Mark’s Gospel – by common consent the first to be written – seems strangely incomplete.  It has no record of Jesus’ birth.  Joseph, his adoptive father, is not named at all.  But even more peculiar is the ending: it is extremely abrupt (ending with the word ‘gar‘ – ‘for’, or ‘because’), it ends on a note of fear, and, although Jesus’ resurrection is reported, no actual appearances are mentioned.

It is this apparent incompleteness that no doubt accounts for Mark’s Gospel being placed second, rather than first, in the NT canon.  It also accounts for the various ‘longer endings’ that were added later.  But none of these longer endings is included in the earliest manuscripts.  The most important of these ending (Mark 16:9-19) was hallowed by inclusion in the AV.  However, it has every appearance of being a pastiche based on the endings of the other three Gospels, along with material from Acts.

Three possibilities:

1. The ‘longer ending’ is original

This is supported by a few scholars, including Lenski, W.R. Farmer, Nicholas P. Lunn and Craig Evans.

However, the scholarly consensus since B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort is that this is almost certainly not the case.  The manuscript evidence does not support it: early and reliable manuscripts such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus conclude the Gospel at verse 8.

One point in favour of this interpretation is that the longer ending must be rather ancient, given the number of mansucripts that include it.

This ending appears to be concocted from material from all four Gospels and the book of Acts.  Hurtado comments that these verses

‘are somewhat clumsily attached to 16:8, for they make no mention of the group of women of 16:8 or the appearance in Galilee promised in 16:7.’

2. The Gospel originally ended at verse 8

This is the majority opinion among New Testament scholars, including Metzger, Hurtado, Schnabel, Keener, Brooks, Caron & Moo.

According to Edwards, the strongest argument in favour of this is that our earliest and best manuscripts end the Gospel at v.8

If it is objected that a document could scarcely end with the word gar (‘for’, ‘because’), Schnabel responds that numerous sections within the Gospel end with that word (Mk 1:38; 3:35; 6:52; 10:45; 11:18; 12:44), and the final section could end with it too.

Edwards says that the idea that Mark left his Gospel intentionally open-ended (thus inviting a response from his readers) owes more to modern literary theory than to our knowledge of ancient texts, which evince a determination to state, rather than merely hint at, conclusions.

Keener (IVP Background Commentary) says that many ancient works, including treatises and dramas, had sudden endings.

The shorter ending makes sense because, in the words of Marcus:

‘because the decisive events in the history of salvation have occurred, and the prophesied appearances will only confirm what the angel has already proclaimed, that Jesus has been raised and yet remains the Crucified One.’ (Cited by Schnabel)

Brooks suggests that the ‘fear’ of v8 may not be fright, but religious awe.  Stonehouse had previoiusly suggested the same thing.

James Tabor suggests that:

• The first generation of Jesus’ followers were content with a Gospel account that recorded no post-mortem appearances of Christ.
• Mk 14:28 records Jesus as saying: “But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”  For Mark, this appears to have indicated, not bodily resurrection, but exaltation to the right hand of God.  Mark knows nothing of resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, but rather has the ascended Lord appearing to his disciples in Galilee.
• The account given by Mark is consistent with the early experience and teaching of Paul.  Both represent belief in visionary (not physical) appearances of Jesus.  Matthew, Luke and John, with the accounts of physical resurrection, come after AD70, when all the original witness – including Peter, James and Paul – were dead.

I find Tabor’s entire article to be unduly speculative.

Brooks suggests the following reasons why Mark chose to end his gospel in this way:

‘First an ending with references to trembling, bewilderment, flight, and fear is not surprising or out of place as many have thought because Mark previously recorded similar reactions when people observed the power of God being manifested in Jesus…’

‘Second, the abrupt ending is quite in harmony with the abrupt beginning of the Gospel. Just as Mark recorded very little that preceded the ministry of Jesus, so he recorded very little that followed it. Also the secrecy and mystery surrounding the ending is quite in harmony with the so-called “messianic secret” that permeates the Gospel…’

‘Third, Mark had a definite purpose in his ending. He apparently wanted an open ending to indicate that the story was not complete but was continuing beyond the time he wrote. He wanted his readers/hearers to continue the story in their own lives….’

Carson and Moo (Introduction): It is not Mark’s habit too make many editorial comments about the material he relates.  He expects readers to make their own judgment about the sotry of Jesus.  An abrupt, enigmatic ending suits this strategy well.  The reader has been told about the resurrection,

‘But the confusion and astonishment of the women (v. 8) leaves us wondering about just what it all means. And that is just the question Mark wants us to ask—and find answers to.’

I am not persuaded by the case mounted in defence of this interpretation.

3. The original ending is lost

This is the opinion of Gundry, Edwards, Evans, France, Stein, Edwards and Wright.  It is argued that the Gospel would otherwise have ended too abruptly, that announcement of the risen Jesus to meet his disciples in Galilee (Mk 14:28; 16:7) would otherwise remain unfulfilled, and that it is unlikely that Mark would have intended to end on a note of fear.

Hendriksen thinks that Mark did not originally intend his Gospel to finish at v8, but that commentator does not venture an opinion about why it remained incomplete.

Schnabel responds by observing that other predictions are not fulfilled in Mark’s Gospel either – the prediction of the destruction of the temple and the return of the Son of Man in Mark 13.  I don’t think that this is a decisive objection.

Edwards gives a number of reasons for taking this view, the most important of which, he suggests, is:

‘It is hard to imagine a Gospel that begins with a bold, resounding announcement of divine Sonship (1:1) ending on a note of fear and panic (16:8). The purpose of the centurion’s confession in 15:39 is to bring Mark’s readers to a confession of faith, whereas a conclusion at 16:8 leaves them in bewilderment.’

Edwards poses the following question:

‘Would an “open ending” at 16:8 or the promised resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples better achieve Mark’s purpose of presenting Jesus as God’s Son? I think not, nor would an open ending be much encouragement to Mark’s readers facing the savagery of Nero’s persecution.’

Gundry (New Testament Commentary) offers the following reasons for adopting this view:

(1) Mark has regularly used notations of topographical movement, preceded by “and,” to start new paragraphs, just as here: “And on coming out [of the tomb] they fled.…”

(2) Mark has repeatedly and in detail narrated the fulfillments of Jesus’ other predictions insofar as those fulfillments occurred during Jesus’ time on earth; so it seems highly unlikely that Mark would have omitted to narrate the climactic fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that upon resurrection he’d go ahead of the disciples into Galilee.

(3) The young man’s enhancement of that prediction with the statement, “You’ll see him there, just as he told you,” makes it seem doubly unlikely that Mark would have omitted such a narrative.

(4) For the most part Matthew and Luke seem to have been following Mark up through 16:8, yet both of them go on to write about the women’s carrying out their commission to tell the disciples—as though they had an earlier text of Mark that contained such a narrative.

(5) Appearances of the resurrected Jesus are mentioned so often in the New Testament (see especially 1 Corinthians 15:5–8 as well as the other three Gospels) that it seems unlikely Mark wouldn’t have included such an appearance.

(6) In the original Greek text, 16:8 ends with the conjunction “For,” a highly unlikely ending for a book.

(7) The manuscript tradition displays massive dissatisfaction with an ending at 16:8, a dissatisfaction best explained by knowledge that Mark didn’t end there.

(Paragraphing added)

On this theory, the question remains: What happened to the original ending?  Edwards thinks that the most probable explanation is that is was lost due to wear and tear of the last page of a codex.  There are, he states, several examples of damaged or lost pages of codices.

Counting somewhat against this is the observation of Brooks that the material must have been lost at a very early stage – before Mark’s account came into the hands of Matthew and Luke some 10 – 20 years after its composition.

Two thoughts from this podcast:-

N.T. Wright: Rather than suppose that important events are missing from this Gospel because the author was either ignorant of them or had no interest in them, it is better to hypothesise that the original ending is missing.  It would have formed the attachment point of the scroll to its wooden roller, and perished when the wood rotted.  The same might also be true of the rather unexpected beginning of the Gospel.  It is not plausible to think that Mark had no belief or interest in the resurrection, since he faithfully records Jesus’ repeated predictions about his death and rising (Mk 8:31-33; 9:30-32; 10:32-34).

Michael Bird: The Longer Ending of Mark appears to be a pastiche of material from all four Gospels and Acts.  This longer ending dates from the first half of the 2nd century.  It is, therefore, witness to the fact that Matthew, Luke, John and Acts were all in circulation at this relatively early stage in the church’s life.

It remains to wonder what the lost ending might have looked like.  Edwards tentatively suggests that, since Matthew has closely followed Mark, the latter’s ending might have been very similar to that of the former (i.e. Mt 28).  In support, Edwards writes:

1. ‘Mark leads readers to expect an appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee (14:28; 16:7), just as Matthew reports in 28:9–10.’

2. Every reference in Mark to Jesus’ authority as the Son of God is reproduced in Matthew.  The one exception is in the ‘great Commission’ of Mt 28:18.  We may suggest that Matthew also gleaned this reference to the authority of Jesus from the (now missing) end of Mark.

Edwards concludes that Mt 28:9–10 and 16–20 givea pretty reliable guide to the substance of the original ending to Mark’s Gospel.

Conclusion

From this survey of the relevant evidence and argumentation, I conclude that the most likely scenario is that Mark did not intended his Gospel to end at 16:8.  The original ending, was lostprobably due to damage to the codex or scroll.  However, it would have been similar to sections of Mt 28.

A note on the beginning of Mark’s Gospel

N. T. Wright thinks it likely that the original beginning of Mark’s Gospel has been lost (as has the original ending).  The extant scroll began with: verse 2 – ‘As it is written in Isaiah the prophet…’, and a scribe has added v1 in order to give some kind of introductory statement.  But, in this case, we do not know how much of the original text has been lost.

Guthrie (New Testament Introduction)  considers the possibility that both the first and the last page of a codex were lost:

‘This would be a plausible suggestion if the original were in codex form, for then the outer sheet containing the first two and last two pages may have been lost.’

This possibility has also been countenanced by C F D Moule.  But, Guthrie points out, there is no textual evidence for any alternative beginning to the Gospel (unlike the ending).

However, the theory seems quite plausible to me.