The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark, 429 



the line. There is also a space of three letters at its close, but v. 15 

 begins on the same line, after a slight break. This seems, judging 

 from the last page of Mark, to be the common method of indicating a 

 paragraph or section in this MS and therefore does not imply an in- 

 sertion, yet it is to be observed that it perfectly agrees with the theory 

 of an insertion at this point. 



The argument from the thought of this section is supported by the 

 argument from style and vocabulary. We rearrange and condense 

 the points Goodspeed makes, at times using his words : 



1. The logion calls Jesus 6 Xpio-xo^, but in the Longer Conclusion 

 he is called 6 -m^ioc,, vs. 19, 20, to which in v. 19 we must possibly 

 add "iTjCrou?. 



2. The Logion agrees with Mark's Gospel in its frequent reference 

 to spirits or unclean spirits, while the Longer Conclusion uses Ba!,[j.6vt,a 

 vs. 9, 17. 



3. The loose and superfluous sxsTvoi D.syov tw Xpic7-w which we 

 retain, in spite of Harnack's contention that it is a marginal gloss 

 which has slipped into the text, contrasts with the clear-cut style of 

 the Longer Ending. 



4. The feeble vagueness of "other terrible things are near at hand" 

 further contrasts with the precision of the Longer Ending. 



5. The clumsy expression "the spiritual and incorruptible glory 

 of righteousness in heaven" is quite unlike the style of the Longer 

 Conclusion but reminds us of the "holy and incorruptible preaching 

 of eternal salvation," of the Shorter Conclusion. 



6. The absence of this logion in aU other MSS of the Gospels is 

 strong evidence that these words did not originally form part of the 

 Longer Conclusion. 



This logion, then did not originally form a part of the longer of the 

 two endings. Its difference in tone and style make it seem, in con- 

 nection with it, like a new patch on an old garment (Goodspeed). 

 A fortiori it does not belong to the canonical Gospel tradition. 



But some would claim that it was taken from the same source which 

 supplied the Longer Conclusion. So Harnack who, after acknowl- 

 ledging that the logion does not belong in the place in which it is 

 found, would argue that it came from the source of the Longer En- 

 ding, which he holds was the tradition of Aristion through Papias. 

 At first copied as a marginal note it later became inserted in the 

 text. 



Reasons for the rejection of the Aristion source of Mk. 16 : 9—20 

 have already been given. The marked differences between these two 

 fragments, already pointed out, leads to the inference that they could 



