A Textual and Structural Analysis of Mark 16:9-20 31 Before moving to the internal evidence, what can be concluded from the external evidence? Farmer provides a modest beginning: “We can only say with certainty (concerning Mk. 16:9-20 in this period) that manu- scripts including these verses were circulating in the second century”18. One might acknowledge that a substantial case can be made for the LE’s originality based on external evidence19. However, it should at least be conceded that the external evidence is not as decisive as some make it out to be20 since the LE is an admittedly early, widespread reading21 and much of the argument against its originality is based on internal evidence. Internal Evidence The two main arguments from internal evidence against the inclu- sion of the LE are (1) “The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non- Markan” and (2) “The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel”22. Many scholars have attempted to demonstrate that the language and style of the LE are different than the rest of the gospel. Burgon, however, executes a detailed analysis of the arguments from language and style and concludes that the internal evidence is actually in favor of Markan authorship23. More recently, Bruce Terry argues that most of the apparently unique language in the LE is actually found in Mark upon close exami- nation. Furthermore, according to Terry, the remaining differences can be accounted for by the concept of “peak” (that the LE is the conclusion Farmer, Last Twelve Verses, 74. 18 In his critique of John Burgon, Steven Cox writes, “Everyone must admit that he has 19 left a considerable amount of material for text critics to grapple with, in the attempt to find a conclusion to the question of the ending of Mark” and “John Burgon provided a strong defense of the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, based on external evidence”. Cox, History and Critique, 72, 91. See Robertson, Studies, 131. Although not intended to be a scholarly work, William 20 Barclay’s commentary states, “It its original form the gospel stops at Mark 16:8. We know that for two reasons. First, the verses which follow (Mark 16:19—20) are not in any of the great early manuscripts. It is only later and inferior manuscripts which contain them”. William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia 1956) xvii. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 105; B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, Introduction, 21 Appendix to the New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2 (New York 1882) 28–51; J.D. Grassmick, “Mark”, in J.F. Walvoord and R.B. Zuck (eds.), The Bible Knowledge Com- mentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton 1985) 2, 94–197, at 194. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 104–105. 22 Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, 215ff. 23