The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 415 



Fragment T'. 



Summary. 



Fragment T^ [099] - Paiis. Nat. Copt. 129^ (P of Svvete, Sd s 47) 

 contains the double conclusion, each ending having a note 

 (now illegible) before it. In copying the Longer Conclusion the 

 scribe begins with £t)rsv in v. 8. 



Text .... Being only a single folio this cannot be determined. 



Date .... VII or VIII C. 



Place Egypt. 



Inferences Witnesses to the threefold form of Mark in Egypt and 

 shows the Longer struggling with the Shorter Conclusion. 



Discussion, 



Among the Coptic MSS from the great \^^hite Monastery, from which 

 the Freer MSS are supposed to have come, were found several frag- 

 ments of the New Testament, three of them Graeco-Sahidic, and six 

 Greek only, but written in a hand of a Coptic character. These were 

 published in 1895 by Amelineau with accompanying phototypes of 

 some of the pages (Notices et Extraits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, 

 Bd. 34, Paris 1895, pp. 363-424). 



One of these fragments, a single folio called by him 129^ folio 162 

 contains the double ending of Mark. Of this he says : 



"Ce feuillet a conserve la fin de I'Evangile selon saint Marc, 

 xvi, 6—18. II contient done un passage dont I'authenticite a ete 

 contestee ; mais il ne le contient qu'apres une longue remarque 

 montrant que ce passage, qui va du verset 9 a la fin, n'etait pas con- 

 sidere comme absolument authentique par le copiste et celui qu'il 

 copiait. Cette remarque se trouve en termes a peu pres semblables 

 en d'autres manuscrits ; malheureusement, elle est completement 

 illisible en certains passages, par suite des preparations qu'il a fallu 

 faire subir au parchemin avant de le faire entrer dans le volume 

 dont il fait partie." (p. 370.) 



Since the scribe begins to copy the Longer Ending not at 'Ava'7Ta(; 

 Bs TTpwi but with dy^zy of v. 8, it is to be inferred that the Longer 

 Ending was not contained in the exemplar of this MS, (or perhaps 

 in an earlier archetype), but was added by the scribe from another 

 MS, and that by an oversight he began to copy in v. 8, instead of at 

 the beginning of v. 9, thus repeating a portion already transcribed. 

 Since the accompanying transcription incorporates the corrections 

 of Gregory, who saw the MS in 1904, it differs somewhat from Swete. 



