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
Critics identify several words and constructions in verses 9–20 not used elsewhere by Mark. Burgon counters that a short resurrection summary brings new subject matter and is too small a sample for mechanical authorship tests.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The vocabulary and compressed style of Mark 16:9–20 are compatible with a distinct concluding section by Mark.
Authorized Version
“After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked.” — Mark 16:12
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 passage is judged non-Markan because of unique vocabulary, transition, syntax, and its résumé-like treatment of appearances.
Translation or explanation
The passage is judged non-Markan because of unique vocabulary, transition, syntax, and its résumé-like treatment of appearances.
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
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony
Exact proposition affected
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
A writer describing resurrection appearances, worldwide mission, serpents, poison, ascension, and enthronement naturally needs words not used in Galilean controversy narratives. Mary, the two travelers, the Eleven, the commission, and the ascension are not developed as a fifth resurrection narrative beside the others.
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. Critics note words found nowhere else in Mark, the reintroduction of Mary Magdalene, the shift from the women to Jesus, the absence of familiar adverbs such as “immediately,” and a compressed résumé of appearances known more fully from other Gospels.
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
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony: A writer describing resurrection appearances, worldwide mission, serpents, poison, ascension, and enthronement naturally needs words not used in Galilean controversy narratives. Mary, the two travelers, the Eleven, the commission, and the ascension are not developed as a fifth resurrection narrative beside the others.
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
The ending crossed several versional traditions and became embedded in Greek transmission.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Irenaeus quotes verse 19 as Mark before the great omission codices were copied.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The ending crossed several versional traditions and became embedded in Greek transmission.
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. Critics note words found nowhere else in Mark, the reintroduction of Mary Magdalene, the shift from the women to Jesus, the absence of familiar adverbs such as “immediately,” and a compressed résumé of appearances known more fully from other Gospels.
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
A more rigorous future study would compare sentence length, connective use, lexical frequency, discourse role, and topic-adjusted controls across Mark. It would also test other twelve-verse samples drawn from narrative conclusions. Until that work is done, a list of words occurring once is descriptive but weakly diagnostic. Every short passage in an author’s corpus will contain vocabulary not repeated elsewhere, especially when it names events found nowhere else.
The vocabulary evidence should be preserved in the Research Center rather than neutralized. Its limitations should be preserved too. Burgon is right at this point: rarity is not foreignness, and absence of a favorite word in twelve verses proves little. Style can raise a question; it does not overturn the broader record that identifies these verses as Mark’s received conclusion.
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 card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Mark 16:9–20, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The vocabulary and compressed style of Mark 16:9–20 are compatible with a distinct concluding section by Mark.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked.” — Mark 16:12”. 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 card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
- 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: The vocabulary and compressed style of Mark 16:9–20 are compatible with a distinct concluding section by Mark.
Principal competing reading: The passage is judged non-Markan because of unique vocabulary, transition, syntax, and its résumé-like treatment of appearances.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked.” — Mark 16:12
The internal case against Mark 16:9–20 is cumulative. Critics note words found nowhere else in Mark, the reintroduction of Mary Magdalene, the shift from the women to Jesus, the absence of familiar adverbs such as “immediately,” and a compressed résumé of appearances known more fully from other Gospels.
Those observations are facts about the passage. The disputed judgment is whether they require a different author.
Twelve verses are a small laboratory
Burgon challenged vocabulary counts built from a sample this short. A writer describing resurrection appearances, worldwide mission, serpents, poison, ascension, and enthronement naturally needs words not used in Galilean controversy narratives. Unique subject matter creates unique vocabulary without creating a unique author.
He also compared other compact sections of Mark, including the rapid sequence near the opening, to show that an evangelist can change pace. A conclusion can summarize weeks of events after chapters that narrated hours. Modern stylometry is more sophisticated than a list of hapax legomena, but it faces the same limits when genre, topic, and sample size change together.
The stylistic objection retains force. Phrases such as “after these things,” the repeated use of “went,” and the designation of disciples in verse 10 sound less familiar than Mark’s ordinary movement. No responsible defense should pretend otherwise. Internal evidence belongs in the balance.
What it cannot do is cancel early external knowledge. Irenaeus quotes verse 19 as Mark before the great omission codices were copied. The ending crossed several versional traditions and became embedded in Greek transmission. To declare it non-Markan on style alone requires confidence greater than twelve verses can bear.
A conclusion has its own register
The passage’s compressed movement is appropriate to a close. Mary, the two travelers, the Eleven, the commission, and the ascension are not developed as a fifth resurrection narrative beside the others. They gather the Gospel’s unfinished themes: unbelief rebuked, disciples restored, good news preached, and the Lord working through weak messengers.
A more rigorous future study would compare sentence length, connective use, lexical frequency, discourse role, and topic-adjusted controls across Mark. It would also test other twelve-verse samples drawn from narrative conclusions. Until that work is done, a list of words occurring once is descriptive but weakly diagnostic. Every short passage in an author’s corpus will contain vocabulary not repeated elsewhere, especially when it names events found nowhere else.
The vocabulary evidence should be preserved in the Research Center rather than neutralized. Its limitations should be preserved too. Burgon is right at this point: rarity is not foreignness, and absence of a favorite word in twelve verses proves little. Style can raise a question; it does not overturn the broader record that identifies these verses as Mark’s received conclusion.
Sources and further reading
- 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.
- Mark 1:9–20; 16:9–20; comparative vocabulary in the undisputed Gospel.
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-2056
- 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
- Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the SBLGNT apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation 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
- This record evaluates common vocabulary objections but does not claim a new computational stylometric study. Authorship statistics are sensitive to sample size, topic, and genre.
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 VI — Vocabulary and Style: Is the Long Ending Really Non-Markan?,” VAR-2056, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas