- The section is found in most of the uncial MSS., A C D Χ Γ Δ Σ, in all the late uncials (in
L as a secondary reading), and in all the cursive MSS., including 1, 33, 69, etc.; though a number
of the cursives either mark it with an asterisk or note its omission in older copies. Hence the
statements of Eusebius and Jerome seem to need some qualification. In MSS 22 (as Dr. Burgon
has first pointed out) the liturgical word τέλοςdenoting the end of a reading lesson, is inserted after
both Mark 16:8 and 16:20, while no such word is placed at the end of the other Gospels. This shows
that there were two endings of Mark in different copies. - Also in most of the ancient versions, the Itala (with the exception of "k," or the codex
Bobbiensis, used by Columban), the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac (last part), the Peshito, the
Philoxenian, the Coptic, the Gothic (first part), and the Aethiopic, but in several MSS. only after
the spurious shorter conclusion. Of these versions the Itala, the Curetonian and Peshito Syriac, and
the Coptic, are older than any of our Greek codices, but the MSS. of the Coptic are not older than
the twelfth or tenth century, and may have undergone changes as well as the Greek MSS.; and the
MSS. of the Ethiopic are all modern. The best MSS. of the old Latin are mutilated here. The only
extant fragment of Mark in the Curetonian Syriac is 16:17–20, so that we cannot tell whether Mark
16:9–20 immediately followed 16:8, or appeared as they do in cod. L. But Aphraates quotes it. - In all the existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries or evangeliaries and synaxaries, as far
as examined, which contain the Scripture reading lessons for the churches. Dr. Burgon lays great
stress on their testimony (ch. X.), but he overrates their antiquity. The lection-systems cannot be
traced beyond the middle of the fourth century when great liturgical changes took place. At that
time the disputed verses were widely circulated and eagerly seized as a suitable resurrection and
ascension lesson. - Irenaeus of Lyons, in the second half of the second century, long before Eusebius,
expressly quotes Mark 16:19 as a part of the Gospel of Mark (Adv. Haer., III. 10, 6). The still earlier
testimony of Justin Martyr (Apol., I. 45) is doubtful (The quotation of Mark 16:17 and 18 in lib.
viii., c. 1 of the Apostolic Constitutions is wrongly ascribed to Hippolytus.) Marinus, Macarius
Magnes (or at least the heathen writer whom he cites), Didymus, Chrysostom (??), Epiphanius,
Nestorius, the apocryphal Gesta Pilati, Ambrose, Augustin, and other later fathers quote from the
section. - A strong intrinsic argument is derived from the fact that Mark cannot intentionally have
concluded his Gospel with the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ(Mark 16:8). He must either have himself
written the last verses or some other conclusion, which was accidently lost before the book was
multiplied by transcription; or he was unexpectedly prevented from finishing his book, and the
conclusion was supplied by a friendly hand from oral tradition or some written source.
In view of these facts the critics and exegetes are very much divided. The passage is defended
as genuine by Simon, Mill, Bengel, Storr, Matthaei, Hug, Schleiermacher, De Wette, Bleek,
Olshausen, Lange, Ebrard, Hilgenfeld, Broadus ("Bapt. Quarterly," Philad., 1869), Burgon (1871),
Scrivener, Wordsworth, McClellan, Cook, Morison (1882). It is rejected or questioned by the critical
editors, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort (though retained
by all in the text with or without brackets), and by such critics and Commentators as Fritzsche,
Credner, Reuss, Wieseler, Holtzmann, Keim, Scholten, Klostermann, Ewald, Meyer, Weiss, Norton,
Davidson. Some of these opponents, however, while denying the composition of the section by
Mark, regard the contents as a part of the apostolic tradition. Michelsen surrenders only 16:9–14,
A.D. 1-100.