(XXIII.) Another complaint:—ἀναληφθῆναι, which is found in ver. 19, occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. (1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs which “occur nowhere else in the Gospels:” and this happens to be one of them? What possible inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circumstance? (2.) But the remark is unreasonable. Ἀναληφθῆναι and ἀνάληψις are words _proper to the Ascension of our _LORD_ into Heaven_. The two Evangelists who do _not_ describe that event, are _without_ these words: the two Evangelists who _do_ describe it, _have_ them.(293) Surely, these are marks of genuineness, not grounds for suspicion! It is high time to conclude this discussion.—Much has been said about two other minute points:— (XXIV.) It is declared that ἐκεῖνος “is nowhere found absolutely used by S. Mark:” (the same thing may be said of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:) “but always emphatically: whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely used.”(294) Another writer says,—“The use of ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11, and 13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with ὁ δέ, is peculiar.”(295) (1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not very, that an Evangelist who employs an ordinary word in the ordinary way about thirty times in all, should use it “absolutely” in two consecutive verses. (2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves as to _which_ are precisely the offending instances,—(for it is evidently a moot point whether ἐκεῖνος be emphatic in ver. 13, or not,)—we may be excused from a prolonged discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the subject in the consideration of the next Article (XXV.) (XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that “in the 10th and 14th verses there are sentences without a copulative: whereas Mark always has the copulative in such cases, particularly καί.” But then,— (1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other sections of S. Mark’s Gospel _resembling the present_,—(I mean, passages in which S. Mark summarizes many disconnected incidents, as he does here,)—is it not plain that such an objection is wholly without point? (2.) Two instances are cited. In the latter, (ver. 14), Lachmann and Tregelles read ὔστερον δέ: and the reading is not impossible. So that the complaint is really reduced to this,—That in ver. 10 the Evangelist begins Ἐκεὶνη πορευθεῖσα, instead of saying Καὶ ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα. And (it is implied) there is something so abhorrent to probability in this, as slightly to strengthen the suspicion that the entire context is not the work of the Evangelist.