Does The Short Ending Of Mark Cause Problems For The Resurrection? This is a very good question. In fact it is often claimed, by certain scholars, that the short ending of Mark does not teach the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is their assertion true? I don't think so. Let's notice what we are told about the resurrection before Mark 16:9 (the last verse in the short ending). We are told that: 1. The women went to the tomb of Jesus to anoint His body (vs1). 2. The women arrived at the tomb very early (vs2). 3. The women were concerned about moving the stone that blocked the entrance to the tomb (vs3). 4. The stone was already moved (vs4). 5. They saw a "young man" in the tomb (vs5). 6. The "young man" told them that (a) they were looking for Jesus who was crucified, (b) He was no longer in the tomb, (c) He had risen from the dead, (d) they were to give His disciples a message. (vss6-7). 7. They fled the tomb (vs8). Anyone familiar with the Gospel accounts will know that Mark's version is in perfect agreement with Matthew, Luke, and John. In the other accounts the tomb is empty because the body is gone and they are told by a "young man" (an angel) that He had been raised to life (Matt 28:5-7, Lk 24:5-7). John's account may record a seperate visit to the still empty tomb (Jn 20:11-18). So the shorter ending of Mark's Gospel does not cause any problems for the Historical, bodily, resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.