by the apostle John. About A.D. 180 Irenaeus explicitly quoted from Mark 16:19. In Against Heresies (Book Three, 10:5-6) Irenaeus says, "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.'"
  
  Concerning the change in language and style, Dr. Bruce Terry has published his findings online. See The Style Of The Long Ending Of Mark for his research.

One of the reasons this seems to be a hotly contested debate is because certain verses in Mark 16:9-20 are used by certain groups to support their doctrine. Some churches use verse 16 to prove that a person must be baptized to be saved. Pentecostals often point to verses 17-18 as proving that every Christian should speak in tongues.

So basically there are two possibilities:

1. Mark wrote verses 9-20. It is God's Word and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.

2. Mark did not write verses 9-20. Therefore, while it may be a good summary, it is not God's Word.

If Mark did write verses 9-20 there is no problem. If he didn't there are two possibilities:

1. He meant to end his gospel at verse 8.

2. He meant to write more.

If Mark meant to end at verse 8 there is no problem. If Mark meant to write more there are two possibilities:

1. He was unable to finish for some unknown reason.

2. He did finish but the original ending was lost or destroyed.

Frankly, I wish the whole debate wasn't so difficult. Orthodox people that I respect hold different opinions and I am unable to make a firm decision on the subject. I leave the decision to your better wisdom and research. May God guide.

One final comment: I do think that it is significant to mention that Mark 16:9-20 is an unusual case. There is only one other major passage that I know of (John 7:53-8:11) that has questions about original authorship. That is very unusual when dealing with ancient writings and I think speaks wonderfully about the way that God has preserved His Word for all people down through many centuries. This is not a debate that should bother a new believer or lead them to question the Bible. It is a debate that is unique among Bible scholars and shows the wonderful care that God has shown to give us His inerrant Word.