A Textual and Structural Analysis of Mark 16:9-20 37 It is significant that Metzger, who argues that the LE was added later by a different author, argues for its canonicity. He writes, “The question of the canonicity of a document apparently did not arise in connection with discussion of such variant readings, even though they might involve quite considerable sections of text”51. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome, who mentioned the variations of the LE, “suggested that one form was canoni- cal and the other was not”52. Metzger goes on to conclude, Already in the second century, for example, the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as a part of the canonical text of Mark53. The conclusions that one makes concerning the canonicity of Mark 16:9-20 have several important implications. If scholars continue to neglect this passage in their exegetical, linguistic, and theological inquiries, then biblical studies in Mark will be hindered. Such scholarly work will also not be at the disposal of preachers who do attempt to preach this text. Daniel Wallace reasons that “since this is part of the text that many pulpiteers will need to wrestle with in their preaching ministries (due to their own bias or that of their audience), it ought to be addressed”54. Those preachers face an audience that has this passage in most of their Bible translations. If Mark 16:9-20 is canonical, and it continues to be treated as non-canonical by biblical scholars, theologians and preachers, then the church will be robbed of one its important commission passages. Although it is possible to come to conclusions regarding the LE’s ca- nonicity without answering all its textual questions, those textual ques- tions certainly influence an analysis of the discourse structure of Mark. If the LE was added later, composed by a different author, or taken from another source, then it relates quite differently to rest of the discourse. How conclusions on the textual problem of the LE of Mark relate to the discourse analysis of the gospel could be an interesting topic for research. The discourse structure of the book of Mark and how the LE relates to B.M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Signi- 51 ficance (Oxford 1987) 269. Ibid. 52 Ibid., 270. 53 D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New 54 Testament (Grand Rapids 1996) 405.