The presence of the Intermediate Ending also militates against the last twelve verses being the work of St. Mark. It shows that in very early times, how early we cannot say, these verses were not unanimously received. The evidence of Iren.-eus, however, shows that they were adopted as an ending to the Gospel not later than the middle of the 2nd century.
We must probably, then, dismiss the idea that either the Long or the Intermediate Ending was the work of the Second Evangelist. We have, hoAv- ever, still to consider the problem suggested by the Short Ending.
It is inconceivable that 16*, with its abrupt and inauspicious e^o/SoOyro yap, could possibly be the end of a Gospel ; indeed, it seems to stop in the middle of a sentence. Against this it is said that abrupt terminations are not unknown in Greek literature (see Salniond in Hastings' DB iii. 253). Yet in this case such an idea is hardly tenable. It is very unlikely that the Gospel should deliber- ately end without any incident of the risen life of our Lord and with a note of terror. We have therefore to suppose a lost ending ; and the diffi- culty of accounting for its total disappearance is the strongest argument of the supporters of the last twelve verses. It is not sufficient to pass it by, as is often done by those who impugn them, as a matter of little importance.
It is suggested that the last leaf of the original was early lost, and that the other extant endings were supplied to take its place. The last leaf of a MS is undoubtedly the very one which is most likely, after much use, to disappear. Dr. Salmon points out (loc. cit. ) that this idea is based on the supposition that the original completely disappeared. The hypothesis of a lost leaf would account for a partial circulation of shorter copies, but for the
III
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 133
complete disappearance of the old eudin<' only if it was Marks own autograph that lost its leaf before any copy was made from it. But it is difficult to suppose that only one MS of the Gospel existed in Mark's lifetime, and that his autograph was not copied till he died ; and if the leaf fell in :Mark's lifetime before the autograph was copied, why did not Mark write another?
There is an equal difficulty in the kindred sup- jjosition that the Gospel was left accidentally un- hnished at 16^. Salmon asks why, if Mark" died before completing his work, the disciple wlio gave the work to the world did not add a suitable end- ing, as Tertius added something to Romans (16--), and the presbyters (probably) to the Fourth Gospel ( Jn 21--') ? If suitable emfings were abided after- wards, why not at the time when the Gospel was first published ? And this supposition is against the ecclesiastical testimony, which makes Mark finish his Gospel, and in some cases makes him take it to Egypt.
It cannot be said that these dilficulties have been very satisfactorily met. Perhaps in our present state of knowledge the best solution of tliem is that of Dean Armitage Kobinson, who suggests {Studi/ of the Gospels, p. 5) that the Second Gospel was not highly esteemed in the 2nd cent., and that all copies perished but one, which lost its leaf. "We know that the Gospel was neglected later on (see above, § ii.), chiefly on accoiint of its short- ness, and because it apparently adds little to our information. Tiiis may well have been the case early in the 2nd cent. ; and if that be so. the circula- tion of it would not have been nearly so large as that of the other Gospels. It is not. however, necessary to put the loss of the leaf so late. Tiie same state of things miglit well have existed im- mediately after St. Mark's death.
Tlie difficulties on neither side can be neglected. But our verdict must be given after weighing probabilities, and to the present writer they seem overwhelmingly to preponderate against the Markan authorship of tiie last twelve verses, or even against their being a real ending of the Gospel at all. But they are, nevertheless, like tiie Pcricope Adulterer, an exceedinglj- ancient and authoritative record of the words and deeds narrated in tliem.
vii. Is OUR Second Gospkl the original
WHICH LAV BEFORE THE FlUST AND THIRD
Evangelists ? — Those who in tlie present day answer this question in the negative usually take a different line from that taken by Baur and his school. They regard our present canonical Gospel as an edited and augmented form of the original, yet as retaining almost all the characteristic fea- tures of that original. This hypothesis is much more tenable than the Tiibingen theory, which made all our Synoptic Gospels 2nd cent, produc- tions, and held tiiat the Mk. known to Papias was not our jMk., but something entirely difl'erent. These two hypotheses are. in reality, inconsistent, and must be considered sejiarately. [ For an attempt partially to combine them see Sanday's Gosp. in Sec. Cent. v. 2, written in 1876, and not since re- printed. It is not known if Dr. Sanday would still maintain the opinions which he then held].
1. Baur, Schleiermacher, Wendt, Davidson, Renan, and others substantially agi'ee in holding the latter iiypothesis. Papias says that St. Mark wrote Christ's words and deeds ' accurately ' but ' not in order ' (see above, § ii. ). From this it is concluded that the Mk. of Papias (' Ur- Marcus") was not written 'in order,' but was a disjointed collection of speeches and anecdotes ; and. further, was not a Gospel in our later sense of the word, but something of the nature of the Clementine Homilies, a record of the sayings an<l teachings of Peter. Again, Papias says that Mattliew com-