Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The last twelve verses are absent from a small but important group headed by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, yet present in the overwhelming majority of Greek copies and in major early codices from other textual streams.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
Mark continues from 16:8 through 16:20, the traditional or longer ending.
Authorized Version
“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.” — Mark 16:9
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
The Gospel ends at 16:8; other witnesses supply a shorter ending, both endings, or an expanded form.
Translation or explanation
The Gospel ends at 16:8; other witnesses supply a shorter ending, both endings, or an expanded form.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 7 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion; the printed confidence ratings represented here are {A}, {B}, {C}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on Mark 16:9–20, 16:14, 16:14–15, 16:17, 16:18, 16:19, 16:20
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
The controlled ledger records an ECM-derived change now present in the published UBS6 text and intended NA29 main text. A passage-specific reason must come from an identified editorial commentary or the local ECM evidence; none is inferred here. In the CBGM workflow, editors define the variation units and local stemmata, while the tools calculate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence. Editors then make the textual and philological judgment.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
2 ECM-derived main-text changes are recorded for this passage in the controlled 169-change ledger. The published UBS6 Greek text is the intended NA29 main text.
| Unit | NA28 baseline | Published UBS6 / intended NA29 main text | Source and verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA29-084 | [δέ] | om. | M1 M1 p.1 — Workbook-transcribed; printed NA29 collation pending |
| NA29-085 | κύριος Ἰησοῦς | κύριος | M1 M1 p.1 — Workbook-transcribed; printed NA29 collation pending |
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 16:9–20, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 16:9–20 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
Principal competing reading: The Gospel ends at 16:8; other witnesses supply a shorter ending, both endings, or an expanded form. — Mark 16:9 The manuscript case cannot be reduced to “the two oldest manuscripts” or “the majority wins.” A few additional Greek witnesses and several versional lines support the same stopping point.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A few additional Greek witnesses and several versional lines support the same stopping point. Manuscripts identified or more fully described after 1871 require the count to be updated. The omission witnesses remain important for reconstructing the controversy, but they do not outweigh the full historical stream.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
Passage: Mark 16:9–20 Received reading: Mark continues from 16:8 through 16:20, the traditional or longer ending. A reading found across Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and other traditions cannot be explained as a late change confined to one copying center. The form received by the church Manuscript age is evidence about an individual object, not an oracle about every reading in it.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 16:9–20. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 3 passage-specific notes attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. MarkWhole-work study of Mark 16:9–20
John William Burgon — entire supplied monograph; especially the documentary, patristic, lectionary, and internal-evidence chapters
The entire monograph is devoted to Mark 16:9–20. Burgon surveys the manuscripts that end at 16:8, the alternative endings, Irenaeus and other patristic evidence, ancient versions, Eusebian and lectionary practice, vocabulary and style, and the reception of the passage. He argues that the omission in a small early witness group does not outweigh the passage’s antiquity, breadth of attestation, ecclesiastical use, and narrative fitness.
Editorial use: This is the principal supplied traditional-text treatment of the passage. Its historical witness claims remain subject to current-catalogue and apparatus verification; its whole-work scope is not reduced to one isolated quotation.
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster StandardsWestminster proof-text and translation comparison
Seth Stark — supplied PDF pp. 39–41
At Mark 16:9-20, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept.…” with the ESV/critical-text wording “Not in N-UBS--note brackets and footnotes in ESV.” and associates the passage with WCF 7.3, WLC 35, WSC 28.
Editorial use: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 14–15
Mark 16.9 – 20: It sets “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.…” against “[omit] [COMMENT: The Critical Text supplies a different and drastically shorter ending in vs 8, and omits vss 9 – 20. SECOND COMMENT: Interestingly, Tischendorf in the text of his Eighth Edition accepted the longer ending as authentic, even though he favoured the Egyptian Text….” Its stated doctrinal argument is that The fact that there is no patristic support for the shorter ending of Mark as found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tends to prove that the shorter ending of Mark 16 is a contrived one invented by arbitrary Alexandrian scribes. On the other hand, the abundance of patristic citations of verses from the Longer Ending of Mark as universally found in the continuous manuscripts of the Byzantine Text abundantly attest to the its being the authentic passage that was passed down from the autographs, and which was known by the early preachers of the Church. The compilation appeals to The omission of Mark 16.9-24 is supported by Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and their allies, but it is also generally not included in the Byzantine lectionaries as well (though this omission on the part of the Byzantine lectionaries is likely a tradition relating to the church calendar, and thus is no comment on whether the verses are authentic or not).…
Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Conclusion
The blank space in Vaticanus is often overused by both sides. It may signal awareness of another ending, a scribal calculation, or nothing more than the codex’s layout practice at that point. It does not contain invisible verses. Likewise, the replacement leaves in Sinaiticus invite codicological study without proving deliberate excision. Physical clues become evidence only when description is kept separate from the conclusion inferred from them.
Here the combined case favors verses 9–20: exceptionally broad Greek transmission, early versional distribution, second-century patristic knowledge, and continuous ecclesiastical use. The omission witnesses remain important for reconstructing the controversy, but they do not outweigh the full historical stream. Mark’s received ending should remain Scripture, with the apparatus honestly reporting every alternative.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Mark 16:9–20, the current critical revision is 16:14/4: UBS6/intended NA29 “om.”; NA28 “[δέ]” | 16:19/8: UBS6/intended NA29 “κύριος”; NA28 “κύριος Ἰησοῦς”. At least one resulting unit does not agree with the received text. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Mark 16:9–20, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Mark continues from 16:8 through 16:20, the traditional or longer ending.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.” — Mark 16:9”. The assessed critical form is “16:14/4: UBS6/intended NA29 “om.”; NA28 “[δέ]” | 16:19/8: UBS6/intended NA29 “κύριος”; NA28 “κύριος Ἰησοῦς”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Mark 16:9–20, the current critical revision is 16:14/4: UBS6/intended NA29 “om.”; NA28 “[δέ]” | 16:19/8: UBS6/intended NA29 “κύριος”; NA28 “κύριος Ἰησοῦς”. At least one resulting unit does not agree with the received text. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- Digital ECM — Mark 16:9–20Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Markentire supplied monograph; especially the documentary, patristic, lectionary, and internal-evidence chapters — Whole-work study of Mark 16:9–20
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 39–41 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 16:9–20
Received reading: Mark continues from 16:8 through 16:20, the traditional or longer ending.
Principal competing reading: The Gospel ends at 16:8; other witnesses supply a shorter ending, both endings, or an expanded form.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.” — Mark 16:9
The manuscript case cannot be reduced to “the two oldest manuscripts” or “the majority wins.” Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus end Mark at 16:8. A few additional Greek witnesses and several versional lines support the same stopping point. That evidence is early, weighty, and real.
The last twelve verses nevertheless stand in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts and in major uncials such as Alexandrinus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus. Some witnesses include the so-called shorter ending before verses 9–20; others mark the passage or note that copies differ. The physical and marginal evidence shows an ancient controversy, not a medieval invention suddenly attached to a settled book.
What Burgon could—and could not—count
John William Burgon’s 1871 monograph made the numerical imbalance famous. He reported that every Greek manuscript then known to him except Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contained the passage. That was an accurate claim about his working catalogue, not a current census. Manuscripts identified or more fully described after 1871 require the count to be updated. Repeating his number as though discovery stopped in his century would weaken his better argument.
Burgon also examined the peculiar endings of the great uncials. Vaticanus leaves an exceptional blank column after Mark, while Sinaiticus reaches the end through a replacement quire with unusual scribal features. These facts do not prove that either codex originally contained verses 9–20. They do show that the two witnesses should be studied as artifacts rather than invoked as disembodied dates.
The long ending’s broad geographical transmission matters. A reading found across Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and other traditions cannot be explained as a late change confined to one copying center. Its presence in early patristic citation pushes the evidence behind the surviving fourth-century codices.
The form received by the church
Manuscript age is evidence about an individual object, not an oracle about every reading in it. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other thousands of times and are themselves corrected in many hands. Conversely, raw numerical majority does not make every late subreading original.
The blank space in Vaticanus is often overused by both sides. It may signal awareness of another ending, a scribal calculation, or nothing more than the codex’s layout practice at that point. It does not contain invisible verses. Likewise, the replacement leaves in Sinaiticus invite codicological study without proving deliberate excision. Physical clues become evidence only when description is kept separate from the conclusion inferred from them.
Here the combined case favors verses 9–20: exceptionally broad Greek transmission, early versional distribution, second-century patristic knowledge, and continuous ecclesiastical use. The omission witnesses remain important for reconstructing the controversy, but they do not outweigh the full historical stream. Mark’s received ending should remain Scripture, with the apparatus honestly reporting every alternative.
Sources and further reading
- F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
- Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
- John William Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (Oxford and London, 1871). Public-domain text.
- Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, endings of Mark; Mark 16:1–20.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-2051
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Principal Greek ending forms, named major codices, and Burgon’s 1871 manuscript claim checked against the cited sources. Current exhaustive numerical cataloging remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis. Biblical readings are short scholarly quotations; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- Burgon’s manuscript count is reported as a historical 1871 count, not as a present-day total. This record does not enumerate every later catalogued Greek, versional, or marginal witness.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Mark 16:9–20 I — The Manuscript Case for the Last Twelve Verses,” VAR-2051, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas