Question guide

Is Mark 16:9-20 original?

Short answer

Probably not. The long ending is absent from the two oldest complete Greek codices and is widely treated by textual scholars as a later addition, even though it became familiar through later manuscript streams and translations.

Key points

Mark 16:9-20 is missing from Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
It appears in later witnesses such as Codex Alexandrinus and the Byzantine majority tradition.
Modern translations usually bracket it or add a note about the manuscript evidence.
The shorter ending at Mark 16:8 changes how Mark reads: the women flee from the tomb afraid.

Evidence trail

Passage study: the long ending of MarkLists the manuscript witnesses and what each one does with the passage.Claim rating: Mark 16 is originalRates the claim against modern textual evidence.Codex Sinaiticus witnessOne of the oldest complete New Testament codices, ending Mark at 16:8.

Common follow-ups

Does removing Mark 16:9-20 remove the resurrection?

No. The resurrection is present across the New Testament. The question is whether this particular ending was part of Mark in its earliest recoverable form.

Why do some Bibles still print the long ending?

Because it is historically familiar and appears in many later manuscripts. Many editions keep it visible with brackets or notes rather than silently removing it.

Useful for teaching or study?

Support free evidence guides like this.

Contributions help maintain source checks, bibliography notes, charts, and plain-English guides for churches, classrooms, reading groups, and curious readers.

Support Bible History