The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 361 



On the other hand those who reject this identification will acknowl- 

 edge that since these two MSS are to be dated at about the same 

 time, and further seem to have issued from the same scriptorium, if 

 the scribe of B possessed and indicated a knowledge of a conclusion, 

 it would be quite possible that the scribe of the other MS possessed 

 similar knowledge and indicated it, though in a different manner. 

 Additional probability is afforded this supposition by the fact that 

 so many of the witnesses which contain one or both of the endings 

 indicate a knowledge that in some sense the text of Mark closed 

 at V. 8. 



The Provenance of N and B. 

 Recent editors hold that these MSS were written in Alexandria or 

 in Caesarea. The arguments for the latter view are as follows : 



1. At one. time S was in the library at Caesarea as is shown by a 

 colophon written by N^ at the end of Esther, and also at the end of 

 Ezra. 



2. A chapter division in Acts contained in both N and B is traced 

 by J. Armitage Robinson to the library at Caesarea. He claims that 

 it is a modification of the Euthalian system, and that it "probably 

 stood in the margin of some Greek codex at Caesarea, anterior in date 

 to S and B." This may imply that "S and B were at an early stage 

 of their history lying side by side in the same library." (" Euthaliana" 

 in Texts and Studies, III, 3, p. 101, 37 f.) 



But this does not demonstrate the Caesarean origin of the two 

 codices since, as Lake points out in the Encyclopedia Britannica 

 ("Bible"): 



a) "It cannot be shown that the MS corrected by Pamphilus was 

 still at Caesarea when it was used by S." 



b) "It is not certain that the chapter divisions in Acts were added 

 by the original scribe." 



c) It does not necessarily follow that at this time S and B were in 

 their original homes. 



d) It cannot be proved that these chapter divisions were found 

 only at Caesarea. 



e) The Euthalian enumeration appears to be late, not earher than 

 the sixth and probably of the eighth century (so Lake in his intro- 

 duction to the Codex S). 



For an Alexandrian origin the arguments are : 

 I. Palaeographical : 



1. The Codex Sinaiticus contains no letters which we cannot par- 

 allel in the fourth or earlier centuries. 



