The NIV’s heading-note about Mk. 16:9-20 is poorly worded and gives readers a lopsided idea of the real state of the evidence. The two oldest Greek manuscripts of Mark 16 — Codex Vaticanus (from around 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (from around 350) — do end the text of Mark at 16:8, but they are the only two Greek manuscripts that do. All the rest of the existing Greek manuscripts of Mark 16 include verses 9-20 (although some don’t have all the verses due to incidental damage). In addition, Mark 16:9-20 is used in patristic writings that are significantly older than the oldest manuscripts: Justin (160), Tatian (172), Irenaeus (184), and probably the anonymous composition called Epistula Apostolorum (150-180) all used material from Mark 16:9-20 in one way or another.

If you encounter commentaries that say things like, “Some manuscripts end at verse 8; some have a Shorter Ending, and some have verses 9-20,” beware. The annotator has chosen to use vague wording so that you will not perceive the actual quantities involved: two Greek manuscripts end at v. 8; six have the Short Ending (and all six of them also have at least part of verses 9-20); over 1,500 have verses 9-20.

Similarly, if a commentary says something like, “Clement of Alexandria shows no knowledge of the existence of these verses,” beware. Such commentators are parroting an old claim made by Bruce Metzger — and his claim becomes irrelevant when one is then told that Clement of Alexandria hardly ever used the Gospel of Mark at all except for one excerpt from chapter 10.

Plus, even in the two Greek manuscripts in which Mark ends at 16:8, there are unusual features: the copyist who made Vaticanus left a special blank space before the beginning of Luke, as if he recollected the missing verses and attempted to leave room for them in case the eventual owner of the manuscript wanted them included. And in Codex Sinaiticus, all the text from Mark 14:54 to Luke 1:56 is written on replacement-pages.

There’s more to be said about this text; the notes in the NIV do not treat it fairly (and the note about it in the ESV is flatly mistaken). I have investigated it in detail and you are welcome to track down additional information about it at the Curtisville Christian Church website, among the Resources on New Testament Textual Criticism.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org