444 Clarence Russell Williams, 



this MS. The mistakes are incredible in a translator. They must be 

 due to the heedlessness of a copyist. Therefore, whether the B form 

 is original in the Old Latin of North Africa or not, it certainly was 

 found in a group of MSS which are to be dated as early as the fourth 

 or fifth centuries. And if the O.L. did not originally possess B, it 

 ended with v. 8 as did X, B, and Ss. However, the fact that k alters 

 V. 8 to conform to B slightly increases the probability that k represents 

 the original form of the African Latin, and that this alteration was 

 made at the time of translation, since no trace of it has been found 

 in any Greek MS. 



That in the Sahidic and Bohairic C ultimately superceded B is 

 easily explained by the history of the Greek text of Lgypt, to which it 

 would naturally be conformed, by being revised from time to time. 

 That all the O.L. versions save that of North Africa contain C alone 

 is in harmony with the fact that they are of later origin, and were 

 made from the authoritative text of the church of Rome. It is pos- 

 sible, however, to argue that all the versions containing B originally 

 possessed the A form and that the B form was introduced into later 

 MSS from Egypt, either immediately or ultimately. 



Though the limits of our discussion forbid a full investigation of the 

 patristic evidence, both positive and negative, this evidence has 

 not been forgotten, and it is beheved that the theory advocated does 

 not conflict with these witnesses, but is supported by them. 



Eusebius, in his Quaest. ad Marin, ap. Mai, nov. patr. ])ibl. iv, 

 p. 255f., in answering the question of Marinus, "How is it that in 

 Matthew the Saviour appears as having been raised up I'll o-ap^aTov 

 [xxviii, 1], but in Mark 7:poA -:% [j.ia voiv crafifiaTov " ? suggests a pos- 

 sible escape through textual criticism, as follows : 



6 [xsv yap -y]v toOto (pa(Txo'j<7av TCspixoTOjv aOsToiv si^ot av ]xr^ 

 h (XTcaaiv auvrjv ^spsaOai toTc avTiypa'^oi; toD xa-ra Mapxov 

 zuoc^^zkiou. Ttx Y^^v axp!,[3rj tcov avxiypacptov to -ziXoq 7:£pi- 

 Ypacpst . . . h -ZOIC, loyoic, . . . £(po(iouvTo y^P- s^ ^ourto yap 

 ayzhov Iv ocTcaai toT? dcvTiypacpoi? tou xktoc Mapxov suayyslioo 

 TcsptyeypaTCxat, to tsXo?, t3C Be k'^f^c, aTraviw; h -'.rjiv a}./.' 

 ou/w Iv Tuacri cpsp6[X£va T^spiTTOc av sir,. 



Dr. Hort Translates (H, Notes, p. 31) : 



"For one man, rejecting the passage itself, the section which makes 

 this statement, will say that it is not current in all the copies of the 

 Gospel according to Mark. That is the accurate copies determine 

 the end of the narrative according to Mark at the words . . . £oo(3otiTO 

 yap. For at this point the end of the Gospel according to Mark is 



