restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: A Bibliography

 David Alan Black 

With Joshua Covert and Noah Kelley

1. Aland, Kurt. “Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangliums.” Pages 157–180 inNeotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969.

2. __________. “Der wiedergefundene Markusschluss?” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 67, no. 1 (1970): 3–13.

3. __________, and Barbara Aland, eds. Die synoptischen Evangelien. Vol. 4:1 of Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1987. (pp. 406–417).

4. Anderson, Hugh.The Gospel of Mark. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996 (pp. 351–362).

5. Anderson, Janice Capel and Stephen D. Moore, eds. Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. 2nd edition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.

6. Baarda, Tjitze. “An Unexpected Reading in the West-Saxon Gospel Text of Mark 16.11.”New Testament Studies 41, no 3 (July 1995): 458–465.

7. Bailey, James L. “Perspectives on the Gospel of Mark.” Currents in Theology and Mission 12, no 1 (February 1985): 15–25.

8. Ballantine, Elodie. A Preliminary Study of the Ending of Mark’s Gospel. Thesis (M.A.), Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1984.

9. Bartsch, H.-W. “Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums: Ein überlieferungsgeschichtliches Problem.” ThZ 27 (1971): 241-254.

10. Beavis, Mary Ann.Mark. Paideia. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011 (pp. 244–250).

11. Black, David Alan, editor. Perspectives on the Ending of Mark. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008.

12. Bode, Edward Lynn. The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women’s Visit to the Tomb of Jesus. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970 (pp. 44–48).

13. Boomershine, Thomas E. “Mark 16:8 and the Apostolic Commission.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 2 (June 1981): 225-239.

14. ____________. and Gilbert L. Bartholomew. “The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8.” JBL 100 (1981): 213–242.

15. Boring, M. Eugene and Fred B. Craddock. The People’s New Testament Commentary. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2009 (pp. 171–173).

16. Bridges, Carl B. “The Canonical Status of the Longer Ending of Mark.” Stone-Campbell Journal 9 (2006): 231–242.

17. Broadus, John A. “Exegetical Studies: Style of Mark xvi 9–20, as Bearing on the Question of Genuineness.” Baptist Quarterly 3 (1869): 355–362.

18. Broer, I. “Zur heutigen Diskussion der Grabesgeschichte (Mk 16, 1–8).” BibLeb 10 (1969): 40–52.

19. Brooks, James A.Mark. NAC. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991 (pp. 271-276).

20. Brown, Scott G. “The Longer Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem.” New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (April 2008): 753–781.

21. Bruce, A.B. “The Synoptic Gospels.” Pages 3–651 of Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 1. Edited by W. Robertson Nicholl. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002 (pp. 453–457).

22. Bruce, F.F. “The End of the Second Gospel.” EvQ 17 (1945): 169–181.

23. ________. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960.

24. Burgon, E.S. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark Vindicated against Recent Critical Objectors and Established. London: James Parker, 1871.

25. Bush, R.A. “Mark’s Call to Action: A Rhetorical Analysis of Mark 16:8.” In Church Divinity. Ed. J. Morgan. Bristol: Wyndham Hall, 1986 (pp. 22–30).

26. Cadbury, H.J. “Mark 16:8.” JBL 46 (1927): 344–350.

27. Cadwallader, Alan H. “The Hermeneutical Potential of the Multiple Endings of Mark’s Gospel.” Colloquium 43, no 2 (November 2011): 129–146.

28. Camery–Hoggatt, Jerry. Irony in Mark’s Gospel: Text and Subtext. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

29. Carlson, Niel L. “The Long Ending of Mark: Debating the Origin of the Last Twelve Verses.” Logia 22, no 4 (2013): 39–41.

30. Clark, Kenneth W. “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament.” JBL 85 (1966): 1–16.

31. Cole, R. Alan. The Gospel according to Mark: An Introduction and Commentary. Revised ed. TNTC. Leicester, UK: InterVarsity, 1989 (pp. 329–340).

32. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Herm. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007 (pp. 779–782, 797–801; “Additional Endings of Mark,” pp. 802–818).

33. Colwell, E.C. “Mark 16.9­–20 in the Armenian Version.” JBL 55 (1937): 369–386.

34. Comfort, Philip Wesley. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008 (pp. 157–163).

35. Conybeare, F.C. “Ariston, the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark.” Expositor 4.8 (1893): 241–254.

36. ________. “On the Last Twelve Verses of Mark’s Gospel.” The Expositor 5.2 (1895): 401–421.

37. Cox, Steven L. A History and Critique of Scholarship concerning the Markan Endings. Lampeter, UK: Edwin Mellen, 1993.

38. Cranfield, C. E. B. “St. Mark 16.1–8.” SJT 5 (1952): 282–298, 398–414.

39. _________. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959 (pp. 469–476).

40. Creed, J. M. “The Conclusion of the Gospel according to Saint Mark.” JTS o.s. 31 (1930): 175–180.

41. Croy, N. Clayton.The Mutilation of Mark’s Gospel. Nashville: Abington, 2003.

42. Culpepper, R. Alan. Mark. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2007 (“The Later Endings of Mark,” pp. 590–593).

43. Daniel, Lillian. “The Weirdly Real Ending of Mark.” Journal for Preachers 36, no 3 (2013): 24–27.

44. Danove, Paul L.The End of Mark’s Story: A Methodological Study. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

45. Dart, John. “Unfinished Gospel?: Mark’s Enigmatic Ending.” The Christian Century 123, no 8 (April 2006): 28–32.

46. Decker, Rodney J.Mark 9–16: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014 (pp. 277–280; “Appendix: Ancient Christian Writings Related to the Ending of the Gospel of Mark,” pp. 281–291).

47. Decker, Rodney J. “Mark and Miracle (Mark 16:17-18).” http://ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Decker_MarkAndMiracle_Mk16_short1.pdf.

48. Dhanis, E. “L’ensevelissement de Jésus et la visite au tombeau dans l’évangile de saint Marc (xv, 40–xvi, 8).” Greg 39 (1958): 367–410.

49. Dietzfelbinger, D. “Markus 16,1–8.” Pages 9–22 in Kranzbacher Gespräch der Lutherischen Bischofskonferenz zur Auseinandersetzung um die Bibel. Ed. H. Schnell. Berlin; Hamburg: Lutherisches Verlaghaus, 1967.

50. Donahue, John R., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2002 (“Later Endings,” pp. 462–464).

51. Doudna, John Charles. The Greek of the Gospel of Mark. Philadelphia: SBL, 1961.

52. Dowd, Sharyn E.Reading Mark: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Second Gospel. Macon, GA: Smith and Helwys, 2000.

53. Edmunds, Albert J. The End of the Gospel According to Mark: In the Oldest Manuscripts and Versions. Philadelphia: Innes & Sons, 1916.

54. Edwards, James R.The Gospel according to Mark. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001 (pp. 495–508).

55. ________. “Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives.” Pages 192–215 in The Composition of Mark’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum. Edited by David E. Orton. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

56. Ehrman, Bart D. “The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox.” Lutheran Quarterly 5, no 2 (1991): 143–156.

57. Elliott, J.K. The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

58. ________. “Text and Language of the Endings to Mark’s Gospel.” Theologische Zeitschrift 27, no 4 (1971): 255–262.

59. ________. “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?” Pages 80–102 in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views. Edited by David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008.

60. Evans, Craig A.Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001 (pp. 538–551).

61. Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. SNTSMS 25. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

62. Fee, Gordon D. “A Text-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem.” Novum Testamentum22, no 1 (January 1980): 12–28.

63. Focant, Camille. “La canonicité de la finale longue (Mc 16,9–20): vers la reconnaissance d’un double texte canonique?” Biblical Canons (2003): 587–597.

64. ________. The Gospel According to Mark: A Commentary. Translated by Leslie Robert Keylock. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012 (pp. 653–676).

65. ________. “Un silence qui fait parler (Mc 16,8).” Pages 79–96 in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel. Edited by A. Denaux. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002.

66. France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002 (pp. 670–684; “Appended Note: The Textual Evidence for the Ending of Mark,” pp. 685–688).

67. Frey, Johannes.Der Schluss des Markus Evangeliums und die Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen. Leipzig: Deichert, 1913.

68. Gage, Warren A. “Jesus as the New Elijah and the Textual Question regarding the Ending of the Gospel of Mark.” Unpublished paper, 2001.

69. Galbraith, Deane. “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Casey on Jesus (3)–The Gospel of Mark’s Missing Ending.” Religion Bulletin, April 19, 2011, accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.equinoxpub.com/blog/2011/04/caseys-jesus-3-marks-ending/.

70. Garland, David E. Mark. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

71. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts, and Patrick D. Miller. The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God: Essays in Memory of Donald Harrisville Juel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

72. Geddert, Timothy J. Mark. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2001 (pp. 398–399; “The ending of Mark’s Gospel [and Remarks on 16:9–20],” pp. 400–403; “Textual Criticism of Mark,” pp. 429–431).

73. Giesen, Η. “Der Auferstandene und seine Gemeinde: Zum Inhalt und zur Funktion des ursprünglichen Markusschlusses (16:1–8).” SNTSU 12 (1987): 99–139.

74. Gnilka, Joachim.Das Evangelium nach Markus. Evangelisch–katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Zurich: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1979 (pp. 344–350; “Anhang: Die sekundären Markus-Schlüsse,” pp. 350–358).

75. Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner, 1907 (pp. 301–309).

76. Grimme, H. “Harmonie zwischen Anfang und Schluss des Markusevangeliums.” ΤQ 126 (1946): 276–89.

77. Gundry, Robert H.Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 (pp. 1009–1021).

78. Güttgemanns, Ε. “Linguistische Analyse von Mk 16,1–8.” LB 11–12 (1972): 13–53.

79. Guthrie, Donald.New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970 (“The Ending of the Gospel,” pp. 89–93).

80. Harris, James Rendel. “On the Alternative Ending of St. Mark’s Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 12, no 2 (1893).

81. Hartman, Lars. “Mark 16:1­–8: The Ending of a Biography–like Narrative and of a Gospel.” Theology & Life 30 (2007): 31–47.

82. Healy, Mary and Peter S. Williamson. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008 (pp. 327–335).Bottom of Form

83. Hebert, G. “The Resurrection-Narrative in St. Mark’s Gospel.” STJ 15 (1962): 66–73.

84. Hedrick, Charles W. “What Is a Gospel: Geography, Time and Narrative Structure.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 10, no. 3 (September 1983): 255–268.

85. Heil, John Paul.The Gospel of Mark as a Model for Action: A Reader–Response Commentary. New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1991.

86. Helton, Stanley N. “Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9–20.” Restoration Quarterly36, no 1 (1994): 33–52.

87. Henaut, B. W. “Empty Tomb or Empty Argument: A Failure of Nerve in Recent Studies of Mark 16?” SR 15 (1986): 177–190.

88. Henderson, Suzanne Watts. “Discipleship after the Resurrection: Scribal Hermeneutics in the Longer Ending of Mark.” Journal of Theological Studies 63, no 1 (April 2012): 106–124.

89. Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel according to Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. (“The Problem with Respect to Mark 16:9–20,” pages 682–693).

90. Hengel, Martin.Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London: SCM, 1985 (pp. 71–72; pp. 167–169, fn 47).

91. Hester, J. David. “Dramatic Inconclusion: Irony and the Narrative Rhetoric of the Ending of Mark.” JSNT 57 (1995): 61–85.

92. Hester, David W.Does Mark 16:9–20 Belong in the New Testament? Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2015.

93. Holding, James Patrick. “How Did Mark’s Gospel End?” Tekton Apologetics, accessed July 31, 2015. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.php.

94. Holmes, Michael W. “To Be Continued . . . The Many Endings of Mark.” BR 17.4 (2001): 12–23, 48­–50.

95. Holmes, Mike. “The Ending of Mark 16:8: Intentional or Accidental?” Trinity Journal 5 (1976): 102–108.

96. Hooker, Morna D.The Gospel According to Mark. BNTC. [Peabody, MA]: Hendrickson, 1993 (pp. 382–394).

97. Horvath, T. “The Early Markan Tradition on the Resurrection (Mk. 16,1–8).” RUO 43 (1973): 445–448.

98. Huffman, Norman. “Suggestions from the Gospel of Mark for a New Textual Theory.” Journal of Biblical Literature 56, no 4 (1937): 347–359.

99. Hug, Joseph. La finale de l’évangile de Marc: (Mc 16,9-). Paris: Gabalda, 1978.

100. Hurtado, Larry W. “The Women, the Tomb, and the Climax of Mark.” Pages 427–450 in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

101. Iverson, Kelly R. “A Further Word of Final Γάρ (Mark 16:8).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006): 79–94.

102. Joynes, Christine E. “The Sound of Silence: Interpreting Mark 16:1­–8 through the Centuries.” Int 65.1 (2011): 18–29.

103. Juel, Donald H.The Gospel of Mark. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

104. _________. Mark. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990 (“Excursus: A Textual Problem [16:1-8 (20)],” pp. 229–231).

105. Kahle, Paul E. “The End of St. Mark’s Gospel: The Witness of the Coptic Versions.”JTS 11 (1951): 49–57.

106. Kelhoffer, James A. “Basilides’s Gospel and Exegetica (Treatises).” VigChr59 (2005): 115–135. Also found in pages 77–95 of Conceptions of “Gospel” and Legitimacy in Early Christianity. By James A. Kelhoffer. WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

107. ________. Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

108. ________. “The Disciples as Miracle Workers in the Synoptic Gospels as Compared with Mark’s Longer Ending (Mark 16:9–20).” Proceedings 18 (1998): 65–79.

109. ________. “The Witness of Eusebius’ ad Marinum and Other Christian Writings to Text-Critical Debates Concerning the Original Conclusion to Mark’s Gospel.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche 92, no 1–2 (2001): 78–112.

110. Kevin, Robert Oliver. “The Lost Ending of the Gospel according to Mark: A Criticism and a Reconstruction.” JBL 45 (1926): 81­–103.

111. Knox, Wilfred Lawrence. “The Ending of St. Mark’s Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 35, no 1 (January 1942): 13–23.

112. Kraeling, C.H. “A Philological Note on Mark 16:8.” JBL 44 (1925): 357–358.

113. Kuskem, David P. “Textual Criticism Brief: Mark 16:9–20.” Lutheran Quarterly 102, no 1 (2005): 58–59.

114. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Evangile selon Saint Marc. 6th edition corr. et augm. Paris: Gabalda, 1942 (pp. 444–468).

115. Lane, William L.The Gospel of Mark. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995 (pp. 582–592; “Additional Note on the Supplementary Endings to the Gospel,” pp. 601–605; “Additional Note on the Theology of the Freer Logion,” pp. 606-611).

116. Lee, Sug-Ho. Unbelief as a Theme in Mark’s Gospel. PhD diss, University of Pretoria, 2006.

117. Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel. Colombus, OH. Wartburg: 1945 (pp. 748–775).

118. Lewis, Jack. “The Ending of Mark.” The Lifestyle of Jesus According to the Gospel of Mark. Searcy, AR: Harding University, 1988.

119. Lightfoot, R.H. “St. Mark’s Gospel—Complete or Incomplete?” Pages 80–97 in The Gospel Message of St. Mark. Oxford: Clarendon, 1950.

120. Lincoln, Andrew T. “The Promise and Failure: Mark 16:7, 8.” JBL 108 (1989): 283–300.

121. Lindemann, Andreas. “Die Osterbotschaft des Markus: Zur theologischen Interpretation von Mark 16:1–8.” New Testament Studies 26, no 3 (April 1980): 298–317.

122. Linnemann, Eta. “Der (wiedergefundene) Markusschluss.”Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 66, no 3 (1969): 255–287.

123. Longacre, Robert E. “A Top-Down, Template-Driven Narrative Analysis, Illustrated by Application to Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 140–168 in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Edited by Stanley Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed. JSNT Supplement Series 170. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

124. Lunn, Nicholas.The Original Ending of Mark. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014.

125. Luccock, Halford E. “The Gospel according to Saint Mark: Exposition.” Pages 629–917 in The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abington, 1951.

126. Lührmann, Dieter. Das Markusevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 3. Tübingen: Mohr, 1987 (“Das textkritische Problem des Mk-Schlusses,” pp. 268–270).

127. Lundbum, Jack R. “Closure in Mark’s Gospel.” Seminary Ridge Review 9.1 (2006): 33–41.

128. Magness, J. Lee.Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark’s Gospel. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986.

129. Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986.

130. Mann, C.S. Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 1986 (pp. 659–679).

131. Marcus, Joel. Mark 8–16. The Anchor Yale Bible, Vol. 27A. Binghamton, NY: Yale University Press, 2009 (“Postscript: The Markan Ending,” pp. 1088–1096).

132. __________. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. London: T&T Clark, 1993.

133. McDill, Matthew D. “A Textual and Structural Analysis of Mark 16:9–20.” FilNeot17 (2004): 27–43.

134. McGrath, James F. “How Mark’s Gospel Originally Ended.” Patheos, November 2, 2007, accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2007/11/how-marks-gospel-originally-ended.html.

135. McMillan, Earle.The Gospel according to Mark. Austin, TX: Sweet, 1973.

136. Merklein, Η. “Mk 16,1–8 als Epilog des Markusevangelium.” Pages 209–238 in The Synoptic Gospels. Ed. C. Focant. BETL 110. Leuven: Peeters and Leuven UP, 1993.

137. Metzger, Bruce M.A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York, NY: United Bible Society, 1994 (pp. 102–107).

138. ______________. “The Ending of the Gospel according to St. Mark in Ethiopic Manuscript.” Pages 127–47 in New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

139. ______________.The Text of the New Testament. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1978.

140. Meye, Robert P. “Mark 16:8: The Ending of Mark’s Gospel.” Biblical Research 14 (1969): 33–43.

141. Miller, David. “Is Mark 16:9–20 Inspired?” Reason and Revelation 25 (2005): 89–95.

142. Missler, Chuck. “Additions or Deletions: The Last 12 Verses of Mark.” Koinonia House, February 2000, accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/201/.

143. Molina, Francisco J. A Literary and Rhetorical Analysis of the Longer Ending of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9–20). Thesis (S.T.L.): Catholic University of America, 1997.

144. Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002 (pp. 339–362).

145. Morison, James.A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892.

146. Moule, C.F.D. “St. Mark xvi.8 Once More.” NTS 2 (1955–56): 58–59.

147. Myers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988 (“The Apocryphal Endings: A Reflection on ‘Imperial Rewrites,’” pp. 401–404).

148. Neirynck, F. “Marc 16,1–8: Tradition et redaction: Tombeau vide et angélophanie.”ETL 56 (1980): 56–88.

149. Nineham, D.E. The Gospel of St. Mark. Pelican Gospel Commentaries. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguine, 1963 (pp. 439–453).

150. Nunn, Nicholas P.A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9–20. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014.

151. O’Collins, Gerald. “The Fearful Silence of Three Women (Mark 16:8c).” Gregorianum 69, no. 3 (1988 1988): 489-503.

152. Oden, Thomas C., and Christopher A. Hall, eds. Mark. ACCS. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998 (pp. 245–256).

153. Oppermann, R. “Eine Beobachtung in Bezug auf das Problem des Markusschlusses.” BN 40 (1987): 24–29.

154. Ottley, R. R. “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Mark xvi 8.” JTSo.s. 27 (1926): 407–409.

155. Paulsen, Η. “Mk xvi 1–8.” NovT 22 (1980): 138–175.

156. Perkins, Pheme. “The Gospel of Mark.” Pages 509–733 in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 8. Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 1994 (pp. 726–733).

157. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Frieburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1984 (pp. 535–543; “Anhang 1: Der längere Markusschluss [16, 9–20],” pp. 544–566; “Anhang 2: Der kürzere Markusschluss,” pp. 557–559).

158. Peterson, Norman R. “When is the End Not the End? Literary Reflections on the Ending of Mark’s Narrative.” Int 34 (1980): 153–162.

159. Pokorny, P. “‘Anfang des Evangelium’: Zum Problem des Anfangs und des Schlusses des Markusevangeliums.” Pages 115–131 in Die Kirche des Anfangs. FS H. Schürmann, ed. R. Schnackenburg. ETS 38. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977.

160. Reedy, Charles J. “Mark 8:31–11:10 and the Gospel Ending: A Redaction Study.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34, no 2 (April 1972): 188–197.

161. Rhoads, David. “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50 (1982): 411­–427.

162. __________, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1999.

163. Richardson, L.J.D. “St. Mark xvi. 8.” JTS o.s. 49 (1948): 144–146.

164. Rist, Martin. “Is Mark a Complete Gospel?” Anglican Theological Review 14, no 2 (Spring 1932): 143–151.

165. Robinson, B.A. “Alleged Forgery in the Gospel of Mark.” Religious Tolerance, March 3, 2008, accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm.

166. Robinson, Maurice A. “The Long Ending of Mark as Canonical Veracity.” Pages 40–79 inPerspectives on the Ending of Mark. Edited by David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008.

167. Rolland, Philippe. “Marc, première harmonie évangélique.” Revue Biblique 90, no 1 (January 1983): 23–79.

168. Sabin, Marie. The Gospel according to Mark. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2006.

169. ________. “The Women Transformed: The Ending of Mark Is the Beginning of Wisdom.”Cross Currents 48, no 2 (1998): 149–168.

170. Sapaugh, Gregory Paul. An Appraisal of the Intrinsic Probability of the Longer Endings of the Gospel of Mark. Thesis/Dissertation: Dallas Theological Seminary, 2013.

171. Schlier, H. “Die Osterbotschaft aus dem Grab (Markus 16,1–8).” Katholische Gedanke 27 (1971): 1–6.

172. Schmithals, Walter. “Der Markusschluß, die Verklärungsgeschichte und die Aussendung der Zwölf.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche Vol. 69, No. 4 (1972): 379-411

173. Schneider, G. “‘Er ist auferweckt worden!’ Eine Auslegung von Mk 16,1–8.” Der Katholische Erzieher 17 (1964): 113–117.

174. Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1970 (pp. 365–379).  Original German Version: Das Evangelium nach Markus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967 (pp. 212–220).

175. Shepherd, Thomas R. “Narrative Analysis as a Text Critical Tool: Mark 16 in Codex W as a Test Case.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32, no 1 (September 2009): 77–98.

176. Shin, Hyeon Woo. “The Historic Present as a Discourse Marker and Textual Criticism in Mark.” TBT 63.1 (2012): 39–51.

177. Smith, Drew. “Why Did Mark’s Gospel End So Abruptly?” Ethics Daily, April 16, 2010, accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.ethicsdaily.com/why-did-marks-gospel-end-so-abruptly-cms-15926.

178. Smith, R. H. “New and Old in Mark 16:1–8.” CTM 43 (1972): 518–527.

179. Snapp Jr., James Edward. “Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9–20.” [No publisher]. Kindle Edition, 2012.

180. Spencer, Aida Besancon. “The Denial of the Good News and the Ending of Mark.” BBR 17.2 (2007): 269–283.

181. Stein, Robert H. “The Ending of Mark.” BBR 18.1 (2008): 79­–98.

182. ________. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008 (pp. 727–733; “the Ending of Mark,” pp. 733–738).

183. Stock, Augustine.The Method and Message of Mark. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989.

184. Strauss, Mark L.Mark: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014 (pp. 714–725; “The Endings of Mark’s Gospel,” pp. 727–731).

185. Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977 (“Alternative Endings of the Gospel,” pp. ciii–cxiii; pp. 398–408).

186. Synge, F.C. “Mark 16.1–8.” JTSA 11 (1975): 71–73.

187. ________. “Matter of Tenses: Fingerprints of an Annotator in Mark.” The Expository Times 88, no 6 (July 1977): 168–171.

188. Tabor, James D. “The ‘Strange’ Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference.” Tabor Blog, August 25, 2012, accessed July 25, 2015. http://jamestabor.com/2012/08/25/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/.

189. Taylor, Charles. “Some Early Evidence for the Twelve Verses Mark XVI. 9–20.” Pages 71–80 in The Expositor, Vol. 8. Edited by Robertson Nicholl. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1893.

190. Taylor, Vincent.The Gospel according to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indexes. New York: Macmillan, 1966 (pp. 610-615).

191. Telford, William R., ed. The Interpretation of Mark. London: T&T Clark, 1995.

192. Terry, Bruce. “The Style of the Long Ending of Mark.” Appendix in A Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Variants. [No Publisher] 1998. http://bible.ovu.edu/terry//tc/index.htm. Accessed August 8, 2015. Originally published in abbreviated form as: “Another Look at the Ending of Mark.” Firm Foundation 93 (September 14, 1976).

193. Thomas, John C. “A Reconsideration of the Ending of Mark.” JETS 26 (1983): 407–419.

194. Thomas, John Christopher and Kimberly Ervin Alexander. “‘And the Signs Are Following’: Mark 16:9–20—A Journey into Pentecostal Hermeneutics.”Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11 (2003): 147–170.

195. Tobin, Paul. “The Spurious Endings of Mark.” The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager, accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nomark.html.

196. Tolbert, Mary Ann. Sowing in the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary–Historical Perspective. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989.

197. Trompf, G.W. “The First Resurrection Appearance and the Ending of Mark’s Gospel.” NTS 18 (1972): 308–330.

198. ________. “The Markusschluss in Recent Research.” Australian Biblical Review 21 (October 1973): 15–26.

199. Turner, C.H. “Did Codex Vercellensis (a) Contain the Last Twelve Verses of St Mark?” JTS 29 (1927–1928): 16–18.

200. Upton, Bridget Gilfillan. Hearing Mark’s Endings: Listening to Ancient Popular Texts through Speech Act Theory. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

201. Van der Horst, P.W. “Can a Book End with a ΓΑΡ? A Note on Mark XVI.8.” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972) 121–124.

202. Van Iersel, Bas.Reading Mark. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989.

203. Van Linden, Philip. The Gospel According to Mark. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.

204. Vignolo, R. “Una finale reticente: interpretazione narrativa di Mc 16,8.” RivB 3 (1990): 129–89.

205. Voelz, James W. “Textual Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Trying to Make Progress.”Concordia 31, no 1 (January 2005): 2–11

206. Waetjen, H.C. A Reordering of Power: A Socio-political Reading of Mark’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

207. _________. “The Ending of Mark and the Gospels’ Shift in Eschatology.” ASTI 4 (1965): 114–131.

208. Wallace, Daniel B. “Irony in the End: A Textual and Literary Analysis of Mark 16:8.”Bible.org, accessed July 25, 2015. https://bible.org/article/irony-end-textual-and-literary-analysis-mark-168.

209. _________. “Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel.” Pages 1–39 in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark. Edited by David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008.

210. Ward, Doug. “Lessons from the ‘Sudden Ending’ of Mark’s Gospel.” Grace and Knowledge, February 8, 2005, accessed July 25 2015. http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/mark16.html.

211. Wasserman, Tommy. “The Greek Manuscripts in Sweden with an Excursus on the Jerusalem Colophon.” Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 75 (2010): 77–107.

212. Watts, Rikki E.Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997 (pp. 365–376).

213. Wax, Trevin. “Original Ending of Mark Found! (Sort of).” The Gospel Coalition, December 20, 2006, accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2006/12/20/original-ending-of-mark-found-sort-of/.

214. Wessel, Walter W. and Mark L. Strauss. “Mark.” Pages 671–989 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 9. Revised ed. Tramper Longman III and David E. Garland, eds. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010 (pp. 984–989).

215. Wiéner, Claude. “Le mystere pascal dans le deuxieme evangile: Recherches sur la construction de Mark 14–16.” Pages 131–145 in Charpentier, Etienne, Martin Benzerath, Aloyse Schmid, Jacques Guillet, and F.-X. Durrwell.La Pâque du Christ, mystère de salut: mélanges offerts au P.F.-X. Durrwell pour son 70e anniversaire. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1982.

216. Wilckens, U. “Die Perikope vom leeren Grab Jesu in der nachmarkinischen Traditionsgeschichte.” Pages 30–41 in Festschrift für Friednch Smend zum 70. Geburtstag. Berlin: Merseburger, 1963.

217. Williams, Joel. “Does Mark’s Gospel Have an Outline?” JETS 49.3 (2006): 505–525.

218. ________. “Literary Approaches to the End of Mark’s Gospel.” JETS 42, no 1 (March 1999): 21–35.

219. Williams, Travis B. “Bringing Method to Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark.” BBR 20.3 (2010): 397–418.

220. Williamson Jr., Lamar. Mark: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1983.

221. Wilson, W.G. “St. Mark xvi.8: A Modern Greek Parallel.” JTS o.s. 50 (1949): 57–59.

222. Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio–Rhetorical Commentary.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

223. Xue, Xiaxia. “A Narrative Analysis of the Longer Ending of Mark: Encounter the Risen Jesus.” CGST 53 (July 2012): 133–167.

224. Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 2. Translated by John Moore Trout, et. al. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1953 (pp. 467–487). Origial German: Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1906.

225. Zwemer, Samuel. “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.” Pages 159–174 in Counterfeit or Genuine?: Mark 16? John 8? Edited by David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1990.

August 17, 2015

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.

Back to daveblackonline