30 Matthew D. McDill text type attestation are considered11, the evidence for the inclusion of the LE is strong12. It is interesting to note that it was almost exclusively in the Alexandrian reading, where the omission of the LE occurred, that the addition of the short ending with the LE exists. Thus all readings that deviate from the LE are primarily Alexandrian. Farmer summarizes the evidence according to text types: “the wit- ness of the Alexandrian manuscripts is predominantly for omission, the witness of the Western manuscripts is predominantly for inclusion, the witness of the Eastern [Caesarea] is divided though in balance it favours inclusion,” and the witness of the Byzantine manuscripts “is virtually unanimous in favour of inclusion”13. Farmer concludes, “We find that early Greek manuscript evidence like the evidence of the early versions, on balance, witnesses for inclusion”14. However, some scholars on both sides, including Farmer, argue that a definite solution to the problem cannot be reached based on the exter- nal evidence15. It is important to notice that one of the most often cited authorities concerning the textual evidence for the LE, Bruce Metzger, makes his decision based primarily on the internal evidence16. Farmer also observes that the internal evidence is significant in many scholars’ assessment of the problem: “The presumption that the autograph of Mark ended at v. 8 is dependent, at least in part, on a widespread belief that a careful study of the linguistic, stylistic and conceptional character of Mk. 16:9-20 indicates that these verses do not belong with the rest of the Gospels”17. These are the criteria of external evidence according to Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual 11 Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York 2002) 11–12; and D. Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids 1994) 34–35. See chart above. John Burgon, in his characteristic style, writes that one may request 12 “to have it explained why it is to be supposed that all these many witnesses, –belonging to so many different patriarchates, provinces, ages of the Church–, have entered into a grand conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and importance”. Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, 149. Farmer, Last Twelve Verses, 52. 13 Ibid., 57. 14 Farmer writes, “A study of the external evidence... does not produce evidential grounds 15 for a definitive solution to the problem. A study of the history of the text, by itself, has not proven sufficient, since the evidence is divided and the decisive period, namely the second century, remains at present largely shrouded in obscurity”. Farmer, Last Twelve Verses, 74; See also Holmes, “To Be Continued”, 23; Bruce Terry, “The Style of the Long Ending of Mark,” http://matthew.ovc.edu/terry/articles/mkendsty.htm. Metzger reasons, “The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, 16 some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary... Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8”. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 104–105. Farmer, Last Twelve Verses, 75. 17