42 Matthew D. McDill Each begins with a substantival participle that is used generically56. Paul Mirecki explains the parallelism, “Mark 16:16 is an independent saying structured in antithetic parallelism and centered on the cause-and-effect relationship between belief and salvation and their logical antitheses, disbelief and condemnation”57. Although this passage has been used to argue that baptism is necessary for salvation, most evangelical scholars point out that baptism is the faith expression of salvation and that the exclusion of baptism in the parallel line indicates that faith is the only issue concerning salvation58. Conclusion After evaluating the external evidence, it appears that it is not as deci- sive as some suggest since the LE is an admittedly early, widespread read- ing and much of the argument against its originality is based on internal evidence. A consideration of the internal evidence demonstrates that it is possible to argue that the LE fits into Mark’s style and language and that its connection to v. 8 is not insurmountably awkward. One might at least admit that the current consensus of scholarship is not as conclusive as it appears. The theories that Mark wrote the LE or used older traditions to write the LE, modified by the understanding that Mark is a record of Peter’s preaching and that the LE could have been added in a later edition, provide several possibilities that can explain both the potential difference in style and language as well as the existence of MSS that omit the LE. Without saying so, it appears that many scholars are concluding that if the LE was not in the original MS or if it was not written by Mark, then the LE does not belong in the canon. This does not necessarily follow. It would be helpful for those who work on the LE to distinguish between questions of originality, authenticity, and canonicity. Since the Church, beginning with the earliest church fathers, accepted the LE as Scripture, the evidence that would cause the present day church to regard it as non-canonical should be strong and certain. The external and internal evidence does not conclusively prove that the LE was not original or inauthentic; even if it did, this would not prove that it does not belong in Wallace, Greek Grammar, 615. 56 P.A. Mirecki, “The Antithetic Saying in mark 16:16: Formal and Redactional Features,” 57 in A. Birger (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity (Pearson, Minneapolis 1991) 229–241, at 229. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 688. 58