finite kind, if we are to admit that the actual conclusion of
S. Mark's Gospel is an unauthorized substitute for something quite
different that has been lost. I can only imagine one other thing which
could induce us to entertain such an opinion; and that would be the
_general_ consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions in leaving these verses
out. Else, it is evident that we are logically _forced_ to adopt the far
easier supposition that (_not_ S. Mark, but) _some copyist of the third
century_ left a copy of S. Mark's Gospel unfinished; which unfinished copy
became the fontal source of the mutilated copies which have come down to
our own times.(25)

I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully at the outset;
not in order to prejudge the question, (for _that_ could answer no good
purpose,) but only in order that the reader may have clearly set before
him the real nature of the issue. "Is it reasonable to suspect that the
concluding verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized
supplement to his Gospel, or not?" _That_ is the question which we have to
consider,--the _one_ question. And while I proceed to pass under careful
review all the evidence on this subject with which I am acquainted, I
shall be again and again obliged to direct the attention of my reader to
its bearing on the real point at issue. In other words, we shall have
again and again to ask ourselves, how far it is rendered probable by each
fresh article of evidence that S. Mark's Gospel, when it left the hands of
its inspired Author, was an unfinished work; the last chapter ending
abruptly at ver. 8?

I will only point out, before passing on, that the course which has been
adopted towards S. Mark xvi. 9-20, by the latest Editors of the New
Testament, is simply illogical. Either they regard these verses as
_possibly_ genuine, or else as _certainly_ spurious. If they entertain (as
they say they do) a decided opinion that they are _not_ genuine, they
ought (if they would be consistent) _to banish them from the text_.(26)
Conversely, _since they do not banish them from the text_, they have no
right to pass a fatal sentence upon them; to designate their author as
"pseudo-Marcus;" to handle them in contemptuous fashion. The plain truth
is, these learned men are better than their theory; the worthlessness of
which they are made to _feel_ in the present most conspicuous instance. It
reduces them to perplexity. It has landed them in inconsisten