[49] The fact that Matthew agrees much more closely with Mark, in those sections which are omitted by Luke, is a somewhat curious one, for which I have seen no sufficient explanation offered. A possible explanation might be that in these sections no opportunity was offered to later copyists to assimilate the texts of Matthew and Luke, and thus introduce further changes from Mark. If the extent of such assimilation could be proved to be great enough, this explanation would perhaps be sufficient.
[50] See Goodspeed on "The Original Conclusion of Mark's Gospel," in _American Journal of Theology_, Vol. IX (1905), pp. 484-90; also, Rördam, _Hibbert Journal_, Vol. III, pp. 769-90, "What Was the Lost End of the Gospel of Mark?"
[51] See Wellhausen, _Einleitung_, p. 56; Loisy, _Gospel and Church_, p. 29.
[52] This study of von Soden's and Wendling's treatment of Mark appeared in the _Harvard Theological Review_ for April, 1913.
[55] For reasons which he does not explain, he rearranges the sections.
[56] Von Soden, _Die wichtigsten Fragen_, pp. 38, 39.
[58] And still more in his _Entstehung_, too elaborate to be here considered.
[59] Cf. especially the words [Greek: mystêrion, meta charas lambanein, diôgmos, epithymiai, karpophorein], and see Wendling, p. 35, n. 11.
[60] Cf. ii, 20, also the work of the redactor.
[61] Cf. especially v, 2 with i, 23; v, 6, 7, with i, 24; v, 8-13, with i, 25; v, 13, with i, 26; v, 14-17, with i, 27, and see Wendling, p. 11.
[62] In _Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums_, p. 204, Wendling arranges the verses from M1 in chaps. xiii and xiv as follows: xiii, 1-2, 33, 28-29, 34-36; xiv, 1-2, 10-11, 3-7, 22-25, 43-46, 48-50, 65. Some minor differences in analysis, affecting words or clauses, are registered _ibid._, p. 237.
[63] Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, pp. 12-13.
[65] The seventy-eight does not include parables, where the present is not historic.
[66] See Sanday's essay, in _Oxford Studies_, pp. 21-22.
[67] Turner, _Theological Studies_, January, 1909, p. 175, quoted by Sanday.
[68] See Hawkins, _Oxford Studies_, pp. 64-66.
[69] Both genealogies may easily be suspected of being later additions. If Luke's genealogy is a gloss there is no apparent reason why it should not have been inserted in the appropriate place; cf. Sanders, _Journal of Biblical Literature_, XXX, 11.