677
arguments advanced by BlasB (cf. also Allen in "Ex- v^vQv or V^fnfwrivQv is to be read in v, 1, -fyrhp^i or poittor". 6th series, I, 436 8C[q.) merely show at most hrdu in vi, 20, and whether the difficult a^ou, at- that Mark may have thou^tmAramaie; andnaturally tested by B, Kf A, L, or a^4f is to be read in vi, 20l his simple, colloquial Greek discloses much of the na- But the great textual problem of the Gospel concerns tive Aramaic tinge. Blass indeed urges that the yari- the genuineness of the last twelve verses. Three ous readings in the MS8. of Mark, and the variations conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long con- in Patristic quotations from the Gospel, are relics of elusion, as in our Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the different translations of an Aramaic original, but the short one aiding with verse 8 (^0o/£i;rro Tdp), and an instances he adduces in su])port of this are quite in- intermediate form which (with some slight variations) conclusive. An Aramaic original is absolutely incon^ runs as follows: *'And they immediately made known patible with the testimony of Papias, who evidently all that had been commanded to those about Peter, contrasts the work of Peter's interpreter with the Ara- And after this, Jesus EUmself appeared to them, and maic woik of Matthew. It is incompatible, too, with through them sent forth from East to West the holy the testimony of all the other Fathers, who represent and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salva- the Gospel as written by Peter's interpreter tor the tion." Now this third form may he dismissed at Christians of Rome. once. Four uncial MSS., dating from the seventh to
The vocabulary of the Second €ospel embraces 1330 the ninth century, give it, indeed, after xvi, 8, but distinct words, of which 60 are proper names. Eighty each of them also makes reference to Uie longer end- words, exclusive of proper names, are not found elseN ing as an alternative (for particulars ef. Swete, op. where in the N. T.; this, however, is a small number in cit., pp. cv-cvii). It stands also in the margin of the comparison with more than 250j)eculiar words found cursive MS. 274, in the margin of the Harclean Syriac in the Gospel of St. Luke. Of St. Mark's words, 150 and of two MSS. of the Memphitic version; and in a are shared only by the other two Synoptiste; 15 are few MSS. of the Ethiopic it stands between verse 8 and shared only by St. John (Gospel); and 12 others by the ordinary conclusion. Only one authority, the Old one or other of the Synoptiste and St. John. Thougn Latin k, gives it alone (in a very corrupt rendering), the words found but once in the N. T. {(Lwa^ \ey6fi£wa) without any reference to the longer form. Such evi- are not relatively numerous in the Second Gospel, they dence, especially when compared with that for the are often remarkable; we meet with words rare in later other two endinns, can have no weight, and in fact, no Greek such as ttrer, rcudi^^cy, with colloquialisms like scholar regards this intermediate conclusion as having K€rrvpUf9^ ^i^TTfs^ cx€Kov\drvp, and with transliterations any title to acceptance.
such as KoppSiPj ToKttpdk Ko^n, i<p<^d, ^ppovrei (cf We may pass on, then, to consider how the case
Swete, op. cit., p. xlvii) . Of the words peculiar to St. stands between the long conclusion and the short, L e.
Mark about one-fourth are non-classical, while among between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of
those peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke the pro- the original Gospel, or making the oriemal end wilii
portion of non-classical words is only about one- xvi. 8. In favour of the snort ending Eusebius
seventh (cf. Hawkins, " Hor. Synopt. ", 171). On the ("Quaest. adMarin.",inP.G.,XXII, 937-40) is appealed
whole, the vocabulary of the ^cond Gospel pointe to to as saying that an apologist might get rid of any^
the writer as a foreigner who was well acquainted with difficulty arising from a comparison of Matt., xxviu,
colloquial Greek, but a comparative stranger to the 1, with Mark, xvi, 9, in regard to the hour of Ghrist's
literaiy use of the language. Resurrection, by pointing out that the passage in Mark
St. Mark's style is clear, direct, terse, and pictur- bcannnine with verse 9 is not conteined m all the
esque, if at times a little harsh. He makes very fre- MSS. of fiie Gospel. The historian then goes on him-
quent use of participles, is fond of the historical prea- self to say that in nearly all the MSS. of Amrk, at least,
ent, of direct narration, of double negatives, of the in the accurate ones (axfShv h dveuri rots Arriypd^s
copious use of adverbs to define and emphasise his . . . rd yody dxptfirj), the Gospel ends with xvi, 8. It
expressions. He varies his tenses very freely, some- is true, Eusebius gives a second reply which the apolo-
times to bring out di£Ferent shades of meaning (vii, 35; gist might make, and which supposes the genuineness
XV, 44)^ sometimes apparently to give life to a di&- of the disputed passage, and he says that this latter
logue (ix, 34; xi. 27). The style is often most com- reply might be made by one *' who did not dare to set
pressed, a great aeal being conveyed in very few words aside anything whatever that was found in any way
(i, 13, 27; xii, 38-40), yet at otlier times adverbs and in the Gospel writing . But the whole passage shows
synonyms and even rraetitions are used to hei^ten clearly enoudb that Eusebius was inchned to reject
the impression and lend colour to the picture. Clauses everythinfl; after xvi, 8. It is commonly held, too,
are generally strung together in the simplest way by thathe did not apply his canons to the disputed verses,
Kal; d4 is not used half as frequently as in Matthew or thereby showing clearly that he did not rc^;ard them as
Mark wrote in Latin or even understood the language, the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek MSS.
It proves merely that he was familiar with the com- (omnibus Grcecia libris pcene hoc capiitUum in fine non
mon Greek of the Roman Empire, which freely adopted habentibus) , but he quotes it elsewhere (' ' Comment, on
Latin words and, to some extent, Latin phraseology Matt., in P. L., XaVI, 214; *' Ad Hedib.", in P. L.,
(cf . Blass,/' Philol. of the Gosp.", 211 sq.). Indeed XXII, 987-88), and, as we know, he incorporated it in
such familiarity with what we may call Roman Greek the Vulgate. It is quite clear that the whole passable
strongly confirms the traditional view that Mark was where Jerome makes the statement about the dis-
an "interpreter" who spent some time at Rome. puted verses being absent from Greek MSS. is hor-
IV. State of Text and Integritt. — The text of rowed almost verl^tim from Eusebius, and it may be
the Second Gospel, as indeed of all the Gospels, is doubted whether his stetement really adds any inde-
excellentl;jr attested. It is contained in all the pri- pendent weight to the statement of Eusebius. It
mary uncial MSS., C, however, not having the text seems most I&ely also that Victor of Antioch, the first
complete, in all the more important later uncials, in the commentetor of the Second Gospel, rea^arded xvi, 8.
great mass of cursives; in all the smctent versions: as the conclusion. If we add to this that the Gospel
Latin (both Vet. It., in ite best MSS., and Vulg.), Syriac ends with xvi, 8, in the two oldest Greek MSS., B and
(Pesh., Curet., Sin., Hard., Palest.), Coptic (Mem;^. H, in the Sin. Ssrriac and in a few Ethiopic MSS., and
andTheb.), Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic; and it is that the cursive MS. 22 and some Armenian MSS.
largely attested by Patristic quotations. Some textual indicate doubt as to whether the true endin^^ is at
problems, however, still remain, e. g< whether Ttpa- verse &or verse 20, we have mentioned all the evideiaoe
