Scholars of the New Testament mainly agree that the last few verses of the Gospel of Mark as we now know it (Mark 16:9-20) were probably added after the Gospel was written in order to make it more complete and to bring it more into alignment with the other accounts of the life of Jesus by adding a few verses about what occurred after the resurrection. This probability need not trouble us. Such a scenario does not mean that the verses added later could not have been inspired. In any case, the additional material is largely taken directly from the endings of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John (see our post “Question Mark” here).
That the present ending of Mark probably was added is clear: it does not appear in any of the earliest known manuscripts; it was evidently unknown to early Christian scholars such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen (early third century); and the style of verses 9-20 is nothing like that used throughout the rest of the book. But the fact that early Christians seem to have eventually felt a need to bring Mark’s Gospel to a more understandable close only points up the question we must ask: why did Mark end his Gospel so abruptly?
It has sometimes been guessed that Mark may have died or have been otherwise unable to complete his work; but considering that we are only talking about a few short verses this seems unlikely. Recently, scholars such as N. T. Wright have suggested another possibility – that the ending of Mark was intentionally left “dangling” in order that Peter or another eyewitness to the events could verbally add his or her testimony after the Gospel had been read out in the early churches. The problem with this latter idea is that there is simply no evidence that anything like this happened, either with Mark or with any other book of the Bible. In fact, there is a far more likely reason for the seemingly abrupt ending of Mark.
What most discussions of the “abrupt” ending of Mark fail to take into account is that Mark’s Gospel begins as abruptly as it ends. While the other three Gospels all include some background material, Mark’s account regarding Jesus simply starts “in mid stream,” as it were, by beginning with his baptism and continuing through his ministry.
The abrupt beginning and ending of Mark compared to the other Gospels suggests that its purpose was never to try to provide a more complete “Life of Christ” in the way that Matthew and Luke do (and that even John approximates by giving us key sections of the story from before Jesus began his ministry to the post-resurrection events). This indicates that the purpose of Mark – which is thought to have been the earliest Gospel written – was not to look at the background to and aftereffects of the life of Christ, but purely to provide a summary of his words and works, his deeds and teachings.
This scenario fits well with what we know of the history of Mark’s Gospel. Papias (AD 60-130), the bishop of Hierapolis near Laodicea, tells us: “… [Mark] accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings.”
In other words, rather than making an extended summary of the life of Jesus, the purpose of Mark’s Gospel was, as many modern scholars believe, to provide a manual for disciples – a selective narrative that could be used to teach new believers the Way of Christianity and to help current believers grow in understanding and faith.
That Mark begins his Gospel with the baptism of Jesus and ends with his death is probably no coincidence – these are the points where the life of every Christian begins and ends. It is precisely in limiting himself to the part of the story of Jesus that is parallel to the lives of his followers that Mark provides a focused guide for the Christian life. For that purpose, details of the early life or post-resurrection appearances of Jesus were not necessary.
So the ending of Mark only seems abrupt when it is compared to the endings of the other Gospel accounts – which is doubtless why, in time, the additional verses were added to Mark’s original ending.
That the present ending of Mark probably was added is clear: it does not appear in any of the earliest known manuscripts; it was evidently unknown to early Christian scholars such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen (early third century); and the style of verses 9-20 is nothing like that used throughout the rest of the book. But the fact that early Christians seem to have eventually felt a need to bring Mark’s Gospel to a more understandable close only points up the question we must ask: why did Mark end his Gospel so abruptly?
It has sometimes been guessed that Mark may have died or have been otherwise unable to complete his work; but considering that we are only talking about a few short verses this seems unlikely. Recently, scholars such as N. T. Wright have suggested another possibility – that the ending of Mark was intentionally left “dangling” in order that Peter or another eyewitness to the events could verbally add his or her testimony after the Gospel had been read out in the early churches. The problem with this latter idea is that there is simply no evidence that anything like this happened, either with Mark or with any other book of the Bible. In fact, there is a far more likely reason for the seemingly abrupt ending of Mark.
What most discussions of the “abrupt” ending of Mark fail to take into account is that Mark’s Gospel begins as abruptly as it ends. While the other three Gospels all include some background material, Mark’s account regarding Jesus simply starts “in mid stream,” as it were, by beginning with his baptism and continuing through his ministry.
The abrupt beginning and ending of Mark compared to the other Gospels suggests that its purpose was never to try to provide a more complete “Life of Christ” in the way that Matthew and Luke do (and that even John approximates by giving us key sections of the story from before Jesus began his ministry to the post-resurrection events). This indicates that the purpose of Mark – which is thought to have been the earliest Gospel written – was not to look at the background to and aftereffects of the life of Christ, but purely to provide a summary of his words and works, his deeds and teachings.
This scenario fits well with what we know of the history of Mark’s Gospel. Papias (AD 60-130), the bishop of Hierapolis near Laodicea, tells us: “… [Mark] accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings.”
In other words, rather than making an extended summary of the life of Jesus, the purpose of Mark’s Gospel was, as many modern scholars believe, to provide a manual for disciples – a selective narrative that could be used to teach new believers the Way of Christianity and to help current believers grow in understanding and faith.
That Mark begins his Gospel with the baptism of Jesus and ends with his death is probably no coincidence – these are the points where the life of every Christian begins and ends. It is precisely in limiting himself to the part of the story of Jesus that is parallel to the lives of his followers that Mark provides a focused guide for the Christian life. For that purpose, details of the early life or post-resurrection appearances of Jesus were not necessary.
So the ending of Mark only seems abrupt when it is compared to the endings of the other Gospel accounts – which is doubtless why, in time, the additional verses were added to Mark’s original ending.
RSS Feed
