408 Clarence Russell Williams 



It is also very remarkable in that it agrees with the citations of Origen, 

 and with the margin of the Harclean Syriac. It further possesses 

 affiliations with C and among the versions it is an ally of the Bohairic. 

 Beyond other MSS of its date it abounds in "Alexandrian forms." 

 The type of writing shows it cannot be dated earlier than the eighth 

 century, to which it is generally assigned. 



At to its place of origin, that is pretty generally supposed to be 

 Egypt, but since this point is so important for our future discussion 

 we quote from Tischendorf, who edited it : 



"Ac patriam quidem Aegyptum vel Aegypti viciniam fuisse 

 hominemque qui scriberet certe non ipso genere Graecum, veri- 

 simillimum est. Quae sententia maxime commendatur quum iis 

 de quibus supra exposui rationibus orthographicis, tum crebris 

 Alexandrinae dialecti vestigiis, tum mira errorum scribendi atque 

 interpungendi frequentia tum denique inepta quae identidem 

 occurrit diversarum lectionumconfusione. Neque certe contra hanc 

 sententiam est quod foil. 24. et 25., ut jam retuh, in diebus festis et 

 Sancti Saba et Sancti Clementis martyris mentio fit." 



Mon. Sacra Ined. 1846 p. 21. 

 As to the punctuation used in this MS, Tischendorf says : 

 " Plerumque major distinctio fit crucis signo, minor puncto ; se- 

 detiam commata et semicola quae vocant, atque insuper aliquoties 

 puncta bis, ter, quater posita occurrunt." At this point in the dis- 

 cussion we anticipate by calling attention to the fact that in L the 

 sign for the end of a sentence or major division immediately precedes 

 as well as follows scpojjouvTO ydp and though, as can be plainly seem, 

 this sign of the cross is used to separate clauses, yet this MS rather 

 supports our contention that in the original these two words formed 

 not the end of the preceding sentence, but the beginning of a new 

 sentence, which was abruptly broken off when the authentic con- 

 clusion of the Gospel according to Mark disappeared. 

 The Codex Bobiensis, therefore, bears witness : 



1. To an early period when Mark ended at v. 8 as in B, with whose 

 text L has affiliations which are close. 



2. To a later time when the Shorter Ending was appended, and 

 continued for some time to be the only ending of Mark. 



3. To a still later period when the Shorter Ending was still preferred, 

 though the Longer Conclusion had gained such recognition as to com- 

 pel its addition. 



(Later still, as cursive 274 shows, the Longer Conclusion became 

 the only authentic ending of Mark and the Shorter Conclusion was 

 relegated to the margin.) 



