40 Matthew D. McDill Syntactical and Semantic Analysis of Mark 16:9-20 Mark 16:9-20 can be considered a discourse unit for several reasons. The language, concluding content, parallelism, and thematic unity of this passage indicate that it is a new and distinct section. Some of the internal evidence used to argue that the LE was not written by Mark is the same type of linguistic evidence used to determine unit boundaries55. The sub- ject of the narrative changes in v. 9 from the women to Jesus. The women with Mary Magdalene in vv. 1-8 are no longer mentioned in vv. 9-20 and a new series of events involving Jesus and Mary is introduced. This new series of events is introduced with “now after he rose” (ἀναστὰς δὲ) and “first” (πρώτῃ), which mark the beginning of a comprehensive narrative. Those who argue that v. 8 is the original, intended ending of Mark work hard at explaining how it could function as a meaningful and stylistically acceptable ending. It is clear to all that whoever wrote or added the LE was supplying a conclusion to the gospel. Its literary function as a con- clusion sets this discourse unit apart. It is possible that the sub-units vv. 14-20 or vv. 19-20, could be seen as the conclusion. These sub-units, however, do not stand on their own, but are tied in to the whole unit by the connecting narratives, the parallelism, and the thematic unity. Before noting the parallelism and themes that unify this passage, it is necessary to have a more detailed understanding of its overall structure. The discourse unit consists of three sub-units. Each sub-unit is a series of events. The events of each sub-unit are directly connected and remain in a single narrative context. The narratives of the three sub-units are loosely connected by indicators of sequence, “now after this” (μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα), and “now afterward” (ὕστερον δὲ). The parallelism and thematic unity of this passage further unifies the three sub-units, sets it off as a discourse unit, and is important for under- standing the message of the passage. The first finite verb of each sub-unit communicates that Jesus appeared (ἐφάνη, ἐφανερώθη). The last finite verb in each sub-unit describes the actions of the disciples: “they did not believe” (ἠπίστησαν), “they did not believe” (οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν), and “they preached” (ἐκήρυξαν). The repetition of the actions of the disciples, alongside the parallel of Jesus’ appearances, makes it clear that the author is stringing these narratives together in a meaningful way in To use this linguistic data to demonstrate that the LE is a discourse unit does not 55 necessarily concede that the data proves that the passage was written by a different author. In fact, it explains that what is claimed to be an “awkward junction” may just be a clear demarcation of a new discourse unit.