Poison, Snakes, and Silence: Why Mark 16:16-18 Might Not Be What You Think

The Long Ending: Misogyny, Manuscripts, and the Mystery of Mark

Peter E. Lewis

How does the Gospel of Mark truly end? For many, the familiar verses of Mark 16:9-20 feel like a natural conclusion, but biblical scholarship tells a more complex story of lost pages, scribal additions, and the struggle of the early church to handle a radical truth: the first witness to the resurrection was a woman.

"The most reliable early manuscripts and ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." — NIV Study Note

Many scholars conclude that verses 16 through 18—the famous passages regarding baptismal requirements and "signs" like handling snakes and drinking poison—were later insertions. These verses reflect the growing pains of an organizing church rather than the original voice of the Gospel writer.

The Five "Inserted" Signs:

1. Driving out demons in the name of Jesus
2. Speaking in tongues (Glossolalia)
3. Picking up snakes
4. Drinking poison
5. Placing hands on the sick

The history of these verses suggests a fascinating "detective story" of ancient codices. It is likely that the original ending was removed because it contained elements the early church found uncomfortable. When it was eventually restored, a scribe likely took the opportunity to insert these signs to confirm the Lord’s word, reflecting the religious excitement and evolving rites (like mandatory baptism) of the later church era.

Supplied Excuses for a Female Witness

Perhaps most telling is the treatment of Mary Magdalene. In the patriarchal society of the time, a woman’s testimony was often dismissed. By adding the detail that Jesus had driven "seven demons" out of her in verse 9, the scribe was likely attempting to "justify" her witness—suggesting that any "defect" in her nature had been removed by divine intervention.

"Most of the male followers of Jesus were misogynous. Sadly, that attitude has persisted... Progressive Christians fully embrace each other, whether male or female, black or white, gay or straight."

The evidence in manuscripts like the 4th-century Codex Vaticanus supports this theory. There is a blank space left after Mark 16:8—a space just large enough to fit the original ending, but only if you remove the later additions of verses 16, 17, and 18.

Explore More from Peter E. Lewis

Dive deeper into the forensic reconstruction of Mark's Gospel and read more of Peter’s work on Progressive Christianity:

View Full Argument: "Some Thoughts on Mark 16:16-18" Read the Book: The Ending of Mark's Gospel View Peter's Profile & Articles

Why This Matters Today

Understanding these layers of history helps us reclaim the radical inclusivity of the original Gospel. We are reminded that the first news of the Risen Lord belonged to a woman, despite the attempts of later scribes and leaders to bury that fact or surround it with caveats and "signs." For the progressive believer, this scholarship isn't just about ancient paper—it's about the ongoing work of dismantling misogyny and embracing a faith where every voice is heard.

January 2026 | Shared with permission from the author