Verse 8 forms a stangely abrupt ending to the Gospel.  And yet, many of the oldest and best manuscripts do not have vv9-20.

According to Edwards, this presents ‘the gravest textual problem in the NT.’

Steve Wells (Skeptic’s Annotated Bible) thinks that believers find this longer ending ’embarrassing’.  But no: they find it puzzling, but not embarrassing.  Nearly every translation and modern commentary discusses the issue, agreeing with more or less certainty that the text is ‘doubtful’ in its authenticity.

As for the abrupt ending offered by v8, it cannot be that the Evangelist did not know about, or believe in, Jesus’ resurrection, for he faithfully records multiple predictions of it from the mouth of the Lord himself.

Two main possibilities have been considered, with some variations.

1. Mark intended to conclude his Gospel at v8

This is the view of Lane, Guthrie, Schnabel, Carson and Moo and some others.

Others think that the ending acts as a kind of parable, forcing the reader to think it through and make a response.  For Schnabel, it

‘fits Jesus’ three predictions of his death and resurrection in Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34, each of which is followed by corrective teaching on the nature of discipleship in the light of Jesus’ death and resurrection.’

Kernaghan inclines to a somewhat similar interpretation:

‘An important point is to be found in the idea that the women did not say anything about what they had seen because of their fear and astonishment. This is the ironic counterpoint to the injunction Jesus gave his disciples after they had witnessed the transfiguration: “Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead” (9:9). Now that the Son of Man has risen from the dead, however, the followers of Jesus who knew about it were speechless. Their silence underscores Mark’s presentation of the resurrection as a parable.’

Carson and Moo:

‘Mark refrains from making very many editorial comments about the significance of the history he narrates. He lets his story speak for itself, forcing his readers to discover the ultimate significance of much of the story of Jesus. A somewhat enigmatic ending to the gospel suits this strategy perfectly. The reader knows that Jesus has been raised (v. 6). 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.’

Hurtado summarises:

‘In this view, Mark did not plan to bring his Gospel to a close with a resurrection appearance of Jesus and a commissioning of the Twelve, but instead wanted to confront his readers with a story of Jesus’ resurrection that was somewhat open-ended and inconclusive.’

Some attempt to make a virtue out of necessity, by suggesting that the Gospel, ending as it does at v8, and therefore recording no post-resurrection appearances, calls all subsequent reads to a faith that does not rely on sight.  But this has the effect of distancing Mark from the other Evangelists, and from Paul, who insist on the importance of those appearances.

The contributor to Harper’s Bible Commentary thinks that v8 is more positive than at first appears: what is narrated here is not failure, but awestruck faith:

‘The fear, wonder, and silence of the women are rather reactions that elsewhere in biblical narratives accompany theophanies and commissions given to prophets (Ex 3:3; Isa 6:1–5; Jer 1:6–8; Ez 1:28; Lk 1:29–30).’

2. Mark intended his Gospel to have a conclusion beyond v8

(a) Some think that Mark intended to conclude his Gospel after v8, but was prevented from doing so (perhaps by arrest, illness or death).

(b) It is possible that Mark wrote a conclusion, but it has been lost.  Tom Wright (in his ‘For Everyone’ commentary) suggests that a very early copy of Mark’s Gospel may have been damaged, leading to the loss of the last page (or last column of the last page).  Wright conjectures that in the lost conclusion:

‘the women spoke to the disciples, the disciples went to the tomb, and eventually (presumably in Galilee from what Mark has already said in Mk 14:28 and Mk 16:7), they met Jesus again. I suspect that the book concluded with Jesus not only confirming to them that he was indeed alive again in a new, though certainly bodily, way, but also commissioning them for the work that now awaited them (Mk 13:10; Mk 14:9).’

(N.B. Wright thinks that the almost-equally-abrupt beginning of the Gospel may also have been lost, for the same reason.)

(b) Given that Mark’s Gospel would otherwise have ended very abruptly, these verses seem to incorporate two or more (non-inspired) attempts to complete it.  Verses 9-18 have much in common with what we find in John’s Gospel regarding the risen Lord’s appearance to Mary Magdalene.  Verses 12-13 summarise the appearance to the two on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24).  Verses 15-18 contain a version of the Great Commission.

So, what do we make of the longer ending(s)?

The longer ending dates back at least as far as the first half of the second century.  Most ancient manscripts include it.  However, scholars are virtually unanimous in the view that the two endings (after v8) are later (non-Markan) additions.  Indeed, the longer ending reads like a kind of pastiche of elements that may be found in the other Gospels and Acts.

The Holman Apologetics Commentary lists the following parallels:

v. 11: lack of belief (Matt 28:17);
v. 12: the two on the road (Luke 24:13-35);
v. 14: reproach for unbelief (John 20:19, 26);
v. 15: the Great Commission (Matt 28:19);
v. 16: salvation and judgment (John 3:18, 36);
v. 17: speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4; 10:46);
v. 18: serpents and poison (Acts 28:3-5);
v. 18: laying hands on the sick (Acts 9:17; 28:8);
v. 19: ascension (Acts 1:2, 9);
v. 20: general summary of Acts.