Bruce Metzger on the longer ending of Mark

“Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Eusebius and Jerome, well aware of such variation in the witnesses, discussed which form of text was to be preferred. It is noteworthy, however, that neither Father suggested that one form was canonical and the other was not. Furthermore, the perception that the canon was basically closed did not lead to a slavish fixing of the text of the canonical books. Thus, the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include all variant readings (as well as variant renderings in early versions) that emerged during the course of the transmission of the New Testament documents while apostolic tradition was still a living entity, with an intermingling of written and oral forms of that tradition. Already in the second century, for example, the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.”

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (pp.269-270)

The Canonical Significance of the Longer Ending of Mark

Image: Complutensian Polyglot (1514) Mark 16:1-13

There is one concluding problem of canonical shaping to address. The original ending of the Gospel of Mark—whether originally by intent or by design is now irrelevant—has been expanded. At least by the middle of the second century two additional endings were attached to the end of 16.8. First, a shorter ending which in the major textual traditions always preceded the longer ending. Secondly, a longer ending which displaced the shorter ending to become the accepted reading of the Byzantine (koine) text.

The significance of the expanded ending has usually been disregarded by modern critical scholarship, but it is wide-ranging in effect. Mark’s Gospel received its canonical shape by the addition of an ending which clearly does not stem from the original author. Yet the addition is not simply a pious gloss attached to one late textual tradition, but rather an early expansion which helped form the dominant canonical tradition. Moreover, the longer ending consists of a catena of passages taken from the other three canonical Gospels in addition to other sources. This evidence supports the conclusion that the expanded ending to Mark entered the text during the process of forming a fourfold Gospel collection. If from an historical perspective Mark’s Gospel provided the primary source for Matthew and Luke, there is at least one highly important example within the canonical process of the reverse influence at work.

What is the canonical effect of the longer ending on the reading of Mark’s Gospel? First, the addressee of the Gospel has not been altered. The message is still directed primarily to those within the Christian church. However, for this next generation of post-resurrection Christians, knowledge of the resurrection appearances by means of oral tradition can no longer be assumed. The grounds for Christian belief must now be set forth in written form. Moreover, the vehicle for the resurrection tradition has now become the other written Gospels. For Mark to function within the fourfold collection his gospel has been brought into conformity with the other three. That is to say, the oral tradition which undergirded Mark’s final chapter has now been spelled out and shaped in accordance with the tradition provided by the larger collection. The canonical Mark has thus been fashioned in such a way as to harmonize with the other three. The hermeneutical implications of this canonical shape would provide a strong warrant for resisting theories of interpretation which would read Mark as an idiosyncratic witness in open conflict with the other three.      

Secondly, the same theological point made by the original ending of Mark (16.8) has been retained, but extended. The emphasis of the longer ending falls fully on the disciples’ unbelief even in the face of the resurrection (vv. 11, 12, 14, 16). The longer ending, in addition, functions as a commentary on the first eight verses and plainly rules out interpreting the astonishment and awe of the women in a positive fashion. Their unbelief is upbraided by the resurrected Christ, who equates belief and unbelief with salvation and judgement (v. 16).

Finally, the function of the Gospel of Mark in its larger canonical shape has now been expanded beyond the role of calling the disciples to remember the nature of their discipleship to the crucified and rejected Messiah. The disciples are now commissioned to evangelize the world, much in the style of Matthew’s commission. Mark’s original “anamnetic” focus has been made to serve a new role, in conformity with the other Gospels, which addresses those both inside and outside the fellowship of believers.

Brevard Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (pp. 94-5)