Were Mark 16:9–20 added to the Bible by scribes? Should Mark 16:9–20 be in the Bible?

from the old testament

• Mark 16:9–20 is not found in the Old Testament.

from the new testament

• The New Testament shows that Mark 16:9–20 is absent from some of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), suggesting it was likely added later by scribes to provide a fuller ending. However, early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, referenced these verses by the second century, indicating the longer ending was accepted in early Christian tradition. Ultimately, while its original authorship by Mark is debated, the passage’s content aligns with New Testament teachings and does not contradict core doctrines, supporting its inclusion as a meaningful, though possibly later, addition.
• Mark 16:9–20 shows us the reality and power of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, His authority to send His followers to proclaim the gospel, and the signs that would accompany believers—affirming that the risen Christ empowers His church to continue His mission. It also emphasizes faith, obedience, and the assurance that God works through His people, even in the face of unbelief and challenges.

implications for today

The external evidence offers an interesting history to Mark's longer ending. In the fourth century, the church fathers Eusebius and Jerome wrote that almost all of the Greek manuscripts available to them at that time lacked the longer ending. This longer ending must have been added early, if not originally, since Justin Martyr and Tatian both seemed to be aware of Mark's longer ending as early as the second century. In about 180, Irenaeus included a quotation from Mark 16:19 in Adversus Haereses.

The internal features offer an additional line of evidence regarding the ending of Mark. First, the transition between verses 8 and 9 in Greek is considered awkward. Second, the vocabulary changes greatly in the Greek language of verses 9–20. Eighteen words are used in these verses that are not used elsewhere in the Gospel.

Two other factors must also be considered. First, what would be the best explanation for some manuscripts having a longer ending and others having a shorter ending? Though some have suggested the original ending may have been lost, the most likely suggestion is that the longer ending was added because the ending at verse 8 appeared too abrupt and did not include much detail regarding the resurrection appearances of Jesus. In other words, it is much easier to explain why the longer ending was added than it is to explain why the longer ending is missing in significant older manuscripts.

Finally, a look at Mark 16:1–8 may offer the most compelling internal explanation. A close look at these verses reveals that it is structured to present the angel's message of the risen Jesus as the focus. Verses 6–7 note, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." Here we find the crucifixion, empty tomb, resurrection, and a message to Peter (traditionally the source of Mark's Gospel) all combined in a fitting summary to this book.

All this leads to some people questioning the inerrancy of the Bible. If this passage is under question, maybe others are, too. We believe the original autographs, the first writings biblical authors made under the inspiration of God, are without error. We have none of those original autographs but have recreated them from literally thousands of ancient documents and citations. Theologians acknowledge that some phrasing or words may come under scrutiny, but no important doctrine is in doubt. Scholastic review may be one method God uses to ensure His Word stays pure.