The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 413 



As to distinctively Syrian readings, none are certain as two variants 

 claiming to be Syrian may well be Alexandrian. With this vonSoden 

 agrees who says there seems in this MS no Syrian influence, nor in- 

 fluence of Origen or Chrysostom. 



As to purely "Neutral" readings, there seem a considerable num- 

 ber, probably about as many "non-Alexandrian Neutral" as "non- 

 Neutral Alexandrian." It is remarkable that this codex agrees with 

 B boh. in the readings connected with the cock-crowing in chapter xiv, 

 and in omitting xai TCpoaTtoW/rjOTjTs^at ty] pvaixi auxoij in Mark 10: 7, 

 thus agreeing with N B, 48 ev. go. 



The combination of this MS with Ss against all other Greek MSS 

 and the Latins occurs five times (10:39; 11:21: 11:27; 13:11; 

 15:26). 



The conclusion of Lake has such a direct bearing upon our dis- 

 cussion that we give it in full. 



"We may therefore say with some confidence that in Mark U* 

 gives us a pre-Syrian text of which the basis is Alexandrian (in the 

 widest sense), while a number of the readings are Western. The 

 interesting question is how did these ^^'estern readings get into an 

 Alexandrian MS? On this point it may be observed that the Western 

 element is not a late one, for the majority of the Western readings 

 found in ^J' are among those which are rejected by the late texts. 

 It is an early ancestor of W who has left us the Western readings. 

 This makes us think of the Biblical text of Clement, and raises the 

 suspicion that it may not be necessary to go outside Alexandria in 

 tracing the ancestry of ^I*. Certainly Cyril and Origen give us ad- 

 equate evidence for the use of Alexandrian and Neutral types of text. 

 Can we go on to say that the early Western element in the SCLAM* 

 group is to be used as evidence for the early pre-Origenistic Western 

 text of Alexandria, of which the quotations in Clement prove the 

 existence but do not define the limits." (p. 290.) 



It is possible that the text of this MS shows the influence of the 

 Sahidic Version, but the points of contact are few, and could be ex- 

 plained by other suppositions. 



This MS, with 579, witnesses to a form of text in which the 

 Shorter Conclusion formed the only and the authentic ending of the 

 Gospel. It further connects, as before, this Shorter Conclusion with 

 Egypt. 



Since this MS with L and 1^^ possesses a formula before the Longer 

 Ending identical in all three MSS they are probably descended from 

 an early common ancestor. 



