eegalhy
Wibseedaly lodebrach vhs rh feene
COA rate UATE RTA satis So} iN. Ug iri n tnt en th cage 90 0h i thant inc oes aa
vet dnubygd pug ee ys esi) 94 rachedsarterh Pdosl alos Sn) te ath oth paar voc bit Pi sanenr hath drh-helaaeteh it aAobsleh teustene hetedie
watet
eddhe citaeh
jae rei rib Mpartnosiabeneee Hytith ava Bids eb Ae dana dite ales sehadaena i peedeie hdl We jenrieg sais ode Oa dase ae a tipenerad bis arte tt eesti venta adh sani dn9ipe Lf Bett gSastleite Harvey eth l ib Sweiegean yy nt he ety sabi Mhenen)
fp Ady, merece ety ret Reereenest We aber BY Wierd ah 7 povsitents
Weds fs Abate: 9 LU ebetepeselegent eas eh Sash riot 4 a NW eibetunane le $4 op) litenarag
ee Xe eens thirteen Tt Ws Nab th ihe Saheb
ra eden et aa es
hes Ratstrttesigise ma tra sexta , Sataietitan Apt Nal toad pda ay
pprteye >s ar + ain MHS ee nieanan te
ares acheis'bh29 iy Hab ant ae ra Carita pe pe eT SU rhe
tvhaits if neal Ree rw Vitel Syfiib er bebe
z nets sheeted ob 2x00 Le lholls Saheb
ticariesehttate tetas
” onthe mp ads be
Ae hauhe sf yap Beet
ep Mua i cent tn
Hea tisians iala fan
rt sii introns ide) ce rer oeter it
\eur Bye?
ceases
Poth othe #14
pV sus Ae temed7he
Sadi bediuns eee ae shen +b)
ret tene a atldavases {* ih Na eee spines tt te beast) be AN > iidineuiate Mypteinheas 41994 9
Irvewtr penny st St r
Berea?
Linnaaive nei vistieaei realy Des (ts ts ran vs bo) nilnielpebeashy 9 bath
bao siteroiepatt) daltetie renee PAE MEV beh ia" sheets pet prot 6 eoerrtt ie
Seifdind + Web sy hape # henge sitet uaa cite caer Be See ee
it “t beste tetetrentett einaate te eta F mi ate Abbe SYP Lede pd
rns ety pte Ope
‘t sia iad: pis anastas eae 87 ey Sle i
i ps) pearhebabntes te align piates tat hauivent deda tris het?
dsgsivire tahaaes crash
(tri HY BS 2A) Wied halt * ee Raps ver heh i] “Sian i ftesaed ietdosraetth i, y Tlassthesencssyy 4 Bizrate oe
Ni eaehy
sas
UPMACA. pbabec taeda fT nto
iis} Abid ‘sir Her deste d tee sp Seoitt Ty ht ote os
de ihrer ihe ott baila Sha oat hile Lokal oe erblane tebe mothaatiel’ val " jraths i dy) as + Hs Le-suide ge bebl@ause > ea slhea nh = thas be et baat tal alan are i
3% ae 7 he's aaaiap aie apeuiey: yeshevaeten ay tue ripen — _ bestia
Site oe peg ein if
ey iptiataee Beye "i H sain ecsehs see feasvtnemeds (cheesy
eee ze is ae Seo te ie ee ithe eet é ihe patra
byes ps lay ecb ye ree
myn!
an he Nae ae Nitbsdehirbe bain goael ols Medan, of a7 it st 1040 Init 4 pouetse ©
sepelete vigiat eabpsbdey ich ih eters Tones
TG) patentee p died bt atea hposed fein int a Pissed g RIE stele f +9) mH Ora Me | rior Mine hea leetage at Tinaaht ye atte Hh i Aad Domed hatin vay aig 90) ake yd» eh tees Wr brites irs
> Poke Padehaauees etch ihe viecie Tbpdeapa Datta ed ridge it tee! hey parnten be) | and tataunas Wt sie Mian seahed ves ai 4
hs onde Tal ean eth Mod pu ehed ef Hee ay a Popol ae tNy eee Uy peek Nipsacne Dt ead shsbs bie aH a aint day ebwene tance at Bess yh Piette Vhckcaajsorinit i rte
Ot levee rob shea edpii betes
hea gle = Sattar Taisen
¥ hmong
Ot Me
me * Ha 4 (odie pa ty ah qeaeded eat ue (sald sa phate 44 er se Sebaoe brbahcasae we) ie Tinetis ‘bona nets rofeidrnrs saber ss reget hit saan Me daaieden ty idea heh fetal tied: Ley elgurie8 irieiba Oe. f $a pgeba tes ech ets
wed faguss
+e
+ ah dy retire mati ( alts m Tha te aiveite ALE aD hs, sede ores avers on , ” de a t84 Leovad 9 9 Vilanteae : oe Hyebtiaaeitd ita He tsa ‘ care a Patt ai fimeteie * etait die ihe (4ilatpe , P sein pep ; arity ER Yeeee eet the OH ORK) ney he ar ahd rast tite Bay usbiey i ats me ippvasatets ‘eee! * ; tera!
poate pietiong
3! +" iter ai ed f ree a Ath Oi tys
at Ae hay,
; ate Etc oad 4, nt
fh ihe S04 11 9a peed penne ws i’ 8 oy vibe iy eathe $bei Na phe f
sh ¢ 16 ali} 9) at Pedra pede eal | othe a srt rsa Site aden eee fet bares rey ir
’ eres serene approbation thaneph 4 ‘hiededneane Ht haa Deas Pee eibedy Sp apes (tithes pis ity Fle 8 eB Drie pees f is
D poltnae ys 134k hom? inh body
LL beaebunk al sna ee Lied > } Tia yee Ae Sy tie
i we) pesporetnie ie) ‘ap ; ra 9's all a ett} sh ae Mire et uaehe is evhe i Masse nedlsennateagee M wahdeoseel itso Hon bth penad dw aesveninyis iy isheleieis Felted eae! vt eras Pesta noeals Bea te paps SebaeM sacnsetits : 7m i 7 hee ne i bub kali a
aise hae ato: Hed adntye i ome de ibedy wr sana erie pee
pest
rubato or
ees ai eet ete nna
iH i
ang! Vad steed) 4 tse belt nase oe u
Pyeal srilenets is Mtttoysnet ae wrageens $74 LP yin
nies hae rien Ue) ee oe
FF ge. idl Rist
tendrteate ra ee Mapp Laothy eaeat ohare daowit
a
S Ped ioe Otte, ay: 1 atpereae seer ste ronan inn tt
rant
Misisabinesoadeyeas abr eh ws mt
% Hh yi if *
be ietes aT earn hiaen ee!
jae oe Nadya ais? Vee Has epee
Sena bad
eohal ete ded Tepege sean Meadsirth A)
Nab had Shy, Naraed. os SLE URSA ba OEE pia BtH78 eee sr habatnd rey la seds' LM ne dunes
desrmaibrabea
Aodeties ea) Otes
Heri ivipeiiee
Minar Sreiae!s tia aee sy
Hae fb igind etre haiad by Mpvaharved
ie
in iey ee fae ; asin bent” deatied is
tea
po amato
hr ee
ae it i
te
tholehideae ye reorae ih zy
tain Warne yp hatats nna) patiasareydi Wh
Ae oll HT 84 epee Me pete icy wap: Wash Nh Gai de ahs
Eo diva dive
ee nd Sica sie
a
te
i nein Hoty
ff eehrjedve LbtihAlbiniar dike, JAlpak «naire rua
Gaetan fet
dy lenieet gah ea tani oped eats Mey i asic tat Phir cee th Cees ha ca ha aigtsaenat th ) J ihhay hue ernie WO sara ite MALAI APR IA Pod i
YAWN) badd oie tbo 40 f etine Pern atone at As patito A
#45 608 bate co any
rid megs. 4 inertia vada
Veatheteaene gente Thy tous pips aaa dete brit:
dds de) eda deaeenaeit tear
pra aeye iv lea oe ier aby hee veh sania en NAb Sesto ¥he
ashe
4 bod ath 4 se Vai Gleedatimas BUT, He tedk egal ty (abit (oe) sh
Medias by
Patbedege Dantes 59 vs Sa igs feu batiigs wee)
a Uiisinaaht CaaS Ot tN pits Jbl ava
re Seren eda Sel ' ariarig a ay acre aeitetaa Pia ded zt
Bee
a Wealiner tivpenad eee es nriiTbe aan
it bt
le ete
hy ity tei Patcerae
De ne sare Neath H ol ast AT he I sal ape pete oi 4 Wy it . pany it me ber sass F fj ning aie HW) Beh Herr cn gateinntts
tide Wad eo
inser senrise
ANUPAM Ne ieee sae tebegy bad
heh eepe ed Deed eth arte tab) ae hy SH ePae bei * ry ne da ts Aah de HT Lorine: Shears HUitits vt he iu ¢ bel peed presholi rich netatenaranaes +4 ot ‘ ‘ : a ” L420) OM fe) Gra Ded dee wt Ser el 8 ti i espe: wh 41) prdyi pte rivers Pa Mista bce onsets ‘eagenamanecente A Prwnersvetit io bidedt i. ey eve db edt) aril it ging oy HM Abonody tien Sa rt neagtsae Ce Rta rae ant seiestel shea eds weds pea Srivinasioatels
tirelanyragtyaisttaraiy eshte as ks a eepra Lathan yay
oir anges eyed:
ids ea sieae, te bath Or yay a bet ro nf) i i itu titi te tend Hegre vy ite iy + \<
By rh ond 4 sland We 9) ivetat PE Da Vp t we neti adden aritedy dereai i
Cot an
nal spuds tga th eeisane as “igre Hat aer send yeh nee! she
+) eaeae ead aeptse Pattee ands a rien "i rho
« 4dF i oped peta P9Gt ar tet shed ate alt dae wh the Peet, Vado)
tess, Wie a ivan seers
fr tilt tii
eA sedde PhS edig Sade Tey MUON arene ye
oe § 440ak Oe dl etek.
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009
https://archive.org/details/lasttwelveversesOOburg
THE: LA4S&-TWELV E+ VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
>. WIA KS
hae
On the opposite page is exhibited an exact Fuc-simile, ob- tained by Photography, of fol. 28 6 of the Coprx Srvarricus at S. Petersburg, (Tischendorf’s §) : shewing the abrupt ter- mination of 8. Mark’s Gospel at the words E®oBornTo raP (chap. xvi. 8), as explained at p. 70, and pp. 86-—8. The original Photograph, which is here reproduced on a dimi- nished scale, measures in height full fourteen inches and one-eighth; in breadth, full thirteen inches. It was pro- cured for me through the friendly and zealous offices of the English Chaplain at 8. Petersburg, the Rey. A. 8. Thompson, B.D.; by favour of the Keeper of the Imperial Library, who has my hearty thanks for his liberality and consideration.
It will be perceived that the text begins at S. Mark xvi. 2, and ends with the first words of S. Luke i. 18.
Up to this hour, every endeavour to obtain a Photograph of the corresponding page of the Copex Varicanus, B, (N°. 1209, in the Vatican,) has proved unavailing. If the present Vindication of the genuineness of Twelve Verses of the everlasting Gospel should have the good fortune to ap- prove itself to his Holiness, Popz Pius I[X., let me be per- mitted in this unadorned and unusual manner,—(to which
I would fain add some circumstance of respectful ceremony _ if I knew how,)—very humbly to entreat his Holiness to
allow me to possess a Photograph, corresponding in size with the oviginal, of the page of Coprx B (it is numbered fol. 1303,) which exhibits the abrupt termination of the Gospel according to $, Mark.
SS J. WasBs
ORIEL COLLEGE, Ox¥FORD, June 14, 1871.
EEO Pog Pe Pee
Le
“79
_
an A
POA AT UTERO EH
pts AOREEIRS CRRR ATO" Ge=x ‘ONPTAIET: mre? MLM RRR RPA PSE TOY HAIOy <MECAH FORDER OG. SeXy TACTICRH AK CO) MEN FON? AIQONERTHCOY> fACTOY MN HME OKs! KMAE LE OE6n POYELNIN ERK GIS ATEN ene TORAL@e EH PURSE MEPRECSP GAPS * SATE] CERBOY EK EL POM HOM) RYED AOMINEA TA reoKOH U BS a KEN ONEN “yo CHET ONCTERI BE EAH MEHONC Te REPRE SY RK NE KAd CDSS TEMG? enn Prin eae tes as
ext OKRECACPENAG WATS
y
WAPES KORA RE}S ARSON ZT WeTeht €Qray = ie ik aes Pb He r OlIgi@ yc Tse AXA tp oer Se NY Wor ARS ATSTEST : Tee} CRT SINS sy ow t2 MINTY <p Pret poo: OLLI PON RARE PY pe PAS ASEAN REE CW Gir, Poe a | omort rcar bxGugcepjre a> mr TEN R Sara as car Away Ni? bes Dp AD Lie AYR tpreron c 1366 B mae Reh dey (apble&
$F) Reaper
Eon
ny 2
: Teray:
See PET PP ee
LAT KEN,
eTAercicnioy KENSOYA EWEN:
FION ExDn BO" yr | expere (oe
reyAr ree zAEKLY
PIRATE f nd?
PRNTARSY KAR
K CEL TE PTIONNY Ee KEV. HCAN AND gu "NEACOA AMAT HCN 1a N ie ria! fo joepors MEN GN. EN EMI RI FIPARMAT KAOWOTTAFEAOCAN HMINOMAT TRE AHICAY TOM PAIKALY TH Pes TAIPENORMENOr KOTOYEROZERAMOI! FIAPHCOAOY CHR T! t pe ASSES EIRDE RAO ETH IgA SRSA HE Te Seer [ASIN Att WW ra Mees KAT Kops ' ORMDATTHNAC AlAs) EreNe FOEN TR MGR RICH PD = ACY SAGIRECIC TAC” FORA : Fic ON OneNy eA Sip Se BIMIEPTSCABIA ORAL RR Bop Tee Hf, Pes ue os] aKAVF Gono, RNY TH CEA CART tte ASAI AIO AL q OVE FOLENSETTION “J OYeyRoreyome. NoOgsnaeTA re beesed EM HOARICR MMACIRITOYRYK- BEET Pol KAO KY POST ERHOHIOe, OTIHNHGAEGIC CTEYPIGIAM DO: TESTE OKEEH KO? TRECENTFAICHMEPN- AY TOON HOAN Hae & ee BEEN. THE SK IN YKCTON € RSE Hen MEPIACK FO Cte DON Ta yey TA "FCEOOCTH REERRCE
CAIEICEROCON EI’ “TONN AON TOY KY KN TIAN TOmAHoors HNTOYAROYMPOCy OSOME NAN EZUITHW” PRTOYOEYHM IAM KT s COCDOHASAYTOATT® AOCKY ECTWCEIAS © LKON TOYO CINTA proy YM PAM "Jor KNIe Aken > IKKPTREP LON KAI fusckerienccen OTE 7 74 ENIGNASMHfOS rN OAV TEAOCMHD-BT ZIRAPIALLO ten HhOYCSHHAEH CIC? coy KAIH Py NHC-¥
enclonns RSH Cait hone TR RECCHC TOUGH GRA
“JOVI RN FIN KA CTA. J2Ch FRED) KAIX DLANI RCI CKAI TION Nolen EN ees Ay Tey AB AHEO Neral COTAIPAP HMEPACE Noort Bey ISS de> roe nonmafetepsoy i MBH IKAPTINENS OFIVIICOHCETAIE
TIEKKOIAIXCE SIE YT EY ACBATACARY -
TIN
fone LN oTre IS TSS ENTE ene BrAV SAY “JOor. OBAE pA enubitioriky
ERITH KAY BIR
MeIHAGID aiteas Ie
~ AISI PAIACIT RIG < WAI :
odisp
yacrsn:
Pret hy (end ae
LHE
mest TWELVE VERSES
OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
a. VeAOR Kk
VINDICATED AGAINST RECENT CRITICAL OBJECTORS AND ESTABLISHED
BY
JOHN W.BURGON B.D.
VICAR OF S, MARY-THE-VIRGIN’S, FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, AND GRESHAM LECTURER IN DIVINITY.
WITH FACSIMILES OF CODEX § AND CODEX L
*¢* Advice to you,’ sir, ‘in studying Divinity?’ Did you say that you ‘wished I would give you a few words of advice,’ sir? . . Then let me recommend to you the practice of always
verifying your references, six \” Conversation of the late PRESIDENT RouTH.
Oxford and London: FAMES PARKER AND. ۩: 1871.
[AW Rights reserved. |
> >! ‘ , €: apnv yap AEyo vty, a x , e > \ ue a ews av TrapeAOn Oo ovpavos Kal 9 YN; .7 a x / / > \ / a. uN a / lwra €v 7 pla KEpaia ov pn TapeAOn amo TOU vomov,
wa xX» He , EWS AV TAVTA YEVITAL.
>’ , 7 3 EVKOT@TEPOV O€ EOTL ‘ > ‘ Q \ lal lal TOV OUpavoy Kal THY ynV TrapeAdety,
3d ~ , / / a 7) TOU VOJLOV [LLAV KEPAlLay TTETELY.
c > \ e “~ / 0 oUpavos Kal 7 yn TmapedAevoorTat,
oi d€ Adyou pov ov py TapeABwar.
\ ORLA > “ Kal €ay Tis adhaipyn A a / lad / aro TaV Aoywv BiBAov THs mpopyTelas TavTns, > / c 4 \ "4 > an apaipnoe: 0 Geos TO mEpos avToOv amo BiBAov ths Ewns, > fon / nm e Kal €k THS TOAEWS THS ayias,
\ ~~ / > / / Kal Tov yeypappevor ev BiPAl@ TovT@.
ne
SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, Q.C., MP., Sr; Sears.
Dear Srr Rovnv£ 11,
I do myself the honour of inscribing this volume to you. Per- mit me to explain the reason why.
It is not merely that I may give expression to a sentiment of private friendship which dates back from the pleasant time when I was Curate to your Father,—whose memory I never recal without love and veneration ;—nor even in order to afford myself the opportunity of testifying how much I honour you for the noble example of conscientious uprightness and integrity which you set us on a recent public occasion. It is for no such reason that I dedicate to you this vindication of the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark.
It is because I desire supremely to submit the argument con- tained in the ensuing pages to a practised judieial intellect of the loftiest stamp. Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these “‘ last Twelve Verses” are not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same opinion. Popular Preju- dice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the truth. It is not even with meas it is with certain learned Sriends of mine, who, admitting the adversary’s premisses, con- tent themselves with denying the validity of his inference. How- ever true it may be,—and it is true,—that from those premisses the proposed conclusion does not follow, I yet venture to deny the
correctness of those prenvsses altogether. I insist, on the con-
v1 DEDICATION.
trary, that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,—untrust- worthy in every particular.
How, in the meantime, can such an one as I am hope to persuade the world that it is as I say, while the most illustrious Biblical Critics at home and abroad are agreed, and against me ? Clearly, the first thing to be done is to secure for myself a full and patient hearing. With this view, I have written a book. But next, instead of waiting for the slow verdict of Public Opinion, (which yet, I know, must come after many days,) I desiderate for the Evidence I have collected, a competent and an impartial Judge. And that is why I dedicate my book to you. If I can but get this case fairly tried, I have no doubt whatever about the result.
Whether you are able to find time to read these pages, or not, it shall content me to have shewn in this manner the confidence with which I advocate my cause; the kind of test to which I propose to bring my reasonings. If I may be allowed to say so, —S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men. J am able to prove that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly mistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But I claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations which have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain.
I am, with sincere regard and respect, Dear Sir Roundell, Very faithfully yours, JOHN W. BURGON.
ORIEL, July, 1871.
PREFACE.
HIS volume is my contribution towards the better understanding of a subject which is destined, when it shall have grown into a Science, to vindi- cate for itself a mighty province, and to enjoy para- mount attention. I allude to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Scriptures.
That this Study is still in its infancy, all may see. The very principles on which it is based are as yet only imperfectly understood. The reason is obvious. It is because the very foundations have not yet been laid, (except to a wholly inadequate extent, ) on which the future superstructure is to rise. <A careful colla- tion of every extant Codex, (executed after the man- ner of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener’s labours in this de- partment,) is the first indispensable preliminary to any real progress. Another, is a revised Text, not to say a more exact knowledge, of the oldest Versions. Scarcely of inferior importance would be critically correct editions of the Fathers of the Church; and these must by all means be furnished with far com- pleter Indices of Texts than have ever yet been at- tempted.—There is not a single Father to be named whose Works have been hitherto furnished with even a tolerably complete Index of the places in which he
Vill PREFACE.
either quotes, or else clearly refers to, the Text of the New Testament: while scarcely a tithe of the known MSS. of the Gospels have as yet been satisfactorily collated. Strange to relate, we are to this hour with- out so much as a satisfactory Catalogue of the Copies which are known to be extant.
But when all this has been done,—(and the Science deserves, and requires, a little more public encourage- ment than has hitherto been bestowed on the arduous and—let me not be ashamed to add the word—uwnre- munerative labour of Textual Criticism, )—it will be discovered that the popular and the prevailing Theory is a mistaken one. The plausible hypothesis on which recent recensions of the Text have been for the most part conducted, will be seen to be no longer tenable. The latest decisions will in consequence be gene- rally reversed.
I am not of course losing sight of what has been already achieved in this department of Sacred Learn- ing. While our knowledge of the uncial MSS. has been rendered tolerably exact and complete, an excel- lent beginning has been made, (chiefly by the Rey. F. H. Scrivener, the most judicious living Master of Textual Criticism,) in acquainting us with the con- tents of about seventy of the cursive MSS. of the New Testament. And though it is impossible to deny that the published Texts of Doctors Tischendorf and Tre- gelles as Zevts are wholly inadmissible, yet is it equally certain that by the conscientious diligence with which those distinguished Scholars have respec-
PREFACE. 1x
tively laboured, they have erected monuments of their learning and ability which will endure for ever. Their Editions of the New Testament will not be super- seded by any new discoveries, by any future advances in the Science of Textual Criticism. The MSS. which they have edited will remain among the most pre- cious materials for future study. All honour to them! If in the warmth of controversy I shall appear to have spoken of them sometimes without becoming deference, let me here once for all confess that I am to blame, and express my regret. When they have publicly begged S. Mark’s pardon for the grievous wrong they have done fim, I will very humbly beg their pardon also.
In conclusion, I desire to offer my thanks to the Rey. John Wordsworth, late Fellow of Brasenose Col- lege, for his patient perusal of these sheets as they have passed through the press, and for favouring me with several judicious suggestions. To him may be applied the saying of President Routh on receiving a visit from Bishop Wordsworth at his lodgings,— “‘T see the learned son of a learned Father, sir !”— Let me be permitted to add that my friend inherits the Bishop’s fine taste and accurate judgment also.
And now I dismiss this Work, at which I have conscientiously laboured for many days and many nights; beginning it in joy and ending it in sorrow. The College in which I have for the most part written it is designated in the preamble of its Charter and in its Foundation Statutes, (which are already much
x PREFACE.
more than half a thousand years old,) as Collegium Scholarium in Sacré Theologid studentium,—perpetuis temporibus duraturum. Indebted, under Gop, to the pious munificence of the Founder of Oriel for my opportunities of study, I venture, in what I must needs call evil days, to hope that I have to some extent ‘employed my advantages,” — (the expres- sion occurs in a prayer used by this Society on its three solemn anniversaries,) —as our Founder and Benefactors ‘‘ would approve if they were now upon earth to witness what we do.”
J. Wi:
ORIEL,
July, 1871.
CONTENTS.
DEDICATION : : ; : : ; : <> pfs ILL PREFACE . : ; ; : ; : ; eb Cig CHAPTER I.
THE CASE OF THE LAST Twetve Verses or S. Marx’s Gospet, STATED.
These Verses generally suspected at the present time. The popularity of this opinion accounted for . : - : : epee
CHAPTER II.
THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BrisiicAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.
Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses (p. 6).—Lach- mann’s fatal principle (p. 8) the clue to the unfavourable verdict of Tischendorf (p.9), of Tregelles (p. 10), of Alford (p. 12); which has been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and Divines (p. 13).— The nature of the present inquiry explained (p. 15). : < p.5
CHAPTER III.
THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAYOUR- ABLE WITNESS TO THESE VERSES.
Patristie evidence sometimes the most important of any (p.20).—The im- portance of such evidence explained (p.21).—Nineteen Patristic witnesses to these Verses, produced (p. 23).—Summary (p. 30). : = psd
CHAPTER IV.
THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.
The Peshito,—the Curetonian Syriac,—and the Recension of Thomas of Hharkel (p. 33).—The Vulgate (p.34)—and the Vetus Itala (p.35),— the Gothic (p.35)—and the Egyptian Versions (p.35).—Review of the Evidence up to this point (p. 36). ; : ; = prog
xii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER V.
THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICs.
The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p.39).—The misconception con- ° cerning Eusebius (p.41).—The oversight concerning Jerome (p.51); also concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, (or else Severus of Antioch) (p. 57) ; —and the mis-statement concerning Victor of Antioch (p.59). . p. 38
CHAPTER VI.
MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VeRsES.—Parr I.
S. Mark xvi. 9—20, contained in every MS. in the world except two,— Irrational claim to Infallibility set up on behalf of Cod. B (p.73) and Cod. 8 (p.75).—These two Codices shewn to be full of gross Omissions (p.78),—Jnterpolations (p.80),—Corruptions of the Text (p.81),—and Perversions of the Truth (p. 83).—The testimony of Cod. B to 8. Mark xvi. J—20, shewn to be favourable, notwithstanding (p. 86). . pPyo
CHAPTER VII.
MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VeERsES.—Part II.
The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and 3s (viz. the omission of the words ev "Epéow from Hphes. i. 1) considered.—Antiquity unfavourable to the omission of those words (p. 93).—The Moderns infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission (p. 100)—Marcion probably the author of this corruption of the Text of Scripture (p. 106).—Other pecu- liarities of Codex 8 disposed of, and shewn to be errors (p. 109). p. 91
CHAPTER VIII.
THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT ScHoOLIA AND norEs IN MSS. on THE SUBJECT OF THESE VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED.
Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their predecessors’ in- accuracies. — Birch’s unfortunate mistake (p. 117). — Scholz’ serious blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).—Grieshach’s sweeping misstatement (pp. 121-2).—The grave misapprehension which has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3).
CONTENTS. xl
Codex Li (p. 123).—Ammonius not the author of the so-called “ Ammonian” Sections (p.125).—Hpiphanius (p.132).—“ Cesarius,’ a misnomer.— ** The Catenae” misrepresented (p. 133). : ‘ . p. li
CHAPTER IX.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.
he “ Style” and “ Phraseology” of these Verses declared by Critics to be not S. Mark’s.—Insecurity of such Criticism (p.140).—The “ Style” of chap. xvi. 9—20 shewn to be the same as the style of chap. i. 9—20 (p. 142).—The “ Phraseology” examined in twenty-seven particulars, and shewn to be suspicious in none (p.145),—but in twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reverse (p.170).—Such remarks fallacious (p.173).— Judged of by a truer, a more delicate and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most probably genuine (p. 175). : : = pal3G
CHAPTER X.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.
The Lectionary of the East shewn to be a work of extraordinary antiquity (p- 195).—Proved to be older than any extant MS. of the Gospels, by an appeal to the Fathers (p.198).—In this Lectionary, (and also in the Lec- tionary of the West,) the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel have, Srom the first, occupied a most conspicuous, as well as most honourable place (p.204).—Now, this becomes the testimony of ante-Nicene Chris- tendom in their favour, and is therefore decisive (p. 209). = p- Lol
CHAPTER XI.
THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT CoPrEs 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 by an appeal to ancient MSS. 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 pe by the “‘ Western” order of the Gospels (p.239). . : : ; ra pele
Xiv CONTENTS.
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). : . p. 243
APPENDIX (A).
On the Importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture.—TZhe correct Text of 8. LUKE ii. 14, established (p. 257).
APPENDIX (B). Evsesius “ad Marinum” concerning the reconcilement of 8. Mark xvi. 9 with 8. Matthew xxviii. 1 (p. 265). APPENDIX (C). Proof that Hesycutus is a Copyist only in what he says concerning the end of S. Mark’s Gospel (p. 267).
APPENDIX (D).
Some account of Victor or AntiocH’s Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel ; together with a descriptive enumeration of MSS. which contain Victor's Work (p. 269).
APPENDIX (E).
Text of the concluding Scholion of Victor or AntiocH’s Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic Testimony to the Genuineness of ‘the last Twelve Verses” (p. 288).
APPENDIX (F).
On the relative antiquity of the Coppx Vaticanus (B), and the CopEx Strvarricus () (p. 291).
CONTENTS. ; XV
APPENDIX (G).
On the (so-called) “ AMMoNIAN” SEctions avd on the EUSEBIAN CANONS: a Dissertation. With some account of the Tables of Reference occasion- ally found in Greek and Syriac MSS. (p. 295).
APPENDIX (H).
On the Interpolation of the Text of Codex B and Codex 8, at 8. Matthew xxvu. 48 o7 49 (p. 313).
POSTSCRIPT (p. 319).
DT ENVOY.
GENERAL INDEX.
The Facsimile of CopEx S comes immediately before the Title, and faces the page describing it.
The Facsimile of Coprx L, with its page of description, comes imme- diately after page $24.
Subjoined, for convenience, are “the Last Twelve Verses.”
*Avaotas b€ mpat mporn ca8Barov epavn mpatov Mapia rj Maydadnvn, ap is exBeBAnke éxra Saydna. €xeivn mopevbcioa amnyyeire Tois per avTov yevopevois, mevOovar Kal KAai- ovat. KdkEivot akovoavres Ott CH Kal
> ‘ iz > > ~ > , €OeaOn im’ aitns nriotncay.
Mera 6€ rattra dvow ef airav a“ > , > Cte. mepirarovow edavepoOn ev érépa ~ , | pophy, mopevopevois eis aypov. Ka- > , > , rc keivot ame Odvtes amnyyeday Tots Aourrois’ ovde exeivors eriatevoay. "YorTepov dyakeevors avtTois Tots cad , evOexa eavepwOn, kai a@veidure thy > , > - A ‘ aritiay av’t@y Kat oKAnpoxapoiar, o Lal , 6rt Trois Oeacapuevors aditov eynyep- , 7 ed \ > pevov ovk émiatevoav. Kal eizmev ee a 7 , > \ , avtois, ‘‘ TlopevOevres eis Tov Kio pov bid , A > , , dravra, knpvEare TO evayyédov macy r , TH KTioel. 6 mioTeVoas Kal Bamtic- ‘ / e £ , U Geis cwOnoerau’ 6 S€ amtotnoas Kata~ KptOnoera. onueta O€ Trois muorev- gag. taita mapako\ovOnoe’ év TO évopati pov Satuovia ekBadovou' , , n. yhoooats Aadnoovat kawais* pes ag , , , > dpovor Kay Oavdomdr te riwow, ov py avtovs BrdwWe ext dppdarous col > , ‘ A td xeipas emOnoovat, Kai Kadds e€ov- ” ou. ‘ > , a ‘O pev ovv Kuptos, pera Td AaAy- > - > , > ‘ > ‘ oat avtois, aveAnpOn eis Tov ovpavor, , ’ - - ~ kai exabioev ex SekiGv Tov Oecod' r ‘ , exeivor Se e&eAOdvtes exnpvéay mrav- Taxov, Tov Kuplov wuvepyovrtos, Kal Tov Adyov BeBatodvros dia tov era-
KodovOovvTwy onpeloy. "Aun.
(9) Now when Jxsus was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Mag- dalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils. (10) And she went and told them that had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. (11) And they, when they had heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
(12) After that He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. (13) And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
(14) Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen. (15) And He said unto them, ‘‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In My Name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”
(19) So then after the Lorp had spoken unto them, He was received up into Heaven, and sat on the Right Hand of Gop. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lorp working with them, and confirm- ing the word with signs follow- ing. Amen.
THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MARK.
CHAPTER LI.
THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF 8S. MARK’S GOSPEL, STATED.
These Verses generally suspected at the present time. The popularity of this opinion accounted for.
ie has lately become the fashion to speak of the last Twelve
Verses of the Gospel according to 8. Mark, as if it were an ascertained fact that those verses constitute no integral part of the Gospel. It seems to be generally supposed, (1) That the evidence of MSS. is altogether fatal to their claims ; (2) That ‘the early Fathers” witness plainly against their genuineness; (3) That, from considerations of ‘internal evidence” they must certainly be given up. It shall be my endeavour in the ensuing pages to shew, on the contrary, That manuscript evidence is so overwhelmingly in their favour that no room is left for doubt or suspicion :—That there is not so much as one of the Fathers, early or late, who gives it as his opinion that these verses are spurious :— and, That the argument derived from internal considera- tions proves on inquiry to be baseless and unsubstantial as a dream.
But I hope that I shall succeed in doing more. It shall be my endeavour to shew not only that there really is no reason whatever for calling in question the genuineness of this portion of Holy Writ, but also that there exist suffi- cient reasons for feeling confident that it must needs be genuine. ‘This is clearly as much as it is possible for me
B
2 Different grounds of Doubt [ CHAP,
to achieve. But when this has been done, I venture to hope that the verses in dispute will for the future be allowed to retain their place in the second Gospel unmolested.
It will of course be asked,—And yet, if all this be so, how does it happen that both in very ancient, and also in very modern times, this proposal to suppress twelve verses of the Gospel has enjoyed a certain amount of popularity P At the two different periods, (I answer,) for widely different reasons.
(1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief of Christendom that the Word of Gop must needs be con- sistent with itself in every part, and prove in every part (like its Divine Author) perfectly “faithful and true,” the difficulty (which was deemed all but insuperable) of bring- ing certain statements in 8. Mark’s last Twelve Verses into harmony with certain statements of the other Evangelists, is discovered to have troubled Divines exceedingly. “In fact,” (says Mr. Scrivener,) “it brought suspicion upon these verses, and caused their omission in some copies seen by Eusebius.” That the maiming process is indeed attributable to this cause and came about in this particular way, I am unable to persuade myself; but, if the desire to provide an escape from a serious critical difficulty did not actually occasion that copies of S. Mark’s Gospel were mutilated, it certainly was the reason why, in very early times, such mutilated copies were viewed without displeasure by some, and appealed to with complacency by others.
(2.) But times are changed. We have recently been assured on high authority that the Church has reversed her. ancient convictions in this respect: that now, ‘most sound theologians have no dread whatever of acknowledging minute points of disagreement” (i.e. minute errors) “in the four- fold narrative even of the life of the Redeemer®” There has arisen in these last days a singular impatience of Dog- matic Truth, (especially Dogma of an unpalatable kind,) which has even rendered popular the pretext afforded by these same mutilated copies for the grave resuscitation of doubts, never as it would seem seriously entertained by any
* Abp. Tait’s Zarmony of Revelation and the Sciences, (1864,) p. 21.
1.] in Ancient and in Modern Times. 3
of the ancients; and which, at all events for 1300 years and upwards, have deservedly sunk into oblivion.
Whilst I write, that “most divine explication of the chiefest articles of our Christian belief,’ the Athanasian Creed», is made the object of incessant assaults® But then it is remembered that statements quite as ‘ uncharitable” as any which this Creed contains are found in the 16th verse of S. Mark’s concluding chapter; are in fact the words of Him whose very Name is Love. The precious warning clause, I say, (miscalled “damnatory4,”) which an imperti- nent officiousness is for glossing with a rubric and weaken- ing with an apology, proceeded from Divine lips,—at least if these concluding verses be genuine. How shall this incon- venient circumstance be more effectually dealt with than by accepting the suggestion of the most recent editors, that S. Mark’s concluding verses are an unauthorised addition to his Gospel? “If it be acknowledged that the passage has a harsh sound,” (remarks Dean Stanley,) “unlike the usual utterances of Him who came not to condemn but to save, the discoveries of later times have shewn, almost be- yond doubt, that it is not a part of S. Mark’s Gospel, but an addition by another hand; of which the weakness in the external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in proving its later origin °.”
Modern prejudice, then,—added to a singularly exagge- rated estimate of the critical importance of the testimony
> See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11—13.
© Abp. Tait is of opinion that it “should not retain its place in the public Service of the Church:” and Dean Stanley gives sixteen reasons for the same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that “many excellent laymen, in- cluding King George III., have declined to take part in the recitation.” (Final) Report of the Ritual Commission, 1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.
4 In the words of a thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P. Eden),—“ Condemnatory is just what these clauses are not. I understand myself, in uttering these words, not to condemn a fellow creature, but to acknowledge a truth of Scrip- ture, Gop’s judgment namely on the sin of unbelief. The further question,— In whom the sin of unbelief is found; tat awful question I leave entirely in His hands who is the alone Judge of hearts; who made us, and knows our infirmities, aud whose tender mercies are over all His works.”
e «The Athanasian Creed,’ by the Dean of Westminster (Contemporary Review, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).
B2
4 Obvious Questions. [CHAP. I.
of our two oldest Codices, (another of the “discoveries of later times,’ concerning which I shall have more to say by-and-by,)—must explain why the opinion is even popular that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious ap- pendix to his Gospel.
Not that Biblical Critics would have us believe that the Evangelist left off at verse 8, intending that the words,— “neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid,’ should be the conclusion of his Gospel. ‘‘ No one can imagine,” (writes Griesbach,) “‘that Mark cut short the thread of his narrative at that place’” It is on all hands eagerly admitted, that so abrupt a termination must be held to mark an incomplete or else an uncompleted work. How, then, in the original autograph of the Evangelist, is it sup- posed that the narrative proceeded? This is what no one has even ventured so much as to conjecture. It is assumed, however, that the original termination of the Gospel, what- ever it may have been, has perished. We appeal, of course, to its actual termination: and,—Of what nature then, (we ask,) is the supposed necessity for regarding the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel as a spurious substitute for what the Evangelist originally wrote? What, in other words, has been the history of these modern doubts; and by what steps have they established themselves in books, and won the public ear?
To explain this, shall be the object of the next ensuing chapters.
* Commentarius Criticus, ii. 197.
CHAP TE R.—cL
THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.
Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses (p. 6).— Lachmann’s fatal principle (p. 8) the clue to the unfavourable verdict of Tischendorf (p. 9), of Tregelles (p. 10), of Alford (p. 12); which has been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and Divines (p. 18).—The nature of the present inquiry explained (p./ 15.)
It is only since the appearance of Griesbach’s second edi- tion [1796—1806] that Critics of the New Testament have permitted themselves to handle the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel with disrespect. Previous critical editions of the New Testament are free from this reproach. ‘There is no reason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of Scripture,’ wrote Mill in 1707, after a review of the evi- dence (as far as he was acquainted with it) for and against. Twenty-seven years later, appeared Bengel’s edition of the New Testament (1734); and Wetstein, at the end of another seventeen years (1751-2), followed in the same field. Both editors, after rehearsing the adverse testimony in extenso, left the passage in undisputed possession of its place. Alter in 1786-7, and Birch in 1788 2%, (suspicious as the latter evi- dently was of its genuineness,) followed their predecessors’ example. But Matthaei, (who also brought his labours to a close in the year 1788,) was not content to give a silent suffrage. He had been for upwards of fourteen years a la- borious collator of Greek MSS. of the New Testament, and was so convinced of the insufficiency of the arguments which had been brought against these twelve verses of S. Mark,
* Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd. MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit Andreas Birch, Havniae, 1788. A copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may be seen in the King’s Library (Brit. Mus.)
6 Griesbach’s wild Theory [ CHAP.
that with no ordinary warmth, no common acuteness, he insisted on their genuineness.
“ With Griesbach,’’ (remarks Dr. Tregelles?,) “Texts which may be called really critical begin;” and Griesbach is the first to insist that the concluding verses of S. Mark are spurious. That he did not suppose the second Gospel to have always ended at verse 8, we have seen already °. He was of opinion, however, that “at some very remote period, the original ending of the Gospel perished,—disappeared perhaps from the Evangelists own copy,—and that the present ending was by some one substituted in its place.” Griesbach further in- vented the following elaborate and extraordinary hypothesis to account for the existence of 8S. Mark xvi. 9—20.
He invites his readers to believe that when, (before the end of the second century,) the four Evangelical narratives were collected into a volume and dignified with the title of “The Gospel,”—S. Mark’s narrative was furnished by some unknown individual with its actual termination in order to remedy its manifest incompleteness; and that this volume became the standard of the Alexandrine recension of the text: in other words, became the fontal source of a mighty family of MSS. by Griesbach designated as “‘ Alexandrine.” But there will have been here and there in existence isolated copies of one or more of the Gospels; and in all of these, S. Mark’s Gospel, (by the hypothesis,) will have ended abruptly at the eighth verse. These copies of single Gos- pels, when collected together, are presumed by Griesbach to have constituted “the Western recension.” If, in codices of this family also, the self-same termination is now all but universally found, the fact is to be accounted for, (Gries- bach says,) by the natural desire which possessors of the Gospels will have experienced to supplement their imperfect copies as best they might. “Let this conjecture be ac- cepted,” proceeds the learned veteran,—(unconscious appa- rently that he has been demanding acceptance for at least half-a-dozen wholly unsupported as well as entirely gratui- tous conjectures,)—‘‘and every difficulty disappears; and
> Account of the Printed Text, p. 83. © See above, p. 3.
11.] concerning these Twelve Verses. 7
it becomes perfectly intelligible how there has crept into almost every codex which has been written, from the second century downwards, a section quite different from the ori- ginal and genuine ending of S. Mark, which disappeared before the four Gospels were collected into a single volume.” —In other words, if men will but be so accommodating as to assume that the conclusion of 8S. Mark’s Gospel disap- peared before any one had the opportunity of transcribing the Evangelist’s inspired autograph, they will have no difficulty in understanding that the present conclusion of 8. Mark’s Gospel was not really written by S. Mark.
It should perhaps be stated in passing, that Griesbach was driven into this curious maze of unsupported conjecture by the exigencies of his ‘‘ Recension Theory ;””? which, inas- much as it has been long since exploded, need not now occupy us. But it is worth observing that the argument already exhibited, (such as it is,) breaks down under the weight of the very first fact which its learned author is obliged to lay upon it. Codex B.,—the solitary manuscript witness for onutting the clause in question, (for Codex had not yet been discovered, )—had been already claimed by Griesbach as a chief exponent of his so-called “ Alexandrine Recension.” But then, on the Critic’s own hypothesis, (as we have seen already,) Codex B. ought, on the contrary, to have con- tained it. How was that inconvenient fact to be got over? Griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note that Codex B. “has affinity with the Eastern family of MSS.”—The mis- fortune of being saddled with a worthless theory was surely never more apparent. By the time we have reached this point in the investigation, we are reminded of nothing so much as of the weary traveller who, having patiently pur- sued an ignis fatuus through half the night, beholds it at last vanish; but not until it has conducted him up to his chin in the mire.
Neither Hug, nor Scholz his pupil,—who in 1808 and 1830 respectively followed Griesbach with modifications of his recension-theory,—concurred in the unfavourable sen- tence which their illustrious predecessor had passed on the concluding portion of S. Mark’s Gospel. The latter even
8 Lachmann the Originator of [CHAP.
eagerly vindicated its genuineness“. But with Lachmann, —whose unsatisfactory text of the Gospels appeared in 1842, — originated a new principle of Textual Revision ; the principle, namely, of paying exclusive and absolute deference to the testimony of a few arbitrarily selected ancient documents; no regard being paid to others of the same or of yet higher antiquity. This is not the right place for discussing this plausible and certainly most convenient scheme of textual revision. That it leads to conclusions little short of irrational, is certain. I notice it only because it supplies the clue to the result which, as far as S. Mark xvi. 9—20 is concerned, has been since arrived at by Dr. Tischendorf, Dr. Tregelles, and Dean Alford *,— the three latest critics who have formally undertaken to reconstruct the sacred Text.
They agree in assuring their readers that the genuine Gospel of S. Mark extends no further than ch. xvi. ver. 8: in other words, that all that follows the words époBotvyto yap is an unauthorized addition by some later hand; “a fragment,”’—distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel not less by internal evidence than by external testimony. This verdict becomes the more important because it proceeds from men of undoubted earnestness and high ability ; who cannot be suspected of being either unacquainted with the evidence on which the point in dispute rests, nor inexperienced in the art of weighing such evidence. Moreover, their verdict has been independently reached; is unanimous; is unhesi- tating; has been eagerly proclaimed by all three on many different occasions as well as in many different places‘; and
d « Wam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant gravissimae.”
e I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this amiable and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am finishing my task. I consign these pages to the press with a sense of downright reluctance,— (constrained however by the importance of the subject,)—seeing that he is no longer among us either to accept or to dispute a single proposition, All I can do is to erase every word which might have occasioned him the least an- noyance ; and indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. An open grave reminds one of the 1othingness of earthly controversy; as nothing else does, or indeed can do.
‘ Tischendorf, besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the Greek Text, has edited our English “ Authorized Version” (Tauchnitz, 1869,)
_— =
11. | a fatal principle of Textual Revision. 9
may be said to be at present in all but undisputed possession of the field’. The first-named Editor enjoys a vast reputa- tion, and has been generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, “the first Biblical Critic in Europe.” The other two have pro- duced text-books which are deservedly held in high esteem, and are in the hands of every student. The views of such men will undoubtedly colour the convictions of the next generation of English Churchmen. It becomes absolutely necessary, therefore, to examine with the utmost care the grounds of their verdict, the direct result of which is to present us with a mutilated Gospel. If they are right, there is no help for it but that the convictions of eighteen centuries in this respect must be surrendered. But if Tis- chendorf and Tregelles are wrong in this particular, it fol- lows of necessity that doubt is thrown over the whole of their critical method. The case is a crucial one. Every page of theirs incurs suspicion, if their deliberate verdict in this instance shall prove to be mistaken.
1. Tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single sentence. ‘That these verses were not written by Mark,”
with an “ Introduction” addressed to unlearned readers, and the various read- ings of Codd. 8, B and A, set down in English at the foot of every page.— Tregelles, besides his edition of the Text of the N. T., is very full on the subject of S. Mark xvi. 9—20, in his “ Account of the Printed Text,” and in his “ Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.” (vol. iv. of Horne’s Introd.)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek Testament, and an abridgment “for the upper forms of Schools and for passmen at the Univer- sities,” put forth two editions of a “N. T. for English Readers,” and three editions of “the Authorized Version newly compared with the original Greek and revised ;’’—in every one of which it is stated that these twelve verses are “probably an addition, placed here in very early times.”
* The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are honour- able exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent Divine reluctantly admitting that “this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark himself ;” and Bishop Ellicott (Historical Lectures, pp. 26-7) asking “ Why may not this portion have been written by S. Mark at a later period ? ;”—both alike reso- lutely insist on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it stated that he has never at any time given the Jeust sanction to the popular outcry against this portion of tbe Gospel. ‘“ Without the slightest misgiving” he has uni- formly maintained the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9—20. (Introduction, pp. 7 and 429—32.) ;
10 Dr. Tischendorf’s verdict. [CHAP.
(he says,) “admits of satisfactory proof.” He then recites in detail the adverse external testimony which his prede- cessors had accumulated; remarking, that it is abundantly confirmed by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a soli- tary sample; but declares that the whole passage is “ab- horrent” to 8. Mark’s manner. ‘The facts of the case being such,” (and with this he dismisses the subject,) “a healthy piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as Mark’s what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn to have known nothing at all about".” A mass of laborious annotation which comes surging in at the close of verse 8, and fills two of Tischendorf’s pages, has the effect of entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the inspired text of the Evangelist. On the other hand, the evi- dence in favour of the place is despatched in less than twelve lines. What can be the reason that an Editor of the New Testament parades elaborately every particular of the evi- dence, (such as it is,) against the genuineness of a consider- able portion of the Gospel; and yet makes summary work with the evidence in its favour? That Tischendorf has at least entirely made up his mind on the matter in hand is plain. Elsewhere, he speaks of the Author of these verses as “ Pseudo Marcus'.”
2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this subject in his ‘‘ Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament” (1854). The respected author undertakes to shew “that the early testimony that 8. Mark did not write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments.” Accordingly, he announces as the result of the propositions which he thinks he has established, “that the book of Mark himself extends no further than éfo8odvTo yap.” He is the
h «Hee non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,” (p. 320.) “Que testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba a¢ fs é«BeB. item quod singula multi- fariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.” (p. 322.)—I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf’s 8th ed. (1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the following addition:—* Que quum ita sint, sane erga sacrum textum pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare per- gunt que a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.” (p. 407.)
Evangelia Apocrypha, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.
11. | The verdict of Dr. Tregelles. 11
only critic I have met with to whom it does not seem in- credible that S. Mark did actually conclude his Gospel in this abrupt way: observing that “perhaps we do not know enough of the circumstances of 8. Mark when he wrote his Gospel to say whether he did or did not leave it with a com- plete termination.” In this modest suggestion at least Dr. Tregelles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing whatever about ‘the circumstances of 8. Mark,” (or of any other Evangelist,) “when he wrote his Gospel:” neither indeed are we quite sure who S. Mark was. But when he goes on to declare, notwithstanding, “that the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel ;” and complains that ‘there is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to Holy Scripture, as if all our notions of its authority depended on our knowing who was the writer of each particular portion; instead of simply seeing and owning that it was given forth from Gop, and that it is as much His as were the Commandments of the Law written by His own finger on the tables of stone *;’—the learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the question at issue, which we are least of all prepared to encounter in such a quarter. We admire his piety but it is at the ex- pense of his critical sagacity. For the question is not at all one of authorship, but only one of genuineness. Have the codices been mutilated which do not contain these verses ? If they have, then must these verses be held to be genuine. But on the contrary, Have the codices been supplemented which contain them? Then are these verses certainly spu- rious. There is no help for it but they must either be held to be an integral part of the Gospel, and therefore, in default of any proof to the contrary, as certainly by S. Mark as any other twelve verses which can be named; or else an un- authorized addition to it. If they belong to the post-apo- stolic age it is idle to insist on their Inspiration, and to claim that this “authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down” is as much the work of Gop “as were the Ten Commandments written by His own
k pp. 253, 7—9.
12 The opinion of Dean Alford. [ CHAP.
finger on the tables of stone.’ On the other hand, if they “ought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel as the last chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as the writer is) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the book of Moses,”—it is difficult to understand why the learned editor should think himself at liberty to sever them from their context, and introduce the subscription KATA MAPKON after ver. 8. In short, ‘How persons who believe that these verses did not form a part of the original Gospel of Mark, but were added afterwards, can say that they have a good claim to be received as an authentic or genuine part of the second Gospel, that is, a portion of canonical Scrip- ture, passes comprehension.” It passes even Dr. Davidson’s comprehension; (for the foregoing words are his;) and Dr. Davidson, as some of us are aware, is not a man to stick at trifles |.
3. Dean Alford went a little further than any of his pre- decessors. He says that this passage ‘‘ was placed as a com- pletion of the Gospel soon after the Apostolic period,—the Gospel itself having been, for some reason unknown to us, left incomplete. The most probable supposition” (he adds) “is, that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.” The italics in this conjecture (which was originally Gries- bach’s) are not mine. The internal evidence (declares the same learned writer) ‘‘ preponderates vastly against the au- thorship of Mark ;” or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against “its genuineness as a work of the Evangelist.” Accord- ingly, in his Prolegomena, (p. 38) he describes it as “ the remarkable fragment at the end of the Gospel.” After this, we are the less astonished to find that he closes the second Gospel at ver. 8; introduces the Subscription there; and en- closes the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets. Thus, whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman
! In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced it “ mani- festly untenable” that S. Mark’s Gospel was the last written; and assigned A.D. 64.as “its most probable” date. In his second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—‘ When we consider that the Gospel was not written till the second century, internal evidence loses much of its force against the authenticity of these verses.” —Introduction to N. T.
It. | Thomson, Green, Norton, Westcott, Meyer. 13
Mill (1707), the editors of the N. T. have either been silent on the subject, or else have whispered only that this section of the Gospel is to be received with less of confidence than the rest,—it has been reserved for the present century to convert the ancient suspicions into actual charges. The latest to enter the field have been the first to execute Gries- bach’s adverse sentence pronounced fifty years ago, and to load the blessed Evangelist with bonds.
It might have been foreseen that when Critics so con- spicuous permit themselves thus to handle the precious deposit, others would take courage to hurl their thunder- bolts in the same direction with the less concern. “It is probable,” (says Abp. Thomson in the Bible Dictionary,) “that this section is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospels soon after the times of the Apostles ™.”’—The Rev. T. S. Green", (an able scholar, never to be mentioned without respect,) considers that “the hypothesis of very early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in evidence,’’— which “point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious origin.””—“ In respect of Mark’s Gospel,” (writes Professor Norton in a recent work on the G'enuineness of the Gospels,) “there is ground for believing that the last twelve verses were not written by the Evangelist, but were added by some other writer to supply a short conclusion to the work, which some cause had prevented the author from completing °.”— Professor Westcott—who, jointly with the Rey. F. J. A. Hort, announces a revised Text—assures us that “the original text, from whatever cause it may have happened, terminated abruptly after the account of the Angelic vision.” The rest ‘“‘was added at another time, and probably by another hand.” “Jt is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt close.” “The remaining verses cannot be regarded as part of the original narrative of S. Mark ».”—Meyer insists that this is an “apocryphal fragment,” and reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which have ever been
m Vol. ii. p. 239. " Developed Criticism, [1857], p. 53.
° Ed. 1847, i. p.17. He recommends this view to his reader’s acceptance in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.
» Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 311.
14 Grounds of the hostile verdict. [CHAP.
arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving. The “note” with which he takes leave of the subject is even insolent’. A comparison (he says) of these “fragments” (ver. 9—18 and 19) with the parallel places in the other Gospels and in the Acts, shews how vacillating and various were the Apostolical traditions concerning the appearances of our Lorp after His Resurrection, and concerning His Ascension. (‘ Hast thou killed, and also taken possession ?’’)
Such, then, is the hostile verdict concerning these last twelve verses which I venture to dispute, and which I trust T shall live to see reversed. The writers above cited will be found to rely (1.) on the external evidence of certain ancient MSS.; and (2.) on Scholia which state “that the more ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver. 8.” (3.) They assure us that this is confirmed by a formidable array of Patristic authorities. (4.) Internal proof is declared not to be wanting. Certain incoherences and inaccuracies are pointed out. In fine, “the phraseology and style of the section” are declared to be “unfavourable to its au- thenticity ;’? not a few of the words and expressions being “foreign to the diction of Mark.”—I propose to shew that all these confident and imposing statements are to a great extent either mistakes or exaggerations, and that the slender residuum of fact is about as powerless to achieve the purpose of the critics as were the seven green withs of the Philistines to bind Samson.
In order to exhibit successfully what I have to offer on this subject, I find it necessary to begin (in the next chapter) at the very beginning. I think it right, however, in this place to premise a few plain considerations which will be of use to us throughout all our subsequent inquiry ; and which indeed we shall never be able to afford to lose sight of for long.
The question at issue being simply this,—Whether it is reasonable to suspect that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not ?—the whole of our business clearly resolves itself into an examination of what has been urged in proof
4 Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186—92.
11. | The required Evidence. 15
that the former alternative is the correct one. Our oppo- nents maintain that these verses did not form part of the original autograph of the Evangelist. But it is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burthen of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue’. We have therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the sup- posed proof is exactly worth ; remembering always that in this subject-matter a high degree of probability is the only kind of proof which is attainable. When, for example, it is contended that the famous words in 8. John’s first Epistle (1 8. John v. 7, 8,) are not to be regarded as genuine, the fact that they are away from almost every known Codex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph of the Evangelist. On far less weighty evidence, in fact, we are at all times prepared to yield the hearty assent of our understanding in this department of sacred science.
And yet, it will be found that evidence of overwhelming weight, if not of an entirely different kind, is required in the present instance: as I proceed to explain.
1. When it is contended that our Lorp’s reply to the young ruler (S. Matt. xix. 17) was not Ti we Néyers dyabov ; ovdels ayabos, et wn eis, 0 Ocds,—it is at the same time in- sisted that it was Ti we épwras trept Tod ayaov ; eis éotw 6 ayaOus. It is proposed to omit the former words on/y be- cause an alternative clause is at hand, which it is proposed to substitute in its room.
2. Again. When it is claimed that some given passage of the Textus Receptus,—S. Mark xv. 28, for example, (kal érrnpHOn 7 ypadi) 7) Aéyouca, Kai peta avouwv édo- yicOn,) or the Doxology in S. Matth. vi. 13,—is spurious, all that is pretended is that certain words are an unautho- rized addition to the inspired text; and that by simply omitting them we are so far restoring the Gospel to its original integrity.—The same is to be said concerning every other charge of interpolation which can be named. If the celebrated “‘pericopa de adultera,” for instance, be indeed
r In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,— Ei incumbit pro- batio qui dicit, non qui negat.” Taylor on the Law of Evidence, 1868, i. p. 369.
16 The peculiar nature of [CHAP.
not genuine, we have but to leave out those twelve verses of 8. John’s Gospel, and to read chap. vil. 52 in close sequence with chap. viii. 12; and we are assured that we are put in possession of the text as it came from the hands of its in- spired Author. Nor, (it must be admitted), is any difficulty whatever occasioned thereby ; for there is no reason assign- able why the two last-named verses should not cohere ; (there is no internal improbability, I mean, in the supposition ;) neither does there exist any d priori reason why a consider- able portion of narrative should be looked for in that par- ticular part of the Gospel.
3. But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is proposed to get rid of the twelve verses which for 1700 years and upwards have formed the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel ; no alternative conclusion being proposed to our acceptance. For let it be only observed what this proposal practically amounts to and means.
(a.) And first, it does not mean that S. Mark himself, with design, brought his Gospel to a close at the words éfoSoivTo yap. That supposition would in fact be irrational. It does not mean, I say, that by simply leaving out those last twelve verses we shall be restoring the second Gospel to its original integrity. And this it is which makes the present a different case from every other, and necessitates a fuller, if not a different kind of proof.
(b.) What then? It means that although an abrupt and impossible termination would confessedly be the result of omitting verses 9—20, no nearer approximation to the ori- ginal autograph of the Evangelist is at present attainable. Whether S. Mark was interrupted before he could finish his Gospel,—(as Dr. Tregelles and Professor Norton suggest ;)— in which case it will have been published by its Author in an unfinished state: or whether “the last leaf was torn | away” before a single copy of the original could be pro- ' cured,— (a view which is found to have recommended itself to Griesbach ;)—in which case it will have once had a dif- ferent termination from at present ; which termination how- ever, by the hypothesis, has since been irrecoverably lost ;— (and to one of these two wild hypotheses the critics are
ur. | the required Evidence. 1
logically reduced ;)—this we are not certainly told. The critics are only agreed in assuming that S. Mark’s Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude it.
But this assumption, (that a work which has been held to be a complete work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete,) of course requires proof. The foregoing improbable theories, based on a gratuitous assump- tion, are confronted in limine with a formidable obstacle which must be absolutely got rid of before they can be thought entitled to a serious hearing. It is a familiar and a fatal circumstance that the Gospel of S. Mark has been furnished with its present termination ever since the second century of the Christian era’. In default, therefore, of dis- tinct historical evidence or definite documentary proof that at some earlier period than that it terminated abruptly, no- thing short of the utter unfitness of the verses which at pre- sent conclude S. Mark’s Gospel to be regarded as the work of the Evangelist, would warrant us in assuming that they are the spurious accretion of the post-apostolic age: and as such, at the end of eighteen centuries, to be deliberately rejected. We must absolutely be furnished, I say, with in- ternal evidence of the most unequivocal character; or else with external testimony of a direct and definite kind, if we are to admit that the actual conclusion of 8. Mark’s Gospel is an unauthorized substitute for something quite different that has been lost. I can only imagine one other thing which could induce us to entertain such an opinion; and that would be the general consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions in leaving these verses out. Else, it is evident that we are logically forced to adopt the far easier supposi- tion that (not S. Mark, but) some copyist of the third century left a copy of S. Mark’s Gospel unfinished ; which unfinished copy became the fontal source of the mutilated copies which , have come down to our own times‘.
s This is freely allowed by all. “Certiores facti sumus hance pericopam jam in secundo seeculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.” Tregelles NV. T. p. 214.
' This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 526) accounts for the phenomenon :— “Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam partem scribere differret,
Cc
18 Inconsistency of the Critics. [CHAP. II.
I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully at the outset; not in order to prejudge the question, (for that could answer no good purpose,) but only in order that the reader may have clearly set before him the real nature of the issue. ‘Is it reasonable to suspect that the conclud- ing verses of 8. Mark are a spurious accretion and unautho- rized supplement to his Gospel, or not?” That is the ques- tion which we have to consider,—the one question. And while I proceed to pass under careful review all the evidence on this subject with which I am acquainted, I shall be again and again obliged to direct the attention of my reader to its _ bearing on the real point at issue. In other words, we shall _ have again and again to ask ourselves, how far it is rendered ) probable by each fresh article of evidence that S. Mark’s
) Gospel, when it left the hands of its inspired Author, was an unfinished work ; the last chapter ending abruptly at ver. 8 ?
; ‘
I will only point out, before passing on, that the course which has been adopted towards 8. Mark xvi. 9—20, by the latest Editors of the New Testament, is simply illogical. Hither they regard these verses as possibly genuine, or else as certainly spurious. If they entertain (as they say they do) a decided opinion that they are not genuine, they ought (if they would be consistent) to banish them from the text”. Conversely, since they do not banish them from the text, they have no right to pass a fatal sentence upon them; to desig- nate their author as “ pseudo-Marcus;” to handle them in contemptuous fashion. The plain truth is, these learned men are better than their theory ; the worthlessness of which they are made to /ee/ in the present most conspicuous instance. It reduces them to perplexity. It has landed them in in- consistency and error.—They will find it necessary in the end to reverse their convictions, They cannot too speedily reconsider their verdict, and retrace their steps. et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii quasi perfectum sequerentur, praeser- tim quum ea pars cum reliqua historid evangelicA minus congruere videretur.”
" It is thus that Tischendorf treats $8. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his latest edi- tion) 8. John xxi. 25,
CAAA BTR EER
THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.
Patristie evidence sometimes the most important of any (p.20).—The importance of such evidence explained (p.21).—Nineteen Patristic witnesses to these Verses, produced (p. 23).—Summary (p. 80).
THE present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds of Evidence, external and internal. For the full considera- tion of the former, seven Chapters will be necessary *: for a discussion of the latter, one seventh of that space will suffice’, We have first to ascertain whether the external testimony concerning 8. Mark xvi. 9—20 is of such a nature as to constrain us to admit that it is highly probable that those twelve verses are a spurious appendix to 8. Mark’s Gospel.
1. It is well known that for determining the Text of the New Testament, we are dependent on three chief sources of information: viz. (1.) on Manuscriprs,—(2.) on VERSIONS,— (3.) on Faruers. And it is even self-evident that the most ancient MSS.,—the earliest Versions,—the oldest of the Fa- thers, will probably be in every instance the most trust- worthy witnesses.
2. Further, it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text of Scripture than can pos- sibly be rendered by any Translation, however faithful : while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive authority, even than Versions. The reasons are chiefly these : — (a.) Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not licentiously ; and sometimes a//ude only when they seem to quote. (b.) They appear to have too often depended on their memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inac-
* Chap. III.—VIILI., also Chap. X. 5 Chap. IX, c2
20 Patristic citations supplement [CHAP.
curate in their citations; the same Father being observed to quote the same place in different ways. (c.) Copyists and Editors may not be altogether depended upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations. Thus the evidence of Fathers must always be to some extent precarious.
3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed out that when,—instead of certifying ourselves of the actual words employed by an Evangelist, their precise form and exact seqguence,—our object is only to ascertain whether a considerable passage of Scripture is genuine or not; is to be rejected or retained; was known or was not known in the earliest} ages of the Church ; then, instead of supplying the least important evidence, Fathers become by far the most valuable witnesses of all. This entire subject may be con- veniently illustrated by an appeal to the problem before us.
4. Of course, if we possessed copies of the Gospels coeval with their authors, nothing could compete with such evi- dence. But then unhappily nothing of the kind is the case. The facts admit of being stated within the compass of a few lines. We have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is thought to belong to the first half of the iv century ; and another, the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, §) which is certainly not quite so old,—perhaps by 50 years. Next come two famous codices; the Alexandrine (in the British Museum, A) and the Codex Ephraemi (in the Paris Library, C), which are probably from 50 to 100 years more recent still. The Codex Bezae (at Cambridge, D) is con- sidered by competent judges to be the depository of a re- cension of the text as ancient as any of the others. Not- withstanding its strangely depraved condition therefore,— the many “monstra potius quam variae lectiones” which it contains, —it may be reckoned with the preceding four, though it must be 50 or 100 years later than the latest of them. After this, we drop down, (as far as 8S, Mark is con- cerned,) to 2 uncial MSS, of the viii* century,—7 of the ixth,—4 of the ix or xt¢, while cursives of the xi and xii™
© Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, r, A, A (quere), M (Tisch. ed. 8va.) [ix]: G, X, 8, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective here,—F (ver. 9—19), H (ver. 9—14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z
III. | our scanty MS. evidence. 21
centuries are very numerous indeed,—the copies increasing in number in a rapid ratio as we descend the stream of Time. Our primitive manuscript witnesses, therefore, are but five in number at the utmost. And of these it has never been pretended that the oldest is to be referred to an earlier date than the beginning of the iv century, while it is thought by competent judges that the last named may very possibly have been written quite late in the vi".
5. Are we then reduced to this fourfold, (or at most five- fold,) evidence concerning the text of the Gospels,—on evi- dence of not quite certain date, and yet (as we all believe) not reaching further back than to the iv™ century of our era ? Certainly not. Here, FarHers come to our aid. There are perhaps as many as an hundred Ecclesiastical Writers older than the oldest extant Codex of the N. T.: while between A.D. 300 and a.p. 600, (within which limits our five oldest MSS. may be considered certainly to fall,) there exist about two hundred Fathers more. True, that many of these have left wondrous little behind them; and that the quotations from Holy Scripture of the greater part may justly be de- scribed as rare and unsatisfactory. But what then? From the three hundred, make a liberal reduction; and an hun- dred writers will remain who frequently quote the New Testament, and who, when they do quote it, are probably as trustworthy witnesses to the Truth of Scripture as either Cod. § or Cod. B. We have indeed heard a great deal too much of the precariousness of this class of evidence: not nearly enough of the gross inaccuracies which disfigure the text of those two Codices. Quite surprising is it to discover to what an extent Patristic quotations from the New Testa- ment have evidently retained their exact original form. What we chiefly desiderate at this time is a more careful revision of the text of the Fathers, and more skilfully elaborated indices of the works of each: not one of them having been hitherto satisfactorily indexed. It would be easy to demonstrate the importance of bestowing far more attention on this subject than it seems to have hitherto enjoyed: but I shall content myself with citing a single instance; and for this, (in order not to distract the reader’s
22 Importance of Patristic citations. [CHAP.
attention), I shall refer him to the Appendix*. What is at least beyond the limits of controversy, whenever the genwine- ness of a considerable passage of Scripture is the point in dis- pute, the testimony of Fathers who undoubtedly recognise that passage, is beyond comparison the most valuable testi- mony we can enjoy.
6. For let it be only considered what is implied by a Patristic appeal to the Gospel. It amounts to this:— that a conspicuous personage, probably a Bishop of the Church,—one, therefore, whose history, date, place, are all more or less matter of notoriety,—gives us his written assur- ance that the passage in question was found in that copy of the Gospels which he was accustomed himself to employ; the uncial codex, (it has long since perished) which belonged to himself, or to the Church which he served. It is evident, in short, that any objection to quotations from Scripture in the writings of the ancient Fathers can only apply to the form of those quotations; not to their substance. It is just as certain that a verse of Scripture was actually read by the Father who unmistakedly refers to it, as if we had read it with him; even though the gravest doubts may be enter- tained as to the ‘ipsissima verba’ which were found in his own particular copy. He may have trusted to his memory: or copyists may have taken liberties with his writings: or editors may have misrepresented what they found in the written copies. The form of the quoted verse, I repeat, may have suffered almost to any extent. The substance, on the contrary, inasmuch as it lay wholly beyond their province, may be looked upon as an indisputable fact.
7. Some such preliminary remarks, (never out of place when quotations from the Fathers are to be considered,) cannot well be withheld when the most venerable Kcclesi- astical writings are appealed to. The earliest of the Fathers are observed to quote with singular licence,—to a//ude rather than to quote. Strange to relate, those ancient men seem scarcely to have been aware of the grave responsibility they incurred when they substituted expressions of their own for the utterances of the Spirit. It is evidently not so much
' See Appendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14.
111. | Papias,—Justin Martyr,—Ireneus. 23
that their memory is in fault, as their jwdgment,—in that they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to recast, to reconstruct °.
I. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that Papras refers to 8. Mark xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous tradition concerning “Justus surnamed Barsabas,” ‘ how that after drinking noxious poison, through the Lorp’s grace he experienced no evil consequence’.” He does not give the words of the Evangelist. It is even surprising how com- pletely he passes them by; and yet the allusion to the place just cited is manifest. Now, Papias is a writer who lived so near the time of the Apostles that he made it his delight to collect their traditional sayings. His date (according to Clinton) is A.p. 100.
II. Justin Martyr, the date of whose first Apology is A.D. 151, is observed to say concerning the Apostles that, after our Lorp’s Ascension,—é&erOovtes tavtayod éxnpu- £av%: which is nothing else but a quotation from the last verse of S. Mark’s Gospel,—éxeivor dé é&eXOovtes EexrpvEav mavrayoo. And thus it is found that the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel was familiarly known within fifty years of the death of the last of the Evangelists.
III. When Iren avs, in his third Book against Heresies, deliberately quotes and remarks upon the 19th verse of the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel, we are put in possession of
© Consider how Ignatius (ad Smyrn., c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39; and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep. ad Ephes. ec. 17.
f ‘Ioropet [sc. Mamlas] €repov mapddogov wept "lovoroy Thy émikAnbévTa Bapoa- Bay yeyovbs,—evidently a slip of the pen for BapoaBay roy émkdAnbevta *lovaTov (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately afterwards,)—és SyAnrhpiov gpdpuakov éumdvros Kal pndev andts dia THY Tod Kuplou xdpw wtmouelvavTos. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.
& Apol. I. c. 45.—The supposed quotations in e. 9 from the Fragment De Resurrectione (Westcott and others) are clearly references to S. Luke xxiv.,— not to 8. Mark xvi.
h lib. ili. c. x. ad fin. (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). “In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus, ef quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.” Accordingly, against 8. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 (= Evan. 72) occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already published :—Eipnvatos 6 tav*AmoatéAwy mAnoiov, ev TE mpos Tas aipeoes y/ Ad'yw ToOUTO avhveyKev Td PyToY ws MapKw eipnuevor.
24 Lreneus,—Hippolytus,—vii Council [CHAP.
the certain fact that the entire passage now under consi- deration was extant in a copy of the Gospels which was used by the Bishop of the Church of Lyons sometime about the year a.pD. 180, and which therefore cannot possibly have been written much more than a hundred years after the date of the Evangelist himself: while it may have been written by a contemporary of 8. Mark, and probably was written by one who lived immediately after his time-—Who sees not that this single piece of evidence is in itself suffi- cient to outweigh the testimony of any codex extant? It is in fact a mere trifling with words to distinguish between “Manuscript” and “ Patristic” testimony in a case like this: for (as I have already explained) the passage quoted from 8S, Mark’s Gospel by Irenzeus is to all intents and pur- ‘poses a fragment from a dated manuscript; and that MS., demonstrably older by at least one hundred and fifty years than the oldest copy of the Gospels which has come down to our times.
IV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of S. Mark were in the second century accounted an integral part of his Gospel. Hiprotyrus, Bishop of Portus near Rome (190—227), a contemporary of Irenzeus, quotes the 17th and 18th verses in his fragment IIept Xapiopatov'.
' First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—MEPI XAPIZMATON ; and by that name the fragment in question is actually de- signated in the third chapter of the (so called) “ Apostolical Constitutions,” (ra pév obv mpdra Tod Adyou etcOeucba wep) Trav Xapioudrwy, k.7.A.),—in which singular monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the “ Apostolical Consti- tutions ;” of which the iv‘ chapter is also claimed for Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such appears in the last edition of the Father’s collected works, (Hippolyti Romani que feruntur omnia Grace, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. 74.
The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of the heading,—Avardtes rav aitav aylwv ’AmroorédAwy wep) xeipoToma@r, 51d ‘Inmo- Abrou,) is part of the “ Octateuchus Clementinus,” concerning which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to his Reliquie Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquis- sime, 1856. The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact correspondence between the “ Octateuchus Clementinus” and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to ex-
m1.) of Carthage,—Acta Pilati,—Ap. Constitutions. 25
Also in his Homily on the heresy of Noetus*, Hippolytus has a plain reference to this section of S. Mark’s Gospel. To an inattentive reader, the passage alluded to might seem to be only the fragment of a Creed; but this is not the case. In the Creeds, Curist is invariably spoken of as aveNGovra: in the Scriptures, invariably as avadnpbevra. So that when Hippolytus says of Him, avaXapBaverar eis ovpavors Kal éx deEvav Ilarpos cabifera, the reference must needs be to S. Mark xvi. 19.
V. At the Seventh Counci, or CartuacE held under Cyprian, A.D. 256, (on the baptizing of Heretics,) Vincen- tius, Bishop of Thibari, (a place not far from Carthage,) in the presence of the eighty-seven assembled African bishops, quoted two of the verses under consideration ™; and Augus- tine, about a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words afresh ".
VI. The Apocryphal Acra Prxatr (sometimes called the “Gospel of Nicodemus”) Tischendorf assigns without hesi- tation to the ii century; whether rightly or wrongly I have no means of ascertaining. It is at all events a very ancient forgery, and it contains the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th verses of this chapter °.
VII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver. 15 is clearly alluded to in two places of the (so-called) ‘“ Apo- STOLICAL CoNnsTITUTIONS? ;” and that verse 16 is quoted (with
tend no further than the single chapter (the iv") specified in the text. In the meantime the fragment ep) xapioudrwy (containing S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in Lagarde’s Reliquia, ex- tending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there headed AidackaAla trav aylwy > AmooTéAwy mep) xapiouarwv.
k Ad fin. See Routh’s Opuscula, i. p. 80.
' For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf’s remark (ed. 8va. p- 407), “ Quod idem [Justinus] Christum aveAnavOdra eis Tovs ovpdvous dicit, { Apol. I. c. 50? ] minus valet.”
m «Tn nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,’” (Cyprian Opp. p- 237 [ Reliqg. Sacr. iii. p. 124,| quoting S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,)—“ In nomine meo daemonia ejicient .... super egrotos manus imponent et bene habebunt.”
2 Responsa ad Episcopos, c. 44, (Religqg. v. 248.)
° Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: also Proleg. p. lvi.
In Z. vii. ec. 7 (ad fin.),—AaBdvres éevroahy map’ adtod knpb&ar Td ebaryyéArov
26 Eusebius,— Marinus,—A phraates. [ CHAP.
no variety of reading from the Textus receptus%) in an earlier part of the same ancient work. The ‘ Constitutions” are assigned to the ii" or the iv" century *.
VIII and IX. It will be shewn in Chapter V. that Euss- Brus, the Ecclesiastical Historian, was profoundly well ac- quainted with these verses. He discusses them largely, and (as I shall prove in the chapter referred to) was by no means disposed to question their genuineness. His Church History was published a.p. 325.
Marinus also, (whoever that individual may have been,) a contemporary of Eusebius,—inasmuch as he is introduced to our notice by Eusebius himself as asking a question con- cerning the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel without a trace of misgiving as to the genuineness of that about which he inquires,—is a competent witness in their favor who has hitherto been overlooked in this discussion.
X. Tischendorf and his followers state that Jacobus Nisi- benus quotes these verses. For ‘“ Jacobus Nisibenus” read ‘‘ APHRAATES the Persian Sage,” and the statement will be correct. The history of the mistake is curious.
Jerome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, makes no mention of Jacob of Nisibis,—a famous Syrian Bishop who was present at the Council of Nicaea, a.p. 825. Gen- nadius of Marseille, (who carried on Jerome’s list to the year 495) asserts that the reason of this omission was Je- rome’s ignorance of the Syriac language; and explains that Jacob was the author of twenty-two Syriac Homilies’. Of these, there exists a very ancient Armenian translation ; which was accordingly edited as the work of Jacobus Nisi- benus with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1756. Gallandius reprinted both the Armenian and the Latin; and to Gallan- dius (vol. v.) we are referred whenever “ Jacobus Nisibenus”’ is quoted. cis BAov Tov Kéomov: and in J. viii. c. 1,—nuiv rots &moordAo1s méAAovTL Td evayyéAuov KatayyéAAew mdon TH KTivet. Observe, this immediately follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.
4 Lib. vi. c.15.—The quotation (at the beginning of id. viii.) of the 17th and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper place. Supra, p. 24.
® Scrivener’s Introduction, p. 421. * Apud Hieron. Opp. ed. Vallars., ii. 951-4.
111. | Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—dJerome. 27
But the proposed attribution of the Homilies in question, —though it has been acquiesced in for nearly 1400 years,— is incorrect. Quite lately the Syriac originals have come to light, and they prove to be the work of Aphraates, “the Persian Sage,’’—a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of the Syrian Church. In the first Homily, (which bears date A.D. 337), verses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are quoted t— yet not from the version known as the Curetonian Syriac, nor yet from the Peshito exactly "\—Here, then, is another wholly independent witness to the last twelve verses of S. Mark, coeval certainly with the two oldest copies of the Gospel extant,—B and x.
XI. Amsrosz, Archbishop of Milan (a.p. 8374—397) freely quotes this portion of the Gospel,—citing ver. 15 four times: verses 16, 17 and 18, each three times: ver. 20, once *.
XII. The testimony of Curysostom (A.p. 400) has been all but overlooked. In part of a Homily claimed for him by his Benedictine Editors, he points out that 8. Luke alone of the Evangelists describes the Ascension: S. Mat- thew and S. John not speaking of it,—S. Mark recording the event only. Then he quotes verses 19, 20. “This” (he adds) “is the end of the Gospel. Mark makes no ex- tended mention of the Ascension’.” Elsewhere he has an unmistakable reference to 8. Mark xvi. 9”.
XIII. Jerome, on a point like this, is entitled to more attention than any other Father of the Church. Living at a very early period, (for he was born in 331 and died in 420,)— endowed with extraordinary Biblical learning, — a man of excellent judgment,—and a professed Editor of
t See Dr. Wright’s ed. of “ Aphraates,” (4*°. 1869,) i. p. 21. I am entirely indebted to the learned Editor’s Preface for the information in the text.
" From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose.
x Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver. 15 and 16: vol. ii. 663 B, C quotes ver. 15 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 639 E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver. 17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes ver. 20.
Y Opp. iii. 765 A, B.
2 Kal why td ebayyéAwov todvavtiov A€yet, Bt TH Mapla mpdrn [pon]. Chrys. Opp. x. 355 B.
28 Jerome,—Augustine,—Nestorius. [CHAP.
the New Testament, for the execution of which task he enjoyed extraordinary facilities, —his testimony is most weighty. Not unaware am I that Jerome is commonly supposed to be a witness on the opposite side: concerning which mistake I shall have to speak largely in Chapter V. But it ought to be enough to point out that we should not have met with these last twelve verses in the Vulgate, had Jerome held them to be spurious*. He familiarly quotes the 9th verse in one place of his writings”; in another place he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the copies, (especially the Greek,) was found after ver. 14 the reply of the eleven Apostles, when our Saviour ‘ upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen °.”” To discuss so weak and worthless a forgery,—no trace of which is found in any MS. in existence, and of which nothing whatever is known except what Jerome here tells us,—would be to waste our time indeed. The fact re- mains, however, that Jerome, besides giving these last twelve verses a place in the Vulgate, quotes S. Mark xvi. 14, as well as ver. 9, in the course of his writings.
XIV. It was to have been expected that AuGusT1NE would quote these verses: but he more than quotes them. He brings them forward again and again ‘%,—discusses them as the work of S. Mark,—remarks that ‘‘in diebus Pascha- libus,”’ 8. Mark’s narrative of the Resurrection was publicly
® « Cogis” (he says to Pope Damasus) “ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam ; et quia inter se variant, quae sint illa quae cum Graecd consentiant veritate decernam.—Haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia ....codicum Graecorum emen- data conlatione, sed et veterum.”
b Vol. i. p. 8327 C (ed. Vallars.)
© Contra Pelagianos, 11. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5) :—“ In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxime in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine Evangelii seribitur : Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis Jesus, et exprobravit incre- dulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes: Saeculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis substantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem : ideirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam.”
4 e.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149) ; Vol. v. 988 C.—Verses 15, 16, in vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F.
III. | Cyril,— Victor,— Hesychius,— Synopsis. 29
read in the Church’. All this is notewerthy. Augustine flourished a.p. 895—430.
XV. and XVI. Another very important testimony to the genuineness of the concluding part of S. Mark’s Gospel is furnished by the unhesitating manner in which NeEstortvs, the heresiarch, quotes ver. 20; and Cyrit or ALEXANDRIA accepts his quotation, adding a few words of his own’. Let it be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the discovery of two dated codices containing the last twelve verses of S. Mark,—and that date anterior (it is impossible to say by how many years) to a.p. 430.
XVII. Vicror or Antiocu, (concerning whom [I shall have to speak very largely in Chapter V.,) flourished about A.D. 425. The critical testimony which he bears to the genuineness of these verses is more emphatic than is to be met with in the pages of any other ancient Father. It may be characterized as the most conclusive testimony which it was in his power to render.
XVIII. Hesycutius of Jerusalem, by a singular oversight, has been reckoned among the impugners of these verses. He is on the contrary their eager advocate and champion. It seems to have escaped observation that towards the close of his “Homily on the Resurrection,” (published in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, and erroneously ascribed to that Father,) Hesychius appeals to the 19th verse, and quotes it as S. Mark’s at length®. The date of Hesychius is un- certain ; but he may, I suppose, be considered to belong to the vi century. His evidence is discussed in Chapter V.
XIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a refer- ence to the Synopsis ScripruRAE SACRAE,—an ancient work
© Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.
f eterAOdvtes ydp, pnot, Svexnpvocoy tov Adyov mavTaxov. Tov Kuplov auvep- yoovTos, Kal Toy Adyov BeBasodyTos, Sid TAY emakoAovOncdvTwY onuciwy. Nesto- rius c. Orthodoxos : (Cyril. Alexand. adv. Nestorian. Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies, —79 map’ adtod Suvactela xpduevor, Siexnpitrovto kar cipydtovro tas Ocoonuetas of beomécior uadyntal. (Ibid. D.) This quotation was first noticed by Matthaei (Znthym. Zig. i. 161.)
& duotws dé kal rd wapa1g@ Mdpkw yeypaumevor’ ‘O pev ody Kipios—ex detiav Tov @eov. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 415.
30 Inaccurate Indices of Texts —Summary [cHaP.
ascribed to Athanasius", but probably not the production of that Father. It is at all events of much older date than
any of the later uncials; and it rehearses in detail the con- tents of 8. Mark xvi. 9—20+
It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic authorities ; as, by appealing to Gregentius in the vi" century, and to Gregory the Great, and Modestus, patriarch of Con- stantinople in the viit* ;—to Ven. Bede and John Damascene in the viiitt;—to Theophylact in the xit*;—to Euthymius in the xii*: but I forbear. It would add no strength to my argument that I should by such evidence support it; as the reader will admit when he has read my X™ chapter.
It will be observed then that three competent Patristic witnesses of the ii”? century,—/four of the i1i™,—six of the iv,—four of the v'*,—and two (of uncertain date, but pro- bably) of the vit,—have admitted their familiarity with these “last Twelve Verses.” Yet do they not belong to one particular age, school, or country. They come, on the con- trary, from every part of the ancient Church: Antioch and
h Athanasii Opp. vol. ii. p.181 F, 182 A. See the Prefat., pp. vii., viii.
i In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have overlooked. The neces- sity one is under, on occasions like the present, of depending to a great extent on “Indices,” is fatal; so scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be named. To judge from the Index in Oehler’s edition of Tertullian, that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times. According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no less than four- teen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9—20 at all.
Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf’s new Oxford ed. of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in Potter’s ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3 (or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, 1. 8: S. John i. 18,50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, 1.26: S. Mark i. 13, interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6,7 : —are nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at our SAVIOUR’S Baptism,—a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, 1.14),—does not appear in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), 8. Mark (i. 11), or S. Luke (ili. 22.)
k Gregentius apud Galland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in Evang.) —Modestus apud Photium cod. 275.—Johannis Damasceni Opp. (ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and Theophylact (who quotes a// the verses) and Euthy- mius 7” loc.
It. | of the Patristic Evidence. 31
Constantinople,—Hierapolis, Czesarea and Edessa,—Carthage, Alexandria and Hippo,—Rome and Portus. And thus, up- wards of nineteen early codexes have been to all intents and purposes inspected for us in various lands by unprejudiced witnesses,—seven of them at least of more ancient date than the oldest copy of the Gospels extant.
I propose to recur to this subject for an instant when the reader has been made acquainted with the decisive testimony which ancient Versions supply. But the Versions deserve a short Chapter to themselves.
Cita Pair iy.
THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.
The Peshito,—the Curetonian Syriac,—and the Recension of Thomas of Hharkel (p. 83.)\—The Vulgate (p. 34)—and the Vetus Itala (p. 85)—the Gothic (p. 35)—and the Egyptian Versions (p. 35).— Review of the Evidence up to this point, (p. 36).
Ir was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to establish in detail the Text of the Gospels, the testimony of Manuscripts is incomparably the most important of all. To early Versions, the second place was assigned. To Pa- tristic citations, the third. But it was explained that when- ever (as here) the only question to be decided is whether a considerable portion of Scripture be genuine or not, then, Patristic references yield to no class of evidence in import- ance. To which statement it must now be added that second only to the testimony of Fathers on such occasions is to be reckoned the evidence of the oldest of the Versions. The reason is obvious. (a.) We know for the most part the ap- proximate date of the principal ancient Versions of the New Testament :—(b.) Each Version is represented by at least one very ancient Codex :—and (c.) It may be safely assumed that Translators were never dependant on a single copy of the original Greek when they executed their several Transla- tions. Proceed we now to ascertain what evidence the oldest of the Versions bear concerning the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel: and first of all for the Syriac.
I. “Literary history,” (says Mr. Scrivener,) “can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for the identity of the Version of the Syriac now called the ' *Prsuiro’ with that used by the Eastern Church long be- fore the great schism had its beginning, in the native land
IV. | The “ Curetonian”’ and Philoxenian Syriac. 33
of the blessed Gospel.” The Peshito is referred by common consent to the ii"? century of our era; and is found to con- tain the verses in question.
II. This, however, is not all. Within the last thirty years, fragments of another very ancient Syriac translation of the Gospels, (called from the name of its discoverer “‘ THE CuRE- TONIAN SyRiAc,”) have come to light*: and in this transla- tion also the verses in question are found». This frag- mentary codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the v™ century. At what earlier date the Translation may have been executed,—as well as how much older the original Greek copy may have been which this translator employed,—can of course only be conjectured. But it is clear that we are listening to another truly primitive witness to the genuine- ness of the text now under consideration ;—a witness (like the last) vastly more ancient than either the Vatican Codex B, or the Sinaitic Codex §; more ancient, therefore, than any Greek copy of the Gospels in existence. We shall not be thought rash if we claim it for the iii" century.
ITI. Even this, however, does not fully represent the sum of the testimony which the Syriac language bears on this subject. Philoxenus, Monophysite Bishop of Mabug (Hiera- polis) in Eastern Syria, caused a revision of the Peshito Syriac to be executed by his Chorepiscopus Polycarp, a.p. 508 ; and by the aid of three® approved and accurate Greek manuscripts, this revised version of Polycarp was again re- vised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the monastery of Antonia at Alexandria, a.p. 616. The Hharklensian Revision, (com- monly called the “ PHILoxENIAN,’’) is therefore an extra- ordinary monument of ecclesiastical antiquity imdeed: for, being the Revision of a revised Translation of the New Testament known to have been executed from MSS. which must have been at least as old as the v century, it ex-
* Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that some more leaves of this Version have just been recovered.
> By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the last four verses,
© In the margin, against 8. Matth. xxviii. 5, Thomas writes,— In tribus
codicibus Grecis, et in uno Syriaco antique versionis, non inventum est nomen, ‘ Nazarenus.’”—Cf. ad xxvii. 35.—Adler’s WV. 7. Verss. Syrr., p. 97.
D
d4 The Jerusalem Syriac.—The Vulgate. [CHAP.
hibits the result of what may be called a collation of copies made at a time when only four of our extant uncials were in existence. Here, then, is a singularly important accumu- lation of manuscript evidence on the subject of the verses which of late years it has become the fashion to treat as spurious. And yet, neither by Polycarp nor by Thomas of Hharkel, are the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel omitted %.
To these, if I do not add the “ Jerusalem version,”—(as an independent Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sec- tions, perhaps of the v'" century, is called °,)—it is because our fourfold Syriac evidence is already abundantly sufficient. In itself, it far outweighs in respect of antiquity anything that can be shewn on the other side. Turn we next to the Churches of the West.
IV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (a.D. 3882), was the author of that famous Latin version of the Scriptures called Tor Vuteare, is known to all. It seems scarcely possible to overestimate the critical importance of such a work,—executed at such a time,—under such auspices, —and by a man of so much learning and sagacity as Jerome. When it is considered that we are here presented with the results of a careful examination of the best Greek Manu- scripts to which a competent scholar had access in the middle of the fourth century,—(and Jerome assures us that
4 That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the Gospels relegated to the Philoxenian margin, should occur the worthless supplement which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch. viii.)—is not at all surprising. Of these 437 readings and notes, 91 are not found in White’s Edition; while 105 (the supplement in question being one of them) are found in White only. This creates a suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must exhibit traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text. (So Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of some of those marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to refer to Adler’s learned work, (pp. 79—134) and examine the notes on the following places :—S. Matth. xv. 21: xx. 28 (=D): xxvi.7. S.Mk.i.16: xii. 42. 8. Lu. x.17(=BD): 42(=BwyL): xi.1: 53. S.Jo. ii. 1 [3] (—=N): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly =B): x. 8, &e. &e.
© This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, 1861-4, under the following title :—Zvangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vati- cano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit, Prolegomenis et Glossario adornavit, Comes FRANCISCUS MINISCALCHI ERIZZO.
Iv. | The old Latin, the Gothic, and the Egyptian. 35
he consulted several,)—we learn to survey with diminished complacency our own slender stores (if indeed any at all exist) of corresponding antiquity. It is needless to add that the Vulgate contains the disputed verses: that from no copy of this Version are they away. Now, in such | a matter as this, Jerome’s testimony is very weighty indeed.
V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much older translation, generally known as the Vetus Ivana. This Old Latin, which is of African origin and of almost Apostolic antiquity, (supposed of the ii? century,) conspires with the Vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the genuineness of the end of S. Mark’s Gospel‘ :—an emphatic witness that in the African province, from the earliest time, no doubt whatever was entertained concerning the genuine- ness of these last twelve verses.
VI. The next place may well be given to the venerable version of the Gothic Bishop Ulphilas,—a.p. 350. Himself a Cappadocian, Ulphilas probably derived his copies from Asia Minor. His version is said to have been exposed to certain corrupting influences ; but the unequivocal evidence which it bears to the last verses of S. Mark is at least un- impeachable, and must be regarded as important in the highest degree®. The oldest extant copy of the Goruic of Ulphilas is assigned to the v" or early in the vi century : and the verses in question are there also met with.
VII. and VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next for notice: their testimony being so exceedingly ancient and respectable. The Mempuiric, or dialect of Lower Egypt, (less properly called the ‘“ Coptic” version), which is assigned to the iv" or v‘" century, contains S. Mark xvi. 9—20.—Fragments of the Tuesarc, or dialect of Upper Egypt, (a distinct version and of considerably earlier date,
f It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that one ancient codex, the ‘Codex Bobbiensis” (k), which Tregelles describes as “a revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS. is discernible,” [Printed text, &c. p. 170.] and which therefore may not be cited in the present controversy,—exhibits after ver. 8 a Latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in Cod. L.
& “Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint, vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.” Mai, Nova Patt. Bibl. iv. 256.
D 2
36 The Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Georgian. [CHAP.
less properly called the “ Sahidic,”) survive in MSS. of very nearly the same antiquity: and one of these frag- ments happily contains the last verse of the Gospel accord- ing to S. Mark. The Thebaic version is referred to the ii century.
After this mass of evidence, it will be enough to record concerning the Armenian version, that it yields inconstant testimony: some of the MSS. ending at ver. 8; others putting after these words the subscription, (evayyéAvov Kara Mapxov,) and then giving the additional verses with a new subscription: others going on without any break to the end. This version may be as old as the v century; but like the Ethiopic [iv—vii?] and the Georgian [vi?] it comes to us in codices of comparatively recent date. All this makes it impossible for us to care much for its testi- mony. The two last-named versions, whatever their dis- advantages may be, at least bear constant witness to the genuineness of the verses in dispute.
1. And thus we are presented with a mass of additional evidence, —so various, so weighty, so multitudinous, so venerable,—in support of this disputed portion of the Gos- pel, that it might well be deemed in itself decisive.
2. For these Versions do not so much shew what indi- viduals held, as what Churches have believed and taught concerning the sacred Text,—mighty Churches in Syria and Mesopotamia, in Africa and Italy, in Palestine and Egypt.
3. We may here, in fact, conveniently review the progress which has been hitherto made in this investigation. And in order to bar the door against dispute and cavil, let us be content to waive the testimony of Papias as precarious, and that of Justin Martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive. Let us frankly admit that the citation of Vincentius a Thibari at the vii Carthaginian Council is sufficiently in- exact to make it unsafe to build upon it. The “ Acta Pi- lati” and the “ Apostolical Constitutions,” since their date is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the iv century only, and not for the iii™. And now, how will the evi- dence stand for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel ?
Nips + hanlity a
Iv. ] Review of the Evidence up to this point. 37
(a) In the v** century, to which Codex A and Codex C are referred, (for Codex D is certainly later,) at least three famous Greeks and the most illustrious of the Latin Fathers, —(four authorities in all,)—are observed to recognise these verses.
(>) In the iv century, (to which Codex B and Codex probably belong, five Greek writers, one Syriac, and two Latin Fathers,—besides the Vulgate, Gothic and Mem- phitic Versions,—(e/even authorities in all,)—testify to fami- har acquaintance with this portion of S. Mark’s Gospel.
(c) In the ii century, (and by this time MS. evidence has entirely forsaken us,) we find Hippolytus, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Thebaic Version, bearing plain testimony that at that early period, in at least three distinct provinces of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever attached to these verses. Lastly,—
(d) In the ii century, Irenzeus, the Peshito, and the Italic Version as plainly attest that in Gaul, in Meso- potamia and in the African province, the same verses were unhesitatingly received within a century (more or less) of the date of the inspired autograph of the Evan- gelist himself.
4. Thus, we are in possession of the testimony of at least siz independent witnesses, of a date considerably anterior to the earliest extant Codex of the Gospels. They are all of the best class. They deliver themselves in the most un- equivocal way. And their testimony to the genuineness of these Verses is unfaltering. .
5. It is clear that nothing short of direct adverse evidence of the weightiest kind can sensibly affect so formidable an array of independent authorities as this. What must the evidence be which shall set it entirely aside, and induce us to believe, with the most recent editors of the inspired Text, that the last chapter of S.Mark’s Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired author, ended abruptly at ver. 8 ?
The grounds for assuming that his “last Twelve Verses” are spurious, shall be exhibited in the ensuing chapter.
CHAPTER YV,
THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS.
The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p.39).—The miscon- ception concerning Eusebius (p.41).—The oversight concerning Jerome (p. 51) ;—also concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, {or else Severus of Antioch) (p. 57) ;—and concerning Victor of Antioch
(p. 59).
Ir would naturally follow to shew that manuscript evi- dence confirms the evidence of the ancient Fathers and ,of the early Versions of Scripture. But it will be more satis- factory that I should proceed to examine without more delay the testimony, which, (as it is alleged,) is borne by a cloud of ancient Fathers against the last twelve verses of 'S.Mark. “The absence of this portion from some, from “many, or from most copies of his Gospel, or that it was not written by S. Mark himself,’ (says Dr. Tregelles,) “is at- _tested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, "Severus of Antioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especially Greeks*.” The same Fathers are appealed to by Dr. David- - son, who adds to the list Euthymius; and by Tischendorf and Alford, who add the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem. They also refer to “many ancient Scholia.” ‘These verses” (says Tischendorf) “are not recognised by the sections of Ammonius nor by the Canons of Eusebius : Epiphanius and Ceesarius bear witness to the fact”.” “In the Catenz on Mark” (proceeds Davidson) ‘the section is not explained. Nor is there any trace of acquaintance with it on the part of Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria ;’”—a remark which others have made also; as if it were a surprising cir- cumstance that Clement of Alexandria, who appears to have no reference to the last chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel, should
* Account of the Printed Text, p. 247. > Gr. Test. p. 322.
CHAP. V. | Twelve alleged hostile Witnesses. 39
be also without any reference to the last chapter of S. Mark’s: as if, too, it were an extraordinary, thing that Clement of Rome should have omitted to quote from the last chapter of S. Mark, —seeing that the same Clement does not quote from 8. Mark’s Gospel at all.... The alacrity displayed by learned writers in accumulating hostile evidence, is certainly worthy of a better cause. Strange, that their united industry should have been attended with such very unequal success when their object was to exhibit the evidence in favour of the present portion of Scripture.
(1) Eusebius then, and (2) Jerome; (8) Gregory of Nyssa and (4) Hesychius of Jerusalem; (5) Severus of Antioch, (6) Victor of Antioch, and (7) Euthymius :—Do the accom- plished critics just quoted,—Doctors Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Davidson, really mean to tell us that “it is attested”? by these seven Fathers that the concluding section of 8. Mark’s Gospel “was not written by S. Mark himself?” Why, there is not one of them who says so: while some of them say the direct reverse. But let us goon. It is, I suppose, because there are Twelve Verses to be demolished that the list is further eked out with the names of (8) Ammonius, (9) Epi- phanius, and (10) Cesarius,—to say nothing of (11) the anonymous authors of Catenz, and (12) “later writers, es- pecially Greeks.”
I. I shall examine these witnesses one by one: but it will be convenient in the first instance to call attention to the evidence borne by,
Grecory or Nyssa.
This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself as follows in his second “ Homily on the Resurrection ° ;”— “Tn the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, how- ever, this also is added,—‘ Now when He was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.’”
© °Ey mev trois axpiBeorepors ayTvypadois Td KaT& Mdpkov evaryyéAlov méxpe Tov epoBodvto yap, €xer TO TEAOS. ev BE Tiot TpdoKETa Kal TadTA avaoTas dé mpwt mpdtn caBBdtwy (sic) epdvn mpatov Mapia Th MarySadnrij ap’ fs éxBeBAR- ket €m7d, dayudvia, Opp. (ed. 1638) iii, 411 B.
40 Mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa. [ CHAP.
That this testimony should have been so often appealed to as proceeding from Gregory of Nyssa‘, is little to the credit of modern scholarship. One would have supposed that the gravity of the subject,—the importance of the issue, —the sacredness of Scripture, down to its minutest jot and tittle—would have ensured extraordinary caution, and in- duced every fresh assailant of so considerable a portion of the Gospel to be very sure of his ground before reiterating what his predecessors had delivered. And yet it is evident that not one of the recent writers on the subject can have investigated this matter for himself. It is only due to their known ability to presume that had they taken ever so little pains with the foregoing quotation, they would have found out their mistake.
(1.) For, in the first place, the second “ Homily on the Resurrection” printed in the iii™* volume of the works of Gregory of Nyssa, (and which supplies the critics with their quotation,) is, as every one may see who will take the trouble to compare them, word for word the same Homily which Combefis in his “ Novum Auctarium,” and Gallandius in his “ Bibliotheca Patrum” printed as the work of Hesy- chius, and vindicated to that Father, respectively in 1648 and 1776*. Now, if a critic chooses to risk his own reputa- tion by maintaining that the Homily in question is indeed by Gregory of Nyssa, and is not by Hesychius,—well and good. But since the Homily can have had but one author, it is surely high time that one of these two claimants should be altogether dropped from this discussion.
(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same Homily is observed to reappear, word for word, under the name of “Severus of Antioch,” and to be unsuspiciously printed as his by Montfaucon in his ‘ Bibliotheca Coisli- niana” (1715), and by Cramer in his ‘“ Catena®” (1844),— although it may very reasonably become a question among critics whether Hesychius of Jerusalem or Severus of An-
4 Tregelles, Printed Text, p. 248, also in Horne’s Introd. iv. 434-6. So Nor- ton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &e.
* Nov. Auct. i. '748-74.— Bibl. Vett. PP. xi. 221-6.
* Bibl. Coisl. pp. 68-75.— Catena, i. 243-51.
v.] The Evidence of Eusebius. 41
tioch was the actual author of the Homily in question’, yet it is plain that critics must make their election between the two names; and not bring them doth forward. No one, I say, has any right to go on quoting “Severus” and “ Hesy- chius,’—as Tischendorf and Dr. Davidson are observed to do :—“ Gregory of Nyssa” and “Severus of Antioch,’’—as Dr. Tregelles is found to prefer.
(3.) In short, here are three claimants for the authorship of one and the same Homily. To whichever of the three we assign it,—(and competent judges have declared that there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Hesychius rather than to Severus,—while no one is found to suppose that Gregory of Nyssa was its author,)—who will not admit that no further mention must be made of the other two?
(4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth the name of ‘Gregory of Nyssa” must be banished from this discussion. So must the name of “Severus of Antioch.” The memorable passage which begins,—‘“In the more ac- curate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid,’’’—is found in a Homily which was probably written by Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem,— a writer of the vit century. I shall have to recur to his work by-and-by. The next name is
EvsEBIvUs,
II. With respect to whom the case is altogether dif- ferent. What that learned Father has delivered concerning the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel requires to be examined with attention, and must be set forth much more in detail. And yet, I will so far anticipate what is about to be offered, as to say at once that if any one supposes that Kusebius has anywhere plainly “stated that it is wanted in many MSS. ®,” —he is mistaken. Eusebius nowhere says so. ‘The reader’s attention is invited to a plain tale.
It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by
f Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean Payne Smith’s Cat. of Syrr. MSS. p. 411] who died A.D. 1171) in his Haposition of S. Mark’s Gospel (published at Dublin by Dudley Loftus, 1672, 4to.) seems (at p. 59) to give this homily to Severus.—I have really no independent opi- nion on the subject. & Alford, Greek Test. i. p. 433.
42 The lost work by Eusebius of Questiones [CHAP.
Cardinal Angelo Mai® with a few fragmentary specimens of a lost work of Eusebius on the (so-called) Inconsistencies in the Gospels, from a MS. in the Vatican’. These, the learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in his “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca*;’? and hither we are in- variably referred by those who cite Eusebius as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of the second Gospel.
It is much to be regretted that we are still as little as ever in possession of the lost work of Eusebius. It appears to have consisted of three Books or Parts; the former two (addressed ‘to Stephanus”) being discussions of difficulties at the beginning of the Gospel,—the last (“to Marinus”) relating to difficulties in its concluding chapters! The Author’s plan, (as usual in such works), was, first, to set forth a difficulty in the form of a Question ; and straight- way, to propose a Solution of it,—which commonly assumes the form of a considerable dissertation. But whether we are at present in possession of so much as a single entire speci- men of these ‘‘ Inquiries and Resolutions” exactly as it came from the pen of Eusebius, may reasonably be doubted. That
h Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1—101.
i At p. 217, (ed. 1847), Mai designates it as “Codex Vat. Palat. exx pul- cherrimus, szeculi ferme x.” At p. 268, he numbers it rightly,—ccxx. We are there informed that the work of Eusebius extends from fol. 61 to 96 of the Codex.
k Vol. iv. pp. 219—309.
! See Nova P. P. Bibliotheca, iv. 255.—That it was styled “ Inquiries with their Resolutions” (Zynrfjuara kal Adcess), Eusebius leads us to suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name, (Demonstr. Huang. lib. vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus, Mai, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ (Mai, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so designate the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual title is correctly indicated by Jerome,—De Evangeliorum Diaphoniéa : “ Edi- dit” (he says) “de Evangeliorum Diaphonid,” (De Scriptt. Iilustt. c. 81.) Again, Atapwrla EvayyeAiwy, (Hieron. in Matth. i. 16.) Consider also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given below, p. 44, note (q). ‘Indicated’ by Jerome, I say: for the entire title was probably, Mep) ris Soxovans év tots evayyeAlois K.7.A. Siapwrvlas. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by Cramer (i. p. 266), quotes an opinion of Eusebius év 7@ pds Mapivoy wep) ris doxovans ev trois evayycAlos mep THs avacrdcews Siapwvias: words which are extracted from the same MS. by Simon, Hist. Crit. N. T. p. 89.
v. | ad Stephanum” and “ ad Marinum.” 43
the work which Mai has brought to light is but a highly condensed exhibition of the original, (and scarcely that,) its very title shews; for it is headed,— An abridged selection from the ‘Inquiries and Resolutions [of difficulties] in the Gospels’ by Eusebius™”’ Only some of the original Ques- tions, therefore, are here noticed at all: and even these have been subjected to so severe a process of condensation and abridgment, that in some instances amputation would pro- bably be a more fitting description of what has taken place. Accordingly, what were originally two Books or Parts, are at present represented by XVI. ‘“ Inquiries,” &c., addressed “to Stephanus ;” while the concluding Book or Part is re- presented by IV. more, “‘to Marinus,’’—of which, the jfirst relates to our Lorp’s appearing to Mary Magdalene after His Resurrection. Now, since the work which Eusebius ad- dressed to Marinus is found to have contained “ Inquiries, with their Resolutions, concerning our Saviour’s Death and Resurrection",’—while a quotation professing to be de- rived from “the thirteenth chapter” relates to Simon the Cyrenian bearing our Saviour’s Cross ° ;—it is obvious that the original work must have been very considerable, and that what Mai has recovered gives an utterly inadequate idea of its extent and importance’. It is absolutely neces-
™ -Exdoyh ev cuvtéum ex Tov cuvTEbévtwy jmd EvoeBlov mpds Zrepavov [and mpds Mapivov] mep) trav ev tors EvayyeAlois Sntnudtov Kat Aicewr. bid. pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes facing the title of vol. i. ed. 1825.)
n EicéBus.... ev Tats mpds Mapivov én rats wept Tod Oelov wdOous kal Tijs dvarrdcews &nthoeor Kad exAvoect, «.T.A. I quote the place from the less known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to Severus of Antioch : but it occurs also in Corderii Cat. in Joan. p.436. (See Mai, iv. 299.)
° This passage is too grand to be withheld :—Od yap jy Kids Tis ev TH WéAE "lovdalwy, (s pnow EvoéBws kepadraly ty mpds Mapivoy,) Tb Kata Tod diaBdAov tpdmaoyv Tov oravpdy Baordoa’ GAA’ 5 e& a&ypod, ds pndev emikekowdyyke TH Kara Xpiorod piapovia. (Possini Cat. in Marcum, p. 343.)
P Mai, iv. p.299.—The Catenz, inasmuch as their compilers are observed to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently full of disjecta mem- bra of the work. These are recognisable for the most part by their form ; but sometimes they actually retain the name of their author. Accordingly, Catenz have furnished Mai with a considerable body of additional materials ; which (as far as a MS. Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A. sew Vat. 1611,] enabled him,) he has edited with considerable industry ; throwing them into a kind of Supplement. (Vol.iv. pp. 268—282, and pp. 283—298.) It is only surprising
44 How Eusebius proposed to reconcile [ CHAP.
sary that all this should be clearly apprehended by any one who desires to know exactly what the alleged evidence of Eusebius concerning the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel is worth,—as I will explain more fully by-and-by. Let it, however, be candidly admitted that there seems to be no reason for supposing that whenever the lost work of Euse- bius comes to light, (and it has been seen within about 300 years’) it will exhibit anything essentially different from what is contained in the famous passage which has given rise to so much debate, and which may be exhibited in English as follows. It is put in the form of a reply to one “ Marinus,”’ who is represented as asking, first, the fol- lowing question :—
“ How is it, that, according to Matthew [xxviii. 1], the Saviour appears to have risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath ;’ but, according to Mark [xvi. 9], ‘early the first day of the week’ ?”’— Eusebius answers,
“ This difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for
that with the stores at his command, Mai has not contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject. It would not be difficult to indicate sun- dry passages which he has overlooked. Neither indeed can it be denied that the learned Cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner. He does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp.357-8—262—283 —295, is to be found in the Catena of Corderius at pp. 448-9—449—450—457. —He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of John Xiphilinus, (Cod. Vat. p- 160,) what he might have found in Possinus ; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) He was evidently unacquainted with Cramer’s work, though it had been pub- lished 3 (if not 7) years before his own,—else, at p. 299, instead of quoting Simon, he would have quoted Cramer’s Catene, i. 266.—It was in his power to solve his own shrewd doubt, (at p. 299,—concerning the text of a passage in Possinus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus published was tran- scribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican. (Possini Prefat. p.ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p- 364 of the Catena of Possinus. In countless places he might, by such refers ences, have improved his often manifestly faulty text.
4 Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (Opp. ii. 116.) to Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis) “scire te vult in Siciliaé inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cxsariensis de Dvangeliorum Diaphonid, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.” The letter is dated 1563.
I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will be found that Eusebius digested his “ Questions” wnder heads: e.g. wept rod thou, Kal Tis SoKovons diapwvrias (p. 264): wept rhs SoKxovans wept THs dvacracews Sia~ pwvrias. (p. 299.)
v.] S. Matthew xxeviit. 1 and 8S. Mark «vi. 9. 45
getting rid of the entire passage’, will say that it is not met with in ai/ the copies of Mark’s Gospel: the accurate copies, at all events, making the end of Mark’s narrative come after the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said, ‘ Fear not ye! Ye seek Jusus of Nazareth,’ &c.: to which the Evangelist adds,—‘ And when they heard it, they fled, and said nothing to any man, for they were afraid.’ For at those words, in almost all copies of the Gospel according to Mark, comes the end. What follows, (which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, cer- tainly not in all,) might be dispensed with ; especially if it should prove to contradict the record of the other Evange- lists. This, then, is what a person will say who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem.
“But another, on no account daring to reject anything whatever which is, under whatever circumstances, met with in the text of the Gospels, will say that here are two read- ings, (as is so often the case elsewhere ;) and that both are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, this reading is not held to be genuine rather than ¢hat ; nor that than this.” ;
It will be best to exhibit the whole of what Eusebius has written on this subject,—as far as we are permitted to know it,—continuously. He proceeds :—
“ Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our business is to interpret the sense of the passage*®. And cer- tainly, if I divide the meaning into two, we shall find that it is not opposed to what Matthew says of our Saviour’s having risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath.’ For Mark’s ex-
* I translate according to the sense,—the text being manifestly corrupt. Thy TovTo Packovoay mepikomny is probably a gloss, explanatory of 7d kepdAaioy av7é. In strictness, the cepdAaoy begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end of the Gospel. There are 48 such kepdAqa in S.Mark. But this term was often loosely employed by the Greek Fathers, (as “ capitulum ” by the Latins,) to denote a passage of Scripture, and it is evidently so used here. Tepixomy, on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true technical meaning, and to denote the liturgical section, or “ lesson.”
* "Avdyvwoua (like repixomy, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to be here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgical section, or “lectio.’ See Suicer, 2m voce.
46 The critical suggestions of [CHAP.
pression, (‘ Now when He was risen early the first day of the week,’) we shall read with a pause, putting a comma after ‘Now when He was risen,’—the sense of the words which follow being kept separate. Thereby, we shall refer [Mark’s] ‘when He was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of the Sab- bath, (for it was then that He rose); and all that comes after, expressive as it is of a distinct notion, we shall con- nect with what follows; (for it was ‘ early, the first day of the week,’ that ‘He appeared to Mary Magdalene.) This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ [Jesus] appeared to the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also says that He ap- peared to her early: not that He rose early, but long before, (according to that of Matthew, ‘in the end of the Sabbath :’ for though He rose then, He did not appear to Mary then, but ‘early.’) In a word, two distinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of the Resurrection,— which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath ;’ secondly, the season of our Saviour’s Appearing,—which was ‘early.’ The for- mer ‘', Mark writes of when he says, (it requires to be read with a pause,)—‘ Now, when He was risen.’ Then, after a comma, what follows is to be spoken,—‘ Early, the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils".’””——Such is the entire pas- sage. Little did the learned writer anticipate what bitter fruit his words were destined to bear !
1. Let it be freely admitted that what precedes is caleu- lated at first sight to occasion nothing but surprise and perplexity. For, in the first place, there really is no problem to sole. The discrepancy suggested by “ Marinus” at the outset, is plainly imaginary, the result (chiefly) of a strange misconception of the meaning of the Evangelist’s Greek, —as in fact no one was ever better aware than Eusebius himself. ‘These places of the Gospels would never have occasioned any difficulty,” he writes in the very next page,
‘ The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement and depravation here.
* Mai, Bibl. P.P. Nova, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the original of this passage is given in the Appendix (B).
v. | Eusebius, remarked upon. 47
(but it is the commencement of his reply to the second ques- tion of Marinus,)—‘“‘if people would but abstain from as- suming that Matthew’s phrase (6Wyé caSBatwv) refers to the evening of the Sabbath-day : whereas, (in conformity with the established idiom of the language,) it obviously refers to an advanced period of the ensuing night.” He pro- ceeds :—“ The self-same moment therefore, or very nearly the self-same, is intended by the Evangelists, only under different names: and there is no discrepancy whatever be- tween Matthew’s,—‘in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,’ and John’s— ‘The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalen early, when it was yet dark.” The Evangelists indicate by dif- ferent expressions one and the same moment of time, but ina broad and general way.” And yet, if Eusebius knew all this so well, why did he not say so at once, and close the discussion? I really cannot tell; except on one hypothesis, —which, although at first it may sound somewhat extraordi- nary, the more I think of the matter, recommends itself to my acceptance the more. I suspect, then, that the discussion we have just been listening to, is, essentially, not an original production : but that Eusebius, having met with the sugges- tion in some older writer, (in Origen probably,) reproduced it in language of his own,—doubtless because he thought it ingenious and interesting, but not by any means because he regarded it as true. Except on some such theory, I am utterly unable to understand how Eusebius can have written so inconsistently. His admirable remarks just quoted, are obviously a full and sufficient answer,—the proper answer in fact,—to the proposed difficulty: and it is a memorable circumstance that the ancients generally were so sensible of this, that they are found to have invariably * substituted
v Mai, iv. 257. So far, I have given the substance only of what Eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity. It follows,—déate rby abrby cxeddv voeio- Oar Kaipdy, } Tov oMddpa eyyvs, mapa Tors evaryyeAtoTais Siapdpurs dvduacr TeTNPN- pevov. undév te diapeper MarOatoy ipnedta “ dve—tdpov” [ xxviii. 1.] "Iwdvvov ghoavros “TH 5é wiG—Eri ovens oKotlas.” [xx. 1.] mAaTuKas yap Eva Kal Toy abtov SnAodor xpdvov diapdpors fhuaot.—For the principal words in the text, see the Appendix (B) ad fin.
* LT allude to the following places :—Combefis, Nouwm Auctarium, col. 780.
48 The strangeness of what Eusebius [ CHAP.
what Eusebius wrote in reply to the second question of Marinus for what he wrote in reply to the first; in other words, for the dissertation which is occasioning us all this difficulty.
2. But next, even had the discrepancy been real, the remedy for it which is here proposed, and which is advo- cated with such tedious emphasis, would probably prove satisfactory to no one. In fact, the entire method advocated in the foregoing passage is hopelessly vicious. The writer begins by advancing statements which, if he believed them to be true, he must have known are absolutely fatal to the verses in question. This done, he sets about discussing the possibility of reconciling an isolated expression in S. Mark’s Gospel with another in 8S. Matthew’s: just as if on that depended the genuineness or spuriousness of the entire con- text: as if, in short, the major premiss in the discussion were some such postulate as the following :—‘‘ Whatever in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely consistent with something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded as genuine.” Did then the learned Archbishop of Czesarea really suppose that a comma judiciously thrown into the empty scale might at any time suffice to restore the equili- brium, and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of almost every MS. of the Gospels extant ? Why does he not at least deny the truth of the alleged facts to which he began by giving currency, if not approval; and which, so long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted, render all further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory ? As before, I really cannot tell,—except on the hypothesis which has been already hazarded.
3. Note also, (for this is not the least extraordinary fea- ture of the case,) what vague and random statements those are which we have been listening to. The entire section
—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei, Anectt. Grac. ii. 62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195 fol. 165.—Cod. Coislin, 23, (published by Cramer, Catt. i. 251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T, i. 4, fol. 169.—Cod. Bodl. Laud. Gr. 33, fol. 79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this subject will do well to begin by reading Simon Hist. Crit. du N. T. p. 89. See Mai’s foot-note, iv. p. 257.
v. | has suggested concerning these Verses. 49
(S. Mark xvi. 9—20,) “is not met with in all the copies:” at all events not ‘in the accurate” ones. Nay, it is “met with seldom.” In fact, it is absent from “almost all” copies. But, — Which of these four statements is to stand? The first is comparatively unimportant. Not so the second. The last two, on the contrary, would be absolutely fatal,—if trust- worthy? But are they trustworthy ?
To this question only one answer can be returned. The exaggeration is so gross that it refutes itself. Had it been merely asserted that the verses in question were wanting in many of the copies,—even had it been insisted that the best copies were without them,—well and good: but to assert that, in the beginning of the fourth century, from “almost all” copies of the Gospels they were away,—is palpably untrue. What had become then of the MSS. from which the Syriac, the Latin, a// the ancient Versions were made? How is the contradictory evidence of every copy of the Gospels in exist- ence but two to be accounted for? With Irenzus and Hip- polytus, with the old Latin and the Vulgate, with the Syriac, and the Gothic, and the Egyptian versions to refer to, we are able to assert that the author of such a statement was guilty of monstrous exaggeration. We are reminded of the loose and random way in which the Fathers,—(giants in Interpretation, but very children in the Science of Textual Criticism,)—are sometimes observed to speak about the state of the Text in their days. We are reminded, for instance, of the confident assertion of an ancient Critic that the true reading in 8. Luke xxiv. 13 is not “ three-score” but “an hundred and three-score ;”’ for that so “‘the accurate copies”’ used to read the place, besides Origen and Eusebius. And yet (as I have elsewhere explained) the reading éxarov kat é€jxovta is altogether impossible. ‘ Apud nos mixta sunt omnia,” is Jerome’s way of adverting to an evil which, serious as it was, was yet not nearly so great as he repre- sents; viz. the unauthorized introduction into one Gospel of what belongs of right to another. And so in a multitude of other instances. The Fathers are, in fact, constantly ob- served to make critical remarks about the ancient copies which simply cannot be correct.
E
mo oes
50 Eusebius not adverse to 8. Mark xvi.9—20. [cHar.
And yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be it observed, is clearly not Eusebius. It is evident that he has nothing to say against the genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. Those random statements about the copies with which he began, do not even purport to express his own sentiments. Nay, Husebius in a manner repudiates them; for he introduces them with a phrase which separates them from himself: and, ‘“ This then is what a person will say,’—is the remark with which he finally dismisses them. It would, in fact, be to make this learned Father stultify himself to suppose that he proceeds gravely to discuss a portion of Scripture which he had already deliberately re- jected as spurious. But, indeed, the evidence before us effectually precludes any such supposition. ‘Here are two readings,” he says, ‘“‘(as is so often the case elsewhere :) both of which are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faith- ful and pious, ¢his reading is not held to be genuine rather than that; nor that than this.’ And thus we seem to be presented with the actual opinion of Eusebius, as far as it can be ascertained from the present passage,—if indeed he is to be thought here to offer any personal opinion on the subject at all; which, for my own part, I entirely doubt. But whether we are at liberty to infer the actual sentiments of this Father from anything here delivered or not, quite
' certain at least is it that to print only the first half of the _ passage, (as Tischendorf and Tregelles have done,) and then
to give the reader to understand that he is reading the adverse testimony of Eusebius as to the genuineness of the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, is nothing else but to misrepresent
* the facts of the case; and, however unintentionally, to de-
ceive those who are unable to verify the quotation for themselves.
It has been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have re- cognised the verses in question as genuine, because a scho- lium purporting to be his has been cited by Matthaei from a Catena at Moscow, in which he appears to assert that “according to Mark,” our Saviour “is not recorded to have appeared to His Disciples after His Resurrection :’’ whereas in 8. Mark xvi. 14 it is plainly recorded that “ Afterwards
wi The Testimony of Jerome. 51
He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat at meat.’? May I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the pro- posed inference, and shall continue to feel so, until I know something more about the scholium in question? Up to the time when this page is printed I have not succeeded in ob- taining from Moscow the details I wish for: but they must be already on the way, and I propose to embody the result in a “ Postscript”? which shall form the last page of the Appendix to the present volume.
Are we then to suppose that there was no substratum of truth in the allegations to which Eusebius gives such pro- minence in the passage under discussion? By no means. The mutilated state of S. Mark’s Gospel in the Vatican Codex (B) and especially in the Sinaitic Codex (x) suffi- ciently establishes the contrary. Let it be freely conceded, (but in fact it has been freely conceded already,) that there must have existed in the time of Eusebius many copies of S. Mark’s Gospel which were without the twelve concluding verses. I do but insist that there is nothing whatever in that circumstance to lead us to entertain one serious doubt as to the genuineness of these verses. I am but concerned to maintain that there is nothing whatever in the evidence which has hitherto come before us,—certainly not in the evidence of Eusebius,—to induce us to believe that they are a spurious addition to 8S. Mark’s Gospel.
III. We have next to consider what
JEROME
has delivered on this subject. So great a name must needs command attention in any question of Textual Criticism : and it is commonly pretended that Jerome pronounces em- phatically against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to 8. Mark. A little attention to the actual testimony borne by this Father will, it is thought, suffice to exhibit it in a wholly unexpected light; and in- duce us to form an entirely different estimate of its prac- tical bearing upon the present discussion.
It will be convenient that I should premise that it is in one of his many exegetical Epistles that Jerome discusses this matter. A lady named Hedibia, inhabiting the furthest
E2
52 Jerome’s account of his usual method. [CHAP.
extremity of Gaul, and known to Jerome only by the ardour of her piety, had sent to prove him with hard questions. He resolves her difficulties from Bethlehem’: and I may be allowed to remind the reader of what is found to have been Jerome’s practice on similar occasions,—which, to judge from his writings, were of constant occurrence. In fact, Apodemius, who brought Jerome the Twelve problems from Hedibia, brought him Eleven more from a noble neighbour of hers, Algasia* Once, when a single mes- senger had conveyed to him out of the African province a quantity of similar interrogatories, Jerome sent two Egyp- tian monks the following account of how he had proceeded in respect of the inquiry,—(it concerned 1 Cor. xv. 51,)— which they had addressed to him :—‘ Being pressed for time, I have presented you with the opinions of all the Commentators; for the most part, translating their very words; in order both to get rid of your question, and to put you in possession of ancient authorities on the subject.” This learned Father does not even profess to have been in the habit of delivering his own opinions, or speaking his own sentiments on such occasions. ‘This has been hastily dictated,”’ he says in conclusion,—(alluding to his constant practice, which was to dictate, rather than to write,)— “in order that I might lay before you what have been the opinions of learned men on this subject, as well as the argu- ments by which they have recommended their opinions. My own authority, (who am but nothing,) is vastly inferior to that of our predecessors in the Lorn.” Then, after spe- cial commendation of the learning of Origen and Eusebius, and the valuable Scriptural expositions of many more,— “ My plan,” (he says,) ‘‘is to read the ancients; to prove all things, to hold fast that which is good; and to abide stedfast in the faith of the Catholic Church.—I must now dictate replies, either original or at second-hand, to other Questions which lie before me*.” We are not surprised, after this straightforward avowal of what was the method
y Ep. exx. Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811— 43. * Ibid. p. 844. * Ibid. p.793—810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.
v.] He is shewn to be here a Copyist of Eusebius. 58
on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover that, instead of hearing Jerome addressing Hedibia,— (who had interrogated him concerning the very problem which is at present engaging our attention,)—we find ourselves only listening to Eusebius over again, addressing Warinus.
“This difficulty admits of a two-fold solution,” Jerome begins ; as if determined that no doubt shall be entertained as to the source of his inspiration. Then, (making short work of the tedious disquisition of Eusebius,)—‘ Hither we shall reject the testimony of Mark, which is met with in scarcely any copies of the Gospel,—almost all the Greek codices being without this passage :—(especially since it seems to narrate what contradicts the other Gospels :)—or else, we shall reply that both Evangelists state what is true : Matthew, when he says that our Lorp rose ‘late in the week :’ Mark,—when he says that Mary Magdalene saw Him ‘early, the first day of the week.’ For the passage must be thus pointed,—‘ When He was risen:’ and presently, after a pause, must be added,—‘ Early, the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ He therefore who had risen late in the week, according to Matthew,—Himself, early the first day of the week, according to Mark, appeared to Mary Magdalene. And this is what John also means, shewing that it was early on the next day that He ap- peared.” —To understand how faithfully in what precedes Jerome treads in the footsteps of Eusebius, it is absolutely necessary to set the Latin of the one over against the Greek of the other, and to compare them. In order to facilitate this operation, I have subjoined both originals at foot of the page: from which it will be apparent that Jerome is here not so much adopting the sentiments of Eusebius as simply translating his words ».
> «Hujus questionis duplex solutio est. [Todrov Serrh by ety Avots.| Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur [omavlws vy tiot pepdueva | Evangeliis, omnibus Grecie libris pene hee capitulum [7d Kke@dAaov avd] in fine non habentibus; [ev tour@ yap oxeddy ev dmaci tois avtiypdpos Tov Kata Mdpkov evaryyeAlou mepiyéypamta 7d TéAos|; presertim cum diversa atque contraria EKvangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [uaAiora elmep Exolev GyTiAoylay TH TOY AoimGy edaryyeAcT@v waptupia.| Aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [éxarépay mapadextéay trapxewv,..cvyxwpoupevov
54: Hedibia’s questions to Jerome [CHAP.
This, however, is not by any means the strangest feature of the case. That Jerome should have availed himself ever so freely of the materials which he found ready to his hand in the pages of Eusebius cannot be regarded as at all extra- ordinary, after what we have just heard from himself of his customary method of proceeding. It would of course have suggested the gravest doubts as to whether we were here listening to the personal sentiment of this Father, or not ; but that would have been all. What are we to think, how- ever, of the fact that Hedibia’s question to Jerome proves on inspection to be nothing more than a translation of the very question which Marinus had long before addressed to Eusebius 2 We read on, perplexed at the coincidence; and speedily make the notable discovery that her next question, and her next, are a/so translations word for word of the next two of Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is again referred to the foot of the page’. It is at least decisive:
civat dAnOovs.| Matthaeus, quando Dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati: Mar- cus autem, quando tum viderit Maria Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est, Cum autem resurrexisset: [meta SiacToA7js ava- yvworéoy “Avaoras 5é:] et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane apparuit Mariz Magdalene: [eira troorigaytes fntéov, Mpwt rH Mid Tov caBBatwr epdvn Mapia tH Maydadnvy.| Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta Matthzum surrexerat, [rapa rG MatOalw, dpe caBBdtwy" tore yap eynyepTo. | ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Marie Magdalene. [pot yap Th ua ToD caBBdrov epdvn Mapla 77 Marydadnvy.] Quod quidem et Jo- annes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius diei visum esse demonstrans.” [todro yoov edhAwoe kat 6 "Iwdvyns mpwt nal adtds TH pid Tod caBBdrov Spa avToy maptuphoas. |
For the Latin of the above, see Hieronymi Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).
© Apétas To Tp@Tov,—Ila@s mapa piv TH MarOaiw dpe caBBdarwy palverat eyeyepuevos 6 Swrp, mapa bt r@ Mapkw mpwt TH wid TV caBBarwv ; [Eusebius ad Marinum, (Mai, iv. 255.) ]
Primum queris,—Cur Mattheus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse ; et Mareus mane resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymus ad Hedibiam, (Opp. i. 818-9.) }
Tas, kata Tov MarOaiov, dpe caBBdtwv % Maydadnvh rePcauevn THY avdoracw, Kara Tov lwdvynv } a’Th écta@oa KAaler mapa TE mvyuelw TH Mia TOD caBBdrov. [ Ut supra, p. 257.)
Quomodo, juxta Matthaum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit Domi- num resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una sabbati juxta sepulcrum flere ? [Ut supra, p. 819.]
v.| shewn to belong to the region of fable. 55
and the fact, which admits of only one explanation, can be attended by only one practical result. It of course shelves the whole question as far as the evidence of Jerome is con- cerned. Whether Hedibia was an actual personage or not, let those decide who have considered more attentively than it has ever fallen in my way to do that curious problem,— What was the ancient notion of the allowable in Fiction ? That different ideas have prevailed in different ages of the world as to where fiction ends and fabrication begins ;—that widely discrepant views are entertained on the subject even in our own age ;—all must be aware. I decline to investi- gate the problem on the present occasion. I do but claim to have established beyond the possibility of doubt or cavil that what we are here presented with 7s not the testimony of Jerome at all. It is evident that this learned Father amused himself with translating for the benefit of his Latin readers a part of the (lost) work of Eusebius ; (which, by the way, he is found to have possessed in the same abridged form in which it has come down to ourselves:)—and he seems to have regarded it as allowable to attribute to ‘“ Hedibia” the problems which he there met with. (He may perhaps have known that Eusebius before him had attributed them, with just as little reason, to ‘‘ Marinus.”) In that age, for aught that appears to the contrary, it may have been regarded as a graceful compliment to address solutions of Scripture diffi- culties to persons of distinction, who possibly had never heard of those difficulties before ; and even to represent the Interrogatories which suggested them as originating with themselves. I offer this only in the way of suggestion, and am not concerned to defend it. The only point I am con- cerned to establish is that Jerome is here a translator, not an original author: in other words, that it is Eusebius who here speaks, and not Jerome. For a critic to pretend that it
Tldés, kata Toy MarOatoy, oWe oaBBatwv 7 Maydarnvy meta ths UAANS Maplas aapevn TY TOdGY TOD SwTHpos, H avTH Tpwt TH mig Tod caGBarov akover wy Mov amrov, kata Tov "Iwdvyny. [ Ut supra, p. 262.]
Quomodo, juxta Mattheum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterd Maria advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem, audierit 4 Domino, Noli me tangere. [ Ut supra, p.821.]
56 Jerome not adverse to S. Mark avi. 9—20. — [cnar.
is in any sense the testimony of Jerome which we are here presented with ; that Jerome is one of those Fathers “ who, even though they copied from their predecessors, were yet competent to transmit the record of a fact ‘,’—is entirely to misunderstand the case. The man who translates, —not adopts, but translates,—the problem as well as its solution: who deliberately asserts that it emanated from a Lady inha- biting the furthest extremity of Gaul, who nevertheless was demonstrably not its author: who goes on to propose as hers question after question verbatim as he found them written in the pages of Eusebius ; and then resolves them one by one in the very language of the same Father :—such a writer has clearly conducted us into a region where his individual re- sponsibility quite disappears from sight. We must hear no more about Jerome, therefore, as a witness against the genu- ineness of the concluding verses of 8. Mark’s Gospel.
On the contrary. Proof is at hand that Jerome held these
verses to be genuine. The proper evidence of this is supplied
. by the fact that he gave them a place in his revision of the
old Latin version of the Scriptures. If he had been indeed persuaded of their absence from “almost all the Greek codices,” does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to stand in the Vulgate? If he had met with them in “scarcely any copies of the Gospel,’—do men really suppose that he would yet have retained them? To believe this would, again, be to forget what was the known practice of this Father; who, because he found the expression “ without a cause” (etx7,—S. Matth. v. 22,) only “in certain of his codices,” but not “in the true ones,” omitted it from the Vulgate. Because, however, he read “ righteousness”’ (where we read “ alms’’) in 8S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits “justitiam” in his revision of the old Latin version. On the other hand, though he knew of MSS. (as he expressly relates) which read “ works” for “children” (€pyov for réxvwv) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does not admit that (manifestly corrupt) reading,—which, how- ever, is found both in the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press the matter further. It is an additional proof that Jerome accepted the
4 Tregelles, Printed Text, p. 247.
v.] Severus of Antioch, or Hesychius of Jerusalem. 57
conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel that he actually quotes it, and on more than one occasion: but to prove this, is to prove more than is here required®. I am concerned only to demo- lish the assertion of Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Alford, and Davidson, and so many more, concerning the testimony of Jerome; and I have demolished it. I pass on, claiming to have shewn that the name of Jerome as an adverse witness must never again appear in this discussion.
IV. and V. But now, while the remarks of Eusebius are yet fresh in the memory, the reader is invited to recal for a moment what the author of the ‘“ Homily on the Resur- rection,” contained in the works of Gregory of Nyssa (above, p. 39), has delivered on the same subject. It will be re- membered that we saw reason for suspecting that not
Severus oF AntTI0cH, but HesycuHtus oF JERUSALEM, (both of them writers of the vi century,) has the better claim to the authorship of the Homily in question ‘-—which, however, cannot at all events be assigned to the illustrious Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of Basil the Great. ‘In the more accurate copies,” (says this writer,) “the Gospel ac- cording to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, however, this also is added,—‘ Now when He was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.’ This, however, seems to contradict to some extent what we before delivered ; for since it happens that the hour of the night when our Saviour rose is not known, how does it come to be here written that He rose ‘early?’ But the saying will prove to be no ways contradictory, if we read with skill. We must be careful intelligently to introduce a comma after, ‘ Now when He was risen:’ and then to proceed,—‘ Early in the Sabbath He appeared first to Mary Magdalene :’ in order that ‘when He was risen’ may refer (in conformity with what Matthew says) to the foregoing season; while ‘early’ is connected with the appearance to Mary.” *—I presume it would be to abuse a reader’s patience to offer any remarks on all this. If a careful perusal of the foregoing passage
© See above, p. 28. f See above, p. 40-1. * See the Appendix (C) § 2,
58 FHesychius also copies Eusebius. [CHAP.
does not convince him that Hesychius is here only reproduc- ing what he had read in Eusebius, nothing that I can say will persuade him of the fact. The words indeed are by no means the same; but the sense is altogether identical. He seems to have also known the work of Victor of Antioch. However, to remove all doubt from the reader’s mind that the work of Eusebius was in the hands of Hesychius while he wrote, I have printed in two parallel columns and trans- ferred to the Appendix what must needs be conclusive; for it will be seen that the terms are only not identical in which Eusebius and Hesychius discuss that favourite problem with the ancients,—the consistency of 8. Matthew’s owe trav caB- Bartwv with the mpi of 8. Mark.
It is, however, only needful to read through the Homily in question to see that it is an attempt to weave into one piece a quantity of foreign and incongruous materials. It is in fact not a Homily at all, (though it has been thrown into that form;) but a Dissertation,—into which, Hesychius, (who is known to have been very curious in questions of that kind»,) is observed to introduce solutions of most of those famous difficulties which cluster round the sepulchre of the world’s Redeemer on the morning of the first Easter Day; and which the ancients seem to have delighted in discussing,—as, the number of the Marys who visited the sepulchre ; the angelic appearances on the morning of the Resurrection ; and above all the seeming discrepancy, already adverted to, in the Evangelical notices of the time at which our Lorp rose from the dead. I need not enter more par- ticularly into an examination of this (so-called) ‘Homily’: but I must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author
& See the Appendix (C) § 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § 2.
h In the Heel. Grec. Monumenta of Cotelerius, (iii. 1—53,) may be seen the discussion of 60 problems, headed,—Zuvaywyn amopi@v kal emAvoewr, exreyeioa ev emiroph ek ris ebayyeAuhs cunpwvrlas rod aylov “Hovxlov mpeaBurépov ‘IepocoAvuwv. From this it appears that Hesychius, following the example of Eusebius, wrote a work on “ Gospel Harmony,’—of which nothing but an abridgment has come down to us.
' He says that he writes,—Mpbds tiv Tod brokemévov mpoBAhuaros Avaty, Kal Tav UAhwv tev Kata Thy ekéragw Tav pnta@y avapvopnévav CnTtThaEwy, K.T.A.
Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 400 ©.
v.] Victor of Antioch. 59
at all events cannot be thought to have repudiated the con- cluding verses of S. Mark: for at the end of his discourse, he quotes the 19th verse entire, without hesitation, in con- firmation of one of his statements, and declares that the , words are written by S. Mark «.
I shall not be thought unreasonable, therefore, if I contend that Hesychius is no longer to be cited as a witness in this behalf: if I point out that it is entirely to misunderstand and misrepresent the case to quote a passing allusion of his to what Eusebius had long before delivered on the same subject, as if it exhibited his own individual teaching. It is demon- strable! that he is not bearing testimony to the condition of the MSS. of S. Mark’s Gospel in his own age: neither, in- deed, is he bearing testimony at a//. He is simply amusing himself, (in what is found to have been his favourite way,) with reconciling an apparent discrepancy in the Gospels ; and he does it by adopting certain remarks of Eusebius. Living so late as the vi'® century ; conspicuous neither for his judgment nor his learning ; a copyist only, so far as his remarks on the last verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are con- cerned ;—this writer does not really deserve the space and attention we have been compelled to bestow upon him.
VI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence borne by
Vicror oF ANTIOCH.
And from the familiar style in which this Father’s name is always introduced into the present discussion, no less than from the invariable practice of assigning to him the date “ap. 401,” it might be supposed that ‘‘ Victor of Antioch”’ is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely a Com- mentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. Clinton (who enumerates ccexxii “ Ecclesiastical Authors” from A.D. 70 to A.D. 685™) does not even record his name. The recent ‘“ Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography” is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest editor)
K Gpolws 5¢ Kal rd mapa TH Mdpxp yeypaupéevov® ‘O wey obv Kdpios, K.T.A. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 415 D.—Sce above, p. 29, note (g).
' See below, chap. X.
™ Fasti Romani, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395—495.
60 Victor of Antioch, and his (CHAP.
recalls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute
his Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria™. Not
to delay the reader needlessly,—Victor of Antioch is an in- teresting and unjustly neglected Father of the Church;
whose date,—(inasmuch as he apparently quotes sometimes
from Cyril of Alexandria who died a.p. 444, and yet seems
to have written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which took place a.p. 407), may be assigned to the first half of the vt century,—suppose a.p. 425—450. And in citing him I shall always refer to the best (and most easily accessible) edition of his work,—that of Cramer (1840) in the first volume of his “ Catenae.”’
But a far graver charge is behind. From the confident air in which Victor’s authority is appealed to by those who deem the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel spurious,
it would of course be inferred that his evidence is hostile
to the verses in question; whereas his evidence to their
genuineness is the most emphatic and extraordinary on record. Dr. Tregelles asserts that “his testimony to the absence of these twelve verses from some or many copies, stands in contrast to his own opinion on the subject.” But Victor delivers no “opinion :” and his “testimony ” is the direct reverse of what Dr. Tregelles asserts it to be. This learned and respected critic has strangely misapprehended the evidence °.
I must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore confine myself to those facts concerning “ Victor of Antioch,” or rather concerning his work, which are necessary for the purpose in hand ?,
Now, his Commentary on 8. Mark’s Gospel,—as all must see who will be at the pains to examine it,—is to a great extent a compilation. The same thing may be said, no doubt, to some extent, of almost every ancient Commentary in existence. But I mean, concerning this particular work,
" Vol. i. Prefat. p. xxviii. See below, note (p).
° “Victor Antiochenus” (writes Dr. Tregelles in his N. T. vol. i. p. 214,) *dicit 871 vevdevra: 7d mapa Mdpkw TeAevraioy ev riot pepduevov.”
P For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and his work, the studious in such matters are referred to the Appendix (D).
v.] Catena on S. Mark’s Gospel. 61
that it proves to have been the author’s plan not so much to give the general results of his acquaintance with the writings of Origen, Apollinarius, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Eusebius, and Chrysostom; as, with or without acknow- ledgment, to transcribe largely (but with great license) from one or other of these writers. Thus, the whole of his note on S. Mark xv. 38, 39, is taken, without any hint that it is not original, (much of it, word for word,) from Chry- sostom’s 88th Homily on 8S. Matthew’s Gospel?. The same is to be said of the first twelve lines of his note on S. Mark xvi. 9. On the other hand, the latter half of the note last mentioned professes to give the substance of what Eusebius had written on the same subject. It is in fact an extract from those very “Quaestiones ad Marinum” con- cerning which so much has been offered already. All this, though it does not sensibly detract from the interest or the value of Victor’s work, must be admitted entirely to change the character of his supposed evidence. He comes before us rather in the light of a Compiler than of an Author: his work is rather a “Catena” than a Commentary; and as such in fact it is generally described. Quite plain is it, at all events, that the sentiments contained in the sections last referred to, are not Victor’s at all. For one half of them, no one but Chrysostom is responsible: for the other half, no one but Eusebius.
But it is Victor’s familiar use of the writings of Eusebius, —especially of those Resolutions of hard Questions “‘ concern- ing the seeming Inconsistencies in the Evangelical accounts of the Resurrection,”? which Eusebius addressed to Marinus, —on which the reader’s attention is now to be concentrated. Victor cites that work of Eusebius by name in the very first page of his Commentary. That his /ast page also contains a quotation from it, (also by name), has been already pointed | out’. Attention is now invited to what is found concerning S. Mark xvi. 9—20 in the Jast page but one (p. 444) of
4 Opp. vol. vii. p. 825 E—826 B: or, in Field’s edition, p. 527, line 3 to 20. ® Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,—és gyow EvoéBios 6 Kawcapelas ev To mpds Mapivoy «.7.A. And at p. 446, line 19,—EvoeBids pynow 6 Kaoapelas .7.A.
62 Victor of Antioch also shewn [ CHAP.
Victor’s work. It shall be given in English; because I will convince unlearned as well as learned readers. Victor, (after quoting four lines from the 89 Homily of Chrysostom ’), reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to do‘) the notes of time contained severally in S. Matth. xxviii. 1, 8S. Mark xvi. 2, S. Luke xxiv. 1, and S. John xx. 1. After which, he proceeds as follows :—
“In certain copies of Mark’s Gospel, next comes,—‘ Now when [Jxsus] was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene ;’—a statement which seems inconsistent with Matthew’s narrative. This might be met by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, though found in certain copies, is spurious, However, that we may not seem to betake ourselves to an off-hand answer, we propose to read the place thus :—‘ Now when [Jxsus] was risen:’ then, after a comma, to go on,—‘ early the first day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ In this way we refer [Mark’s] ‘Now when [Jxsus] was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of the sabbath,’ (for then we believe Him to have risen ;) and all that comes after, expressive as it is of a different notion, we connect with what follows. Mark relates that He who ‘arose (according to Matthew) in the end of the Sabbath, was seen by Mary Magdalene ‘ early. This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has re- corded that ‘early,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ [Jxsus] appeared to the Magdalene. In a word, two distinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of the Resurrection, — which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the season of our Saviour’s Appearing,— which was ‘early ".’”’
No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate to admit that he is here listening to Eusebius “ad Mari- num” over again. But if any one really retains a particle of doubt on the subject, he is requested to cast his eye to the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader,
* Compare Cramer’s Vict. Ant. i. p. 444, line 6—9, with Field’s Chrys. iii. p- 539, line 7—21.
t Mai, iv. p. 257-8.
" Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4.
v.]
surveying the originals with attention, may easily convince himself that Victor is here nothing else but a copyist®. That the work in which Eusebius reconciles “seeming discrepan- cies in the Evangelical narratives,” was actually lying open before Victor while he wrote, is ascertained beyond dispute. He is observed in his next ensuing Comment to quote from it, and to mention Eusebius as its author. At the end of the present note he has a significant allusion to Eusebius :—
to be a Copyist of Husebius. 63
x The following is the original of what is given above :—Ezeidy 5€ & tTiot Tov dvTvypdpwv mpdoKerTar TH TapdyT. evayyeAly, “dvaoTas 5E TH wid Tod caB- Barov mpwt, épavn (see below *) Mapia 7H Maydadnv7,” Soret 5 rovTO Siadwveiv +6 br) MarOatov cipnucyw, epotmev ws Suvardy mev eiwety Ste vevdbevTa Td Tapa Mépkw TeAcutaiov &y tise hepduevov. mAHY Wa wh Sétwuev eml 7d Eromov KaTa- pevyew, obtws avayvwoducda: ‘ dvarras d¢,” Kal dmoorliavres emdyaper, “mpwt Th mia Tod caBGBdrov epdvn Mapla tH Maydadnry.” tva [The extract from
Victor ts continued below in the right hand column : the left exhibiting the text of EUsEBIUS ‘ad Marinum, |
(EUSEBIUS.)
> av| ameupwuer P| ém) thy mapa To MartOaip “dpe oab- Bato.” (réTe yap eyhyepto.) 7d Se fis, érépas bv Siavolas brootatiKdy,
To pev “avarras,
ouvdwmev Tots emaAcyouevots.
(‘‘mpwt” yap “rH wid ToD caBBarou epdvn Mapla ti Maydadnry.”)
ToUTO youv ednAwoe kal 6 "Iwdvyns “mpwt” Ka avtds “TH mid ToD caB- Barov” @p0a avtdy tH Maydadnrij papTupnoas.
[31 words are here omitted. ]
as maptoracOa év TovTos Kaipovs dvo" Toy wey yap THS avacTacews Thy “oe Tod caBBarov.” Swripos emipavelas, Tov “ mpwt.”
[EUSEBIUS, apud Mai, iv. p. 256. }
Tov 5 Tis TOU
(VICTOR.)
To wey “avacTas,” avaméupwuev em) Thy mapa TS Marbalw “ ope caBBarwv.” (rére yap eynyepOa avrdy moatevo- pev.) 7d 5& Ets, Erepas by Siavolas TapactariKby, cuvdiwuev Tois émtA€yo- pévots*
(Tov yap “dpe caBBarwr” kara Mar- Oaiov eynyepmevov totope: “ mpwt” éw- pakevar Maplay tiv Maydadrnviy.)
TovTO ‘youv edjAwoe Kal "Iwayvys, “rowt? Kal avtds “Ti mia Tay caB- Bdrov” &p0a airy tH Maydarnvi papTupnaas.
@s taploras0a év TovTos KaLpous rae a \ dvo0° TOV ev THS avactTdcews, TOY “ aE
*? coy Se THS TOU SwTHpos
Tov caBBarouv
emipavelas, Td “ mpwt.”
[Victor AnTIocH., ed. Cramer, i. p. 444-5: (with a few slight emenda- tions of the text from Evan, Cod.
Reg. 178.) |
* Note, that Victor twice omits the word mparov, and twice reads tH mig ToD caBBarov, (instead of party caBBarov), only because Eusebius had inadvertently (three times) done the same thing in the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai Nova P.P. Bibl. iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p, 257 line 4 and 5.
64 Memorable Testimony of Victor [ CHAP.
«1 know very well,” he says, “what has been suggested by those who are at the pains to remove the apparent inconsistencies in this placey.” But when writing on 8. Mark xvi. I—20, he does more. After abridging, (as his manner is,) what Eusebius explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the substance of five columns in about three times as many lines,) he adopts the exact expressions of Eusebius,—follows him in his very mistakes,—and finally transcribes his words. The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind that what ' he has been listening to is not the testimony of Victor at all: but the testimony of Eusebius. This is but one more echo \ therefore of a passage of which we are all beginning by this time to be weary; so exceedingly rash are the statements with which it is introduced, so utterly preposterous the pro- posed method of remedying a difficulty which proves after all to be purely imaginary.
What then is the testimony of Victor? Does he offer any independent statement on the question in dispute, from which his own private opinion (though nowhere stated) may be lawfully inferred? Yes indeed. Victor, though fre- quently a Transcriber only, is observed every now and then to come forward in his own person, and deliver his in- dividual sentiment’. But nowhere throughout his work does he deliver such remarkable testimony as in this place. Hear him !
“ Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the passage beginning, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Mag- dalene,’ be not found,—(certain individuals having supposed it to be spurious,)—yet WE, AT ALL EVENTS, INASMUCH AS IN VERY MANY WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE, OUT OF ACCU- RATE COPIES, SUBJOINED ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LoRD’s ASCENSION, (FOLLOWING THE WORDS ‘FOR THEY WERE AFRAID, ’) IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR OF MARK
¥ obk &yvoe BE &s Siaddpous drraclas yeyerjT0ai pacw of Thy Soxovoay dia- gpwvlay Biaddoa orovddtovres. Vict. Ant. ed. Cramer, vol. i. p. 445, 1. 23-5: referring to what Eusebius says apud Mai, iv. 264 and 265 (§ iii): 287—290 (§§ v, vi, vii.)
* e.g. in the passage last quoted.
v.] to the genuineness of these Verses. 65
WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL VERITY: THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE worDs, ‘Now WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK,’ &C., DOWN TO ‘ WITH SIGNS FOL- LowinG. AMEN *””—And with these words Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on 8. Mark to an end.
Here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intel- ligent Father, writing in the first half of the v™ century,
(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark are absent from some ancient copies of his Gospel is because they have been deliberately omitted by Copy yists :
(2.) That the ground for such omission was the subjective judgment of individuals,—not the result of any appeal to documentary evidence. Victor, therefore, clearly held that the Verses in question had been expunged in consequence of their (seeming) inconsistency with what is met with in the other Gospels:
(3.) That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself by reference to “very many” and “accurate” copies, that the verses in question are genuine:
(4.) That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which en- joyed the reputation of “exhibiting the genuine text of S. Mark,” contained the Verses in dispute-——To Opinion, therefore, Victor opposes Authority. He makes his appeal to the most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is acquainted; and the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete counterpoise and antidote to the loose phrases of Eusebius on the same subject :
(5.) That in consequence of all this, following the Pales- tinian Exemplar, he had from accurate copies furnished his own work with the Twelve Verses in dispute ;—which is a cate- gorical refutation of the statement frequently met with that the work of Victor of Antioch is without them.
We are now at liberty to sum up; and to review the pro- gress which has been hitherto made in this Inquiry. ;
Six Fathers of the Church have been examined who are commonly represented as bearing hostile testimony to the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel; and they have been
® For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred to the Appendix (E).
F
66 The (supposed) hostile evidence of [ CHAP.
easily reduced to one. Three of them, (Hesychius, Jerome, Victor,) prove to be echoes, not voices. The remaining two, (Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices nor echoes, but merely names: Grecory oF Nyssa having really no more to do with this discussion than Philip of Macedon ; and “Severus” and “ Hesychius” representing one and the same individual. Only by a Critic seeking to mislead his reader will any one of these five Fathers be in future cited as witnessing against the genuineness of 8. Mark xvi. 9—20. Eusebius is the solitary witness who survives the ordeal of exact inquiry’. But,
I. Evsrstrus, (as we have seen), instead of proclaiming his distrust of this portion of the Gospel, enters upon an elabo- rate proof that its contents are not inconsistent with what is found in the Gospels of 8. Matthew and S. John. His testimony is reducible to two innocuous and wholly uncon- nected propositions: the first,—That there existed in his day a vast number of copies in which the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel ended abruptly at ver. 8; (the correlative of which of course would be that there also existed a vast number which were furnished with the present ending.) The second,—That by putting a comma after the word ’Avagtas, S. Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with S. Matth. xxvil. 1°. ..I profess myself unable to understand how it can be pretended that Eusebius would have subscribed to the opinion of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that the Gospel of S. Mark was never finished by its inspired Author, or was mutilated before it came abroad; at all events, that the last Twelve Verses are spurious.
> How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,—“ Scholia certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omnia ea uno fonte pro- manarunt. Ex eodem fonte Hieronymum etiam hausisse intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.—Similiter Scholiastee omnes in principio hujus Evangelii in disputatione de lectione év joala t@ wpopytn ex uno pen- dent. Fortasse Origenes auctor est hujus dubitationis.” (N. T. vol. ii. p. 270.) —The reader is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47 (line 23.)
© It is not often, I think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually inserted after "Avacras 5é. Such a point is found, however, in Cod. 34 (= Coisl. 195,) and Cod. 22 (= Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many other copies.
| Six Fathers of the Church, reviewed. 67
II. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been adopted, and in part transcribed, by an unknown writer of the vit* century,—whether Hesycuivs or Severus is not cer- tainly known: but if it were Hesychius, then it was not Severus; if Severus, then not Hesychius. This writer, how- ever, (whoever he may have been,) is careful to convince us that individually he entertained no doubt whatever about the genuineness of this part of Scripture, for he says that he writes in order to remove the (hypothetical) objections of others, and to silence their (imaginary) doubts. Nay, he freely quotes the verses as genuine, and declares that they were read in his day on a certain Sunday night in the public Service of the Church....To represent such an one,— (it matters nothing, I repeat, whether we call him “ Hesychius of Jerusalem” or “Severus of Antioch,” )—as a hostile wit- ness, is simply to misrepresent the facts of the case. He is, on the contrary, the strenuous champion of the verses which he is commonly represented as impugning.
III. As for JERom#, since that illustrious Father comes before us in this place as a ¢rans/ator of Eusebius only, he is no more responsible for what Eusebius says concerning S. Mark xvi. 9—20, than Hobbes of Malmesbury is respon- sible for anything that Thucydides has related concerning the Peloponnesian war. Individually, however, it is certain , that Jerome was convinced of the genuineness of 8. Mark xvi. 9—20: for in two different places of his writings he not only quotes the 9th and 14th verses, but he exhibits all the twelve in the Vulgate.
IV. Lastly, Vicror or Antiocu, who wrote in an age when Eusebius was held to be an infallible oracle on points of Biblical Criticism, — having dutifully rehearsed, (like the rest,) the feeble expedient of that illustrious Father for har- monizing S. Mark xvi. 9 with the narrative of S. Matthew, —is observed to cite the statements of Eusebius concerning the last Twelve Verses of 8S. Mark, only in order to refute them. Not that he opposes opinion to opinion,—(for the opinions of Eusebius and of Victor of Antioch on this be- half were probably identical;) but statement he meets with counter-statement,—fact he confronts with fact. Scarcely
F2
68 The Patristic evidence dismissed, with [CHAP.
can anything be imagined more emphatic than his testimony, or more conclusive.
For the reader is requested to observe that here is an Kcclesiastic, writing in the first half of the v century, who expressly witnesses to the genuineness of the Verses in dispute. He had made reference, he says, and ascertained their existence in very many MSS. (és év mdelctous). He had derived his text from “accurate” ones: (€& axpi8av avti- ypadov.) More than that: he leads his reader to infer that he had personally resorted to the famous Palestinian Copy, the text of which was held to exhibit the inspired verity, and had satisfied himself that the concluding section of S, Mark’s Gospel was there. He had, therefore, been either to Je- rusalem, or else to Caesarea; had inquired for those venerable records which had once belonged to Origen and Pamphilus®; and had inspected them. ‘Testimony more express, more weighty,—I was going to say, more decisive,—can scarcely be imagined. It may with truth be said to close the present discussion.
With this, in fact, Victor lays down his pen. So also
| may I. I submit that nothing whatever which has hitherto come before us lends the slightest countenance to the modern dream that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the hands of its in- ‘spired Author, ended abruptly at ver. 8. Neither Eusebius ‘nor Jerome; neither Severus of Antioch nor Hesychius of Jerusalem; certainly not Victor of Antioch; least of all Gregory of Nyssa,—yield a particle of support to that mon- strous fancy. The notion is an invention, a pure imagina- | tion of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach.
It remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove some- what less unaccommodating.
VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of the discussion, to appeal to
EutuyMius ZIGABENUS, the Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compi- lation on the Gospels, assigned to a.p. 1116. Euthymius lived, in fact, full five hundred years too late for his testimony to be of the slightest importance. Such as it is, however, it is
4 Scrivener’s Introduction, pp. 47, 125, 431.
v. | a reference to Huthymius Zigabenus. 69
not unfavourable. He says,—‘‘Some of the Commentators state that here,” (viz. at ver. 8,) “the Gospel according to Mark finishes; and that what follows is a spurious addi- tion.” (Which clearly is his version of the statements of one or more of the four Fathers whose testimony has already occupied so large a share of our attention.) ‘This portion we must also interpret, however,” (Huthymius proceeds,) ‘since there is nothing in it prejudicial to the truth °.”—But it is idle to linger over such a writer. One might almost as well quote “ Poli Synopsis,” and then proceed to discuss it. The cause must indeed be desperate which seeks support from a quarter like this. What possible sanction can an Eccle- siastic of the xii** century be supposed to yield to the hypo- thesis that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the hands of its in- spired Author, was an unfinished work ?
It remains to ascertain what is the evidence of the MSS. on this subject. And the MSS. require to be the more attentively studied, because it is to them that our opponents are accustomed most confidently to appeal. On them in fact they rely. The nature and the value of the most ancient Manuscript testimony available, shall be scrupulously in- vestigated in the next two Chapters.
© bac Sé tTiwes Tav etnynTay evradda suumAnpodcba 7d Kata Mdpkoy evay- yéAtov? Ta BE eediis mpocOHnny elvar petayevertépay. Xpy de Kal rabTyy Epunvetoat wndiv TH GAndeia Avwawvouevny.—Euthym, Zig. (ed. Matthaei, 1792), in loc.
eee
ex~
CAP A ne Va.
MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELM- INGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—Parr I.
S. Mark xvi. 9—20, contained in every IS. in the world except two.— Irrational Claim to Infallibility set up on behalf of Cod. B (p. 73) and Cod. 3 (p.75).—These two Codices shewn to be full of gross Omissions (p. 78),—Znterpolations (p. 80),—Corruptions of the Text (p. 81),—and Perversions of the Truth (p. 83).—The teste- mony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9—20, shewn to be favorable, notwithstanding (p. 86).
Tue two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the famous Codex in the Vatican Library at Rome, known as “ Codex B ;” and the Codex which Tischendorf brought from Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by the first let- ter of the Hebrew alphabet (x). These two manuscripts are probably not of equal antiquity*. An interval of fifty years at least seems to be required to account for the marked dif- ference between them. If the first belongs to the beginning, the second may be referred to the middle or latter part of the iv century. But the two Manuscripts agree in this,— that they are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel.
In both, after éfoSobvro ydp (ver. 8), comes the subscription:
in Cod. B,—KATA MAPKON; in Cod. §,—EYAITEAION KATA MAPKON. Let it not be supposed that we have any more facts of this
class to produce. All has been stated. It is not that the evidence of Manuscripts is one,—the evidence of Fathers and Versions another. The very reverse is the case. Manu- scripts, Fathers, and Versions alike, are on/y not unanimous in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness
* For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to the Ap- pendix (F).
cu. vi.] ISS. only not unanimous concerning these Verses. 71
of the MSS. is even extraordinary. With the exception of the two uncial MSS. which have just been named, there is not one Codex in existence, uncial or cursive,—(and we are acquainted with, at least, eighteen other uncials, and about six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)—which leaves out the last twelve verses of 8. Mark.
~ The inference which an unscientific observer would draw from this fact, is no doubt in this instance the correct one. He demands to be shewn the Alexandrine (A) and the Pari- sian Codex (C),—neither of them probably removed by much more than fifty years from the date of the Codex Sinaiticus, and both unquestionably derived from different originals ;— and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of those venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this part of the sacred text. He discovers that the Codex Bezae (D), the only remaining very ancient MS. authority,—not- withstanding that it is observed on most occasions to exhibit an extraordinary sympathy with the Vatican (B),—here sides with A and C against B and 8. He inquires after all the other uncials and all the cursive MSS. in existence, (some of them dating from the x" century,) and requests to have it explained to him why it is to be supposed that all these many witnesses,—belonging to so many different patriarch- ates, provinces, ages of the Church,—have entered into a grand conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and importance? But he obtains no intelligible answer to this question. How, then, is an unprejudiced student to draw any inference but one from the premisses ? That single peculiarity (he tells himself) of bringing the second Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse of the xvi'" chapter, is absolutely fatal to the two Codices in ques-< tion. It is useless to din into his ears that those Codices are probably both of the iv'* century,—unless men are pre- pared to add the assurance that a Codex of the iv” century is of necessity a more trustworthy witness to the text of the Gospels than a Codex of the v'. The omission of these twelve verses, I repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in
b Viz. A, C [v]; D[vi]; E, L [viii]; F, K, M, V, T, 4, A (quere), 1 [ix]; G, H, X, S, U [iix, x].
72 Character of Codd. B and 3x to be ascertained. — [CHAP.
Cod. B and Cod. §:: for it is obvious that a copy of the Gos- pels which has been so seriously mutilated in one place may have been slightly tampered with in another. He is willing to suspend his judgment, of course. The two oldest copies of the Gospels in existence are entitled to great reverence be- cause of their high antiquity. They must be allowed a most patient, most unprejudiced, most respectful, nay, a most indulgent hearing. But when all this has been freely ac- corded, on no intelligible principle can more be claimed for any two MSS. in the world.
The rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious. Mistrust will no doubt have been thrown over the evidence borne to the text of Scripture in a thousand other places by Cod. B and Cod. x, after demonstration that those two Codices exhibit a mutilated text in the present place. But what else is this but the very point requiring demonstration? Why may not these two be right, and all the other MSS. wrong?
I propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed we to examine the evidence borne by these two witnesses on certain other occasions which admit of no difference of opinion; or next to none. Let us endeavour, I say, to as- certain the character of the Witnesses by a patient and unpre- judiced examination of their Evidence,—not in one place, or in two, or in three; but on several important occasions, and throughout. If we find it invariably consentient and invariably truthful, then of course a mighty presumption will have been established, the very strongest possible, that their adverse testimony in respect of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel must needs be worthy of all acceptation. But if, on the contrary, our inquiries shall conduct us to the very opposite result,—what else can happen but that our confidence in these two MSS. will be hopelessly shaken ? We must in such case be prepared to admit that it is just as likely as not that this is only one more occasion on which these ‘two false witnesses” have conspired to witness falsely. If, at this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely trust- worthy kind can be procured to confront them: above all, if some one ancient witness of unimpeachable veracity can be found who shall bear contradictory evidence: what other
vi.] General Character of Codex B. Fs;
alternative will be left us but to reject their testimony in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9—20 with something like indigna- tion; and to acquiesce in the belief of universal Christen- dom for eighteen hundred years that these twelve verses are just as much entitled to our unhesitating acceptance as any other twelve verses in the Gospel which can be named ?
J. It is undeniable, in the meantime, that for the last quarter of a century, it has become the fashion to demand for the readings of Codex B something very like absolute deference. The erounds f for this superstitious sentiment, (for really I can describe it in no apter way,) I profess myself unable to discover. Codex B comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber , made are of perpetual recurrence. “They are chiefly omis- sions, of one, two, or three words; but sometimes of half a verse, a whole verse, or even of several verses... . I hesi- tate not to assert that it would be easier to find a folio con- taining three or four such omissions than to light on one which: should be without any*.”’ In the Gospels alone, Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times*: of which by far the largest proportion is found in 8. Mark’s Gospel. Many of these, no doubt, are to be accounted for by the proximity of a “like ending®.” The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic') was originally de-
© Vercellone, — Del antichissimo Codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca, Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)
4 Dublin Univ. Mag. (Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Seeieeacr: p. 93.
© §mwo.oreAcuTov.
f See Scrivener’s Introduction to his ed. of the Codex Beze, p. xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface to the 2nd ed. of his Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus.—Add to his instances, this from S. Matth.
xxvill. 2, 3:— KAI €KAOHTO €
MNAN@ AYTOY [HN AE H €IAEA ATTOY] WC ACTPATIH It is plain why the scribe of 8 wrote erayw avtov ws actparn.—The next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31 :— AIHNYTH CAN OI OS@AAMOI
74 The plea of Infallibility recently [cHAP.
rived from an older Codex which contained about twelve or thirteen letters in a line’. And it will be found that some of its omissions which have given rise to prolonged
KAI [€M€fN@CAN AYTG KAT] AYTOC A®AN TOC €f€NETO
Hence the omission of ka emeyvwoay avroy in §.—The following explains the omission from jy (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke xxiv. 52 :— All AYT@®N KAI[AN ESEPETO EIC TON OYPANON KAI] AY TOI TIPOCKYNHCA The next explains why S reads wepikaduWavtes exnpwrwy avtov in S. Luke xxii. 64 :— A€PONTEC KAI TI€ PIKAATYANTEC € [TYNTON AYTOY TO TIPOC@TION KAI €| TIHP@T@MN AYTTO The next explains why the words ka: mas evs avtnyv Biatera are absent in § (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16 :— E€YTATTE AIZETAI [KAI TIAC €IC AYTHN BI AZETAI] €YKONI@ TEPON AE ECTIN TO & In this way, (at S.John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt reading of Cod. B («va typnons avtovs ek Tov Koonov)—which, however, was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (Opp. p. 1035: al. ed. p.825)—is explained :— €K TOY [TMONHPOY. €K TOY] KOCMOY OTK €ICIN KAO@C Thus also is explained why B (with §, A, D, L) omits a precious clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42 :— OIMTOY MEPOC KAI [ATO MEAICCI OY KHPIOY KAT] AABO@N EN@TIION And why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S. Luke
Xxiv. 53 :— €N T@ I€P@ [AIN
OYNTEC KAI] €TAO