The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 12

(1.) But what can the learned author of this statement possibly mean? He is not speaking of the uncompounded verb ???????e??, of course; for S.

Mark employs it at least twenty times. He cannot be speaking of the compounded verb; for s??a??????e?? occurs in S. Mark v. 37. He cannot mean that pa?a??????e??, because the Evangelist uses it only once, is suspicious; for that would be to cast a slur on S. Luke i. 3. He cannot mean generally that verbs compounded with prepositions are "foreign to the diction of Mark;" for there are no less than _forty-two_ such verbs which are even _peculiar to S. Mark's short Gospel_,-against thirty which are peculiar to S. Matthew, and seventeen which are peculiar to S. John. He cannot mean that verbs compounded with pa?? and ?p? have a suspicious look; for at least _thirty-three_ such compounds, (besides the two before us,) occur in his sixteen chapters.(287) What, then, I must really ask, can the learned Critic possibly mean?-I respectfully pause for an answer.

(2.) In the meantime, I claim that as far as such evidence goes,-(and it certainly goes a very little way, yet, _as far as it goes_,)-it is a note of S. Mark's authors.h.i.+p, that within the compa.s.s of the last twelve verses of his Gospel these two compounded verbs should be met with.

(XX.) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious circ.u.mstance, that (in ver. 18) the phrase ?e??a? ?p?t????a? ?p? t??a occurs; "instead of ?e??a? ?p?t????a? t???."

(1.) But on the contrary, the phrase "_is in Mark's manner_," says Dean Alford: the plain fact being that it occurs no less than three times in his Gospel,-viz. in chap. viii. 25: x. 16: xvi. 18. (The other idiom, he has four times.(288)) Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to as a note of genuineness _and_ as an indication of spurious origin. What _can_ be the value of such Criticism as this?

(2.) Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt ill.u.s.tration of the precariousness of the style of remark which is just now engaging our attention. Within the s.p.a.ce of three verses, S. Mark has _both_ expressions,-viz. ?p??e?? t?? ?e??a? a?t? (viii. 23) and also ?p????e t??

?e??a? ?p? (ver. 25.) S. Matthew has the latter phrase once; the former, twice.(289) _Who_ will not admit that all this (so-called) Criticism is the veriest trifling; and that to pretend to argue about the genuineness of a pa.s.sage of Scripture from such evidence as the present is an act of rashness bordering on folly?... The reader is referred to what was offered above on Art. VII.

(XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words ?? ???-? ?????? (ver. 19 and ver. 20) are also declared to be "_foreign to the diction of Mark_." I ask leave to examine these two charges separately.

(1.) ?? ??? occurs only once in S. Mark's Gospel, truly: but then _it occurs only once in S. Luke_ (iii. 18);-only twice in S. John (xix. 24: xx. 30):-in S. Matthew, never at all. What imaginable plea can be made out of such evidence as this, for or against the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel?-Once more, I pause for an answer.

(2.) As for ? ?????? being "_foreign to the diction of Mark_ in speaking of the LORD,"-I really do not know what the learned Critic can possibly mean; except that he finds our LORD _nowhere called_ ? ?????? _by S. Mark, except in this place._

But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does he find our LORD anywhere called by S. Mark "JESUS CHRIST," except in chap. i. 1. Are we, therefore, to suspect the beginning of S. Mark's Gospel as well as the end of it? By no means, (I shall perhaps be told:) a reason is a.s.signable for the use of _that_ expression in chap. i. 1. And so, I venture to reply, there is a fully sufficient reason a.s.signable for the use of _this_ expression in chap. xvi. 19.(290)

(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our LORD is called ??s???

???st??,-but _only in the first Chapter_ of their respective Gospels. By S. Luke nowhere. The appellation may,-or may not,-be thought "foreign to the diction" of those Evangelists. But surely it const.i.tutes no reason whatever why we should suspect the genuineness of the beginning of the first, or the second, or the fourth Gospel.

(4.) S. John _three times in the first verse of his first Chapter_ designates the Eternal SON by the extraordinary t.i.tle ? ?????; but _nowhere else in his Gospel_, (except once in ver. 14,) does that Name recur. Would it be reasonable to represent _this_ as a suspicious circ.u.mstance? Is not the Divine fitness of that sublime appellation generally recognised and admitted?(291)-Surely, we come to Scripture to be learners only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to have spoken about G.o.d! When will men learn that "the Scripture-phrase, or _language of the Holy Ghost_"(292) is as much above them as Heaven is above Earth?

(XXIII.) Another complaint:-??a??f???a?, which is found in ver. 19, occurs nowhere else in the Gospels.

(1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs which "occur nowhere else in the Gospels:" and this happens to be one of them? What possible inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circ.u.mstance?

(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. ??a??f???a? and ???????? are words _proper to the Ascension of our _LORD_ into Heaven_. The two Evangelists who do _not_ describe that event, are _without_ these words: the two Evangelists who _do_ describe it, _have_ them.(293) Surely, these are marks of genuineness, not grounds for suspicion!

It is high time to conclude this discussion.-Much has been said about two other minute points:-

(XXIV.) It is declared that ??e???? "is nowhere found absolutely used by S. Mark:" (the same thing may be said of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:) "but always emphatically: whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely used."(294) Another writer says,-"The use of ??e???? in verses 10, 11, and 13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with ? d?, is peculiar."(295)

(1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not very, that an Evangelist who employs an ordinary word in the ordinary way about thirty times in all, should use it "absolutely" in two consecutive verses.

(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves as to _which_ are precisely the offending instances,-(for it is evidently a moot point whether ??e???? be emphatic in ver. 13, or not,)-we may be excused from a prolonged discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the subject in the consideration of the next Article (XXV.)

(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that "in the 10th and 14th verses there are sentences without a copulative: whereas Mark always has the copulative in such cases, particularly ?a?." But then,-

(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other sections of S.

Mark's Gospel _resembling the present_,-(I mean, pa.s.sages in which S. Mark summarizes many disconnected incidents, as he does here,)-is it not plain that such an objection is wholly without point?

(2.) Two instances are cited. In the latter, (ver. 14), Lachmann and Tregelles read ?ste??? d?: and the reading is not impossible. So that the complaint is really reduced to this,-That in ver. 10 the Evangelist begins ??e??? p??e??e?sa, instead of saying ?a? ??e??? p??e??e?sa. And (it is implied) there is something so abhorrent to probability in this, as slightly to strengthen the suspicion that the entire context is not the work of the Evangelist.

(3.) Now, suppose we had S. Mark back among us: and suppose that he, on being shewn this objection, were to be heard delivering himself somewhat to the following effect:-"Aye. But men may not find fault with _that_ turn of phrase. I derived it from Simon Peter's lips. I have always suspected that it was a kind of echo, so to say, of what he and 'the other Disciple'

had many a time rehea.r.s.ed in the hearing of the wondering Church concerning the Magdalene on the morning of the Resurrection." And then we should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth Gospel:-

???a? t? ??a?e??; t??a ??te??; ?????? d????sa ?.t.?.

After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all strange, even though it be "without a copulative:"-

?f? ?? ??e???e? ?pt? da????a. ?????? p??e??e?sa ?.t.?.

(4.) For after all, the _only_ question to be asked is,-Will any one pretend that such a circ.u.mstance as this is _suspicious_? Unless _that_ be a.s.serted, I see not what is gained by raking together,-(_as one easily might do in any section of any of the Gospels_,)-every minute peculiarity of form or expression which can possibly be found within the s.p.a.ce of these twelve verses. It is an evidence of nothing so much as an incorrigible coa.r.s.eness of critical fibre, that every slight variety of manner or language should be thus pounced upon and represented as a note of spuriousness,-in the face of (_a_) the unfaltering tradition of the Church universal that the doc.u.ment has _never_ been hitherto suspected: and (_b_) the known proclivity of all writers, as free moral and intellectual agents, sometimes to deviate from their else invariable practice.-May I not here close the discussion?

There will perhaps be some to remark, that however successfully the foregoing objections may seem to have been severally disposed of, yet that the combined force of such a mult.i.tude of slightly suspicious circ.u.mstances must be not only appreciable, but even remain an inconvenient, not to say a formidable fact. Let me point out that the supposed remark is nothing else but a fallacy; which is detected the instant it is steadily looked at.

For if there really had remained after the discussion of each of the foregoing XXV Articles, a slight residuum of suspiciousness, _then_ of course the aggregate of so many fractions would have amounted to something in the end.

But since it has been proved that there is absolutely _nothing at all_ suspicious in _any_ of the alleged circ.u.mstances which have been hitherto examined, the case becomes altogether different. The sum of ten thousand nothings is still nothing.(296) This may be conveniently ill.u.s.trated by an appeal to the only charge which remains to be examined.

(XXVI. and XXVII.) The absence from these twelve verses of the adverbs e????? and p????,-(both of them favourite words with the second Evangelist,)-has been pointed out as one more suspicious circ.u.mstance. Let us take the words singly:-

(_a_) The adverb e????? (or e????) is indeed of _very_ frequent occurrence in S. Mark's Gospel. And yet its absence from chap. xvi is _proved_ to be in no degree a suspicious circ.u.mstance, from the discovery that though it occurs as many as

12 times in chap. i; and 6 times in chap. v; and 5 times in chap. iv, vi; and 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv; and 2 times in chap. vii, xi; it yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv; while it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi.

(b) In like manner, p????, which occurs as often as

6 times in chap. xiv; and 5 times in chap. x; and 3 times in chap. viii, xv; and 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii; and 1 times in chap. iv, v; occurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.(297)

(1.) Now,-How can it possibly be more suspicious that p???? should be absent from _the last twelve_ verses of S. Mark, than that it should be away from _the first forty-five_?

(2.) Again. Since e????? is not found in the xiith or the xiiith chapters of this same Gospel,-nor p???? in the ist, vith, ixth, or xiiith chapter,-(for the sufficient reason that _neither word is wanted in any of those places_,)-what possible "suspiciousness" can be supposed to result from the absence of both words from the xvith chapter also, where _also_ neither of them is wanted? _Why_ is the xvith chapter of S. Mark's Gospel,-or rather, why are "the last twelve verses" of it,-to labour under such special disfavor and discredit?

(3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,-"I am well aware that arguments on _style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_ they prove very little: but when there does exist external evidence, and when internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and connection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment; then these internal considerations possess very great weight."(298)-For all rejoinder, the respected writer is asked,-(_a_) But when there _does not_ exist any such external evidence: what then? Next, he is reminded (_b_) That whether there does, or does not, it is at least certain that _not one_ of those "proofs as to style," &c., of which he speaks, has been able to stand the test of strict examination. Not only is the precariousness of all such Criticism as has been brought to bear against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 excessive, but the supposed facts adduced in evidence have been found out to be every one of them _mistakes_;-being either, (1) demonstrably without argumentative cogency of any kind;-or else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory circ.u.mstances: indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by S.

Mark,-_not_ that it is probably the work of another hand.

And thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven grounds of suspicion vanishes out of sight: fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and nugatory; and _thirteen_, more or less clearly witnessing _in favour_ of the section.(299)

III. Of these thirteen expressions, some are even eloquent in their witness. I am saying that it is impossible not to be exceedingly struck by the discovery that this portion of the Gospel contains (as I have explained already) so many indications of S. Mark's undoubted manner. Such is the reference to ? ?t?s?? (in ver. 15):-the mention of ?p?st?a (in ver.

14):-the occurrence of the verb p??e?es?a? (in ver. 10 and 12),-of the phrase ?? t? ???at? ?? (in ver. 17),-and of the phrase ?e??a? ?t?t????a?

?p? t??a (in ver. 18):-of the Evangelical term for our LORD'S Ascension, viz. ??e??f?? (in ver. 19):-and lastly, of the compounds pa?a??????e?? and ?pa??????e?? (in verses 17 and 20.)

To these Thirteen, will have to be added all those other notes of ident.i.ty of authors.h.i.+p,-such as they are,-which result from recurring ident.i.ty of phrase, and of which the a.s.sailants of this portion of the Gospel have prudently said nothing. Such are the following:-

(xiv.) ???sta?a?, for rising _from the dead_; which is one of S. Mark's words. Taking into account the shortness of his Gospel, he has it thrice as often as S. Luke; _twelve times_ as often as S. Matthew or S. John.

(xv.) The idiomatic expression p??e??????? e?? ?????, of which S. Matthew does not present a single specimen; but which occurs three times in the short Gospel of S. Mark,(300)-of which ver. 12 is one.

(xvi.) The expression p??? (in ver. 9,)-of which S. Mark avails himself six times: i.e. (if the length of the present Gospel be taken into account) almost five times as often as either S. Matthew or S. John,-S.

Luke never using the word at all. In his first chapter (ver. 35), and here in his last (ver. 2), S. Mark uses ??a? in connexion with p???.

(xvii.) The phrase ????sse?? t? e?a??????? (in ver. 15) is another of S.

Mark's phrases. Like S. Matthew, he employs it four times (i. 14: xiii.

10: xiv. 9: xvi. 15): but it occurs neither in S. Luke's nor in S. John's Gospel.

(xviii.) The same _words_ singly are characteristic of his Gospel. Taking the length of their several narratives into account, S. Mark has the word ????sse?? more than twice as often as S. Matthew: three times as often as S. Luke.