[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.
[53] P. 23.
[54] P. 24.
[55] For reasons which he does not explain, he rearranges the sections.
[56] Von Soden, Die wichtigsten Fragen, pp. 38, 39.
[57] Ibid., pp. 39, 40.
[58] And still more in his Entstehung, too elaborate to be here considered.