32 Matthew D. McDill of the book)24. Although in the minority, these arguments by Burgon and Terry should not be quickly dismissed. The question of language is diffi- cult and will not be explored further in this paper. However, it must be noted that an honest evaluation of the evidence will include these argu- ments in favor of Markan style. An example of these arguments is Terry’s discussion of the awkward junction. There are at least five reasons that the junction of v. 8 and v. 9 seem awkward: (1) The subject of verse 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject of verse 9; (2) the other women of verse 1-8 are forgotten in verses 9-20; (3) in verse 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before; (4) while the use of anastas de (“Now rising”) and the position of proton (“first”) are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8; and (5) the use of the conjunction gar (“for”) at the end of verse 8 is very abrupt25. In response to these reasons, Terry points out that there are at least five other junctures in Mark that start a new unit, have Jesus as the presumed subject (“he”) without Jesus being the subject of the last verse, and do not again mention the subjects of the last verse (Mark 2:13; 6:45; 7:31; 8:1; and 14:3). This addresses the first two points. Terry argues that the identifi- cation of Mary is a “stylistic feature of giving additional information in a type of flashback about someone previously mentioned” and that it occurs four other times in Mark (Mark 3:16, 17; 6:16; 7:26). Concerning point four (that v. 9 is an inappropriate beginning to a continuation of vv. 1-8), Terry responds, “It is only necessary to point out that verse 9 is not a continuation of the section found in verse 1-8; it is the start of a new one”26. Finally, the word γάρ ends the phrase because the phrase consists of only two words and grammatically should not begin with γάρ. Mark uses γάρ in several other short sentences. Although Terry admits that with all of these elements appearing in one place the juncture does seem awkward, he concludes that one cannot argue that the language and style of the LE are not Markan. Two more arguments against the LE can be added to the internal evi- dence: (3) The LE appears to be a synthesis of the resurrection appearances Terry, “Style,” http://matthew.ovc.edu/terry/articles/mkendsty.htm. Danove, who 24 concludes that the LE is not Markan writes, “Though the investigation of the vocabulary yielded results questioning its originality, it does not establish an adequate basis for its exclusion”. Danove, End of Mark’s Story, 125. Terry, “Style,” http://matthew.ovc.edu/terry/articles/mkendsty.htm. 25 Terry, “Style,” http://matthew.ovc.edu/terry/articles/mkendsty.htm. 26