A Textual and Structural Analysis of Mark 16:9-20 35 and language as well as the existence of MSS that omit the LE. These possibilities also remove the need for a “lost ending”, as many scholars postulate39. The theory of a “lost ending” must face questions of inspi- ration and canonicity: Could a part of God’s Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit, be lost? Canonicity As one observes the conclusions of various scholars, there seems to be some confusion concerning what question is being asked about Mark’s LE. Is the question whether or not the LE is written by the same author, whether or not the LE was in the original manuscript, or whether or not the LE belongs in the canon of the New Testament? Although related, these questions must be asked separately. It is possible that the LE was written by a different author and added to the original manuscript by Mark40. It is also possible that the LE was added to a later edition of Mark by the same author41. Furthermore, it is possible that in either of these cases the LE could belong in the canon since both possibilities would retain the passage’s apostolicity. Should the Bible scholar interpret the square brackets around the LE in the UBS 4th edition to mean “this really does not belong in the text?”42 Cox writes that “the acceptance of the canonicity of the longer ending has received objection from only a few scholars”43. Westcott and Hort claim that “it manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority”44. Robert Gundry writes, “We should not think of that ending as canonical any more than we think of the myriad other inauthentic readings in the Textus Receptus as canonical. The canonizers may have mistaken inauthentic readings for the text of the autographs, but their purpose was to canonize the text of the early, apostolic writings”45. Ibid. 39 See option three above and Farmer, Last Twelve Verses, 107. 40 Black, Why Four Gospels?, 30. 41 An affirmative answer is strengthened by the fact that the short ending, which all 42 agree does not belong in the text, is also included in double square brackets. However, Metzger explains that “out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist”. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 105–106. Why then do they also include the short ending, which doesn’t have good textual support, in double square brackets? Cox, History and Critique, 94. 43 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 51. 44 R.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids 45 1993) 1009.