The four gospels in the New Testament of the Christian Bible essentially convey the same story, which only serves to highlight how different they are from one another. The account ends before Jesus ascends to heaven, which seems like a rather dramatic omission. The Gospel of Mark is known for being particularly condensed.
Mary Magdalene and the other grieving ladies simply approach Jesus' tomb and find the stone has been removed. They are startled to hear that Jesus has resurrected when a man in white approaches them. Scene comes to a close. In contrast, Luke's Gospel finishes in chapter 24: 50–53 with the following statement: "When he had brought them out to the area around Bethany, he held up his hands and blessed them. He gave them a benediction and then left them to ascend into paradise. They then adored him and joyfully departed towards Jerusalem. And they remained at the temple constantly, praising God.
You might not have noticed this difference depending on the Bible edition you read because certain translations, like the King James edition, feature an additional section to close the gap. The text of Mark 16 has existed in many forms since antiquity and has four alternative endings, but the earliest manuscripts omit verses 9 through 20. The endings were allegedly added afterwards to compensate for the text's abruptness, which is now universally accepted. Why, therefore, is Mark's tale so brief?
A chance conclusion?
Some academics contend that the abrupt conclusion of the Gospel of Mark suffices to demonstrate that the narrative was not intended to end there. It's likely that the author simply never finished the work for whatever reason. The message was not refined for future generations because he may have passed away or was simply interrupted. Alternately, the original paper might have been harmed by someone who was not careful. It was possible that the frail papyrus' final page would have been torn and thrown away, leaving later scribes scrambling to come up with a credible summary of whatever he had originally spoken.
Those who support it frequently point out that the final word of the Greek text, (gar), which means "for" or "because" in the original language, is included in Robert Oliver Kevin's article on this topic in the Journal of Biblical Literature. It has the effect of making the final paragraph read, "They were afraid for —," as if the author had stopped mid-sentence. However, while it may not be the best Greek, academic Robert H. Stein notes in the Bulletin for Biblical Research that other historians have shown that other ancient writers frequently finished their sentences in the same manner, including the author of the Gospel of John.
... or a conscious decision?
The story in Mark was purposefully shortened, according to a different, more straightforward reasoning. If so, it might have been a theological or stylistic decision. The Biblical Archaeology Society has pointed out that Mark's gospel, which is likely the oldest of the four versions, omits the virgin birth. Today, we are unable to determine the author's genuine beliefs towards Jesus Christ or Christianity in general. It's probable that during this time, Christians did not firmly believe that Jesus had met with his followers following his ascension. Along with tales of the virgin birth, those tales might have appeared later.
Alternatively, Mark's abrupt conclusion could have been done for dramatic effect only. Today, a lot of academics agree that Mark was affected by the tenets of classical literature. The epic poet Homer has been cited as a source of inspiration for Mark, while others have pointed out that the gospel's structure bears striking similarities to Greek tragedy. Rather than neatly wrapping up the story with a nice ending, the slightly unclear finish is dramatic and gives the reader space to consider the story's lesson. From a literary perspective, this conclusion is in some ways more rewarding and causes us to ponder the mystique surrounding Jesus' life.
