For a very long time, bible scholars and Christians have mistakenly been under the impression that Mathew, which is the first book in the New Testament must have been the earliest gospel written with Mark, Luke, and John following. However, scholars and historians have lately agreed that Mark was the earliest Gospel. However, the editors of the bible must have found the gospel of Mark lacking and insufficient and placed it as the second in the gospel. In addition, it was significantly shorter than the rest. However, the most important reasoning was because of how the Gospel of Mark ends. According to Cadwallader (136), the gospel, which ends at Mark 16:8 simply ends with Mary Magdalene and her companions arriving at the tomb where they find a young man who tells them that Jesus, has risen.
The ending of the Gospel of Mark has certainly been one of the most discussed controversies in the bible. He does not give account of anyone else seeing Jesus as Mathew, Luke, and John report. For this reason, Holmes (12) reveals that the original ending was found insufficient leading the gospel being placed second. Theologians have various theories regarding the strange ending in the Gospel of Mark. Some state that that was the intended end since various surviving Greek compositions end with the word ‘Gar’. Thomas (411) argues that the author was interrupted maybe by death and, therefore, never got to the conclusion. Others also argue that the intended ending of the Gospel was accidentally destroyed. Finally, others insist that the original ending must have been very controversial such that it was intentionally destroyed. Because of this strange ending, various endings have added by editors with an effort to remedy the said mistake.
Even though theologians suggest that there are as many as nine endings forged to fit the gospel of mark, only four are significantly recorded in religious readings. They include the longer ending, another legion of the longer ending, the shorter ending, as well as the abrupt ending. The longest and more widely accepted ending today is recognized as Mark 16:9-19. Cadwallader (141) suggests that many Christians have significantly favored it such that it is now included in the King James Version as well as other publications. As a result, it had become part of the sacred scripture but still false. This version includes the doubtful disciples, Jesus commanding his disciples to preach the gospel and baptize unbelievers as well as other promises.
Secondly, there is the shorter version. The Old Latin version of the bible is the only bible version that contains the shorter version. However, most manuscripts combine both the longer and the shorter version although they clearly do not belong together. Notably, the shorter version summarizes the appearance of Jesus to his disciples as well as command for them to proclaim the eternal salvation to the whole world. Arguably, Mealand (330) suggests that this conclusion was specifically constructed to give the Gospel a conclusion since it was clearly lacking one.
The other logion also known as the Freer logion is not very common but still part of the added conclusions in the said Gospel. Writings by Jerome, who was a famous theologian and part of the people who edited the bible, seem to have been aware of this logion. The logion often comes after verse 14 in certain versions of the bible. The most notable one is the Greek codices. In this logion, Thomas (418) suggests that Jesus appeared to his disciples who unfortunately doubted his credibility. This logion also includes excuses such as incredulity of Satan when they asked him to reveal his true self.
Finally, Mealand (340) suggest that the less popular conclusion of them all is the abrupt ending. The abrupt ending concludes the gospel with a dramatic phrase, “for they were afraid.” This has been criticized as it contains words that were not used in other passages in the Gospel of Mark. In addition, the conclusion has been deemed unpopular because the rhetorical tones completely differs with the simplistic style that the apostle Mark throughout the Gospel.
Overall, even with the presence of historical criticism as well as textual criticism portrayed by a number of impressive scholars, one of these conclusions should be accepted universally and undisputedly included in all bible versions today. This is the long version. Arguably, such is the conclusion because it gives meticulous attention to the relationship with the message from the rest of the gospels and overall establishes the most reliable biblical text possible. Evidently, Miller (2014) suggests that the longer version, which includes the ability of believers to cast out demons, speak in tongues, pick up snakes, have immunity to deadly drinks, and heal the sick, is also significantly consistent with the writings of Mark in the rest of the Gospel. Besides, Holmes (12) suggests that this longer version has become widely accepted by most Christians worldwide and since it has worked for them since its inclusion, there should be hardly any reason to change it. In conclusion, Christians need to come to terms with the fact that the beloved end to the Mark Gospel is an addition. However, this should not necessarily mean that the sanctity of the bible is destroyed but rather the Holy Spirit might have been in work when the said text was added in the conclusion of the beloved Gospel of Mark.
Works cited
Cadwallader, Alan H. "The Hermeneutical Potential ofthe Multiple Endings of Mark's Gospel." Colloquium 43.2 (2011): 129-146.
Holmes, M. W. "To Be Continued. . . The Many Endings ofthe Gospel of Mark." Bible Review 17.4 (2001): 12.
Mealand, David L. "Hellenistic Greek andthe New Testament: A Stylometric Perspective." Journal forthe Study ofthe New Testament 34.4 (2012): 323- 345.
Miller, David. “Is Mark 16:9-20 inspired?” Apologetics Press, 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704
Thomas, John Christopher. "A Reconsideration ofthe Ending of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26.4 (1983): 407-419.
