A Textual and Structural Analysis of Mark 16:9-20 29 Variant Byzantine Alexandrian Western Other B copsa.ms Omit vv 9-20 304 syrs mssacc. to armmss geo1, A Jerome Eusebius Severus mssacc. to Jerome mssacc. to Eusebius Include shorter itk ending only Include the L Ψ 579 copsa.mss, 083 099 274mg shorter ending l 1602 greek bo.mss and vv 9-20 Coptic Include vv 9-20 205 and others f1 with critical note or sign Include 9-20 A Byz [E G (H C ∆ 892 1241 D syrc itaur, c, Θ (W with long defectively) Σ] 33 copbo copfay addition) f13 d.supp, ff.2, l, n, o, q 180 597 1006 Didymusdub vg Irenaeuslat 28 157 565 1010 1243 1292 Augustine 700 1071 syr 1342 1424 1505 Rebaptism armmss geoB pal 2427 syrh Ambrose mssacc. mssacc.toEusebius mssacc. to toSeverus; Jerome Scholars appear to be in agreement that of the five variations that are listed in the UBS 4th edition, only the omission of the LE and the inclusion of the LE are viable possibilities8. Michael Holmes observes that “most textual critics agree that the evidence supporting the short form . . . outweighs the evidence for the long form”9. This conclusion is apparently due to the high value that is place on the witnesses of ) and B, which are cited as the oldest and best manuscripts10. That conclusion must be based on these witnesses, for when the age, geographic dispersion, and B. Robertson writes, “B has a blank space, which shows that the scribe knew of the longer ending but concluded not to give it”. Robertson, Studies, 131. Other scholars, however, point out other such seemingly random blank spaces and conclude that they have no significance. See Schaff, Apostolic Christianity. See M. Holmes, “To Be Continued... the Many Endings of the Gospel of Mark”. Bible 8 Review 17 (Aug 2001) 22; See also Danove, End of Mark’s Story, 122; D.A. Carson, D.J. Moo, and L. Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids 1992) 103. Michael Holmes, “To Be Continued”, 23. 9 Is it possible that  and B are sometimes given too much weight? Burgon believes that 10 there is “a singularly exaggerated estimate of the critical importance of the testimony of our two old Codices”, and expends a great deal of energy demonstrating their weaknesses. See Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, 81-82, 150ff. It must be pointed out that Burgon argues elsewhere that the majority text preserves the inspired word of God and he is guilty of counting MSS rather than weighing them. See S.L. Cox, A History and Critique of Scholar- ship Concerning the Markan Endings (Lewiston 1993) 67. However, he may still be correct that these witnesses, at times, are given too much weight.