28 Matthew D. McDill his gospel at v. 83. It is interesting to note, however, that this consensus is somewhat recent to New Testament studies. Johann Greisbach, in his second critical edition (1806), may have been the first to seriously ques- tion the originality of Mark 16:9-204; and it appears that not until the last half of the twentieth century has the present scholarly agreement been so widespread5. A significant result of the dominance of this view is that many scholars have chosen to exclude this passage from their exegetical work6. Although there are certainly many questions surrounding “the long ending of Mark” (hereafter abbreviated LE), should it be excluded from exegesis? First, one must evaluate the external and internal data that is brought forth as evidence that the LE was not in the original manuscript. External Evidence The primary external evidence organized by text types is as follows7: W.L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids 1974) 591: “That verse 8 marks the 3 ending to the Gospel in its present form is scarcely debated”. For comments on what is being debated, see Lane, Mark, 591; P.L. Danove, The End of Mark’s Story: A Methodological Study (Leiden 1993) 1; D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove 1990) 92–93. See J.W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark (Ann 4 Arbor, Michigan 1883, 1959) 83. Greisbach is the first in Philip Schaff’s list of scholars who reject the LE: “It is rejected or questioned by the critical editors, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort (though retained by all in the text with or without brackets), and by such critics and Commentators as Fritzsche, Credner, Reuss, Wieseler, Holtzmann, Keim, Scholten, Klostermann, Ewald, Meyer, Weiss, Norton, Davidson”. He also includes a list of early defenders: “The passage is defended as genuine by Simon, Mill, Bengel, Storr, Matthaei, Hug, Schleiermacher, De Wette, Bleek, Olshausen, Lange, Ebrard, Hilgenfeld, Broadus (“Bapt. Quarterly,” Philad., 1869), Burgon (1871), Scrivener, Wordsworth, McClellan, Cook, Morison (1882)”. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 1: Apostolic Christianity (Grand Rapids 1910; Oak Harbor, WA 1997). To those who defend it, A.T. Robertson adds Eichorn, Scholz, Bleek, Scrivener, Salmon, E. Miller, and Belser. See A.T. Robertson, Studies in Mark’s Gospel (New York 1919) 129. Some more recent scholars that reject the LE as original include Carson, Moo, and Morris (Introduction), M. Holmes, J. Thomas, D. Juel, J. Williams, D. Wallace, C. Evans, C. Blomb- erg, D. Guthrie, R.A. Guelich, A.B. Bruce, A.T. Robertson, R. Gundry, and P. Danove. See Croy, Mutilation, 28. 5 Some authors that do not include interaction with the text of the long ending in their 6 works (although some comment on the textual problem) are: R.J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect; E.J. Pryke, Re- dactional Style in the Marcan Gospel; R.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross; W.L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark; J.G. Cook, The Structure and Persuasive Power of Mark: A Linguistic Approach; D.E. Garland, Mark; J.A. Brooks, Mark. The discussion of the external evidence can also include the sometimes ambiguous 7 citations of the church fathers and analyses of the blank space that follows the LE in codex