Biblical & Theological Issues

by Matt Aernie –

One of the most well-known pericopes in New Testament textual criticism is Mark 16:9-20. This passage is often the subject of much debate among textual critics regarding its legitimacy. This article seeks to provide an introduction to the textual critical issues surrounding this passage.¹ By considering external and internal evidence the intention of this brief analysis will be to determine whether or not this pericope is original to the text.²

Mark 16:9-20

The ending of the gospel of Mark has long been the focus of much dispute in textual criticism. In fact, Edwards has argued that the ending of Mark offers, “…the gravest textual problem in the NT.”³ Essentially, the issue surrounding this discussion is whether or not the intended ending of Mark is 16:8 or should vv. 9-20 (commonly referred to as the Longer Ending) be considered authentic?⁴ In other words, did the evangelist intentionally conclude his gospel so abruptly at v. 8 or was there a Longer Ending (LE)? Those who are inclined not to accept Mark 16:8 as the original ending do so for the following reasons as outlined by Croy:

The theses favored by these scholars takes three basic forms: an unfinished gospel (through death or arrest of the evangelist), a deliberately suppressed ending, or an ending lost through accidental damage to the manuscript. The last of these has been by far the most popular view.⁵

Consequently, numerous arguments have been offered for both the legitimacy and illegitimacy of Mark’s gospel ending at 16:8. Therefore, a concise discussion of both the external and internal evidence is warranted and should help elucidate the issue regarding the authenticity of vv. 9-20.⁶

External Evidence

For the purposes of this article the discussion of external evidence as it pertains to Mark’s ending will briefly focus on three areas: the manuscript tradition, the ancient versions, and the Church Fathers.⁷

The Manuscript Tradition

The overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts (MSS) include vv. 9-20 as the ending of Mark. In fact, Kurt and Barbara Aland assert that “the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark.”⁸

Such a high percentage of manuscript (MS) evidence might seem insurmountable for those who support 16:8 as the original ending. However, diligent textual critics are always mindful that, “…manuscripts should be weighed, and not counted. . .”⁹ In fact, the two oldest and primary Greek MSS: Codex

Sinaiticus ( א) and Codex Vaticanus (B) do not contain vv. 9-20. Both MSS are substantial witnesses to the NT dating from the fourth-century and belong to the Alexandrian text type, which is often considered to be the primary text type among NT textual critics.¹⁰ Regarding the Alexandrian text type, Metzger and Ehrman have noted that, “It is no surprise, then, to find that textual witnesses connected to Alexandria attest a high quality of textual transmission from the earliest times.”¹¹ Each of these MSS are of high quality and are thought to be the most important uncial witnesses to the NT.¹² Moreover, textual critics appraise Codex Vaticanus as, “. . . probably the best single MS of the NT.”¹³ Despite that nearly all of the MS evidence contains vv. 9-20, the fact remains that the absence of these verses in both of the foremost uncials has led the majority of textual critics to reject the authenticity of the LE.¹⁴

Ancient Versions

In addition to the Greek MSS there are numerous ancient versions that do not contain vv. 9-20. For instance, the Old Latin MS (k) dating from the fourth or fifth century does not include the LE.¹⁵ Also, the fourth century Sinaitic Syriac does not contain vv. 9-20. Regarding the Sinaitic Syriac, Wallace has noted that, “This MS dates from the fourth century, but it represents a text from the late second or early third century, for the most part following the Western text-type. The Sinaitic Syriac MS concludes the Gospel at v.8”¹⁶ Moreover, nearly 100 of the Armenian MSS do not include vv. 9-20.¹⁷ The two earliest Georgian MSS written in 897 AD and 913 AD lack the LE.¹⁸ There is also one Sahidic MS dating from the fifth century that concludes at v. 8.¹⁹ Finally, Kurt and Barbara Aland have noted that:

The widespread practice in the early Church of concluding the gospel of Mark at 16:8 was suppressed by Church tradition, but it could not be eradicated. It persisted stubbornly. As late as the twelfth century in the minuscule 304 the gospel ends at 16:8. A considerable number of manuscripts add Mark 16:9-20 either with critical notations or with marginal comment questioning its originality, even as late as the sixteenth century.²⁰

In spite of the impressive verification from the Greek MSS and the ancient versions regarding the inauthenticity of the LE, evidence from the early Church Fathers is also significant.

The Church Fathers

The evidence from the Church Fathers, while useful, is often viewed as ancillary to the MSS. The trend among textual critics regarding the use of the Fathers has been summarized by Gordon Fee who writes, “In NT textual criticism, patristic citations are ordinarily viewed as the third line of evidence, indirect and supplementary to the Greek MSS, and are often therefore treated as tertiary importance.”²¹ However, the Church Fathers can arguably offer valuable information and when used accordingly, they are able to be of great service to the textual critic. Fee has even argued that, “When properly evaluated, however, the patristic evidence is of primary importance, for both the major tasks of NT textual criticism: in contrast to the early Greek MSS, the Fathers have the potential of offering datable and geographically certain evidence.”²² Therefore, a brief discussion of the Church Fathers and the LE is warranted.

Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen are silent regarding vv. 9-20. Certainly, an argument from silence is somewhat weak and advocates for the LE would argue that their silence could mean that vv. 9-20 were unknown to them or that they simply rejected the ending.²³ Conversely, it could also be that Clement’s and Origen’s silence demonstrates that they were familiar with Mark’s gospel concluding at 16:8. David Parker observes, “The presence of evidence for the Longer Ending is demonstrable. That there cannot be similar evidence for an absence of text requires us to accept that there is not evidence against the existence of the Short Ending in the second century.”²⁴ Essentially, Parker’s argument is that no evidence exists that proves Clement or Origen knew of vv. 9-20. Moreover, Wallace states that, “since this particular textual problem involves the addition of a dozen verses, rather than the alteration of the same, there is simply no way to verify whether Clement and Origen knew of the LE. All we can say is that there is not evidence that they did.”²⁵ In addition to Clement and Origen, both Eusebius and Jerome confirm that the LE was absent from the majority of MSS they had.²⁶ Regarding the ending of Mark, Eusebius wrote, “The accurate copies conclude the story according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women saying to them, ‘Do not be afraid. You seek Jesus…for they were afraid.’ For the end is here in nearly all the copies of Mark.”²⁷

Additionally, Metzger notes that the original form of the Eusebian sections make no provisions for any additional text after 16:8.²⁸ Furthermore, Jerome comments that the LE is “in scarcely any copies of the Gospel – almost all the Greek codices being without this passage.”²⁹ Additional Church Fathers who were also unfamiliar with vv. 9-20 include: Tertullian, Cyrian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others.³⁰ However, some of the Church Fathers were familiar with the LE. For instance, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Augustine testify to vv. 9-20.³¹ Such diversity among the Church Fathers seemingly demonstrates that:

. . . in the second century there is evidence that the longer ending was known and quoted; in the fourth century we have evidence that scribes were aware of a problem, the ending at v. 8 was known, as were the shorter and the longer endings; by the sixth century there is evidence of the shorter and longer endings together.³²

Such diversity among the Church Fathers regarding the authenticity of vv. 9-20 is arguably inconclusive.

The external evidence for the LE of Mark is certainly disparate. While the majority of MSS contain vv. 9-20 the two most important MSS, Codex Sinaiticus ( א) and Codex Vaticanus (B), do not. Moreover, the best and earliest ancient versions are unaware of the LE. The evidence from the Church Fathers may be inconclusive but it does demonstrate that from the early centuries questions arose regarding Mark’s original ending. Regarding the external evidence Wallace summarizes that:

The MSS, versions, and patristic evidence on behalf of the shorter ending are early and widespread. They represent the Alexandrian (especially the primary Alexandrian), Western and Caesarean text-types, possibly even the proto-Byzantine. The short reading is found in the best witnesses of the three most important and early versions as well—the Latin, Coptic, and Syriac. . . . Further, as the centuries rolled on, the LE was at first considered inauthentic, then timidly accepted, then finally considered to be part of the original text. Yet even then, many scribes registered their doubts about the ending.³³

Consequently, the external evidence has arguably demonstrated that vv. 9-20 are suspect.

However, a concise examination of the internal evidence should help to solidify this conclusion.

Internal Evidence

The discussion of internal evidence regarding vv. 9-20 will briefly focus on three areas:³⁴ Language, Theology, and Mark’s intent.

Language

The issues surrounding the grammar and style of the LE are complex and space prohibits a comprehensive analysis of its peculiarities.³⁵ One of the most exhaustive studies on the language and style of the LE has been conducted by James A. Kelhoffer who has noted at least thirty-seven idiosyncrasies regarding the language and style found in vv. 9-20 that are either alien or unique to the narrative of Mark 1-16:8.³⁶ In his analysis of the LE, Kellhoffer determined that over half of the 166 words used in vv. 9-20 were shaped by tradition (possibly second century) and therefore not original to Mark.³⁷ Such a high number of non-Markan traits in just twelve verses should arguably promote caution in accepting vv. 9-20 as Mark’s original ending.

While the unusual language and style of vv. 9-20 has led most NT textual critics to reject the LE, many still do not accept 16:8 as Mark’s original ending. They argue that the Evangelist would not have concluded his gospel so abruptly with the conjunction γάρ (pronounced gar meaning “for”) since that is somewhat rare in canonical and non-canonical Greek literature. This grammatical issue has led scholars to contend that Mark was probably unable to finish his gospel due to an interruption of some sort (possibly death) or that the final leaf was lost.³⁸ However, recent studies on the use of a final γάρ have demonstrated that Greek sentences, paragraphs, and even books do at times conclude with γάρ.³⁹ In fact, Cox has discovered well over 1000 examples of Greek sentences ending with γάρ.⁴⁰ Thus, it may not be overly speculative to think that Mark could have concluded his gospel with γάρ. Conversely, it may be more reasonable to surmise that Mark intentionally ended at 16:8 for a specific purpose, which will be examined below. Moreover, the argument that 16:8 indicates a lost leaf is in all likelihood patently false. While the codex form began to be used in the late first-century it was probably not conventional until the secondcentury.⁴¹ If Mark’s gospel is the earliest it would have been in circulation as a scroll and could not have lost the final leaf. In fact, Wallace notes that

[Mark] would have written his Gospel on a roll, and the first generation of copies would also have been on rolls. And if the Gospel was written on a roll, then the most protected section would be the end, because when someone rolled the book back up, the end would be on the inside.⁴²

A final note regarding the grammar is found in the awkward connection between 16:8 and 9. In v. 8 the subject is clearly the women who leave the tomb trembling and astonished after being confronted by the angel. In v.9, however, Jesus is now the presumed subject and Mary Magdalene is curiously identified again even though she was previously mentioned in 15:47 and 16:1. Furthermore, the other women who were with Mary at the tomb are absent in vv. 9-20.⁴³ Such an awkward transition seems to suggest that vv. 9-20 were added later in an attempt to resolve what was thought to be a deficient ending at 16:8.

Therefore, when considering the the 20 coalesced with the fact that recent scholarship has arguably demonstrated that the use of the final γάρ in 16:8 can be a viable ending, the awkward connection between 16:8 and 9 with the sudden change in subject, the reintroduction of Mary Magdalene, and the absence of the other women seems to establish that vv. 9-20 are not original. Nevertheless, this conclusion will arguably become more solidified through a brief examination of the theology found in the LE.

Theology

The LE seems to reveal several non-Markan features, which may point to the fact that much of the content in vv.9-20 was borrowed from auxiliary sources, particularly the other gospels, and thus not original to Mark. If Mark’s gospel is the earliest, then much of the content found in the LE seems to indicate that these verses may have been borrowed from Luke and John. In other words, vv. 9-20 were likely added at a later date being influenced by the resurrection accounts found in Luke and John to complete what was considered an unsatisfactory ending to Mark. Moreover, Wallace even contends that

Mark 16:9-20 deviates strongly from the pattern we see everywhere else in the Gospel when it comes to synoptic parallels. By far the best explanation for the Matthean and Lukan Resurrection accounts looking so different from each other is that they had lost their template because Mark ended his Gospel at v. 8.⁴⁴

Furthermore, the list of miracles found vv. 17-18 has led scholars to question the veracity of the LE.⁴⁵ Analyzing miracle lists found in both canonical and non-canonical literature Kelhoffer has demonstrated that the compositional technique of the collective miracle list found in vv. 17-18 reflects a more apocryphal nature analogous with later Christian tradition.⁴⁶ Moreover, three of the five signs in the miracle list are alien to Mark 1:1-16:8. For instance, the mention of tongues is foreign not only to Mark but all the gospels.⁴⁷ The handling of snakes is also unique to Mark and cannot arguably be also unique to Mark and cannot arguably be 19 or Acts 28:3-5. Snakes and scorpions in Luke 10:17-19 are more than likely used metaphorically referring to the malevolence of creation, which the missionaries have the authority to overcome.⁴⁸ In Acts 28:3-5 Paul’s intent was only to gather firewood not handle the snake while those mentioned in Mark 16:18 seek to pick-up serpents to validate that they are believers.⁴⁹ Thus, the mention Thus, the mention 5 should in all likelihood not be considered parallel with Mark 16:8. Finally, drinking poison without harm is not found anywhere in the New Testament. There are, however, examples found in the second century and later that seem to have influenced this sign.⁵⁰

These apparent anomalies evident in the theology and content of the LE ostensibly lend themselves to the conclusion that vv. 9-20 were added later and therefore were arguably not original to the Mark’s gospel. Regarding the content of vv. 9-20, Elliot contends that “we are left with the argument that it was a later—probably second century—editor who found this paragraph and, despite its imperfections for such a purpose, used it (in time for Irenaeus to know it as part of Mark’s Gospel) to round off a dissatisfying incomplete Gospel.”⁵¹ What Elliott refers to as a dissatisfying ending to Mark’s gospel is the subject of the final section.

Mark’s Intent

The final area of internal evidence to discuss regarding the authenticity of the LE focuses on Mark’s intent. Advocates who contend that 16:8 is not the original ending do so for at least two reasons. First, it is often argued that Mark would not have intentionally ended abruptly at 16:8 (evidenced by the final gavr) with the women in fear. Concluding his gospel at 16:8 in such a manner is seemingly incomplete and leaves the reader in suspense. The belief is that the Evangelist was somehow interrupted (possibly by death) or the last leaf was lost. Second, Mark certainly would not have omitted a post-resurrection account and therefore vv. 9-20 are original.

The first argument claims that Mark would not have intended to leave his gospel open-ended on a note of fear. However, J. Lee Magness has analyzed several examples from Ancient literature, the Old Testament, and the New Testament demonstrating that suspended endings, while rare, did exist.⁵² In fact, Magness’ study indicates that suspended endings were used by authors as an effective literary device compelling the reader to become more involved with the narrative. Regarding this literary scheme Magness argues that “the power that is generated from this phenomenon is fairly well focused: when readers supply this ending they participate in it and experience it more fully than if the writer had supplied it to them.”⁵³ Furthermore, the silence and fear of the women in 16:8 is likely analogous to earlier accounts of silence and fear expressed throughout Mark’s gospel particularly found in miracle accounts or when individuals are confronted by Jesus (Mark 4:41, 9:32).⁵⁴ In other words, it seems that the Evangelist intentionally used “scenes where fear arises because of God’s power [to] call for a choice, either keep one’s distance from God or have faith.”⁵⁵ Furthermore, Bock notes that “in Mark fear can paralyze or lead into faith. The choice is with the one who fears.”⁵⁶ Therefore, it may be more reasonable to assume that Mark intentionally concluded his gospel at 16:8 with the fear of the women to capture the reader’s attention with the question as to how they will respond to the evidence presented concerning Jesus.

Finally, the argument that 16:8 cannot be the original ending because Mark would not have intentionally omitted a post resurrection account is seemingly baseless for at least two reasons. First, when deciding internal evidence textual critics understand that the more difficult reading is preferable. Greenlee offers the following explanation: “If a reading at first sight seems difficult to understand but on further study makes good sense, it is likely that a scribe intentionally or unintentionally changed the text to a reading that was easier to understand.”⁵⁷ In other words, it seems that a scribe was either confused or dissatisfied with 16:8 as the original ending and therefore intentionally added to the text to elaborate more of the resurrection account for the reader’s sake.

The second reason, which overlaps with the first, is that the shorter reading is ordinarily preferred if an intentional change has been made.⁵⁸ From a copyists perspective concluding a gospel with no post resurrection account did not make sense and as a result the text was likely amended to provide the reader with the rest of the story. In fact, Greenlee notes “that scribes at times made intentional additions to clarify a passage, but rarely made an intentional omission.”⁵⁹ Unsatisfied with 16:8 as the original ending, a later scribe likely augmented Mark’s gospel intending to remedy for future readers what appeared to be a convoluted and incomplete ending. Such later additions in all likelihood demonstrate the inauthenticity of the LE. Regarding the absence of a post resurrection account, Bock offers the following summary:

Mark’s ending matches the circumstances of his readers: the Resurrection is proclaimed and the only remaining issue is what will the one who hears about the Resurrection do with a risen Jesus. Mark’s ending assumes that the women did emerge from their silence and fear to believe and proclaim. That is precisely where Mark wants his readers to go, even in a context like Mark’s where suffering for such a decision can be anticipated.⁶⁰

The collated results gained from the internal evidence: the numerous anomalies found in the language and style, the unusual theology, and the overall intent of the Evangelist presumably substantiate the claim that vv. 9-20 are not original to Mark’s gospel.

Conclusion

The majority of modern textual critics reject the authenticity of vv. 9-20.⁶¹ However, among these textual critics there is much speculation as to whether or not Mark’s gospel originally ended at 16:8. The aim of the above discussion was to offer a transient study regarding the textual critical issues surrounding Mark 16:9-20. Analysis of both external and internal evidence was employed to help discern the authenticity of the LE. The results is that Mark 16:8 is in all likelihood the original ending and that vv. 9-20 should be considered inauthentic.⁶²

Matt Aernie (Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor of Bible and Theology at Southeastern Bible College, Birmingham, Alabama.

NOTES
¹ Space limitations prohibit a detailed discussion on the textual critical intricacies of this passage. The intent here is merely to present a few of the preliminary issues.

² The method of textual criticism used in this article is reasoned eclecticism. For a discussion of the various textual critical methods see Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4^th ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 205-49. For a more introductory treatment, see the article by Paul D. Wegner, “How Do We Know That We Have What the Biblical Writers Originally Wrote?” in this issue of Areopagus Journal.
³ James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 497.
⁴ There are at least four proposed endings for the gospel of Mark. This article will primarily focus on the issue of authenticity for the Longer Ending. For detailed analysis regarding the textual complexities of the assorted Markan Endings see: David Alan Black, ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008); N. Clayton Croy, The Mutilation of Mark’s Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003); Steven L. Cox, A History and Critique of Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings (Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993); James Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT 112; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/Siebeck, 2000); J. Lee Magness, Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark’s Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); Robert H. Stein, “The Ending of Mark,” BBR 18 (2008): 79-98.
⁵ Croy, Mutilation 174.
⁶ For the various theories on the ending of Mark and the diversity among scholars see: Cox, A History 97- 146; Croy, Mutilation 174-77; Stein, “Ending,” 80-97.

 ⁷ This outline was adopted from J.K. Elliott, “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?” in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, 82-88.
⁸ Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2^nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 292. See also Michael W. Holmes, “To be continued. . . The Many Endings of the Gospel of Mark,” BRev 17 (2001): 19; who claims that it is 95 percent of Greek manuscripts.
⁹ Aland, Text 280.
¹⁰See David A. Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 33; who cautions against this view.
¹¹ Metzger and Ehrman, Text 278. For more information regarding the importance of the Alexandrian text type see; Gordon D. Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 7; Greenlee, Introduction 81-2; Michael W. Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (ed. D.A. Black (ed. D.A. Black 7.
¹² See Cf. Aland, Text, 103ff; J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (rev. ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 28-30; Daniel B. Wallace, “Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion of the Second Gospel,” in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, 14.

¹³ Greenlee, Introduction, 30. Cf. Aland, Text 103ff; Wallace, “Mark 16:8,” 14. There is also one other Greek manuscript dating in the twelfth century (304) that does not contain vv. 9-20. It should be noted that manuscripts 2386 and 1420 are only considered tentative witnesses. The reason is that while the last page of Mark concludes at 16:8 the next leaf, which may have contained vv. 9-20 is missing. Cf. Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Bibelgesellschaft, 1998), 103 n.1; Wallace, “Mark 16:8,”19 n. 44.
¹⁴ Cf. D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2005), 189.
¹⁵ See Aland, Text, 292.
¹⁶ Wallace, “Mark 16:8,” 19, original emphasis.

¹⁷ Further information on the Armenian version can be found in Aland, Text 205   Ernst C. Colwell. “Mark 16:9-20  in the Armenian Version,” JBL 4 (1937): 369-86; Metzger and Ehrman, Text, 117-8.
¹⁸Cf. Aland, Text, 205-09; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 102.
¹⁹ See Aland, Text, 292; Wallace, “Mark 16:8,” 20.

 ²⁰ Aland, Text, 292.
²¹ Gordon D. Fee, “The Use of Greek Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism,” in The Test of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 191.
²² Ibid.
²³ See David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 136-7.

 ²⁴ Ibid. Original emphasis.
²⁵ Wallace, “Mark 16:8,” 21. Original emphasis.

 ²⁶ See Metzger, Textual, 103; Stein, “Ending,” 82.

²⁷Cited in Holmes, “To Be Continued,” 17. Cf. J. Quasten, Patrology vol. 3, (Westminster: Christians Classics, 1986), 337.
²⁸ Metzger, Textual, 103.
²⁹ Cited in John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark (Ann Arbor: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959), 131. It should be noted that Jerome does include vv. 9-20 in the Vulgate. The reason for this is unknown. However, see Wallace, “Mark 16:8,” 23. He provides a historical illustration that may have led Jerome to include the Longer Ending and argues that, “Perhaps for the same reasons that it is included in Bibles today – call it antiquity, tradition of timidity, or not wanting to rock the boat too much.”
³⁰ See Stein, “Ending,” 82.
³¹ Cox, History 50.
³² Elliott, “The Last Twelve,” 87.

³³ Wallace, “Mark 16:8,” 28-9.
³⁴ The following outline is adopted from Elliott, “The Last Twelve Verses,” 88-92.
³⁵ See Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission 65-122, for a thorough linguistic analysis of the Longer Ending.
³⁶ Ibid. See also J.K. Elliott, “The Text and Language of the Endings to Mark’s Gospel,” TZ 27 (1971): 255-62.
³⁷ Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission 122.
³⁸ See Cox, History 97-110; Edwards, Mark 501-4; Metzger and Ehrman, Text 325-27.
³⁹ See Cox, History 147-57; Pieter W van der Horst, “Can a Book End with γάρ? A Note on Mark XVI.8,” JTS 23 (1972):
121-24; Kelly R. Iverson, “A Further Word on Final γάρ (Mark 16:8),” CBQ 68 (2006): 79-94.
⁴⁰ Cox, History 223-28.
⁴¹ See Colin H. Roberts and T.C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London: Oxford University Press, 1987), 61-66.
⁴² Wallace, “Mark 16:8,” 35; original emphasis.
⁴³ See Carson and Moo, Introduction 189; Metzger, Textual Commentary 104-5
⁴⁴ Wallace, “Mark 16:8,” 31; original emphasis.
⁴⁵ See Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission 199-228.
⁴⁶ See particularly Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission Miracle and Mission
28 where he provides several examples defending this conclusion.
⁴⁷ Elliott, “The Last Twelve Verses,” 90.
⁴⁸ See Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 9:51-24:53 (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 1007.
⁴⁹ See Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission 411 n. 1; who notes that the intentionality of those in Mark 16:8 to handle serpents is demonstrated in the active voice of the verb ajrou:sin. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 742-44.
⁵⁰ See Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission 417-72.

⁵¹ Elliott, “The Last Twelve Verses,” 92.
⁵² See Magness, Sense and Absence 25-85 for several examples of suspended endings.
⁵³ Ibid., 47.
⁵⁴ Ibid., 98-102.
⁵⁵ Darrell L. Bock, “The Ending of Mark: A Response to the Essays,” in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, 135.
⁵⁶ Ibid., 136.
⁵⁷ Greenlee, Introduction 112.
⁵⁸ Ibid.
⁵⁹ Ibid.
⁶⁰ Bock, “The Ending of Mark,” 140-1.
⁶¹ See Croy, Mutilation 174-77; Stein, “Ending,” 83. Contra William Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (SNTSMS 25; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1974), 107-9.
⁶² A recommended passage for further study in textual criticism is John 7:53-8:11. Analysis of both external and internal evidence would likely yield the same results as argued in this article. See D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 333-37; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 245-49; Metzger, Textual Commentary 187-90.