Why didn’t Mark finish his gospel? As readers of most any modern English Bible discover, the second gospel, like a movie out on a bonus DVD or a computer game with branching plot lines, has a couple of alternative endings. But most scholars regard neither of those Gospel endings as authentic. It’s likely that Mark did not actually write either one of them.
If your Bible is a modern translation, you will probably find Mark 16 ends abruptly at verse 8, with the alternative endings set off in brackets or whatever. The “short ending” is highly unlikely and almost no one supports it. It’s clearly added in order to deal with the abrupt break at verse 8. The “long ending” of verses 9-20 has some defenders, especially those who champion the King James Version and the manuscript tradition which stands behind it. And that long ending was clearly in circulation and being cited by church fathers like Irenaeus and possibly Justin Martyr by the mid second century, which means it was attached to manuscripts dating that far back.
However, there are serious problems of language, style and content which set 16:9-20 off from the rest of Mark’s gospel and make it clear that he did not write them. Words are used in different ways from the rest of the gospel, the writing is flat and didactic, unlike Mark’s intense and swift-moving narrative, and bizarre theological notions like immunity from snake venom and poison are included. No, those factors, plus at least some manuscript evidence for Mark without those verses, suggest that verses 9 to 20 are a later addition attempting to “correct” a seemingly missing ending. But why is the ending missing?
I have not been able to verify a source, but some point in my philosophy education I heard the “mouse hole” explanation of the sometimes chaotic and confusing state of texts of the writings of Aristotle. In Greek they can read as if parts are left out. So it’s suggested that an ancient manuscript had been attacked by mice and the current text is the result of salvaging what was left. No one really takes the Aristotle suggestion too seriously. It’s more likely that the texts are notes on lectures written by students rather than direct autographs by Aristotle. But in relation to Mark’s gospel, one suggestion is that the ending he wrote was lost due to some sort of damage to the manuscript. It was after all the first Gospel to be written and probably read by Matthew and Luke in writing their Gospels. It may have been circulated widely and damaged in the process before being copied. Walter Wessel and other scholars adopt that viewpoint.
However, I think at least a plausible case can be made for the suggestion that Mark either deliberately did not write further or was prevented in some way from completing his Gospel. Whether it was author’s intention or not, in God’s providential care for His Word there is no “authentic” and completely satisfying ending to Mark.
Thus our Easter text for this Sunday is just Mark 16:1-8. What I find intriguing is the suggestion that the unfinished ending of Mark invites us to put ourselves into the end of the story. The women who discover the empty tomb react with fear and uncertainty. How will you and I respond to the good news that Christ is risen? That’s the question I believe Mark puts to everyone who hears that news.
So, in a sense, you and I are the ones who end Mark’s story of Jesus. It’s in our lives and the lives of all believers that the significance of the risen Savior is played out and completed. The question is not how did the story end, but how will we end the story?