Why are Mark 16:9-20 missing in some Bibles? Background and Context Mark 16:9–20 is sometimes referred to as the “Longer Ending of Mark.” In many modern translations and study Bibles, you may see this passage placed within brackets or marked with a note that these verses are absent from certain ancient manuscripts. The question naturally arises: Why are Mark 16:9–20 missing in some Bibles? Below is a comprehensive exploration of how and why this happens, incorporating manuscript evidence, early Christian writings, translation history, and theological considerations. Manuscript Evidence and Early Witnesses Early New Testament manuscripts provide the primary evidence for this passage’s inclusion or omission. Two notable Greek manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Vaticanus (fourth century), do not contain Mark 16:9–20. Instead, they conclude at Mark 16:8. However, other ancient witnesses do include the longer ending. In addition to numerous Greek manuscripts that include the verses, early translations into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic often retain Mark 16:9–20. Irenaeus (second century), who wrote extensively on church doctrine, quotes from the longer ending, suggesting that at least by his time, these verses were part of the Markan text in many communities. This manuscript variation lies at the root of why some translations include the verses without qualification, some include them with brackets or footnotes, and a small minority may omit them from the main text. Since we have “an abundance of manuscripts” for the New Testament, however, the overall clarity of the text (Mark and beyond) remains consistent and reliable. Different Endings of Mark in the Manuscript Tradition Beyond the omission in a few manuscripts, there is also evidence of other possible “alternative” endings to Mark: 1. Shorter Ending: Found in a small number of manuscripts, it provides a brief conclusion different from verses 9–20. 2. Intermediate Ending: A handful of manuscripts have a variation that usually merges into what we recognize as verse 9 or ends abruptly. Since Mark 16:8 ends with the women fleeing the empty tomb, some scholars suggest that this abrupt conclusion might have encouraged later scribes to add a more satisfying ending. Others argue Mark intentionally concluded in a dramatic fashion to prompt readers to reflect on the resurrection. Persuasive arguments exist for both perspectives, yet the majority of manuscripts from various regions do contain Mark 16:9–20, making it the dominant reading in New Testament manuscript tradition. The Contribution of Early Church Writers The Church Fathers often discussed the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Writers such as Irenaeus (in Against Heresies 3.10.5) appear to quote Mark 16:19, thus revealing that the longer ending was recognized early in church history. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and other theologians either directly mention or allude to material that parallels Mark 16:9–20. Eusebius (fourth century) comments on both the abrupt ending at verse 8 and the presence of the longer ending in various manuscripts of his day. He does not definitively reject the longer ending but brings awareness to the fact that early copies of Mark were not uniform at that point. Jerome (fourth century) echoes similar observations in his writings. Modern Translation Practices Most contemporary translations include Mark 16:9–20 but note in the text or in a footnote that “some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain these verses.” Here are a few examples of how modern versions typically present them: • The Berean Standard Bible may include brackets or a special notation around verses 9–20. • The New International Version (NIV) often sets the text apart with a prefatory warning. • The English Standard Version (ESV) includes these verses with an explanatory footnote regarding manuscript evidence. Translations strive for transparency, allowing readers to see where there is any uncertainty in the transmission of manuscripts. This approach honors both the desire for accurate scholarship and the historical tradition that has handed down these verses. Scriptural and Theological Implications Mark 16:9–20 encompasses appearances of the risen Christ, His commission to His disciples, and signs accompanying those who believe. None of these truths conflict with the core of what Scripture teaches elsewhere. Other Gospels also testify of Jesus’ resurrection and His commissioning of the disciples (e.g., Matthew 28:16–20, Luke 24:36–49, John 20:19–23). While there are mentions of signs such as serpent handling and protection from poisons in Mark 16:17–18, these do not contradict the broader testimony of Scripture regarding divine protection or miraculous works of God (cf. Acts 28:3–6). An important point is that no central Christian doctrine rises or falls based solely on Mark 16:9–20. The historical certainty of the resurrection is confirmed in multiple Gospels, the letters of Paul, and other New Testament writings (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15). Textual discussions about Mark 16:9–20 do not diminish the unity of the message, the power of the resurrection, or the authority of Scripture as a whole. Archaeological and Historical Reliability Outside of manuscript discussions, archaeological and historical studies support the New Testament’s reliability and consistent message that Jesus rose from the dead. From geological studies of first-century tombs near Jerusalem to the attestation of first- and second-century non-Christian sources (e.g., Josephus, Tacitus, and possibly references in Pliny the Younger), there are well-established indicators that the Christian testimony of the risen Christ emerged quickly after the crucifixion. Throughout history, believers and non-believers alike have acknowledged the powerful transformation of Jesus’ followers following the resurrection events. Evidence of early Christian assemblies, baptistries, and catacomb art echoes themes found across the Gospels, including resurrection accounts like those in Mark 16. Exegetical Considerations It's worth noting that the unique style and vocabulary of Mark 16:9–20 differ slightly from the rest of Mark, causing some scholars to question whether Mark himself composed these verses. Yet other scholars argue that an amanuensis (secretary) or a later official scribe could have compiled reliable traditions from Mark or Peter, especially if Mark’s original ending was lost or left unfinished. Several key items within these verses—such as the commissioning to preach (Mark 16:15), the concept of baptism and belief (16:16), and performing signs (16:17–18)—have echoes in the other Gospels and the Book of Acts. This lends internal consistency to Mark 16:9–20, demonstrating that they agree with broader New Testament theology even if questions remain about their earliest place in the Gospel of Mark. Conclusion and Encouragement for Further Study Mark 16:9–20 are missing in some Bibles due to manuscript variations, particularly in a few significant but not universally representative manuscripts. Yet these verses have a lengthy pedigree in church tradition, appear in the majority of available manuscripts, and do not introduce doctrines foreign to the wider testimony of the New Testament. While the question of why some Bibles include or exclude these verses may initially raise concern, a deeper dive into the manuscript evidence affirms the overall confidence that believers can have in the transmission of Scripture. The Gospel message—that Jesus died and rose again, commissioning His followers to preach hope to all nations—remains unchanged. In all matters of textual study, readers can trust the overarching consistency of Scripture. As it is written, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35). While textual footnotes and varying manuscript details may draw our attention, they also highlight the careful preservation and faithful stewardship through centuries of copying and translation. This heritage assures us that the message of the risen Christ—in Mark 16 and beyond—stands firm for all who seek it. |
    |