Why Do Some Bibles Have a Note at the End of Mark?

A note beside words you know

You may reach the final chapter of Mark in a Bible you have used for years and encounter a note before verse 9. It may say that some early manuscripts do not contain the verses that follow. Those words can feel unsettling. The passage speaks about the risen Jesus, preaching, healing and signs. A reader who has heard it in church naturally wants to understand why another Bible draws attention to it.

The note concerns the transmission of a particular passage. Copies of Mark have circulated with different endings. The familiar twelve verses, Mark 16:9 to 20, are usually called the longer ending. Other forms include a conclusion at verse 8, a brief additional ending, and copies that include both the brief ending and the longer one. These differences make the ending a real textual question. ³

A textual variant is a difference between witnesses to a text. That description does not explain by itself how the difference arose, which reading came first, or what a church should conclude about a passage’s use. Those questions require further evidence and judgment. A note makes the difference visible to the reader instead of leaving a significant editorial decision unexplained.

The KJV includes the longer ending. Reading its words carefully and understanding why editions supply a note can belong together. We do not have to choose between affection for the Bible that formed us and an honest account of the evidence. Respect for Scripture includes patience with questions that cannot be settled by the strongest voice in a conversation.

The resurrection is already announced

Before considering the disputed verses, notice what Mark has already narrated. Jesus dies on the cross. Joseph of Arimathaea asks Pilate for his body, and Pilate obtains confirmation of his death. Joseph places the body in a sepulchre. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses observe where he is laid. The women who return after the sabbath therefore return to the burial place of the Jesus whose death the preceding chapter has described. ¹

Mark 16:6 declares, “And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.” This announcement occurs before the place where the major question about the ending begins. The conclusion at verse 8 does not leave the reader with an account that never mentions Jesus’ resurrection. ¹

The narrative joins the empty burial place to the announcement that the crucified Jesus has risen. This is more specific than an ancient story in which a remarkable person simply disappears or escapes death. Comparisons with ancient hero stories need to attend to that sequence of death, burial and resurrection announcement, rather than treat every empty grave story as interchangeable. ⁶

The messenger also directs the women toward the disciples and Peter, with the promise of seeing Jesus in Galilee. That recalls Jesus’ earlier words in Mark 14:28. Peter’s denial and the disciples’ abandonment have not made them disappear from Jesus’ concern. The promise addresses people who have failed him, while the women’s fear shows how difficult responding to the news can be. ¹

One literary reading holds these two features together: the promise of renewed encounter and the failure expressed in fearful silence. On that reading, verse 8 ends with a tension familiar from the rest of Mark, where genuine followers can misunderstand or falter while Jesus continues to call them. This is an interpretation of the narrative, rather than a recovered explanation from Mark about why he ended there. ⁴

We should therefore distinguish uncertainty about the final shape of Mark from uncertainty about every part of its message. Mark’s account of Jesus’ death and the resurrection announcement can be read directly. The other Gospels and First Corinthians 15 also testify to the risen Christ. A disputed ending deserves its own careful attention without swallowing the surrounding witness. ¹

An ancient question with ancient readers

The longer ending did not first appear when modern translators printed a Bible. Irenaeus explicitly quotes the statement about the Lord being received into heaven and sitting at God’s right hand, identifying it with the conclusion of Mark. His use supplies an early witness to the passage’s circulation. Evidence that a passage was known early is important, even though early use alone does not settle whether Mark wrote it. ¹⁷

Eusebius’ response to a question about resurrection timing is particularly instructive. He offers two possible answers. One sets aside the disputed passage and describes copies ending at verse 8. The other retains the passage and explains how its wording might be read alongside Matthew. His discussion should not be compressed into a simple assertion that he personally rejected every longer ending. ¹⁸

Augustine later compares the resurrection appearances recorded by the evangelists and Paul. In that discussion he uses Mark’s statement about the appearance to Mary Magdalene, which belongs to the longer ending. The passage had become part of Christian reading and reflection. Its reception in the church is a genuine historical subject alongside the question of its earliest place in Mark. ¹⁹

Historical defences of the ending have rightly drawn attention to Christian writers as well as surviving biblical manuscripts. A writer may preserve knowledge of a passage from a period earlier than a manuscript available to us. Yet quotations need care: an author may paraphrase, quote from memory or be transmitted imperfectly. Even Burgon’s vigorous defence recognised those differences in the value of patristic evidence. ²⁰

Historical arguments can also overstate what a witness proves. Tregelles interpreted Eusebius as strong evidence against Markan authorship, while the actual response offers more than one way of handling the difficulty. Reading an ancient source directly helps separate what it reports from the later critic’s inference. The older disagreement is part of the history of inquiry, not a reason to ignore the source itself. ²¹

This history gives the reader a calmer starting point. There was both early use of the longer ending and awareness of copies that ended differently. A modern note brings that question into view. It does not mean that the editor has suddenly discovered a reason to be embarrassed by the resurrection or that earlier Christians never noticed textual differences.

Two questions that should stay distinct

The first question is whether Mark 16:9 to 20 belonged to the earliest form of the Gospel. The second is whether verse 8 was Mark’s intended conclusion. Saying that the longer ending was added does not automatically establish that Mark intended to stop at verse 8. Someone might instead propose that an earlier conclusion was lost. Conversely, finding verse 8 abrupt does not establish that the familiar twelve verses are the missing original.

Scholars who regard the longer ending as secondary often consider its transition, vocabulary and style alongside the manuscript evidence. Verse 9 turns back to Mary Magdalene and introduces information about her, after the preceding verses have already placed her among the women at the tomb. Those observations require interpretation; they are part of a cumulative argument rather than a single word that settles everything. ³

A defence of the ending can reply that a brief summary of resurrection appearances would naturally differ from an extended narrative. Some features described as unusual also have parallels elsewhere in Mark. Such a reply deserves consideration, while its proponent also acknowledges that the transition presents difficulties and does not claim absolute certainty about Mark’s authorship. Style is evidence to examine with care. ⁹

Lunn’s defence likewise distinguishes an acknowledged problem in the transmission of Mark from the conclusion that the longer ending must have been absent from its original form. His case takes the evidence in a different direction from the common critical conclusion. His argument disputes the move from different transmitted endings to a confident conclusion about the earliest Gospel. It does not eliminate the need to explain the competing witnesses. ⁷

Another proposal suggests two early editions, with material associated with Mark being attached after an initial circulation that ended at verse 8. That can account for certain features in a proposed reconstruction. It remains a hypothesis. No recovered note from Mark or his associates establishes that this sequence occurred, and the existence of two textual forms does not by itself recover their circumstances. ¹⁰

The longer ending also has its own meaningful structure. It moves through appearances of Jesus and the disciples’ refusal to believe toward their preaching. Seeing that movement helps us read the passage as a connected conclusion rather than a random list. Its literary coherence and its place in Christian reception are questions that can be examined even while its original authorship remains disputed. ¹¹

Interpretations of the ending sometimes go further and reconstruct tensions between particular groups of early Christians, including attitudes to women’s testimony and Peter’s authority. Such proposals may raise worthwhile questions about a narrative’s reception. They must remain proposals. A difference between manuscripts is firmer evidence than an account of the motives of people whose decisions we cannot directly observe. ⁸

Why counting copies is not enough

A large number of copies is relevant evidence, but copies can depend on other copies. A reading may become widespread through a line of transmission. Its numerical success and its earliest place in the text are therefore related questions that cannot simply be equated. A careful judgment considers the witnesses’ relationships, their readings and the likely ways in which differences arose.

Nor does an early date make every reading in a manuscript correct automatically. A manuscript is a witness to examine, not a complete verdict. Arguments about the ending need to account for both the witnesses that stop at verse 8 and those that preserve more. Choosing a conclusion first and treating all inconvenient witnesses as irrelevant weakens the inquiry.

Textual methods need both external evidence about the witnesses and internal evidence about the readings. A numerical method alone can still face situations in which the surviving copies divide. Historical inquiry involves judgment about probability, rather than a rule that converts a count into certainty. The strength of a judgment depends on how well it explains the evidence, including the readings that initially seem inconvenient. ¹⁶

Even a computer assisted method does not remove the need to define what text the editor is trying to recover or to judge how a reading relates to others. A developed critique of the coherence based genealogical method distinguishes reconstructing an initial text from explaining the causes of its transmission. Tools can improve the inquiry while leaving meaningful decisions to people who must explain their reasoning. ¹⁴

The Greek ending of verse 8 is also sometimes made to carry more weight than it can bear. Its final short clause explains the women’s silence through their fear. An unusual or abrupt close can prompt a question about the ending; it does not supply an answer about a lost page. A Greek construction must be read as language before it becomes evidence in a larger historical argument. ^{1 2}

A comparison with a speech in Plato shows that a Greek speech can close with a similarly brief explanatory clause. That example weakens the claim that such a close is simply impossible. It does not show that Mark imitated Plato or prove that Mark intentionally ended at verse 8. Possibility and demonstrated intention remain different conclusions. ⁵

What a reader can do with the note

The note makes a responsible distinction possible: these verses are present in the KJV and have a long history of Christian use, while their place in Mark’s earliest text is disputed. An edition may retain them while marking that question. Readers can understand the editorial decision more accurately when the evidence and the degree of uncertainty are stated plainly.

Comparison of readings is not a recent invention. Historical study of the Reformation shows theologians and scholars dealing with differences between copies and editions, sometimes carefully and sometimes within the limitations of their evidence and controversies. Recognising those limits allows us to learn from their work without imagining that faithful earlier readers never faced textual questions. ¹³

Modern critical editions can also make more of the evidence available through their apparatus, the notes identifying readings and witnesses. A comparison of Greek editions found substantial continuity alongside changes and a much richer presentation of variants. That result concerns particular editions and methods. It encourages attention to what a note actually discloses rather than assuming that every newly visible difference means an entirely new Bible. ¹²

The longer ending changes how the close of the narrative is experienced: appearances are reported, unbelief is confronted, mission is commanded and the Lord works with the proclaimers. A narrative analysis can describe those effects. Its further claim that the passage revises an earlier eschatological outlook is an interpretive reconstruction, not an explanation supplied by the manuscript itself. ¹⁵

These distinctions help us speak fairly in church. We can acknowledge the question without calling someone disloyal for asking it. We can also resist claims that one disputed passage makes every Gospel sentence unknowable. Specific evidence should lead to specific conclusions. A thoughtful teacher explains what is uncertain, what supports that judgment and what the surrounding Scripture clearly says.

Trust that listens to the whole witness

Pentecostal confidence in the living Christ can remain open to this inquiry. The Spirit’s gifts do not depend on pretending that every manuscript has the same ending. First Corinthians 12 speaks explicitly about gifts of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy and other gifts distributed by the Spirit. The gifts serve the body, whose members need one another. Their purpose reaches beyond a dramatic church platform. ¹

Acts describes the Spirit empowering witness and records healing in the course of ministry. James 5 calls the sick to the elders’ prayer and places that care within a praying community. These passages provide a wider scriptural witness for trusting God, seeking healing and serving others. Careful attention to Mark’s ending does not require treating the Spirit as inactive or prayer as empty. ¹

The same wider witness shapes how signs are understood. Paul encounters a viper in Acts 28 while helping gather material for a fire; the narrative describes an unexpected danger, rather than a command to create one. In Matthew 4 Jesus refuses a proposal to throw himself down in order to demand divine protection. Trust in God is expressed through faithful dependence, rather than manufactured peril. ¹

Mission also rests on more than these twelve verses. Matthew 28 commissions disciples, Luke 24 connects the resurrection with proclamation, and Acts 2 presents empowered witness to Jesus. The church can proclaim the risen Lord with confidence drawn from this broad testimony. It need not make one disputed textual question carry the entire weight of its calling. ¹

At Mark’s tomb the words already heard remain central: the crucified Jesus has risen, and his followers are summoned toward an encounter he has promised. The note beside the ending invites careful reading of how that Gospel has been transmitted. Such care can deepen a faith willing to listen, acknowledge uncertainty accurately and continue in the hope and service of the risen Christ. ¹