OET interlinear MARK 16:19

TSN Tyndale Study Notes:

16:9-20 Nearly all scholars agree that Mark did not write the “shorter” and “longer” endings. There are clear differences in their style, vocabulary, and theology. Also, the best two available Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) lack these endings. However, there is reason to doubt that Mark intended to end his Gospel at 16:8: (1) Mark emphasizes the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions throughout his Gospel, and if the Gospel ended with 16:8, there would be no reference to the resurrection appearance(s) of Jesus; (2) all the other Gospels contain accounts of Jesus’ appearances to the women and the disciples; (3) early readers of Mark evidently did not think the book could have ended with 16:8, because they wrote these endings; (4) there is no convincing explanation as to why Mark would have wanted to end his Gospel at 16:8 (all such explanations sound like modern existential literary interpretations that revel in paradox, very unlike the way a first-century Christian author would have thought); (5) it is strange for a Gospel to begin with a bold proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah (1:1) and end with the women’s fear; (6) it would be unique for an ancient Greek book to end with gar (“because”) as the last word—no other example of this has been found; and (7) 16:7 raises the expectation that the disciples will meet Jesus in Galilee—if 16:8 was the original ending of Mark, it is the only unfulfilled prediction in the Gospel. Many scholars conclude that the original ending was accidentally torn off and lost, or was never finished.