Skeptics and critics alike have found grist for their mill in the assertion that Mark presents an inconsistency, and poses a problem, in that his Gospel ends with the women at the tomb thusly: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." The other Gospels, it is said, have the women going right away and saying something to the apostles, and this is an inconsistency. From here as well some critics will charge that Mark represents an original state in "evolution" of Christianity in which no one knew what happened to Jesus' body.

It is worth noting, first of all, that even scholars of a liberal or moderate bent who say Mark ended at 16:8 (and no portion thereof is lost) do not see this "problem" at all. Campenhausen [Tradition and Life in the Church, 61, 71] supposes that Mark wished to show by the women's silence that the disciples themselves had nothing to do with the tomb being empty! This would then be an "anti-theft" apologetic in line with Matthew's account of the guards. He adds: "One can hardly take the text as meaning to the simple reader, and therefore to the author, anything but that the women first kept silent, so that the events which followed took place without any help from them and without any regard to the empty tomb." Vernon Robbins, a scholar who gives Acts about the same credence as a roll of toliet paper, supposes that the anamolous ending is a form of missionary call: "Now it is up to you to spread the Good News of the Gospel!" Finally, in the chauvinistic context of first-century society, having women discover the empty tomb would have been a detriment to the apologetic - indeed, it would have been counterproductive! If this were merely a late rationalization, we would have expected the tomb to be first found empty by Joe of A., or by one of the Apostles, or by a lesser MALE member of the apostolic band, like Cleopas. But this is not what we have: Instead, we have the "worst" possible scenario, one so inherently "smelly" that it could not possibly work as a rationalization - it could ONLY work if it reflected what actually happened, and it has to be assumed that the women did spill the beans at some point.

But that's all within the context-assumption that 16:8 is the original ending -- and the evidence is actually strongly against that being the case. Witherington in his commentary on Mark [415-418] provides a summary of the evidence, which we will in turn report here:

• The Gospel of Mark, like all the Gospels, is in the genre of a laudatory biography. Such a work "is most unlikely to end in this fashion" but rather would end on a positive note.
• Mark as a whole "goes to great lengths in the passion narrative to reveal fulfillment of early promises and predictions, especially those of Jesus, and this leads us to expect the same with the prediction of the resurrection appearance." Related to this, someone in a debate I have bene part of noted that Mark builds up heavily to a meeting in Galilee, but Mark 16:9-20 has a meeting in Jerusalem.
• Mark, if he had wanted to suggest that the command by the angel to speak was disobeyed, would have introduced their activity with an adversative as he does in other situations of disobedience (1:45, 7:36, 10:14, 10:22, 10:48, 15:23, 15:37).
• Mark's Gospel as it stands end with an unusual word, a conjunction, that does not appear as the last word in any work, with the possible exception of a work of Plotinus. It would be a very unusual word to end a work on; it amounts to ending a work in "because" or "for." There are sentences and paragraphs that end with this word (inlcuding John 13:13) but to end an entire work thusly is otherwise unverified, except for Plotinus, and that may also have lost an ending!
• If there is a point of comparison within Mark, it is Mark 1:44, where a leper is told to be silent to others, but go and tell the appropriate person, the high priest. "This would suggest that the women were to be silent to the general public, but to communicate with the disciples."
• From 15:40 to 16:8, Mark "has carefully built the case for the women to be valid witnesses" to the Easter message. Especially in light of the problem of women's testimony noted above, it hardly makes sense that Mark would build his case, then undermine it or render it moot be giving the women a case of permanent closed mouth.
• A consideration is that 1 Cor. 15 shows that resurrection appearances were part of the earliest Christian tradition. Especially for those who date Mark later than 1 Corinthians (70 vs. 50-55), this raises the problem of how Mark could have left out any record of appearances.
• Finally, there is this consideration: The parallel construction of the Greek, and the imperfect verb tenses, imply that "for the circumscribed period of time the women were in terror and fled from the tomb, they said nothing to anyone." They would speak once the fear (perhaps in the form of religious awe -- cf. Luke 1:29-30) had subsided.

Bottom line: All arguments which focus on 16:8 as the intended ending of Mark's Gospel have a great deal to reckon with before they can peddle any related theories of conspiracy or inconsistency.

And now for a look at some response, in the main from the Chrisadelphian apologist we have dubbed "Egomanion" but also in reply to some articles he has cited, and now from another article we have found, arguing for the veracity of Mark 16:9-20. Let us begin by stating at the outset that the reasons given for doubting the authenticity of this passage -- which we previously gave in another article -- may be arranged in order of importance. Here are those reasons, with some commentary added.

External evidence. The two earliest parchment codices, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus, plus 2 minuscules and several versions and manuscripts, do not contain verses 9-20. Two important early Christian writers testify that these verses are not found in Mark: Eusebius (Quaestiones ad Marinum I) says that they are not in "accurate" copies of Mark and are missing from "almost all" manuscripts; Jerome (Epistle CXX.3, ad Hedibiam) testifies that almost all Greek manuscripts of his time lack vss. 9-20. Many manuscripts that do have these verses "have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack them," and other textual witnesses add "conventional signs used by scribes to mark off a spurious addition to a literary text." (There are also three variant endings of Mark in circulation. Our vss. 9-20 are the most common, but there is also a "short" ending, and seven Greek manuscripts with both the long and short ending. However, this particular evidence may be too late to be of any relevance.)

The above evidence is absolutely decisive by the canons of textual criticism (whether secular or Biblical). Indeed the internal evidence noted below is not so much proof as it is supplementation in light of the above. No argument for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (hereafter, M16) can move without refuting each of the points above.

Internal evidence. There is a sudden change in subject from verse 8 (the women) to verse 9 (Jesus). Other alleged examples in Mark (such as with Peter's denials) fail as comparisons, for they are clearly in the form of a Markan "sandwich" that returns to a prior issue, and that is manifestly not what happens here; the original "issue" is never returned to. Mary Magdalene is introduced as one from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons, as though she had not been introduced in the Gospel before. A singular reply on the point of Mary Mag has been made, that the mention of Mary mother of James in 16:1 required this Mary to be further described. This objection fails since identifying this Mary as "Magdalene" would have provided every bit of the discrimination needed.

The form, language, and style "militate against Marcan authorship." There are seventeen non-Marcan words or Marcan words used in a non-Marcan sense. There is no instance of the typical Marcan stylistic transitions or methods (such as beginning a phrase with a parataxis). Overall, the passage has the "distinct flavour of the second century" and appears to be a pastiche of material taken from other Gospels. While one may argue that there are examples of any one of these sorts of flukes in other places (i.e., that Luke 1:1-12 has 20 words forms unique to that portion of text -- though comparing a classical historian sort like Luke to a peasant team of Mark and Peter is a little shaky!), the fact that all of these faults appear together in such a short passage removes any force of finding passages that compare on single points.

With this in mind, let's now have a look at Egomanion's counters and those of like mind.

Egomanion himself argues that authenticity is favored in that it "is found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic Versions and other early translations." This is not at all the case. The late Latin and Coptic texts, in the canon of textual-critical principles, do not constitute any evidence of originality in light of the above external evidence. Egomanion goes on to argue that the "legitimacy of the passage is also confirmed by many of the early Church Fathers - which would be impossible if it was a later interpolation." What Egomanion thinks to be "impossible" is not impossible in the least. To begin, he can find no earlier witness than Ireneaus in the late second century -- the same time as when M16 is evidenced in available manuscripts, according to some dating schemas (but not the majority). His other authorities are from 397 and 430, which make them worthless for determining whether M16 was added in the second century, and their testimony is stood against by other patristic testimony -- cited above -- that the passage does not belong. Second, not one of the Fathers he cites offers any defense for the authenticity of M16.

It seems that proponents of Mark 16:9-20 are all following on this account the work of one Dean Burgon -- a scholar, though not one of textual criticism -- who simply could not conceive of any other methods of textual criticism than, "the majority have it so it must be right." Some take the lack of response to Burgon as proof of his irrefutability, never once thinking that he is ignored because his responses were so misinformed that had no idea what he was talking about. For those enamored of Burgon and those who use him, we would recommend a look at two articles from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, one by esteemed scholar of the Greek, Daniel Wallace ("The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique" -- 37/2, 1994, 185-215) and another by Mark Heuer ("An REvaluation of John W. Burgon's Use of Patristic Evidence" -- 38/4, 514-19). Wallace notes that Burgon's methodology was governed by an assumption that God preserved an inerrant text (an idea that is misdirected, and both he and Heuer note his tendency to dismiss manuscript evidence he did not like with nothing but emotional diatribes. In essence, if a text didn't say what Burgon wanted, it was corrupted. Burgon was also not afraid to resort to such excuses and contrivances as that textual evidence from early dates, for the texts he needed, was lacking not because the texts did not exist, but because his preferred texts were considered so useful that they were worn out from use and disappeared! Obviously Burgon allowed his methods to interpret the facts rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. Finally, in terms of the NT, Wallace notes that in Burgon's time there was only one NT papyri known; today there are nearly 100, and none of these agree with what Burgon would have preferred.

Burgon is also routinely hailed for an enormous collection of patristic cites he collated, but as Heuer notes, this entire project has a scent of uselessness about it, as Burgon did not make use of critical texts of patristic writers in his project. Indeed, many of his cites "are useless because they reflect not the Father's texts but the conformation of the texts" to the ecclesiology of the Middle Ages! Those who rely on Burgon should take his word with a critical eye.

We also now would look at another aspect of the external evidence argument, that is, alleged allusions to this passage. Of course only writers who allude to this passage earlier than the very late second century are of any relevance here.

1. Claimed is a "probable allusion to Mark 16:18" by Papias, as recorded by Eusebius. But this is tremendously misleading, for here is what Eusebius says: "[Papias] also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord." Papias is NOT being quoted here, and if anything, Eusebius is using an allusion to Mark 16:18 of his own to describe what Papias says. There is no evidence that Papias himself alluded to Mark 16:18. In addition, as Heuer notes, Mark 16:18 does not even use the same word for "deadly thing" as Eusebius: It is thanasmos in Mark, but pharmakon in Eusebius.
2. Claimed also is Justin Martyr, c. 165 AD, with a "probable allusion to Mark 16:20." It is claimed that Justin uses the phrases "of the word" and "went forth and preached everywhere" (my source for this criticism did not note the "everywhere" as a parallel; another opponent did) in a way reminiscent of Mark 16:20. But note how this works out:

   Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.

   Justin, First Apology, 45 And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation--hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: "The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning hare I begotten Thee." That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, ye can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by tire.

   Not only are the phrases in the wrong order, they are used in different ways. Furthermore, "the word" is used so often in the NT (over 140 times) that any "allusion" would be unable to be specified, and harks to no particular advantage for Mark 16:20; while "went forth and preached" is also found in Mark 1:45 and 6:12 (and are also in reverse order in 1:38). Both words, however, are used so often and describe such a pertinent aspect of Christianity (preaching and missionary work, with "every where" a common statement of location, in the works of Luke) that it's as helpful to suggest an allusion in words like "the" and "God" and "Christ".

3. Around 177 AD, it is said that "Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 outright". This is accurate -- though I leave open to question whether this was added by Irey or one of his students -- as is a claim that Mark 16:9-20 was included in the Diatesseron of Tatian, usually dated around 175 AD (though again, this is just as well a late addition; or if Mark 16:9-20 were created around 150, as many scholars aver, it makes no difference). However, this evidence is equivocal as it is also to this time that our earliest external evidence is dated, according to the earliest I have seen it reckoned. It remains that there is no solid allusional evidence for this passage prior to the dates of the earliest manuscripts.

In terms of internal evidence, Egomanion offers the extremely naive argument that the parallels in Luke 10:19 and Acts 14:3 support M16's originality. It does no such thing; it merely suggests cites from which some of M16 was cobbled together, taken from their original context (though not always in violation of it).

Now let us look at arguments presented from three witnesses cited by Egomanion: