(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 ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τελος is read the following rubric:”— ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγγελιστής: ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται.(205) And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by _all_ subsequent Critics and Editors,—cross, and “τέλος,” and all,—as an additional ancient attestation to the fact that “_The End_” (τέλος) _of S. Mark’s Gospel_ is indeed at ch. xvi. 8. Strange,—incredible rather,—that among so many learned persons, not one should have perceived that “τέλος” in this place merely denotes that here _a well-known Ecclesiastical section comes to an end_!... As far, therefore, as the present discussion is concerned, the circumstance is purely irrelevant;(206) and, (as I propose to shew in Chapter XI,) the less said about it by the opposite party, the better. (5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,) other Codices very nearly the same colophon as the preceding recurs, with an important additional clause. In Codd. 1, 199, 206, 209, (he says) is read,—