Mark 16:9–20’s authenticity is debated because it’s missing from some of the earliest manuscripts, but no core Christian doctrine depends on these verses. Scholars believe the longer ending was likely added later to provide a fuller conclusion, yet its message aligns with the gospel’s truth.
Mark 16:9–20 includes the disputed longer ending of Mark that is included in later Greek manuscripts yet is missing from earlier ones, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Should these verses be in the Bible? The best way to determine whether Mark 16:9–20 should be in the Bible is to investigate whether these verses were in the earliest preserved manuscripts, yet the passage’s importance can be determined if it is theologically and biblically sound, in light of the rest of the New Testament.
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.