The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 441 



precedes C, the Shorter Conclusion is still preferred. This form wit- 

 nesses to a time when C found its way into Egypt from the region 

 dominated by the church at Rome. For a long time, at least in some 

 sections, C was compelled to struggle with its rival, which earher 

 possessed and still claimed the field, as is shown by the increasing 

 number of MSS found possessing the double conclusion, and by the 

 date of the uncials of the L type, which shows that as late as the 

 seventh and eighth centuries MSS in which B was incorporated 

 into the text were still deemed worthy of being employed as exem- 

 plars . 



At the same time, as is witnessed by Codices A and C, MSS contain- 

 ing only the Longer Conclusion were known in Egypt at least as early 

 as the fifth century, and these MSS show an excellent text. It must 

 therefore be recognized that, while we are tracing a logical, and, doubt- 

 less to a certain extent, chronological development in this reconstruc- 

 tion, it is quite possible that we are not following the dominant tra- 

 dition even of these early centuries. While the testimony of Eusebius, 

 Jerome, Victor of Antioch, and others have been confirmed by recent 

 discoveries, which prove that the tradition which held that the Gospel 

 ended with v. 8 was of far wider acceptance than was supposed a few 

 decades ago, and while the evidence of the MSS confirms the same 

 facts in regard to the Shorter Conclusion, it is quite possible that B 

 may have become very early the authoritative text of a minority, 

 if it was not that from the beginning. This minority must have been 

 a very respectable one, as is witnessed by the Old Latin, the Bohairic, 

 the Sahidic, and the Ethiopic, in all of which versions it gained for a 

 time a place. We have seen that all of these versions are to be asso- 

 ciated with Egypt, another argument for the Egyptian origin of the 

 Shorter Conclusion. We find, then, that we are tracing the struggle 

 of two rival forms in the region dominated by Alexandria, and that 

 here, in contrast to its experience in the region dominated by Rome, 

 the Longer Conclusion gained acceptance and recognition as the sole 

 authoritative ending of Mark only after a struggle of centuries had 

 finally eliminated B. 



But previous to this final elimination, there seems tp have inter- 

 vened, probably in restricted sections, a type of text which, while 

 giving C alone a place in the text, inserted B in the margin (Cursive 

 274, two Bohairic MSS, and the Harclean Syriac). The Shorter Con- 

 clusion is now looked upon as an ancient and interesting variant, 

 though of inferior authority toC. In this respect the little group of 

 MSS reverses the judgment of the MSS containing the double con- 

 clusion, which considered B of the higher authority. 



