The only case affecting the integrity of any con- siderable part of the Gospel is that of the concluding paragraph. It is also the great problem in the textual criticism of the book. The documents show three different forms for the close of the Gospel— (a) the longer form as given in TR, embracing 16°; (Ὁ) the shorter form, ending with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ in 16°; (c) an intermediate form which runs (with some variations) thus—ravra δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πετρὺν συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν " μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι’ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας.
The intermediate form is found in 4 uncials (L, “2, >, W), the cursive 274 (in a footnote), the mar- gin of the Harcleian Syriac (with a note), the margin of two good MSS of the Memphitic, and certain MSS of the Ethiopic (continuously with 105, and followed immediately, without note, by 16%°°). In most cases it appears as an alternative to the longer form; but in the Old Latin codex ἃ it is given alone. In style it resembles Luke rather than Mark. Neither in whole nor in part has it been found in any of the Patristic writings. It is probably due to a scribe or editor of early date, who found it difficult to believe that the Gospel could have terminated so abruptly as it does at 16°, and there is no reason to suppose that it ever found a very extended acceptance.
The question is as to the οὐ mparative claims of the other two forms. The longei zonclusion is supported by the vast majority of uncials, including A, C, D, ,F,G,H,K,M (N), S8,U,V,X, Ir, A, 0, =, 2,5, by the cursives in a body, most of them giving the paragraph 16%° without note, 20 or more of them stating that it was found in the best manuscripts, though it was wanting in some ; by all the Lectionaries for Easter
MARK, GOSPEL OF
and Ascension Day, by the Old Latin (c, J, g, J, n, 0, 4) and Vulgate versions, the Curetonian, Peshitta, Harcleian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Memphitie or Bohairic, Gothic (in part), Ethiopic (as a secondary reading), and Armenian (in later MSS); and by many of the Fathers, including Justin (possibly), Hermas (doubtfully), Irenzeus, Eusebius or his correspondent Marinus, Macarius as report- ing an anonymous heathen writer, Epiphanius, Didymus, Nestorius, Chrysostom (doubtfully), Ambrose, Augustine, and most Latin writers after these, as well as by the Apostolic Constitutions, the Gesta Pilati, the Syrian Aphraates, etc. It is also urged in its favour that the competing conclusion is inconceivably abrupt.
On the other hand, the shorter ending is given in the two great uncials 8 and B (the latter leaving a column blank), by L (as one of three endings), by the cursive 22 (with a note and as one of two end- ings), by & of the Old Latin (implicit), the margin of the Harcleian Syriac, the Sinaitic Syriac, the best MSS of the Armenian, and by the Ethiopic in some of its older MSS. It is also favoured by Eusebius (who speaks of vv.’ as not found ‘in all the copies’ or ‘in the accurate copies’), by Jerome (who probably repeats Eusebius, stating that the passage is found ‘in few Gospels, almost all the Greek copies not having it’), by Victor of Antioch, and by the writer of the Oration on the Resurrection, wrongly attributed to Hesychius of Jerusalem or to Severus of Antioch. The lack of all reference to it in writers who might have had oceasion to deal with it, such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyprian, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Naz., Gregory Nyss., Cyril of Alexandria, Theo- doret, is also significant.
Internal considerations, too, are, on the whole, adverse to the longer conclusion. It is true that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ makes an extremely abrupt termina- tion. But such terminations, even where the last word happens to be a particle, are not unknown in Greek literature. It is true, too, that it seems strange that the evangelist should close his narra- tive with a single incident of the Lord’s risen life, and that one in which we are left with the final impression of terror. But this may be due to the narrative having been left for some reason un- finished, or less probably to the loss of a leaf; while in point of fact the additional statement in 10:39 does not give the harmony and completeness which one expects. But, further, there is a marked difference between the two paragraphs in general character. It is easy indeed to make too much of matters of vocabulary and style where the area of comparison is so limited, and some of the alleged peculiarities of the longer ending may admit of explanation. The fact, however, remains, that in 16° there is an unusual number of words and phrases that are strange to Mark, e.g. @edoua, ἀπιστέω, ward ταῦτα, πρώτῃ σαββάτου, ὁ κύριος as applied to Christ, πορεύεσθαι (three times in this section, and nowhere else), πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις, τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, παρακολουθέω. ἑπακολουθέω, βεβαιόω, etc.
The style, too, changes. It is less graphic, but more constructive. It drops the simple connexion by xal,and runs in terms of μετὰ ταῦτα, ὕστερον δέ, ὁ μὲν οὗν, ἐκεῖνος δέ, etc. There are peculiarities also in its matter. Mary Magdalene, who has been intro- duced in 161, is mentioned in 16° as if for the first time, and gets a note of identification (ἀφ᾽ ἧς éxBe- βλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια). ‘The motive of the paragraph seems not to be purely historical. The thing on which all turns in it is the passing of the apostles out of their first hopelessness, unbelief, and weak- ness into the certitude, the courage, and the power of faith. To exhibit this is perhaps the purpose for which it was written. In any case it is com- plete within itself. It is ‘a condensed fifth narra-