itness has been by
accident put into the wrong box. This is, in fact, a witness _not_ for the
plaintiff, but _for the defendant!_--As for the other Codex, it exhibits
neither asterisk nor cross; but contains the same note or scholion
attesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.

I suppose I may now pass on: but I venture to point out that unless the
Witnesses which remain to be examined are able to produce very different
testimony from that borne by the last two, the present inquiry cannot be
brought to a close too soon. ("I took thee to curse mine enemies, and,
behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.")

(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as follows:--"From here
to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. _In the
ancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text_."(202) Scholz (who
was the first to adduce this important testimony to the genuineness of the
verses now under consideration) takes no notice of the singular
circumstance that the two MSS. he mentions have been _exactly_ assimilated
in ancient times to a common model; and that they correspond one with the
other so entirely(203) that the foregoing rubrical annotation appears _in
the wrong place_ in both of them, viz. _at the close of ver._ 15, where it
interrupts the text. This was, therefore, once a scholion written in the
margin of some very ancient Codex, which has lost its way in the process
of transcription; (for there can be no doubt that it was originally
written against ver. 8.) And let it be noted that its testimony is
express; and that it avouches for the fact that "_in the ancient copies_,"
S. Mark xvi. 9-20 "_formed part of the text_."

(3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the same two MSS., (of
which also Scholz says nothing,) viz. that they exhibit a text which had
been "collated with the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem."(204)
What need to point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in
conjunction with the express voucher that "although some copies of the
Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that _in the ancient
copies_ all the verses are found," is a _critical attestation to the
genuineness_ of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20, far outweighing the bare statement
(next to be noticed) of the undeniable historical fact that, "_in some
copies_," S. Mark _ends at ver._ 8,--but "in many _does not_"?

(4.) Scholz proceeds:--"In Cod. 22, after {~GREEK SMALL LETTER