The oldest manuscripts of Mark end with verse 8 of chapter 16. This is a very abrupt ending; in fact in Greek it ends almost ungrammatically on a conjunction. The rest of the chapter that typically appears today contains language and symbolism which strongly suggest that they were taken from other, later sources; thus, validity of the rest of Mark is the subject of much speculation and debate.
Was it Mark’s intention to end the gospel in this manner? It’s not unreasonable to suppose this as possible. Mark’s audience may have already been familiar with various traditions of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, so there wouldn’t necessarily have been any great need for Mark to go into detail. An abrupt ending may have been perceived as more dramatic and ending on a conjunction, while odd, isn’t totally ungrammatical.
In addition to being absent on the earliest available manuscripts, the longer ending of Mark also appears to have been unknown in patristic times. This suggests that it was likely added during the second century in order to flesh out Jesus’ post-resurrection traditions. There are any number of reasons for the scribes to think that a longer ending was appropriate: perhaps that material had since been lost, or perhaps Mark had been prevented by authorities from completing his book.
The fact that Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark’s material to create longer endings testifies to an early feeling that something more was needed in the story — that the clumsy ending of Mark wasn’t adequate to the task at hand. Many scholars even today tend to agree with this and argue that perhaps Mark did intend to have more before his story finished. Why we don’t have such an ending, though, is anyone’s guess.
What direction the narrative would have taken seems clear. Verse 7 states that Jesus was to meet his disciples in Galilee and it’s inconceivable that Mark wouldn’t have regarded that meeting as having occurred. Mark always depicts Jesus as a reliable prophet whose statements about the future consistently come to pass. Mark must have been aware of something, some tradition, but if he had anything to say on the mater we don’t have it.
Then again, perhaps Mark’s audience was expected to fill in the end of the story themselves — specifically, with themselves. Jesus is supposed to “go ahead” of the disciples to Galilee, but Jesus’ mission was to be one of suffering and death, not a return to a happy life back home. Jesus may have risen, but suffering and persecution remained realities for Mark’s community and post-resurrection appearances would have detracted from this.
If the words were meant symbolically, perhaps the disciples were to understand that Jesus has “gone ahead” of them in terms of having been martyred and that they would soon follow, assuming that are able to remain faithful to his message. Mark’s audience may have been expected to think of themselves as “disciples” as well, followers of Jesus who have been persecuted for their beliefs and who are expected to maintain faith even in the face of torture and death.
The Christian church for Mark was not one that yet enjoyed power, glory, or riches. It was still characterized by oppression and suffering, both at the individual level and institutionally. Jesus predicted to his disciples that his death implied their own later on, a reality being experienced by Christians in Mark’s day. There is then some sense behind ending the gospel not on a note of hope and glory, but fear and silence.
Thus, Mark may have regarded his gospel as simply the beginning of the story. His narrative may end abruptly with the announcement that Jesus is risen, but for the Christian community this is only the start of their new covenant with God. Mark’s readers may have been expected to complete the gospel themselves by taking up the cross as Jesus did and suffering for his sake, just as Mark described him suffering for them.
