If tlie Aramaic-original theory be true, we must put back the date considerably, as Mr. Allen (luc. cit.) sees, probably to a d.ate before A.D. 60 ; and then the Gospel is not likely to have been written in Rome. In this last detail the ecclesiastical testimony is again contradicted by the theory.
There is a line of argument which, though inter- esting, does not really bear on this question. In 5''^ for TaXeidd or raXidd, D has da^i-rd, sujiported by Old Latin tnhitha, or thabitha, or thahita, as if the girl's name were Tabitha (cf. Ac 9-"). In
a Syriac text the transition from ]A . \ / ^^
|Z\ > n 1^ would be easy. The Old Latin MS c has the curious reading ' tabea acultha quod est interpretatum puella piiella tibi dico exsurge.' But these variations show nothing as to the ori- ginal language of Mk. ; they show only that D and the Old Latin MSS Avere directly or indirectly influenced by the Syriac versions (see Chase, Syro- Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 109 f.).
Finally, we must consider the statement of some cursive Greek MSS, that the Gospel was written
in Latin ('Pwyuaio-rf). They add that it was written in Home, and this is no doubt the explanation of the other statement. It was supposed that if Kome was the place of writing, the Gospel must have been written in Latin. But this deduction is known to be without warrant. Those in liome for whom tlie Gospel was written would speak Greek. St. Paul wrote to the Christian community in liome in Greek, and St. Clement wrote from Rome in the .same language. Further, even a cursory examination of jNlk. shows that, whatever it is, it is not a translation into Greek from Latin. Thus this idea may be very briefly dismissed.
vi. The la.st twelve vkkres.— The que.stion of the entl of the Gospel is one of great ditticulty, whatever view we take of the paragraph which now brings it to a close. An endeavour will be made in this section to state and weigh all the principal arguments ; it would seem that neither the sui)porters nor the impugners of the present ending have quite done justice to the strength of the arguments on the other side. The facts to be considered are as follows. There are three ways of ending the Gosjiel. The first, here called the 'Short Ending,' stops at 1(5** e<po^ovvTo ydp. The second, here citeil as the ' Long Ending,' is that of our ordinary Bibles (16"-"), the last twelve verses. But there is also a third, here called the ' Inter- mediate Ending,' which runs as follows : irdvra 5k TO, irap7)-y-^€\ixiva Toh irepl rbv llirpov cxwrdfius i^ijy- yeCKav. fierd 8k ravra Kal aiWbs 6 l-rjaovs \_e<pdfr] avrots Kal] dirb dvaTo\r]S Kal &XP'- ^vcrews €^aTr((TT€i\iv 5i' ai/riZv rh lepbv Kal dcpdaprov Krjpvy/J.a rrjs aiwviov awTrjpias. 'And they immediately {or briefly') made known all things that had been commanded (them) to those about Peter. And after this Jesus himself [appeared to them and] sent out by means of them from the East even to the West the holy and in- corruptible preaihing of the eternal salvation.' This ending is found in four minor uncials, L (Codex Regius, 8th cent.), i ^" (Eragmentum Sinaiti- (aim, 7th cent.), p (Fragm. Parisiense, 8tli cent.), and 4' (Codex Athous Lauroe, 8th or 9tli cent.), in all of them as an alternative to the Long Ending, though it would appear that the archetype of the first three, at any rate, ended at 16'*. The Inter- mediate Ending is also found in the Old Latin k, standing alone, in several MSS of the Etliiopic l)refixed to the Long Ending, and in the margin of syr 'i"^', of two Bohairic MSS, and of a cursive Greek MS. No one maintains its genuineness ; it is clearly written as an end to the Gospel, and is not an independent fragment. It is probably due to an early .scribe, who wrote it either because he had before him the Long Ending and objected to it, or because he had before him the Short Ending and thought it abrujit. Swete (St. Mark, p. cviii) con- jectures that he was a Western, because of the emphasis laid on the West. Nestle makes him an Egyptian, without giving reasons (Hastings' DB iii. 13). Dobschiitz (TU xi. 1, p. 73 f., quoted by Swete) thinks that the ending is part of the ' Preaching of Peter ' ; but the internal evidence is against this (see above). It is not found in any of the Fathers. Its presence, however, bears materi- ally on the whole question. The only variation in the readings that need be mentioned is that i<pdvy) avTols Kai, which the sense clearly demands, is omittetl by hi, avroh Kai is omitted by 4', and Kai by all the Greek codices,— it has to be supi)lied from the versions.
The Short Ending is found in HB, syr *'", and also in the oldest MSS of the Armenian and Etluoi)ic versions. Eusebius says (ad Marin. Quiest. 1, vol. 4) that the Long Ending was not in the ' accurate copies ' of his day ; later writers copy Eusebius, and do not add to our knowledge. Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, and Cyril of
132 MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO