With the recognition that Mark 16:8 is the most authentic ending of the second Gospel, debate has raged over whether this is the Evangelist's intended ending or whether his intended ending was lost. In the first part of the 20th century, the predominant view was that the original ending had been lost, but in the latter part of the century this was replaced by the view that 16:8 was Mark's intended ending, and numerous attempts were made to explain how 16:8 serves as a fitting ending for the Gospel. The present article seeks to demonstrate that 16:8 is not the Evangelist's intended ending. The two main arguments given are that Mark 14:28 and 16:7 are Markan insertions that point to a postresurrection meeting of Jesus and the disciples in Galilee and that it is very unlikely that the Evangelist would have left this prophecy unfulfilled by ending abruptly with 16:8. This would be the only unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus in Mark except for the prophecy concerning his parousia. The second argument is that in contrast to modern reader-response interpretations of 16:1–8, the emphasis of these verses is not about the disciples and their failures but on Jesus Christ, the Son of God (1:1), and the key verses are 16:6–7 and not 16:8.

The text of this article is only available as a PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.