risen early the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene;’—a
statement which seems inconsistent with Matthew’s narrative. This might be
met by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, though found in
certain copies, is spurious, However, that we may not seem to betake
ourselves to an off-hand answer, we propose to read the place thus:—‘Now
when [JESUS] was risen:’ then, after a comma, to go on,—‘early the first
day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ In this way we refer
[Mark’s] ‘Now when [JESUS] was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of the
sabbath,’ (for _then_ we believe Him to have _risen_;) and all that comes
after, expressive as it is of a different notion, we connect with what
follows. Mark relates that He who ‘_arose_ (according to Matthew) _in the
end of the Sabbath_,’ _was seen_ by Mary Magdalene ‘_early_.’ This is in
fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the
first day of the week,’ [JESUS] appeared to the Magdalene. In a word, two
distinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of
the Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the
season of our SAVIOUR’S Appearing,—which was ‘early.’ ”(112)
No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate to admit that he
is here listening to Eusebius “ad Marinum” over again. But if any one
really retains a particle of doubt on the subject, he is requested to cast
his eye to the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader,
surveying the originals with attention, may easily convince himself that
_Victor is here nothing else but a copyist_.(113) That the work in which
Eusebius reconciles “seeming discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives,”
was actually lying open before Victor while he wrote, is ascertained
beyond dispute. He is observed in his next ensuing Comment to quote from
it, and to mention Eusebius as its author. At the end of the present note
he has a significant allusion to Eusebius:—“I know very well,” he says,
“what has been suggested _by those who are at the pains to remove the
apparent inconsistencies in this place_.”(114) But when writing on S. Mark
xvi. 9-20, he does more. After abridging, (as his manner is,) what
Eusebius explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the substance of
five columns in about three times as many lines,) he adopts the exact
expressions of Eusebius,—follows him in his very mistakes,—and finally
transcribes his words. The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind
that what he has been listening to is _not the testimony of Victor at
all_: but _the testimony of Eusebius_. This is but one more echo therefore
of a passage of which we are all beginning by this time to be weary; so
exceedingly rash are the statements with which it is introduced, so
utterly preposterous the proposed method of remedying a difficulty which
proves after all to be purely imaginary.
What then _is_ the testimony of Victor? Does he offer any independent
statement on the question in dispute, from which his own private opinion
(though nowhere stated) may be lawfully inferred? Yes indeed. Victor,
though frequently a Transcriber only, is observed every now and then to
come forward in his own person, and deliver his individual sentiment.(115)
But nowhere throughout his work does he deliver such remarkable testimony
as in this place. Hear him!
“Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the
passage beginning, ‘Now when [JESUS] was risen early the first day of the
week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,’ be not found,—(certain
individuals having supposed it to be spurious,)—yet WE, at all events,
inasmuch as in very many we have discovered it to exist, have, out of
accurate copies, subjoined also the account of our Lord’s Ascension,
(following the words ‘for they were afraid,’) in conformity with the
Palestinian exemplar of Mark which exhibits the Gospel verity: that is to
say, from the words, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of
the week,’ &c., down to ‘with signs following. Amen.’(116)—And with these
words Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on S. Mark to an end.”
Here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent Father,
writing in the first half of the vth century,—
(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark are absent from
some ancient copies of his Gospel is _because they have been deliberately
omitted by Copyists_:
(2.) That the ground for such omission was the _subjective judgment_ of
individuals,—_not_ the result of any appeal to documentary evidence.
Victor, therefore, clearly held that the Verses in question had been
_expunged_ in consequence of their (seeming) inconsistency with what is
met with in the other Gospels:
(3.) That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself by reference to
“very many” and “accurate” copies, that the verses in question are
genuine:
(4.) That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which enjoyed the reputation
of “exhibiting the genuine text of S. Mark,” contained the Verses in
dispute.—To _Opinion_, therefore, Victor opposes _Authority_. He makes his
appeal to the most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is
acquainted; and the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete
counterpoise and antidote to the loose phrases of Eusebius on the same
subject:
(5.) That in consequence of all this, following the Palestinian Exemplar,
he had from accurate copies _furnished his own work with the Twelve Verses
in dispute_;—which is a categorical refutation of the statement frequently
met with that the work of Victor of Antioch is _without_ them.
We are now at liberty to sum up; and to review the progress which has been
hitherto made in this Inquiry.
Six Fathers of the Church have been examined who are commonly represented
as bearing hostile testimony to the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s
Gospel; and they have been easily reduced to _one_. Three of them,
(Hesychius, Jerome, Victor,) prove to be echoes, not voices. The remaining
two, (Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices nor echoes, but
merely _names_: GREGORY OF NYSSA having really no more to do with this
discussion than Philip of Macedon; and “Severus” and “Hesychius”
representing one and the same individual. Only by a Critic seeking to
mislead his reader will any one of these five Fathers be in future cited
as witnessing against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Eusebius is
the solitary witness who survives the ordeal of exact inquiry.(117) But,
I. EUSEBIUS, (as we have seen), instead of proclaiming his distrust of
this portion of the Gospel, enters upon an elaborate proof that its
contents are not inconsistent with what is found in the Gospels of S.
Matthew and S. John. His testimony is reducible to two innocuous and
wholly unconnected propositions: the first,—That there existed in his day
a vast number of copies in which the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel
ended abruptly at ver. 8; (the correlative of which of course would be
that there also existed a vast number which were furnished with the
present ending.) The second,—That by putting a comma after the word
Ἀναστάς, S. Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with S. Matth.
xxviii. 1(118).... I profess myself unable to understand how it can be
pretended that Eusebius would have subscribed to the opinion of
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that the Gospel of S. Mark was never
finished by its inspired Author, or was mutilated before it came abroad;
at all events, that the last Twelve Verses are spurious.
II. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been adopted, and in
part transcribed, by an unknown writer of the vith century,—whether
HESYCHIUS or SEVERUS is not certainly known: but if it were Hesychius,
then it was not Severus; if Severus, then not Hesychius. This writer,
however, (whoever he may have been,) is careful to convince us that
individually he entertained _no doubt whatever_ about the genuineness of
this part of Scripture, for he says that he writes in order to remove the
(hypothetical) objections of others, and to silence their (imaginary)
doubts. Nay, he freely _quotes the verses as genuine_, and declares that
they were read in his day on a certain Sunday night in the public Service
of the Church.... To represent such an one,—(it matters nothing, I repeat,
whether we call him “Hesychius of Jerusalem” or “Severus of Antioch,”)—as
a hostile witness, is simply to misrepresent the facts of the case. He is,
on the contrary, the strenuous champion of the verses which he is commonly
represented as impugning.
III. As for JEROME, since that illustrious Father comes before us in this
place as a _translator_ of Eusebius only, he is no more responsible for
what Eusebius says concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20, than Hobbes of Malmesbury
is responsible for anything that Thucydides has related concerning the
Peloponnesian war. Individually, however, it is certain that Jerome was
convinced of the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: for in two different
places of his writings he not only quotes the 9th and 14th verses, but he
exhibits all the twelve in the Vulgate.
IV. Lastly, VICTOR OF ANTIOCH, who wrote in an age when Eusebius was held
to be an infallible oracle on points of Biblical Criticism,—having
dutifully rehearsed, (like the rest,) the feeble expedient of that
illustrious Father for harmonizing S. Mark xvi. 9 with the narrative of S.
Matthew,—is observed to cite the statements of Eusebius concerning _the
last Twelve Verses_ of S. Mark, only in order to refute them. Not that he
opposes opinion to opinion,—(for the opinions of Eusebius and of Victor of
Antioch on this behalf were probably identical;) but statement he meets
with counter-statement,—fact he confronts with fact. Scarcely can anything
be imagined more emphatic than his testimony, or more conclusive.
For the reader is requested to observe that here is an Ecclesiastic,
writing in the first half of the vth century, who _expressly witnesses to
the genuineness_ of the Verses in dispute. He had made reference, he says,
and ascertained their existence in very many MSS. (ὡς ἐν πλείστοις). He
had derived his text from “accurate” ones: (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων.) More
than that: he leads his reader to infer that he had personally resorted to
the famous Palestinian Copy, the text of which was held to exhibit the
inspired verity, and had satisfied himself that the concluding section of
S. Mark’s Gospel _was there_. He had, therefore, been either to Jerusalem,
or else to Cæsarea; had inquired for those venerable records which had
once belonged to Origen and Pamphilus;(119) and had inspected them.
Testimony more express, more weighty,—I was going to say, more
decisive,—can scarcely be imagined. It may with truth be said to close the
present discussion.
With this, in fact, Victor lays down his pen. So also may I. I submit that
nothing whatever which has hitherto come before us lends the slightest
countenance to the modern dream that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the
hands of its inspired Author, ended abruptly at ver. 8. Neither Eusebius
nor Jerome; neither Severus of Antioch nor Hesychius of Jerusalem;
certainly not Victor of Antioch; least of all Gregory of Nyssa,—yield a
particle of support to that monstrous fancy. The notion is an invention, a
pure imagination of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach.
It remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove somewhat less
unaccommodating.
VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of the discussion,
to appeal to
EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS,
the Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compilation on the
Gospels, assigned to A.D. 1116. Euthymius lived, in fact, full five
hundred years too late for his testimony to be of the slightest
importance. Such as it is, however, it is not unfavourable. He says,—“Some
of the Commentators state that here,” (viz. at ver. 8,) “the Gospel
according to Mark finishes; and that what follows is a spurious addition.”
(Which clearly is his version of the statements of one or more of the four
Fathers whose testimony has already occupied so large a share of our
attention.) “This portion we must also interpret, however,” (Euthymius
proceeds,) “since there is nothing in it prejudicial to the
truth.”(120)—But it is idle to linger over such a writer. One might almost
as well quote “Poli _Synopsis_” and then proceed to discuss it. The cause
must indeed be desperate which seeks support from a quarter like this.
What possible sanction can an Ecclesiastic of the xiith century be
supposed to yield to the hypothesis that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the
hands of its inspired Author, was an unfinished work?
It remains to ascertain what is the evidence of the MSS. on this subject.
And the MSS. require to be the more attentively studied, because it is to
_them_ that our opponents are accustomed most confidently to appeal. On
them in fact they rely. The nature and the value of the most ancient
Manuscript testimony available, shall be scrupulously investigated in the
next two Chapters.
CHAPTER VI.
MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE
VERSES.—PART I.
S. Mark xvi. 9-20, contained in every MS. in the world except
two.—Irrational Claim to Infallibility set up on behalf of Cod. B
(p. 73) and Cod. א (p. 75).—These two Codices shewn to be full of
gross Omissions (p. 78),—Interpolations (p. 80),—Corruptions of
the Text (p. 81),—and Perversions of the Truth (p. 83).—The
testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9-20, shewn to be favorable,
notwithstanding (p. 86).
The two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the famous Codex in
the Vatican Library at Rome, known as “Codex B;” and the Codex which
Tischendorf brought from Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by
the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (א). These two manuscripts are
probably not of equal antiquity.(121) An interval of fifty years at least
seems to be required to account for the marked difference between them. If
the first belongs to the beginning, the second may be referred to the
middle or latter part of the ivth century. But the two Manuscripts agree
in this,—that _they are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s
Gospel_. In both, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (ver. 8), comes the subscription: in
Cod. B,—ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ; in Cod. א,—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ.
Let it not be supposed that we have any _more_ facts of this class to
produce. All has been stated. It is not that the evidence of Manuscripts
is one,—the evidence of Fathers and Versions another. The very reverse is
the case. Manuscripts, Fathers, and Versions alike, are _only not
unanimous_ in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness of
the MSS. is even extraordinary. With the exception of the two uncial MSS.
which have just been named, there is _not one_ Codex in existence, uncial
or cursive,—(and we are acquainted with, at least, eighteen other
uncials,(122) and about six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)—which
leaves out the last twelve verses of S. Mark.
The inference which an unscientific observer would draw from this fact, is
no doubt in this instance the correct one. He demands to be shewn the
Alexandrine (A) and the Parisian Codex (C),—neither of them probably
removed by much more than fifty years from the date of the Codex
Sinaiticus, and both unquestionably _derived from different
originals_;—and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of
those venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this part of the
sacred text. He discovers that the Codex Bezae (D), the only remaining
very ancient MS. authority,—notwithstanding that it is observed on most
occasions to exhibit an extraordinary sympathy with the Vatican (B),—here
sides with A and C against B and א. He inquires after all the other
uncials and all the cursive MSS. in existence, (some of them dating from
the xth century,) and requests to have it explained to him _why_ it is to
be supposed that all these many witnesses,—belonging to so many different
patriarchates, provinces, ages of the Church,—have entered into a grand
conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and
importance? But he obtains no intelligible answer to this question. How,
then, is an unprejudiced student to draw any inference but one from the
premisses? _That_ single peculiarity (he tells himself) of bringing the
second Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse of the xvith chapter,
is absolutely fatal to the two Codices in question. It is useless to din
into his ears that those Codices are probably both of the ivth
century,—unless men are prepared to add the assurance that a Codex of the
ivth century is _of necessity_ a more trustworthy witness to the text of
the Gospels than a Codex of the vth. The omission of these twelve verses,
I repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in Cod. B and Cod. א: for it
is obvious that a copy of the Gospels which has been so seriously
mutilated in one place may have been slightly tampered with in another. He
is willing to suspend his judgment, of course. The two oldest copies of
the Gospels in existence are entitled to great reverence _because_ of
their high antiquity. They must be allowed a most patient, most
unprejudiced, most respectful, nay, a most indulgent hearing. But when all
this has been freely accorded, on no intelligible principle can more be
claimed for any two MSS. in the world.
The rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious. Mistrust will no doubt
have been thrown over the evidence borne to the text of Scripture in a
thousand other places by Cod. B and Cod. א, _after demonstration that
those two Codices exhibit a mutilated text_ in the present place. But what
else is this but the very point requiring demonstration? Why may not these
two be right, and all the other MSS. wrong?
I propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed we to examine
the evidence borne by these two witnesses on certain _other_ occasions
which admit of _no_ difference of opinion; or next to none. Let us
endeavour, I say, to ascertain _the character of the Witnesses_ by a
patient and unprejudiced examination of their Evidence,—not in one place,
or in two, or in three; but on several important occasions, and
throughout. If we find it invariably consentient and invariably truthful,
then of course a mighty presumption will have been established, the very
strongest possible, that their adverse testimony in respect of the
conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel must needs be worthy of all acceptation.
But if, on the contrary, our inquiries shall conduct us to the very
opposite result,—what else can happen but that our confidence in these two
MSS. will be hopelessly shaken? We must in such case be prepared to admit
that it is just as likely as not that this is only _one more occasion_ on
which these “two false witnesses” have conspired to witness falsely. If,
at this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely trustworthy kind can
be procured to confront them: above all, if some one ancient witness of
unimpeachable veracity can be found who shall bear contradictory evidence:
what other alternative will be left us but to reject their testimony in
respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with something like indignation; and to
acquiesce in the belief of universal Christendom for eighteen hundred
years that these twelve verses are just as much entitled to our
unhesitating acceptance as any other twelve verses in the Gospel which can
be named?
I. It is undeniable, in the meantime, that for the last quarter of a
century, it has become the fashion to demand for the readings of Codex B
something very like absolute deference. The grounds for this superstitious
sentiment, (for really I can describe it in no apter way,) I profess
myself unable to discover. Codex B comes to us without a history: without
recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces
of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original
transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence. “They are chiefly omissions,
of one, two, or three words; but sometimes of half a verse, a whole verse,
or even of several verses.... I hesitate not to assert that it would be
easier to find a folio containing three or four such omissions than to
light on one which should be without any.”(123) In the Gospels alone,
Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times:(124)
of which by far the largest proportion is found in S. Mark’s Gospel. Many
of these, no doubt, are to be accounted for by the proximity of a “like
ending.”(125) The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic(126)) was originally
derived from an older Codex which contained about twelve or thirteen
letters in a line.(127) And it will be found that some of its omissions
which have given rise to prolonged discussion are probably to be referred
to nothing else but the oscitancy of a transcriber with such a codex
before him:(128) without having recourse to any more abstruse hypothesis;
without any imputation of bad faith;—_certainly without supposing that the
words omitted did not exist in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist_.
But then it is undeniable that some of the omissions in Cod. B are not to
be so explained. On the other hand, I can testify to the fact that the
codex is disfigured throughout with _repetitions_. The original scribe is
often found to have not only written the same words twice over, but to
have failed whenever he did so to take any notice with his pen of what he
had done.
What then, (I must again inquire,) are the grounds for the superstitious
reverence which is entertained in certain quarters for the readings of
Codex B? If it be a secret known to the recent Editors of the New
Testament, they have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close.
II. More recently, a claim to co-ordinate primacy has been set up on
behalf of the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf is actually engaged in
remodelling his seventh Leipsic edition, chiefly in conformity with the
readings of his lately discovered MS.(129) And yet the Codex in question
abounds with “errors of the the eye and pen, to an extent not
unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate
importance.” On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through
very carelessness.(130) “Letters and words, even whole sentences, are
frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while
that gross blunder ... whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to
end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115
times in the New Testament. Tregelles has freely pronounced that ‘the
state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as
_very rough_.’ ”(131) But when “the first scribe” and his “very rough”
performance have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would like to
be informed what remains to command respect in Codex א? Is, then,
_manuscript authority_ to be confounded with _editorial
caprice_,—exercising itself upon the corrections of “at least ten
different revisers,” who, from the vith to the xiith century, have been
endeavouring to lick into shape a text which its original author left
“_very rough_?”
The co-ordinate primacy, (as I must needs call it,) which, within the last
few years, has been claimed for Codex B and Codex א, threatens to grow
into a species of tyranny,—from which I venture to predict there will come
in the end an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil. It behoves us,
therefore, to look closely into this matter, and to require a reason for
what is being done. The text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a
thing to be sacrificed to an irrational, or at least a superstitious
devotion to two MSS.,—simply because they may possibly be older by a
hundred years than any other which we possess. “Id verius quod prius,” is
an axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as in Dogmatic
Truth. But on that principle, (as I have already shewn,) the last twelve
verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are fully established;(132) and by consequence,
the credit of Codd. B and א sustains a severe shock. Again, “Id verius
quod prius;” but it does not of course follow that a Codex of the ivth
century shall exhibit a more correct text of Scripture than one written in
the vth, or even than one written in the xth. For the proof of this
statement, (if it can be supposed to require proof,) it is enough to
appeal to Codex D. That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the vith
century. It is, in fact, one of our five great uncials. No older MS. of
the Greek Text is known to exist,—excepting always A, B, C and א. And yet
_no_ text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations
than that of Codex D. In the Acts, (to use the language of its learned and
accurate Editor,) “it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it
reproduces the _textus receptus_ much in the same way that one of the best
Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the
variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of
expanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend
themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”(133)
Where, then, is the _à priori_ probability that two MSS. of the ivth
century shall have not only a superior claim to be heard, but almost an
exclusive right to dictate which readings are to be rejected, which
retained?
How ready the most recent editors of the New Testament have shewn
themselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of Codd. B and א,—not
unfrequently in defiance of the evidence of all other MSS., and sometimes
to the serious detriment of the deposit,—would admit of striking
illustration were this place for such details. Tischendorf’s English “_New
Testament_”—“with various readings from the three most celebrated
manuscripts of the Greek Text” translated at the foot of every page,—is a
recent attempt (1869) to popularize the doctrine that we have to look
exclusively to two or three of the oldest copies, if we would possess the
Word of GOD in its integrity. Dean Alford’s constant appeal in his
revision of the Authorized Version (1870) to “the oldest MSS.” (meaning
thereby generally Codd. א and B with one or two others(134)), is an abler
endeavour to familiarize the public mind with the same belief. I am bent
on shewing that there is nothing whatever in the character of either of
the Codices in question to warrant this servile deference.
(_a_) And first,—Ought it not sensibly to detract from our opinion of the
value of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two
consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other,
than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_? Now this is a
plain matter of fact, of which any one who pleases may easily convince
himself. But the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one
another has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On every such
occasion, only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be
thought unreasonable if I confess that these _perpetual_ inconsistencies
between Codd. B and א,—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross
ones,—altogether destroy my confidence in either?
(_b_) On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is
throughout, they yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in
exhibiting minute corruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to
betray a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. These
coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish
a real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to
any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent
witnesses.(135)
(_c_) Further, it is evident that both alike have been subjected, probably
during the process of transcription, to the same depraving influences. But
because such statements require to be established by an induction of
instances, the reader’s attention must now be invited to a few samples of
the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies of the Gospel.
1. And first, since it is the omission of the end of S. Mark’s Gospel
which has given rise to the present discussion, it becomes a highly
significant circumstance that the original scribe of Cod. א had _also_
omitted the _end of the Gospel according to S. John_.(136) In this
suppression of ver. 25, Cod. א stands _alone_ among MSS. A cloud of
primitive witnesses vouch for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is
nothing else but the _reductio ad absurdum_ of a theory of recension,
(with Tischendorf in his last edition,) to accommodate our printed text to
the vicious standard of the original penman of Cod. א and bring the last
chapter of S. John’s Gospel to a close at ver. 24!
Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two solemn verses
wherein S. Luke describes our LORD’s “Agony and bloody Sweat,” together
with the act of the ministering Angel.(137) As to the genuineness of those
verses, recognised as they are by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Hippolytus,
Epiphanius, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, by all
the oldest versions, and by almost every MS. in existence, including Cod.
א,—it admits of _no_ doubt. Here then is proof positive that in order to
account for omissions from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there
is no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of the
Gospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. “The admitted error of
Cod. B in this place,” (to quote the words of Scrivener,) “ought to make
some of its advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is
less countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us.”
Cod. B (not Cod. א) is further guilty of the “grave error” (as Dean Alford
justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn record of the Evangelist:—“Then
said JESUS, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” It also
withholds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was “in letters
of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.”(138) Cod. א, on the other hand, omits
the confession of the man born blind (ὁ δὲ ἔφη, πιστεύω, κύριε; καὶ
προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ) in S. John ix. 38.—Both Cod. א and Cod. B retain
nothing but the word υἱόν of the expression τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον,
in S. Matth. i. 25; and suppress altogether the important doctrinal
statement ὁ ὠν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in S. John iii. 13: as well as the clause
διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν; καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, in S. John viii. 59.
Concerning all of which, let it be observed that I am neither imputing
motives nor pretending to explain _the design_ with which these several
serious omissions were made. All that is asserted is, that they cannot be
imputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were intentional: and I
insist that they effectually dispose of the presumption that when an
important passage is observed to be wanting from Cod. B or Cod. א, its
absence is to be accounted for by assuming that it was also absent _from
the inspired autograph of the Evangelist_.
2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or
of א, or of both, has clearly been _interpolated_. There does not exist in
the whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this
than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our
Redeemer’s side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and
Cod. א, where it is introduced at the end of ver. 49,—in defiance of
reason as well as of authority.(139) “This interpolation” (remarks Mr.
Scrivener) “which would represent the SAVIOUR as pierced while yet living,
is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may
combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false.”(140) Another
singularly gross specimen of interpolation, in my judgment, is supplied by
the purely apocryphal statement which is met with in Cod. א, at the end of
S. Matthew’s account of the healing of the Centurion’s servant,—και
υποστρεψας ο εκατονταρχος εις τον οικον αυτου εν αυτη τη ωρα, ευρεν τον
παιδα υγιαινοντα (viii. 13.)—Nor can anything well be weaker than the
substitution (for ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου, in S. John ii. 3) of the
following,(141) which is found _only_ in Cod. א:—οινον ουκ ειχον, οτι
συνετελεσθε ο οινος του γαμου.
But the inspired text has been depraved in the same licentious way
throughout, by the responsible authors of Cod. B and Cod. א, although such
corruptions have attracted little notice from their comparative
unimportance. Thus, the reading (in א) ημας δει εργαζεσθαι τα εργα του
πεμψαντος ημας (S. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient
condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by B’s substitution
of με for the second ημας.—Instead of τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (S.
Luke vi. 48), B and א present us with the insipid gloss, δια το καλως
οικοδομεισθαι αυτην.—In the last-named codex, we find the name of “Isaiah”
(ησαιου) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance of authority and of
*fact*.—Can I be wrong in asserting that the reading ο μονογενης θεος (for
υἱός) in S. John i. 18, (a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. א alike,) is
undeserving of serious attention?—May it not also be confidently declared
that, in the face of all MS. evidence,(142) no future Editors of the New
Testament will be found to accept the highly improbable reading ο ανθρωπος
ο λεγομενος Ιησους, in S. John ix. 11, although the same two Codices
conspire in exhibiting it?—or, on the authority of one of them (א), to
read εν αυτῳ ζωη εστιν(143) (for ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν) in S. John i. 4?—Certain
at least it is that no one will _ever_ be found to read (with B)
εβδομηκοντα δϙο in S. Luke x. 1,—or (with א) ο εκλεκτος του θεου (instead
of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) in S. John i. 34.—But let me ask, With what show of
reason can the pretence of _Infallibility_, (as well as the plea of
Primacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of MSS. licentiously corrupt as
these have already been _proved_ to be? For the readings above enumerated,
be it observed, are either critical depravations of the inspired Text, or
else unwarrantable interpolations. They _cannot_ have resulted from
careless transcription.
3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind to convince
me that the text with which Cod. B and Cod. א were chiefly acquainted,
must have been once and again subjected to a clumsy process of _revision_.
Not unfrequently, as may be imagined, the result (however tasteless and
infelicitous) is not of serious importance; as when, (to give examples
from Cod. א,) for τὸν ὄχλον ἐπικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ (in S. Luke v. 1) we are
presented with συναχθηναι τον οχλον:—when for ζῶν ἀσώτως (in S. Luke xv.
13) we read εις χωραν μακραν; and for οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες αὐτῶν (in S. Luke
xxii. 25), we find οι αρχοντες των [εθνων] εξουσιαζουσιν αυτων, και,
(which is only a weak reproduction of S. Matth. xx. 25):—when again, for
σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει (in S. John vi. 17), we are shewn καταλαβεν δε αυτους
η σκοτια: and when, for καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν (in S. John vi.
64) we are invited to accept και τις ην ο μελλων αυτον παραδιδοναι.(144)
But it requires very little acquaintance with the subject to foresee that
this kind of license may easily assume serious dimensions, and grow into
an intolerable evil. Thus, when the man born blind is asked by the HOLY
ONE if he believes ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ (S. John. ix. 35), we are by no
means willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute, τον υιον του
ανθρωπου: neither, when the SAVIOUR says, γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμων (S. John
x. 14) are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent γινωσκουσι
με τα εμα. Still less is και εμοι αυτους εδωκασ any equivalent at all for
καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστι, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά in S. John xvii. 10: or, αλλοι
ζωσουσιν σε, και ποιησουσιν σοι οσα ου θελεις, for ἄλλος σε ζώσει; καὶ
οὄσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις, in S. John xxi. 18. Indeed, even when our LORD is
not the speaker, such licentious depravation of the text is not to be
endured. Thus, in S. Luke xxiii. 15, Cod. B and Cod. א conspire in
substituting for ἀνέπεμψα γὰρ ὑμᾶς πρὸς αὐτόν,—ανεπεμψεν γαρ αυτον προς
ημας; which leads one to suspect the copyist was misled by the narrative
in ver. 7. Similar instances might be multiplied to an indefinite extent.
Two yet graver corruptions of the truth of the Gospel, (but they belong to
the same category,) remain to be specified. Mindful, I suppose, of S.
James’ explanation “how that _by works_ a man is justified,” the author of
the text of Codices B and א has ventured to alter our LORD’s assertion (in
S. Matth. xi. 19,) “Wisdom is justified of _her children_,” into “Wisdom
is justified by _her works_;” and, in the case of Cod. א, his zeal is
observed to have so entirely carried him away, that he has actually
substituted εργων for τέκνων in the parallel place of S. Luke’s
Gospel.—The other example of error (S. Matth. xxi. 31) is calculated to
provoke a smile. Finding that our SAVIOUR, in describing the conduct of
the two sons in the parable, says of the one,—ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς
ἀπῆλθεν, and of the other,—καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν; some ancient scribe, (who can
have been but slenderly acquainted with the Greek language,) seems to have
conceived the notion that a more precise way of identifying the son who
“_afterwards_ repented and went,” would be to designate him as ὁ ὕστερος.
Accordingly, in reply to the question,—τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα
τοῦ πατρός; we are presented (but _only in Cod._ B) with the astonishing
information,—λεγουσιν ο υστερος. And yet, seeing clearly that this made
nonsense of the parable, some subsequent critic is found to have
_transposed the order of the two sons_: and in that queer condition the
parable comes down to us in the famous Vatican Codex B.
4. Some of the foregoing instances of infelicitous tampering with the text
of the Gospels are, it must be confessed, very serious. But it is a yet
more fatal circumstance in connexion with Cod. B and Cod. א that they are
convicted of certain perversions of the truth of Scripture which _must_
have been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in S. Mark xiv, they
exhibit a set of passages—(verses 30, 68, 72)—“which bear clear marks of
wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. א, only
partially in Cod. B; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative
of Peter’s denial with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the
fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed _twice_. (In Cod.
א, δίς is omitted in ver. 30,‘—ἐκ δευτέρου and δίς in ver. 72,—’and καὶ
ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε in ver. 68: the last change being countenanced by
B.)”(145) One such discovery, I take leave to point out, is enough to
destroy all confidence in the text of these two manuscripts: for it proves
that another kind of corrupting influence,—besides carelessness, and
accident, and tasteless presumption, and unskilful assiduity,—has been at
work on Codices B and א. We are constrained to approach these two
manuscripts with suspicion in all cases where a supposed critical
difficulty in harmonizing the statements of the several Evangelists will
account for any of the peculiar readings which they exhibit.
Accordingly, it does not at all surprise me to discover that in both
Codices the important word ἐξελθοῦσαι (in S. Matth. xxviii. 8) has been
altered into απελθουσαι. I recognise in that substitution of απο for ἔξ
the hand of one who was not aware that the women, when addressed by the
Angel, were _inside the sepulchre_; but who accepted the belief (it is
found to have been as common in ancient as in modern times) that they
beheld him “sitting on the stone.”(146)—In consequence of a similar
misconception, both Codices are observed to present us with the word
“_wine_” instead of “_vinegar_” in S. Matthew’s phrase ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς
μεμνγμένον: which results from a mistaken endeavour on the part of some
ancient critic to bring S. Matth. xxvii. 34 into harmony with S. Mark xv.
23. The man did not perceive that the cruel insult of the “vinegar and
gall” (which the SAVIOUR tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct
thing from the proffered mercy of the “myrrhed wine” which the SAVIOUR put
away from Himself altogether.
So again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into harmony with a
supposed fact of geography that Cod. א states that Emmaus, (which Josephus
also places at sixty stadia from Jerusalem), was “_an hundred_ and sixty”
stadia distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is known. It
is because some ancient critic (Origen probably) erroneously assumed that
_Nicopolis_ was the place intended. The conjecture met with favour, and
there are not wanting scholia to declare that this was the reading of “the
accurate” copies,—notwithstanding the physical impossibility which is
involved by the statement.(147)—Another geographical misconception under
which the scribe of Cod. א is found to have laboured was that Nazareth (S.
Luke i. 26) and Capernaum (S. Mark i. 28) were _in Judæa_. Accordingly he
has altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his private
notion.(148)—A yet more striking specimen of the preposterous method of
the same scribe is supplied by his substitution of Καισαριας for Σαμαρείας
in Acts viii. 5,—evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi.
8.—Again, it must have been with a view of bringing Revelation into
harmony with the (supposed) facts of physical Science that for the highly
significant Theological record καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος at the
Crucifixion,(149) has been substituted both in B and א, του ηλιου
εκλιποντος,—a statement which (as the ancients were perfectly well
aware(150)) introduces into the narrative an astronomical
contradiction.—It may be worth adding, that Tischendorf with singular
inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contradiction, while
he rejects the geographical impossibility.—And this may suffice concerning
the text of Codices B and א.
III. We are by this time in a condition to form a truer estimate of the
value of the testimony borne by these two manuscripts in respect of the
last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. If we were disposed before to
regard their omission of an important passage as a serious matter, we
certainly cannot any longer so regard it. We have by this time seen enough
to disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B and א are the very
reverse of infallible guides. Their deflections from the Truth of
Scripture are more constant, as well as more licentious by far, than those
of their younger brethren: their unauthorized omissions from the sacred
text are not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also. And yet
the main matter before us,—_their omission of the last twelve verses of S.
Mark’s Gospel_,—when rightly understood, proves to be an entirely
different phenomenon from what an ordinary reader might have been led to
suppose. Attention is specially requested for the remarks which follow.
IV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the
oldest we possess, S. Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly at the 8th verse of the
xvith chapter, and that the customary subscription (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ)
follows,—is true; but it is far from being _the whole_ truth. It requires
to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been
to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of _the next ensuing
column_ to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding
book, has at the close of S. Mark’s Gospel deviated from his else
invariable practice. He has left in this place one column entirely vacant.
It is _the only vacant column_ in the whole manuscript;—a blank space
_abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless
withheld. Why_ did he leave that column vacant? _What_ can have induced
the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule?
The phenomenon,—(I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to
it,)—is in the highest degree significant, and admits of only one
interpretation. _The older MS._ from which Cod. B was copied must have
infallibly _contained_ the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was
instructed to leave them out,—and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank
space _in memoriam rei_. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was
silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the
Vatican Codex is made to _refute itself_ even while it seems to be bearing
testimony against the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, by
withholding them: for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary
circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By
_leaving room_ for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at
the end of fifteen centuries and a half, _a more ancient witness than
itself_. The venerable Author of the original Codex from which Codex B was
copied, is thereby brought to view. And thus, our supposed adversary
(Codex B) proves our most useful ally: for it procures us the testimony of
an hitherto unsuspected witness. The earlier scribe, I repeat,
unmistakably comes forward at this stage of the inquiry, to explain that
_he_ at least is prepared to answer for the genuineness of these Twelve
concluding Verses with which the later scribe, his copyist, from his
omission of them, might unhappily be thought to have been unacquainted.
It will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting that the scribe
of Cod. B. _may_ have copied from a MS. which exhibited the same
phenomenon which he has himself reproduced. This, by shifting the question
a little further back, does but make the case against Cod. א the stronger.
But in truth, after the revelation which has been already elicited from
Cod. B, the evidence of Cod. א may be very summarily disposed of. I have
already, on independent grounds, ventured to assign to that Codex a
somewhat later date than is claimed for the Codex Vaticanus.(151) My
opinion is confirmed by observing that the Sinaitic contains no such blank
space at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel as is conspicuous in the Vatican
Codex. I infer that the Sinaitic was copied from a Codex which had been
already mutilated, and reduced to the condition of Cod. B; and that the
scribe, only because he knew not what it meant, exhibited S. Mark’s Gospel
in consequence as if it really had no claim to those twelve concluding
verses which, nevertheless, _every_ authority we have hitherto met with
has affirmed to belong to it of right.
Whatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion, it is at least
undeniable that Cod. B and Cod. א are at variance on the main point. They
_contradict_ one another concerning the twelve concluding verses of S.
Mark’s Gospel. For while Cod. א refuses to know anything at all about
those verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by volunteering
the statement that they were found in the older codex, of which it is in
every other respect a faithful representative. The older and the better
manuscript (B), therefore, refutes its junior (א). And it will be seen
that logically this brings the inquiry to a close, as far as the evidence
of the manuscripts is concerned. We have referred to the oldest extant
copy of the Gospels in order to obtain its testimony: and,—“Though without
the Twelve Verses concerning which you are so solicitous,” (it seems to
say,) “I yet hesitate not to confess to you that an older copy than
myself,—the ancient Codex from which I was copied,—actually did contain
them.”
The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of the four oldest
Codices of the Gospels extant,—B, א, A, C,—two (B and א) are _without_
these twelve verses: two (A and C) are _with_ them. Are these twelve
verses then an unauthorized _addition_ to A and C? or are they an
unwarrantable _omission_ from B and א? B itself declares plainly that from
itself they are an omission. And B is the oldest Codex of the Gospel in
existence. What candid mind will persist in clinging to the solitary fact
that from the single Codex א these verses are away, in proof that “S.
Mark’s Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude
it?”
Let others decide, therefore, whether the present discussion has not
already reached a stage at which an unprejudiced Arbiter might be expected
to address the prosecuting parties somewhat to the following effect:—
“This case must now be dismissed. The charge brought by yourselves against
these Verses was, that they are an unauthorized addition to the second
Gospel; a spurious appendix, of which the Evangelist S. Mark can have
known nothing. But so far from substantiating this charge, you have not
adduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable.
“The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to MSS. It has been
accepted. And with what result?
(_a_) “Those many Fathers whom you represented as hostile, prove on
investigation to be reducible to _one_, viz. Eusebius: and Eusebius, as we
have seen, _does not say_ that the verses are spurious, but on the
contrary labours hard to prove that they may very well be genuine. On the
other hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote them without
any signs of misgiving. In this way, the positive evidence in their favour
is carried back to the iind century.
(_b_) “Declining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted on an appeal
to MSS. On the MSS., in fact, you still make your stand,—or rather you
rely on _the oldest_ of them; for, (as you are aware,) _every MS. in the
world except the two oldest_ are against you.
“I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.; and it has
volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than itself—_the Codex from which
it was copied_—was furnished with those very Verses which you wish me to
believe that some older MS. still must needs have been without. What else
can be said, then, of your method but that it is frivolous? and of your
charge, but that it is contradicted by the evidence to which you
yourselves appeal?
“But it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides.
“For it is high time to point out that even if it so happened that the
oldest known MS. was observed to be without these twelve concluding
verses, it would still remain a thing unproved (not to say highly
improbable) that from the autograph of the Evangelist himself they were
also away. Supposing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the iind
or iiird century could be found who quoted them: even so, it would not
follow that there existed no such verses for a primitive Father to quote.
The earliest of the Versions might in addition yield faltering testimony;
but even so, _who_ would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis
the monstrous hypothesis, that S. Mark’s Gospel when it left the hands of
its inspired Author was without the verses which at present conclude it?
How, then, would you have proposed to account for the consistent testimony
of an opposite kind yielded by every other known document in the world?
“But, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case? (1) The earliest
of the Fathers,—(2) the most venerable of the Versions,—(3) the oldest MS.
of which we can obtain any tidings,—_all_ are observed to _recognize these
Verses_. ‘Cadit quaestio’ therefore. The last shadow of pretext has
vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that ‘Mark the Evangelist knew
nothing of’ these verses:—with Tregelles that ‘The book of Mark himself
extends no further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ:’—with Griesbach that ‘the _last
leaf of the original Gospel was probably torn away_.’... It is high time,
I say, that this case were dismissed. But there are also costs to be paid.
Cod. B and Cod. א are convicted of being ‘two false witnesses,’ and must
be held to go forth from this inquiry with an injured reputation.”
This entire subject is of so much importance that I must needs yet awhile
crave the reader’s patience and attention.
CHAPTER VII.
MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE
VERSES.—PART II.
The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and א (viz. the omission
of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1) considered.—Antiquity
unfavourable to the omission of those words (p. 93).—The Moderns
infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission (p.
100).—Marcion probably the author of this corruption of the Text
of Scripture (p. 106).—Other peculiarities of Codex א disposed of
(p. 109).
The subject which exclusively occupied our attention throughout the
foregoing chapter admits of apt and powerful illustration. Its vast
importance will be a sufficient apology for the particular disquisition
which follows, and might have been spared, but for the plain challenge of
the famous Critic to be named immediately.
“There are two remarkable readings,” (says Tischendorf, addressing English
readers on this subject in 1868,) “which are very instructive towards
determining the age of the manuscripts [א and B], and _their authority_.”
He proceeds to adduce,—
1. The absence from both, of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s
Gospel,—concerning which, the reader probably thinks that by this time he
has heard enough. Next,—
2. He appeals to their omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from the first verse
of S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians,—_another peculiarity, in which
Codd._ א _and B stand quite alone among MSS._
I. Here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the New
Testament indeed. Altogether unique is it: and that it powerfully
corroborates the general opinion of their high antiquity, no one will
deny. But how about “their _authority_”? Does the coincidence also raise
our opinion of _the trustworthiness of the Text_, which these two MSS.
concur in exhibiting? for _that_ is the question which has to be
considered,—the _only_ question. The ancientness of a reading is one
thing: its genuineness, (as I have explained elsewhere,) quite another.
The questions are entirely distinct. It may even be added that while the
one is really of little moment, the latter is of all the importance in the
world. I am saying that it matters very little whether Codd. א and B were
written in the beginning of the ivth century, or in the beginning of the
vth: whereas it matters much, or rather it matters _everything_, whether
they exhibit the Word of GOD faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous
license. How far the reading which results from the suppression of the
last two words in the phrase τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, is
_critically allowable_ or not, I forbear to inquire. That is not the point
which we have to determine. The one question to be considered is,—May it
_possibly_ be the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way
_credible_ that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as
follows:—Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις
τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ?... If it be eagerly declared in
reply that the thing is simply incredible: that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are
required for the sense; and that the commonly received reading is no doubt
the correct one: then,—there is an end of the discussion. Two
extraordinary notes of sympathy between two Manuscripts will have been
appealed to as crucial proofs of the _trustworthiness of the Text_ of
those Manuscripts: (for of their high _Antiquity_, let me say it once
more, there can be no question whatever:) and it will have been proved in
one case,—admitted in the other,—that _the omission is unwarrantable_.—If,
however, on the contrary, it be maintained that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
probably had no place in the original copy of this Epistle, but are to be
regarded as an unauthorized addition to it,—then, (as in the case of the
Twelve Verses omitted from the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, and which it was
_also_ pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand to be shewn
the evidence on the strength of which this opinion is maintained, in order
that we may ascertain what it is precisely worth.
Tischendorf,—the illustrious discoverer and champion of Codex א, and who
is accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
as _the other_ conclusive proof of the trustworthiness of its text,—may be
presumed to be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as well
as the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its support. From
him, we learn that the evidence for the omission of the words in question
is as follows:—“In the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read,
‘to the saints which are at Ephesus;’ but Marcion (A.D. 130-140), did not
find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy. The same is true of Origen (A.D.
185-254); and Basil the Great (who died A.D. 379), affirmed that those
words were wanting in _old_ copies. And this omission accords very well
with the encyclical or general character of the Epistle. At the present
day, our ancient Greek MSS., and all ancient Versions, contain the words
‘at Ephesus;’ yea (_sic_), even Jerome knew no copy with a different
reading. Now, only the Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the _old_
copies of Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion.”(152)—This then is the
sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat in detail.
(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned writer is
absolutely without authority for his assertion that “Marcion _did not
find_ the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy” of S. Paul’s Epistle to the
Ephesians. Tischendorf’s one pretence for saying so is Tertullian’s
statement that certain heretics, (Marcion he specifies by name,) had given
to S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians” the unauthorized title of “Epistle
_to the Laodiceans_.”(153) This, (argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not
have done had he found ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the first verse.(154) But the proposed
inference is clearly invalid. For, with what show of reason can
Marcion,—whom Tertullian taxes with having dared “_titulum interpolare_”
in the case of S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians,”—be _therefore_,
assumed to have read the first verse differently from ourselves? Rather is
the directly opposite inference suggested by the very language in which
Tertullian (who was all but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the
circumstance.(155)
Those, however, who would really understand the work of the heretic,
should turn from the African Father,—(who after all does but say that
Marcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul’s Epistle to the
_Ephesians_, that it was addressed to the _Laodiceans_,)—and betake
themselves to the pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a
half later. This Father had for many years made Marcion’s work his special
study,(156) and has elaborately described it, as well as presented us with
copious extracts from it.(157) And the account in Epiphanius proves that
Tischendorf is mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the English
reader, (quoted above;) and that he would have better consulted for his
reputation if he had kept to the “ut videtur” with which (in his edition
of 1859) he originally broached his opinion. It proves in fact to be no
matter of opinion at all. Epiphanius states distinctly that the _Epistle
to the Ephesians_ was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which Marcion
_retained_. In his “Apostolicon,” or collection of the (mutilated)
Apostolical Epistles, the “Epistle to the Ephesians,” (identified by the
considerable quotations which Epiphanius makes from it,(158)) stood (he
says) _seventh_ in order; while the (so called) “Epistle to the
Laodiceans,”—a distinct composition therefore,—had the _eleventh_, that
is, the last place assigned to it.(159) That this latter Epistle contained
a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius records
the fact in two places.(160) But then it is to be borne in mind that he
charges Marcion with having derived that quotation _from the Apocryphal
Epistle to the Laodiceans_;(161) instead of taking it, as he ought to have
done, from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage, when
faithfully exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by its very form refutes
the heretical tenet which the context of Marcion’s spurious epistle to the
Laodiceans was intended to establish; and which the verse in question, in
its interpolated form, might seem to favour.(162)—I have entered into this
whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: but I was
determined to prove that Tischendorf’s statement that “Marcion (A.D.
130-140) did not find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy,”—is absolutely
without foundation. It is even _contradicted_ by the known facts of the
case. I shall have something more to say about Marcion by-and-by; who, it
is quite certain, read the text of Ephes. i. 1 exactly as we do.
(2.) The _only_ Father who so expresses himself as to warrant the
inference that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were absent from his copy, is Origen, in
the beginning of the third century. “Only in the case of the Ephesians,”
(he writes), “do we meet with the expression ‘the Saints which are:’ and
we inquire,—Unless that additional phrase be simply redundant, what can it
possibly signify? Consider, then, whether those who have been partakers of
_His_ nature who revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I AM, may not,
in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as ‘those _which
are_:’ persons, called out, of a state of _not_-being, so to speak, into a
state of _being_.”(163)—If Origen had read τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
in his copy, it is to me incredible that he would have gone so very far
out of his way to miss the sense of such a plain, and in fact,
unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis before
him,—_reasoning however only from the place in Basil,_ (to be quoted
immediately,)—are unwilling to allow that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were ever
away from the text. It must be admitted as the obvious inference from what
Jerome has delivered on this subject (_infrà_, p. 98 _note_) that he, too,
seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be called) of
Codd. B and א.
(3) The influence which Origen’s writings exercised over his own and the
immediately succeeding ages of the Church, was prodigious. Basil, bishop
of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150
years later,—although he read ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his own copy of S. Paul’s
Epistles,—thought fit to avail himself of Origen’s suggestion. It suited
his purpose. He was proving the eternal existence of the SON of GOD. Even
_not to know_ GOD (he remarks) is _not to be_: in proof of which, he
quotes S. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. i. 28:—“Things _which are not_, hath GOD
chosen.” “Nay,” (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, “in his Epistle to the
Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge
were truly joined to Him who ‘IS,’ designates them specially as ‘those
_which are_:’ saying,—‘To the Saints _which are_, and faithful in CHRIST
JESUS.’ ” That this fancy was not original, Basil makes no secret. He
derived it, (he says,) from “those who were before us;” a plain allusion
to the writings of Origen. But neither was _the reading_ his own, either.
This is evident. He had _found_ it, he says,—(an asseveration
indispensable to the validity of his argument,)—but only after he had made
search,(164)—“_in the old copies_.”(165) No doubt, Origen’s strange fancy
must have been even _unintelligible_ to Basil when first he met with it.
In plain terms, it sounds to this day incredibly foolish,—when read apart
from the mutilated text which alone suggested it to Origen’s fervid
imagination.—But what there is in all this to induce us to suspect that
Origen’s reading was after all the _right_ one, and _ours_ the _wrong_, I
profess myself wholly at a loss to discover. Origen himself complains
bitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time; and attributes
it (1) to the carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of
correctors of the text: (3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopting
some of these corrections and rejecting others, according to their own
private caprice.(166)
(4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters than either Origen
or Basil, after rehearsing the preceding gloss, (but only to reject it,)
remarks that “certain persons” had been “over-fanciful” in putting it
forth. He alludes probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians,
in three books, he expressly relates that he employed:(167) but he does
not seem to have apprehended that Origen’s text _was without the words_ ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ. If he was acquainted with Origen’s text, (of which, however, his
writings afford no indication,) it is plain that he disapproved of it.
Others, he says, understand S. Paul to say not “the Saints _which are_:”
but,—“the Saints and faithful _which are at Ephesus_.”(168)
(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit that there has
been elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to
shake our confidence in the universally received reading of Ephesians i.
1. The facts of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully
stated in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the ivth century, (exhibiting in
other respects several striking notes of vicious sympathy,) are found to
conspire in omitting a clause in Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it
is to the sense,) may be inferred to have been absent from Origen’s copy:
and Basil testifies that it was absent from “the old copies” to which he
himself obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter: in which
it is much to be noted that Origen does not say that he _approved_ of this
reading. Still less does Basil. They both witness to _the fact_ that the
words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were omitted from _some_ copies of the iiird century, just
as Codd. B and א witness to the same fact in the ivth. But what then?
Origen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings
confessedly worthless; and, why not here? For not only is the text all but
_unintelligible_ if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ be omitted: but (what is far more
to the purpose) the direct evidence of _all_ the copies, whether uncial or
cursive,(169)—and of _all_ the Versions,—is _against_ the omission. In the
face of this overwhelming mass of unfaltering evidence to insist that
Codd. B and א must yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity
wrong, is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of this
nonsensical reading, of _two_ MSS. confessedly untrustworthy in countless
other places,—against _all_ the MSS.—_all_ the Versions,—is nothing else
but an act of vulgar prejudice. I venture to declare,—(and with this I
shall close the discussion and dismiss the subject,)—that _there does not
exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament_ of a reading
even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin
concur,—which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings
which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz.
1. The adverse testimony of _all the uncial MSS. except two_.
2. The adverse testimony of all, or _very nearly all_, the cursive MSS.
3. The adverse testimony of _all the Versions_, without exception.
4. The adverse testimony of _the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers_.
To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,—
5. _The highest inherent improbability_,—it is only because I desire to
treat this question purely as one of _Evidence_.
II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity _to account for_ the
phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is
commendable; but I take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set
about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every
corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first
three centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough
to do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod.
B shews marvellous sympathy(170),) and explain if he can why there is a
grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and
how it comes to pass that Cod. D “reproduces the ‘textus receptus’ of the
Acts much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the
Hebrew of the Old Testament; so wide are the variations in the diction, so
constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means
of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a
semblance of internal probability.”(171) Our business as Critics is not
_to invent theories_ to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to
ascertain where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable
depravations of early Heretics,—the preposterous emendations of ancient
Critics,—the injudicious assiduity of Harmonizers,—the licentious caprice
of individuals;—what with errors resulting from the inopportune
recollection of similar or parallel places,—or from the familiar
phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections,—or from the inattention of
Scribes,—or from marginal glosses;—however arising, endless are the
corrupt readings of the oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means
safe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory
to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories
are seldom satisfactory. _Guesses_ only they are at best.
Thus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of
Ussher,—(which, however, found favour with Garnier (Basil’s editor),
Bengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and has since been not only eagerly
advocated by Conybeare and Howson following a host of German Critics, but
has even enjoyed Mr. Scrivener’s distinct approval;)—that the Epistle to
the Ephesians “was _a Circular_ addressed to other Asiatic Cities besides
the capital Ephesus,—to Laodicea perhaps among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and
that while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephesus in the
first verse, _others may have had another city substituted, or the space
after_ τοῖς οὔσιν _left utterly void_.”(172) At first sight, this
conjecture has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it to
our favour. On closer inspection,—(i) It is found to be not only
gratuitous; but (ii) altogether unsupported and unsanctioned by the known
facts of the case; and (what is most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I
humbly think, demonstrably erroneous. I demur to it,—
(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (_a_) when S. Paul sent
his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tychicus, the bearer of it,(173)
was charged with _a distinct Epistle_ to the Colossians:(174) an Epistle
nevertheless so singularly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is
scarcely credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epistles to
two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of
them, (_that_ to the Ephesians,) furnished with a different address, to so
large and important a place as Laodicea, for example, (_b_) Then further,
the provision which S. Paul made at this very time for communicating with
the Churches of Asia which he did not separately address is found to have
been different. The Laodiceans were to read in their public assembly S.
Paul’s “_Epistle to the Colossians_,” which the Colossians were ordered to
send them. The Colossians in like manner were to read the Epistle,—(to
whom addressed, we know not),—which S. Paul describes as τὴν ἐκ
Λαοδικείας.(175) If then it had been S. Paul’s desire that the Laodiceans
(suppose) should read publicly in their Churches his Epistle to the
Ephesians, surely, he would have charged the Ephesians to procure that
_his Epistle to them should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans_. Why
should the Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously adopted
one method with the Churches of _Colosse_ and Laodicea,—another with the
Churches of _Ephesus_ and Laodicea,—in respect of his epistolary
communications?
(2) (_a_) But even supposing, for argument’s sake, that S. Paul _did_ send
duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the
principal Churches of Asia Minor,—why should he have left the salutation
_blank_, (“carta bianca,” as Bengel phrases it,(176)) for Tychicus to fill
up when he got into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short
of _this_ would account for the reading of Codd. B and א.
(_b_) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature
be clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A
copy of what we call S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians” sent into Asia
Minor by S. Paul with a blank address; i.e. “with the space after τοῖς
οὔσιν left utterly void:” (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that
blank: and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up
for him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy
seen by Origen, and (5) Of the “old copies” seen by Basil; as well as (6)
Of Codd. B and א. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains
us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) _One other_ copy of this same
“Encyclical Epistle,” filled up with the Ephesian address, became the
archetype of _every other copy of this Epistle in the world_.... But of
what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such
a marvellous structure of hypothesis,—of which the top story overhangs and
overbalances all the rest of the edifice? The thing which puzzles us in
Codd. B and א is not that we find the name of _another City_ in the
salutation of S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians,” but that we find the
name of _no_ city at all; nor meet with any vacant space there.
(_c_) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to
different Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as
of course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious
documents left his hands,—then, doubtless, each several Church would have
received, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if _this_ had
been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the
Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a
word about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there
should nowhere exist traces of _conflicting testimony_ as to the Church to
which S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas _all_ the
most ancient writers, without exception,—(Marcion himself [A.D. 140(177)],
the “Muratorian” fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Irenæus [A.D. 175],
Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian,
Eusebius,)—and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying,
unfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. א, (and this is much to be
noted,) the _superscription_ of the Epistle attests that it was addressed
“to the Ephesians.” Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in
inventing facts in the history of an Apostle’s practice, in order to
account for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his
text?(178)
(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such “_a Circular_” as
was described above, (each copy furnished with a blank, to be filled up
with the name of a different City,) would be a document without parallel
in the annals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware,
essentially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the suggestion
before us is only another instance of the fatal misapprehension which
results from the incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some
familiar word in a living language to its supposed equivalent in an
ancient tongue. Thus, because κύκλιος or ἐγκύκλιος confessedly signifies
“circularis,” it seems to be imagined that ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολή may mean “a
Circular Letter.” Whereas it really means nothing of the sort; but—“_a
Catholic Epistle_.”(179)
An “_Encyclical_” (and _that_ is the word which has been imported into the
present discussion), was quite a different document from what _we_ call “a
Circular.” Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was
Catholic or General,—the common property of all to whom it came. The
General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, S. John are
“Encyclical.”(180) So is the well-known Canonical Epistle which Gregory,
Bp. of Neocæsaræa in Pontus, in the middle of the third century, sent to
the Bishops of his province.(181) As for “_a blank circular_” to be filled
up with the words “in Ephesus,” “in Laodicea,” &c.,—its like (I repeat) is
wholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. The two notions
are at all events inconsistent and incompatible. If S. Paul’s Epistle to
the Ephesians was “a Circular,” then it was not “Encyclical:” if it was
“Encyclical” then it was not “a Circular.”
Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are
logically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies the fifth place among
S. Paul’s writings, and which from the beginning of the second
century,—that is, from the very dawn of Historical evidence,—has been
known as “the Epistle to the Ephesians,” was an “Encyclical,” “Catholic”
or “General Epistle,”—addressed τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ? There does not live the man who will accept so irrational a
supposition. The suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to
account for the absence of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in Ephes. i. 1 is not only
in itself in the highest degree improbable, and contradicted by all the
evidence to which we have access; but it is even inadmissible on critical
grounds, and must be unconditionally surrendered.(182) It is observed to
collapse before every test which can be applied to it.
III. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me,—if men must needs
account for the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from this place,—that they
should have recourse to wild, improbable, and wholly unsupported theories,
like those which go before; while an easy,—I was going to say the
obvious,—solution of the problem is close at hand, and even solicits
acceptance.
Marcion the heretic, (A.D. 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (A.D.
200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly
mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul’s Epistles in particular.
Epiphanius compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to a
moth-eaten coat.(183) “Instead of a stylus,” (says Tertullian,) “Marcion
employed a knife.” “What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he
omits whole pages?”(184) S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian
even singles out by name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a
new title. All this has been fully explained above, from page 93 to page
96.
Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul’s Epistle “_to the Ephesians_”
that Apostolical writing which stands fifth in our Canon, (but which stood
seventh in his,) is just as certain as that he recognised as such S.
Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians,
Colossians, Philippians. All this has been fully explained in a preceding
page.(185)
But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul’s _another_
Epistle,—of which all we know for certain is, that it contained portions
of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and purported to be addressed by S. Paul
“to the Laodiceans.” To ascertain with greater precision the truth of this
matter at the end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible.
Nor is it necessary. Obvious is it to suspect that not only did this
heretical teacher at some period of his career prefix a new heading to
certain copies of the Epistle to the Ephesians, but also that some of his
followers industriously erased from certain other copies the words ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ in ver. 1,—as being _the only two words in the entire Epistle_ which
effectually refuted their Master. It was not needful, (be it observed,) to
multiply copies of the Epistle for the propagation of Marcion’s deceit.
Only two words had to be erased,—_the very two words whose omission we are
trying to account for_,—in order to give some colour to his proposed
attribution of the Epistle, (“quasi in isto diligentissimus
explorator,”)—to the Laodiceans. One of these mutilated copies will have
fallen into the hands of Origen,—who often complains of the corrupt state
of his text: while the critical personages for whom Cod. B and Cod. א were
transcribed will probably have been acquainted with other such mutilated
copies. Are we not led, as it were by the hand, to take some such view of
the case? In this way we account satisfactorily, and on grounds of
historic evidence, for the omission which has exercised the Critics so
severely.
I do not lose sight of the fact that the Epistle to the Ephesians ends
without salutations, without personal notices of any kind. But in this
respect it is not peculiar.(186) _That_,—joined to a singular absence of
identifying allusion,—sufficiently explains why Marcion selected this
particular Epistle for the subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this
circumstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Universal, and in
defiance of its very Title, that the Epistle is “Encyclical,” in the
technical sense of that word; and to go on to urge this characteristic as
an argument in support of the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ,—is clearly
the device of an eager Advocate; not the method of a calm and unprejudiced
Judge. True it is that S. Paul,—who, writing to the Corinthians from
Ephesus, says “_the Churches of Asia_ salute you,” (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)—may
have known very well that an Epistle of his “to the Ephesians,” would, as
a matter of course, be instantly communicated to others besides the
members of that particular Church: and in fact this may explain why there
is nothing specially “Ephesian” in the contents of the Epistle. The
Apostle,—(as when he addressed “the Churches of Galatia,”)—may have had
certain of the other neighbouring Churches in his mind while he wrote. But
all this is wholly foreign to the question before us: the one _only_
question being _this_,—Which of the three following addresses represents
what S. Paul must be considered to have actually written in the first
verse of his “Epistle to the Ephesians”?—
(1) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.
(2) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν ... καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.
(3) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.
What I have been saying amounts to this: that it is absolutely
unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting
every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the
words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have
under their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the iind
century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, “presumed to prefix an
unauthorized title to that very Epistle,” (“Marcion ei titulum aliquando
interpolare gestiit,”)—which title obviously _could not stand unless those
two words were first erased from the text_. To interpolate that new title,
and to erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it, were
obviously correlative acts which must always have been performed together.
But however all this may be, (as already pointed out,) the only question
to be determined by us is,—whether it be credible that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
are an unauthorized addition; foisted into the text of Ephes. i. 1 as far
back as the Apostolic age: an interpolation which, instead of dying out,
and at last all but disappearing, has spread and established itself, until
the words are found in every copy,—are represented in every
translation,—have been recognised in every country,—witnessed to by every
Father,—received in every age of the Church? I repeat that the one
question which has to be decided is, not _how_ the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ came to
be put in, or came to be left out; but simply whether, on an impartial
review of the evidence, it be reasonable (with Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Conybeare and Howson, and so many more,) to suspect their genuineness and
enclose them in brackets? Is it _credible_ that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are a
spurious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph of the
Apostle?... We have already, as I think, obtained a satisfactory answer to
this question. It has been shewn, as conclusively as in inquiries of this
nature is possible, that in respect of the reading of Ephesians i. 1,
Codd. B and א are even _most_ conspicuously at fault.
IV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted of error in respect of the
one remaining text which their chief upholders have selected, and to which
they still make their most confident appeal,—what remains, but to point
out that it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their
minds of the extravagant opinion which they have been so industriously
taught to entertain of the value of the two Codices in question? It has
already degenerated into an unreasoning prejudice, and threatens at last
to add one more to the already overgrown catalogue of “vulgar errors.”
V. I cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by Tischendorf than by
transcribing in conclusion his remarks on the four remaining readings of
Codex א to which he triumphantly appeals: promising to dismiss them all
with a single remark. He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his
“Introduction” to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament(187):—
“To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen says on
John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, ‘in Him _is_ life’
for ‘in Him _was_ life.’ This is a reading which we find in sundry
quotations before the time of Origen;(188) but now, among all
known Greek MSS. it is _only in the Sinaitic, and the famous old
Codex Bezae_, a copy of the Gospels at Cambridge; yet it is also
found in most of the early Latin versions, in the most ancient
Syriac, and in the oldest Coptic.—Again, in Matth. xiii. 35,
Jerome observes that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist
of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew for
having said, ‘which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.’ A writing
of the second century had already witnessed to the same reading;
but Jerome adds further that well-informed men had long ago
removed the name of Esaias. Among all our MSS. of a thousand years
old and upwards, _there is not a solitary example containing the
name of Esaias in the text referred to,—except the Sinaitic_, to
which a few of less than a thousand years old may be added.—Once
more, Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but _only the
Sinaitic and several ancient Latin MSS._ read it the same as
Origen: ‘He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every
whit.’—In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difficult
to settle, the _Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies_
indubitably correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second
century, confirms the Sinaitic reading: ‘If any man eat of my
bread, he shall live for ever. The bread that I will give for the
life of the world is my flesh.’ We omit to indicate further
illustrations of this kind, although there are many others like
them.”(189)
Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to exist in the
mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless confusion between the
_antiquity_ of a Codex and the _value_ of its readings. I venture to
assert that a reading is valuable or the contrary, exactly in proportion
to the probability of its being true or false. Interesting it is sure to
be, be it what it may, if it be found in a very ancient codex,—interesting
and often instructive: but the editor of Scripture must needs bring every
reading, wherever found, to this test at last:—Is it to be thought that
what I am here presented with is what the Evangelist or the Apostle
actually wrote? If an answer in the negative be obtained to this question,
then, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early Fathers appear to
have so read the place, will not avail to impart to the rejected reading
one particle of _value_. And yet Tischendorf thinks it enough in _all_ the
preceding passages to assure his reader that a given reading in Cod. א was
recognised by Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have established this
one point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in all this an
utterly false major premiss: viz. That Scriptural quotations found in the
writings of Origen, of Tertullian, of Jerome, must needs be the _ipsissima
verba_ of the SPIRIT. Whereas it is notorious “that the worst corruptions
to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a
hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus and the whole Western,
with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to
those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries
later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”(190) And one is astonished that
a Critic of so much sagacity, (who of course knows better,) should
deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy,—not only without a word of
explanation, a word of caution, but in such a manner as inevitably to
mislead an unsuspecting reader. Without offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must
be allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been considering, he
shews himself far more bent on glorifying the “Codex Sinaiticus” than in
establishing the Truth of the pure Word of GOD. He convinces me that to
have found an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have “taken
a gift.” Verily, “_it doth blind the eyes of the wise_.”(191)
And with this, I shall conclude my remarks on these two famous Codices. I
humbly record my deliberate conviction that when the Science of Textual
Criticism, which is at present only in its infancy, comes to be better
understood; (and a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New
Testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a
trustworthy basis;) a very different estimate will be formed of the
importance of not a few of those readings which at present are received
with unquestioning submission, chiefly on the authority of Codex B and
Codex א. On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that no future
collations, no future discoveries, will ever make it credible that the
last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are a spurious supplement to the
Evangelical Narrative; or that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are an unauthorized
interpolation of the inspired Text.
And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex א.
I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the “Internal
Evidence,” but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet
fully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient “Scholia”
and “Notes,” and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection
of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this may reasonably
claim one entire Chapter to itself.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE SUBJECT OF THESE
VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED.
Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their
predecessors’ inaccuracies.—Birch’s unfortunate mistake (p.
117).—Scholz’ serious blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).—Griesbach’s
sweeping misstatement (pp. 121-2).—The grave misapprehension which
has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3); Codex
L (p. 123).—Ammonius not the author of the so-called “Ammonian”
Sections (p. 125).—Epiphanius (p. 132).—“Caesarius,” a
misnomer.—“The Catenae,” misrepresented (p. 133).
In the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review whatever manuscript
testimony still remains unconsidered; our attention having been hitherto
exclusively devoted to Codices B and א. True, that the rest of the
evidence may be disposed of in a single short sentence:—_The Twelve Verses
under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence with
the exception of Codices B and א_. But then,
I. We are assured,—(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)—that “a Note or a
Scholion stating the absence of these verses from _many_, from _most_, or
from the _most correct_ copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in
twenty-five other cursive Codices.”(192) Tischendorf has nearly the same
words: “Scholia” (he says) “in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of
Mark in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the ninth
verse.” That distinguished Critic supports his assertion by appealing to
seven MSS. in particular,—and referring generally to “about twenty-five
others.” Dr. Davidson adopts every word of this blindfold.
1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department of the
Evidence would become deserving of serious attention. But I simply _deny
the fact_. I entirely deny that the “Note or Scholion” which these learned
persons affirm to be of such frequent occurrence has any existence
whatever,—except in their own imaginations. On the other hand, I assert
that notes or scholia which state the exact reverse, (viz. that “in the
older” or “the more accurate copies” the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s
Gospel _are contained_,) recur even perpetually. The plain truth is
this:—These eminent persons have taken their information at
second-hand,—partly from Griesbach, partly from Scholz,—without suspicion
and without inquiry. But then they have slightly misrepresented Scholz;
and Scholz (1830) slightly misunderstood Griesbach; and Griesbach (1796)
took liberties with Wetstein; and Wetstein (1751) made a few serious
mistakes. The consequence might have been anticipated. The Truth, once
thrust out of sight, certain erroneous statements have usurped its
place,—which every succeeding Critic now reproduces, evidently to his own
entire satisfaction; though not, it must be declared, altogether to his
own credit. Let me be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred.
2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German plan of setting
down _all_ the twenty-five MSS.(193) and _all_ the five Patristic
authorities which up to his time had been cited as bearing on the
genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: giving the former _in numerical order_,
and stating generally concerning them that in one or other of those
authorities it would be found recorded “that the verses in question were
anciently _wanting_ in some, or in most, or in almost all the Greek
copies, or in the most accurate ones:—or else that they were _found_ in a
few, or in the more accurate copies, or in many, or in most of them,
specially in the Palestinian Gospel.” The learned writer (who had made up
his mind long before that the verses in question are to be rejected) no
doubt perceived that this would be the most convenient way of disposing of
the evidence for and against: but one is at a loss to understand how
English scholars can have acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well
nigh a hundred years. A very little study of the subject would have shewn
them that Griesbach derived the first eleven of his references from
Wetstein,(194) the last fourteen from Birch.(195) As for Scholz, he
unsuspiciously adopted Griesbach’s fatal enumeration of Codices; adding
five to the number; and only interrupting the series here and there, in
order to insert the quotations which Wetstein had already supplied from
certain of them. With Scholz, therefore, rests the blame of everything
which has been written since 1830 concerning the MS. evidence for this
part of S. Mark’s Gospel; subsequent critics having been content to adopt
his statements without acknowledgment and without examination.
Unfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such a slovenly style,
that besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones; which, of
course, have been reproduced by those who have simply translated or
transcribed him. And now I shall examine his note “(z)”,(196) with which
practically all that has since been delivered on this subject by
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is identical.
(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two MSS. in the
Vatican Library(197) the verses in question “are marked with an asterisk.”
The original author of this statement was Birch, who followed it up by
explaining the fatal signification of this mark.(198) From that day to
this, the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been religiously
reproduced by every Critic in turn; and it is universally taken for
granted that they represent two ancient witnesses against the genuineness
of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark.
And yet, (let me say it without offence,) a very little attention ought to
be enough to convince any one familiar with this subject that the proposed
inference is absolutely inadmissible. For, in the first place, a
_solitary_ asterisk (not at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.(199))
has of necessity no such signification. And even if it does sometimes
indicate that all the verses which follow are suspicious, (of which,
however, I have never seen an example,) it clearly _could_ not have that
signification here,—for a reason which I should have thought an
intelligent boy might discover.
Well aware, however, that I should never be listened to, with Birch and
Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and indeed every one else against me,—I
got a learned friend at Rome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and
inspect the two Codices in question.(200) That he would find Birch right
_in his facts_, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more than doubted the
correctness of his proposed inference from them. I even felt convinced
that the meaning and purpose of the asterisks in question would be
demonstrably different from what Birch had imagined.
Altogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found that the learned
Dane has here made one of those (venial, but) unfortunate blunders to
which every one is liable who registers phenomena of this class in haste,
and does not methodize his memoranda until he gets home. To be
brief,—_there proves to be no asterisk at all,—either in Cod. 756, or in
Cod. 757_.
On the contrary. After ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, the former Codex has, in the text of
S. Mark xvi. 9 (_fol. 150 b_), a plain cross,—(_not_ an asterisk, thus
[symbol: x with dots in corners] or [symbol: broken x with corner dots] or
[symbol: inverse or open x], but a cross, thus +),—the intention of which
is to refer the reader to an annotation on _fol. 151 b_, (marked, of
course, with a cross also,) _to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is
undoubtedly __ genuine_.(201) The evidence, therefore, not only breaks
hopelessly down; but it is discovered that this witness has been by
accident put into the wrong box. This is, in fact, a witness _not_ for the
plaintiff, but _for the defendant!_—As for the other Codex, it exhibits
neither asterisk nor cross; but contains the same note or scholion
attesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.
I suppose I may now pass on: but I venture to point out that unless the
Witnesses which remain to be examined are able to produce very different
testimony from that borne by the last two, the present inquiry cannot be
brought to a close too soon. (“I took thee to curse mine enemies, and,
behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.”)
(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as follows:—“From here
to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. _In the
ancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text_.”(202) Scholz (who
was the first to adduce this important testimony to the genuineness of the
verses now under consideration) takes no notice of the singular
circumstance that the two MSS. he mentions have been _exactly_ assimilated
in ancient times to a common model; and that they correspond one with the
other so entirely(203) that the foregoing rubrical annotation appears _in
the wrong place_ in both of them, viz. _at the close of ver._ 15, where it
interrupts the text. This was, therefore, once a scholion written in the
margin of some very ancient Codex, which has lost its way in the process
of transcription; (for there can be no doubt that it was originally
written against ver. 8.) And let it be noted that its testimony is
express; and that it avouches for the fact that “_in the ancient copies_,”
S. Mark xvi. 9-20 “_formed part of the text_.”
(3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the same two MSS., (of
which also Scholz says nothing,) viz. that they exhibit a text which had
been “collated with the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem.”(204)
What need to point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in
conjunction with the express voucher that “although some copies of the
Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that _in the ancient
copies_ all the verses are found,” is a _critical attestation to the
genuineness_ of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20, far outweighing the bare statement
(next to be noticed) of the undeniable historical fact that, “_in some
copies_,” S. Mark _ends at ver._ 8,—but “in many _does not_”?
(4.) Scholz proceeds:—“In Cod. 22, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τελος is read the
following rubric:”—
ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγγελιστής: ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ
ταῦτα φέρεται.(205)
And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by _all_ subsequent
Critics and Editors,—cross, and “τέλος,” and all,—as an additional ancient
attestation to the fact that “_The End_” (τέλος) _of S. Mark’s Gospel_ is
indeed at ch. xvi. 8. Strange,—incredible rather,—that among so many
learned persons, not one should have perceived that “τέλος” in this place
merely denotes that here _a well-known Ecclesiastical section comes to an
end_!... As far, therefore, as the present discussion is concerned, the
circumstance is purely irrelevant;(206) and, (as I propose to shew in
Chapter XI,) the less said about it by the opposite party, the better.
(5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,) other Codices
very nearly the same colophon as the preceding recurs, with an important
additional clause. In Codd. 1, 199, 206, 209, (he says) is read,—
“In certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here; _up to which
place Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized_. In other copies,
however, is found as follows.”(207) And then comes the rest of S. Mark’s
Gospel.
I shall have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, and what he
“canonized,” by-and-by. But what is there in all this, (let me in the
meantime ask), to recommend the opinion that the Gospel of S. Mark was
published by its Author in an incomplete state; or that the last twelve
verses of it are of spurious origin?
(6.) The reader’s attention is specially invited to the imposing statement
which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says Scholz,) “contain these words
of Severus of Antioch:—
“In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its
end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, however, this also
is added,—‘Now when He was risen,’ &c. This, however, seems to
contradict to some extent what was before delivered,” &c.
It may sound fabulous, but it is strictly true, that every word of this,
(unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by _every Critic_ who has since
gone over the same ground,) is a mere tissue of mistakes. For first,—Cod.
23 contains _nothing whatever pertinent to the present inquiry_. (Scholz,
evidently through haste and inadvertence, has confounded _his own_ “23”
with “_Coisl._ 23,” but “Coisl. 23” is his “39,”—of which by-and-by. This
reference therefore has to be cancelled.)—Cod. 41 contains a scholion of
_precisely the opposite tendency_: I mean, a scholion which avers that
_the accurate copies of S. Mark’s Gospel contain these last twelve
verses_. (Scholz borrowed this wrong reference from Wetstein,—who, by an
oversight, quotes Cod. 41 three times instead of twice.)—There remain but
Codd. 34 and 39; and in neither of those two manuscripts, from the first
page of S. Mark’s Gospel to the last, does there exist _any _“scholion of
Severus of Antioch”_ whatever_. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently made
a gross misstatement;(208) and every Critic who has since written on this
subject has adopted his words,—without acknowledgment and without
examination.... Such is the evidence on which it is proposed to prove that
S. Mark did not write the last twelve verses of his Gospel!
(7.) Scholz proceeds to enumerate the following twenty-two Codices:—24,
34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 199,
206, 209, 210, 221, 222. And this imposing catalogue is what has misled
Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest. They have not perceived that it is _a
mere transcript of Griesbach’s list_; which Scholz interrupts only to give
from Cod. 24, (imperfectly and at second-hand,) the weighty scholion,
(Wetstein had given it from Cod. 41,) which relates, on the authority of
an eye-witness, that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 existed in the ancient Palestinian
Copy. (About that Scholion enough has been offered already.(209)) Scholz
adds that very nearly the same words are found in 374.—What he says
concerning 206 and 209 (and he might have added 199,) has been explained
above.
But when the twenty MSS. which remain(210) undisposed of have been
scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite different from what is
commonly supposed. One of them (No. 38) has been cited in error: while the
remaining nineteen are nothing else but copies of _Victor of Antioch’s
commentary on S. Mark_,—no less than _sixteen_ of which contain the famous
attestation that in _most of the accurate copies, and in particular the
authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel_
WERE FOUND. (See above, pp. 64 and 65.).... And this exhausts the
evidence.
(8.) So far, therefore, as “Notes” and “Scholia” in MSS. are concerned,
the sum of the matter proves to be simply this:—(_a_) Nine Codices(211)
are observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark’s
Gospel, though wanting “in some,” was yet found “in others,”—“in
many,”—“_in the ancient copies_.”
(_b_) Next, four Codices(212) contain subscriptions vouching for the
genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring that those four
Codices had been _collated with approved copies preserved at Jerusalem_.
(_c_) Lastly, sixteen Codices,—(to which, besides that already mentioned
by Scholz,(213) I am able to add at least five others, making twenty-two
in all,(214))—contain a weighty critical scholion asserting categorically
that in “very many” and “accurate copies,” specially in the “true
Palestinian exemplar,” _these verses had been found by one who seems to
have verified the fact of their existence there for himself_.
(9.) And now, shall I be thought unfair if, on a review of the premisses,
I assert that I do not see a shadow of reason for the imposing statement
which has been adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that
“there exist about thirty Codices which state that from the more ancient
and more accurate copies of the Gospel, the last twelve verses of S. Mark
were absent?” I repeat, there is not so much as _one single Codex_ which
contains such a scholion; while twenty-four(215) of those commonly
enumerated state _the exact reverse_.—We may now advance a step: but the
candid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the supposed hostile
evidence is on the contrary entirely _in favour_ of the verses under
discussion. (“I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast
altogether blessed them these three times.”)
II. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.(216) This is the
designation of an uncial MS. of the viiith or ixth century, in the Library
at Paris, chiefly remarkable for the correspondence of its readings with
those of Cod. B and with certain of the citations in Origen; a peculiarity
which recommends Cod. L, (as it recommends three cursive Codices of the
Gospels, 1, 33, 69,) to the especial favour of a school with which
whatever is found in Cod. B is necessarily right. It is described as the
work of an ignorant foreign copyist, who probably wrote with several MSS.
before him; but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to determine
which reading to adopt and which to reject. Certain it is that he
interrupts himself, at the end of ver. 8, to write as follows:—
“_SOMETHING TO THIS EFFECT IS ALSO MET WITH_:
“All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed unto Peter
and the rest. And after these things, from East even unto West,
did JESUS Himself send forth by their means the holy and
incorruptible message of eternal Salvation.
“_BUT THIS ALSO IS MET WITH AFTER THE WORDS, _‘FOR THEY WERE
AFRAID:’
“Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the week,”(217)
&c.
It cannot be needful that I should delay the reader with any remarks on
such a termination of the Gospel as the foregoing. It was evidently the
production of some one who desired to remedy the conspicuous
incompleteness of his own copy of S. Mark’s Gospel, but who had imbibed so
little of the spirit of the Evangelical narrative that he could not in the
least imitate the Evangelist’s manner. As for the scribe who executed
Codex L, he was evidently incapable of distinguishing the grossest
fabrication from the genuine text. The same worthless supplement is found
in the margin of the Hharklensian Syriac (A.D. 616), and in a few other
quarters of less importance.(218)—I pass on, with the single remark that I
am utterly at a loss to understand on what principle Cod. L,—a solitary
MS. of the viiith or ixth century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious
text,—is to be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the
present occasion, rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence it bears
concerning the last twelve verses of the second Gospel by all the
seventeen remaining Uncials, (three of which are from 300 to 400 years
more ancient than itself;) and by _every cursive copy of the Gospels in
existence_. Quite certain at least is it that not the faintest additional
probability is established by Cod. L that S. Mark’s Gospel when it left
the hands of its inspired Author was in a mutilated condition. The copyist
shews that he was as well acquainted as his neighbours with our actual
concluding Verses: while he betrays his own incapacity, by seeming to view
with equal favour the worthless alternative which he deliberately
transcribes as well, and to which he gives the foremost place. _Not_ S.
Mark’s Gospel, _but Codex L_ is the sufferer by this appeal.
III. I go back now to the statements found in certain Codices of the xth
century, (derived probably from one of older date,) to the effect that
“the marginal references to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than
ver. 8:”—for so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. 120,)
ἕως οὖ Εὐσέβιους ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν, which are found at the end of ver.
8 in Codd. 1, 206, 209.
(1.) Now this statement need not have delayed us for many minutes. But
then, therewith, recent Critics have seen fit to connect another and an
entirely distinct proposition: viz. that
AMMONIUS
also, a contemporary of Origen, conspires with Eusebius in disallowing the
genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. This is in fact a piece
of evidence to which recently special prominence has been given: every
Editor of the Gospels in turn, since Wetstein, having reproduced it; but
no one more emphatically than Tischendorf. “Neither by _the sections of
Ammonius_ nor yet by the canons of Eusebius are these last verses
recognised”(219) “Thus it is seen,” proceeds Dr. Tregelles, “that just as
Eusebius found these verses absent in his day from the best and most
numerous copies (_sic_), _so was also the case with Ammonius_ when he
formed his Harmony in the preceding century.”(220)
(The opposite page exhibits an _exact Fac-simile_, obtained by
Photography, of fol. 113 of EVAN. COD. L, (“Codex Regius,” No. 62,) at
Paris; containing S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;—as explained at pp. 123-4. The Text
of that MS. has been published by Dr. Tischendorf in his “Monumenta Sacra
Inedita,” (1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. 206.)
[[Illustration: Codex Regius facsimile page.]]
(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the obliging
permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the Manuscript Department of
the “Bibliothèque.” He has my best thanks for the kindness with which he
promoted my wishes and facilitated my researches.)
(It should perhaps be stated that _the margin_ of “Codex L” is somewhat
ampler than can be represented in an octavo volume; each folio measuring
very nearly nine inches, by very nearly six inches and a half.)
A new and independent authority therefore is appealed to,—one of high
antiquity and evidently very great importance,—Ammonius of Alexandria,
A.D. 220. But Ammonius has left behind him _no known writings whatsoever_.
What then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident way to the
testimony of “Ammonius?”
To make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English reader, I must
needs introduce in this place some account of what are popularly called
the “Ammonian Sections” and the “Eusebian Canons:” concerning both of
which, however, it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing whatever
is known beyond what is discoverable from a careful study of the
“Sections” and “Canons” themselves; added to what Eusebius has told us in
that short Epistle of his “to Carpianus,”—which I suppose has been
transcribed and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle in
the world.
Eusebius there explains that Ammonius of Alexandria constructed with great
industry and labour a kind of Evangelical Harmony; the peculiarity of
which was, that, retaining S. Matthew’s Gospel in its integrity, it
exhibited the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists by the
side of S. Matthew’s text. There resulted this inevitable inconvenience;
that the sequence of the narrative, in the case of the three last Gospels,
was interrupted throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed.(221)
The “Diatessaron” of Ammonius, (so Eusebius styles it), has long since
disappeared; but it is plain from the foregoing account of it by a
competent witness that it must have been a most unsatisfactory
performance. It is not easy to see how room can have been found in such a
scheme for entire chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel; as well as for the larger
part of the Gospel according to S. John: in short, for anything which was
not capable of being brought into some kind of agreement, harmony, or
correspondence with something in S. Matthew’s Gospel.
How it may have fared with the other Gospels in the work of Ammonius is
not in fact known, and it is profitless to conjecture. What we know for
certain is that Eusebius, availing himself of the hint supplied by the
very imperfect labours of his predecessor, devised an entirely different
expedient, whereby he extended to the Gospels of S. Mark, S. Luke and S.
John all the advantages, (and more than all,) which Ammonius had made the
distinctive property of the first Gospel.(222) His plan was to retain the
Four Gospels in their integrity; and, besides enabling a reader to
ascertain at a glance the places which S. Matthew has in common with the
other three Evangelists, or with any two, or with any one of them, (which,
I suppose, was the sum of what had been exhibited by the work of
Ammonius,)—to shew which places S. Luke has in common with S. Mark,—which
with S. John only; as well as which places are peculiar to each of the
four Evangelists in turn. It is abundantly clear therefore what Eusebius
means by saying that the labours of Ammonius had “_suggested to him_” his
own.(223) The sight of that Harmony of the other three Evangelists with S.
Matthew’s Gospel had suggested to him the advantage of establishing a
series of parallels throughout _all the Four Gospels._ But then, whereas
Ammonius had placed alongside of S. Matthew _the dislocated sections
themselves_ of the other three Evangelists which are of corresponding
purport, Eusebius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same object by
means of a system of double numerical _references_. He invented X Canons,
or Tables: he subdivided each of the Four Gospels into a multitude of
short Sections. These he numbered; (a fresh series of numbers appearing in
each Gospel, and extending from the beginning right on to the end;) and
immediately under every number, he inserted, in vermillion, another
numeral (I to X); whose office it was to indicate in which of his X
Canons, or Tables, the reader would find the corresponding places in any
of the other Gospels.(224) (If the section was unique, it belonged to his
last or Xth Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew’s account of the Title on the
Cross, is written 335/I: but in the Ist Canon (which contains the places
common to all four Evangelists) parallel with 335, is found,—214, 324,
199: and the Sections of S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John thereby designated,
(which are discoverable by merely casting one’s eye down the margin of
each of those several Gospels in turn, until the required number has been
reached,) will be found to contain the parallel record in the other three
Gospels.
All this is so purely elementary, that its very introduction in this place
calls for apology. The extraordinary method of the opposite party
constrains me however to establish thus clearly the true relation in which
the familiar labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of Ammonius.
For if that earlier production be lost indeed,(225)—if its precise
contents, if the very details of its construction, can at this distance of
time be only conjecturally ascertained,—what right has any one to appeal
to “_the Sections of Ammonius_,” as to a known document? Why above all do
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim “Ammonius” for
their ally on an occasion like the present; seeing that they must needs be
perfectly well aware that they have no means whatever of knowing (except
from the precarious evidence of Catenæ) what Ammonius thought about any
single verse in any of the four Gospels? At every stage of this
discussion, I am constrained to ask myself,—Do then the recent Editors of
the Text of the New Testament really suppose that their statements will
_never_ be examined? their references _never_ verified? or is it thought
that they enjoy a monopoly of the learning (such as it is) which enables a
man to form an opinion in this department of sacred Science? For,
(1st.) _Where_ then and _what_ are those “Sections of Ammonius” to which
Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently appeal? It is even notorious that
when they _say_ the “Sections of Ammonius,” what they _mean_ are the
“Sections of _Eusebius_.”—But, (2dly.) Where is the proof,—where is even
the probability,—that these two are identical? The Critics cannot require
to be reminded by me that we are absolutely without proof that so much as
_one_ of the Sections of Ammonius corresponded with _one_ of those of
Eusebius; and yet, (3dly.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of
Ammonius and those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded
throughout, the name of Ammonius has no business whatever to be introduced
into such a discussion as the present? They must at least be told that in
the entire absence of proof of any kind,—(and certainly nothing that
Eusebius says warrants any such inference,(226))—to reason from the one to
the other as if they were identical, is what no sincere inquirer after
Truth is permitted to do.
It is time, however, that I should plainly declare that it happens to be
no matter of opinion at all whether the lost Sections of Ammonius were
identical with those of Eusebius or not. It is demonstrable that they
_cannot_ have been so; and the proof is supplied by the Sections
themselves. It is discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they
_imply_ and _presuppose the Ten Canons_; being in many places even
meaningless,—nugatory, in fact, (I do not of course say that they are
_practically_ without _use_,)—except on the theory that those Canons were
already in existence.(227) Now the Canons are confessedly the invention of
Eusebius. He distinctly claims them.(228) Thus much then concerning the
supposed testimony of Ammonius. It is _nil_.—And now for what is alleged
concerning the evidence of Eusebius.
The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking), is the
following memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.:—“Thus far did Eusebius
canonize;”(229) which means either: (1) That his Canons recognise no
section of S. Mark’s Gospel subsequent to § 233, (which number is commonly
set over against ver. 8:) or else, (which comes to the same thing,)—(2)
That no sections of the same Gospel, after § 233, are referred to any of
his X Canons.
On this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious
superstructure. It is assumed,
(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark’s Gospel which Eusebius numbers “233,”
and which begins at our ver. 8, _cannot have extended beyond_ ver.
8;—whereas it may have extended, and probably did extend, down to the end
of ver. 11.
(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian Canons of any
sectional _number_ in S. Mark’s Gospel subsequent to § 233, no _Section_
(with, or without, such a subsequent number) can have existed:—whereas
there may have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly
numbered.(230) This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the
memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have _canonized_ no further
than § 233.
I am not disposed, however, to contest the point as far as Eusebius is
concerned. I have only said so much in order to shew how unsatisfactory is
the argumentation on the other side. Let it be assumed, for argument sake,
that the statement “Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8” is
equivalent to this,—“_Eusebius numbered no Sections after ver._ 8;” (and
more it cannot mean:)—What _then_? I am at a loss to see what it is that
the Critics propose to themselves by insisting on the circumstance. For we
knew before,—it was in fact Eusebius himself who told us,—that Copies of
the Gospel ending abruptly at ver. 8, were anciently of frequent
occurrence. Nay, we heard the same Eusebius remark that one way of
shelving a certain awkward problem would be, to plead that the subsequent
portion of S. Mark’s Gospel is frequently wanting. What _more_ have we
learned when we have ascertained that the same Eusebius allowed no place
to that subsequent portion in his Canons? The new fact, (supposing it to
be a fact,) is but the correlative of the old one; and since it was
Eusebius who was the voucher for _that_, what additional probability do we
establish that the inspired autograph of S. Mark ended abruptly at ver. 8,
by discovering that Eusebius is consistent with himself, and omits to
“canonize” (or even to “sectionize”) what he had already hypothetically
hinted might as well be left out altogether? (See above, pp. 44-6.)
So that really I am at a loss to see that one atom of progress is made in
this discussion by the further discovery that, (in a work written about
A.D. 373,)
EPIPHANIUS
states casually that “the four Gospels contain 1162 sections.”(231) From
this it is argued(232) that since 355 of these are commonly assigned to S.
Matthew, 342 to S. Luke, and 232 to S. John, there do but remain for S.
Mark 233; and the 233rd section of S. Mark’s Gospel confessedly begins at
ch. xvi. 8.—The probability may be thought to be thereby slightly
increased that the sectional numbers of Eusebius extended no further than
ver. 8: but—Has it been rendered one atom more probable that the inspired
Evangelist himself ended his Gospel abruptly at the 8th verse? _That_
fact—(the _only_ thing which our opponents have to establish)—remains
exactly where it was; entirely unproved, and in the highest degree
improbable.
To conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the pages of
Tischendorf:—“These verses are not recognised by the Sections of Ammonius,
nor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and Cæsarius bear witness to the
fact;”—I am constrained to remark that the illustrious Critic has drawn
upon his imagination for three of his statements, and that the fourth is
of no manner of importance.
(1.) About the “Sections of Ammonius,” he really knows no more than about
the lost Books of Livy. He is, therefore, without excuse for adducing them
in the way of evidence.
(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either as to the “Sections
of Ammonius” or to “Canons of Eusebius,” Tischendorf is perfectly well
aware. So is my reader.
(3.) His appeal to
CÆSARIUS
is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate the younger
brother of Gregory of Nazianzus; an eminent physician of Constantinople,
who died A.D. 368; and who, (as far as is known,) _never wrote anything_.
A work called Πεύσεις, (which in the xth century was attributed to
Cæsarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that
Cæsarius was certainly _not_ its author,) is the composition to which
Tischendorf refers. Even the approximate date of this performance,
however, has never been ascertained. And yet, if Tischendorf had
condescended to refer to it, (instead of taking his reference at
second-hand,) he would have seen at a glance that the entire context in
which the supposed testimony is found, _is nothing else but a condensed
paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius_, in which the original statement
occurs.(233)
Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of AMMONIUS, of EPIPHANIUS, and
of CÆSARIUS on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel.
It is exactly _nil_. In fact Pseudo-Cæsarius, so far from “bearing witness
to the fact” that the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are spurious,
_actually quotes the 16_th_ verse as genuine_.(234)
(4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added to what we knew
before concerning his probable estimate of these verses.
IV. We are now at liberty to proceed to the only head of external
testimony which remains undiscussed. I allude to the evidence of
THE CATENÆ.
“In the Catenæ on Mark,” (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) “there is no
explanation of this section.”(235) “The Catenæ on Mark:” as if they were
quite common things,—“plenty, as blackberries!” But,—_Which_ of “the
Catenæ” may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined?
1. Not the Catena which Possinus found in the library of Charles de
Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse, and which forms the basis of his Catena
published at Rome in 1673; because _that_ Codex is expressly declared by
the learned Editor to be defective from ver. 8 to the end.(236)
2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the Vatican Library and
communicated to Possinus; because in _that_ Catena the 9th and 12th verses
are distinctly commented on.(237)
3. Still less can Dr. Davidson be thought to have inspected the Catena
commonly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,—which Peltanus published in Latin
in 1580, but which Possinus was the first to publish in Greek (1673). Dr.
Davidson, I say, cannot certainly have examined _that_ Catena; inasmuch as
it contains, (as I have already largely shewn, and, in fact, as every one
may see,) a long and elaborate dissertation on the best way of reconciling
the language of S. Mark in ver. 9 with the language of the other
Evangelists.(238)
4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic has inspected
either of the last two editions of the same Catena: viz. that of Matthaei,
(Moscow 1775,) or that of Cramer, (Oxford 1844,) from MSS. in the Royal
Library at Paris and in the Bodleian. This is simply impossible, because
(as we have seen), in _these_ is contained the famous passage _which_
categorically asserts the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S.
Mark’s Gospel.(239)
Now this exhausts the subject.