which the Book of Genesis, instead of the Gospel, is appointed to be
read(357) on the _week_ days of Lent, is discovered to have been fully
recognised in the time of Chrysostom. Accordingly, the two series of
Homilies on the Book of Genesis which that Father preached, he preached in
Lent.(358)
(_e_) It will be seen in the next chapter that it was from a very remote
period the practice of the Eastern Church to introduce into the lesson for
Thursday in Holy-week, S. Luke’s account (ch. xxii. 43, 44) of our LORD’S
“Agony and bloody Sweat,” _immediately after S. Matth._ xxvi. 39. _That_
is, no doubt, the reason why Chrysostom,—who has been suspected, (I think
unreasonably,) of employing an Evangelistarium instead of a copy of the
Gospels in the preparation of his Homilies, is observed to quote those
same two verses in that very place in his Homily on S. Matthew;(359) which
shews that the Lectionary system of the Eastern Church in this respect is
at least as old as the ivth century.
(_f_) The same two verses used to be _left out_ on the Tuesday after
Sexagesima (τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου) for which day S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1,
is the appointed lection. And _this_ explains why Cyril (A.D. 425) in his
Homilies on S. Luke, passes them by in silence.(360)
But we can carry back the witness to the Lectionary practice of omitting
these verses, at least a hundred years; for Cod. B, (evidently for that
same reason,) _also_ omits them, as was stated above, in p. 79. They are
wanting also in the Thebaic version, which is of the iiird century.
(_g_) It will be found suggested in the next chapter (page 218) that the
piercing of our LORD’S side, (S. John xix. 34),—thrust into Codd. B and א
immediately after S. Matth. xxvii. 49,—is probably indebted for its place
in those two MSS. to the Eastern Lectionary practice. If this suggestion
be well founded, a fresh proof is obtained that the Lectionary of the East
was fully established in the beginning of the ivth century. But see
Appendix (H).
(_h_) It is a remarkable note of the antiquity of that Oriental Lectionary
system with which we are acquainted, that S. Matthew’s account of the
Passion (ch. xxvii. 1-61,) should be there appointed to be read _alone_ on
the evening of Good Friday. Chrysostom clearly alludes to this
practice;(361) which Augustine expressly states was also the practice in
his own day.(362) Traces of the same method are discoverable in the old
Gallican Lectionary.(363)
(_i_) Epiphanius, (or the namesake of his who was the author of a
well-known Homily on Palm Sunday,) remarks that “yesterday” had been read
the history of the rising of Lazarus.(364) Now S. John xi. 1-45 is the
lection for the antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries.
(_k_) In conclusion, I may be allowed so far to anticipate what will be
found fully established in the next chapter, as to point out here that
since in countless places the text of our oldest Evangelia as well as the
readings of the primitive Fathers exhibit unmistakable traces of the
corrupting influence of the Lectionary practice, _that_ very fact becomes
irrefragable evidence of the antiquity of the Lectionary which is the
occasion of it. Not only must it be more ancient than Cod. B or Cod. א,
(which are referred to the beginning of the ivth century), but it must be
older than Origen in the iiird century, or the Vetus Itala and the Syriac
in the iind. And thus it is demonstrated, (1st) That fixed Lessons were
read in the Churches of the East in the immediately post-Apostolic age;
and (2ndly) That, wherever we are able to test it, the Lectionary of that
remote period corresponded with the Lectionary which has come down to us
in documents of the vith and viith century, and was in fact constructed in
precisely the same way.
I am content in fact to dismiss the preceding instances with this general
remark:—that a System which is found to have been fully recognised
throughout the East and throughout the West in the beginning of the fourth
century, _must of necessity have been established very long before_. It is
as when we read of three British Bishops attending the Council at Arles,
A.D. 314. The Church (we say) which could send out those three Bishops
must have been _fully organized_ at a greatly antecedent period.
4. Let us attend, however, to the great Festivals of the Church. These are
declared by Chrysostom (in a Homily delivered at Antioch 20 Dec. A.D. 386)
to be the five following:—(1) Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3) Pascha:
(4) Ascension: (5) Pentecost.(365) Epiphanius, his contemporary, (Bishop
of Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the same enumeration,(366)
in a Homily on the Ascension.(367) In the Apostolical Constitutions, the
same five Festivals are enumerated.(368) Let me state a few Liturgical
facts in connexion with each of these.
It is plain that the preceding enumeration could not have been made at any
earlier period: for the Epiphany of our SAVIOUR and His Nativity were
originally but one Festival.(369) Moreover, the circumstances are well
known under which Chrysostom (A.D. 386) announced to his Eastern auditory
that in conformity with what had been correctly ascertained at Rome, the
ancient Festival was henceforth to be disintegrated.(370) But this is not
material to the present inquiry. We know that, as a matter of fact, “the
Epiphanies” (for τὰ ἐπιφανία is the name of the Festival) became in
consequence distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5: our LORD’S _Baptism_
being the event chiefly commemorated on the latter anniversary,(371)—which
used to be chiefly observed in honour of His _Birth_(372)—Concerning the
Lessons for Passion-tide and Easter, as well as concerning those for the
Nativity and Epiphany, something has been offered already; to which may be
added that Hesychius, in the opening sentences of that “Homily” which has
already engaged so much of our attention,(373) testifies that the
conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel was in his days, as it has been ever since,
one of the lections for Easter. He begins by saying that the Evangelical
narratives of the Resurrection were read on the Sunday night; and proceeds
to reconcile _S. Mark’s_ with the rest.—Chrysostom once and again adverts
to the practice of discontinuing the reading of the Acts after
Pentecost,(374)—which is observed to be also the method of the
Lectionaries.
III. I speak separately of the Festival of the Ascension, for an obvious
reason. It ranked, as we have seen, in the estimation of Primitive
Christendom, with the greatest Festivals of the Church. Augustine, in a
well-known passage, hints that it may have been of Apostolical
origin;(375) so exceedingly remote was its institution accounted in the
days of the great African Father, as well as so entirely forgotten by that
time was its first beginning. I have to shew that in the Great Oriental
Lectionary (whether of the Greek or of the Syrian Church) the last Twelve
Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel occupy a conspicuous as well as a most
honourable place. And this is easily done: for,
(_a_) The Lesson for Matins _on Ascension-Day_ in the East, in the oldest
documents to which we have access, consisted (as now it does) of _the last
Twelve Verses_,—neither more nor less,—of S. Mark’s Gospel. At the Liturgy
on Ascension was read S. Luke xxiv. 36-53: but at Matins, S. Mark xvi.
9-20. The witness of the “Synaxaria” is constant to this effect.
(_b_) The same lection precisely was adopted among the Syrians by the
Melchite Churches,(376)—(the party, viz. which maintained the decrees of
the Council of Chalcedon): and it is found appointed also in the
“Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.”(377) In the Evangelistarium used in the
Jacobite, (i.e. the Monophysite) Churches of Syria, a striking difference
of arrangement is discoverable. While S. Luke xxiv. 36-53 was read at
Vespers and at Matins on Ascension Day, _the last seven_ verses of S.
Mark’s Gospel (ch. xvi. 14-20) were read _at the Liturgy_.(378) Strange,
that the self-same Gospel should have been adopted at a remote age by some
of the Churches of the West,(379) and should survive in our own Book of
Common Prayer to this hour!
(_c_) But S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was not only appointed by the Greek Church to
be read upon Ascension Day. Those same twelve verses constitute the third
of the xi “_Matin Gospels of the Resurrection_” which were universally
held in high esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian(380)), and
were read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the year; as well
as daily throughout Easter week.
(_d_) A rubricated copy of S. Mark’s Gospel in Syriac,(381) _certainly
older than _A.D. 583, attests that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was the “Lection for
the great First Day of the week,” (μεγάλη κυριακή, i.e. Easter Day). Other
copies almost as ancient(382) add that it was used “at the end of the
Service at the dawn.”
(_e_) Further, these same “Twelve Verses” constituted the Lesson at Matins
for _the 2nd Sunday after Easter_,—a Sunday which by the Greeks is called
κυριακή τῶν μυροφόρων, but with the Syrians bore the names of “Joseph and
Nicodemus.”(383) So also in the “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.”
(_f_) Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark xvi. 9-18 (or
9-20(384)) was also read at Matins on _Easter-Tuesday_.(385) In the
Gallican Church, the third lection for _Easter-Monday_ extended from S.
Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 11: for _Easter-Tuesday_, from xvi. 12 to the end of
the Gospel.(386) Augustine says that in Africa also these concluding
verses of S. Mark’s Gospel used to be publicly read _at Easter tide_.(387)
The same verses (beginning with ver. 9) are indicated in the oldest extant
Lectionary of the Roman Church.(388)
(_g_) Lastly, it may be stated that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was with the Greeks
the Gospel for the Festival of S. Mary Magdalene (ἡ μυροφόρος), July
22.(389)
_He_ knows wondrous little about this department of Sacred Science who can
require to be informed that such a weight of _public_ testimony as this to
the last Twelve Verses of a Gospel is simply overwhelming. The single
discovery that in the age of Augustine [385-430] this portion of S. Mark’s
Gospel was unquestionably read at Easter in the Churches of Africa, added
to the express testimony of the Author of the 2nd Homily on the
Resurrection, and of the oldest Syriac MSS., that they were also read by
the Orientals at Easter in the public services of the Church, must be held
to be in a manner decisive of the question.
Let the evidence, then, which is borne by Ecclesiastical usage to the
genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, be summed up, and the entire case caused
again to pass under review.
(1.) That Lessons from the New Testament were publicly read in the
assemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an
established system, _at least_ as early as the fourth century,—has been
shewn to be a plain historical fact. Cyril, at Jerusalem,—(and by
implication, his namesake at Alexandria,)—Chrysostom, at Antioch and at
Constantinople,—Augustine, in Africa,—all four expressly witness to the
circumstance. In other words, there is found to have been _at least at
that time_ fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom a
Lectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and the same in the
West(390) and in the East. That it must have been of even Apostolic
antiquity may be inferred from several considerations. But that it dates
its beginning from a period _anterior to the age of __ Eusebius,—which is
the age of Codices B and_ א,—at least admits of _no_ controversy.
(2.) Next,—Documents of the vith century put us in possession of the great
Oriental Lectionary as it is found at that time to have universally
prevailed throughout the vast unchanging East. In other words, several of
the actual Service Books, in Greek and in Syriac,(391) have survived the
accidents of full a thousand years: and rubricated copies of the Gospels
carry us back three centuries further. The entire agreement which is
observed to prevail among these several documents,—added to the fact that
when tested by the allusions incidentally made by Greek Fathers of the
ivth century to what was the Ecclesiastical practice of their own time,
there are found to emerge countless as well as highly significant notes of
correspondence,—warrants us in believing, (in the absence of testimony of
any sort to the contrary,) that the Lectionary we speak of differs in no
essential respect from that system of Lections with which the Church of
the ivth century was universally acquainted.
Nothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in the course of the
present inquiry than the fact, that documents alone are wanting to make
_that_ altogether demonstrable which, in default of such evidence, must
remain a matter of inevitable inference only. The forms we are pursuing at
last disappear from our sight: but it is only the mist of the early
morning which shrouds them. We still hear their voices: still track their
footsteps: know that others still see them, although we ourselves see them
no longer. We are sure that _there they still are_. Moreover they may yet
reappear at any moment. Thus, there exist Syriac MSS. of the Gospels of
the viith and even of the vith century, in which the Lessons are
rubricated in the text or on the margin. A Syriac MS. (of part of the Old
T.) is actually _dated_ A.D. 464.(392) Should an Evangelium of similar
date ever come to light of which the rubrication was evidently by the
original Scribe, the evidence of the Lectionaries would at once be carried
back full three hundred years.
But in fact we stand in need of no such testimony. Acceptable as it would
be, it is plain that it would add no strength to the argument whatever. We
are already able to plant our footsteps securely in the ivth and even in
the iiird century. It is not enough to insist that inasmuch as the
Liturgical method of Christendom was at least fully established in the
East and in the West at the close of the ivth century, it therefore must
have had its beginning at a far remoter period. Our two oldest Codices (B
and א) bear witness throughout to the corrupting influence of a system
which was evidently in full operation before the time of Eusebius. And
even this is not all. The readings in Origen, and of the earliest versions
of the Gospel, (the old Latin, the Syriac, the Egyptian versions,) carry
back our evidence on this subject unmistakably to _the age immediately
succeeding that of the Apostles_. This will be found established in the
course of the ensuing Chapter.
Beginning our survey of the problem at the opposite end, we arrive at the
same result; with even a deepened conviction that in its essential
structure, the Lectionary of the Eastern Church must be of truly primitive
antiquity: indeed that many of its leading provisions must date back
almost,—nay _quite_,—to the Apostolic age. From whichever side we approach
this question,—whatever test we are able to apply to our premisses,—our
conclusion remains still the very same.
(3.) Into this Lectionary then,—so universal in its extent, so consistent
in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,—“_the_ LAST TWELVE VERSES
_of the Gospel according to S. Mark_” from the very first are found to
have won for themselves not only an entrance, a lodgment, an established
place; but, _the place of highest honour_,—an audience on two of the
Church’s chiefest Festivals.
The circumstance is far too important, far too significant to be passed by
without a few words of comment.
For it is not here, (be it carefully observed,) as when we appeal to some
Patristic citation, that the recognition of a phrase, or a verse, or a
couple of verses, must be accepted as a proof that the same ancient Father
recognised the context also in which those words are found. Not so. _All
the Twelve Verses in dispute are found in every known copy_ of the
venerable Lectionary of the East. _Those same Twelve Verses_,—neither more
nor less,—_are observed to constitute one integral Lection_.
But even this is not all. The most important fact seems to be that to
these Verses has been assigned a place of the highest possible
distinction. It is found that, from the very first, S. Mark xvi. 9-20 has
been everywhere, and by all branches of the Church Catholic, claimed for
_two_ of the Church’s greatest Festivals,—Easter and Ascension. A more
weighty or a more significant circumstance can scarcely be imagined. To
suppose that a portion of Scripture singled out for such extraordinary
honour by the Church universal is a spurious addition to the Gospel, is
purely irrational; is simply monstrous. No unauthorized “fragment,”
however “remarkable,” could by possibility have so established itself in
the regards of the East and of the West, from the very first. No suspected
“addition, placed here in very early times,” would have been tolerated in
the Church’s solemn public Service six or seven times a-year. No. _It is
impossible._ Had it been one short clause which we were invited to
surrender: a verse: two verses: even three or four:—the plea being that
(as in the case of the celebrated _pericopa de adulterâ_) the Lectionaries
knew nothing of them:—the case would have been entirely different. But for
any one to seek to persuade us that these Twelve Verses, which exactly
constitute one of the Church’s most famous Lections, are every one of them
spurious:—that the fatal taint begins with the first verse, and only ends
with the last:—_this_ is a demand on our simplicity which, in a less
solemn subject, would only provoke a smile. We are constrained to testify
astonishment and even some measure of concern. Have the Critics then,
(supposing them to be familiar with the evidence which has now been set
forth so much in detail;)—Have the Critics then, (we ask) utterly taken
leave of their senses? or do they really suppose that we have taken leave
of ours?
It is time to close this discussion. It was declared at the outset that
the witness of the Lectionaries to the genuineness of these Verses, though
it has been generally overlooked, is the most important of any: admitting,
as it does, of no evasion: being simply, as it is, decisive. I have now
fully explained the grounds of that assertion. I have set the Verses,
which I undertook to vindicate and establish, on a basis from which it
will be found impossible any more to dislodge them. Whatever Griesbach,
and Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and the rest, may think about the
matter,—the Holy Eastern Church in her corporate capacity, has never been
of their opinion. _They_ may doubt. _The ante-Nicene Fathers_ at least
never doubted. If “the last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark were _deservedly_
omitted from certain Copies of his Gospel in the ivth century, utterly
incredible is it that these same TWELVE VERSES should have been
disseminated, by their authority, throughout Christendom;—read, by their
command, in all the Churches;—selected, by their collective judgment, from
the whole body of Scripture for the special honour of being listened to
once and again at EASTER time, as well as on ASCENSION-DAY.
CHAPTER XI.
THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES OF THE
GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.
The Text of our five oldest Uncials proved, by an induction of
instances, to have suffered depravation throughout by the
operation of the ancient Lectionary system of the Church (p.
217).—The omission of S. Mark’s “last Twelve Verses,”
(constituting an integral Ecclesiastical Lection,) shewn to be
probably only one more example of the same depraving influence (p.
224). This solution of the problem corroborated by the language of
Eusebius and of Hesychius (p. 232); as well as favoured by the
“Western” order of the Gospels (p. 239).
I am much mistaken if the suggestion which I am about to offer has not
already presented itself to every reader of ordinary intelligence who has
taken the trouble to follow the course of my argument thus far with
attention. It requires no acuteness whatever,—it is, as it seems to me,
the merest instinct of mother-wit,—on reaching the present stage of the
discussion, to debate with oneself somewhat as follows:—
1. So then, the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel were anciently
often observed to be missing from the copies. Eusebius expressly says so.
I observe that he nowhere says that _their genuineness_ was anciently
_suspected_. As for himself, his elaborate discussion of their contents
convinces me that individually, he regarded them with favour. The mere
fact,—(it is best to keep to his actual statement,)—that “the entire
passage”(393) was “not met with in all the copies,” is the sum of his
evidence: and two Greek manuscripts, yet extant, supposed to be of the
ivth century (Codd. B and א), mutilated in this precise way, testify to
the truth of his statement.
2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Verses,—neither more
nor less,—anciently constituted _an integral __ Ecclesiastical Lection_;
which lection,—inasmuch as it is found to have established itself in every
part of Christendom at the earliest period to which liturgical evidence
reaches back, and to have been assigned from the very first to two of the
chiefest Church Festivals,—must needs be a lection of almost Apostolic
antiquity. Eusebius, I observe, (see p. 45), designates the portion of
Scripture in dispute by its technical name,—κεφάλαιον or περικοπή; (for so
an Ecclesiastical lection was anciently called). Here then is a rare
coincidence indeed. It is in fact simply unique. Surely, I may add that it
is in the highest degree suggestive also. It inevitably provokes the
inquiry,—Must not these two facts be not only connected, but even
_interdependent_? Will not the omission of the Twelve concluding Verses of
S. Mark from certain ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way
_occasioned by the fact_ that those same twelve verses constituted an
integral Church Lection? How is it possible to avoid suspecting that the
phenomenon to which Eusebius invites attention, (viz. that certain copies
of S. Mark’s Gospel in very ancient times had been mutilated from the end
of the 8th verse onwards,) ought to be capable of illustration,—will have
in fact _to be explained_, and in a word _accounted for_,—by the
circumstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark’s xvith chapter, one ancient
Lection _came to an end_, and another ancient Lection _began_?
Somewhat thus, (I venture to think,) must every unprejudiced Reader of
intelligence hold parley with himself on reaching the close of the
preceding chapter. I need hardly add that I am thoroughly convinced he
would be reasoning rightly. I am going to shew that the Lectionary
practice of the ancient Church does indeed furnish a sufficient clue for
the unravelment of this now famous problem: in other words, enables us
satisfactorily to account for the omission of these Twelve Verses from
ancient copies of the collected Gospels. But I mean to do more. I propose
to make my appeal to documents which shall be observed to bear no
faltering witness in my favour. More yet. I propose that Eusebius himself,
the chief author of all this trouble, shall be brought back into Court and
invited to resyllable his Evidence; and I am much mistaken if even _he_
will not be observed to let fall a hint that we have at last got on the
right scent;—have accurately divined how this mistake took its first
beginning;—and, (what is not least to the purpose,) have correctly
apprehended what was his own real meaning in what he himself has said.
The proposed solution of the difficulty,—if not the evidence on which it
immediately rests,—might no doubt be exhibited within exceedingly narrow
limits. Set down abruptly, however, its weight and value would inevitably
fail to be recognised, even by those who already enjoy some familiarity
with these studies. Very few of the considerations which I shall have to
rehearse are in fact unknown to Critics: yet is it evident that their
bearing on the problem before us has hitherto altogether escaped their
notice. On the other hand, by one entirely a novice to this department of
sacred Science, I could scarcely hope to be so much as understood. Let me
be allowed, therefore, to preface what I have to say with a few
explanatory details which I promise shall not be tedious, and which I
trust will not be found altogether without interest either. If they are
anywhere else to be met with, it is my misfortune, not my fault, that I
have been hitherto unsuccessful in discovering the place.
I. From the earliest ages of the Church, (as I shewed at page 192-5,) it
has been customary to read certain definite portions of Holy Scripture,
determined by Ecclesiastical authority, publicly before the Congregation.
In process of time, as was natural, the sections so required for public
use were collected into separate volumes: Lections from the Gospels being
written out in a Book which was called “_Evangelistarium_,”
(εὐαγγελιστάριον,)—from the Acts and Epistles, in a book called
“_Praxapostolus_,” (πραξαπόστολος). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and
Syriac, are yet extant in great numbers,(394) and (I may remark in
passing) deserve a far greater amount of attention than has hitherto been
bestowed upon them.(395)
_When_ the Lectionary first took the form of a separate book, has not been
ascertained. That no copy is known to exist (whether in Greek or in
Syriac) older than the viiith century, proves nothing. Codices in daily
use, (like the Bibles used in our Churches,) must of necessity have been
of exceptionally brief duration; and Lectionaries, more even than Biblical
MSS. were liable to injury and decay.
II. But it is to be observed,—(and to explain this, is much more to my
present purpose,)—that besides transcribing the Ecclesiastical lections
into separate books, it became the practice at a very early period _to
adapt copies of the Gospel to lectionary purposes_. I suspect that this
practice began in the Churches of Syria; for Syriac copies of the Gospels
(_at least_ of the viith century) abound, which have the Lections more or
less systematically rubricated in the Text.(396) There is in the British
Museum a copy of S. Mark’s Gospel according to the Peshito version,
_certainly written previous to _A.D. 583, which has at least five or six
rubrics so inserted by the original scribe.(397) As a rule, in all later
cursive Greek MSS., (I mean those of the xiith to the xvth century,) the
Ecclesiastical lections are indicated throughout: while either at the
summit, or else at the foot of the page, the formula with which the
Lection was to be introduced is elaborately inserted; prefaced probably by
a rubricated statement (not always very easy to decipher) of the occasion
_when_ the ensuing portion of Scripture was to be read. The ancients, to a
far greater extent than ourselves,(398) were accustomed,—(in fact, they
made it _a rule_,)—to prefix unauthorized formulæ to their public
Lections; and these are sometimes found to have established themselves so
firmly, that at last they became as it were ineradicable; and later
copyists of the fourfold Gospel are observed to introduce them
unsuspiciously into the inspired text.(399) All that belongs to this
subject deserves particular attention; because it is _this_ which explains
not a few of the perturbations (so to express oneself) which the text of
the New Testament has experienced. We are made to understand how, what was
originally intended only as a _liturgical note_, became mistaken, through
the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a _critical
suggestion_; and thus, besides transpositions without number, there has
arisen, at one time, the insertion of something unauthorized into the text
of Scripture,—at another, the omission of certain inspired words, to the
manifest detriment of the sacred deposit. For although the _systematic_
rubrication of the Gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively
recent invention,—(I question if it be older in Greek MSS. than the xth
century,)—yet will persons engaged in the public Services of GOD’S House
have been prone, from the very earliest age, to insert memoranda of the
kind referred to, into the margin of their copies. In this way, in fact,
it may be regarded as certain that in countless minute particulars the
text of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail to add, that by a
judicious, and above all by an _unprejudiced_ use of the materials at our
disposal, it may, even at this distance of time, in every such particular,
be successfully restored.(400)
III. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances, that _even in
the oldest copies in existence_, I mean in Codd. B, א, A, C, and D, the
Lectionary system of the early Church has left abiding traces of its
operation. When a few such undeniable cases have been adduced, all
objections grounded on _primâ facie_ improbability will have been
satisfactorily disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such
a disturbing force and depraving influence, _at least_ as far back as the
beginning of the ivth century, (but it is in fact more ancient by full two
hundred years,) will have been established: of which I shall only have to
shew, in conclusion, that the omission of “the last Twelve Verses” of S.
Mark’s Gospel is probably but one more instance,—though confessedly by far
the most extraordinary of any.
(1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, the two grand verses which
describe our LORD’S “Agony and Bloody Sweat,” (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44,) are
missing. The same two verses are absent also from a few other important
MSS., as well as from both the Egyptian versions; but I desire to fasten
attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place of Codex B.
“Confessedly erring,” I say; for the genuineness of those two verses is no
longer disputed. Now, in every known Evangelistarium, the two verses here
omitted by Cod. B follow, (the Church so willed it,) S. Matth. xxvi. 39,
and are read as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy
Week.(401) Of course they are also _omitted_ in the same Evangelistaria
from the lesson for the Tuesday after Sexagesima, (τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου, as
the Easterns call that day,) when S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1 used to be
read. Moreover, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have been
accommodated to ecclesiastical use, _the reader of S. Luke xxii. is
invariably directed by a marginal note to leave out those two verses_, and
to proceed per saltum from ver. 42 to ver. 45.(402) What more obvious
therefore than that the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in
S. Luke’s Gospel is to be attributed to nothing else but the Lectionary
practice of the primitive Church? Quite unreasonable is it to impute
heretical motives, or to invent any other unsupported theory, while this
plain solution of the difficulty is at hand.
(2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. א, C, L, U and Γ are observed
here to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the SAVIOUR’S side (S. John
xix. 34) at the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. Now, I only do not insist that
this must needs be the result of the singular Lectionary practice already
described at p. 202, because a scholion in Cod. 72 records the singular
fact that in the Diatessaron of Tatian, after S. Matth. xxvii. 48, was
read ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ
αἷμα. (Chrysostom’s codex was evidently vitiated in _precisely_ the same
way.) This interpolation therefore may have resulted from the corrupting
influence of Tatian’s (so-called) “Harmony.” See Appendix (H).
(3.) To keep on safe ground. Codd. B and D concur in what Alford justly
calls the “grave error” of simply omitting from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our
LORD’S supplication on behalf of His murderers, (ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγε, Πάτερ,
ἄφες αὐτοῖς: οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσι). They are not quite singular in so
doing; being, as usual, kept in countenance by certain copies of the old
Latin, as well as by both the Egyptian versions. How is this “grave error”
in so many ancient MSS. to be accounted for? (for a “grave error” or
rather “a fatal omission” it certainly is). Simply by the fact that in the
Eastern Church the Lection for the Thursday after Sexagesima _breaks off
abruptly, immediately before these very words_,—to recommence at ver.
44.(403)
(4.) Note, that at ver. 32, _the eighth _“Gospel of the Passion”_
begins_,—which is the reason why Codd. B and א (with the Egyptian
versions) exhibit a singular irregularity in that place; and why the
Jerusalem Syriac introduces the established formula of the Lectionaries
(σὺν τῷ Ἰησοῦ) at the same juncture.
(If I do not here insist that the absence of the famous _pericopa de
adulterâ_ (S. John vii. 53-viii. 11,) from so many MSS., is to be
explained in precisely the same way, it is only because the genuineness of
that portion of the Gospel is generally denied; and I propose, in this
enumeration of instances, not to set foot on disputed ground. I am
convinced, nevertheless, that the first occasion of the omission of those
memorable verses was the lectionary practice of the primitive Church,
which, on Whitsunday, read from S. John vii. 37 to viii. 12, _leaving out
the twelve verses_ in question. Those verses, from the nature of their
contents, (as Augustine declares,) easily came to be viewed with dislike
or suspicion. The passage, however, is as old as the second century, for
it is found in certain copies of the old Latin. Moreover Jerome
deliberately gave it a place in the Vulgate. I pass on.)
(5.) The two oldest Codices in existence,—B and א,—stand all but alone in
omitting from S. Luke vi. 1 the unique and indubitably genuine word
δευτεροπρώτῳ; which is also omitted by the Peshito, Italic and Coptic
versions. And yet, when it is observed that an _Ecclesiastical lection
begins here_, and that the Evangelistaria (which _invariably_ leave out
such notes of time) simply drop the word,—only substituting for ἐν σαββάτῳ
the more familiar τοῖς σάββασι,—every one will be ready to admit that if
the omission of this word be not due to the inattention of the copyist,
(which, however, seems to me not at all unlikely,(404)) it is sufficiently
explained by the Lectionary practice of the Church,—which may well date
back even to the immediately post-Apostolic age.
(6.) In S. Luke xvi. 19, Cod. D introduces the Parable of Lazarus with the
formula,—εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἑτέραν παραβολήν; which is nothing else but a
marginal note which has found its way into the text from the margin; being
_the liturgical introduction of a Church-lesson_(405) which afterwards
began εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην.(406)
(7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv. begin with _the
liturgical formula_,—(it survives in our Book of Common Prayer(407) to
this very hour!)—καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθήταις αὐτοῦ: in which it is
countenanced by certain MSS. of the Vulgate and of the old Latin Version.
Indeed, it may be stated generally concerning the text of Cod. D, that it
bears marks _throughout_ of the depraving influence of the ancient
Lectionary practice. Instances of this, (in addition to those elsewhere
cited in these pages,) will be discovered in S. Luke iii. 23: iv. 16 (and
xix. 45): v. 1 and 17: vi. 37 (and xviii. 15): vii. 1: x. 1 and 25: xx. 1:
in all but three of which, Cod. D is kept in countenance by the old Latin,
often by the Syriac, and by other versions of the greatest antiquity. But
to proceed.
(8.) Cod. A, (supported by Athanasius, the Vulgate, Gothic, and
Philoxenian versions,) for καί, in S. Luke ix. 57, reads ἐγένετο δὲ,—which
is the reading of the Textus Receptus. Cod. D, (with some copies of the
old Latin,) exhibits καὶ ἐγένετο. All the diversity which is observable in
this place, (and it is considerable,) is owing to the fact that _an
Ecclesiastical lection begins here_.(408) In different Churches, the
formula with which the lection was introduced slightly differed.
(9.) Cod. C is supported by Chrysostom and Jerome, as well as by the
Peshito, Cureton’s and the Philoxenian Syriac, and some MSS. of the old
Latin, in reading ὁ Ἰησοῦς at the beginning of S. Matth. xi. 20. That the
words have no business there, is universally admitted. So also is the
cause of their interpolation generally recognized. _The Ecclesiastical
lection_ for Wednesday in the ivth week after Pentecost _begins at that
place_; and begins with the formula,—ἐν τῷ καίρῳ ἐκεινῳ, ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς
ὀνειδίζειν.
(10.) Similarly, in S. Matth. xii. 9, xiii. 36, and xiv. 14, Cod. C
inserts ὁ Ἰησοῦς; a reading which on all three occasions is countenanced
by the Syriac and some copies of the old Latin, and on the last of the
three, by Origen also. And yet there can be no doubt that it is only
because _Ecclesiastical lections begin at those places_,(409) that the
Holy Name is introduced there.
(11.) Let me add that the Sacred Name is confessedly an interpolation in
the six places indicated at foot,—its presence being accounted for by the
fact that, in each, an _Ecclesiastical lection begins_.(410) Cod. D in one
of these places, Cod. A in four, is kept in countenance by the old Latin,
the Syriac, the Coptic and other early versions;—convincing indications of
the extent to which the Lectionary practice of the Church had established
itself so early as the second century of our æra.
Cod. D, and copies of the old Latin and Egyptian versions also read τοῦ
Ἰησοῦ, (instead of αὐτοῦ,) in S. Mark xiv. 3; which is only because _a
Church lesson begins there_.
(12.) The same Cod. D is all but unique in leaving out that memorable
verse in S. Luke’s Gospel (xxiv. 12), in which S. Peter’s visit to the
Sepulchre of our risen LORD finds particular mention. It is only because
that verse was claimed both as the _conclusion_ of the ivth and also as
the _beginning_ of the vth Gospel of the Resurrection: so that the
liturgical note ἀρχή stands at the beginning,—τέλος at the end of it.
Accordingly, D is kept in countenance here only by the Jerusalem
Lectionary and some copies of the old Latin. But what is to be thought of
the editorial judgment which (with Tregelles) encloses this verse within
brackets; and (with Tischendorf) _rejects it from the text altogether_?
(13.) Codices B, א, and D are _alone_ among MSS. in omitting the clause
διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν: καὶ παρῆγεν οὔτως, at the end of the 59th verse
of S. John viii. The omission is to be accounted for by the fact that just
_there_ the Church-lesson for Tuesday in the vth week after Easter _came
to an end_.
(14.) Again. It is not at all an unusual thing to find in cursive MSS., at
the end of S. Matth. viii. 13, (with several varieties), the spurious and
tasteless appendix,—καὶ ὑποστρέψας ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐν
αὐτῇ τῇ ὤρᾳ εὗρεν τὸν παῖδα ὑγιαίνοντα: a clause which owes its existence
solely to the practice of ending the lection for the ivth Sunday after
Pentecost in that unauthorized manner.(411) But it is not only in cursive
MSS. that these words are found. _They are met with also in the Codex
Sinaiticus_ (א): a witness at once to the inveteracy of Liturgical usage
in the ivth century of our æra, and to the corruptions which the “Codex
omnium antiquissimus” will no doubt have inherited from a yet older copy
than itself.
(15.) In conclusion, I may remark generally that there occur instances,
again and again, of perturbations of the Text in our oldest MSS.,
(corresponding sometimes with readings vouched for by the most ancient of
the Fathers,) which admit of no more intelligible or inoffensive solution
than by referring them to the Lectionary practice of the primitive
Church.(412)
Thus when instead of καὶ ἀναβαίνω ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (S. Matth. xx.
17), Cod. B reads, (and, is almost unique in reading,) Μέλλων δὲ
ἀναβαίνειν ὁ Ἰησοῦς; and when Origen sometimes quotes the place in the
same way, but sometimes is observed to transpose the position of the Holy
Name in the sentence; when again six of Matthaei’s MSS., (and Origen
once,) are observed to put the same Name _after_ Ἱεροσόλυμα: when, lastly,
two of Field’s MSS.,(413) and one of Matthaei’s, (and I dare say a great
many more, if the truth were known,) omit the words ὁ Ἰησοῦς
entirely:—_who_ sees not that the true disturbing force in this place,
from the iind century of our æra downwards, has been _the Lectionary
practice of the primitive Church_?—the fact that _there_ the lection for
the Thursday after the viiith Sunday after Pentecost began?—And this may
suffice.
IV. It has been proved then, in what goes before, more effectually even
than in a preceding page,(414) not only that Ecclesiastical Lections
corresponding with those indicated in the “Synaxaria” were fully
established in the immediately post-Apostolic age, but also that at that
early period the Lectionary system of primitive Christendom had already
exercised a depraving influence of a peculiar kind on the text of
Scripture. Further yet, (and _this_ is the only point I am now concerned
to establish), that _our five oldest Copies of the Gospels_,—B and א as
well as A, C and D,—exhibit not a few traces of the mischievous agency
alluded to; errors, and especially _omissions_, which sometimes seriously
affect the character of those Codices as witnesses to the Truth of
Scripture.—I proceed now to consider the case of S. Mark xvi. 9-20; only
prefacing my remarks with a few necessary words of explanation.
V. He who takes into his hands an ordinary cursive MS. of the Gospels, is
prepared to find the Church-lessons regularly indicated throughout, in the
text or in the margin.
A familiar contraction, executed probably in vermillion [χ over αρ], ἀρ,
indicates the “beginning” (ἀρχή) of each lection: a corresponding
contraction (ε over τ, τε, τελ), indicates its “end” (τέλοσ.) Generally,
these rubrical directions, (for they are nothing else,) are inserted for
convenience into the body of the text,—from which the red pigment with
which they are almost invariably executed, effectually distinguishes them.
But all these particulars gradually disappear as recourse is had to older
and yet older MSS. The studious in such matters have noticed that even the
memorandums as to the “beginning” and the “end” of a lection are rare,
almost in proportion to the antiquity of a Codex. When they do occur in
the later uncials, they do not by any means always seem to have been the
work of the original scribe; neither has care been always taken to
indicate them in ink of a different colour. It will further be observed in
such MSS. that whereas the sign where the reader is to begin is
generally—(in order the better to attract his attention,)—inserted in _the
margin_ of the Codex, the note where he is to leave off, (in order the
more effectually to arrest his progress,) is as a rule introduced _into
the body of the text_.(415) In uncial MSS., however, all such symbols are
not only rare, but (what is much to be noted) they are exceedingly
irregular in their occurrence. Thus in Codex Γ, in the Bodleian Library,
(a recently acquired uncial MS. of the Gospels, written A.D. 844), there
occurs no indication of the “end” of a single lection in S. Luke’s Gospel,
until chap. xvi. 31 is reached; after which, the sign abounds. In Codex L,
the original notes of Ecclesiastical Lections occur at the following rare
and irregular intervals:—S. Mark ix. 2: x. 46: xii. 40 (where the sign has
lost its way; it should have stood against ver. 44): xv. 42 and xvi.
1.(416) In the _oldest_ uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even
in the Codex Bezæ, (vith century,) not a single liturgical direction
_coeval with the MS._ is anywhere to be found.
VI. And yet, although the practice of thus indicating the beginning and
the end of a liturgical section, does not seem to have come into general
use until about the xiith century; and although, previous to the ixth
century, systematic liturgical directions are probably unknown;(417) the
_need_ of them must have been experienced by one standing up to read
before the congregation, long before. The want of some reminder where he
was to begin,—above all, of some hint where he was to leave off,—will have
infallibly made itself felt from the first. Accordingly, there are not
wanting indications that, occasionally, ΤΕΛΟΣ (or ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) was written in
the margin of Copies of the Gospels at an exceedingly remote epoch. One
memorable example of this practice is supplied by the Codex Bezæ (D):
where in S. Mark xiv. 41, instead of ἀπέχει ἦλθεν ἡ ὤρα,—we meet with the
unintelligible ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ Η ΩΡΑ. Now, nothing else has here
happened but that a marginal note, designed originally to indicate the end
(ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of the lesson for the third day of the iind week of the
Carnival, has lost its way from the end of ver. 42, and got thrust into
the text of ver. 41,—to the manifest destruction of the sense.(418) I find
D’s error here is shared (_a_) by the Peshito Syriac, (_b_) by the old
Latin, and (_c_) by the Philoxenian: venerable partners in error, truly!
for the first two probably carry back this false reading to _the second
century of our æra_; and so, furnish one more remarkable proof, to be
added to the fifteen (or rather the forty) already enumerated (pp.
217-23), that the lessons of the Eastern Church were settled at a period
long anterior to the date of the oldest MS. of the Gospels extant.
VII. Returning then to the problem before us, I venture to suggest as
follows:—What if, at a very remote period, this same isolated liturgical
note (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) occurring at S. Mark xvi. 8, (which _is_ “the end” of _the
Church-lection_ for the iind Sunday after Easter,) should have unhappily
suggested to some copyist,—καλλιγραφίας _quam vel Criticæ Sacræ vel rerum
Liturgicarum peritior_,—the notion that the entire “_Gospel according to
S. Mark_,” came to an end at verse 8?... I see no more probable account of
the matter, I say, than this:—That the mutilation of the last chapter of
S. Mark has resulted from the fact, that some very ancient scribe
_misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note_ ΤΕΛΟΣ (or ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ) which he found at the close of verse 8. True, that he will have
probably beheld, further on, several additional στίχοι. But if he did, how
could he acknowledge the fact more loyally than by leaving (as the author
of Cod. B is observed to have done) one entire column blank, before
proceeding with S. Luke? He hesitated, all the same, _to transcribe_ any
further, having before him, (as he thought,) an assurance that “THE END”
had been reached at ver. 8.
VIII. That some were found in very early times eagerly to acquiesce in
this omission: to sanction it: even to multiply copies of the Gospel so
mutilated; (critics or commentators intent on nothing so much as
reconciling the apparent discrepancies in the Evangelical
narratives:)—appears to me not at all unlikely.(419) Eusebius almost says
as much, when he puts into the mouth of one who is for getting rid of
these verses altogether, the remark that “they would be in a manner
superfluous _if it should appear that their testimony is at variance with
that of the other Evangelists_.”(420) (The ancients were giants in
Divinity but children in Criticism.) On the other hand, I altogether agree
with Dean Alford in thinking it highly improbable that the difficulty of
harmonizing one Gospel with another in this place, (such as it is,) was
the cause why these Twelve Verses were originally suppressed.(421) (1)
First, because there really was no need to withhold more than three,—at
the utmost, five of them,—if _this_ had been the reason of the omission.
(2) Next, because it would have been easier far to introduce some critical
correction of any supposed discrepancy, than to sweep away the whole of
the unoffending context. (3) Lastly, because nothing clearly was gained by
causing the Gospel to end so abruptly that every one must see at a glance
that it had been mutilated. No. The omission having originated in a
mistake, was perpetuated for a brief period (let us suppose) only through
infirmity of judgment: or, (as I prefer to believe), only in consequence
of the religious fidelity of copyists, who were evidently always
instructed to transcribe exactly what they found in the copy set before
them. The Church meanwhile in her corporate capacity, has never known
anything at all of the matter,—as was fully shewn above in Chap. X.
IX. When this solution of the problem first occurred to me, (and it
occurred to me long before I was aware of the memorable reading ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
in the Codex Bezæ, already adverted to,) I reasoned with myself as
follows:—But if the mutilation of the second Gospel came about in this
particular way, the MSS. are bound to remember _something_ of the
circumstance; and in ancient MSS., if I am right, I ought certainly to
meet with _some_ confirmation of my opinion. According to my view, at the
root of this whole matter lies the fact that at S. Mark xvi. 8 a
well-known Ecclesiastical lesson comes to an end. Is there not perhaps
something exceptional in the way that the close of that liturgical section
was anciently signified?
X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every copy of the
Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris;(422) and devoted seventy hours
exactly, with unflagging delight, to the task. The success of the
experiment astonished me.
1. I began with _our_ Cod. 24 ( = Reg. 178) of the Gospels: turned to the
last page of S. Mark: and beheld, in a Codex of the xith Century wholly
devoid of the Lectionary apparatus which is sometimes found in MSS. of a
similar date,(423) at fol. 104, the word + ΤΕΛΟΣ + conspicuously written
by the original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as well as at the
close of the Gospel. _It occurred besides only at ch._ ix. 9, (the end of
the lesson for the Transfiguration.) And yet there are _at least seventy_
occasions in the course of S. Mark’s Gospel where, in MSS. which have been
accommodated to Church use, it is usual to indicate the close of a
Lection. This discovery, which surprised me not a little, convinced me
that I was on the right scent; and every hour I met with some fresh
confirmation of the fact.
2. For the intelligent reader will readily understand that three such
deliberate liturgical memoranda, occurring solitary in a MS. of this date,
are to be accounted for only in one way. They infallibly represent a
corresponding peculiarity in some far more ancient document. The fact that
the word ΤΕΛΟΣ is here (_a_) set down unabbreviated, (_b_) in black ink,
and (_c_) as part of the text,—points unmistakably in the same direction.
But that Cod. 24 is derived from a Codex of much older date is rendered
certain by a circumstance which shall be specified at foot.(424)
3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. 36.(425) The sign + ΤΕΛΟΣ +,
(which occurs punctually at S. Mark xvi. 8 and again at v. 20,) is found
besides in S. Mark’s Gospel only at chap. i. 8;(426) at chap. xiv. 31; and
(+ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΕΦΑΛ) at chap. xv. 24;—being on every occasion incorporated
with the Text. Now, when it is perceived that in the second and third of
these places, ΤΕΛΟΣ has clearly lost its way,—appearing where _no_
Ecclesiastical lection came to an end,—it will be felt that the MS. before
us (of the xith century) if it was not actually transcribed from,—must at
least exhibit at second hand,—a far more ancient Codex.(427)
4. Only once more.—Codex 22 ( = Reg. 72) was never prepared for Church
purposes. A rough hand has indeed scrawled indications of the beginnings
and endings of a few of the Lessons, here and there; but these liturgical
notes are no part of the original MS. At S. Mark xvi. 8, however, we are
presented (as before) with the solitary note + ΤΕΛΟΣ +—, incorporated with
the text. Immediately after which, (in writing of the same size,) comes a
memorable statement(428) in red letters. The whole stands thus:—
ΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ + ΤΕΛΟΣ +—
[cross] ΕΝ ΤΙΣΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΩΝ.
ΕΩΣ ΩΔΕ ΠΛΗΡΟΥΤΑΙ Ο ΕΥ
ΑΓΓΕΛΙΣΤΗΣ: ΕΝ ΠΟΛΛΟΙΣ
ΔΕ. ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΕΤΑΙ +—
ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ. ΠΡΟΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩΝ.
And then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of which, the sign +
ΤΕΛΟΣ + is again repeated,—which sign, however, occurs _nowhere else_ in
the MS. _nor at the end of any of the other three Gospels_. A more
opportune piece of evidence could hardly have been invented. A statement
so apt and so significant was surely a thing rather to be wished than to
be hoped for. For here is the liturgical sign ΤΕΛΟΣ not only occurring in
the wholly exceptional way of which we have already seen examples, but
actually followed by the admission that “In certain copies, _the
Evangelist proceeds no further_.” The two circumstances so brought
together seem exactly to bridge over the chasm between Codd. B and א on
the one hand,—and Codd. 24 and 36 on the other; and to supply us with
precisely the link of evidence which we require. For observe:—During the
first six centuries of our æra, no single instance is known of a codex in
which ΤΕΛΟΣ is written at the end of a Gospel. The subscription of S. Mark
for instance is _invariably_ either ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as in B and א): or else
ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as in A and C, and the other older uncials):
_never_ ΤΕΛΟΣ. But here is a Scribe who first copies the _liturgical_ note
ΤΕΛΟΣ,—and then volunteers the _critical_ observation that “in some copies
of S. Mark’s Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no further!” A more
extraordinary corroboration of the view which I am endeavouring to
recommend to the reader’s acceptance, I really cannot imagine. Why, the
ancient Copyist actually comes back, in order to assure me that the
suggestion which I have been already offering in explanation of the
difficulty, is the true one!
5. I am not about to abuse the reader’s patience with a prolonged
enumeration of the many additional conspiring circumstances,—insignificant
in themselves and confessedly unimportant when considered singly, but of
which the cumulative force is unquestionably great,—which an examination
of 99 MSS. of the Gospels brought to light.(429) Enough has been said
already to shew,
(1st.) That it must have been a customary thing, at a very remote age, to
write the word ΤΕΛΟΣ against S. Mark xvi. 8, even when the same note was
withheld from the close of almost every other ecclesiastical lection in
the Gospel.
(2ndly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt was originally
written as a liturgical memorandum in the margin, became at a very early
period incorporated with the text; where, retaining neither its use nor
its significancy, it was liable to misconception, and may have easily come
to be fatally misunderstood.
And although these two facts certainly prove nothing in and by themselves,
yet, when brought close alongside of the problem which has to be solved,
their significancy becomes immediately apparent: for,
(3rdly.) As a matter of fact, there are found to have existed before the
time of Eusebius, copies of S. Mark’s Gospel which _did_ come to an end at
this very place. Now, that _the Evangelist_ left off there, no one can
believe.(430) _Why_, then, did _the Scribe_ leave off? But the Reader is
already in possession of the reason why. A sufficient explanation of the
difficulty has been elicited from the very MSS. themselves. And surely
when, suspended to an old chest which has been locked up for ages, a key
is still hanging which fits the lock exactly and enables men to open the
chest with ease, they are at liberty to assume that the key _belongs_ to
the lock; is, in fact, the only instrument by which the chest may lawfully
be opened.
XI. And now, in conclusion, I propose that we summon back our original
Witness, and invite him to syllable his evidence afresh, in order that we
may ascertain if perchance it affords any countenance whatever to the view
which I have been advocating. Possible at least it is that in the
Patristic record that copies of S. Mark’s Gospel were anciently defective
from the 8th verse onwards _some_ vestige may be discoverable of the
forgotten truth. Now, it has been already fully shewn that it is a mistake
to introduce into this discussion any other name but that of
Eusebius.(431) Do, then, the terms in which _Eusebius_ alludes to this
matter lend us any assistance? Let us have the original indictment read
over to us once more: and _this_ time we are bound to listen to every word
of it with the utmost possible attention.
1. A problem is proposed for solution. “There are two ways of solving it,”
(Eusebius begins):—ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν
περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, εἔποι ἀν μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτην φέρεσθαι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις
τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου: τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. οἶς
ἐπιλέγει, “καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” Ἐν τούτῳ σχεδὸν ἐν
ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατά Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ(432) ... Let us halt here for one moment.
2. Surely, a new and unexpected light already begins to dawn upon this
subject! How is it that we paid so little attention before to the terms in
which this ancient Father delivers his evidence, that we overlooked the
import of an expression of his which from the first must have struck us as
peculiar, but which _now_ we perceive to be of paramount significancy?
Eusebius is pointing out that _one_ way for a man (so minded) to get rid
of the apparent inconsistency between S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Matth. xxviii.
1, would be for him to reject the entire “Ecclesiastical Lection”(433) in
which S. Mark xvi. 9 occurs. Any one adopting this course, (he proceeds;
and it is much to be noted that Eusebius is throughout delivering the
imaginary sentiments of another,—not his own:) Such an one (he says) “will
say that it is _not met with in all_ the copies of S. Mark’s Gospel. The
accurate copies, at all events,”—and then follows an expression in which
this ancient Critic is observed ingeniously to accommodate his language to
the phenomenon which he has to describe, so as covertly to insinuate
something else. Eusebius employs an idiom (it is found elsewhere in his
writings) sufficiently colourless to have hitherto failed to arouse
attention; but of which it is impossible to overlook the actual design and
import, after all that has gone before. He clearly _recognises the very
phenomenon to which I have been calling __ attention_ within the last two
pages, and which I need not further insist upon or explain: viz. that _the
words_ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ _were_ in some very ancient (“_the accurate_”) copies
_found written after_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ: although to an unsuspicious reader
the expression which he uses may well seem to denote nothing more than
that the second Gospel _generally came to an end_ there.
3. And now it is time to direct attention to the important bearing of the
foregoing remark on the main point at issue. The true import of what
Eusebius has delivered, and which has at last been ascertained, will be
observed really to set his evidence in a novel and unsuspected light. From
the days of Jerome, it has been customary to assume that Eusebius roundly
states that, in his time _almost all the Greek copies_ were without our
“last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel:(434) whereas Eusebius really
_does nowhere say so_. He expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a
somewhat unusual phrase(435) which perhaps admits of no exact English
counterpart: but what he says clearly amounts to no more than this,—that
“_the accurate_ copies, at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, circumscribe THE END
(ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of Mark’s narrative:” that _there_, “in almost all the Copies
of the Gospel according to Mark, is circumscribed THE END.” He says no
more. He does not say that _there_ “is circumscribed _the Gospel_.” As for
the twelve verses which follow, he merely declares that they were “_not
met with in all_ the copies;” i.e. that some copies did not contain them.
But this, so far from being a startling statement, is no more than what
Codd. B and א in themselves are sufficient to establish. In other words,
Eusebius, (whose testimony on this subject as it is commonly understood is
so extravagant [see above, p. 48-9,] as to carry with it its own
sufficient refutation,) is found to bear consistent testimony to the two
following modest propositions; which, however, are not adduced by him as
reasons for rejecting S. Mark xvi. 9-20, but only as samples of _what
might be urged_ by one desirous of shelving a difficulty suggested by
their contents;—
(1st.) That from _some_ ancient copies of S. Mark’s Gospel these last
Twelve Verses were away.
(2nd.) That in _almost_ all the copies,—(whether mutilated or not, he does
not state,)—the words ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ were found immediately after ver. 8; which,
(he seems to hint,) let those who please accept as evidence that there
also is _the end of the Gospel_.
4. But I cannot dismiss the testimony of Eusebius until I have recorded my
own entire conviction that this Father is no more an original authority
here than Jerome, or Hesychius, or Victor.(436) He is evidently adopting
the language of some more ancient writer than himself. I observe that he
introduces the problem with the remark that what follows is one of tho
questions “for ever mooted by every body.”(437) I suspect (with Matthaei,
[_suprà_, p. 66,]) that _Origen_ is the _true_ author of all this
confusion. He certainly relates of himself that among his voluminous
exegetical writings was a _treatise on S. Mark’s Gospel_.(438) To Origen’s
works, Eusebius, (his apologist and admirer,) is known to have habitually
resorted; and, like many others, to have derived not a few of his notions
from that fervid and acute, but most erratic intellect. Origen’s writings
in short, seem to have been the source of much, if not most of the
mistaken Criticism of Antiquity. (The reader is reminded of what has been
offered above at p. 96-7). And this would not be the first occasion on
which it would appear that when an ancient Writer speaks of “_the accurate
copies_”, what he actually _means is the text of Scripture which was
employed or approved by Origen_.(439) The more attentively the language of
Eusebius in this place is considered, the more firmly (it is thought) will
the suspicion be entertained that he is here only reproducing the
sentiments of another person. But, however this may be, it is at least
certain that the precise meaning of what he says, has been hitherto
generally overlooked. He certainly does _not_ say, as Jerome, from his
loose translation of the passage,(440) evidently imagined,—“_omnibus __
Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus_:” but
only,—“_non in omnibus Evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum inveniri_;”
which is an entirely different thing. Eusebius adds,—“Accuratiora saltem
exemplaria FINEM narrationis secundum Marcum circumscribunt in verbis
ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ;”—and, “In hoc, fere in omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii
secundum Marcum, FINEM circumscribi.”—The point, however, of greatest
interest is, that Eusebius here calls attention to the prevalence in MSS.
of his time of the very _liturgical peculiarity_ which plainly supplies
the one true solution of the problem under discussion. His testimony is a
marvellous corroboration of what we learn from Cod. 22, (see above, p.
230,) and, rightly understood, does not go a whit beyond it.
5. What wonder that Hesychius, because he adopted blindly what he found in
Eusebius, should at once betray his author and exactly miss the point of
what his author says? Τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον (so he writes) μέχρι τοῦ
“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,” ἔχει ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.(441)
6. This may suffice concerning the testimony of Eusebius.—It will be
understood that I suppose Origen to have fallen in with one or more copies
of S. Mark’s Gospel which exhibited _the Liturgical hint_, (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ,)
conspicuously written against S. Mark xvi. 9. Such a copy may, or may not,
have there terminated abruptly. I suspect however that it _did_. Origen at
all events, (_more suo_,) will have remarked on the phenomenon before him;
and Eusebius will have adopted his remarks,—as the heralds say, “with _a
difference_”—simply because they suited his purpose, and seemed to him
ingenious and interesting.
7. For the copy in question,—(_like_ that other copy of S. Mark from which
the Peshito translation was made, and in which ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ most inopportunely
occurs at chap. xiv. 41,(442))—will have become the progenitor of several
other copies (as Codd. B and א); and some of these, it is pretty evident,
were familiarly known to Eusebius.
8. Let it however be clearly borne in mind that nothing of all this is in
the least degree essential to my argument. Eusebius, (for aught that I
know or care,) may be _solely_ responsible for every word that he has
delivered concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Every link in my argument will
remain undisturbed, and the conclusion will be still precisely the same,
whether the mistaken Criticism before us originated with another or with
himself.
XII. But _why_, (it may reasonably be asked,)—_Why_ should there have been
anything exceptional in the way of indicating the end of this particular
Lection? _Why_ should τέλος be so constantly found written after S. Mark
xvi. 8?
I answer,—I suppose it was because the Lections which respectively ended
and began at that place were so many, and were Lections of such unusual
importance. Thus,—(1) On the 2nd Sunday after Easter, (κυριακή γ᾽ τῶν
μυροφόρων, as it was called,) at the Liturgy, was read S. Mark xv. 43 to
xvi. 8; and (2) on the same day at Matins, (by the Melchite Syrian
Christians as well as by the Greeks,(443)) S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The
severance, therefore, was at ver. 8. (3) In certain of the Syrian Churches
the liturgical section for Easter Day was S. Mark xvi 2-8:(444) in the
Churches of the Jacobite, or Monophysite Christians, the Eucharistic
lesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1-8.(445) (4) The second matin lesson of
the Resurrection (xvi. 1-8) also ends,—and (5) the third (xvi. 9-20)
begins, at the same place: and these two Gospels (both in the Greek and in
the Syrian Churches) were in constant use not only at Easter, but
throughout the year.(446) (6) _That_ same third matin lesson of the
Resurrection was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; as well in
the Syrian(447) as in the Greek(448) Churches. (7) With the Monophysite
Christians, the lection “feriae tertiae in albis, ad primam vesperam,”
(i.e. for the Tuesday in Easter-Week) was S. Mark xv. 37-xvi. 8: and (8)
on the same day, at Matins, ch. xvi. 9-18.(449)—During eighteen weeks
after Easter therefore, _the only parts_ of S. Mark’s Gospel publicly read
were (_a_) the last thirteen [ch. xv. 43-xvi. 8], and (_b_) “_the last
twelve_” [ch. xvi. 9-20] verses. Can it be deemed a strange thing that it
should have been found _indispensable_ to mark, with altogether
exceptional emphasis,—to make it unmistakably plain,—where the former
Lection came to an end, and where the latter Lection began?(450)
XIII. One more circumstance, and but one, remains to be adverted to in the
way of evidence; and one more suggestion to be offered. The circumstance
is familiar indeed to all, but its bearing on the present discussion has
never been pointed out. I allude to the fact that anciently, in copies of
the fourfold Gospel, _the Gospel according to S. Mark frequently stood
last_.
This is memorably the case in respect of the Codex Bezae [vi]: more
memorably yet, in respect of the Gothic version of Ulphilas (A.D. 360): in
both of which MSS., the order of the Gospels is (1) S. Matthew, (2) S.
John, (3) S. Luke, (4) S. Mark. This is in fact _the usual Western order_.
Accordingly it is thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. Vercellensis
(_a_), Veronensis (_b_), Palatinus (_e_), Brixianus (_f_) of the old Latin
version. But this order is not _exclusively_ Western. It is found in Cod.
309. It is also observed in Matthaei’s Codd. 13, 14, (which last is _our_
Evan. 256), at Moscow. And in the same order Eusebius and others of the
ancients(451) are occasionally observed to refer to the four
Gospels,—which induces a suspicion that they were not unfamiliar with it.
Nor is this all. In Codd. 19 and 90 the Gospel according to S. Mark stands
last; though in the former of these the order of the three antecedent
Gospels is (1) S. John, (2) S. Matthew, (3) S. Luke;(452) in the latter,
(1) S. John, (2) S. Luke, (3) S. Matthew. What need of many words to
explain the bearing of these facts on the present discussion? Of course it
will have _sometimes_ happened that S. Mark xvi. 8 came to be written _at
the bottom of the left hand page_ of a MS.(453) And we have but to suppose
that in the case of one such Codex the next leaf, which would have been
_the last_, was missing,—(_the very thing which has happened in respect of
one of the Codices at Moscow_(454))—and what else _could_ result when a
copyist reached the words,
ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ. ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
but the very phenomenon which has exercised critics so sorely and which
gives rise to the whole of the present discussion? The copyist will have
brought S. Mark’s Gospel to an end there, _of course_. What else could he
possibly do?... Somewhat less excusably was our learned countryman Mill
betrayed into the statement, (inadvertently adopted by Wetstein,
Griesbach, and Tischendorf,) that “the last verse of S. John’s Gospel _is
omitted_ in Cod. 63:” the truth of the matter being (as Mr. Scrivener has
lately proved) that _the __ last leaf_ of Cod. 63,—on which the last verse
of S. John’s Gospel was demonstrably once written,—_has been lost_.(455)
XIV. To sum up.
1. It will be perceived that I suppose the omission of “the last Twelve
Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel to have originated in a sheer error and
misconception on the part of some very ancient Copyist. He _saw_ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
written after ver. 8: he _assumed_ that it was the Subscription, or at
least that it denoted “the End,” _of the Gospel_.
2. Whether certain ancient Critics, because it was acceptable to them,
were not found to promote this mistake,—it is useless to inquire. That
there may have arisen some old harmonizer of the Gospels, who, (in the
words of Eusebius,) was disposed to “regard what followed as superfluous
from its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of the other
Evangelists;”(456)—and that in this way the error became propagated;—is
likely enough. But an error it most certainly was: and to that _error_,
the _accident_ described in the last preceding paragraph _would have_ very
materially conduced, and it may have very easily done so.
3. I request however that it may be observed that the “accident” is not
_needed_ in order to account for the “error.” The mere presence of ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ at ver. 8, so near the end of the Gospel, would be quite enough to
occasion it. And we have seen that in very ancient times the word ΤΕΛΟΣ
frequently _did_ occur in an altogether exceptional manner in that very
place. Moreover, we have ascertained that its meaning was _not understood_
by the transcribers of ancient MSS.
4. And will any one venture to maintain that it is to him a thing
incredible that an intelligent copyist of the iiird century, because he
read the words ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ at S. Mark xvi. 8, can have been beguiled thereby
into the supposition that those words indicated “the End” of _S. Mark’s
Gospel_?—Shall I be told that, even if _one_ can have so entirely
overlooked the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer it to insinuate
itself into his text,(457) it is nevertheless so improbable as to pass all
credence that _another_ can have supposed that it designated _the
termination of the Gospel_ of the second Evangelist?—For all reply, I take
leave to point out that Scholz, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Mai
and the rest of the Critics have, _one and all, without exception,
misunderstood the same word occurring in the same place, and in precisely
the same way_.
Yes. The forgotten inadvertence of a solitary Scribe in the _second_ or
_third_ century has been, _in the nineteenth_, deliberately reproduced,
adopted, and stereotyped by every Critic and every Editor of the New
Testament in turn.
What wonder,—(I propose the question deliberately,)—What wonder that an
ancient Copyist should have been misled by a phenomenon which in our own
days is observed to have imposed upon two generations of professed
Biblical Critics discussing this very textual problem, and therefore fully
on their guard against delusion?(458) To this hour, the illustrious
Editors of the text of the Gospels are clearly, one and all, labouring
under the grave error of supposing that “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τέλος,”—(for
which they are so careful to refer us to “Cod. 22,”)—is an indication that
_there_, by rights, comes _the _“END”_ of the Gospel according to S.
Mark_. They have failed to perceive that ΤΕΛΟΣ in that place is only _a
liturgical sign_,—the same with which (in its contracted form) they are
sufficiently familiar; and that it serves no other purpose whatever, but
to mark that _there_ a famous _Ecclesiastical Lection_ comes to an end.
With a few pages of summary, we may now bring this long disquisition to an
end.
CHAPTER XII.
GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF
THE WHOLE SUBJECT.
This discussion narrowed to a single issue (p. 244).—That S.
Mark’s Gospel was imperfect from the very first, a thing
altogether incredible (p. 246):—But that at some very remote
period Copies have suffered mutilation, a supposition probable in
the highest degree (p. 248).—Consequences of this admission (p.
252).—Parting words (p. 254.)
This Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem was fully
explained at the outset.(459) All the known evidence has since been
produced,(460) every Witness examined.(461) Counsel has been heard on both
sides. A just Sentence will assuredly follow. But it may not be improper
that I should in conclusion ask leave to direct attention to the _single
issue_ which has to be decided, and which has been strangely thrust into
the background and practically kept out of sight, by those who have
preceded me in this Investigation. The case stands simply thus:—
It being freely admitted that, in the beginning of the ivth century, there
must have existed Copies of the Gospels in which the last chapter of S.
Mark extended no further than ver. 8, the Question arises,—_How is this
phenomenon to be accounted for?_... The problem is not only highly
interesting and strictly legitimate, but it is even inevitable. In the
immediately preceding chapter, I have endeavoured to solve it, and I
believe in a wholly unsuspected way.
But the most recent Editors of the text of the New Testament, declining to
entertain so much as the _possibility_ that certain copies of the second
Gospel _had experienced mutilation in very early times_ in respect of
these Twelve concluding Verses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather
with conjectures as to how it may have happened that S. Mark’s Gospel _was
without a conclusion from the very first_. Persuaded that no more probable
account is to be given of the phenomenon than that _the Evangelist himself
put forth a Gospel which_ (for some unexplained reason) _terminated
abruptly at the words_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (chap. xvi. 8),—they have unhappily
seen fit to illustrate the liveliness of this conviction of theirs, by
presenting the world with his Gospel mutilated in this particular way.
Practically, therefore, the question has been reduced to the following
single issue:—Whether of the two suppositions which follow is the more
reasonable:
_First_,—That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the hands of its
inspired Author, _was in this imperfect or unfinished state_; ending
abruptly at (what we call now) the 8th verse of the last chapter:—of which
solemn circumstance, at the end of eighteen centuries, Cod. B and Cod. א
are the alone surviving Manuscript witnesses?... or,
_Secondly_,—That certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel _having suffered
mutilation_ in respect of their Twelve concluding Verses in the
post-Apostolic age, Cod. B and Cod. א are the only examples of MSS. so
mutilated which are known to exist at the present day?
I. Editors who adopt the former hypothesis, are observed (_a_) to sever
the Verses in question from their context:(462)—(_b_) to introduce after
ver. 8, the subscription “ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ:”(463)—(_c_) to shut up verses 9-20
within brackets.(464) Regarding them as “no integral part of the
Gospel”(465)—“as an authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself
wrote down,”(466)—a “remarkable Fragment,” “placed as a completion of the
Gospel in very early times;”(467)—they consider themselves at liberty to
go on to suggest that “the Evangelist may have been interrupted in his
work:” at any rate, that “something may have occurred, (as the death of S.
Peter,) to cause him to leave it unfinished.”(468) But “the most probable
supposition” (we are assured) “is, that _the last leaf of the original
Gospel was torn away_.”(469)
We listen with astonishment; contenting ourselves with modestly suggesting
that surely it will be time to conjecture _why_ S. Mark’s Gospel was left
by its Divinely inspired Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has
been established that it probably _was_ so left. In the meantime, we
request to be furnished with some evidence of _that fact_.
But not a particle of Evidence is forthcoming. It is not even pretended
that any such evidence exists. Instead, we are magisterially informed by
“the first Biblical Critic in Europe,”—(I desire to speak of him with
gratitude and respect, but S. Mark’s Gospel is a vast deal more precious
to me than Dr. Tischendorf’s reputation,)—that “_a healthy piety reclaims
against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as Mark’s what the
Evangelist is so plainly shewn_ [where?] _to have known nothing at all
about_.”(470) In the meanwhile, it is assumed to be a more reasonable
supposition,—(α) That S. Mark published an imperfect Gospel; and that the
Twelve Verses with which his Gospel concludes were the fabrication of a
subsequent age; than,—(β) That some ancient Scribe having with design or
by accident left out these Twelve concluding Verses, copies of the second
Gospel so mutilated become multiplied, and in the beginning of the ivth
century existed in considerable numbers.
And yet it is notorious that very soon after the Apostolic age, liberties
precisely of this kind were freely taken with the text of the New
Testament. Origen (A.D. 185-254) complains of the licentious tampering
with the Scriptures which prevailed in his day. “Men add to them,” (he
says) “or _leave out_,—as seems good to themselves.”(471) Dionysius of
Corinth, yet earlier, (A.D. 168-176) remarks that it was no wonder his own
writings were added to and _taken from_, seeing that men presumed to
deprave the Word of GOD in the same manner.(472) Irenæus, his
contemporary, (living within seventy years of S. John’s death,) complains
of a corrupted Text.(473) We are able to go back yet half a century, and
the depravations of Holy Writ become avowed and flagrant.(474) A competent
authority has declared it “no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,
that _the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has been ever
subjected_ originated within a hundred years after it was composed.”(475)
Above all, it is demonstrable that Cod. B and Cod. א abound in
unwarrantable omissions very like the present;(476) omissions which only
do not provoke the same amount of attention because they are of less
moment. One such extraordinary depravation of the Text, _in which they
also stand alone among MSS._ and to which their patrons are observed to
appeal with triumphant complacency, has been already made the subject of
distinct investigation. I am much mistaken if it has not been shewn in my
VIIth chapter, that the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1,
is just as unauthorized,—quite as serious a blemish,—as the suppression of
S. Mark xvi. 9-20.
Now, in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of _any Evidence
whatever_ to prove that S. Mark’s Gospel was imperfect from the first,—I
submit that an hypothesis so violent and improbable, as well as so wholly
uncalled for, is simply undeserving of serious attention. For,
(1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the improbability of
the hypothesis is excessive; “the contents of these Verses being such as
to preclude the supposition that they were the work of a post-Apostolic
period. The very difficulties which they present afford the strongest
presumption of their genuineness.” No fabricator of a supplement to S.
Mark’s Gospel would have ventured on introducing so many minute _seeming_
discrepancies: and certainly “his contemporaries would not have accepted
and transmitted such an addition,” if he had. It has also been shewn at
great length that the Internal Evidence for the genuineness of these
Verses is overwhelmingly strong.(477) But,
(2nd.) Even external Evidence is not wanting. It has been acutely pointed
out long since, that the absence of a vast assemblage of various Readings
in this place, is, in itself, a convincing argument that we have here to
do with no spurious appendage to the Gospel.(478) Were this a deservedly
suspected passage, it must have shared the fate of all other deservedly
(or undeservedly) suspected passages. It never could have come to pass
that the various Readings which these Twelve Verses exhibit would be
_considerably fewer_ than those which attach to the last twelve verses of
any of the other three Gospels.
(3rd.) And then surely, if the original Gospel of S. Mark had been such an
incomplete work as is feigned, the fact would have been notorious from the
first, and must needs have become the subject of general comment.(479) It
may be regarded as certain that so extraordinary a circumstance would have
been largely remarked upon by the Ancients, and that evidence of the fact
would have survived in a hundred quarters. It is, I repeat, simply
incredible that Tradition would have proved so utterly neglectful of her
office as to remain _quite_ silent on such a subject, if the facts had
been such as are imagined. Either Papias, or else John the
Presbyter,—Justin Martyr, or Hegesippus, or one of the “Seniores apud
Irenæum,”—Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, or Hippolytus,—if not
Origen, yet at least Eusebius,—if not Eusebius, yet certainly
Jerome,—_some_ early Writer, I say, must _certainly_ have recorded the
tradition that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired
author, was an incomplete or unfinished work. The silence of the Ancients,
joined to the inherent improbability of the conjecture,—(_that_ silence so
profound, _this_ improbability so gross!)—is enough, I submit, _in the
entire absence of Evidence on the other side_, to establish _the very
contradictory_ of the alternative which recent Critics are so strenuous in
recommending to our acceptance.
(4th.) But on the contrary. We have indirect yet convincing testimony that
the _oldest_ copies of all _did contain_ the Verses in question:(480)
while so far are any of the Writers just now enumerated from recording
that these verses were absent from the early copies, that five out of
those ten Fathers actually quote, or else refer to the verses in question
in a way which shews that in their day they were the recognised
termination of S. Mark’s Gospel.(481)
We consider ourselves at liberty, therefore, to turn our attention to the
rival alternative. Our astonishment is even excessive that it should have
been seriously expected of us that we could accept without Proof of any
sort,—without a particle of Evidence, external, internal, or even
traditional,—the extravagant hypothesis that S. Mark put forth an
unfinished Gospel; when the obvious and easy alternative solicits us, of
supposing,
II. That, at some period _subsequent_ to the time of the Evangelist,
certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel suffered that mutilation in respect of
their last Twelve Verses of which we meet with _no trace whatever, no
record of any sort, until the beginning of the fourth century_.
(i.) And the facts which _now_ meet us on the very threshold, are in a
manner conclusive: for if Papias and Justin Martyr [A.D. 150] do not refer
to, yet certainly Irenæus [A.D. 185] and Hippolytus [A.D. 190-227]
_distinctly quote_ Six out of the Twelve suspected Verses,—which are also
met with in the two oldest Syriac Versions, as well as in the old Latin
Translation. Now the latest of these authorities is earlier by full a
hundred years than _the earliest record_ that the verses in question were
ever absent from ancient MSS. At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as
Cyprian relates,) [A.D. 256] Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven
African Bishops there assembled, quoted the 17th verse in the presence of
the Council.
(ii.) Nor is this all.(482) Besides the Gothic and Egyptian versions in
the ivth century; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, and
Augustine in the vth, to say nothing of Codices A and C;—the Lectionary of
the Church universal, _probably from the second century of our æra_, is
found to bestow its solemn and emphatic sanction on _every one_ of these
Twelve Verses. They are met with _in every MS. of the Gospels in
existence_, uncial and cursive,—_except two_;(483) they are found _in
every Version_; and are contained besides in _every known Lectionary_,
where they are appointed to be read at Easter and on Ascension Day.(484)
(iii.) Early in the ivth century, however, we are encountered by a famous
place in the writings of Eusebius [A.D. 300-340], who, (as I have
elsewhere explained,(485)) is the _only_ Father who delivers any
independent testimony on this subject at all. What he says has been
strangely misrepresented. It is simply as follows:—
(_a_) One, “Marinus,” is introduced _quoting this part of S. Mark’s Gospel
without suspicion_, and enquiring, How its opening statement is to be
reconciled with S. Matth. xxviii. 1? Eusebius, in reply, points out that a
man whose only object was to get rid of the difficulty, might adopt the
expedient of saying that this last section of S. Mark’s Gospel “is _not
found in all the copies_:” (μὴ ἐν ἁπᾶσι φέρεσθαι.) Declining, however, to
act thus presumptuously in respect of anything claiming to be a part of
Evangelical Scripture, (οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν
εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ φερομένων,)—_he adopts the hypothesis that the text is
genuine_. Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, he begins:
and he enters at once without hesitation on an elaborate discussion to
shew _how the two places may be reconciled_.(486) What there is in this to
countenance the notion that in the opinion of Eusebius “the Gospel
according to S. Mark originally terminated at the 8th verse of the last
chapter,”—I profess myself unable to discover. I draw from his words the
precisely opposite inference. It is not even clear to me that the Verses
in dispute were absent from the copy which Eusebius habitually employed.
He certainly quotes one of those verses once and again.(487) On the other
hand, the express statement of Victor of Antioch [A.D. 450?] _that he knew
of the mutilation, but had ascertained by Critical research the
genuineness of this Section of Scripture, and had adopted the Text of the
authentic _“Palestinian”_ Copy_,(488)—is more than enough to outweigh the
faint presumption created (as some might think) by the words of Eusebius,
that his own copy was without it. And yet, as already stated, there is
nothing whatever to shew that Eusebius himself deliberately rejected the
last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. Still less does that Father
anywhere say, or even hint, that in his judgment the original Text of S.
Mark was without them. If he may be judged by his words, _he accepted them
as genuine_: for (what is at least certain) he argues upon their contents
at great length, and apparently without misgiving.
(_b_) It is high time however to point out that, after all, the question
to be decided is, not _what Eusebius thought_ on this subject, but what is
historically probable. As a plain matter of fact, the sum of the Patristic
Evidence against these Verses is the hypothetical suggestion of Eusebius
already quoted; which, (after a fashion well understood by those who have
given any attention to these studies), is observed to have rapidly
propagated itself in the congenial soil of the vth century. And even if it
could be shewn that Eusebius deliberately _rejected_ this portion of
Scripture, (which has never been done,)—yet, inasmuch as it may be
regarded as certain that those famous codices in the library of his friend
Pamphilus at Cæsarea, to which the ancients habitually referred,
_recognised it as genuine_,(489)—the only sufferer from such a conflict of
evidence would surely be Eusebius himself: (not _S. Mark_, I say, but
_Eusebius_:) who is observed to employ an incorrect text of Scripture on
many other occasions; and must (in such case) be held to have been unduly
partial to copies of S. Mark in the mutilated condition of Cod. B or Cod.
א. His words were translated by Jerome;(490) adopted by Hesychius;(491)
referred to by Victor;(492) reproduced “with a difference” in more than
one ancient scholion.(493) But they are found to have died away into a
very faint echo when Euthymius Zigabenus(494) rehearsed them for the last
time in his Commentary on the Gospels, A.D. 1116. Exaggerated and
misunderstood, behold them resuscitated after an interval of seven
centuries by Griesbach, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles and the rest: again
destined to fall into a congenial, though very differently prepared soil;
and again destined (I venture to predict) to die out and soon to be
forgotten for ever.
(iv.) After all that has gone before, our two oldest Codices (Cod. B and
Cod. א) which alone witness to the truth of Eusebius’ testimony as to the
state of certain copies of the Gospels in his own day, need not detain us
long. They are thought to be as old as the ivth century: they are
certainly without the concluding section of S. Mark’s Gospel. But it may
not be forgotten that both Codices alike are disfigured throughout by
errors, interpolations and omissions without number; that their testimony
is continually divergent; and that it often happens that where they both
agree they are both demonstrably in error.(495) Moreover, it is a highly
significant circumstance that the Vatican Codex (B), which is the more
ancient of the two, exhibits _a vacant column_ at the end of S. Mark’s
Gospel,—_the only vacant column in the whole codex_: whereby it is shewn
that the Copyist was aware of the existence of the Twelve concluding
Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, even though he left them out:(496) while the
original Scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus (א) is declared by Tischendorf to
have actually _omitted the concluding verse of S. John’s Gospel_,—in which
unenviable peculiarity _it stands alone among MSS._(497)
(I.) And thus we are brought back to the point from which we started. We
are reminded that the one thing to be accounted for is _the mutilated
condition of certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel in the beginning of the
fourth century_; of which, Cod. B and Cod. א are the two solitary
surviving specimens,—Eusebius, the one historical witness. We have to
decide, I mean, between the _evidence_ for this _fact_,—(namely, that
within the first two centuries and a-half of our æra, the Gospel according
to S. Mark _suffered mutilation_;)—and the _reasonableness_ of the other
_opinion_, namely, that S. Mark’s _original autograph_ extended no farther
than ch. xvi. 8. All is reduced to this one issue; and unless any are
prepared to prove that the Twelve familiar Verses (ver. 9 to ver. 20) with
which S. Mark ends his Gospel _cannot_ be his,—(I have proved on the
contrary that he must needs be thought to have written them,(498))—I
submit that it is simply irrational to persist in asseverating that the
reason why those verses are not found in our two Codexes of the ivth
century must be because they did not exist in the original autograph of
the Evangelist. What else is this but to set unsupported _opinion_, or
rather unreasoning _prejudice_, before the _historical evidence_ of a
_fact_? The assumption is not only gratuitous, arbitrary, groundless; but
it is discountenanced by the evidence of MSS., of Versions, of Fathers,
(Versions and Fathers much older than the ivth century:) is rendered in
the highest degree improbable by every internal, every external
consideration: is condemned by _the deliberate judgment of the universal
Church_,—which, in its corporate capacity, for eighteen hundred years, in
all places, has not only solemnly accepted the last Twelve Verses of S.
Mark’s Gospel as genuine, but has even singled them out for special
honour.(499)
(II.) Let it be asked in conclusion,—(for this prolonged discussion is now
happily at an end,)—Are any inconveniences likely to result from a frank
and loyal admission, (_in the absence of any Evidence whatever to the
contrary_,) that doubtless the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are
just as worthy of acceptation as the rest? It might reasonably be
supposed, from the strenuous earnestness with which the rejection of these
Verses is generally advocated, that some considerations must surely be
assignable why the opinion of their genuineness ought on no account to be
entertained. Do any such reasons exist? Are any inconveniences whatever
likely to supervene?
_No_ reasons whatever are assignable, I reply; neither are there _any_
inconvenient consequences of any sort to be anticipated,—except indeed to
the Critics: to whom, it must be confessed, the result proves damaging
enough.
It will only follow,
(1st) That Cod. B and Cod. א must be henceforth allowed to be _in one more
serious particular_ untrustworthy and erring witnesses. They have been
convicted, in fact, of bearing false witness in respect of S. Mark xvi.
9-20, where their evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most
undoubting confidence.
(2ndly) That the critical statements of recent Editors, and indeed the
remarks of Critics generally, in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, will have
to undergo serious revision: in every important particular, will have to
be unconditionally withdrawn.
(3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Testament, these
“Twelve Verses” will have to be restored to their rightful honours: never
more appearing disfigured with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished
from their context, or molested with notes of suspicion. On the contrary.
A few words of caution against the resuscitation of what has been proved
to be a “vulgar error,” will have henceforth to be introduced _in memoriam
rei_.
(4thly) Lastly, men must be no longer taught to look with distrust on this
precious part of the Deposit; and encouraged to dispute the Divine sayings
which it contains on the plea that _perhaps_ they may not be Divine, after
all; for that _probably_ the entire section is not genuine. They must be
assured, on the contrary, that these Twelve Verses are wholly
undistinguishable in respect of genuineness from the rest of the Gospel of
S. Mark; and it may not be amiss to remind them the Creed called the
“Athanasian” speaks no other language than that employed by the Divine
Author of our Religion and Object of our Faith. The Church warns her
children against the peril incurred by as many as wilfully reject the
Truth, in no other language but that of the Great Head of the Church. No
person may presume to speak disparagingly of S. Mark xvi. 16, any more.
(III.) Whether,—after the foregoing exposure of a very prevalent and
highly popular, but at the same time most calamitous misapprehension,—it
will not become necessary for Editors of the Text of the New Testament to
reconsider their conclusions in countless other places:—whether they must
not be required to review their method, and to remodel their text
throughout, now that they have been shewn the insecurity of the foundation
on which they have so confidently builded, and been forced to reverse
their verdict in respect of a place of Scripture where at least they
supposed themselves impregnable;—I forbear at this time to inquire.
Enough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now done, that _not a
particle of doubt_, that _not an atom of suspicion_, attaches to “THE LAST
TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK.”
ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.
APPENDIX (A).
On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of
Scripture.—The correct Text of S. LUKE ii. 14, established.
(Referred to at p. 22.)
In Chapter III. the importance of attending to Patristic citations of
Scripture has been largely insisted upon. The controverted reading of S.
Luke ii. 14 supplies an apt illustration of the position there maintained,
viz. that this subject has not hitherto engaged nearly as much attention
as it deserves.
I. Instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, (which is the reading of the “Textus
Receptus,”) Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford present us with ἐν
ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. Their authority for this reading is the consentient
testimony of THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. WHICH CONTAIN S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. B, א,
A, D): THE LATIN VERSIONS generally (“_in hominibus bonae voluntatis_”);
and THE GOTHIC. Against these are to be set, COD. A (in the Hymn at the
end of the Psalms); ALL THE OTHER UNCIALS; together WITH EVERY KNOWN
CURSIVE MS.; and EVERY OTHER ANCIENT VERSION in existence.
So far, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed to preponderate in
favour of εὐδοκίας: though no judicious Critic, it is thought, should
hesitate in deciding in favour of εὐδοκία, even upon the evidence already
adduced. The advocates of the popular Theory ask,—But _why_ should the
four oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic Versions,
conspire in reading εὐδοκίας, if εὐδοκία be right? That question shall be
resolved by-and-by. Let them in the mean time tell us, if they can,—How is
it credible that, in such a matter as this, _every other MS. and every
other Version in the world_ should read εὐδοκία, if εὐδοκία be wrong? But
the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited. I proceed to set
it forth in detail.
It is found then, that whereas εὐδοκίας _is read by none_, εὐδοκία is read
by all the following Fathers:—
(1) ORIGEN, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 D: ii. 714 B: iv. 15
B,—A.D. 240.]
(2) The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, twice, [vii. 47: viii. 12 _ad
fin._,—IIrd cent.]
(3) METHODIUS, [_Galland._ iii. 809 B,—A.D. 290.]
(4) EUSEBIUS, twice, [_Dem. Ev._ 163 C: 342 B,—A.D. 320.]
(5) APHRAATES THE PERSIAN, (for whose name [_suprà_, pp. 26-7] that of
“Jacobus of Nisibis” has been erroneously substituted), twice, [i. 180 and
385,—A.D. 337.]
(6) TITUS OF BOSTRA, twice, [_in loc._, but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29
(_Cramer_, ii. 141, _line_ 20),—A.D. 350.]
(7) GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, [i. 845 C,—A.D. 360.]
(8) CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, [A.D. 370], as will be found explained below.
(9) EPIPHANIUS, [i. 154 D,—A.D. 375.]
(10) CHRYSOSTOM, four times, [vii. 311 B: 674 C: viii. 85 C: xi. 374 B
expressly,—A.D. 400.]
(11) CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, in three places, [_Comm. on S. Luke_, pp. 12 and
16. Also _Opp._ ii. 593 A: vi. 398 C,—A.D. 420.]
(12) THEODORET, [_in Coloss._ i. 20,-A.D. 430.]
(13) THEODOTUS OF ANCYRA, [_Galland._ x. 446 B,—A.D. 430.]
(14) PROCLUS, Abp. of Constantinople, [_Gall._ x. 629 A,—A.D. 434.]
To which may be added the evidence of
(15) COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, four times repeated, [_Coll. Nov. PP._,
(Montfaucon,) ii. 152 A, 160 D, 247 E, 269 C,—A.D. 535.]
(16) EULOGIUS, Abp. of Alexandria, [_Gall._ xii. 308 E,—A.D. 581.]
(17) ANDREAS OF CRETE, twice, [_Gall._ xiii. 100 D, 123 C,—A.D. 635.]
Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers of the Church(500)
all concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn _as our own Textus Receptus
exhibits it_,—(viz. ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία,)—_who_ does not see that the
four oldest uncial authorities for εὐδοκίας are hopelessly outvoted by
authorities yet older than themselves? Here is, to all intents and
purposes, a record of what was once found in _two Codices of the iii_rd_
century_; in _nine of the iv_th; in _three of the v_th;—added to the
testimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian
versions. In this instance therefore the evidence of Antiquity is even
overwhelming.
Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form in which _the
Churches of the East_ preserved the Angelic Hymn in their private, as well
as their solemn public Devotions. Take it, from a document of the vth
century:—
ΔΟΞΑ ΕΝ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΙΣ ΘΕΩ
ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΓΗΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ
ΕΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ ΕΥΔΟΚΙΑ.(501)
But the text of this Hymn, as a Liturgical document, at a yet earlier
period is unequivocally established by the combined testimony of the
Apostolical Constitutions (already quoted,) and of Chrysostom, who says
expressly:—Εὐχαριστοῦντες λέγομεν, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς
εἰρήνη, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. [_Opp._ xi. 347 B.] Now this incontestably
proves that _the Church’s established way of reciting the Angelic Hymn in
the iv_th_ century_ was in conformity with the reading of the Textus
Receptus. And this fact infinitely outweighs the evidence of any extant
MSS. which can be named: for it is the consentient evidence of
hundreds,—or rather of thousands of copies of the Gospels of a date
anterior to A.D. 400, which have long since perished.
To insist upon this, however, is not at all my present purpose. About the
true reading of S. Luke ii. 14, (which is _not_ the reading of Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,) there is clearly no longer any room for
doubt. It is perhaps one of the best established readings in the whole
compass of the New Testament. My sole object is to call attention to the
two following facts:—
(1) That _the four oldest Codices which contain S. Luke_ ii. 14 (B, א, A,
D, A.D. 320-520), and two of the oldest Versions, conspire in exhibiting
the Angelic Hymn _incorrectly_.
(2) That we are indebted to _fourteen of the Fathers_ (A.D. 240-434), and
to the rest of the ancient Versions, for the true reading of that
memorable place of Scripture.
II. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,—
1. IRENÆUS sides with the oldest uncials.—Now, the Greek of the place
referred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that survives. According
to _that_ evidence, Irenæus, having quoted the place in conformity with
the Vulgate reading (iii. c. x. § 41,—“_Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra
pax hominibus bonae voluntatis_,”) presently adds,—“In eo quod dicunt,
_Gloria in altissimis __DEO__ et in terra pax_, eum qui sit altissimorum,
hoc est, supercaelestium factor et eorum, quae super terram omnium
conditor, his sermonibus glorificaverunt; qui suo plasmati, hoc est
hominibus suam benignitatem salutis de caelo misit.” (_ed._ Stieren, i.
459).—But it must suffice to point out (1) that these words really prove
nothing: and (2) that it would be very unsafe to build upon them, even if
they did; since (3) it is plain that the Latin translator exhibits the
place in the Latin form most familiar to himself: (consider his
substitution of “excelsis” for “altissimis.”)
2. Next, ORIGEN is claimed on the same side, on the strength of the
following passage in (Jerome’s version of) his lost Homilies on S.
Luke:—“Si scriptum esset, _Super terram pax_, et hucusque esset finita
sententia, recte quaestio nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est,
hoc est, quod post pacem dicitur, _In hominibus bonae voluntatis_, solvit
quaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super terram, non est pax bonae
voluntatis.” (_Opp._ iii. p. 946.) “From this,” (says Tischendorf, who is
followed by Tregelles,) “it is plain that Origen regarded εὐδοκίας as the
true reading; not εὐδοκία—which is now thrice found in his Greek
writings.”—But,
Is one here more struck with the unfairness of the Critic, or with the
feebleness of his reasoning? For,—(to say nothing of the insecurity of
building on a Latin Translation,(502) especially in such a matter as the
present,)—How can testimony like this be considered to outweigh the three
distinct places in the original writings of this Father, where he reads
not εὐδοκίας but εὐδοκία? Again. Why is a doubt insinuated concerning the
trustworthiness of those three places, (“ut _nunc_ reperitur,”) where
there really is _no_ doubt? How is Truth ever to be attained if
investigations like the present are to be conducted in the spirit of an
eager partisan, instead of with the calm gravity of an impartial judge?
But I may as well state plainly that the context of the passage above
quoted shews that Tischendorf’s proposed inference is inadmissible. Origen
is supposing some one to ask the following question:—“Since Angels on the
night when CHRIST was born proclaimed ‘on earth _Peace_,’—why does our
SAVIOUR say, ‘I am _not_ come to send Peace upon earth, but a sword?’...
Consider,” (he proceeds) “whether the answer may not be this:”—and then
comes the extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with colloquial
truthfulness,) is _at his old tricks_. He is evidently acquainted with the
reading εὐδοκίας: and because it enables him to offer (what appears to
him) an ingenious solution of a certain problem, he adopts it for the
nonce: his proposal to take the words εἰρήνη εὐδοκίας together, being
simply preposterous,—as no one ever knew better than Origen himself.(503)
3. Lastly, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM is invariably cited by the latest Critics as
favouring the reading εὐδοκίας. Those learned persons have evidently
overlooked the candid acknowledgment of De Touttée, Cyril’s editor, (p.
180, cf. bottom of p. 102,) that though _the MSS. of Cyril_ exhibit
εὐδοκία, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured _to print_
εὐδοκίας. This therefore is one more Patristic attestation to the
trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of S. Luke ii. 14, which
has been hitherto unaccountably lost sight of by Critics. (May I, without
offence, remind Editors of Scripture that instead of _copying_, they ought
in every instance _to verify_ their references?)
III. The history of this corruption of the Text is not hard to discover.
It is interesting and instructive also.
(1.) In the immediately post-Apostolic age,—if not earlier still,—some
Copyist will have omitted the ἐν before ἀνθρώποις. The resemblance of the
letters and the similarity of the sound (ΕΝ, ΑΝ,) misled him:—
ΕΝΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ
Every one must see at a glance how easily the thing may have happened. (It
is in fact precisely what _has_ happened in Acts iv. 12; where, for ἐν
ἀνθρώποις, D and a few cursive MSS. read ἀνθρώποις,—being countenanced
therein by the Latin Versions generally, and by them only.)
(2.) The result however—(δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις
εὐδοκία)—was obviously an impossible sentence. It could not be allowed to
stand. And yet it was not by any means clear what had happened to it. In
order, as it seems, to _force_ a meaning into the words, some one with the
best intentions will have put the sign of the genitive (Σ) at the end of
εὐδοκία. The copy so depraved was destined to play an important part; for
it became the fontal source of the Latin Version, which exhibits the place
thus:—_Gloria in altissimis __DEO__, et in terra pax hominibus bonae
voluntatis...._ It is evident, by the way, (if the quotation from Irenæus,
given above, is to be depended upon,) that Irenæus must have so read the
place: (viz. εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.)
(3.) To restore the preposition (ΕΝ) which had been accidentally thrust
out, and to obliterate the sign of the genitive (Σ) which had been without
authority thrust in, was an obvious proceeding. Accordingly, _every Greek
Evangelium extant_ exhibits ἐν ἀνθρώποις: while _all but four_ (B, א, A,
D) read εὐδοκία. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vulgate (e.g. the
_Cod. Amiatinus_,) the preposition (“in”) has found its way back; but the
genitive (“bonae voluntatis”) has never been rectified in a single copy of
the Latin version.—The Gothic represents a copy which exhibited ἐν
ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.(504)
The consequence is that a well-nigh untranslatable expression retains its
place in the Vulgate to the present hour. Whether (with Origen) we connect
εὐδοκίας with εἰρήνη,—or (with the moderns) we propose to understand “men
of good pleasure,”—the result is still the same. The harmony of the
three-part Anthem which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity is
hopelessly marred, and an unintelligible discord substituted in its place.
Logic, Divinity, Documents are here all at one. The reading of Stephens is
unquestionably correct. The reading of the latest Editors is as certainly
corrupt. This is a case therefore where the value of Patristic testimony
becomes strikingly apparent. It affords also one more crucial proof of the
essential hollowness of the theory on which it has been recently proposed
by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest to reconstruct the text
of the New Testament.
To some, it may perhaps seem unreasonable that so many words should be
devoted to the establishment of the text of a single place of
Scripture,—depending, as that text does, on the insertion or the omission
of a single letter. I am content to ask in reply,—_What_ is important, if
not the utterance of Heaven, when, at the laying of the corner-stone of
the New Creation, “the Morning Stars sang together, and all the Sons of
GOD shouted for joy?”
IV. Only one word in conclusion.
Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized
Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first
instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons
carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know
precisely what it is they have to translate before they can pretend to
translate it. As for supposing that Scholars who have been appointed to
revise _a Translation_ are competent at a moment’s notice, as every fresh
difficulty presents itself, to develop the skill requisite for revising
_the original Text_,—it is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts
in one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in another.
But it so happens that, on the present occasion, that _other_ Science is
one of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists _here_ will find it necessary
altogether to disabuse their minds of the _Theory_ of Textual Criticism
which is at present the dominant and the popular one,—and of which I have
made it my business to expose the fallaciousness, in respect of several
crucial texts, in the course of the present work.
I cannot so far forget the unhappy circumstances of the times as to close
this note without the further suggestion, (sure therein of the approval of
our trans-Atlantic brethren,) that, for a Revision of the Authorized
Version to enjoy the confidence of the Nation, and to procure for itself
acceptance at the hands of the Church,—it will be found necessary that the
work should be confided to _Churchmen_. The Church may never abdicate her
function of being “a Witness and a Keeper of Holy Writ.” Neither can she,
without flagrant inconsistency and scandalous consequence, ally herself in
the work of Revision with the Sects. Least of all may she associate with
herself in the sacred undertaking an Unitarian Teacher,—one who avowedly
[see the letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.,” in the “Times” of
July 11, 1870] denies the eternal GODhead of her LORD. That the individual
alluded to has shewn any peculiar aptitude for the work of a Revisionist;
or that he is a famous Scholar; or that he can boast of acquaintance with
any of the less familiar departments of Sacred Learning; is not even
pretended. (It would matter nothing if the reverse were the case.) What
else, then, is this but to offer a deliberate insult to the Majesty of
Heaven in the Divine Person of Him who is alike the Object of the
Everlasting Gospel, and its Author?
APPENDIX (B).
EUSEBIUS “ad Marinum” concerning the reconcilement of S. Mark xvi.
9 with S. Matthew xxviii. 1.
(Referred to at pp. 46, 47, 54, and 233.)
SUBJOINED is the original text of EUSEBIUS, taken from the “Quæstiones ad
Marinum” published by Card. Mai, in his “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca” (Romae,
1847,) vol. iv. pp. 255-7.
I. Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῷ ὄψε σαββάτων φαίνεται ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ
δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων.
Τούτου διττὴ ἄν εἴη ἡ λύσις; ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ _del._?(505)]
τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, εἴποι ἄν μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτὴν φέρεσθαι
τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου; τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων
τὸ τέλος περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ
ὀφθέντος νεανίσκου ταῖς γυναιξὶ καὶ εἰρηκότος αὐταῖς “μὴ φοβεῖσθε, Ἰησοῦν
ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνόν.” καὶ τοῖς ἐξῆς, οἶς ἐπιλέγει: “καὶ ἀκούσασαι
ἔφυγον, καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν
ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος;
τὰ δὲ ἑξῆς σπανίως ἔν τισιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσι φερόμενα περιττὰ ἄν εἴη, καὶ
μάλιστα εἴπεν ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. ταῦτα
μὲν οὖν εἴποι ἄν τις παραιτούμενος καὶ τάντη ἀναιρῶν περιττὸν ἐρώτημα.
Ἄλλος δέ τις οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν εὐαγγελίων
γραφῇ φερομένον, διπλῆν εἶναι φησι τὴν ἀναγνωσιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις
πολλοῖς, ἑκατέραν τε παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρχειν, τῷ μὴ μᾶλλον ταύτην ἐκείνης, ἥ
ἐκείνην ταύτης, παρὰ τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ εὐλαβέσιν ἐγκρίνεσθαι.
Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, προσήκει τὸν νοῦν
διερμηνεύειν τοῦ ἀναγνώσματος; εἰ γοῦν διέλοιμεν τὴν τοῦ λόγου διάνοιαν,
οὐκ ἄν εὕροιμεν αὐτὴν ἐναντίαν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Ματθαίου ὀψὲ σαββάτων
ἐγηγέρθαι τὸν Σωτῆρα λελεγμένοις; τὸ γὰρ “ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ
σαββάτου” κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον, μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωσόμεθα; καὶ μετὰ τὸ
ἀναστὰς δὲ, ὑποστίξομεν;(506) καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀφορίζομεν τῶν ἑξῆς
ἐπιλεγομένων. εἶτα τὸ μὲν ἀναστὰς ἄν, ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψέ
σαββάτων. τότε γὰρ ἐγήγετο; τὸ δὲ ἐξῆς ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν,
συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις; πρωί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ
Μαγδαληνῇ. τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης πρωί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ
σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας. οὕτως οὖν καί παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ
πρωί ἐφάνη αὐτῇ. οὐ πρωί ἀναστὰς, ἀλλὰ πολὺ πρότερον κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον ὀψὲ
τοῦ σαββάτου. τότε γὰρ ἀναστὰς ἐφάνη τῇ Μαρίᾳ, οὐ τότε ἀλλὰ πρωί. ὡς
παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο. τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τὸν ὀψὲ τοῦ
σαββάτου, τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν πρωί, ὃν ἔγραψεν ὁ Μάρκος
εἰπὼν (ὃ καὶ μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον) ἀναστὰς δέ; εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες, τὸ
ἑξῆς ρητέον, πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ᾽ ἦς
ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.
II. Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον ὀψὲ σαββάτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν
ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ μιᾷ
τοῦ σαββάτου.
Οὐδὲν ἄν ζητηθείν κατὰ τοὺς τόπους, εἰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων μὴ τὴν ἑσπερινήν
ὥραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν, ὥς τινες
ὑπειλήφασιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς νυκτὸς τῆς μετὰ τὸ σάββατον, κ.τ.λ.
APPENDIX (C).
Proof that HESYCHIUS is a copyist only in what he says concerning
the end of S. Mark’s Gospel.
(Referred to at pp. 57-58.)
§ 1. It was confidently stated above (at p. 58) that HESYCHIUS, discussing
the consistency of S. Matthew’s ὀψὲ τῶν σαββάτων (chap. xxviii. 1), with
the πρωί of S. Mark (chap. xvi. 9), is a _copyist_ only; and that he
copies from the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of EUSEBIUS. The proof of that
statement is subjoined. It should perhaps be explained that the extracts
in the right-hand column have been dislocated in order to shew their close
resemblance to what is set down in the left-hand column from Eusebius:—
(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.)
τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων μὴ τὴν τὸ δὲ ὀψὲ σαββάτων οὺ τὴν
ἑσπερινὴν ὥραν τὴν μετὰ ἑσπέραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν
τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου δύσιν τοῦ ἡλίου δηλοί ...
λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν
ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς ἀλλὰ ... τὸ βράδιον καὶ
νυκτὸς. πολὺ διεστηκὸς ...
οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς ὤρας καὶ γάρ που καὶ οὕτως
εἰώθαμεν λέγειν, καὶ ὀψὲ ημῖν σύνηθες λέγειν, ὀψὲ
τοῦ καιροῦ, καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς τοῦ καιροῦ παραγέγονας;
χρείας; οὸ τὴν ἑσπέραν ὀψὲ τῆς ὤρας, ὀψὲ τῆς
δηλοῦντες, οὐδὲ τὸν μετὰ χρείας; οὐχὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν,
ἡλίου δυσμὰς χρόνον, τὸ καὶ τὸν μετὰ ἡλίου δυσμὰς
δὲ σφόδρα βράδιον τούτῳ χρόνον δηλοῦσιν; ἀλλὰ τὸ
σημαίνοντες τῷ τρόπῳ; βράδιον ... τὸν τρόπον
τοῦτον μηνύουσι.
ὄθεν ὥσπερ διερμηνεύων ὁ Ματθαῖος ... ὥσπερ
αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ὁ Ματθαῖος ἑρμηνεύων ἑαυτὸν, ἐπήγαγε
μετὰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν
ἐπήγαγε τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῇ σαββάτων.
εἰς μίαν σαββάτων.
Ἔθος δὲ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα σάββατον δὲ τὴν πᾶσαν
σάββατον καλεῖν. ἑβδομάσα καλεῖν Ἑβραίοις
ἔθος.
λέγεται γοῦν παρὰ τοῖς αὐτίκα γοῦν οἱ
Εὐαγγελισταῖς τῇ μιᾷ τῶν εὐαγγελισταὶ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν
σαββάτων; σαββάτων φασί;
ἐν δὲ τῇ συνηθείᾳ, οὔτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ
δευτέρα σαββάτων, καί συνηθείᾳ κεκχρήμεθα,
τρίτη σαββάτων. δευτέραν σαββάτων, καὶ
τρίτη σαββάτων.
(EUSEBIUS ad Marinum, (GREG. NYSS. [_vid.
_apud_ Mai, vol. iv. p. suprà_, p. 39 bto 41.]
257-8.) _Opp._ vol. iii. p. 402.)
§ 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original text of the
passage of HESYCHIUS exhibited in English at p. 57. The intention of
setting down the parallel passages from EUSEBIUS, and from VICTOR of
Antioch, is in order to shew the sources from which Hesychius obtained his
materials,—as explained at p. 58:—
(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.)
τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς
ἀντιγράφων τὸ τέλος ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις
περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον
Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς μεχρὶ τοῦ “ἐφοβοῦντο
λόγοις κ.τ.λ. οἶς γὰρ,” ἔχει τὸ τέλος.
ἐπιλέγει; ... “καὶ οὐδενὶ
οὐδὲν, εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο
γάρ.”
(EUSEBIUS ad Marinum,
_apud_ Mai, iv. p. 255.)
(VICTOR OF ANTIOCH.)
ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι ... ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ
πρόσκειται ... “Ἀναστὰς” ταῦτα. “Ἀναστὰς” κ.τ.λ.
κ.τ.λ. δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτο τοῦτο δὲ ἐναντίωσίν τινα
διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου δοκεῖ ἔχειν πρὸς τὰ
εἰρημένῳ.... ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένα;
[τῆς γὰρ ὤρας τῆς νυκτὸς
ἀγνώστου τυγχανούσης καθ᾽
ἤν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνέστη, πῶς
ἐνταῦθα ἀναστῆναι “πρωί”
γέγραπται; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν
ἐναντίον φανήσεται τὸ
ῥητὸν, εἱ]
οὅτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα; μετ᾽ ἐπιστήμης
“Ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ ἀναγνωσόμεθα; καὶ γὰρ
ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, ὑποστῖξαι δεῖ συνετῶς;
“πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων “Ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ οὕτως
ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ ἐπαγάγειν, “πρωί πρώτῃ
Μαγδαληνῇ;” ἵνα τὸ μὲν σαββάτων ἐφάνη πρῶτον
“ἀναστὰς”— Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.” ἵνα
τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς”
(VICTOR ANTIOCH, _ed.
Cramer_, vol. i. p. 444,
line 19 to line 27.)
[ἔχη τὴν ἀναφορὰν
συμφώνως τῷ Ματθαίῳ, πρὸς
τὸν προλαβόντα καιρὸν, τὸ
δὲ “πρωί” πρὸς τὴν τῆς
Μαρίας γενομένην
ἐπιφάνειαν ἀποδοθείη.]
(GREG. NYSS. _Opp._ vol.
iii. p. 411, B, C, D:
which may be also seen in
Cramer’s _Catenae_, [vol.
i. p. 250, line 21 to
line 33,] ascribed to
“SEVERUS, Archbishop of
Antioch,” [_Ibid._, p.
243.])
APPENDIX (D).
Some account of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH’S Commentary on S. Mark’s
Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain
Victor’s Work.
(Referred to at p. 60.)
“Après avoir examiné avec soin les MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roi,” (says
the Père Simon in his _Hist. Crit. du N. T._ p. 79,) “j’ai réconnu que cet
ouvrage” (he is speaking of the Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel popularly
ascribed to Victor of Antioch,) “n’est ni d’Origéne, ni de Victor
d’Antioche, ni de Cyrille, ni d’aucun autre auteur en particulier. C’est
un recueil de plusieurs Pères, dont on a marqué les noms dans quelques
exemplaires; et si ces noms ne se trouvent point dans d’autres, cela est
assez ordinaire à ces recueils, qu’on appelle _chaînes_.”(507) It will be
seen from the notices of the work in question already offered, (_suprà_,
p. 59 to p. 65,) that I am able to yield only a limited acquiescence in
this learned writer’s verdict. That the materials out of which VICTOR OF
ANTIOCH constructed his Commentary are scarcely ever original,—is what no
one will deny who examines the work with attention. But the Author of a
compilation is an Author still; and to put Victor’s claim to the work
before us on a level with that of Origen or of Cyril, is entirely to
misrepresent the case and hopelessly to perplex the question.