Is Mark 16:9-20 a later addition to the Gospel of Mark?

Answer 1

It appears so, as the earliest manuscripts do not include it.

Answer 2

Verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.


Mark 16:17-18 suggests that Steve Irwin was the only true Christian in recent history?

Answer 3

Yes.
Note that there's not just one "longer ending", but a range of them. That very variation is telling.
And it is very likely that the original ending has been lost, though it is just possible to argue the verse 8 was the intended end.

It's only a problem for those with certain particular views of inspiration and inerrancy, where the idea that part of the bible could be lost would be unacceptable.
And for the snake-handling churches, obviously.

Answer 4

It looks as though it was added. Many translations today make note of this, when they include it. The chapter seems to be complete with it, so it may be that the original text was re-written, as a close 'copy.'

Answer 5

Yes. I suggest reading an annotated bible and I think Peter Gomes has great stuff to say about the different perspectives in the bible.

Answer 6

At least one of my translations says its not in the earliest manuscripts. Possibly it got added on because the ending was very abrupt ??

Answer 7

Later than what? Much of the bible was added later:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

Answer 8

Yes, but it is not really a problem. See here
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html

Answer 9

no