Modern versions of the New Testament contain the following footnote to Mark 16:9-20:
(NIV) The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.
(NASV) Later mss add vv 9-20 & Some of the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20
(Amplified) Some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20.
(ESV) Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20. Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20.
(HCSB) 16:9-20 Other mss omit bracketed text.
(RSV) Other ancient authorities omit verses 9-20. Some ancient authorities conclude Mark instead with the following; But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.
(1881 RV) The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.
(1901 ASV) The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.
(TNIV) The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Notice the words that these versions use concerning their manuscripts: “authorities,” “witnesses,” “early,” “ancient” and “oldest.” If I were a new Christian, these words, when used so convincingly, would cause me to instantly question as to whether Mark 16:9-20 is really part of the book of Mark.
Yet the evidence that supports these verses are part of the original is more overwhelming than the skepticim presented above. James Snapp, Jr. presents some of the best evidence to support this case and can be read at the links below:
(NIV) The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.
(NASV) Later mss add vv 9-20 & Some of the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20
(Amplified) Some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20.
(ESV) Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20. Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20.
(HCSB) 16:9-20 Other mss omit bracketed text.
(RSV) Other ancient authorities omit verses 9-20. Some ancient authorities conclude Mark instead with the following; But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.
(1881 RV) The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.
(1901 ASV) The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.
(TNIV) The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Notice the words that these versions use concerning their manuscripts: “authorities,” “witnesses,” “early,” “ancient” and “oldest.” If I were a new Christian, these words, when used so convincingly, would cause me to instantly question as to whether Mark 16:9-20 is really part of the book of Mark.
Yet the evidence that supports these verses are part of the original is more overwhelming than the skepticim presented above. James Snapp, Jr. presents some of the best evidence to support this case and can be read at the links below:
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20