The textual history of the concluding section of the Gospel of Mark is signifi cant from the perspective of textual criticism. In the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the minuscule 304 from the twelfth century, as well as in Syriac, Georgian, and Armenian translations and at least one Sahidic manuscript, the Gospel of Mark ends in 16:8 with the women fleeing in fright from the empty tomb. This evidence is also supported by statements in Eusebius and Jerome. The most plausible explanation for these findings is that the Gospel of Mark, which originally ended in 16:8, was later expanded around the traditions of the resurrected Jesus and likewise strove to rectify the problems at the end in 16:8 – namely, that out of fear the women do not follow the heavenly messenger ’ s command.

A further problem, from the point of view of textual criticism, lies in the ambiguous attestation of ( “ son of God ” ) in 1:1. The expression was inserted into Codex Sinaiticus by a later hand and is missing from Q (the sayings source). Codex Alexandrinus contains it, as does Codex Bezae. Consideration of the textual history could suggest that there was a later addition that, at the very beginning of the gospel, inserted as a title of Jesus that has great importance for the Gospel of Mark.