Mark 16:1

For critical discussion leading to the conclusion that this whole chapter is a valid part of the Gospel of Mark and of the Word of God, see the introduction to this commentary. The Christian student has no need whatever to be concerned with allegations to the contrary, none of which are founded on anything except subjective conclusions of scholars, many of whom are obviously influenced more by bias against the content of the chapter than by any objective evidence favoring its exclusion.

Even J. R. Dummelow, while admitting that the external evidence against the last twelve verses "is certainly not enough to justify their rejection,"[1] nevertheless decided to reject them on grounds of form, vocabulary and style. However, of all the evidences bearing on questions of this kind, nothing could be of less weight than arguments from style and vocabulary. Mark is said to have used words in this chapter which he used nowhere else in the gospel; but that is incapable of proving that the words were not in his vocabulary. The conceit that Mark used every word that he knew in the first fifteen chapters is untenable! Furthermore, the sudden change to singular pronouns in Mark 16:15-16 was a part of the essential design to make clear who would be empowered to do the "signs" of Mark 16:17-20; and the alleged awkwardness of the re-introduction of Mary Magdalene in Mark 16:9 disappears completely when Mark's purpose of mentioning the sevenfold exorcism is discerned. That purpose was not to identify Mary Magdalene, already mentioned twice, but to explain the "hardness of heart" on the part of the eleven (Mark 16:14). It is such a failure to read what the gospel is saying that results in misjudgments based upon style.