Many modern interpreters believe Mark ended his Gospel with Mark 16:8. [1] This seems unlikely to some others since if he did he ended it with an example of disciples too fearful and amazed to bear witness to the resurrected Jesus. Throughout this Gospel we have noted many unique features that appeal to disciples to serve God by bearing bold witness to Jesus, even in spite of persecution and suffering. They believe the women"s example would hardly be a good example for Mark to close his Gospel with. [source][source][source]
The ending of Mark"s Gospel is one of the major textual problems in the New Testament. The main reason some interpreters regard Mark 16:9-20 as spurious is this. The two oldest Greek uncial manuscripts of the New Testament (fourth century), Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B), plus many other old manuscripts, do not contain them. Moreover the writings of some church fathers reflect no knowledge of these verses. On the other hand, Mark 16:9-20 do appear in the majority of the old manuscripts, and other church fathers do refer to them. [2] Some interpreters believe the vocabulary, style, and content of these verses argue against Mark"s authorship of them. [3] This has led many modern scholars to conclude that Mark 16:9-20 were not part of Mark"s original Gospel. [4][source]
If they were not part of Mark"s original Gospel, where did they come from, and are they part of the inspired Word of God or not inspired?[source]
It may be that Mark 16:9-20 were part of Mark"s original Gospel and, for reasons unknown to us today, they were not included in some ancient copies of it. Thus these verses are as fully authoritative as the rest of the Gospel. [5][source]
Another view is that someone added Mark 16:9-20 to give this Gospel a more positive ending. He could have done so without divine inspiration, in which case these verses lack the divine authority that marks the rest of Scripture. [source][source][source]
Alternatively someone could have added Mark 16:9-20 under the superintending influence of the Holy Spirit, in which case these verses have equal authority with the rest of the Gospel. [4]2 There are other passages of Scripture that seem to have been written somewhat later than the body of the book in which they appear but which the Jews and later the Christians regarded as inspired. For example, the record of Moses" death appears at the end of Deuteronomy , which most conservatives believe Moses wrote (cf. Deuteronomy 34:5-12). Another example is the references to the town of Dan in the Book of Genesis , which town did not go by that name until after Moses" time. Evidently someone after Moses" day updated the name of that town. Several other examples of this nature could be cited. [source][source][source]
The view of many evangelicals, including myself, is that even though we may not be able to prove that Mark 16:9-20 were originally part of Mark"s Gospel, though they could have been, they appear to have been regarded as inspired and therefore authoritative early in the history of the church. [source][source][source]
There are two other short endings to Mark"s Gospel that follow Mark 16:8 in some ancient copies, but almost all textual scholars reject these as being spurious. [source][source][source]