34 Matthew D. McDill two “affords a ready explanation both for evidence weighing in favour of Marcan authorship of 16:9-20 and for evidence weighing against it”33. Some interesting modifications to option two arise when one consi- ders the evidence that Mark’s gospel is a record of Peter’s preaching. In their introduction to Mark in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Thomas Oden and Christopher Hall write, “The early church widely regarded the author of Mark’s Gospel as the authentic voice and interpreter of Peter. This view was early stated, largely uncontroverted during the early Christian centuries and ecumenically received by the church. The primary textual evidence for this viewpoint is strong and ancient”34. David Black suggests that Mark’s gospel, based on Peter’s preaching, may have circulated without the LE and Mark added his own conclusion in a later edition35. Robertson also mentions the possibility that Mark may have made several editions and added the LE to the last one36. In this scenario, Mark could have written the LE himself, redacted it from other sources, or lifted the whole LE from another source. The patristic testimony concerning Mark may also suggest a modifi- cation of option one. The fact that Mark may have originated in Rome, as tradition indicates, could affect one’s evaluation of the external data. Cox explains, “If one could prove the origin of Mark in Rome, it would be less than reasonable to suggest any other ending other than the longer ending, based on the geographic dominance of the longer ending in the provinces surrounding Rome”37. If the LE was in the original MS, then a scribe may have accidentally38 or intentionally omitted it. He may have intentionally omitted it due to the extraordinary signs and the focus on the unbelief of the disciples. These modifications to options one and two provide possibilities that can explain both the apparent difference in style See Farmer, Last Twelve Verses, 108. 33 T.C. Oden and C.A. Hall (eds.), Mark (Downers Grove 1998) xxi. Guthrie also argues 34 for the connection between Peter and Mark: “The general agreement of all the extant early traditions on this matter establishes a strong probability that it is based on fact, which requires more than a mere possibility to dislodge”. Guthrie, Introduction, 1030. Included in the evidence are several subscriptions in the MSS that testify to Mark’s authorship and to Peter as a source in Rome. See C.A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (Nashville 2001) 544. D.A. Black, Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels (Grand Rapids 35 2001) 30. Robertson, Studies, 137. Robertson also says that this theory requires that Mark’s gos- 36 pel contains the writing of Peter (in order to explain the difference in style). This, however, does not follow. The style of Peter’s preaching may have been reflected in Mark’s recording of it. A question arises from this theory: Why would Peter’s preaching not include the resurrection appearances? Cox, History and Critique, 212. 37 Croy suggests that the beginning and ending of Mark were lost due to the mutilation 38 of the book. Croy, Mutilation.