27 A TEXTUAL AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MARK 16:9–20 MATTHEW D. McDILL The purpose of this study is to address two questions: 1) Should Mark 16:9-20 be included in biblical exegesis and 2) If so, what are the structural features of this passage that might aid in its interpretation? In order to answer the first question, the external and internal evidence concerning this passage as a textual variant and the question of its canonicity will be ex- plored. The second question will be answered by presenting a diagram of the passage’s syntactical and semantic structure and by making observations concerning the unit’s overall structure and development. Introduction As one teaches, preaches, or studies from the book of Mark, should he include Mark 16:9-20 in his exegesis? This question will be addressed by exploring the external and internal evidence concerning this passage as a textual variant and by considering the question of its canonicity. If Mark 16:9-20 should be included in exegesis, what are the structural features of this passage that might aid in its interpretation? This question will be answered by presenting a diagram of the passage’s syntactical and semantic structure and by making observations concerning the unit’s overall structure and development. The current consensus of scholarship is that Mark 16:9-20 was not in the original manuscript1. There are a few rare exceptions to this consensus; William Farmer is the most notable example2. Most of the recent writings on this passage do not attempt to establish the ending of Mark (they assume it is v. 8), but endeavor to explain what may have happened to the real ending or why Mark may have intentionally ended J. Williams, “Literary Approaches to the End of Mark’s Gospel,” JETS 42 (1999) 24, 1 writes: “The general consensus among New Testament scholars is that the writing of Mark the evangelist ends with 16:8”. N. Clayton Croy, The Mutilation of Mark’s Gospel (Nash- ville 2003) 14, also states that “the secondary nature of these verses has been established to the satisfaction of virtually all scholars”. Many others have made similar comments on the status of scholarship on this issue, such as C. Evans, P. Danove, and W.L. Lane. See W. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (New York 1974). See footnote four 2 for examples from the past. Filología Neotestamentaria - Vol. XVII - 2004, pp. 27-43 Facultad de Filosofía y Letras - Universidad de Córdoba (España)