http://www.samuelzwemerseminary.com/THE

THE LAST TWELVE VERSES

OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

S. MARK

Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors

And Established

John W. Burgon B.D.

Vicar of S. Mary-The-Virgin's, Fellow of Oriel College,

and Gresham Lecturer in Divinity.

With Facsimiles of Codex א And Codex L

"'Advice to you,' sir, 'in studying Divinity?' Did you say that you 'wished I would give you a few words of advice,' sir?... Then let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references, sir!"

Conversation of the late President Routh

Oxford and London:

James Parker and Co.

1871.

[pg i]

The Codex

[Transcriber's Note: This e-book contains much Greek text which is central to the point of the book. In the ASCII versions of the e-book, the Greek is transliterated into Roman letters, which do not perfectly represent the Greek original; especially, accent and breathing marks do not transliterate. The HTML and PDF versions contain the true Greek text of the original book.]

On the next page is exhibited an exact Fac-simile, obtained by Photography, of fol. 28 b of the Codex Sinaiticus at S. Petersburg, (Tischendorf's א): shewing the abrupt termination of S. Mark's Gospel at the words ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ (chap. xvi. 8), as explained at p. 70, and pp. 86-8. The original Photograph, which is here reproduced on a diminished scale, measures in height full fourteen inches and one-eighth; in breadth, full thirteen inches. It was procured for me through the friendly and zealous offices of the English Chaplain at S. Petersburg, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, B.D.; by favour of the Keeper of the Imperial Library, who has my hearty thanks for his liberality and consideration.

It will be perceived that the text begins at S. Mark xvi. 2, and ends with the first words of S. Luke i. 18.

Up to this hour, every endeavour to obtain a Photograph of the corresponding page of theCodex Vaticanus, B, (No. 1209, in the Vatican,) has proved unavailing. If the present Vindication of the genuineness of Twelve Verses of the everlasting Gospel should have the good fortune to approve itself to his Holiness, Pope Pius IX., let me be permitted in this unadorned and unusual manner,—(to which I would fain add some circumstance of respectful ceremony if I knew how,)—very humbly to entreat his Holiness to allow me to possess a Photograph, corresponding in size with the original, of the page of Codex B (it is numbered fol. 1303,) which exhibits the abrupt termination of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

J. W. B.

Oriel College, Oxford,
June 14, 1871.

[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]

[pg iv]

"My Word Will Not Pass Away"

ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν,

ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ,

ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου,

ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.

εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστι

τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν,

ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.

ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται,

οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι.

καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ

ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης

ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ

ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς,

καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας,

καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

[pg v]

Dedication: To Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., M.P.

Dear Sir Roundell,

I do myself the honour of inscribing this volume to you. Permit me to explain the reason why.

It is not merely that I may give expression to a sentiment of private friendship which dates back from the pleasant time when I was Curate to your Father,—whose memory I never recall without love and veneration;—nor even in order to afford myself the opportunity of testifying how much I honour you for the noble example of conscientious uprightness and integrity which you set us on a recent public occasion. It is for no such reason that I dedicate to you this vindication of the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

It is because I desire supremely to submit the argument contained in the ensuing pages to a practised judicial intellect of the loftiest stamp. Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these “last Twelve Verses” are not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same opinion. Popular Prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the truth. It is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends of mine, who, admitting the adversary's premisses, content themselves with denying the validity of his inference. However true it may be,—and it is true,—that from those premisses the proposed conclusion does not follow, I yet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether. I insist, on the contrary, [pg vi]that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,—untrustworthy in every particular.

How, in the meantime, can such an one as I am hope to persuade the world that it is as I say, while the most illustrious Biblical Critics at home and abroad are agreed, and against me? Clearly, the first thing to be done is to secure for myself a full and patient hearing. With this view, I have written a book. But next, instead of waiting for the slow verdict of Public Opinion, (which yet, I know, must come after many days,) I desiderate for the Evidence I have collected, a competent and an impartial Judge. And that is why I dedicate my book to you. If I can but get this case fairly tried, I have no doubt whatever about the result.

Whether you are able to find time to read these pages, or not, it shall content me to have shewn in this manner the confidence with which I advocate my cause; the kind of test to which I propose to bring my reasonings. If I may be allowed to say so,—S. Mark's last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men. I am able to prove that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly mistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But I claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations which have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain.

I am, with sincere regard and respect,
Dear Sir Roundell,
Very faithfully yours,
JOHN W. BURGON.

Oriel,
July, 1871.

[pg vii]

Preface.

This volume is my contribution towards the better understanding of a subject which is destined, when it shall have grown into a Science, to vindicate for itself a mighty province, and to enjoy paramount attention. I allude to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Scriptures.

That this Study is still in its infancy, all may see. The very principles on which it is based are as yet only imperfectly understood. The reason is obvious. It is because the very foundations have not yet been laid, (except to a wholly inadequate extent,) on which the future superstructure is to rise. A careful collation of every extant Codex, (executed after the manner of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener's labours in this department,) is the first indispensable preliminary to any real progress. Another, is a revised Text, not to say a more exact knowledge, of the oldest Versions. Scarcely of inferior importance would be critically correct editions of the Fathers of the Church; and these must by all means be furnished with far completer Indices of Texts than have ever yet been attempted.—There is not a single Father to be named whose Works have been hitherto furnished with even a tolerably complete Index of the places in which he [pg viii]either quotes, or else clearly refers to, the Text of the New Testament: while scarcely a tithe of the known MSS. of the Gospels have as yet been satisfactorily collated. Strange to relate, we are to this hour without so much as a satisfactory Catalogue of the Copies which are known to be extant.

But when all this has been done,—(and the Science deserves, and requires, a little more public encouragement than has hitherto been bestowed on the arduous and—let me not be ashamed to add the word—unremunerative labour of Textual Criticism,)—it will be discovered that the popular and the prevailing Theory is a mistaken one. The plausible hypothesis on which recent recensions of the Text have been for the most part conducted, will be seen to be no longer tenable. The latest decisions will in consequence be generally reversed.

I am not of course losing sight of what has been already achieved in this department of Sacred Learning. While our knowledge of the uncial MSS. has been rendered tolerably exact and complete, an excellent beginning has been made, (chiefly by the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the most judicious living Master of Textual Criticism,) in acquainting us with the contents of about seventy of the cursive MSS. of the New Testament. And though it is impossible to deny that the published Texts of Doctors Tischendorf and Tregelles as Texts are wholly inadmissible, yet is it equally certain that by the conscientious diligence with which those distinguished Scholars have respectively [pg ix]laboured, they have erected monuments of their learning and ability which will endure for ever. Their Editions of the New Testament will not be superseded by any new discoveries, by any future advances in the Science of Textual Criticism. The MSS. which they have edited will remain among the most precious materials for future study. All honour to them! If in the warmth of controversy I shall appear to have spoken of them sometimes without becoming deference, let me here once for all confess that I am to blame, and express my regret. When they have publicly begged S. Mark's pardon for the grievous wrong they have done him, I will very humbly beg their pardon also.

In conclusion, I desire to offer my thanks to the Rev. John Wordsworth, late Fellow of Brasenose College, for his patient perusal of these sheets as they have passed through the press, and for favouring me with several judicious suggestions. To him may be applied the saying of President Routh on receiving a visit from Bishop Wordsworth at his lodgings,—“I see the learned son of a learned Father, sir!”—Let me be permitted to add that my friend inherits the Bishop's fine taste and accurate judgment also.

And now I dismiss this Work, at which I have conscientiously laboured for many days and many nights; beginning it in joy and ending it in sorrow. The College in which I have for the most part written it is designated in the preamble of its Charter and in its Foundation Statutes, (which are already much [pg x]more than half a thousand years old,) as Collegium Scholarium in Sacrâ Theologiâ studentium,—perpetuis temporibus duraturum. Indebted, under God, to the pious munificence of the Founder of Oriel for my opportunities of study, I venture, in what I must needs call evil days, to hope that I have to some extent “employed my advantages,”—(the expression occurs in a prayer used by this Society on its three solemn anniversaries,)—as our Founder and Benefactors “would approve if they were now upon earth to witness what we do.”

J. W. B.

Oriel,
July, 1871.

[pg xvi]

The Last Twelve Verses.

Subjoined, for convenience, are “the Last Twelve Verses.”

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ᾽ ῆς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα δαιμόμια. ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι. κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἠπίστησαν.	(9) Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils. (10) And she went and told them that had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. (11) And they, when they had heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν. κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς; οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν.	(12) After that He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. (13) And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισε τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν, ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, “Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται; ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεύσασι ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσι; γλώσσαις λαλήσουσι καιναῖς; ὄφεις ἀροῦσι; κὰν θανὰσιμόν τι πίωσιν, οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψει; ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσι, καὶ καλῶς ἕξουσιν.”	(14) Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen. (15) And He said unto them, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In My Name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”
Ὀ μὲν οὄν Κύριος, μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς, ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ; ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ, τοῦ Κυρίου συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. Ἀμήν.	(19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into Heaven, and sat on the Right hand of God. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

[pg 001]

Chapter I.

THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL, STATED.

These Verses generally suspected at the present time. The popularity of this opinion accounted for.

It has lately become the fashion to speak of the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, as if it were an ascertained fact that those verses constitute no integral part of the Gospel. It seems to be generally supposed, (1) That the evidence of MSS. is altogether fatal to their claims; (2) That “the early Fathers” witness plainly against their genuineness; (3) That, from considerations of “internal evidence” they must certainly be given up. It shall be my endeavour in the ensuing pages to shew, on the contrary, That manuscript evidence is so overwhelmingly in their favour that no room is left for doubt or suspicion:—That there is not so much as one of the Fathers, early or late, who gives it as his opinion that these verses are spurious:—and, That the argument derived from internal considerations proves on inquiry to be baseless and unsubstantial as a dream.

But I hope that I shall succeed in doing more. It shall be my endeavour to shew not only that there really is no reason whatever for calling in question the genuineness of this portion of Holy Writ, but also that there exist sufficient reasons for feeling confident that it must needs be genuine. This is clearly as much as it is possible for me [pg 002]to achieve. But when this has been done, I venture to hope that the verses in dispute will for the future be allowed to retain their place in the second Gospel unmolested.

It will of course be asked,—And yet, if all this be so, how does it happen that both in very ancient, and also in very modern times, this proposal to suppress twelve verses of the Gospel has enjoyed a certain amount of popularity? At the two different periods, (I answer,) for widely different reasons.

(1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief of Christendom that the Word of Godmust needs be consistent with itself in every part, and prove in every part (like its Divine Author) perfectly “faithful and true,” the difficulty (which was deemed all but insuperable) of bringing certain statements in S. Mark's last Twelve Verses into harmony with certain statements of the other Evangelists, is discovered to have troubled Divines exceedingly. “In fact,” (says Mr. Scrivener,) “it brought suspicion upon these verses, and caused their omission in some copies seen by Eusebius.” That the maiming process is indeed attributable to this cause and came about in this particular way, I am unable to persuade myself; but, if the desire to provide an escape from a serious critical difficulty did not actually occasion that copies of S. Mark's Gospel were mutilated, it certainly was the reason why, in very early times, such mutilated copies were viewed without displeasure by some, and appealed to with complacency by others.

(2.) But times are changed. We have recently been assured on high authority that the Church has reversed her ancient convictions in this respect: that now, “most sound theologians have no dread whatever of acknowledging minute points of disagreement” (i.e. minute errors) “in the fourfold narrative even of the life of the Redeemer.”1 There has arisen in these last days a singular impatience of Dogmatic Truth, (especially Dogma of an unpalatable kind,) which has even rendered popular the pretext afforded by these same mutilated copies for the grave resuscitation of doubts, never as it would seem seriously entertained by any [pg 003]of the ancients; and which, at all events for 1300 years and upwards, have deservedly sunk into oblivion.

Whilst I write, that “most divine explication of the chiefest articles of our Christian belief,” the Athanasian Creed,2 is made the object of incessant assaults.3 But then it is remembered that statements quite as “uncharitable” as any which this Creed contains are found in the 16th verse of S. Mark's concluding chapter; are in fact the words of Him whose very Name is Love. The precious warning clause, I say, (miscalled “damnatory,”4) which an impertinent officiousness is for glossing with a rubric and weakening with an apology, proceeded from Divine lips,—at least if these concluding verses be genuine. How shall this inconvenient circumstance be more effectually dealt with than by accepting the suggestion of the most recent editors, that S. Mark's concluding verses are an unauthorised addition to his Gospel? “If it be acknowledged that the passage has a harsh sound,” (remarks Dean Stanley,) “unlike the usual utterances of Him who came not to condemn but to save, the discoveries of later times have shewn, almost beyond doubt, that it is not a part of S. Mark's Gospel, but an addition by another hand; of which the weakness in the external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in proving its later origin.”5

Modern prejudice, then,—added to a singularly exaggerated estimate of the critical importance of the testimony [pg 004]of our two oldest Codices, (another of the “discoveries of later times,”concerning which I shall have more to say by-and-by,)—must explain why the opinion is even popular that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious appendix to his Gospel.

Not that Biblical Critics would have us believe that the Evangelist left off at verse 8, intending that the words,—“neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid,” should be the conclusion of his Gospel. “No one can imagine,” (writes Griesbach,) “that Mark cut short the thread of his narrative at that place.”6 It is on all hands eagerly admitted, that so abrupt a termination must be held to mark an incomplete or else an uncompleted work. How, then, in the original autograph of the Evangelist, is it supposed that the narrative proceeded? This is what no one has even ventured so much as to conjecture. It is assumed, however, that the original termination of the Gospel, whatever it may have been, has perished. We appeal, of course, to its actual termination: and,—Of what nature then, (we ask,) is the supposed necessity for regarding the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel as a spurious substitute for what the Evangelist originally wrote? What, in other words, has been the history of these modern doubts; and by what steps have they established themselves in books, and won the public ear?

To explain this, shall be the object of the next ensuing chapters.

[pg 005]

CHAPTER II.

THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.

Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses (p. 6).—Lachmann's fatal principle (p. 8) the clue to the unfavourable verdict of Tischendorf (p. 9), of Tregelles (p. 10), of Alford (p. 12); which has been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and Divines (p. 13).—The nature of the present inquiry explained (p. 15.)

It is only since the appearance of Griesbach's second edition [1796-1806] that Critics of the New Testament have permitted themselves to handle the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel with disrespect. Previous critical editions of the New Testament are free from this reproach. “There is no reason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of Scripture,” wrote Mill in 1707, after a review of the evidence (as far as he was acquainted with it) for and against. Twenty-seven years later, appeared Bengel's edition of the New Testament (1734); and Wetstein, at the end of another seventeen years (1751-2), followed in the same field. Both editors, after rehearsing the adverse testimony in extenso, left the passage in undisputed possession of its place. Alter in 1786-7, and Birch in 1788,7 (suspicious as the latter evidently was of its genuineness,) followed their predecessors' example. But Matthaei, (who also brought his labours to a close in the year 1788,) was not content to give a silent suffrage. He had been for upwards of fourteen years a laborious collator of Greek MSS. of the New Testament, and was so convinced of the insufficiency of the arguments which had been brought against these twelve verses of S. Mark, [pg 006]that with no ordinary warmth, no common acuteness, he insisted on their genuineness.

“With Griesbach,” (remarks Dr. Tregelles,)8 “Texts which may be called really critical begin;”and Griesbach is the first to insist that the concluding verses of S. Mark are spurious. That he did not suppose the second Gospel to have always ended at verse 8, we have seen already.9He was of opinion, however, that “at some very remote period, the original ending of the Gospel perished,—disappeared perhaps from the Evangelist's own copy,—and that the present ending was by some one substituted in its place.” Griesbach further invented the following elaborate and extraordinary hypothesis to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.

He invites his readers to believe that when, (before the end of the second century,) the four Evangelical narratives were collected into a volume and dignified with the title of “The Gospel,”—S. Mark's narrative was furnished by some unknown individual with its actual termination in order to remedy its manifest incompleteness; and that this volume became the standard of the Alexandrine recension of the text: in other words, became the fontal source of a mighty family of MSS. by Griesbach designated as “Alexandrine.” But there will have been here and there in existence isolated copies of one or more of the Gospels; and in all of these, S. Mark's Gospel, (by the hypothesis,) will have ended abruptly at the eighth verse. These copies of single Gospels, when collected together, are presumed by Griesbach to have constituted “the Western recension.” If, in codices of this family also, the self-same termination is now all but universally found, the fact is to be accounted for, (Griesbach says,) by the natural desire which possessors of the Gospels will have experienced to supplement their imperfect copies as best they might. “Let this conjecture be accepted,” proceeds the learned veteran,—(unconscious apparently that he has been demanding acceptance for at least half-a-dozen wholly unsupported as well as entirely gratuitous conjectures,)—“and every difficulty disappears; and [pg 007]it becomes perfectly intelligible how there has crept into almost every codex which has been written, from the second century downwards, a section quite different from the original and genuine ending of S. Mark, which disappeared before the four Gospels were collected into a single volume.”—In other words, if men will but be so accommodating as to assume that the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel disappeared before any one had the opportunity of transcribing the Evangelist's inspired autograph, they will have no difficulty in understanding that the present conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel was not really written by S. Mark.

It should perhaps be stated in passing, that Griesbach was driven into this curious maze of unsupported conjecture by the exigencies of his “Recension Theory;” which, inasmuch as it has been long since exploded, need not now occupy us. But it is worth observing that the argument already exhibited, (such as it is,) breaks down under the weight of the very first fact which its learned author is obliged to lay upon it. Codex B.,—the solitary manuscript witness foromitting the clause in question, (for Codex א had not yet been discovered,)—had been already claimed by Griesbach as a chief exponent of his so-called “Alexandrine Recension.”But then, on the Critic's own hypothesis, (as we have seen already,) Codex B. ought, on the contrary, to have contained it. How was that inconvenient fact to be got over? Griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note that Codex B. “has affinity with the Eastern family of MSS.”—The misfortune of being saddled with a worthless theory was surely never more apparent. By the time we have reached this point in the investigation, we are reminded of nothing so much as of the weary traveller who, having patiently pursued an ignis fatuus through half the night, beholds it at last vanish; but not until it has conducted him up to his chin in the mire.

Neither Hug, nor Scholz his pupil,—who in 1808 and 1830 respectively followed Griesbach with modifications of his recension-theory,—concurred in the unfavourable sentence which their illustrious predecessor had passed on the concluding portion of S. Mark's Gospel. The latter even [pg 008]eagerly vindicated its genuineness.10 But with Lachmann,—whose unsatisfactory text of the Gospels appeared in 1842,—originated a new principle of Textual Revision; the principle, namely, of paying exclusive and absolute deference to the testimony of a few arbitrarily selected ancient documents; no regard being paid to others of the same or of yet higher antiquity. This is not the right place for discussing this plausible and certainly most convenient scheme of textual revision. That it leads to conclusions little short of irrational, is certain. I notice it only because it supplies the clue to the result which, as far as S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is concerned, has been since arrived at by Dr. Tischendorf, Dr. Tregelles, and Dean Alford,11—the three latest critics who have formally undertaken to reconstruct the sacred Text.

They agree in assuring their readers that the genuine Gospel of S. Mark extends no further than ch. xvi. ver. 8: in other words, that all that follows the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an unauthorized addition by some later hand; “a fragment,”—distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel not less by internal evidence than by external testimony. This verdict becomes the more important because it proceeds from men of undoubted earnestness and high ability; who cannot be suspected of being either unacquainted with the evidence on which the point in dispute rests, nor inexperienced in the art of weighing such evidence. Moreover, their verdict has been independently reached; is unanimous; is unhesitating; has been eagerly proclaimed by all three on many different occasions as well as in many different places;12 and [pg 009]may be said to be at present in all but undisputed possession of the field.13 The first-named Editor enjoys a vast reputation, and has been generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, “the first Biblical Critic in Europe.” The other two have produced text-books which are deservedly held in high esteem, and are in the hands of every student. The views of such men will undoubtedly colour the convictions of the next generation of English Churchmen. It becomes absolutely necessary, therefore, to examine with the utmost care the grounds of their verdict, the direct result of which is to present us with a mutilated Gospel. If they are right, there is no help for it but that the convictions of eighteen centuries in this respect must be surrendered. But if Tischendorf and Tregelles are wrong in this particular, it follows of necessity that doubt is thrown over the whole of their critical method. The case is a crucial one. Every page of theirs incurs suspicion, if their deliberate verdict in this instance shall prove to be mistaken.

1. Tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single sentence. “That these verses were not written by Mark,” [pg 010](he says,) “admits of satisfactory proof.” He then recites in detail the adverse external testimony which his predecessors had accumulated; remarking, that it is abundantly confirmed by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a solitary sample; but declares that the whole passage is “abhorrent” to S. Mark's manner. “The facts of the case being such,”(and with this he dismisses the subject,) “a healthy piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as Mark's what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn to have known nothing at all about.”14 A mass of laborious annotation which comes surging in at the close of verse 8, and fills two of Tischendorf's pages, has the effect of entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the inspired text of the Evangelist. On the other hand, the evidence in favour of the place is despatched in less than twelve lines. What can be the reason that an Editor of the New Testament parades elaborately every particular of the evidence, (such as it is,) against the genuineness of a considerable portion of the Gospel; and yet makes summary work with the evidence in its favour? That Tischendorf has at least entirely made up his mind on the matter in hand is plain. Elsewhere, he speaks of the Author of these verses as “Pseudo Marcus.”15

2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this subject in his “Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament” (1854). The respected author undertakes to shew “that the early testimony that S. Mark did not write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments.” Accordingly, he announces as the result of the propositions which he thinks he has established, “that the book of Mark himself extends no further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” He is the [pg 011]only critic I have met with to whom it does not seem incredible that S. Mark did actually conclude his Gospel in this abrupt way: observing that “perhaps we do not know enough of the circumstances of S. Mark when he wrote his Gospel to say whether he did or did not leave it with a complete termination.” In this modest suggestion at least Dr. Tregelles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing whatever about “the circumstances of S. Mark,” (or of any other Evangelist,) “when he wrote his Gospel:” neither indeed are we quite sure who S. Markwas. But when he goes on to declare, notwithstanding, “that the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel;” and complains that “there is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to Holy Scripture, as if all our notions of its authority depended on our knowing who was the writer of each particular portion; instead of simply seeing and owning that it was given forth from God, and that it is as much His as were the Commandments of the Law written by His own finger on the tables of stone;”16—the learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the question at issue, which we are least of all prepared to encounter in such a quarter. We admire his piety but it is at the expense of his critical sagacity. For the question is not at all one of authorship, but only one of genuineness. Have the codices been mutilated which do not contain these verses? If they have, then must these verses be held to be genuine. But on the contrary, Have the codices been supplemented which contain them? Then are these verses certainly spurious. There is no help for it but they must either be held to be an integral part of the Gospel, and therefore, in default of any proof to the contrary, as certainly by S. Mark as any other twelve verses which can be named; or else an unauthorized addition to it. If they belong to the post-apostolic age it is idle to insist on their Inspiration, and to claim that this “authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down” is as much the work of God “as were the Ten Commandments written by His own [pg 012]finger on the tables of stone.” On the other hand, if they“ought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel as the last chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as the writer is) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the book of Moses,”—it is difficult to understand why the learned editor should think himself at liberty to sever them from their context, and introduce the subscription ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ after ver. 8. In short, “How persons who believe that these verses did not form a part of the original Gospel of Mark, but were added afterwards, can say that they have a good claim to be received as an authentic or genuine part of the second Gospel, that is, a portion of canonical Scripture, passes comprehension.” It passes even Dr. Davidson's comprehension; (for the foregoing words are his;) and Dr. Davidson, as some of us are aware, is not a man to stick at trifles.17

3. Dean Alford went a little further than any of his predecessors. He says that this passage“was placed as a completion of the Gospel soon after the Apostolic period,—the Gospel itself having been, for some reason unknown to us, left incomplete. The most probable supposition”(he adds) “is, that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.” The italics in this conjecture (which was originally Griesbach's) are not mine. The internal evidence (declares the same learned writer) “preponderates vastly against the authorship of Mark;” or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against “its genuineness as a work of the Evangelist.” Accordingly, in his Prolegomena, (p. 38) he describes it as “the remarkable fragment at the end of the Gospel.” After this, we are the less astonished to find that he closes the second Gospel at ver. 8; introduces the Subscription there; and encloses the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets. Thus, whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman [pg 013]Mill (1707), the editors of the N. T. have either been silent on the subject, or else have whispered only that this section of the Gospel is to be received with less of confidence than the rest,—it has been reserved for the present century to convert the ancient suspicions into actual charges. The latest to enter the field have been the first to execute Griesbach's adverse sentence pronounced fifty years ago, and to load the blessed Evangelist with bonds.

It might have been foreseen that when Critics so conspicuous permit themselves thus to handle the precious deposit, others would take courage to hurl their thunderbolts in the same direction with the less concern. “It is probable,” (says Abp. Thomson in the Bible Dictionary,) “that this section is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospels soon after the times of the Apostles.”18—The Rev. T. S. Green,19 (an able scholar, never to be mentioned without respect,) considers that “the hypothesis of very early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in evidence,”—which “point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious origin.”—“In respect of Mark's Gospel,” (writes Professor Norton in a recent work on the Genuineness of the Gospels,) “there is ground for believing that the last twelve verses were not written by the Evangelist, but were added by some other writer to supply a short conclusion to the work, which some cause had prevented the author from completing.”20—Professor Westcott—who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, announces a revised Text—assures us that “the original text, from whatever cause it may have happened, terminated abruptly after the account of the Angelic vision.” The rest “was added at another time, and probably by another hand.” “It is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt close.” “The remaining verses cannot be regarded as part of the original narrative of S. Mark”21—Meyer insists that this is an“apocryphal fragment,” and reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which have ever been [pg 014]arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving. The “note” with which he takes leave of the subject is even insolent.22 A comparison (he says) of these “fragments” (ver. 9-18 and 19) with the parallel places in the other Gospels and in the Acts, shews how vacillating and various were the Apostolical traditions concerning the appearances of our Lord after His Resurrection, and concerning His Ascension. (“Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?”)

Such, then, is the hostile verdict concerning these last twelve verses which I venture to dispute, and which I trust I shall live to see reversed. The writers above cited will be found to rely (1.) on the external evidence of certain ancient MSS.; and (2.) on Scholia which state “that the more ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver. 8.” (3.) They assure us that this is confirmed by a formidable array of Patristic authorities. (4.) Internal proof is declared not to be wanting. Certain incoherences and inaccuracies are pointed out. In fine, “the phraseology and style of the section” are declared to be “unfavourable to its authenticity;” not a few of the words and expressions being “foreign to the diction of Mark.”—I propose to shew that all these confident and imposing statements are to a great extent either mistakes or exaggerations, and that the slender residuum of fact is about as powerless to achieve the purpose of the critics as were the seven green withs of the Philistines to bind Samson.

In order to exhibit successfully what I have to offer on this subject, I find it necessary to begin (in the next chapter) at the very beginning. I think it right, however, in this place to premise a few plain considerations which will be of use to us throughout all our subsequent inquiry; and which indeed we shall never be able to afford to lose sight of for long.

The question at issue being simply this,—Whether it is reasonable to suspect that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not?—the whole of our business clearly resolves itself into an examination of what has been urged in proof [pg 015]that the former alternative is the correct one. Our opponents maintain that these verses did not form part of the original autograph of the Evangelist. But it is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burthen of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue.23 We have therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the supposed proof is exactly worth; remembering always that in this subject-matter a high degree of probability is the only kind of proof which is attainable. When, for example, it is contended that the famous words in S. John's first Epistle (1 S. John v. 7, 8,) are not to be regarded as genuine, the fact that they are away from almost every known Codex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph of the Evangelist. On far less weighty evidence, in fact, we are at all times prepared to yield the hearty assent of our understanding in this department of sacred science.

And yet, it will be found that evidence of overwhelming weight, if not of an entirely different kind, is required in the present instance: as I proceed to explain.

1. When it is contended that our Lord's reply to the young ruler (S. Matt. xix. 17) was not Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εῖς, ὁ Θεός,—it is at the same time insisted that it was Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εῖς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. It is proposed to omit the former words only because an alternative clause is at hand, which it is proposed to substitute in its room.

2. Again. When it is claimed that some given passage of the Textus Receptus,—S. Mark ch xv. 28, for example, (καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα, Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη,) or the Doxology in S. Matth. vi. 13,—is spurious, all that is pretended is that certain words are an unauthorized addition to the inspired text; and that by simply omitting them we are so far restoring the Gospel to its original integrity.—The same is to be said concerning every other charge of interpolation which can be named. If the celebrated “pericopa de adulterâ,” for instance, be indeed [pg 016]not genuine, we have but to leave out those twelve verses of S. John's Gospel, and to read chap. vii. 52 in close sequence with chap. viii. 12; and we are assured that we are put in possession of the text as it came from the hands of its inspired Author. Nor, (it must be admitted), is any difficulty whatever occasioned thereby; for there is no reason assignable why the two last-named verses should not cohere; (there is no internal improbability, I mean, in the supposition;) neither does there exist any à priori reason why a considerable portion of narrative should be looked for in that particular part of the Gospel.

3. But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is proposed to get rid of the twelve verses which for 1700 years and upwards have formed the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel; no alternative conclusion being proposed to our acceptance. For let it be only observed what this proposal practically amounts to and means.

(a.) And first, it does not mean that S. Mark himself, with design, brought his Gospel to a close at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. That supposition would in fact be irrational. It does not mean, I say, that by simply leaving out those last twelve verses we shall be restoring the second Gospel to its original integrity. And this it is which makes the present a different case from every other, and necessitates a fuller, if not a different kind of proof.

(b.) What then? It means that although an abrupt and impossible termination would confessedly be the result of omitting verses 9-20, no nearer approximation to the original autograph of the Evangelist is at present attainable. Whether S. Mark was interrupted before he could finish his Gospel,—(as Dr. Tregelles and Professor Norton suggest;)—in which case it will have been published by its Author in an unfinished state: or whether “the last leaf was torn away” before a single copy of the original could be procured,—(a view which is found to have recommended itself to Griesbach;)—in which case it will have once had a different termination from at present; which termination however, by the hypothesis, has since been irrecoverably lost;—(and to one of these two wild hypotheses the critics are [pg 017]logically reduced;)—this we are not certainly told. The critics are only agreed in assuming that S. Mark's Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude it.

But this assumption, (that a work which has been held to be a complete work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete,) of course requires proof. The foregoing improbable theories, based on a gratuitous assumption, are confronted in limine with a formidable obstacle which must be absolutely got rid of before they can be thought entitled to a serious hearing. It is a familiar and a fatal circumstance that the Gospel of S. Mark has been furnished with its present termination ever since the second century of the Christian æra.24 In default, therefore, of distinct historical evidence or definite documentary proof that at some earlier period than that it terminated abruptly, nothing short of the utter unfitness of the verses which at present conclude S. Mark's Gospel to be regarded as the work of the Evangelist, would warrant us in assuming that they are the spurious accretion of the post-apostolic age: and as such, at the end of eighteen centuries, to be deliberately rejected. We must absolutely be furnished, I say, with internal evidence of the most unequivocal character; or else with external testimony of a direct and definite kind, if we are to admit that the actual conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel is an unauthorized substitute for something quite different that has been lost. I can only imagine one other thing which could induce us to entertain such an opinion; and that would be the general consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions in leaving these verses out. Else, it is evident that we are logically forced to adopt the far easier supposition that (not S. Mark, but) some copyist of the third century left a copy of S. Mark's Gospel unfinished; which unfinished copy became the fontal source of the mutilated copies which have come down to our own times.25

[pg 018]

I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully at the outset; not in order to prejudge the question, (for that could answer no good purpose,) but only in order that the reader may have clearly set before him the real nature of the issue. “Is it reasonable to suspect that the concluding verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not?” That is the question which we have to consider,—the one question. And while I proceed to pass under careful review all the evidence on this subject with which I am acquainted, I shall be again and again obliged to direct the attention of my reader to its bearing on the real point at issue. In other words, we shall have again and again to ask ourselves, how far it is rendered probable by each fresh article of evidence that S. Mark's Gospel, when it left the hands of its inspired Author, was an unfinished work; the last chapter ending abruptly at ver. 8?

I will only point out, before passing on, that the course which has been adopted towards S. Mark xvi. 9-20, by the latest Editors of the New Testament, is simply illogical. Either they regard these verses as possibly genuine, or else as certainly spurious. If they entertain (as they say they do) a decided opinion that they are not genuine, they ought (if they would be consistent) to banish them from the text.26 Conversely, since they do not banish them from the text, they have no right to pass a fatal sentence upon them; to designate their author as “pseudo-Marcus;” to handle them in contemptuous fashion. The plain truth is, these learned men are better than their theory; the worthlessness of which they are made to feel in the present most conspicuous instance. It reduces them to perplexity. It has landed them in inconsistency and error.—They will find it necessary in the end to reverse their convictions. They cannot too speedily reconsider their verdict, and retrace their steps.

[pg 019]

CHAPTER III.

THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.

Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p. 20).—The importance of such evidence explained (p. 21).—Nineteen Patristic witnesses to these Verses, produced (p. 23).—Summary (p. 30).

The present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds of Evidence, external and internal. For the full consideration of the former, seven Chapters will be necessary:27 for a discussion of the latter, one seventh of that space will suffice.28 We have first to ascertain whether the external testimony concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is of such a nature as to constrain us to admit that it is highly probable that those twelve verses are a spurious appendix to S. Mark's Gospel.

1. It is well known that for determining the Text of the New Testament, we are dependent on three chief sources of information: viz. (1.) on Manuscripts,—(2.) on Versions,—(3.) onFathers. And it is even self-evident that the most ancient MSS.,—the earliest Versions,—the oldest of the Fathers, will probably be in every instance the most trustworthy witnesses.

2. Further, it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text of Scripture than can possibly be rendered by any Translation, however faithful: while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive authority, even than Versions. The reasons are chiefly these:—(a.) Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not licentiously; and sometimes allude only when they seem to quote. (b.) They appear to have too often depended on their memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inaccurate [pg 020]in their citations; the same Father being observed to quote the same place in different ways. (c.) Copyists and Editors may not be altogether depended upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations. Thus the evidence of Fathers must always be to some extent precarious.

3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed out that when,—instead of certifying ourselves of the actual words employed by an Evangelist, their precise form and exactsequence,—our object is only to ascertain whether a considerable passage of Scripture is genuine or not; is to be rejected or retained; was known or was not known in the earliest ages of the Church; then, instead of supplying the least important evidence, Fathers become by far the most valuable witnesses of all. This entire subject may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to the problem before us.

4. Of course, if we possessed copies of the Gospels coeval with their authors, nothing could compete with such evidence. But then unhappily nothing of the kind is the case. The facts admit of being stated within the compass of a few lines. We have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is thought to belong to the first half of the ivth century; and another, the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, א) which is certainly not quite so old,—perhaps by 50 years. Next come two famous codices; the Alexandrine (in the British Museum, A) and the Codex Ephraemi (in the Paris Library, C), which are probably from 50 to 100 years more recent still. The Codex Bezae (at Cambridge, D) is considered by competent judges to be the depository of a recension of the text as ancient as any of the others. Notwithstanding its strangely depraved condition therefore,—the many “monstra potius quam variae lectiones” which it contains,—it may be reckoned with the preceding four, though it must be 50 or 100 years later than the latest of them. After this, we drop down, (as far as S. Mark is concerned,) to 2 uncial MSS. of the viiith century,—7 of the ixth,—4 of the ixth or xth,29 while cursives of the xith and xiith [pg 021]centuries are very numerous indeed,—the copies increasing in number in a rapid ratio as we descend the stream of Time. Our primitive manuscript witnesses, therefore, are but five in number at the utmost. And of these it has never been pretended that the oldest is to be referred to an earlier date than the beginning of the ivthcentury, while it is thought by competent judges that the last named may very possibly have been written quite late in the vith.

5. Are we then reduced to this fourfold, (or at most fivefold,) evidence concerning the text of the Gospels,—on evidence of not quite certain date, and yet (as we all believe) not reaching further back than to the ivth century of our æra? Certainly not. Here, Fathers come to our aid. There are perhaps as many as an hundred Ecclesiastical Writers older than the oldest extant Codex of the N. T.: while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600, (within which limits our five oldest MSS. may be considered certainly to fall,) there exist about two hundred Fathers more. True, that many of these have left wondrous little behind them; and that the quotations from Holy Scripture of the greater part may justly be described as rare and unsatisfactory. But what then? From the three hundred, make a liberal reduction; and an hundred writers will remain who frequently quote the New Testament, and who, when they do quote it, are probably as trustworthy witnesses to the Truth of Scripture as either Cod. א or Cod. B. We have indeed heard a great deal too much of the precariousness of this class of evidence: not nearly enough of the gross inaccuracies which disfigure the text of those two Codices. Quite surprising is it to discover to what an extent Patristic quotations from the New Testament have evidently retained their exact original form. What we chiefly desiderate at this time is a more careful revision of the text of the Fathers, and more skilfully elaborated indices of the works of each: not one of them having been hitherto satisfactorily indexed. It would be easy to demonstrate the importance of bestowing far more attention on this subject than it seems to have hitherto enjoyed: but I shall content myself with citing a single instance; and for this, (in order not to distract the reader's [pg 022]attention), I shall refer him to the Appendix.30 What is at least beyond the limits of controversy, whenever the genuineness of a considerable passage of Scripture is the point in dispute, the testimony of Fathers who undoubtedly recognise that passage, is beyond comparison the most valuable testimony we can enjoy.

6. For let it be only considered what is implied by a Patristic appeal to the Gospel. It amounts to this:—that a conspicuous personage, probably a Bishop of the Church,—one, therefore, whose history, date, place, are all more or less matter of notoriety,—gives us his written assurance that the passage in question was found in that copy of the Gospels which he was accustomed himself to employ; the uncial codex, (it has long since perished) which belonged to himself or to the Church which he served. It is evident, in short, that any objection to quotations from Scripture in the writings of the ancient Fathers can only apply to the form of those quotations; not to their substance. It is just as certain that a verse of Scripture was actually read by the Father who unmistakedly refers to it, as if we had read it with him; even though the gravest doubts may be entertained as to the “ipsissima verba” which were found in his own particular copy. He may have trusted to his memory: or copyists may have taken liberties with his writings: or editors may have misrepresented what they found in the written copies. The form of the quoted verse, I repeat, may have suffered almost to any extent. Thesubstance, on the contrary, inasmuch as it lay wholly beyond their province, may be looked upon as an indisputable fact.

7. Some such preliminary remarks, (never out of place when quotations from the Fathers are to be considered,) cannot well be withheld when the most venerable Ecclesiastical writings are appealed to. The earliest of the Fathers are observed to quote with singular licence,—toallude rather than to quote. Strange to relate, those ancient men seem scarcely to have been aware of the grave responsibility they incurred when they substituted expressions of their own for the utterances of the Spirit. It is evidently not so much [pg 023]that their memory is in fault, as theirjudgment,—in that they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to recast, to reconstruct.31

I. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that Papias refers to S. Mark xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous tradition concerning “Justus surnamed Barsabas,” “how that after drinking noxious poison, through the Lord's grace he experienced no evil consequence.”32 He does not give the words of the Evangelist. It is even surprising how completely he passes them by; and yet the allusion to the place just cited is manifest. Now, Papias is a writer who lived so near the time of the Apostles that he made it his delight to collect their traditional sayings. His date (according to Clinton) is A.D. 100.

II. Justin Martyr, the date of whose first Apology is A.D. 151, is observed to say concerning the Apostles that, after our Lord's Ascension,—ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν:33 which is nothing else but a quotation from the last verse of S. Mark's Gospel,—ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ. And thus it is found that the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel was familiarly known within fifty years of the death of the last of the Evangelists.

III. When Irenæus, in his third Book against Heresies, deliberately quotes and remarks upon the 19th verse of the last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel,34 we are put in possession of [pg 024]the certain fact that the entire passage now under consideration was extant in a copy of the Gospels which was used by the Bishop of the Church of Lyons sometime about the year A.D.180, and which therefore cannot possibly have been written much more than a hundred years after the date of the Evangelist himself: while it may have been written by a contemporary of S. Mark, and probably was written by one who lived immediately after his time.—Who sees not that this single piece of evidence is in itself sufficient to outweigh the testimony of any codex extant? It is in fact a mere trifling with words to distinguish between “Manuscript” and“Patristic” testimony in a case like this: for (as I have already explained) the passage quoted from S. Mark's Gospel by Irenæus is to all intents and purposes a fragment from a dated manuscript; and that MS., demonstrably older by at least one hundred and fifty years than the oldest copy of the Gospels which has come down to our times.

IV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of S. Mark were in the second century accounted an integral part of his Gospel. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus near Borne (190-227), a contemporary of Irenæus, quotes the 17th and 18th verses in his fragment Περὶ Χαρισμάτων.35 [pg 025]Also in his Homily on the heresy of Noetus,36 Hippolytus has a plain reference to this section of S. Mark's Gospel. To an inattentive reader, the passage alluded to might seem to be only the fragment of a Creed; but this is not the case. In the Creeds, Christ isinvariably spoken of as ανελθόντα: in the Scriptures, invariably as ἀναληθέντα.37 So that when Hippolytus says of Him, ἀναλαμβάνεται εἰς οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἐκ δεξιῶν Πατρὸς καθίζεται, the reference must needs be to S. Mark xvi. 19.

V. At the Seventh Council of Carthage held under Cyprian, A.D. 256, (on the baptizing of Heretics,) Vincentius, Bishop of Thibari, (a place not far from Carthage,) in the presence of the eighty-seven assembled African bishops, quoted two of the verses under consideration;38 and Augustine, about a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words afresh.39

VI. The Apocryphal Acta Pilati (sometimes called the “Gospel of Nicodemus”) Tischendorf assigns without hesitation to the iiird century; whether rightly or wrongly I have no means of ascertaining. It is at all events a very ancient forgery, and it contains the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th verses of this chapter.40

VII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver. 15 is clearly alluded to in two places of the (so-called) “Apostolical Constitutions;”41 and that verse 16 is quoted (with [pg 026]no variety of reading from the Textus Receptus42) in an earlier part of the same ancient work. The“Constitutions” are assigned to the iiird or the ivth century.43

VIII and IX. It will be shewn in Chapter V. that Eusebius, the Ecclesiastical Historian, was profoundly well acquainted with these verses. He discusses them largely, and (as I shall prove in the chapter referred to) was by no means disposed to question their genuineness. His Church History was published A.D. 325.

Marinus also, (whoever that individual may have been,) a contemporary of Eusebius,—inasmuch as he is introduced to our notice by Eusebius himself as asking a question concerning the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel without a trace of misgiving as to the genuineness of that about which he inquires,—is a competent witness in their favor who has hitherto been overlooked in this discussion.

X. Tischendorf and his followers state that Jacobus Nisibenus quotes these verses. For“Jacobus Nisibenus” read “Aphraates the Persian Sage,” and the statement will be correct. The history of the mistake is curious.

Jerome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, makes no mention of Jacob of Nisibis,—a famous Syrian Bishop who was present at the Council of Nicæa, A.D. 325. Gennadius of Marseille, (who carried on Jerome's list to the year 495) asserts that the reason of this omission was Jerome's ignorance of the Syriac language; and explains that Jacob was the author of twenty-two Syriac Homilies.44 Of these, there exists a very ancient Armenian translation; which was accordingly edited as the work of Jacobus Nisibenus with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1756. Gallandius reprinted both the Armenian and the Latin; and to Gallandius (vol. v.) we are referred whenever “Jacobus Nisibenus” is quoted.

[pg 027]

But the proposed attribution of the Homilies in question,—though it has been acquiesced in for nearly 1400 years,—is incorrect. Quite lately the Syriac originals have come to light, and they prove to be the work of Aphraates, “the Persian Sage,”—a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of the Syrian Church. In the first Homily, (which bears date A.D. 337), verses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are quoted,45—yet not from the version known as the Curetonian Syriac, nor yet from the Peshito exactly.46—Here, then, is another wholly independent witness to the last twelve verses of S. Mark, coeval certainly with the two oldest copies of the Gospel extant,—B and א.

XI. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan (A.D. 374-397) freely quotes this portion of the Gospel,—citing ver. 15 four times: verses 16, 17 and 18, each three times: ver. 20, once.47

XII. The testimony of Chrysostom (A.D. 400) has been all but overlooked. In part of a Homily claimed for him by his Benedictine Editors, he points out that S. Luke alone of the Evangelists describes the Ascension: S. Matthew and S. John not speaking of it,—S. Mark recording the event only. Then he quotes verses 19, 20. “This” (he adds) “is the end of the Gospel. Mark makes no extended mention of the Ascension.”48 Elsewhere he has an unmistakable reference to S. Mark xvi. 9.49

XIII. Jerome, on a point like this, is entitled to more attention than any other Father of the Church. Living at a very early period, (for he was born in 331 and died in 420,)—endowed with extraordinary Biblical learning,—a man of excellent judgment,—and a professed Editor of[pg 028]the New Testament, for the execution of which task he enjoyed extraordinary facilities,—his testimony is most weighty. Not unaware am I that Jerome is commonly supposed to be a witness on the opposite side: concerning which mistake I shall have to speak largely in Chapter V. But it ought to be enough to point out that we should not have met with these last twelve verses in the Vulgate, had Jerome held them to be spurious.50 He familiarly quotes the 9th verse in one place of his writings;51 in another place he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the copies, (especially the Greek,) was found after ver. 14 the reply of the eleven Apostles, when our Saviour “upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen.”52 To discuss so weak and worthless a forgery,—no trace of which is found in any MS. in existence, and of which nothing whatever is known except what Jerome here tells us,—would be to waste our time indeed. The fact remains, however, that Jerome, besides giving these last twelve verses a place in the Vulgate, quotes S. Mark xvi. 14, as well as ver. 9, in the course of his writings.

XIV. It was to have been expected that Augustine would quote these verses: but he more than quotes them. He brings them forward again and again,53—discusses them as the work of S. Mark,—remarks that “in diebus Paschalibus,” S. Mark's narrative of the Resurrection was publicly [pg 029]read in the Church.54 All this is noteworthy. Augustine flourished A.D. 395-430.

XV. and XVI. Another very important testimony to the genuineness of the concluding part of S. Mark's Gospel is furnished by the unhesitating manner in which Nestorius, the heresiarch, quotes ver. 20; and Cyril of Alexandria accepts his quotation, adding a few words of his own.55 Let it be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the discovery of two dated codices containing the last twelve verses of S. Mark,—and that date anterior (it is impossible to say by how many years) to A.D. 430.

XVII. Victor of Antioch, (concerning whom I shall have to speak very largely in Chapter V.,) flourished about A.D. 425. The critical testimony which he bears to the genuineness of these verses is more emphatic than is to be met with in the pages of any other ancient Father. It may be characterized as the most conclusive testimony which it was in his power to render.

XVIII. Hesychius of Jerusalem, by a singular oversight, has been reckoned among the impugners of these verses. He is on the contrary their eager advocate and champion. It seems to have escaped observation that towards the close of his “Homily on the Resurrection,”(published in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, and erroneously ascribed to that Father,) Hesychius appeals to the 19th verse, and quotes it as S. Mark's at length.56 The date of Hesychius is uncertain; but he may, I suppose, be considered to belong to the vith century. His evidence is discussed in Chapter V.

XIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a reference to the Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae,—an ancient work [pg 030]ascribed to Athanasius,57 but probably not the production of that Father. It is at all events of much older date than any of the later uncials; and it rehearses in detail the contents of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.58

It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic authorities; as, by appealing to Gregentius in the vith century, and to Gregory the Great, and Modestus, patriarch of Constantinople in the viith;—to Ven. Bede and John Damascene in the viiith;—to Theophylact in the xith;—to Euthymius in the xiith59: but I forbear. It would add no strength to my argument that I should by such evidence support it; as the reader will admit when he has read my Xthchapter.

It will be observed then that three competent Patristic witnesses of the iind century,—four of the iiird,—six of the ivth,—four of the vth,—and two (of uncertain date, but probably) of the vith,—have admitted their familiarity with these “last Twelve Verses.” Yet do they not belong to one particular age, school, or country. They come, on the contrary, from every part of the ancient Church: Antioch and [pg 031]Constantinople,—Hierapolis, Cæsarea and Edessa,—Carthage, Alexandria and Hippo,—Rome and Portus. And thus, upwards of nineteen early codexes have been to all intents and purposes inspected for us in various lands by unprejudiced witnesses,—seven of them at least of more ancient date than the oldest copy of the Gospels extant.

I propose to recur to this subject for an instant when the reader has been made acquainted with the decisive testimony which ancient Versions supply. But the Versions deserve a short Chapter to themselves.

[pg 032]

CHAPTER IV.

THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.

The Peshito,—the Curetonian Syriac,—and the Recension of Thomas of Hharkel (p. 33.)—The Vulgate (p. 34)—and the Vetus Itala (p. 35)—the Gothic (p. 35)—and the Egyptian Versions (p. 35).—Review of the Evidence up to this point, (p. 36).

It was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to establish in detail the Text of the Gospels, the testimony of Manuscripts is incomparably the most important of all. To early Versions, the second place was assigned. To Patristic citations, the third. But it was explained that whenever (as here) the only question to be decided is whether a considerable portion of Scripture be genuine or not, then, Patristic references yield to no class of evidence in importance. To which statement it must now be added that second only to the testimony of Fathers on such occasions is to be reckoned the evidence of the oldest of the Versions. The reason is obvious, (a.) We know for the most part the approximate date of the principal ancient Versions of the New Testament:—(b.) Each Version is represented by at least one very ancient Codex:—and (c.) It may be safely assumed that Translators were never dependant on a single copy of the original Greek when they executed their several Translations. Proceed we now to ascertain what evidence the oldest of the Versions bear concerning the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel: and first of all for the Syriac.

I. “Literary history,” (says Mr. Scrivener,) “can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for the identity of the Version of the Syriac now called the ‘Peshito’ with that used by the Eastern Church long before the great schism had its beginning, in the native land [pg 033]of the blessed Gospel.” The Peshito is referred by common consent to the iind century of our æra; and is found to contain the verses in question.

II. This, however, is not all. Within the last thirty years, fragments of another very ancient Syriac translation of the Gospels, (called from the name of its discoverer “The Curetonian Syriac,”) have come to light:60 and in this translation also the verses in question are found.61This fragmentary codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the vth century. At what earlier date the Translation may have been executed,—as well as how much older the original Greek copy may have been which this translator employed,—can of course only be conjectured. But it is clear that we are listening to another truly primitive witness to the genuineness of the text now under consideration;—a witness (like the last) vastly more ancient than either the Vatican Codex B, or the Sinaitic Codex א; more ancient, therefore, than any Greek copy of the Gospels in existence. We shall not be thought rash if we claim it for the iiird century.

III. Even this, however, does not fully represent the sum of the testimony which the Syriac language bears on this subject. Philoxenus, Monophysite Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria, caused a revision of the Peshito Syriac to be executed by his Chorepiscopus Polycarp, A.D. 508; and by the aid of three62 approved and accurate Greek manuscripts, this revised version of Polycarp was again revised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the monastery of Antonia at Alexandria, A.D. 616. The Hharklensian Revision, (commonly called the“Philoxenian,”) is therefore an extraordinary monument of ecclesiastical antiquity indeed: for, being the Revision of a revised Translation of the New Testament known to have been executed from MSS. which must have been at least as old as the vth century, it exhibits [pg 034]the result of what may be called a collation of copies made at a time when only four of our extant uncials were in existence. Here, then, is a singularly important accumulation of manuscript evidence on the subject of the verses which of late years it has become the fashion to treat as spurious. And yet, neither by Polycarp nor by Thomas of Hharkel, are the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel omitted.63

To these, if I do not add the “Jerusalem version,”—(as an independent Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sections, perhaps of the vth century, is called,64)—it is because our fourfold Syriac evidence is already abundantly sufficient. In itself, it far outweighs in respect of antiquity anything that can be shewn on the other side. Turn we next to the Churches of the West.

IV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382), was the author of that famous Latin version of the Scriptures called The Vulgate, is known to all. It seems scarcely possible to overestimate the critical importance of such a work,—executed at such a time,—under such auspices,—and by a man of so much learning and sagacity as Jerome. When it is considered that we are here presented with the results of a careful examination of the best Greek Manuscripts to which a competent scholar had access in the middle of the fourth century,—(and Jerome assures us that [pg 035]he consulted several,)—we learn to survey with diminished complacency our own slender stores (if indeed any at all exist) of corresponding antiquity. It is needless to add that the Vulgate contains the disputed verses: that from no copy of this Version are they away. Now, in such a matter as this, Jerome's testimony is very weighty indeed.

V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much older translation, generally known as the Vetus Itala. This Old Latin, which is of African origin and of almost Apostolic antiquity, (supposed of the iind century,) conspires with the Vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the genuineness of the end of S. Mark's Gospel:65—an emphatic witness that in the African province, from the earliest time, no doubt whatever was entertained concerning the genuineness of these last twelve verses.

VI. The next place may well be given to the venerable version of the Gothic Bishop Ulphilas,—A.D. 350. Himself a Cappadocian, Ulphilas probably derived his copies from Asia Minor. His version is said to have been exposed to certain corrupting influences; but the unequivocal evidence which it bears to the last verses of S. Mark is at least unimpeachable, and must be regarded as important in the highest degree.66 The oldest extant copy of the Gothic of Ulphilas is assigned to the vth or early in the vith century: and the verses in question are there also met with.

VII. and VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next for notice: their testimony being so exceedingly ancient and respectable. The Memphitic, or dialect of Lower Egypt, (less properly called the “Coptic” version), which is assigned to the ivth or vth century, contains S. Mark xvi. 9-20.—Fragments of the Thebaic, or dialect of Upper Egypt, (a distinct version and of considerably earlier date, [pg 036]less properly called the “Sahidic,”) survive in MSS. of very nearly the same antiquity: and one of these fragments happily contains the last verse of the Gospel according to S. Mark. The Thebaic version is referred to the iiird century.

After this mass of evidence, it will be enough to record concerning the Armenian version, that it yields inconstant testimony: some of the MSS. ending at ver. 8; others putting after these words the subscription, (ἐυαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαρκον,) and then giving the additional verses with a new subscription: others going on without any break to the end. This version may be as old as the vth century; but like the Ethiopic [iv-vii?] and the Georgian [vi?] it comes to us in codices of comparatively recent date. All this makes it impossible for us to care much for its testimony. The two last-named versions, whatever their disadvantages may be, at least bear constant witness to the genuineness of the verses in dispute.

1. And thus we are presented with a mass of additional evidence,—so various, so weighty, so multitudinous, so venerable,—in support of this disputed portion of the Gospel, that it might well be deemed in itself decisive.

2. For these Versions do not so much shew what individuals held, as what Churches have believed and taught concerning the sacred Text,—mighty Churches in Syria and Mesopotamia, in Africa and Italy, in Palestine and Egypt.

3. We may here, in fact, conveniently review the progress which has been hitherto made in this investigation. And in order to bar the door against dispute and cavil, let us be content to waive the testimony of Papias as precarious, and that of Justin Martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive. Let us frankly admit that the citation of Vincentius à Thibari at the viith Carthaginian Council is sufficiently inexact to make it unsafe to build upon it. The “Acta Pilati” and the“Apostolical Constitutions,” since their date is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the ivthcentury only, and not for the iiird. And now, how will the evidence stand for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel?

[pg 037]

(a) In the vth century, to which Codex A and Codex C are referred, (for Codex D is certainly later,) at least three famous Greeks and the most illustrious of the Latin Fathers,—(fourauthorities in all,)—are observed to recognise these verses.

(b) In the ivth century, (to which Codex B and Codex א probably belong, five Greek writers, one Syriac, and two Latin Fathers,—besides the Vulgate, Gothic and Memphitic Versions,—(eleven authorities in all,)—testify to familiar acquaintance with this portion of S. Mark's Gospel.

(c) In the iiird century, (and by this time MS. evidence has entirely forsaken us,) we find Hippolytus, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Thebaic Version, bearing plain testimony that at that early period, in at least three distinct provinces of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever attached to these verses. Lastly,—

(d) In the iind century, Irenæus, the Peshito, and the Italic Version as plainly attest that in Gaul, in Mesopotamia and in the African province, the same verses were unhesitatingly received within a century (more or less) of the date of the inspired autograph of the Evangelist himself.

4. Thus, we are in possession of the testimony of at least six independent witnesses, of a date considerably anterior to the earliest extant Codex of the Gospels. They are all of the best class. They deliver themselves in the most unequivocal way. And their testimony to the genuineness of these Verses is unfaltering.

5. It is clear that nothing short of direct adverse evidence of the weightiest kind can sensibly affect so formidable an array of independent authorities as this. What must the evidence be which shall set it entirely aside, and induce us to believe, with the most recent editors of the inspired Text, that the last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired author, ended abruptly at ver. 8?

The grounds for assuming that his “last Twelve Verses” are spurious, shall be exhibited in the ensuing chapter.

[pg 038]

CHAPTER V.

THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS.

The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p. 39).—The misconception concerning Eusebius (p. 41).—The oversight concerning Jerome (p. 51);—also concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, (or else Severus of Antioch) (p. 57);—and concerning Victor of Antioch (p. 59).

It would naturally follow to shew that manuscript evidence confirms the evidence of the ancient Fathers and of the early Versions of Scripture. But it will be more satisfactory that I should proceed to examine without more delay the testimony, which, (as it is alleged,) is borne by a cloud of ancient Fathers against the last twelve verses of S. Mark. “The absence of this portion from some, from many, or from most copies of his Gospel, or that it was not written by S. Mark himself,” (says Dr. Tregelles,) “is attested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especially Greeks.”67 The same Fathers are appealed to by Dr. Davidson, who adds to the list Euthymius; and by Tischendorf and Alford, who add the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem. They also refer to “many ancient Scholia.” “These verses” (says Tischendorf) “are not recognised by the sections of Ammonius nor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and Cæsarius bear witness to the fact.”68 “In the Catenæ on Mark” (proceeds Davidson) “the section is not explained. Nor is there any trace of acquaintance with it on the part of Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria;”—a remark which others have made also; as if it were a surprising circumstance that Clement of Alexandria, who appears to have no reference to the last chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel, should [pg 039]be also without any reference to the last chapter of S. Mark's: as if, too, it were an extraordinary thing that Clement of Rome should have omitted to quote from the last chapter of S. Mark,—seeing that the same Clement does not quote from S. Mark's Gospel at all.... The alacrity displayed by learned writers in accumulating hostile evidence, is certainly worthy of a better cause. Strange, that their united industry should have been attended with such very unequal success when their object was to exhibit the evidence in favour of the present portion of Scripture.

(1) Eusebius then, and (2) Jerome; (3) Gregory of Nyssa and (4) Hesychius of Jerusalem; (5) Severus of Antioch, (6) Victor of Antioch, and (7) Euthymius:—Do the accomplished critics just quoted,—Doctors Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Davidson, really mean to tell us that “it is attested” by these seven Fathers that the concluding section of S. Mark's Gospel “was not written by S. Mark himself?” Why, there is not one of them who says so: while some of them say the direct reverse. But let us go on. It is, I suppose, because there are Twelve Verses to be demolished that the list is further eked out with the names of (8) Ammonius, (9) Epiphanius, and (10) Cæsarius,—to say nothing of (11) the anonymous authors of Catenæ, and (12) “later writers, especially Greeks.”

I. I shall examine these witnesses one by one: but it will be convenient in the first instance to call attention to the evidence borne by,

Gregory of Nyssa.

This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself as follows in his second “Homily on the Resurrection;”69—“In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, however, this also is added,—‘Now when He was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.’ ”

[pg 040]

That this testimony should have been so often appealed to as proceeding from Gregory of Nyssa,70 is little to the credit of modern scholarship. One would have supposed that the gravity of the subject,—the importance of the issue,—the sacredness of Scripture, down to its minutest jot and tittle,—would have ensured extraordinary caution, and induced every fresh assailant of so considerable a portion of the Gospel to be very sure of his ground before reiterating what his predecessors had delivered. And yet it is evident that not one of the recent writers on the subject can have investigated this matter for himself. It is only due to their known ability to presume that had they taken ever so little pains with the foregoing quotation, they would have found out their mistake.

(1.) For, in the first place, the second “Homily on the Resurrection” printed in the iiird volume of the works of Gregory of Nyssa, (and which supplies the critics with their quotation,) is, as every one may see who will take the trouble to compare them, word for word the same Homily which Combefis in his “Novum Auctarium,” and Gallandius in his “Bibliotheca Patrum”printed as the work of Hesychius, and vindicated to that Father, respectively in 1648 and 1776.71 Now, if a critic chooses to risk his own reputation by maintaining that the Homily in question is indeed by Gregory of Nyssa, and is not by Hesychius,—well and good. But since the Homily can have had but one author, it is surely high time that one of these two claimants should be altogether dropped from this discussion.

(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same Homily is observed to reappear, word for word, under the name of “Severus of Antioch,” and to be unsuspiciously printed as his by Montfaucon in his “Bibliotheca Coisliniana” (1715), and by Cramer in his “Catena”72 (1844),—although it may very reasonably become a question among critics whether Hesychius of Jerusalem or Severus of Antioch [pg 041]was the actual author of the Homily in question,73 yet it is plain that critics must make their election between the two names; and not bring them bothforward. No one, I say, has any right to go on quoting “Severus” and “Hesychius,”—as Tischendorf and Dr. Davidson are observed to do:—“Gregory of Nyssa” and “Severus of Antioch,”—as Dr. Tregelles is found to prefer.

(3.) In short, here are three claimants for the authorship of one and the same Homily. To whichever of the three we assign it,—(and competent judges have declared that there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Hesychius rather than to Severus,—while no one is found to suppose that Gregory of Nyssa was its author,)—who will not admit that no further mention must be made of the other two?

(4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth the name of “Gregory of Nyssa”must be banished from this discussion. So must the name of “Severus of Antioch.” The memorable passage which begins,—“In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid,’ ”—is found in a Homily which was probably written by Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem,—a writer of the vith century. I shall have to recur to his work by-and-by. The next name is

Eusebius,

II. With respect to whom the case is altogether different. What that learned Father has delivered concerning the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel requires to be examined with attention, and must be set forth much more in detail. And yet, I will so far anticipate what is about to be offered, as to say at once that if any one supposes that Eusebius has anywhere plainly “stated that it is wanted in many MSS.,”74—he is mistaken. Eusebius nowhere says so. The reader's attention is invited to a plain tale.

It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by [pg 042]Cardinal Angelo Mai75 with a few fragmentary specimens of a lost work of Eusebius on the (so-called) Inconsistencies in the Gospels, from a MS. in the Vatican.76 These, the learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in his “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca;”77 and hither we are invariably referred by those who cite Eusebius as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of the second Gospel.

It is much to be regretted that we are still as little as ever in possession of the lost work of Eusebius. It appears to have consisted of three Books or Parts; the former two (addressed “to Stephanus”) being discussions of difficulties at the beginning of the Gospel,—the last (“to Marinus”) relating to difficulties in its concluding chapters.78 The Author's plan, (as usual in such works), was, first, to set forth a difficulty in the form of a Question; and straightway, to propose a Solution of it,—which commonly assumes the form of a considerable dissertation. But whether we are at present in possession of so much as a single entire specimen of these“Inquiries and Resolutions” exactly as it came from the pen of Eusebius, may reasonably be doubted. That [pg 043]the work which Mai has brought to light is but a highly condensed exhibition of the original, (and scarcely that,) its very title shews; for it is headed,—“An abridged selection from the ‘Inquiries and Resolutions [of difficulties] in the Gospels’ by Eusebius.”79 Only someof the original Questions, therefore, are here noticed at all: and even these have been subjected to so severe a process of condensation and abridgment, that in some instances amputationwould probably be a more fitting description of what has taken place. Accordingly, what were originally two Books or Parts, are at present represented by XVI. “Inquiries,” &c, addressed“to Stephanus;” while the concluding Book or Part is represented by IV. more, “to Marinus,”—of which, the first relates to our Lord's appearing to Mary Magdalene after His Resurrection. Now, since the work which Eusebius addressed to Marinus is found to have contained “Inquiries, with their Resolutions, concerning our Saviour's Death and Resurrection,”80—while a quotation professing to be derived from “the thirteenth chapter”relates to Simon the Cyrenian bearing our Saviour's Cross;81—it is obvious that the original work must have been very considerable, and that what Mai has recovered gives an utterly inadequate idea of its extent and importance.82 It is absolutely necessary [pg 044]that all this should be clearly apprehended by any one who desires to know exactly what the alleged evidence of Eusebius concerning the last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel is worth,—as I will explain more fully by-and-by. Let it, however, be candidly admitted that there seems to be no reason for supposing that whenever the lost work of Eusebius comes to light, (and it has been seen within about 300 years83,) it will exhibit anything essentially different from what is contained in the famous passage which has given rise to so much debate, and which may be exhibited in English as follows. It is put in the form of a reply to one “Marinus,” who is represented as asking, first, the following question:—

“How is it, that, according to Matthew [xxviii. 1], the Saviour appears to have risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ but, according to Mark [xvi. 9], ‘early the first day of the week’?”—Eusebius answers,

“This difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for [pg 045]getting rid of the entire passage,84will say that it is not met with in all the copies of Mark's Gospel: the accurate copies, at all events, making the end of Mark's narrative come after the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said, ‘Fear not ye! Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth,’ &c.: to which the Evangelist adds,—‘And when they heard it, they fled, and said nothing to any man, for they were afraid.’ For at those words, in almost all copies of the Gospel according to Mark, comes the end. What follows, (which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, certainly not in all,) might be dispensed with; especially if it should prove to contradict the record of the other Evangelists. This, then, is what a person will say who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem.

“But another, on no account daring to reject anything whatever which is, under whatever circumstances, met with in the text of the Gospels, will say that here are two readings, (as is so often the case elsewhere;) and that both are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, this reading is not held to be genuine rather than that; nor that than this.”

It will be best to exhibit the whole of what Eusebius has written on this subject,—as far as we are permitted to know it,—continuously. He proceeds:—

“Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our business is to interpret the sense of the passage.85 And certainly, if I divide the meaning into two, we shall find that it is not opposed to what Matthew says of our Saviour's having risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath.’ For Mark's expression, [pg 046](‘Now when He was risen early the first day of the week,’) we shall read with a pause, putting a comma after ‘Now when He was risen,’—the sense of the words which follow being kept separate. Thereby, we shall refer [Mark's] ‘when He was risen’ to Matthew's ‘in the end of the Sabbath,’ (for it was then that He rose); and all that comes after, expressive as it is of a distinct notion, we shall connect with what follows; (for it was ‘early, the first day of the week,’ that ‘He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’) This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ [Jesus] appeared to the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also says that He appeared to her early: not that He rose early, but long before, (according to that of Matthew, ‘in the end of the Sabbath:’ for though He rose then, He did not appear to Mary then, but ‘early.’) In a word, two distinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of the Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the season of our Saviour's Appearing,—which was‘early.’ The former,86 Mark writes of when he says, (it requires to be read with a pause,)—‘Now, when He was risen,’ Then, after a comma, what follows is to be spoken,—‘Early, the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.’ ”87—Such is the entire passage. Little did the learned writer anticipate what bitter fruit his words were destined to bear!

1. Let it be freely admitted that what precedes is calculated at first sight to occasion nothing but surprise and perplexity. For, in the first place, there really is no problem to solve. The discrepancy suggested by “Marinus” at the outset, is plainly imaginary, the result (chiefly) of a strange misconception of the meaning of the Evangelist's Greek,—as in fact no one was ever better aware than Eusebius himself. “These places of the Gospels would never have occasioned any difficulty,” he writes in the very next page, [pg 047](but it is the commencement of his reply to the second question of Marinus,)—“if people would but abstain from assuming that Matthew's phrase (ὀψὲ σαββάτων) refers to the evening of the Sabbath-day: whereas, (in conformity with the established idiom of the language,) it obviously refers to an advanced period of the ensuing night.”88 He proceeds:—“The self-same moment therefore, or very nearly the self-same, is intended by the Evangelists, only under different names: and there is no discrepancy whatever between Matthew's,—‘in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,’ and John's—‘The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalen early, when it was yet dark.’ The Evangelists indicate by different expressions one and the same moment of time, but in a broad and general way.” And yet, if Eusebius knew all this so well, why did he not say so at once, and close the discussion? I really cannot tell; except on one hypothesis,—which, although at first it may sound somewhat extraordinary, the more I think of the matter, recommends itself to my acceptance the more. I suspect, then, that the discussion we have just been listening to, is, essentially, not an original production: but that Eusebius, having met with the suggestion in some older writer, (in Origen probably,) reproduced it in language of his own,—doubtless because he thought it ingenious and interesting, but not by any means because he regarded it as true. Except on some such theory, I am utterly unable to understand how Eusebius can have written so inconsistently. His admirable remarks just quoted, are obviously a full and sufficient answer,—the proper answer in fact,—to the proposed difficulty: and it is a memorable circumstance that the ancients generally were so sensible of this, that they are found to have invariably89 substituted [pg 048]what Eusebius wrote in reply to the second question of Marinus for what he wrote in reply to the first; in other words, for the dissertation which is occasioning us all this difficulty.

2. But next, even had the discrepancy been real, the remedy for it which is here proposed, and which is advocated with such tedious emphasis, would probably prove satisfactory to no one. In fact, the entire method advocated in the foregoing passage is hopelessly vicious. The writer begins by advancing statements which, if he believed them to be true, he must have known are absolutely fatal to the verses in question. This done, he sets about discussing the possibility of reconciling an isolated expression in S. Mark's Gospel with another in S. Matthew's: just as if on that depended the genuineness or spuriousness of the entire context: as if, in short, the major premiss in the discussion were some such postulate as the following:—“Whatever in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely consistent with something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded as genuine.” Did then the learned Archbishop of Cæsarea really suppose that a comma judiciously thrown into the empty scale might at any time suffice to restore the equilibrium, and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of almost every MS. of the Gospels extant? Why does he not at least deny the truth of the alleged facts to which he began by giving currency, if not approval; and which, so long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted, render all further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory? As before, I really cannot tell,—except on the hypothesis which has been already hazarded.

3. Note also, (for this is not the least extraordinary feature of the case,) what vague and random statements those are which we have been listening to. The entire section [pg 049](S. Mark xvi. 9-20,) “is not met with in all the copies:” at all events not “in the accurate” ones. Nay, it is“met with seldom.” In fact, it is absent from “almost all” copies. But,—Which of these four statements is to stand? The first is comparatively unimportant. Not so the second. The last two, on the contrary, would be absolutely fatal,—if trustworthy? But are they trustworthy?

To this question only one answer can be returned. The exaggeration is so gross that it refutes itself. Had it been merely asserted that the verses in question were wanting in many of the copies,—even had it been insisted that the best copies were without them,—well and good: but to assert that, in the beginning of the fourth century, from “almost all” copies of the Gospels they were away,—is palpably untrue. What had become then of the MSS. from which the Syriac, the Latin, all the ancient Versions were made? How is the contradictory evidence of every copy of the Gospels in existence but two to be accounted for? With Irenæus and Hippolytus, with the old Latin and the Vulgate, with the Syriac, and the Gothic, and the Egyptian versions to refer to, we are able to assert that the author of such a statement was guilty of monstrous exaggeration. We are reminded of the loose and random way in which the Fathers,—(giants in Interpretation, but very children in the Science of Textual Criticism,)—are sometimes observed to speak about the state of the Text in their days. We are reminded, for instance, of the confident assertion of an ancient Critic that the true reading in S. Luke xxiv. 13 is not “three-score” but “an hundred and three-score;” for that so “the accurate copies”used to read the place, besides Origen and Eusebius. And yet (as I have elsewhere explained) the reading ἑκατὸν καὶ ἑξήκοντα is altogether impossible. “Apud nos mixta sunt omnia,” is Jerome's way of adverting to an evil which, serious as it was, was yet not nearly so great as he represents; viz. the unauthorized introduction into one Gospel of what belongs of right to another. And so in a multitude of other instances. The Fathers are, in fact, constantly observed to make critical remarks about the ancient copies which simply cannot be correct.

[pg 050]

And yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be it observed, is clearly not Eusebius. It is evident that he has nothing to say against the genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel. Those random statements about the copies with which he began, do not even purport to express his own sentiments. Nay, Eusebius in a manner repudiates them; for he introduces them with a phrase which separates them from himself: and, “This then is what a person will say,”—is the remark with which he finally dismisses them. It would, in fact, be to make this learned Father stultify himself to suppose that he proceeds gravely to discuss a portion of Scripture which he had already deliberately rejected as spurious. But, indeed, the evidence before us effectually precludes any such supposition. “Here are two readings,” he says, “(as is so often the case elsewhere:) both of which are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, this reading is not held to be genuine rather than that; nor that than this.” And thus we seem to be presented with the actual opinion of Eusebius, as far as it can be ascertained from the present passage,—if indeed he is to be thought here to offer any personal opinion on the subject at all; which, for my own part, I entirely doubt. But whether we are at liberty to infer the actual sentiments of this Father from anything here delivered or not, quite certain at least is it that to print only the first half of the passage, (as Tischendorf and Tregelles have done,) and then to give the reader to understand that he is reading the adverse testimony of Eusebius as to the genuineness of the end of S. Mark's Gospel, is nothing else but to misrepresent the facts of the case; and, however unintentionally, to deceive those who are unable to verify the quotation for themselves.

It has been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have recognised the verses in question as genuine, because a scholium purporting to be his has been cited by Matthaei from a Catena at Moscow, in which he appears to assert that “according to Mark,” our Saviour “is not recorded to have appeared to His Disciples after His Resurrection:” whereas in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is plainly recorded that “Afterwards [pg 051]He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat at meat.”May I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the proposed inference, and shall continue to feel so, until I know something more about the scholium in question? Up to the time when this page is printed I have not succeeded in obtaining from Moscow the details I wish for: but they must be already on the way, and I propose to embody the result in a “Postscript”which shall form the last page of the Appendix to the present volume.

Are we then to suppose that there was no substratum of truth in the allegations to which Eusebius gives such prominence in the passage under discussion? By no means. The mutilated state of S. Mark's Gospel in the Vatican Codex (B) and especially in the Sinaitic Codex (א) sufficiently establishes the contrary. Let it be freely conceded, (but in fact it has been freely conceded already,) that there must have existed in the time of Eusebius many copies of S. Mark's Gospel which were without the twelve concluding verses. I do but insist that there is nothing whatever in that circumstance to lead us to entertain one serious doubt as to the genuineness of these verses. I am but concerned to maintain that there is nothing whatever in the evidence which has hitherto come before us,—certainly not in the evidence of Eusebius,—to induce us to believe that they are a spurious addition to S. Mark's Gospel.

III. We have next to consider what

Jerome

has delivered on this subject. So great a name must needs command attention in any question of Textual Criticism: and it is commonly pretended that Jerome pronounces emphatically against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. A little attention to the actual testimony borne by this Father will, it is thought, suffice to exhibit it in a wholly unexpected light; and induce us to form an entirely different estimate of its practical bearing upon the present discussion.

It will be convenient that I should premise that it is in one of his many exegetical Epistles that Jerome discusses this matter. A lady named Hedibia, inhabiting the furthest [pg 052]extremity of Gaul, and known to Jerome only by the ardour of her piety, had sent to prove him with hard questions. He resolves her difficulties from Bethlehem:90 and I may be allowed to remind the reader of what is found to have been Jerome's practice on similar occasions,—which, to judge from his writings, were of constant occurrence. In fact, Apodemius, who brought Jerome the Twelve problems from Hedibia, brought him Eleven more from a noble neighbour of hers, Algasia.91 Once, when a single messenger had conveyed to him out of the African province a quantity of similar interrogatories, Jerome sent two Egyptian monks the following account of how he had proceeded in respect of the inquiry,—(it concerned 1 Cor. xv. 51,)—which they had addressed to him:—“Being pressed for time, I have presented you with the opinions of all the Commentators; for the most part, translating their very words; in order both to get rid of your question, and to put you in possession of ancient authorities on the subject.” This learned Father does not even profess to have been in the habit of delivering his own opinions, or speaking his own sentiments on such occasions. “This has been hastily dictated,” he says in conclusion,—(alluding to his constant practice, which was to dictate, rather than to write,)—“in order that I might lay before you what have been the opinions of learned men on this subject, as well as the arguments by which they have recommended their opinions. My own authority, (who am but nothing,) is vastly inferior to that of our predecessors in the Lord.”Then, after special commendation of the learning of Origen and Eusebius, and the valuable Scriptural expositions of many more,—“My plan,” (he says,) “is to read the ancients; to prove all things, to hold fast that which is good; and to abide steadfast in the faith of the Catholic Church.—I must now dictate replies, either original or at second-hand, to other Questions which lie before me.”92 We are not surprised, after this straightforward avowal of what was the method [pg 053]on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover that, instead of hearing Jeromeaddressing Hedibia,—(who had interrogated him concerning the very problem which is at present engaging our attention,)—we find ourselves only listening to Eusebius over again, addressing Marinus.

“This difficulty admits of a two-fold solution,” Jerome begins; as if determined that no doubt shall be entertained as to the source of his inspiration. Then, (making short work of the tedious disquisition of Eusebius,)—“Either we shall reject the testimony of Mark, which is met with in scarcely any copies of the Gospel,—almost all the Greek codices being without this passage:—(especially since it seems to narrate what contradicts the other Gospels:)—or else, we shall reply that both Evangelists state what is true: Matthew, when he says that our Lord rose ‘late in the week:’ Mark,—when he says that Mary Magdalene saw Him ‘early, the first day of the week.’ For the passage must be thus pointed,—‘When He was risen:’ and presently, after a pause, must be added,—‘Early, the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’He therefore who had risen late in the week, according to Matthew,—Himself, early the first day of the week, according to Mark, appeared to Mary Magdalene. And this is what John also means, shewing that it was early on the next day that He appeared.”—To understand how faithfully in what precedes Jerome treads in the footsteps of Eusebius, it is absolutely necessary to set the Latin of the one over against the Greek of the other, and to compare them. In order to facilitate this operation, I have subjoined both originals at foot of the page: from which it will be apparent that Jerome is here not so much adopting the sentiments of Eusebius as simplytranslating his words.93

[pg 054]

This, however, is not by any means the strangest feature of the case. That Jerome should have availed himself ever so freely of the materials which he found ready to his hand in the pages of Eusebius cannot be regarded as at all extraordinary, after what we have just heard from himself of his customary method of proceeding. It would of course have suggested the gravest doubts as to whether we were here listening to the personal sentiment of this Father, or not; but that would have been all. What are we to think, however, of the fact that Hedibia's question to Jerome proves on inspection to be nothing more than a translation of the very question which Marinus had long before addressed to Eusebius? We read on, perplexed at the coincidence; and speedily make the notable discovery that her next question, and her next, are also translations word for word of the next two of Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is again referred to the foot of the page.94 It is at least decisive: [pg 055]and the fact, which admits of only one explanation, can be attended by only one practical result. It of course shelves the whole question as far as the evidence of Jerome is concerned. Whether Hedibia was an actual personage or not, let those decide who have considered more attentively than it has ever fallen in my way to do that curious problem,—What was the ancient notion of the allowable in Fiction? That different ideas have prevailed in different ages of the world as to where fiction ends and fabrication begins;—that widely discrepant views are entertained on the subject even in our own age;—all must be aware. I decline to investigate the problem on the present occasion. I do but claim to have established beyond the possibility of doubt or cavil that what we are here presented with is not the testimony of Jerome at all. It is evident that this learned Father amused himself with translating for the benefit of his Latin readers a part of the (lost) work of Eusebius; (which, by the way, he is found to have possessed in the same abridged form in which it has come down to ourselves:)—and he seems to have regarded it as allowable to attribute to “Hedibia” the problems which he there met with. (He may perhaps have known that Eusebius before him had attributed them, with just as little reason, to “Marinus.”) In that age, for aught that appears to the contrary, it may have been regarded as a graceful compliment to address solutions of Scripture difficulties to persons of distinction, who possibly had never heard of those difficulties before; and even to represent the Interrogatories which suggested them as originating with themselves. I offer this only in the way of suggestion, and am not concerned to defend it. The only point I am concerned to establish is that Jerome is here a translator, not an original author: in other words, that it isEusebius who here speaks, and not Jerome. For a critic to pretend that it [pg 056]is in any sense the testimony of Jerome which we are here presented with; that Jerome is one of those Fathers“who, even though they copied from their predecessors, were yet competent to transmit the record of a fact,”95—is entirely to misunderstand the case. The man who translates,—not adopts, but translates,—the problem as well as its solution: who deliberately asserts that it emanated from a Lady inhabiting the furthest extremity of Gaul, who nevertheless was demonstrably not its author: who goes on to propose as hers question after question verbatim as he found them written in the pages of Eusebius; and then resolves them one by one in the very language of the same Father:—such a writer has clearly conducted us into a region where his individual responsibility quite disappears from sight. We must hear no more about Jerome, therefore, as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel.

On the contrary. Proof is at hand that Jerome held these verses to be genuine. The proper evidence of this is supplied by the fact that he gave them a place in his revision of the old Latin version of the Scriptures. If he had been indeed persuaded of their absence from “almost all the Greek codices,” does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to stand in the Vulgate? If he had met with them in “scarcely any copies of the Gospel”—do men really suppose that he would yet have retained them? To believe this would, again, be to forget what was the known practice of this Father; who, because he found the expression “without a cause” (εἰκή,—S. Matth. v. 22,) only “in certain of his codices,” but not “in the true ones,”omitted it from the Vulgate. Because, however, he read “righteousness” (where we read“alms”) in S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits “justitiam” in his revision of the old Latin version. On the other hand, though he knew of MSS. (as he expressly relates) which read “works” for“children” (ἔργων for τέκνων) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does not admit that (manifestly corrupt) reading,—which, however, is found both in the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press the matter further. It is an additional proof that Jerome accepted the [pg 057]conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel that he actually quotes it, and on more than one occasion: but to prove this, is to prove more than is here required.96 I am concerned only to demolish the assertion of Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Alford, and Davidson, and so many more, concerning the testimony of Jerome; and I have demolished it. I pass on, claiming to have shewn that the name of Jerome as an adverse witness must never again appear in this discussion.

IV. and V. But now, while the remarks of Eusebius are yet fresh in the memory, the reader is invited to recall for a moment what the author of the “Homily on the Resurrection,” contained in the works of Gregory of Nyssa (above, p. 39), has delivered on the same subject. It will be remembered that we saw reason for suspecting that not

Severus of Antioch, but
Hesychius of Jerusalem,

(both of them writers of the vith century,) has the better claim to the authorship of the Homily in question,97—which, however, cannot at all events be assigned to the illustrious Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of Basil the Great. “In the more accurate copies,” (says this writer,) “the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, however, this also is added,—‘Now when He was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.’ This, however, seems to contradict to some extent what we before delivered; for since it happens that the hour of the night when our Saviour rose is not known, how does it come to be here written that He rose ‘early?’ But the saying will prove to be no ways contradictory, if we read with skill. We must be careful intelligently to introduce a comma after, ‘Now when He was risen:’ and then to proceed,—‘Early in the Sabbath He appeared first to Mary Magdalene:’ in order that ‘when He was risen’ may refer (in conformity with what Matthew says) to the foregoing season; while ‘early’is connected with the appearance to Mary.”98—I presume it would be to abuse a reader's patience to offer any remarks on all this. If a careful perusal of the foregoing passage [pg 058]does not convince him that Hesychius is here only reproducing what he had read in Eusebius, nothing that I can say will persuade him of the fact. The words indeed are by no means the same; but the sense is altogether identical. He seems to have also known the work of Victor of Antioch. However, to remove all doubt from the reader's mind that the work of Eusebius was in the hands of Hesychius while he wrote, I have printed in two parallel columns and transferred to the Appendix what must needs be conclusive;99 for it will be seen that the terms are only not identical in which Eusebius and Hesychius discuss that favourite problem with the ancients,—the consistency of S. Matthew's ὀψὲ τῶν σαββάτων with the πρωί of S. Mark.

It is, however, only needful to read through the Homily in question to see that it is an attempt to weave into one piece a quantity of foreign and incongruous materials. It is in fact not a Homily at all, (though it has been thrown into that form;) but a Dissertation,—into which, Hesychius, (who is known to have been very curious in questions of that kind100,) is observed to introduce solutions of most of those famous difficulties which cluster round the sepulchre of the world's Redeemer on the morning of the first Easter Day;101 and which the ancients seem to have delighted in discussing,—as, the number of the Marys who visited the sepulchre; the angelic appearances on the morning of the Resurrection; and above all the seeming discrepancy, already adverted to, in the Evangelical notices of the time at which our Lord rose from the dead. I need not enter more particularly into an examination of this (so-called) “Homily”: but I must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author [pg 059]at all events cannot be thought to have repudiated the concluding verses of S. Mark: for at the end of his discourse, he quotes the 19th verse entire, without hesitation, in confirmation of one of his statements, and declares that the words are written by S. Mark.102

I shall not be thought unreasonable, therefore, if I contend that Hesychius is no longer to be cited as a witness in this behalf: if I point out that it is entirely to misunderstand and misrepresent the case to quote a passing allusion of his to what Eusebius had long before delivered on the same subject, as if it exhibited his own individual teaching. It is demonstrable103 that he is not bearing testimony to the condition of the MSS. of S. Mark's Gospel in his own age: neither, indeed, is he bearing testimony at all. He is simply amusing himself, (in what is found to have been his favourite way,) with reconciling an apparent discrepancy in the Gospels; and he does it by adopting certain remarks of Eusebius. Living so late as the vith century; conspicuous neither for his judgment nor his learning; a copyist only, so far as his remarks on the last verses of S. Mark's Gospel are concerned;—this writer does not really deserve the space and attention we have been compelled to bestow upon him.

VI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence borne by

Victor of Antioch.

And from the familiar style in which this Father's name is always introduced into the present discussion, no less than from the invariable practice of assigning to him the date “A.D. 401,” it might be supposed that “Victor of Antioch” is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely a Commentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. Clinton (who enumerates cccxxii “Ecclesiastical Authors” from A.D. 70 to A.D. 685104) does not even record his name. The recent “Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography” is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest editor) [pg 060]calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute his Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria.105 Not to delay the reader needlessly,—Victor of Antioch is an interesting and unjustly neglected Father of the Church; whose date,—(inasmuch as he apparently quotes sometimes from Cyril of Alexandria who died A.D. 444, and yet seems to have written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which took place A.D.407), may be assigned to the first half of the vth century,—suppose A.D. 425-450. And in citing him I shall always refer to the best (and most easily accessible) edition of his work,—that of Cramer (1840) in the first volume of his “Catenae.”

But a far graver charge is behind. From the confident air in which Victor's authority is appealed to by those who deem the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel spurious, it would of course be inferred that his evidence is hostile to the verses in question; whereas his evidence to their genuineness is the most emphatic and extraordinary on record. Dr. Tregelles asserts that “histestimony to the absence of these twelve verses from some or many copies, stands in contrast to his own opinion on the subject.” But Victor delivers no “opinion:” and his “testimony” is the direct reverse of what Dr. Tregelles asserts it to be. This learned and respected critic has strangely misapprehended the evidence.106

I must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore confine myself to those facts concerning“Victor of Antioch,” or rather concerning his work, which are necessary for the purpose in hand.107

Now, his Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel,—as all must see who will be at the pains to examine it,—is to a great extent a compilation. The same thing may be said, no doubt, to some extent, of almost every ancient Commentary in existence. But I mean, concerning this particular work, [pg 061]that it proves to have been the author's plan not so much to give the general results of his acquaintance with the writings of Origen, Apollinarius, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Eusebius, and Chrysostom; as, with or without acknowledgment, to transcribe largely (but with great license) from one or other of these writers. Thus, the whole of his note on S. Mark xv. 38, 39, is taken, without any hint that it is not original, (much of it, word for word,) from Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew's Gospel.108 The same is to be said of the first twelve lines of his note on S. Mark xvi. 9. On the other hand, the latter half of the note last mentioned professes to give the substance of what Eusebius had written on the same subject. It is in fact an extract from those very “Quaestiones ad Marinum” concerning which so much has been offered already. All this, though it does not sensibly detract from the interest or the value of Victor's work, must be admitted entirely to change the character of his supposed evidence. He comes before us rather in the light of a Compiler than of an Author: his work is rather a “Catena” than a Commentary: and as such in fact it is generally described. Quite plain is it, at all events, that the sentiments contained in the sections last referred to, are not Victor's at all. For one half of them, no one but Chrysostom is responsible: for the other half, no one but Eusebius.

But it is Victor's familiar use of the writings of Eusebius,—especially of those Resolutions of hard Questions “concerning the seeming Inconsistencies in the Evangelical accounts of the Resurrection,” which Eusebius addressed to Marinus,—on which the reader's attention is now to be concentrated. Victor cites that work of Eusebius by name in the very first page of his Commentary. That his last page also contains a quotation from it, (also by name), has been already pointed out.109 Attention is now invited to what is found concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 in the last page but one (p. 444) of [pg 062]Victor's work. It shall be given in English; because I will convince unlearned as well as learned readers. Victor, (after quoting four lines from the 89thHomily of Chrysostom110), reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to do111) the notes of time contained severally in S. Matth. xxviii. 1, S. Mark xvi. 2, S. Luke xxiv. 1, and S. John xx. 1. After which, he proceeds as follows:—

“In certain copies of Mark's Gospel, next comes,—‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene;’—a statement which seems inconsistent with Matthew's narrative. This might be met by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark's Gospel, though found in certain copies, is spurious, However, that we may not seem to betake ourselves to an off-hand answer, we propose to read the place thus:—‘Now when [Jesus] was risen:’ then, after a comma, to go on,—‘early the first day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ In this way we refer [Mark's] ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen’to Matthew's ‘in the end of the sabbath,’ (for then we believe Him to have risen;) and all that comes after, expressive as it is of a different notion, we connect with what follows. Mark relates that He who ‘arose (according to Matthew) in the end of the Sabbath,’ was seen by Mary Magdalene ‘early.’ This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that‘early,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ [Jesus] appeared to the Magdalene. In a word, two distinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of the Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the season of our Saviour's Appearing,—which was‘early.’ ”112No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate to admit that he is here listening to Eusebius “ad Marinum” over again. But if any one really retains a particle of doubt on the subject, he is requested to cast his eye to the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader,

[pg 063]surveying the originals with attention, may easily convince himself that Victor is here nothing else but a copyist.113 That the work in which Eusebius reconciles “seeming discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives,” was actually lying open before Victor while he wrote, is ascertained beyond dispute. He is observed in his next ensuing Comment to quote from it, and to mention Eusebius as its author. At the end of the present note he has a significant allusion to Eusebius:—“I [pg 064]know very well,” he says, “what has been suggested by those who are at the pains to remove the apparent inconsistencies in this place.”114 But when writing on S. Mark xvi. 9-20, he does more. After abridging, (as his manner is,) what Eusebius explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the substance of five columns in about three times as many lines,) he adopts the exact expressions of Eusebius,—follows him in his very mistakes,—and finally transcribes his words. The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind that what he has been listening to is not the testimony of Victor at all: but the testimony of Eusebius. This is but one more echo therefore of a passage of which we are all beginning by this time to be weary; so exceedingly rash are the statements with which it is introduced, so utterly preposterous the proposed method of remedying a difficulty which proves after all to be purely imaginary.

What then is the testimony of Victor? Does he offer any independent statement on the question in dispute, from which his own private opinion (though nowhere stated) may be lawfully inferred? Yes indeed. Victor, though frequently a Transcriber only, is observed every now and then to come forward in his own person, and deliver his individual sentiment.115 But nowhere throughout his work does he deliver such remarkable testimony as in this place. Hear him!

“Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the passage beginning, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,’be not found,—(certain individuals having supposed it to be spurious,)—yet we, at all events, inasmuch as in very many we have discovered it to exist, have, out of accurate copies, subjoined also the account of our Lord's Ascension, (following the words ‘for they were afraid,’) in conformity with the Palestinian exemplar of Mark [pg 065]which exhibits the Gospel verity: that is to say, from the words, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of the week,’&c., down to ‘with signs following. Amen.’116—And with these words Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on S. Mark to an end.”

Here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent Father, writing in the first half of the vth century,—

(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark are absent from some ancient copies of his Gospel is because they have been deliberately omitted by Copyists:

(2.) That the ground for such omission was the subjective judgment of individuals,—not the result of any appeal to documentary evidence. Victor, therefore, clearly held that the Verses in question had been expunged in consequence of their (seeming) inconsistency with what is met with in the other Gospels:

(3.) That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself by reference to “very many” and“accurate” copies, that the verses in question are genuine:

(4.) That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which enjoyed the reputation of “exhibiting the genuine text of S. Mark,” contained the Verses in dispute.—To Opinion, therefore, Victor opposes Authority. He makes his appeal to the most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is acquainted; and the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete counterpoise and antidote to the loose phrases of Eusebius on the same subject:

(5.) That in consequence of all this, following the Palestinian Exemplar, he had from accurate copies furnished his own work with the Twelve Verses in dispute;—which is a categorical refutation of the statement frequently met with that the work of Victor of Antioch is withoutthem.

We are now at liberty to sum up; and to review the progress which has been hitherto made in this Inquiry.

Six Fathers of the Church have been examined who are commonly represented as bearing hostile testimony to the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel; and they have been [pg 066]easily reduced to one. Three of them, (Hesychius, Jerome, Victor,) prove to be echoes, not voices. The remaining two, (Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices nor echoes, but merely names: Gregory of Nyssa having really no more to do with this discussion than Philip of Macedon; and “Severus” and “Hesychius” representing one and the same individual. Only by a Critic seeking to mislead his reader will any one of these five Fathers be in future cited as witnessing against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Eusebius is the solitary witness who survives the ordeal of exact inquiry.117 But,

I. Eusebius, (as we have seen), instead of proclaiming his distrust of this portion of the Gospel, enters upon an elaborate proof that its contents are not inconsistent with what is found in the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. John. His testimony is reducible to two innocuous and wholly unconnected propositions: the first,—That there existed in his day a vast number of copies in which the last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel ended abruptly at ver. 8; (the correlative of which of course would be that there also existed a vast number which were furnished with the present ending.) The second,—That by putting a comma after the word Ἀναστάς, S. Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with S. Matth. xxviii. 1118.... I profess myself unable to understand how it can be pretended that Eusebius would have subscribed to the opinion of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that the Gospel of S. Mark was never finished by its inspired Author, or was mutilated before it came abroad; at all events, that the last Twelve Verses are spurious.

[pg 067]

II. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been adopted, and in part transcribed, by an unknown writer of the vith century,—whether Hesychius or Severus is not certainly known: but if it were Hesychius, then it was not Severus; if Severus, then not Hesychius. This writer, however, (whoever he may have been,) is careful to convince us that individually he entertained no doubt whatever about the genuineness of this part of Scripture, for he says that he writes in order to remove the (hypothetical) objections of others, and to silence their (imaginary) doubts. Nay, he freely quotes the verses as genuine, and declares that they were read in his day on a certain Sunday night in the public Service of the Church.... To represent such an one,—(it matters nothing, I repeat, whether we call him “Hesychius of Jerusalem” or“Severus of Antioch,”)—as a hostile witness, is simply to misrepresent the facts of the case. He is, on the contrary, the strenuous champion of the verses which he is commonly represented as impugning.

III. As for Jerome, since that illustrious Father comes before us in this place as a translator of Eusebius only, he is no more responsible for what Eusebius says concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20, than Hobbes of Malmesbury is responsible for anything that Thucydides has related concerning the Peloponnesian war. Individually, however, it is certain that Jerome was convinced of the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: for in two different places of his writings he not only quotes the 9th and 14th verses, but he exhibits all the twelve in the Vulgate.

IV. Lastly, Victor of Antioch, who wrote in an age when Eusebius was held to be an infallible oracle on points of Biblical Criticism,—having dutifully rehearsed, (like the rest,) the feeble expedient of that illustrious Father for harmonizing S. Mark xvi. 9 with the narrative of S. Matthew,—is observed to cite the statements of Eusebius concerning the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark, only in order to refute them. Not that he opposes opinion to opinion,—(for the opinions of Eusebius and of Victor of Antioch on this behalf were probably identical;) but statement he meets with counter-statement,—fact he confronts with fact. Scarcely [pg 068]can anything be imagined more emphatic than his testimony, or more conclusive.

For the reader is requested to observe that here is an Ecclesiastic, writing in the first half of the vth century, who expressly witnesses to the genuineness of the Verses in dispute. He had made reference, he says, and ascertained their existence in very many MSS. (ὡς ἐν πλείστοις). He had derived his text from “accurate” ones: (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων.) More than that: he leads his reader to infer that he had personally resorted to the famous Palestinian Copy, the text of which was held to exhibit the inspired verity, and had satisfied himself that the concluding section of S. Mark's Gospel was there. He had, therefore, been either to Jerusalem, or else to Cæsarea; had inquired for those venerable records which had once belonged to Origen and Pamphilus;119 and had inspected them. Testimony more express, more weighty,—I was going to say, more decisive,—can scarcely be imagined. It may with truth be said to close the present discussion.

With this, in fact, Victor lays down his pen. So also may I. I submit that nothing whatever which has hitherto come before us lends the slightest countenance to the modern dream that S. Mark's Gospel, as it left the hands of its inspired Author, ended abruptly at ver. 8. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome; neither Severus of Antioch nor Hesychius of Jerusalem; certainly not Victor of Antioch; least of all Gregory of Nyssa,—yield a particle of support to that monstrous fancy. The notion is an invention, a pure imagination of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach.

It remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove somewhat less unaccommodating.

VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of the discussion, to appeal to

Euthymius Zigabenus,

the Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compilation on the Gospels, assigned toA.D. 1116. Euthymius lived, in fact, full five hundred years too late for his testimony to be of the slightest importance. Such as it is, however, it is [pg 069]not unfavourable. He says,—“Some of the Commentators state that here,” (viz. at ver. 8,) “the Gospel according to Mark finishes; and that what follows is a spurious addition.” (Which clearly is his version of the statements of one or more of the four Fathers whose testimony has already occupied so large a share of our attention.) “This portion we must also interpret, however,” (Euthymius proceeds,) “since there is nothing in it prejudicial to the truth.”120—But it is idle to linger over such a writer. One might almost as well quote “Poli Synopsis” and then proceed to discuss it. The cause must indeed be desperate which seeks support from a quarter like this. What possible sanction can an Ecclesiastic of the xiith century be supposed to yield to the hypothesis that S. Mark's Gospel, as it left the hands of its inspired Author, was an unfinished work?

It remains to ascertain what is the evidence of the MSS. on this subject. And the MSS. require to be the more attentively studied, because it is to them that our opponents are accustomed most confidently to appeal. On them in fact they rely. The nature and the value of the most ancient Manuscript testimony available, shall be scrupulously investigated in the next two Chapters.

[pg 070]

CHAPTER VI.

MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART I.

S. Mark xvi. 9-20, contained in every MS. in the world except two.—Irrational Claim to Infallibility set up on behalf of Cod. B (p. 73) and Cod. א (p. 75).—These two Codices shewn to be full of gross Omissions (p. 78),—Interpolations (p. 80),—Corruptions of the Text (p. 81),—and Perversions of the Truth (p. 83).—The testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9-20, shewn to be favorable, notwithstanding (p. 86).

The two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the famous Codex in the Vatican Library at Rome, known as “Codex B;” and the Codex which Tischendorf brought from Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (א). These two manuscripts are probably not of equal antiquity.121 An interval of fifty years at least seems to be required to account for the marked difference between them. If the first belongs to the beginning, the second may be referred to the middle or latter part of the ivth century. But the two Manuscripts agree in this,—that they are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. In both, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (ver. 8), comes the subscription: in Cod. B,—ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ; in Cod. א,—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ.

Let it not be supposed that we have any more facts of this class to produce. All has been stated. It is not that the evidence of Manuscripts is one,—the evidence of Fathers and Versions another. The very reverse is the case. Manuscripts, Fathers, and Versions alike, areonly not unanimous in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness [pg 071]of the MSS. is even extraordinary. With the exception of the two uncial MSS. which have just been named, there is not one Codex in existence, uncial or cursive,—(and we are acquainted with, at least, eighteen other uncials,122 and about six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)—which leaves out the last twelve verses of S. Mark.

The inference which an unscientific observer would draw from this fact, is no doubt in this instance the correct one. He demands to be shewn the Alexandrine (A) and the Parisian Codex (C),—neither of them probably removed by much more than fifty years from the date of the Codex Sinaiticus, and both unquestionably derived from different originals;—and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of those venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this part of the sacred text. He discovers that the Codex Bezae (D), the only remaining very ancient MS. authority,—notwithstanding that it is observed on most occasions to exhibit an extraordinary sympathy with the Vatican (B),—here sides with A and C against B and א. He inquires after all the other uncials and all the cursive MSS. in existence, (some of them dating from the xth century,) and requests to have it explained to him why it is to be supposed that all these many witnesses,—belonging to so many different patriarchates, provinces, ages of the Church,—have entered into a grand conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and importance? But he obtains no intelligible answer to this question. How, then, is an unprejudiced student to draw any inference but one from the premisses? Thatsingle peculiarity (he tells himself) of bringing the second Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse of the xvith chapter, is absolutely fatal to the two Codices in question. It is useless to din into his ears that those Codices are probably both of the ivth century,—unless men are prepared to add the assurance that a Codex of the ivth century is of necessity a more trustworthy witness to the text of the Gospels than a Codex of the vth. The omission of these twelve verses, I repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in [pg 072]Cod. B and Cod. א: for it is obvious that a copy of the Gospels which has been so seriously mutilated in one place may have been slightly tampered with in another. He is willing to suspend his judgment, of course. The two oldest copies of the Gospels in existence are entitled to great reverence because of their high antiquity. They must be allowed a most patient, most unprejudiced, most respectful, nay, a most indulgent hearing. But when all this has been freely accorded, on no intelligible principle can more be claimed for any two MSS. in the world.

The rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious. Mistrust will no doubt have been thrown over the evidence borne to the text of Scripture in a thousand other places by Cod. B and Cod. א,after demonstration that those two Codices exhibit a mutilated text in the present place. But what else is this but the very point requiring demonstration? Why may not these two be right, and all the other MSS. wrong?

I propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed we to examine the evidence borne by these two witnesses on certain other occasions which admit of no difference of opinion; or next to none. Let us endeavour, I say, to ascertain the character of the Witnesses by a patient and unprejudiced examination of their Evidence,—not in one place, or in two, or in three; but on several important occasions, and throughout. If we find it invariably consentient and invariably truthful, then of course a mighty presumption will have been established, the very strongest possible, that their adverse testimony in respect of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel must needs be worthy of all acceptation. But if, on the contrary, our inquiries shall conduct us to the very opposite result,—what else can happen but that our confidence in these two MSS. will be hopelessly shaken? We must in such case be prepared to admit that it is just as likely as not that this is only one more occasion on which these “two false witnesses” have conspired to witness falsely. If, at this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely trustworthy kind can be procured to confront them: above all, if some one ancient witness of unimpeachable veracity can be found who shall bear contradictory evidence: what other [pg 073]alternative will be left us but to reject their testimony in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with something like indignation; and to acquiesce in the belief of universal Christendom for eighteen hundred years that these twelve verses are just as much entitled to our unhesitating acceptance as any other twelve verses in the Gospel which can be named?

I. It is undeniable, in the meantime, that for the last quarter of a century, it has become the fashion to demand for the readings of Codex B something very like absolute deference. The grounds for this superstitious sentiment, (for really I can describe it in no apter way,) I profess myself unable to discover. Codex B comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence. “They are chiefly omissions, of one, two, or three words; but sometimes of half a verse, a whole verse, or even of several verses.... I hesitate not to assert that it would be easier to find a folio containing three or four such omissions than to light on one which should be without any.”123 In the Gospels alone, Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times:124 of which by far the largest proportion is found in S. Mark's Gospel. Many of these, no doubt, are to be accounted for by the proximity of a “like ending.”125 The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic126) was originally derived [pg 074]from an older Codex which contained about twelve or thirteen letters in a line.127 And it will be found that some of its omissions which have given rise to prolonged [pg 075]discussion are probably to be referred to nothing else but the oscitancy of a transcriber with such a codex before him:128 without having recourse to any more abstruse hypothesis; without any imputation of bad faith;—certainly without supposing that the words omitted did not exist in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist. But then it is undeniable that some of the omissions in Cod. B are not to be so explained. On the other hand, I can testify to the fact that the codex is disfigured throughout with repetitions. The original scribe is often found to have not only written the same words twice over, but to have failed whenever he did so to take any notice with his pen of what he had done.

What then, (I must again inquire,) are the grounds for the superstitious reverence which is entertained in certain quarters for the readings of Codex B? If it be a secret known to the recent Editors of the New Testament, they have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close.

II. More recently, a claim to co-ordinate primacy has been set up on behalf of the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf is actually engaged in remodelling his seventh Leipsic edition, chiefly in conformity with the readings of his lately discovered MS.129 And yet the Codex in question abounds with “errors of the the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.” On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.130 “Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice [pg 076]over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder ... whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament. Tregelles has freely pronounced that ‘the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded asvery rough.’ ”131 But when “the first scribe” and his “very rough” performance have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would like to be informed what remains to command respect in Codex א? Is, then, manuscript authority to be confounded with editorial caprice,—exercising itself upon the corrections of “at least ten different revisers,” who, from the vith to the xiith century, have been endeavouring to lick into shape a text which its original author left“very rough?”

The co-ordinate primacy, (as I must needs call it,) which, within the last few years, has been claimed for Codex B and Codex א, threatens to grow into a species of tyranny,—from which I venture to predict there will come in the end an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil. It behoves us, therefore, to look closely into this matter, and to require a reason for what is being done. The text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a thing to be sacrificed to an irrational, or at least a superstitious devotion to two MSS.,—simply because they may possibly be older by a hundred years than any other which we possess. “Id verius quod prius,” is an axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as in Dogmatic Truth. But on that principle, (as I have already shewn,) the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are fully established;132 and by consequence, the credit of Codd. B and א sustains a severe shock. Again, “Id verius quod prius;” but it does not of course follow that a Codex of the ivth century shall exhibit a more correct text of Scripture than one written in the vth, or even than one written in the xth. For the proof of this statement, (if it can be supposed to require proof,) it is enough to appeal to Codex D. That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the vith century. [pg 077]It is, in fact, one of our five great uncials. No older MS. of the Greek Text is known to exist,—excepting always A, B, C and א. And yet no text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations than that of Codex D. In the Acts, (to use the language of its learned and accurate Editor,) “it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it reproduces the textus receptus much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”133 Where, then, is the à priori probability that two MSS. of the ivthcentury shall have not only a superior claim to be heard, but almost an exclusive right to dictate which readings are to be rejected, which retained?

How ready the most recent editors of the New Testament have shewn themselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of Codd. B and א,—not unfrequently in defiance of the evidence of all other MSS., and sometimes to the serious detriment of the deposit,—would admit of striking illustration were this place for such details. Tischendorf's English “New Testament”—“with various readings from the three most celebrated manuscripts of the Greek Text” translated at the foot of every page,—is a recent attempt (1869) to popularize the doctrine that we have to look exclusively to two or three of the oldest copies, if we would possess the Word of God in its integrity. Dean Alford's constant appeal in his revision of the Authorized Version (1870) to “the oldest MSS.” (meaning thereby generally Codd. א and B with one or two others134), is an abler endeavour to familiarize the public mind with the same belief. I am bent on shewing that there is nothing whatever in the character of either of the Codices in question to warrant this servile deference.

(a) And first,—Ought it not sensibly to detract from our [pg 078]opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree? Now this is a plain matter of fact, of which any one who pleases may easily convince himself. But the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one another has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On every such occasion, only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and א,—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones,—altogether destroy my confidence in either?

(b) On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is throughout, they yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in exhibiting minute corruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to betray a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. These coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish a real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent witnesses.135

(c) Further, it is evident that both alike have been subjected, probably during the process of transcription, to the same depraving influences. But because such statements require to be established by an induction of instances, the reader's attention must now be invited to a few samples of the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies of the Gospel.

1. And first, since it is the omission of the end of S. Mark's Gospel which has given rise to the present discussion, it becomes a highly significant circumstance that the original [pg 079]scribe of Cod. א had also omitted the end of the Gospel according to S. John.136 In this suppression of ver. 25, Cod. א stands alone among MSS. A cloud of primitive witnesses vouch for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is nothing else but the reductio ad absurdum of a theory of recension, (with Tischendorf in his last edition,) to accommodate our printed text to the vicious standard of the original penman of Cod. א and bring the last chapter of S. John's Gospel to a close at ver. 24!

Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two solemn verses wherein S. Luke describes our Lord's “Agony and bloody Sweat,” together with the act of the ministering Angel.137 As to the genuineness of those verses, recognised as they are by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, by all the oldest versions, and by almost every MS. in existence, including Cod. א,—it admits of no doubt. Here then is proof positive that in order to account for omissions from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there is no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of the Gospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. “The admitted error of Cod. B in this place,” (to quote the words of Scrivener,) “ought to make some of its advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is less countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us.”

Cod. B (not Cod. א) is further guilty of the “grave error” (as Dean Alford justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn record of the Evangelist:—“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” It also withholds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was“in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.”138 Cod. א, on the other hand, omits the confession of the man born blind (ὁ δὲ ἔφη, πιστεύω, κύριε; καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ) in S. John ix. 38.—Both Cod. א and Cod. B retain nothing but the [pg 080]word υἱόν of the expression τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, in S. Matth. i. 25; and suppress altogether the important doctrinal statement ὁ ὠν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in S. John iii. 13: as well as the clause διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν; καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, in S. John viii. 59. Concerning all of which, let it be observed that I am neither imputing motives nor pretending to explain the design with which these several serious omissions were made. All that is asserted is, that they cannot be imputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were intentional: and I insist that they effectually dispose of the presumption that when an important passage is observed to be wanting from Cod. B or Cod. א, its absence is to be accounted for by assuming that it was also absent from the inspired autograph of the Evangelist.

2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or of א, or of both, has clearly been interpolated. There does not exist in the whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our Redeemer's side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and Cod. א, where it is introduced at the end of ver. 49,—in defiance of reason as well as of authority.139 “This interpolation” (remarks Mr. Scrivener) “which would represent the Saviour as pierced while yet living, is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false.”140 Another singularly gross specimen of interpolation, in my judgment, is supplied by the purely apocryphal statement which is met with in Cod. א, at the end of S. Matthew's account of the healing of the Centurion's servant,—και υποστρεψας ο εκατονταρχος εις τον οικον αυτου εν αυτη τη ωρα, ευρεν τον παιδα υγιαινοντα (viii. 13.)—Nor can anything well be weaker than the substitution (for ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου, in S. John ii. 3) of the following,141 which is found only in Cod. א:—οινον ουκ ειχον, οτι συνετελεσθε ο οινος του γαμου.

[pg 081]

But the inspired text has been depraved in the same licentious way throughout, by the responsible authors of Cod. B and Cod. א, although such corruptions have attracted little notice from their comparative unimportance. Thus, the reading (in א) ημας δει εργαζεσθαι τα εργα του πεμψαντος ημας (S. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by B's substitution of με for the second ημας.—Instead of τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (S. Luke vi. 48), B and א present us with the insipid gloss, δια το καλως οικοδομεισθαι αυτην.—In the last-named codex, we find the name of “Isaiah” (ησαιου) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance of authority and of fact.—Can I be wrong in asserting that the reading ο μονογενης θεος (for υἱός) in S. John i. 18, (a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. א alike,) is undeserving of serious attention?—May it not also be confidently declared that, in the face of all MS. evidence,142 no future Editors of the New Testament will be found to accept the highly improbable reading ο ανθρωπος ο λεγομενος Ιησους, in S. John ix. 11, although the same two Codices conspire in exhibiting it?—or, on the authority of one of them (א), to read εν αυτῳ ζωη εστιν143 (for ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν) in S. John i. 4?—Certain at least it is that no one will ever be found to read (with B) εβδομηκοντα δϙο in S. Luke x. 1,—or (with א) ο εκλεκτος του θεου (instead of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) in S. John i. 34.—But let me ask, With what show of reason can the pretence ofInfallibility, (as well as the plea of Primacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of MSS. licentiously corrupt as these have already been proved to be? For the readings above enumerated, be it observed, are either critical depravations of the inspired Text, or else unwarrantable interpolations. They cannot have resulted from careless transcription.

3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind [pg 082]to convince me that the text with which Cod. B and Cod. א were chiefly acquainted, must have been once and again subjected to a clumsy process of revision. Not unfrequently, as may be imagined, the result (however tasteless and infelicitous) is not of serious importance; as when, (to give examples from Cod. א,) for τὸν ὄχλον ἐπικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ (in S. Luke v. 1) we are presented with συναχθηναι τον οχλον:—when for ζῶν ἀσώτως (in S. Luke xv. 13) we read εις χωραν μακραν; and for οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες αὐτῶν (in S. Luke xxii. 25), we find οι αρχοντες των [εθνων] εξουσιαζουσιν αυτων, και, (which is only a weak reproduction of S. Matth. xx. 25):—when again, for σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει (in S. John vi. 17), we are shewn καταλαβεν δε αυτους η σκοτια: and when, for καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν (in S. John vi. 64) we are invited to accept και τις ην ο μελλων αυτον παραδιδοναι.144 But it requires very little acquaintance with the subject to foresee that this kind of license may easily assume serious dimensions, and grow into an intolerable evil. Thus, when the man born blind is asked by the Holy One if he believes ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ (S. John. ix. 35), we are by no means willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute, τον υιον του ανθρωπου: neither, when the Saviour says, γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμων (S. John x. 14) are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent γινωσκουσι με τα εμα. Still less is και εμοι αυτους εδωκασ any equivalent at all for καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστι, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά in S. John xvii. 10: or, αλλοι [pg 083]ζωσουσιν σε, και ποιησουσιν σοι οσα ου θελεις, for ἄλλος σε ζώσει; καὶ οὄσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις, in S. John xxi. 18. Indeed, even when our Lord is not the speaker, such licentious depravation of the text is not to be endured. Thus, in S. Luke xxiii. 15, Cod. B and Cod. א conspire in substituting for ἀνέπεμψα γὰρ ὑμᾶς πρὸς αὐτόν,—ανεπεμψεν γαρ αυτον προς ημας; which leads one to suspect the copyist was misled by the narrative in ver. 7. Similar instances might be multiplied to an indefinite extent.Two yet graver corruptions of the truth of the Gospel, (but they belong to the same category,) remain to be specified. Mindful, I suppose, of S. James' explanation “how that by works a man is justified,” the author of the text of Codices B and א has ventured to alter our Lord's assertion (in S. Matth. xi. 19,) “Wisdom is justified of her children,” into “Wisdom is justified by her works;” and, in the case of Cod. א, his zeal is observed to have so entirely carried him away, that he has actually substituted εργων for τέκνων in the parallel place of S. Luke's Gospel.—The other example of error (S. Matth. xxi. 31) is calculated to provoke a smile. Finding that our Saviour, in describing the conduct of the two sons in the parable, says of the one,—ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν, and of the other,—καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν; some ancient scribe, (who can have been but slenderly acquainted with the Greek language,) seems to have conceived the notion that a more precise way of identifying the son who “afterwardsrepented and went,” would be to designate him as ὁ ὕστερος. Accordingly, in reply to the question,—τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; we are presented (but only in Cod. B) with the astonishing information,—λεγουσιν ο υστερος. And yet, seeing clearly that this made nonsense of the parable, some subsequent critic is found to have transposed the order of the two sons: and in that queer condition the parable comes down to us in the famous Vatican Codex B.

4. Some of the foregoing instances of infelicitous tampering with the text of the Gospels are, it must be confessed, very serious. But it is a yet more fatal circumstance in connexion with Cod. B and Cod. א that they are convicted [pg 084]of certain perversions of the truth of Scripture whichmust have been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in S. Mark xiv, they exhibit a set of passages—(verses 30, 68, 72)—“which bear clear marks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. א, only partially in Cod. B; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denial with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice. (In Cod. א, δίς is omitted in ver. 30,‘—ἐκ δευτέρου and δίς in ver. 72,—’and καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε in ver. 68: the last change being countenanced by B.)”145 One such discovery, I take leave to point out, is enough to destroy all confidence in the text of these two manuscripts: for it proves that another kind of corrupting influence,—besides carelessness, and accident, and tasteless presumption, and unskilful assiduity,—has been at work on Codices B and א. We are constrained to approach these two manuscripts with suspicion in all cases where a supposed critical difficulty in harmonizing the statements of the several Evangelists will account for any of the peculiar readings which they exhibit.

Accordingly, it does not at all surprise me to discover that in both Codices the important word ἐξελθοῦσαι (in S. Matth. xxviii. 8) has been altered into απελθουσαι. I recognise in that substitution of απο for ἔξ the hand of one who was not aware that the women, when addressed by the Angel, were inside the sepulchre; but who accepted the belief (it is found to have been as common in ancient as in modern times) that they beheld him “sitting on the stone.”146—In consequence of a similar misconception, both Codices are observed to present us with the word “wine” instead of “vinegar” in S. Matthew's phrase ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμνγμένον: which results from a mistaken endeavour on the part of some ancient critic to bring S. Matth. xxvii. 34 into [pg 085]harmony with S. Mark xv. 23. The man did not perceive that the cruel insult of the “vinegar and gall” (which the Saviour tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct thing from the proffered mercy of the “myrrhed wine” which the Saviour put away from Himself altogether.

So again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into harmony with a supposed fact of geography that Cod. א states that Emmaus, (which Josephus also places at sixty stadia from Jerusalem), was “an hundred and sixty” stadia distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is known. It is because some ancient critic (Origen probably) erroneously assumed thatNicopolis was the place intended. The conjecture met with favour, and there are not wanting scholia to declare that this was the reading of “the accurate” copies,—notwithstanding the physical impossibility which is involved by the statement.147—Another geographical misconception under which the scribe of Cod. א is found to have laboured was that Nazareth (S. Luke i. 26) and Capernaum (S. Mark i. 28) were in Judæa. Accordingly he has altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his private notion.148—A yet more striking specimen of the preposterous method of the same scribe is supplied by his substitution of Καισαριας for Σαμαρείας in Acts viii. 5,—evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi. 8.—Again, it must have been with a view of bringing Revelation into harmony with the (supposed) facts of physical Science that for the highly significant Theological record καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος at the Crucifixion,149 has been substituted both in B and א, του ηλιου εκλιποντος,—a statement [pg 086]which (as the ancients were perfectly well aware150) introduces into the narrative an astronomical contradiction.—It may be worth adding, that Tischendorf with singular inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contradiction, while he rejects the geographical impossibility.—And this may suffice concerning the text of Codices B and א.

III. We are by this time in a condition to form a truer estimate of the value of the testimony borne by these two manuscripts in respect of the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. If we were disposed before to regard their omission of an important passage as a serious matter, we certainly cannot any longer so regard it. We have by this time seen enough to disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B and א are the very reverse of infallible guides. Their deflections from the Truth of Scripture are more constant, as well as more licentious by far, than those of their younger brethren: their unauthorized omissions from the sacred text are not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also. And yet the main matter before us,—their omission of the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel,—when rightly understood, proves to be an entirely different phenomenon from what an ordinary reader might have been led to suppose. Attention is specially requested for the remarks which follow.

IV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest we possess, S. Mark's Gospel ends abruptly at the 8th verse of the xvith chapter, and that the [pg 087]customary subscription (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ) follows,—is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of S. Mark's Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. He has left in this place one column entirely vacant. It is the only vacant column in the whole manuscript;—a blank space abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld. Why did he leave that column vacant? What can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? The phenomenon,—(I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it,)—is in the highest degree significant, and admits of only one interpretation. The older MS. from which Cod. B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out,—and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank spacein memoriam rei. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel, by withholding them: for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen centuries and a half, a more ancient witness than itself. The venerable Author of the original Codex from which Codex B was copied, is thereby brought to view. And thus, our supposed adversary (Codex B) proves our most useful ally: for it procures us the testimony of an hitherto unsuspected witness. The earlier scribe, I repeat, unmistakably comes forward at this stage of the inquiry, to explain that he at least is prepared to answer for the genuineness of these Twelve concluding Verses with which the later scribe, his copyist, from his omission of them, might unhappily be thought to have been unacquainted.

It will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting [pg 088]that the scribe of Cod. B. may have copied from a MS. which exhibited the same phenomenon which he has himself reproduced. This, by shifting the question a little further back, does but make the case against Cod. א the stronger.

But in truth, after the revelation which has been already elicited from Cod. B, the evidence of Cod. א may be very summarily disposed of. I have already, on independent grounds, ventured to assign to that Codex a somewhat later date than is claimed for the Codex Vaticanus.151 My opinion is confirmed by observing that the Sinaitic contains no such blank space at the end of S. Mark's Gospel as is conspicuous in the Vatican Codex. I infer that the Sinaitic was copied from a Codex which had been already mutilated, and reduced to the condition of Cod. B; and that the scribe, only because he knew not what it meant, exhibited S. Mark's Gospel in consequence as if it really had no claim to those twelve concluding verses which, nevertheless,every authority we have hitherto met with has affirmed to belong to it of right.

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion, it is at least undeniable that Cod. B and Cod. א are at variance on the main point. They contradict one another concerning the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel. For while Cod. א refuses to know anything at all about those verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by volunteering the statement that they were found in the older codex, of which it is in every other respect a faithful representative. The older and the better manuscript (B), therefore, refutes its junior (א). And it will be seen that logically this brings the inquiry to a close, as far as the evidence of the manuscripts is concerned. We have referred to the oldest extant copy of the Gospels in order to obtain its testimony: and,—“Though without the Twelve Verses concerning which you are so solicitous,” (it seems to say,) “I yet hesitate not to confess to you that an older copy than myself,—the ancient Codex from which I was copied,—actually did contain them.”

The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of [pg 089]the four oldest Codices of the Gospels extant,—B, א, A, C,—two (B and א) are without these twelve verses: two (A and C) are with them. Are these twelve verses then an unauthorized addition to A and C? or are they an unwarrantable omission from B and א? B itself declares plainly that from itself they are an omission. And B is the oldest Codex of the Gospel in existence. What candid mind will persist in clinging to the solitary fact that from the single Codex א these verses are away, in proof that “S. Mark's Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude it?”

Let others decide, therefore, whether the present discussion has not already reached a stage at which an unprejudiced Arbiter might be expected to address the prosecuting parties somewhat to the following effect:—

“This case must now be dismissed. The charge brought by yourselves against these Verses was, that they are an unauthorized addition to the second Gospel; a spurious appendix, of which the Evangelist S. Mark can have known nothing. But so far from substantiating this charge, you have not adduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable.

“The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to MSS. It has been accepted. And with what result?

(a) “Those many Fathers whom you represented as hostile, prove on investigation to be reducible to one, viz. Eusebius: and Eusebius, as we have seen, does not say that the verses are spurious, but on the contrary labours hard to prove that they may very well be genuine. On the other hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote them without any signs of misgiving. In this way, the positive evidence in their favour is carried back to the iind century.

(b) “Declining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted on an appeal to MSS. On the MSS., in fact, you still make your stand,—or rather you rely on the oldest of them; for, (as you are aware,) every MS. in the world except the two oldest are against you.

“I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.; and it has volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than [pg 090]itself—the Codex from which it was copied—was furnished with those very Verses which you wish me to believe that some older MS. still must needs have been without. What else can be said, then, of your method but that it is frivolous? and of your charge, but that it is contradicted by the evidence to which you yourselves appeal?

“But it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides.

“For it is high time to point out that even if it so happened that the oldest known MS. was observed to be without these twelve concluding verses, it would still remain a thing unproved (not to say highly improbable) that from the autograph of the Evangelist himself they were also away. Supposing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the iind or iiird century could be found who quoted them: even so, it would not follow that there existed no such verses for a primitive Father to quote. The earliest of the Versions might in addition yield faltering testimony; but even so, who would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis the monstrous hypothesis, that S. Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of its inspired Author was without the verses which at present conclude it? How, then, would you have proposed to account for the consistent testimony of an opposite kind yielded by every other known document in the world?

“But, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case? (1) The earliest of the Fathers,—(2) the most venerable of the Versions,—(3) the oldest MS. of which we can obtain any tidings,—all are observed to recognize these Verses. ‘Cadit quaestio’ therefore. The last shadow of pretext has vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that ‘Mark the Evangelist knew nothing of’ these verses:—with Tregelles that ‘The book of Mark himself extends no further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ:’—with Griesbach that ‘the last leaf of the original Gospel was probably torn away.’... It is high time, I say, that this case were dismissed. But there are also costs to be paid. Cod. B and Cod. א are convicted of being ‘two false witnesses,’ and must be held to go forth from this inquiry with an injured reputation.”

This entire subject is of so much importance that I must needs yet awhile crave the reader's patience and attention.

[pg 091]

CHAPTER VII.

MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART II.

The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and א (viz. the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1) considered.—Antiquity unfavourable to the omission of those words (p. 93).—The Moderns infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission (p. 100).—Marcion probably the author of this corruption of the Text of Scripture (p. 106).—Other peculiarities of Codex א disposed of (p. 109).

The subject which exclusively occupied our attention throughout the foregoing chapter admits of apt and powerful illustration. Its vast importance will be a sufficient apology for the particular disquisition which follows, and might have been spared, but for the plain challenge of the famous Critic to be named immediately.

“There are two remarkable readings,” (says Tischendorf, addressing English readers on this subject in 1868,) “which are very instructive towards determining the age of the manuscripts [א and B], and their authority.” He proceeds to adduce,—

1. The absence from both, of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel,—concerning which, the reader probably thinks that by this time he has heard enough. Next,—

2. He appeals to their omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from the first verse of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,—another peculiarity, in which Codd. א and B stand quite alone among MSS.

I. Here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the New Testament indeed. Altogether unique is it: and that it powerfully corroborates the general opinion [pg 092]of their high antiquity, no one will deny. But how about “their authority”? Does the coincidence also raise our opinion of the trustworthiness of the Text, which these two MSS. concur in exhibiting? for that is the question which has to be considered,—the only question. The ancientness of a reading is one thing: its genuineness, (as I have explained elsewhere,) quite another. The questions are entirely distinct. It may even be added that while the one is really of little moment, the latter is of all the importance in the world. I am saying that it matters very little whether Codd. א and B were written in the beginning of the ivth century, or in the beginning of the vth: whereas it matters much, or rather it matters everything, whether they exhibit the Word of God faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous license. How far the reading which results from the suppression of the last two words in the phrase τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, is critically allowable or not, I forbear to inquire. That is not the point which we have to determine. The one question to be considered is,—May it possibly be the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way credible that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as follows:—Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ?... If it be eagerly declared in reply that the thing is simply incredible: that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are required for the sense; and that the commonly received reading is no doubt the correct one: then,—there is an end of the discussion. Two extraordinary notes of sympathy between two Manuscripts will have been appealed to as crucial proofs of the trustworthiness of the Text of those Manuscripts: (for of their high Antiquity, let me say it once more, there can be no question whatever:) and it will have been proved in one case,—admitted in the other,—that the omission is unwarrantable.—If, however, on the contrary, it be maintained that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ probably had no place in the original copy of this Epistle, but are to be regarded as an unauthorized addition to it,—then, (as in the case of the Twelve Verses omitted from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, and which it was also pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand [pg 093]to be shewn the evidence on the strength of which this opinion is maintained, in order that we may ascertain what it is precisely worth.

Tischendorf,—the illustrious discoverer and champion of Codex א, and who is accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ as the other conclusive proof of the trustworthiness of its text,—may be presumed to be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as well as the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its support. From him, we learn that the evidence for the omission of the words in question is as follows:—“In the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read, ‘to the saints which are at Ephesus;’ but Marcion (A.D. 130-140), did not find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy. The same is true of Origen (A.D. 185-254); and Basil the Great (who died A.D. 379), affirmed that those words were wanting in old copies. And this omission accords very well with the encyclical or general character of the Epistle. At the present day, our ancient Greek MSS., and all ancient Versions, contain the words ‘at Ephesus;’ yea (sic), even Jerome knew no copy with a different reading. Now, only the Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the old copies of Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion.”152—This then is the sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat in detail.

(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned writer is absolutely without authority for his assertion that “Marcion did not find the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy” of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Tischendorf's one pretence for saying so is Tertullian's statement that certain heretics, (Marcion he specifies by name,) had given to S. Paul's “Epistle to the Ephesians” the unauthorized title of “Epistle to the Laodiceans.”153 This, (argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not have done had he found ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the first verse.154 But the proposed inference is clearly invalid. [pg 094]For, with what show of reason can Marcion,—whom Tertullian taxes with having dared “titulum interpolare” in the case of S. Paul's “Epistle to the Ephesians,”—betherefore, assumed to have read the first verse differently from ourselves? Rather is the directly opposite inference suggested by the very language in which Tertullian (who was all but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the circumstance.155

Those, however, who would really understand the work of the heretic, should turn from the African Father,—(who after all does but say that Marcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, that it was addressed to the Laodiceans,)—and betake themselves to the pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a half later. This Father had for many years made Marcion's work his special study,156 and has elaborately described it, as well as presented us with copious extracts from it.157 And [pg 095]the account in Epiphanius proves that Tischendorf is mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the English reader, (quoted above;) and that he would have better consulted for his reputation if he had kept to the “ut videtur” with which (in his edition of 1859) he originally broached his opinion. It proves in fact to be no matter of opinion at all. Epiphanius states distinctly that the Epistle to the Ephesians was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which Marcion retained. In his“Apostolicon,” or collection of the (mutilated) Apostolical Epistles, the “Epistle to the Ephesians,” (identified by the considerable quotations which Epiphanius makes from it,158) stood (he says) seventh in order; while the (so called) “Epistle to the Laodiceans,”—a distinct composition therefore,—had the eleventh, that is, the last place assigned to it.159 That this latter Epistle contained a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius records the fact in two places.160 But then it is to be borne in mind that he charges Marcion with having derived that quotation from the Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans;161 instead of taking it, as he ought to have done, from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage, when faithfully exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by its very form refutes the heretical tenet which the context of Marcion's spurious epistle to the Laodiceans was intended to establish; and which the verse in question, in its interpolated form, might seem to favour.162—I have entered into [pg 096]this whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: but I was determined to prove that Tischendorf's statement that “Marcion (A.D. 130-140) did not find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy,”—is absolutely without foundation. It is even contradicted by the known facts of the case. I shall have something more to say about Marcion by-and-by; who, it is quite certain, read the text of Ephes. i. 1 exactly as we do.

(2.) The only Father who so expresses himself as to warrant the inference that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were absent from his copy, is Origen, in the beginning of the third century. “Only in the case of the Ephesians,” (he writes), “do we meet with the expression ‘the Saints which are:’ and we inquire,—Unless that additional phrase be simply redundant, what can it possibly signify? Consider, then, whether those who have been partakers of His nature who revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I am, may not, in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as ‘those which are:’ persons, called out, of a state of not-being, so to speak, into a state of being.”163—If Origen had read τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy, it is to me incredible that he would have gone so very far out of his way to miss the sense of such a plain, and in fact, [pg 097]unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis before him,—reasoning however only from the place in Basil, (to be quoted immediately,)—are unwilling to allow that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were ever away from the text. It must be admitted as the obvious inference from what Jerome has delivered on this subject (infrà, p. 98 note) that he, too, seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be called) of Codd. B and א.

(3) The influence which Origen's writings exercised over his own and the immediately succeeding ages of the Church, was prodigious. Basil, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150 years later,—although he read ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his own copy of S. Paul's Epistles,—thought fit to avail himself of Origen's suggestion. It suited his purpose. He was proving the eternal existence of the Son of God. Even not to know God(he remarks) is not to be: in proof of which, he quotes S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. i. 28:—“Things which are not, hath God chosen.” “Nay,” (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, “in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge were truly joined to Him who ‘is,’ designates them specially as ‘those which are:’ saying,—‘To the Saints which are, and faithful in Christ Jesus.’ ” That this fancy was not original, Basil makes no secret. He derived it, (he says,) from “those who were before us;” a plain allusion to the writings of Origen. But neither was the reading his own, either. This is evident. He had found it, he says,—(an asseveration indispensable to the validity of his argument,)—but only after he had made search,164—“in the old copies.”165 No doubt, Origen's strange fancy must have been even unintelligible to Basil when first he met with it. In plain terms, it sounds to this day incredibly foolish,—when read apart from the mutilated text which alone suggested it to Origen's fervid imagination.—But [pg 098]what there is in all this to induce us to suspect that Origen's reading was after all the right one, and ours the wrong, I profess myself wholly at a loss to discover. Origen himself complains bitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time; and attributes it (1) to the carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of correctors of the text: (3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopting some of these corrections and rejecting others, according to their own private caprice.166

(4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters than either Origen or Basil, after rehearsing the preceding gloss, (but only to reject it,) remarks that “certain persons” had been“over-fanciful” in putting it forth. He alludes probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians, in three books, he expressly relates that he employed:167 but he does not seem to have apprehended that Origen's text was without the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. If he was acquainted with Origen's text, (of which, however, his writings afford no indication,) it is plain that he disapproved of it. Others, he says, understand S. Paul to say not “the Saints which are:” but,—“the Saints and faithful which are at Ephesus.”168

(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit that there has been elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to shake our confidence in the universally received reading of Ephesians i. 1. The facts of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully stated in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the ivth century, (exhibiting in other respects several striking notes of vicious sympathy,) are found to conspire in omitting a clause in Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it is to the sense,) may be inferred to have been absent from Origen's copy: and [pg 099]Basil testifies that it was absent from “the old copies” to which he himself obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter: in which it is much to be noted that Origen does not say that he approved of this reading. Still less does Basil. They both witness to the factthat the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were omitted from some copies of the iiird century, just as Codd. B and א witness to the same fact in the ivth. But what then? Origen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings confessedly worthless; and, why not here? For not only is the text all but unintelligible if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ be omitted: but (what is far more to the purpose) the direct evidence of all the copies, whether uncial or cursive,169—and of all the Versions,—is against the omission. In the face of this overwhelming mass of unfaltering evidence to insist that Codd. B and א must yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity wrong, is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of this nonsensical reading, oftwo MSS. confessedly untrustworthy in countless other places,—against all the MSS.—allthe Versions,—is nothing else but an act of vulgar prejudice. I venture to declare,—(and with this I shall close the discussion and dismiss the subject,)—that there does not exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament of a reading even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin concur,—which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz.

1. The adverse testimony of all the uncial MSS. except two.

2. The adverse testimony of all, or very nearly all, the cursive MSS.

[pg 100]

3. The adverse testimony of all the Versions, without exception.

4. The adverse testimony of the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers.

To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,—

5. The highest inherent improbability,—it is only because I desire to treat this question purely as one of Evidence.

II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity to account for the phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is commendable; but I take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first three centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough to do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod. B shews marvellous sympathy170,) and explain if he can why there is a grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and how it comes to pass that Cod. D “reproduces the ‘textus receptus’ of the Acts much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament; so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”171 Our business as Critics is not to invent theories to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to ascertain where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable depravations of early Heretics,—the preposterous emendations of ancient Critics,—the injudicious assiduity of Harmonizers,—the licentious caprice of individuals;—what with errors resulting from the inopportune recollection of similar or parallel places,—or from the familiar phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections,—or from the inattention of Scribes,—or from marginal glosses;—however arising, endless are the corrupt readings of the oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means safe to [pg 101]follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories are seldom satisfactory. Guesses only they are at best.

Thus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of Ussher,—(which, however, found favour with Garnier (Basil's editor), Bengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and has since been not only eagerly advocated by Conybeare and Howson following a host of German Critics, but has even enjoyed Mr. Scrivener's distinct approval;)—that the Epistle to the Ephesians“was a Circular addressed to other Asiatic Cities besides the capital Ephesus,—to Laodicea perhaps among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and that while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephesus in the first verse, others may have had another city substituted, or the space after τοῖς οὔσιν left utterly void.”172 At first sight, this conjecture has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it to our favour. On closer inspection,—(i) It is found to be not only gratuitous; but (ii) altogether unsupported and unsanctioned by the known facts of the case; and (what is most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I humbly think, demonstrably erroneous. I demur to it,—

(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (a) when S. Paul sent his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tychicus, the bearer of it,173 was charged with a distinct Epistle to the Colossians:174 an Epistle nevertheless so singularly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is scarcely credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epistles to two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of them, (that to the Ephesians,) furnished with a different address, to so large and important a place as Laodicea, for example, (b) Then further, the provision which S. Paul made at this very time for communicating with the Churches of Asia which he did not separately address is found to have been different. The Laodiceans were to read in their public assembly S. Paul's “Epistle to the Colossians,” which the Colossians were ordered to send them. The Colossians [pg 102]in like manner were to read the Epistle,—(to whom addressed, we know not),—which S. Paul describes as τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας.175 If then it had been S. Paul's desire that the Laodiceans (suppose) should read publicly in their Churches his Epistle to the Ephesians, surely, he would have charged the Ephesians to procure that his Epistle to them should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans. Why should the Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously adopted one method with the Churches of Colosse and Laodicea,—another with the Churches ofEphesus and Laodicea,—in respect of his epistolary communications?

(2) (a) But even supposing, for argument's sake, that S. Paul did send duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the principal Churches of Asia Minor,—why should he have left the salutation blank, (“carta bianca,” as Bengel phrases it,176) for Tychicus to fill up when he got into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short of this would account for the reading of Codd. B and א.

(b) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature be clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A copy of what we call S. Paul's “Epistle to the Ephesians” sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul with a blank address; i.e. “with the space after τοῖς οὔσιν left utterly void:” (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that blank: and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up for him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy seen by Origen, and (5) Of the “old copies” seen by Basil; as well as (6) Of Codd. B and א. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) One other copy of this same “Encyclical Epistle,” filled up with the Ephesian address, became the archetype of every other copy of this Epistle in the world.... But of what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such a marvellous structure of hypothesis,—of which the top story overhangs and overbalances all the rest of the edifice? The thing which puzzles us in Codd. B and א is not that we find the name of another City in the salutation of S. Paul's “Epistle [pg 103]to the Ephesians,” but that we find the name of no city at all; nor meet with any vacant space there.

(c) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to different Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as of course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious documents left his hands,—then, doubtless, each several Church would have received, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if this had been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a word about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there should nowhere exist traces of conflicting testimony as to the Church to which S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas all the most ancient writers, without exception,—(Marcion himself [A.D. 140177], the “Muratorian” fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Irenæus [A.D. 175], Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Eusebius,)—and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying, unfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. א, (and this is much to be noted,) the superscription of the Epistle attests that it was addressed “to the Ephesians.” Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in inventing facts in the history of an Apostle's practice, in order to account for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his text?178

[pg 104]

(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such “a Circular” as was described above, (each copy furnished with a blank, to be filled up with the name of a different City,) would be a document without parallel in the annals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware, essentially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the suggestion before us is only another instance of the fatal misapprehension which results from the incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some familiar word in a living language to its supposed equivalent in an ancient tongue. Thus, because κύκλιος or ἐγκύκλιος confessedly signifies “circularis,” it seems to be imagined that ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολή may mean “a Circular Letter.” Whereas it really means nothing of the sort; but—“a Catholic Epistle.”179

An “Encyclical” (and that is the word which has been imported into the present discussion), was quite a different document from what we call “a Circular.” Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was Catholic or General,—the common property of all to whom it came. The General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, S. John are “Encyclical.”180 So is the well-known Canonical Epistle which Gregory, Bp. of Neocæsaræa in Pontus, in the middle of the third century, sent to the Bishops of his province.181 As for “a blank circular” to be filled up with [pg 105]the words “in Ephesus,” “in Laodicea,” &c.,—its like (I repeat) is wholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. The two notions are at all events inconsistent and incompatible. If S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was “a Circular,” then it was not“Encyclical:” if it was “Encyclical” then it was not “a Circular.”

Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are logically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies the fifth place among S. Paul's writings, and which from the beginning of the second century,—that is, from the very dawn of Historical evidence,—has been known as “the Epistle to the Ephesians,” was an “Encyclical,” “Catholic” or “General Epistle,”—addressed τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ? There does not live the man who will accept so irrational a supposition. The suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to account for the absence of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in Ephes. i. 1 is not only in itself in the highest degree improbable, and contradicted by all the evidence to which we have access; but it is even inadmissible on critical grounds, and must be unconditionally surrendered.182 It is observed to collapse before every test which can be applied to it.

[pg 106]

III. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me,—if men must needs account for the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from this place,—that they should have recourse to wild, improbable, and wholly unsupported theories, like those which go before; while an easy,—I was going to say the obvious,—solution of the problem is close at hand, and even solicits acceptance.

Marcion the heretic, (A.D. 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (A.D. 200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul's Epistles in particular. Epiphanius compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to a moth-eaten coat.183 “Instead of a stylus,” (says Tertullian,) “Marcion employed a knife.”“What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages?”184 S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian even singles out by name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a new title. All this has been fully explained above, from page 93 to page 96.

Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul's Epistle “to the Ephesians” that Apostolical writing which stands fifth in our Canon, (but which stood seventh in his,) is just as certain as that he recognised as such S. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Colossians, [pg 107]Philippians. All this has been fully explained in a preceding page.185

But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul's another Epistle,—of which all we know for certain is, that it contained portions of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and purported to be addressed by S. Paul “to the Laodiceans.” To ascertain with greater precision the truth of this matter at the end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible. Nor is it necessary. Obvious is it to suspect that not only did this heretical teacher at some period of his career prefix a new heading to certain copies of the Epistle to the Ephesians, but also that some of his followers industriously erased from certain other copies the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in ver. 1,—as being the only two words in the entire Epistle which effectually refuted their Master. It was not needful, (be it observed,) to multiply copies of the Epistle for the propagation of Marcion's deceit. Only two words had to be erased,—the very two words whose omission we are trying to account for,—in order to give some colour to his proposed attribution of the Epistle, (“quasi in isto diligentissimus explorator,”)—to the Laodiceans. One of these mutilated copies will have fallen into the hands of Origen,—who often complains of the corrupt state of his text: while the critical personages for whom Cod. B and Cod. א were transcribed will probably have been acquainted with other such mutilated copies. Are we not led, as it were by the hand, to take some such view of the case? In this way we account satisfactorily, and on grounds of historic evidence, for the omission which has exercised the Critics so severely.

I do not lose sight of the fact that the Epistle to the Ephesians ends without salutations, without personal notices of any kind. But in this respect it is not peculiar.186 That,—joined to a singular absence of identifying allusion,—sufficiently explains why Marcion selected this particular Epistle for the subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this circumstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Universal, and in defiance of its very Title, that the Epistle is [pg 108]“Encyclical,” in the technical sense of that word; and to go on to urge this characteristic as an argument in support of the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ,—is clearly the device of an eager Advocate; not the method of a calm and unprejudiced Judge. True it is that S. Paul,—who, writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus, says “the Churches of Asia salute you,” (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)—may have known very well that an Epistle of his “to the Ephesians,” would, as a matter of course, be instantly communicated to others besides the members of that particular Church: and in fact this may explain why there is nothing specially “Ephesian” in the contents of the Epistle. The Apostle,—(as when he addressed “the Churches of Galatia,”)—may have had certain of the other neighbouring Churches in his mind while he wrote. But all this is wholly foreign to the question before us: the one only question being this,—Which of the three following addresses represents what S. Paul must be considered to have actually written in the first verse of his “Epistle to the Ephesians”?—

(1) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

(2) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν ... καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

(3) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

What I have been saying amounts to this: that it is absolutely unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have under their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the iind century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, “presumed to prefix an unauthorized title to that very Epistle,”(“Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit,”)—which title obviously could not stand unless those two words were first erased from the text. To interpolate that new title, and to erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it, were obviously correlative acts which must always have been performed together.

But however all this may be, (as already pointed out,) the only question to be determined by us is,—whether it be credible that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are an unauthorized [pg 109]addition; foisted into the text of Ephes. i. 1 as far back as the Apostolic age: an interpolation which, instead of dying out, and at last all but disappearing, has spread and established itself, until the words are found in every copy,—are represented in every translation,—have been recognised in every country,—witnessed to by every Father,—received in every age of the Church? I repeat that the one question which has to be decided is, not how the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ came to be put in, or came to be left out; but simply whether, on an impartial review of the evidence, it be reasonable (with Tischendorf, Tregelles, Conybeare and Howson, and so many more,) to suspect their genuineness and enclose them in brackets? Is it credible that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are a spurious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph of the Apostle?... We have already, as I think, obtained a satisfactory answer to this question. It has been shewn, as conclusively as in inquiries of this nature is possible, that in respect of the reading of Ephesians i. 1, Codd. B and א are even most conspicuously at fault.

IV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted of error in respect of the one remaining text which their chief upholders have selected, and to which they still make their most confident appeal,—what remains, but to point out that it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their minds of the extravagant opinion which they have been so industriously taught to entertain of the value of the two Codices in question? It has already degenerated into an unreasoning prejudice, and threatens at last to add one more to the already overgrown catalogue of “vulgar errors.”

V. I cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by Tischendorf than by transcribing in conclusion his remarks on the four remaining readings of Codex א to which he triumphantly appeals: promising to dismiss them all with a single remark. He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his “Introduction” to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament187:—

“To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen says on John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, ‘in Him is life’ for ‘in Him was life.’ This is a reading which [pg 110]we find in sundry quotations before the time of Origen;188 but now, among all known Greek MSS. it is only in the Sinaitic, and the famous old Codex Bezae, a copy of the Gospels at Cambridge; yet it is also found in most of the early Latin versions, in the most ancient Syriac, and in the oldest Coptic.—Again, in Matth. xiii. 35, Jerome observes [pg 111]that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew for having said, ‘which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.’ A writing of the second century had already witnessed to the same reading; but Jerome adds further that well-informed men had long ago removed the name of Esaias. Among all our MSS. of a thousand years old and upwards, there is not a solitary example containing the name of Esaias in the text referred to,—except the Sinaitic, to which a few of less than a thousand years old may be added.—Once more, Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but only the Sinaitic and several ancient Latin MSS. read it the same as Origen: ‘He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every whit.’—In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difficult to settle, the Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copiesindubitably correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second century, confirms the Sinaitic reading: ‘If any man eat of my bread, he shall live for ever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ We omit to indicate further illustrations of this kind, although there are many others like them.”189

Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to [pg 112]exist in the mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless confusion between the antiquity of a Codex and the value of its readings. I venture to assert that a reading is valuable or the contrary, exactly in proportion to the probability of its being true or false. Interesting it is sure to be, be it what it may, if it be found in a very ancient codex,—interesting and often instructive: but the editor of Scripture must needs bring every reading, wherever found, to this test at last:—Is it to be thought that what I am here presented with is what the Evangelist or the Apostle actually wrote? If an answer in the negative be obtained to this question, then, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early Fathers appear to have so read the place, will not avail to impart to the rejected reading one particle of value. And yet Tischendorf thinks it enough in all the preceding passages to assure his reader that a given reading in Cod. א was recognised by Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have established this one point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in all this an utterly false major premiss: viz. That Scriptural quotations found in the writings of Origen, of Tertullian, of Jerome, must needs be the ipsissima verba of the Spirit. Whereas it is notorious “that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”190 And one is astonished that a Critic of so much sagacity, (who of course knows better,) should deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy,—not only without a word of explanation, a word of caution, but in such a manner as inevitably to mislead an unsuspecting reader. Without offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must be allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been considering, he shews himself far more bent on glorifying the “Codex Sinaiticus”than in establishing the Truth of the pure Word of God. He convinces me that to have found [pg 113]an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have “taken a gift.” Verily, “it doth blind the eyes of the wise.”191And with this, I shall conclude my remarks on these two famous Codices. I humbly record my deliberate conviction that when the Science of Textual Criticism, which is at present only in its infancy, comes to be better understood; (and a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New Testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a trustworthy basis;) a very different estimate will be formed of the importance of not a few of those readings which at present are received with unquestioning submission, chiefly on the authority of Codex B and Codex א. On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that no future collations, no future discoveries, will ever make it credible that the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel are a spurious supplement to the Evangelical Narrative; or that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are an unauthorized interpolation of the inspired Text.

And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex א.

I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the “Internal Evidence,” but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet fully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient “Scholia” and “Notes,” and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this may reasonably claim one entire Chapter to itself.

[pg 114]

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE SUBJECT OF THESE VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED.

Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their predecessors' inaccuracies.—Birch's unfortunate mistake (p. 117).—Scholz' serious blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).—Griesbach's sweeping misstatement (pp. 121-2).—The grave misapprehension which has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3); Codex L (p. 123).—Ammonius not the author of the so-called“Ammonian” Sections (p. 125).—Epiphanius (p. 132).—“Caesarius,” a misnomer.—“The Catenae,” misrepresented (p. 133).

In the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review whatever manuscript testimony still remains unconsidered; our attention having been hitherto exclusively devoted to Codices B and א. True, that the rest of the evidence may be disposed of in a single short sentence:—The Twelve Verses under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence with the exception of Codices B and א. But then,

I. We are assured,—(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)—that “a Note or a Scholion stating the absence of these verses from many, from most, or from the most correct copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in twenty-five other cursive Codices.”192 Tischendorf has nearly the same words: “Scholia” (he says) “in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of Mark in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the ninth verse.” That distinguished Critic supports his assertion by appealing to seven MSS. in particular,—and referring generally to“about twenty-five others.” Dr. Davidson adopts every word of this blindfold.

1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department of the Evidence would become deserving of serious [pg 115]attention. But I simply deny the fact. I entirely deny that the“Note or Scholion” which these learned persons affirm to be of such frequent occurrence has any existence whatever,—except in their own imaginations. On the other hand, I assert that notes or scholia which state the exact reverse, (viz. that “in the older” or “the more accurate copies” the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are contained,) recur even perpetually. The plain truth is this:—These eminent persons have taken their information at second-hand,—partly from Griesbach, partly from Scholz,—without suspicion and without inquiry. But then they have slightly misrepresented Scholz; and Scholz (1830) slightly misunderstood Griesbach; and Griesbach (1796) took liberties with Wetstein; and Wetstein (1751) made a few serious mistakes. The consequence might have been anticipated. The Truth, once thrust out of sight, certain erroneous statements have usurped its place,—which every succeeding Critic now reproduces, evidently to his own entire satisfaction; though not, it must be declared, altogether to his own credit. Let me be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred.

2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German plan of setting down all the twenty-five MSS.193 and all the five Patristic authorities which up to his time had been cited as bearing on the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: giving the former in numerical order, and stating generally concerning them that in one or other of those authorities it would be found recorded“that the verses in question were anciently wanting in some, or in most, or in almost all the Greek copies, or in the most accurate ones:—or else that they were found in a few, or in the more accurate copies, or in many, or in most of them, specially in the Palestinian Gospel.” The learned writer (who had made up his mind long before that the verses in question are to be rejected) no doubt perceived that this would be the most convenient way of disposing of the evidence for and against: but one is at a loss to understand how English scholars can have acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well nigh [pg 116]a hundred years. A very little study of the subject would have shewn them that Griesbach derived the first eleven of his references from Wetstein,194 the last fourteen from Birch.195 As for Scholz, he unsuspiciously adopted Griesbach's fatal enumeration of Codices; adding five to the number; and only interrupting the series here and there, in order to insert the quotations which Wetstein had already supplied from certain of them. With Scholz, therefore, rests the blame of everything which has been written since 1830 concerning the MS. evidence for this part of S. Mark's Gospel; subsequent critics having been content to adopt his statements without acknowledgment and without examination. Unfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such a slovenly style, that besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones; which, of course, have been reproduced by those who have simply translated or transcribed him. And now I shall examine his note “(z)”,196with which practically all that has since been delivered on this subject by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is identical.

(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two MSS. in the Vatican Library197 the verses in question “are marked with an asterisk.” The original author of this statement was Birch, who followed it up by explaining the fatal signification of this mark.198 From that day to this, the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been religiously reproduced by every Critic in turn; and it is universally taken for granted that they represent two ancient [pg 117]witnesses against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

And yet, (let me say it without offence,) a very little attention ought to be enough to convince any one familiar with this subject that the proposed inference is absolutely inadmissible. For, in the first place, a solitary asterisk (not at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.199) has of necessity no such signification. And even if it does sometimes indicate that all the verses which follow are suspicious, (of which, however, I have never seen an example,) it clearly could not have that signification here,—for a reason which I should have thought an intelligent boy might discover.

Well aware, however, that I should never be listened to, with Birch and Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and indeed every one else against me,—I got a learned friend at Rome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and inspect the two Codices in question.200 That he would find Birch right in his facts, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more than doubted the correctness of his proposed inference from them. I even felt convinced that the meaning and purpose of the asterisks in question would be demonstrably different from what Birch had imagined.

Altogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found that the learned Dane has here made one of those (venial, but) unfortunate blunders to which every one is liable who registers phenomena of this class in haste, and does not methodize his memoranda until he gets home. To be brief,—there proves to be no asterisk at all,—either in Cod. 756, or in Cod. 757.

On the contrary. After ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, the former Codex has, in the text of S. Mark xvi. 9 (fol. 150 b), a plain cross,—(not an asterisk, thus [symbol: x with dots in corners] or [symbol: broken x with corner dots] or [symbol: inverse or open x], but a cross, thus +),—the intention of which is to refer the reader to an annotation on fol. 151 b, (marked, of course, with a cross also,) to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is undoubtedly [pg 118]genuine.201 The evidence, therefore, not only breaks hopelessly down; but it is discovered that this witness 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 entirely203 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.”

[pg 119]

(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. Markends 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 [pg 120]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,—

“In certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here; up to which place Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized. In other copies, however, is found as follows.”207 And then comes the rest of S. Mark's Gospel.

I shall have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, and what he “canonized,” by-and-by. But what is there in all this, (let me in the meantime ask), to recommend the opinion that the Gospel of S. Mark was published by its Author in an incomplete state; or that the last twelve verses of it are of spurious origin?

(6.) The reader's attention is specially invited to the imposing statement which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says Scholz,) “contain these words of Severus of Antioch:—

“In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, however, this also is added,—‘Now when He was risen,’ &c. This, however, seems to contradict to some extent what was before delivered,” &c.

It may sound fabulous, but it is strictly true, that every word of this, (unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by every Critic who has since gone over the same ground,) is a mere tissue of mistakes. For first,—Cod. 23 contains nothing whatever pertinent to the present inquiry. (Scholz, evidently through haste and inadvertence, has confounded his own [pg 121]“23” with “Coisl.23,” but “Coisl. 23” is his “39,”—of which by-and-by. This reference therefore has to be cancelled.)—Cod. 41 contains a scholion of precisely the opposite tendency: I mean, a scholion which avers that the accurate copies of S. Mark's Gospel contain these last twelve verses. (Scholz borrowed this wrong reference from Wetstein,—who, by an oversight, quotes Cod. 41 three times instead of twice.)—There remain but Codd. 34 and 39; and in neither of those two manuscripts, from the first page of S. Mark's Gospel to the last, does there exist any “scholion of Severus of Antioch” whatever. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently made a gross misstatement;208 and every Critic who has since written on this subject has adopted his words,—without acknowledgment and without examination.... Such is the evidence on which it is proposed to prove that S. Mark did not write the last twelve verses of his Gospel!

(7.) Scholz proceeds to enumerate the following twenty-two Codices:—24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222. And this imposing catalogue is what has misled Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest. They have not perceived that it is a mere transcript of Griesbach's list; which Scholz interrupts only to give from Cod. 24, (imperfectly and at second-hand,) the weighty scholion, (Wetstein had given it from Cod. 41,) which relates, on the authority of an eye-witness, that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 existed in the ancient Palestinian Copy. (About that Scholion enough has been offered already.209) Scholz adds that very nearly the same words are found in 374.—What he says concerning 206 and 209 (and he might have added 199,) has been explained above.

But when the twenty MSS. which remain210 undisposed of have been scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite [pg 122]different from what is commonly supposed. One of them (No. 38) has been cited in error: while the remaining nineteen are nothing else but copies of Victor of Antioch's commentary on S. Mark,—no less than sixteen of which contain the famous attestation that in most of the accurate copies, and in particular the authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel were found. (See above, pp. 64 and65.).... And this exhausts the evidence.

(8.) So far, therefore, as “Notes” and “Scholia” in MSS. are concerned, the sum of the matter proves to be simply this:—(a) Nine Codices211 are observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark's Gospel, though wanting “in some,” was yet found “in others,”—“in many,”—“in the ancient copies.”

(b) Next, four Codices212 contain subscriptions vouching for the genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring that those four Codices had been collated with approved copies preserved at Jerusalem.

(c) Lastly, sixteen Codices,—(to which, besides that already mentioned by Scholz,213 I am able to add at least five others, making twenty-two in all,214)—contain a weighty critical scholion asserting categorically that in “very many” and “accurate copies,” specially in the “true Palestinian exemplar,” these verses had been found by one who seems to have verified the fact of their existence there for himself.

(9.) And now, shall I be thought unfair if, on a review of the premisses, I assert that I do not see a shadow of reason for the imposing statement which has been adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that “there exist about thirty Codices which state that from the more ancient and more accurate copies of the Gospel, the last twelve verses of S. Mark were absent?” I repeat, there is not so much as one single Codex which contains such a scholion; [pg 123]while twenty-four215 of those commonly enumerated state the exact reverse.—We may now advance a step: but the candid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the supposed hostile evidence is on the contrary entirely in favour of the verses under discussion. (“I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed them these three times.”)

II. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.216 This is the designation of an uncial MS. of the viiith or ixth century, in the Library at Paris, chiefly remarkable for the correspondence of its readings with those of Cod. B and with certain of the citations in Origen; a peculiarity which recommends Cod. L, (as it recommends three cursive Codices of the Gospels, 1, 33, 69,) to the especial favour of a school with which whatever is found in Cod. B is necessarily right. It is described as the work of an ignorant foreign copyist, who probably wrote with several MSS. before him; but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to determine which reading to adopt and which to reject. Certain it is that he interrupts himself, at the end of ver. 8, to write as follows:—

“Something to this effect is also met with:

“All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed unto Peter and the rest. And after these things, from East even unto West, did Jesus Himself send forth by their means the holy and incorruptible message of eternal Salvation.

“But this also is met with after the words, ‘for they were afraid:’

“Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the week,”217 &c.

[pg 124]

It cannot be needful that I should delay the reader with any remarks on such a termination of the Gospel as the foregoing. It was evidently the production of some one who desired to remedy the conspicuous incompleteness of his own copy of S. Mark's Gospel, but who had imbibed so little of the spirit of the Evangelical narrative that he could not in the least imitate the Evangelist's manner. As for the scribe who executed Codex L, he was evidently incapable of distinguishing the grossest fabrication from the genuine text. The same worthless supplement is found in the margin of the Hharklensian Syriac (A.D. 616), and in a few other quarters of less importance.218—I pass on, with the single remark that I am utterly at a loss to understand on what principle Cod. L,—a solitary MS. of the viiith or ixth century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious text,—is to [pg 125]be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the present occasion, rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence it bears concerning the last twelve verses of the second Gospel by all the seventeen remaining Uncials, (three of which are from 300 to 400 years more ancient than itself;) and by every cursive copy of the Gospels in existence. Quite certain at least is it that not the faintest additional probability is established by Cod. L that S. Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of its inspired Author was in a mutilated condition. The copyist shews that he was as well acquainted as his neighbours with our actual concluding Verses: while he betrays his own incapacity, by seeming to view with equal favour the worthless alternative which he deliberately transcribes as well, and to which he gives the foremost place. Not S. Mark's Gospel, but Codex L is the sufferer by this appeal.

III. I go back now to the statements found in certain Codices of the xth century, (derived probably from one of older date,) to the effect that “the marginal references to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than ver. 8:”—for so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. 120,) ἕως οὖ Εὐσέβιους ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν, which are found at the end of ver. 8 in Codd. 1, 206, 209.

(1.) Now this statement need not have delayed us for many minutes. But then, therewith, recent Critics have seen fit to connect another and an entirely distinct proposition: viz. that

Ammonius

also, a contemporary of Origen, conspires with Eusebius in disallowing the genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel. This is in fact a piece of evidence to which recently special prominence has been given: every Editor of the Gospels in turn, since Wetstein, having reproduced it; but no one more emphatically than Tischendorf. “Neither by the sections of Ammonius nor yet by the canons of Eusebius are these last verses recognised”219 “Thus it is seen,” [pg 126]proceeds Dr. Tregelles, “that just as Eusebius found these verses absent in his day from the best and most numerous copies (sic), so was also the case with Ammonius when he formed his Harmony in the preceding century.”220

(The opposite page exhibits an exact Fac-simile, obtained by Photography, of fol. 113 ofEvan. Cod. L, (“Codex Regius,” No. 62,) at Paris; containing S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;—as explained at pp. 123-4. The Text of that MS. has been published by Dr. Tischendorf in his“Monumenta Sacra Inedita,” (1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. 206.)

[Illustration: Codex Regius facsimile page.]

(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the obliging permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the Manuscript Department of the “Bibliothèque.” He has my best thanks for the kindness with which he promoted my wishes and facilitated my researches.)

(It should perhaps be stated that the margin of “Codex L” is somewhat ampler than can be represented in an octavo volume; each folio measuring very nearly nine inches, by very nearly six inches and a half.)

A new and independent authority therefore is appealed to,—one of high antiquity and evidently very great importance,—Ammonius of Alexandria, A.D. 220. But Ammonius has left behind him no known writings whatsoever. What then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident way to the testimony of “Ammonius?”

To make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English reader, I must needs introduce in this place some account of what are popularly called the “Ammonian Sections” and the “Eusebian Canons:” concerning both of which, however, it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing whatever is known beyond what is discoverable from a careful study of the “Sections” and“Canons” themselves; added to what Eusebius has told us in that short Epistle of his “to Carpianus,”—which I suppose has been transcribed and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle in the world.

Eusebius there explains that Ammonius of Alexandria constructed with great industry and labour a kind of Evangelical Harmony; the peculiarity of which was, that, retaining S. Matthew's Gospel in its integrity, it exhibited the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists by the side of S. Matthew's text. There resulted this inevitable inconvenience; that the sequence of the narrative, in the case of the three last Gospels, was interrupted throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed.221

The “Diatessaron” of Ammonius, (so Eusebius styles it), has long since disappeared; but it is plain from the foregoing account of it by a competent witness that it must [pg 127]have been a most unsatisfactory performance. It is not easy to see how room can have been found in such a scheme for entire chapters of S. Luke's Gospel; as well as for the larger part of the Gospel according to S. John: in short, for anything which was not capable of being brought into some kind of agreement, harmony, or correspondence with something in S. Matthew's Gospel.

How it may have fared with the other Gospels in the work of Ammonius is not in fact known, and it is profitless to conjecture. What we know for certain is that Eusebius, availing himself of the hint supplied by the very imperfect labours of his predecessor, devised an entirely different expedient, whereby he extended to the Gospels of S. Mark, S. Luke and S. John all the advantages, (and more than all,) which Ammonius had made the distinctive property of the first Gospel.222 His plan was to retain the Four Gospels in their integrity; and, besides enabling a reader to ascertain at a glance the places which S. Matthew has in common with the other three Evangelists, or with any two, or with any one of them, (which, I suppose, was the sum of what had been exhibited by the work of Ammonius,)—to shew which places S. Luke has in common with S. Mark,—which with S. John only; as well as which places are peculiar to each of the four Evangelists in turn. It is abundantly clear therefore what Eusebius means by saying that the labours of Ammonius had “suggested to him” his own.223 The sight of that Harmony of the other three Evangelists with S. Matthew's Gospel had suggested to him the advantage of establishing a series of parallels throughout all the Four Gospels. But then, whereas Ammonius had placed alongside of S. Matthew the dislocated sections themselves of the [pg 128]other three Evangelists which are of corresponding purport, Eusebius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same object by means of a system of double numerical references. He invented X Canons, or Tables: he subdivided each of the Four Gospels into a multitude of short Sections. These he numbered; (a fresh series of numbers appearing in each Gospel, and extending from the beginning right on to the end;) and immediately under every number, he inserted, in vermillion, another numeral (I to X); whose office it was to indicate in which of his X Canons, or Tables, the reader would find the corresponding places in any of the other Gospels.224 (If the section was unique, it belonged to his last or Xth Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew's account of the Title on the Cross, is written 335/I: but in the Ist Canon (which contains the places common to all four Evangelists) parallel with 335, is found,—214, 324, 199: and the Sections of S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John thereby designated, (which are discoverable by merely casting one's eye down the margin of each of those several Gospels in turn, until the required number has been reached,) will be found to contain the parallel record in the other three Gospels.

All this is so purely elementary, that its very introduction in this place calls for apology. The extraordinary method of the opposite party constrains me however to establish thus clearly the true relation in which the familiar labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of Ammonius.

[pg 129]

For if that earlier production be lost indeed,225—if its precise contents, if the very details of its construction, can at this distance of time be only conjecturally ascertained,—what right has any one to appeal to “the Sections of Ammonius,” as to a known document? Why above all do Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim “Ammonius” for their ally on an occasion like the present; seeing that they must needs be perfectly well aware that they have no means whatever of knowing (except from the precarious evidence of Catenæ) what Ammonius thought about any single verse in any of the four Gospels? At every stage of this discussion, I am constrained to ask myself,—Do then the recent Editors of the Text of the New Testament really suppose that their statements will never be examined? their references never verified? or is it thought that they enjoy a monopoly of the learning (such as it is) which enables a man to form an opinion in this department of sacred Science? For,

(1st.) Where then and what are those “Sections of Ammonius” to which Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently appeal? It is even notorious that when they say the “Sections of Ammonius,” what they mean are the “Sections of Eusebius.”—But, (2dly.) Where is the proof,—where is even the probability,—that these two are identical? The Critics cannot require to be reminded by me that we are absolutely [pg 130]without proof that so much as one of the Sections of Ammonius corresponded with one of those of Eusebius; and yet, (3dly.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of Ammonius and those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded throughout, the name of Ammonius has no business whatever to be introduced into such a discussion as the present? They must at least be told that in the entire absence of proof of any kind,—(and certainly nothing that Eusebius says warrants any such inference,226)—to reason from the one to the other as if they were identical, is what no sincere inquirer after Truth is permitted to do.

It is time, however, that I should plainly declare that it happens to be no matter of opinion at all whether the lost Sections of Ammonius were identical with those of Eusebius or not. It is demonstrable that they cannot have been so; and the proof is supplied by the Sections themselves. It is discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they imply and presuppose the Ten Canons; being in many places even meaningless,—nugatory, in fact, (I do not of course say that they are practically without use,)—except on the theory that those Canons were already in existence.227 Now the Canons are confessedly the invention of Eusebius. He distinctly claims them.228 Thus much then concerning the supposed testimony of Ammonius. It is nil.—And now for what is alleged concerning the evidence of Eusebius.

The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking), is the following memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.:—“Thus far did Eusebius canonize;”229 which [pg 131]means either: (1) That his Canons recognise no section of S. Mark's Gospel subsequent to § 233, (which number is commonly set over against ver. 8:) or else, (which comes to the same thing,)—(2) That no sections of the same Gospel, after § 233, are referred to any of his X Canons.

On this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious superstructure. It is assumed,

(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark's Gospel which Eusebius numbers “233,” and which begins at our ver. 8, cannot have extended beyond ver. 8;—whereas it may have extended, and probably did extend, down to the end of ver. 11.

(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian Canons of any sectional number in S. Mark's Gospel subsequent to § 233, no Section (with, or without, such a subsequent number) can have existed:—whereas there may have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly numbered.230 This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have canonized no further than § 233.

I am not disposed, however, to contest the point as far as Eusebius is concerned. I have only said so much in order to shew how unsatisfactory is the argumentation on the other side. Let it be assumed, for argument sake, that the statement “Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8”is equivalent to this,—“Eusebius numbered no Sections after ver. 8;” (and more it cannot mean:)—What then? I am at a loss to see what it is that the Critics propose to themselves by insisting on the circumstance. For we knew before,—it was in fact Eusebius himself who told us,—that Copies of the Gospel ending abruptly at ver. 8, were anciently of frequent occurrence. Nay, we heard the same Eusebius remark that one way of shelving a certain awkward problem would be, to plead that the subsequent portion of S. Mark's Gospel is frequently wanting. What more have we learned when we have ascertained that the same Eusebius allowed no place to that subsequent portion in his Canons? The new fact, (supposing it to be a fact,) is but the correlative [pg 132]of the old one; and since it was Eusebius who was the voucher for that, what additional probability do we establish that the inspired autograph of S. Mark ended abruptly at ver. 8, by discovering that Eusebius is consistent with himself, and omits to “canonize” (or even to “sectionize”) what he had already hypothetically hinted might as well be left out altogether? (See above, pp. 44-6.)

So that really I am at a loss to see that one atom of progress is made in this discussion by the further discovery that, (in a work written about A.D. 373,)

Epiphanius

states casually that “the four Gospels contain 1162 sections.”231 From this it is argued232 that since 355 of these are commonly assigned to S. Matthew, 342 to S. Luke, and 232 to S. John, there do but remain for S. Mark 233; and the 233rd section of S. Mark's Gospel confessedly begins at ch. xvi. 8.—The probability may be thought to be thereby slightly increased that the sectional numbers of Eusebius extended no further than ver. 8: but—Has it been rendered one atom more probable that the inspired Evangelist himself ended his Gospel abruptly at the 8th verse? That fact—(the only thing which our opponents have to establish)—remains exactly where it was; entirely unproved, and in the highest degree improbable.

To conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the pages of Tischendorf:—“These verses are not recognised by the Sections of Ammonius, nor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and Cæsarius bear witness to the fact;”—I am constrained to remark that the illustrious Critic has drawn upon his imagination for three of his statements, and that the fourth is of no manner of importance.

(1.) About the “Sections of Ammonius,” he really knows no more than about the lost Books of Livy. He is, therefore, without excuse for adducing them in the way of evidence.

[pg 133]

(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either as to the “Sections of Ammonius” or to“Canons of Eusebius,” Tischendorf is perfectly well aware. So is my reader.

(3.) His appeal to

Cæsarius

is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate the younger brother of Gregory of Nazianzus; an eminent physician of Constantinople, who died A.D. 368; and who, (as far as is known,) never wrote anything. A work called Πεύσεις, (which in the xth century was attributed to Cæsarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that Cæsarius was certainly not its author,) is the composition to which Tischendorf refers. Even the approximate date of this performance, however, has never been ascertained. And yet, if Tischendorf had condescended to refer to it, (instead of taking his reference at second-hand,) he would have seen at a glance that the entire context in which the supposed testimony is found, is nothing else but a condensed paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius, in which the original statement occurs.233

Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of Ammonius, of Epiphanius, and of Cæsarius on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel. It is exactly nil. In fact Pseudo-Cæsarius, so far from “bearing witness to the fact” that the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel are spurious, actually quotes the 16th verse as genuine.234

(4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added to what we knew before concerning his probable estimate of these verses.

IV. We are now at liberty to proceed to the only head of external testimony which remains undiscussed. I allude to the evidence of

The Catenæ.

“In the Catenæ on Mark,” (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) “there is no explanation of this section.”235 [pg 134]“The Catenæ on Mark:” as if they were quite common things,—“plenty, as blackberries!” But,—Which of “the Catenæ” may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined?

1. Not the Catena which Possinus found in the library of Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse, and which forms the basis of his Catena published at Rome in 1673; because thatCodex is expressly declared by the learned Editor to be defective from ver. 8 to the end.236

2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the Vatican Library and communicated to Possinus; because in that Catena the 9th and 12th verses are distinctly commented on.237

3. Still less can Dr. Davidson be thought to have inspected the Catena commonly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,—which Peltanus published in Latin in 1580, but which Possinus was the first to publish in Greek (1673). Dr. Davidson, I say, cannot certainly have examined thatCatena; inasmuch as it contains, (as I have already largely shewn, and, in fact, as every one may see,) a long and elaborate dissertation on the best way of reconciling the language of S. Mark in ver. 9 with the language of the other Evangelists.238

4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic has inspected either of the last two editions of the same [pg 135]Catena: viz. that of Matthaei, (Moscow 1775,) or that of Cramer, (Oxford 1844,) from MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris and in the Bodleian. This is simply impossible, because (as we have seen), in these is contained the famous passage whichcategorically asserts the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel.239

Now this exhausts the subject.

To which, then, of “the Catenæ on Mark,” I must again inquire, does this learned writer allude?—I will venture to answer the question myself; and to assert that this is only one more instance of the careless, second-hand (and third-rate) criticism which is to be met with in every part of Dr. Davidson's book: one proof more of the alacrity with which worn-out objections and worthless arguments are furbished up afresh, and paraded before an impatient generation and an unlearned age, whenever (tanquam vile corpus) the writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed, or the Faith of the Church of Christ is to be unsettled and undermined.

V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to p. 39, he will perceive that I have now disposed of every witness whom I originally undertook to examine. He will also, in fairness, admit that there has not been elicited one particle of evidence, from first to last, which renders it in the slightest degree probable that the Gospel of S. Mark, as it originally came from the hands of its inspired Author, was either an imperfect or an unfinished work. Whether there have not emerged certain considerations which render such a supposition in the highest degree unlikely,—I am quite content that my Reader shall decide.

Dismissing the external testimony, therefore, proceed we now to review those internal evidences, which are confidently appealed to as proving that the concluding Verses of S. Mark's Gospel cannot be regarded as really the work of the Evangelist.

[pg 136]

CHAPTER IX.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.

The “Style” and “Phraseology” of these Verses declared by Critics to be not S. Mark's.—Insecurity of such Criticism (p. 140).—The “Style” of chap. xvi. 9-20 shewn to be the same as the style of chap. i. 9-20 (p. 142).—The“Phraseology” examined in twenty-seven particulars, and shewn to be suspicious in none (p. 145),—but in twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reverse (p. 170).—Such Remarks fallacious (p. 173).—Judged of by a truer, a more delicate and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most probably genuine (p. 175).

A distinct class of objections remains to be considered. An argument much relied on by those who deny or doubt the genuineness of this portion of S. Mark's Gospel, is derived from considerations of internal evidence. In the judgment of a recent Editor of the New Testament,—These twelve verses “bear traces of another hand from that which has shaped the dictionand construction of the rest of the Gospel.”240 They are therefore “an addition to the narrative,”—of which “the internal evidence will be found to preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark.”—“A difference,” (says Dr. Tregelles,) “has been remarked, and truly remarked, between the phraseology of this section and the rest of this Gospel.”—According to Dr. Davidson,—“The phraseology and style of the section are unfavourable to its authenticity.” “The characteristic peculiarities which pervade Mark's Gospel do not appear in it; but, on the contrary, terms and expressions,” “phrases and words, are introduced which Mark never uses; or terms for which he employs others.”241—So Meyer,—“With ver. 9, we suddenly come upon an excerpting process totally different from the previous mode of narration. The passage contains none of Mark's peculiarities (no εὐθέως, no πάλιν, &c, but the baldness [pg 137]and lack of clearness which mark a compiler;) while in single expressions, it is altogether contrary to Mark's manner.”—“There is” (says Professor Norton) “a difference so great between the use of language in this passage, and its use in the undisputed portion of Mark's Gospel, as to furnish strong reasons for believing the passage not genuine.”—No one, however, has expressed himself more strongly on this subject than Tischendorf. “Singula” (he says) “multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.”242... Here, then, is something very like a consensus of hostile opinion: although the terms of the indictment are somewhat vague. Difference of “Diction and Construction,”—difference of “Phraseology and Style,”—difference of “Terms and Expressions,”—difference of “Words and Phrases;”—the absence of S. Mark's “characteristic peculiarities.” I suppose, however, that all may be brought under two heads,—(I.) Style, and (II.) Phraseology: meaning by “Style” whatever belongs to the Evangelist's manner; and by “Phraseology” whatever relates to the words and expressions he has employed. It remains, therefore, that we now examine the proofs by which it is proposed to substantiate these confident assertions, and ascertain exactly what they are worth by constant appeals to the Gospel. Throughout this inquiry, we have to do not with Opinion but with Fact. The unsupported dicta of Critics, however distinguished, are entitled to no manner of attention.

Africa Without Borders

Search This Blog

Contents