CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT.
APPENDIX (A).
APPENDIX (B).
APPENDIX (C).
APPENDIX (D).
APPENDIX (E).
APPENDIX (F).
APPENDIX (G).
APPENDIX (H).
POSTSCRIPT.
L’ENVOY
GENERAL INDEX.
Footnotes
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 the CODEX 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.]]
[[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]]
"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.
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, 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.
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 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 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 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_.
THE LAST TWELVE VERSES.
_Subjoined, for convenience, are_ “the Last Twelve Verses.”
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ (9) Now when Jesus was
σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον risen early the first day
Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ᾽ of the week, He appeared
ῆς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα first to Mary Magdalene,
δαιμόμια. ἐκείνη out of whom He had cast
πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς seven devils. (10) And
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, she went and told them
πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι. that had been with Him,
κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι as they mourned and wept.
ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (11) And they, when they
ἠπίστησαν. had heard that He was
alive, and had been seen
of her, believed not.
Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀυσὶν ἐξ (12) After that He
αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν appeared in another form
ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, unto two of them, as they
πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν. walked, and went into the
κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες country. (13) And they
ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς; went and told it unto the
οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν. residue: neither believed
they them.
Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις (14) Afterward He
αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα appeared unto the eleven
ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισε as they sat at meat, and
τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ upbraided them with their
σκληροκαρδίαν, ὅτι τοῖς unbelief and hardness of
θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν heart, because they
ἐγηγερμένον οὐκ believed not them which
ἐπίστευσαν. Καὶ εἶπεν had seen Him after He was
αὐτοῖς, “Πορευθέντες εἰς risen. (15) And He said
τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, unto them, “Go ye into
κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον all the world, and preach
πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. ὁ the Gospel to every
πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς creature. (16) He that
σωθήσεται; ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας believeth and is baptized
κατακριθήσεται. σημεῖα δὲ shall be saved; but he
τοῖς πιστεύσασι ταῦτα that believeth not shall
παρακολουθήσει; ἐν τῷ be damned. (17) And these
ὀνόματι μου δαιμόνια signs shall follow them
ἐκβαλοῦσι; γλώσσαις that believe; In My Name
λαλήσουσι καιναῖς; ὄφεις shall they cast out
ἀροῦσι; κὰν θανὰσιμόν τι devils; they shall speak
πίωσιν, οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς with new tongues; (18)
βλάψει; ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους they shall take up
χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσι, καὶ serpents; and if they
καλῶς ἕξουσιν.” 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 (19) So then after the
λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς, ἀνελήφθη LORD had spoken unto
εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, καὶ them, He was received up
ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ into Heaven, and sat on
Θεοῦ; ἐκεῖνοι δὲ the Right hand of GOD.
ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν (20) And they went forth,
πανταχοῦ, τοῦ Κυρίου and preached every where,
συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν the LORD working with
λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν them, and confirming the
ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. word with signs
Ἀμήν. following. Amen.
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 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 GOD must 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 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 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.
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, 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.(9) He
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 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 for _omitting_ 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
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 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,” (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 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. Mark _was_. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)
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.
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.) on FATHERS. 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 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 exact _sequence_,—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
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 ivth century, 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 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. The _substance_, 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,—to _allude_ 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 that their _memory_ is in fault, as their _judgment_,—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 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) 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 is _invariably_ 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 no variety of
reading from the _Textus Receptus_(42)) 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.
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 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 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 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 xiith(59): 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 Xth chapter.
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
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.
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 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.(61) This
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 three(62) 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
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 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, 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 ivth
century only, and not for the iiird. And now, how will the evidence stand
for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel?
(_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,—(_four_ authorities 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.
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 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.’ ”
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 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 _both_ forward. 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 vi_th_ 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 Cardinal Angelo
Mai(75) 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 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 _some_ of 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
_amputation_ would 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 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 years(83),) 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 getting rid
of the entire passage,(84) will 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, (‘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, (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 _invariably_(89)
substituted 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 (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.
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 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 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 on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover
that, instead of hearing _Jerome_ addressing _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 simply _translating his words_.(93)
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: 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 is _Eusebius_ who here speaks, and not Jerome. For a critic to
pretend that it 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
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 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 kind(100),)
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 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 demonstrable(103) 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.
685(104)) does not even record his name. The recent “Dictionary of Greek
and Roman Biography” is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest
editor) 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 “his _testimony_ 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, 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 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 89th Homily of
Chrysostom(110)), reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to do(111))
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:—