A Textual and Structural Analysis of Mark 16:9-20 33 and great commission passages of the other gospels27 and therefore must be a later addition; and (4) vv. 17-18 have an apocryphal flavor28. Craig Blomberg writes, “Some of the theology is potentially both heretical and fatal (see v. 18)!”29 The fact that there are parallels in the other gospels (argument three) does not prove that the author of the LE used the other sources. If one could prove literary dependence, he still must show which work is dependent upon which. Argument four is a theological argument and requires an extended exploration of its own. However, one would have to demonstrate that its teachings were unorthodox in order to prove that it did not belong in the canon. The difficulty with ending the gospel at v. 8 is (again) the awkward ending with the preposition γάρ and the failure of the women, and the absence of any resurrection appearances30. There is currently a great deal of literature that attempts to prove that such an ending is grammatically acceptable and has literary significance that fits into Mark’s style31. The purpose of this review of internal evidence is to establish the possibility of arguing that the LE fits into Mark’s style and that its connection to v. 8 is not insurmountably awkward. Again, one might at least begin his study of the matter with the understanding that the current consensus of scholarship may not be as conclusive as it appears. Possible Solutions There are several solutions that one may choose from to try to make sense of this evidence. Farmer presents five: (1) Mark wrote the LE and it was in the original autograph; (2) Mark used older traditions to write the LE and it was in the original autograph; (3) The LE existed independent of this gospel and Mark used it with little or no modification; (4) The LE was written by a later writer who sought to imitate Mark’s style and language; and (5) The LE was written by a later writer who did not seek to imitate Mark’s style and language32. Farmer concludes that option See Guthrie, Introduction, 91; Carson, et al., Introduction, 103; D.C. Parker, The Liv- 27 ing Text of the Gospels (New York 1997) 138ff. See A. B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 1 28 (Grand Rapids 1970) 454. C. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Nashville 1997) 29 75. See Guthrie, Introduction, 91; Danove, End of Mark’s Story, 46; D.B. Peabody (ed.), 30 One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke (New York 2002) 328–29. See Cox, History and Critique, 211. 31 See Farmer, Last Twelve Verses, 107. 32