Chapter 10:

The Vocabulary and Style of Mark 16:9-20

Bruce Metzger’s description of the internal evidence has been disseminated (often in a slightly modified form to avoid plagiarism) in many commentaries: “The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan (e.g., απιστέω, βλάπτω, βεβαιόω, επακολουθέω, θεάομαι, μετα ταυτα, πορεύομαι, συνεργέω, ύστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανάσιμον and τοις μετ’ αυτου γενομένοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament.” Readers may perceive two unusual features in that sentence: first, it has something amiss because θανάσιμον (thanasimon) is not a designation of the disciples; it is the Greek word used to refer to a “deadly thing” in 16:18.) Second, it is tinted by the use of the term “non-Markan” to refer to once-used words.

The observation that nine words and two phrases are used only in Mark 16:9 to 20 is not a sufficient basis to conclude that they, or the passage in which they appear, are non-Marcan. The list of once-used words can be enlarged, to include words which, though not used in Mark 1:1 to 16:8, were common terms that are absent because no occasion arose for their use, and still, with the number of once-used words thus raised to 16, this does not imply that the passage is not Marcan. For as Dr. Bruce Terry has demonstrated, in another 12-verse passage, Mark 15:40 to 16:4, “one finds not just sixteen such words, but twenty to twenty-two, depending on textual variants.” Two of those 22 words – all of which we would call “non-Marcan” if we used the spin that Metzger applied to the once-used terms in 16:9 to 20 – are names (Salome and Arimathea) but even if one adopts the text with the lower number of once-used words, and removes “Salome” and “Arimathea” from the list, the fact remains that the vocabulary of Mark 15:40 to 16:4 is more “non-Marcan” than the vocabulary of Mark 16:9 to 20.

Clearly a simple count of once-used words is not a reliable way to discern whether a passage is Marcan or not. This point becomes even more obvious when one considers how often Mark uses once-used words. In Mark 1:1 to 16:8, there are 555 once-used words, divided among 661 to 666 verses (the exact number depending on textual variants) which amount to roughly 55 twelve-verse units. We should thus expect an average rate of about ten once-used words in any randomly-selected 12-verse unit. When it is observed that Mark 1:1 through 12 contains 16 once-used words, and that 14:1 through 12 contains 20 once-used words, the conclusion becomes irresistible: the presence of unusual vocabulary in Mark 16:9 to 20 is not unique, and it does not imply non-Marcanness.

For additional information about Marcan style, readers are encouraged to consult Dr. Terry’s online essay, and William Farmer’s detailed book The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Mainly because Metzger emphasized the “non-Markan” vocabulary in Mark 16:9 to 20, this has been the centerpiece of the internal evidence used by commentators who have argued against the authenticity of this passage. The demonstration that this is not sufficient evidence at all should elicit a reconsideration of the implications of the internal evidence. It would be self-deceiving to pretend that all possible explanations for the internal evidence have been given a fair hearing.

The following ten points are based mainly on John Burgon’s analysis of the internal evidence, found on pages 146 to 176 on his 1871 book The Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark Vindicated.

(Objection #1) Mark used the phrase μία σαββατον (mia sabbaton) in 16:2, but in 16:9, πρώτη σαββατων is used to describe the same day. This is inconsistent.

(Answer #1) If 16:9 had employed μία σαββατον (mia sabbaton), the objector would accuse the author of 16:9 of mimicry. Casual variations of this sort are natural and occur elsewhere without arousing suspicion of inauthenticity. Mark similarly states that the demoniac in chapter five came from “the tombs,” first by the words των μνημείων (ton mnemeiwn) in 5:2, and then by τοις μνήμασιν (tois mnemasin) in 5:3 and 5:5. This is inconsistent, but it is a casual inconsistency, like the inconsistency of a reporter who refers to a statement from the President of the United States, and to a statement from the White House, referring to the same statement both times. Neither term precludes the use of the other term by the same author.

(Objection #2) Mark would have used the Greek word εκ (ek) to describe how Jesus cast out seven demons out of Mary Magdalene, as in 7:26, instead of using the word αφ’ (af’) to say that He cast them from her.

(Answer #2) This is another casual difference. One divergence does not constitute a pattern of authorial habit. (In addition, the usual Alexandrian reading is παρ’ (par’), not αφ’ (af’), which does not appear to be harmonized with Lk. 8:2).

(Objection #3) In Mark 1:1-16:8, Mark never uses the word πορεύεσθαι (poreuesthai), but it occurs in 16:9 to 20 three times.

(Answer #3) This is an incidental phenomenon; Matthew likewise uses παρουσία (parousia) four times, clustered in chapter 24; Matthew uses τάλαντον (talanton) 14 times, and 13 of them are clustered in chapter 25. Luke uses the words μνα (mna) and μνας (mnas) a total of nine times, all clustered in 19:13 through 19:25. John uses λυπη (lupe) four times, all clustered in chapter 16. Mark used a variety of compounded forms of πορεύεσθαι (poreuesthai), so it would be unremarkable if that variety included its uncompounded form.

(Objection #4) Mark would have referred to Jesus’ disciples as οι μαθηται αυτου (oi mathetai autou, His disciples), not by the singular phrase τοις μετ’ αυτου γενομένοις (those who had been with Him).

(Answer #4) A larger group than just the apostles is in view, and this phrase was resorted to in order to avoid over-narrowing the intended meaning. That this is the case is made clear in 16:12, where Jesus is encountered by two members of the larger group of disciples, and by the emphatic statement in verse 14 that Jesus there appeared to the eleven themselves (αυτοις τοις ένδεκα (autois tois endeka)). In addition, comparable verbiage is used by Mark in 1:36 (οι μετ’ αυτου), 2:25 (οι μετ’ αυτου), and 5:40 (τους μετ’ αυτου), and it is understandable that γενομένοις (genomenois, “had been”) is unique in 16:12 because at this point it suits the narrative, whereas it is not suitable while the disciples are still with Jesus (that is, until 14:50).

(Objection #5) Mark does not elsewhere use θεασθαι (theasthai) but it occurs in verses 11 and 14.

(Answer #5) This is an incidental phenomenon; Matthew likewise uses παραβαίνειν (parabainein, “transgress”) in Matthew 15:2 to 3 and nowhere else, and παρακουση (parakouse) in Matthew 18:17 and nowhere else; in Luke 14:12-14, Luke refers to compensation using a term (ανταποδιδόναι, antapodidonai) three times that he uses nowhere else. In addition, it is not surprising that a special term was used to emphasize that the witnesses mentioned in 16:11 and 16:14 had visibly seen (rather than merely perceived) Jesus.

(Objection #6) References to unbelief or unbelievers recur, in 16:11 and 16:16, but the specific terms used there (ηπιστησαν and απιστήσας, epistesan and apistesas) are not used in Mark 1:1 to 16:8.

(Answer #6) Likewise in Luke such terms appear specifically only in 24:11 (ηπίστουν, epistoun) and 24:41 (απιστούντων, apistountwn). This does not suggest inauthenticity; the term is especially appropriate at this point in the narrative. In addition, the objection is over-specific; it is not valid to avoid consideration of Mark’s references to unbelief (απιστια, apistia) in 6:6 and 9:24, and to an unbelieving generation (γενεα απιστος, genea apistos) in 9:9.

(Objection #7) Mark does not otherwise use μετα δε ταυτα (meta de tauta, “And after these things”).

(Answer #7) If an objection based on the singularity of such a three-word phrase is among the heaviest missiles that can be hurled against the authenticity of this passage, I consider it secure. The singular occurrence of μετα δε ταυτα (meta de tauta) in 16:12 is no more unusual than the singular occurrence of μετα δε (meta de) in Mark 1:14.

(Objection #8) The phrase πάση τη κτίσει (pase te ktisei, “all the creation”) is unique to 16:15.

(Answer #8) In Mark 10:6 and 13:19, Mark uses κτίσεως (ktiseos). This objection is over-specific; the objector, seeing that the words are Marcan, has had to resort to objecting to a phrase. Only rarely will any text be safe from such an approach.

(Objection #9) The phrase εν τω ονόματί μου (“in My name”) is unique to 16:17.

(Answer #9) This objection fails to consider the presence of the phrase επι τω ονόματί μου in Mark 9:37 and εν τω ονόματί σου in 9:38. The appearance of this phrase is completely consistent with, and even supportive of, Marcan authorship.

(Objection #10) The terms ευθεως (eotheos, “immediately”) and πάλιν (palin, “again”), although favorite words of Mark, are both absent from verses 9-20.

(Answer #10) The term ευθεως (eotheos) occurs only four times in all of Mark 14, 15, and 16, so its absence from Mark 16:9-20 is not remarkable. Likewise, πάλιν (palin) appears only three times in Mark 15-16, so its absence from Mark 16:9-20 is not remarkable either. Dr. Bruce Terry offered a more thorough analysis: if one were to construct all possible sets of twelve-verse units of the text of Mark – the first being Mark 1:1-12, the second being Mark 1:2-13, and so forth – one would end up with 650 units, using Mark 1:1-16:8. Of those 650 units, Dr. Terry determined that 229 of them “do not contain euthus, eutheōs, or palin; that is, more than 35% do not contain any of these words. It is hardly an objection to say that the last twelve verses are in the same category with more than one-third of the sets of twelve consecutive verses in the rest of the book.”

Hort surrendered most of the argument based on internal evidence to Burgon. Hort wrote: “We do not think it necessary to examine in detail the intrinsic evidence supposed to be furnished by comparison of the vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 with the unquestioned parts of the Gospel. Much of what has been urged on both sides is in our judgement trivial and intangible. There remain a certain number of differences which, taken cumulatively, produce an impression unfavourable to identity of authorship. Had these verses been found in all good documents, or been open to suspicion on no other internal evidence, the differences would reasonably have been neglected.”

In other words, the internal evidence is not sufficient, by itself, to show that these 12 verses are not an integral part of the Gospel of Mark. This is an important concession. Within two decades of Hort’s writing, other commentators remained hesitant to express such blatant trust in the testimony of Aleph and B; instead they claimed to base their rejection of these verses on the internal evidence. Ezra Gould even wrote in 1896, “The internal evidence for the omission is much stronger than the external.”

Yet some some modern-day commentators are not similarly impressed by the internal evidence. It did not convince William Farmer that the passage was not Marcan, after he conducted a detailed study on the subject. In 1990, Harvard professor Helmut Koester even stated that the vocabulary and style of Mark 16:9 to 20 are “fully compatible with the Gospel of Mark.” In 2000 J. K. Elliott acknowledged that “In many ways the non-Markan character of Mark 1:1-3 is more pronounced than that of Mark 16:9-20.” (Elliott was, however, proposing that Mark 1:1-3 is not Marcan either). Hort’s concession should not be quickly overlooked; he agreed to a considerable extent with Burgon’s assessment that many of the objections that have been posed are “frivolous and nugatory,” and that the cumulative weight of baseless objections, whether there be 10 or 20 or 30, is like the cumulative sum of 10 or 20 or 30 times zero.

Yet Hort also insisted that while many of the objections based on internal evidence are trivial, and that none of them would be strong enough to justify a verdict against the passage without corroboration from external evidence, some internal features within Mark 16:9 to 20 show that it does not flow smoothly from 16:8. This evidence of disconnection from the preceding narrative, rather than any point of personal style or vocabulary, was the sole internal evidence to which Hort appealed as confirmation that the passage is in some sense secondary. Metzger, whose adoption of Hort’s analysis sometimes reveals itself in verbatim repetitions of phrases written by Hort, likewise appealed to the same evidence. I will examine this evidence for a disconnection between the end of 16:8 and the beginning of 16:9 in the next chapter – and I will grant its validity. However, evidence of a lack of narrative continuity between Mark 1:1 to 16:8 and 16:9 to 20 is not evidence that a different author wrote 16:9 to 20.

Now some of the internal evidence which affirms Marcan authorship of 16:9 to 20 should be considered.

(1) Mark is well-known for his fondness for presenting things in groups of three, and Mark 16:9-20 exhibits this characteristic: the post-resurrection appearances are arranged in three scenes: the appearance to Mary Magdalene (in verses 9 through 11), to the two travelers (in verses 12 and 13), and to the eleven (in verses 14 through 18). The triple use of εφανη/εφανερωθη (“appeared”) is striking.

(2) Mark employs the terms αναστηναι (anastenai) (8:31, 9:10), αναστη (anaste) (9:9), and αναστησεται (anastesetai) (9:31, 10:34) to refer to Christ’s resurrection, although other terms could have been used. The use of Αναστας (Anastas) in 16:9 is thus a Marcan feature.

(3) Mark uses the word πρωϊ (proi) (in 1:35, 11:20, 13:35, 15:1, and 16:2) more frequently than the other Gospel-writers. Its presence in 16:9 supports Marcan authorship.

(4) Mark uses the word αγρον (agron) proportionately more often than the other Gospel-writers. Its presence in 16:12 is consistent with Marcan authorship.

(5) Mark’s words in 14:9 – κηρυχθη το ευαγγέλιον εις όλον τον κόσμος (the gospel shall be preached in all the world) – have a strong verbal parallel with the wording in 16:15: εις τον κόσμος άπαντα κηρύξατε το ευαγγέλιον (“in all the world, preach the gospel”).

(6) The term εφανερώθη (efanerothe, “appeared”), which occurs in 16:12 and 16:14, is a distinctly Marcan term; Mark uses φανερώθη (fanerothe) in Mark 4:22.

(7) The term σκληροκαρδίαν (sklerokardian, “hard-heartedness”) which occurs in 16:14 is rather uncommon, but it also appears in Mark 10:5.

(8) The use of κατακριθήσεται (katakrithesetai, “shall be condemned”) is Marcan; he uses κατακρινουσιν (katakrinousin) in 10:33 and κατέκριναν (katekrinan) in 14:64.

(9) The term αρρώστους (arrostous), which refers to sick people in 16:18, appears in Mark 6:5 (αρρώστοις) and 6:13.

(10) The tern πανταχου (pantachou, “everywhere”) in 16:20 is also found, in the Alexandrian Text at least, in Mark 1:28, and a related term (either πάντοθεν (pantothen), in the Alexandrian Text, or πανταχόθεν (pantachothen) in the Byzantine Text) is used in Mark 1:45; this, too, is a characteristic Marcan term.

One tender reservation remains: although Mark uses κακεινον (kakeinon) absolutely (that is, as a pronoun) twice, in Mark 12:4-5, it is notable that in Mark 16:9-20, this phenomenon, rare in Mark 1:1-16:8, is concentrated, with εκεινη (ekeine) (16:10), κακεινοι (kakeinoi) (16:11), εκεινοις (ekeinois) (16:13), and εκεινοι (ekeinoi) (16:20) all appearing as pronouns. This is indeed a suggestive feature; it suggests that Mark 16:9 to 20 was written as a summary, unlike most of the rest of the book. The text itself does not suggest a reason why Mark would suddenly resume using the summarizing style that he employed at the outset of chapter one.

It seems probable to me that Mark was compelled by such circumstances to suddenly stop writing, and to place his unfinished book in the hands of his colleagues, entrusting them with the task of finishing the text, as he hastily departed for Alexandria. The colleagues of Mark, then, adopted an already-existing short freestanding Marcan text – a summarized account of Jesus’ resurrection appearances – and, declining to add their own words to those of Mark, they were content to complete Mark’s Gospel-account by adding this summary. Nothing precludes Mark’s ability to write 16:9 to 20 as a freestanding summary. If it was adopted, rather than created, then it was adopted because it was considered authoritative, despite its awkward fit with the preceding sequence of events. This is immediately and simply accounted for if it was a Marcan composition.

All things considered, this evidence in favor of Marcan authorship neutralizes the rather flimsy evidence that has been used to deny Marcan authorship. This does not thus establish that Mark wrote 16:9 to 20 as the ending to the Gospel of Mark, but it does remove imaginary obstacles to the idea that Mark was the author of the passage, if he wrote it as a freestanding composition, independent of Mark 1:1 through 16:8.