The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 16

(1.) That Lessons from the New Testament were publicly read in the a.s.semblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an established system, _at least_ as early as the fourth century,-has been shewn to be a plain historical fact. Cyril, at Jerusalem,-(and by implication, his namesake at Alexandria,)-Chrysostom, at Antioch and at Constantinople,-Augustine, in Africa,-all four expressly witness to the circ.u.mstance. In other words, there is found to have been _at least at that time_ fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and the same in the West(390) and in the East. That it must have been of even Apostolic antiquity may be inferred from several considerations. But that it dates its beginning from a period _anterior to the age of __ Eusebius,-which is the age of Codices B and_ ?,-at least admits of _no_ controversy.

(2.) Next,-Doc.u.ments of the vith century put us in possession of the great Oriental Lectionary as it is found at that time to have universally prevailed throughout the vast unchanging East. In other words, several of the actual Service Books, in Greek and in Syriac,(391) have survived the accidents of full a thousand years: and rubricated copies of the Gospels carry us back three centuries further. The entire agreement which is observed to prevail among these several doc.u.ments,-added to the fact that when tested by the allusions incidentally made by Greek Fathers of the ivth century to what was the Ecclesiastical practice of their own time, there are found to emerge countless as well as highly significant notes of correspondence,-warrants us in believing, (in the absence of testimony of any sort to the contrary,) that the Lectionary we speak of differs in no essential respect from that system of Lections with which the Church of the ivth century was universally acquainted.

Nothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in the course of the present inquiry than the fact, that doc.u.ments alone are wanting to make _that_ altogether demonstrable which, in default of such evidence, must remain a matter of inevitable inference only. The forms we are pursuing at last disappear from our sight: but it is only the mist of the early morning which shrouds them. We still hear their voices: still track their footsteps: know that others still see them, although we ourselves see them no longer. We are sure that _there they still are_. Moreover they may yet reappear at any moment. Thus, there exist Syriac MSS. of the Gospels of the viith and even of the vith century, in which the Lessons are rubricated in the text or on the margin. A Syriac MS. (of part of the Old T.) is actually _dated_ A.D. 464.(392) Should an Evangelium of similar date ever come to light of which the rubrication was evidently by the original Scribe, the evidence of the Lectionaries would at once be carried back full three hundred years.

But in fact we stand in need of no such testimony. Acceptable as it would be, it is plain that it would add no strength to the argument whatever. We are already able to plant our footsteps securely in the ivth and even in the iiird century. It is not enough to insist that inasmuch as the Liturgical method of Christendom was at least fully established in the East and in the West at the close of the ivth century, it therefore must have had its beginning at a far remoter period. Our two oldest Codices (B and ?) bear witness throughout to the corrupting influence of a system which was evidently in full operation before the time of Eusebius. And even this is not all. The readings in Origen, and of the earliest versions of the Gospel, (the old Latin, the Syriac, the Egyptian versions,) carry back our evidence on this subject unmistakably to _the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles_. This will be found established in the course of the ensuing Chapter.

Beginning our survey of the problem at the opposite end, we arrive at the same result; with even a deepened conviction that in its essential structure, the Lectionary of the Eastern Church must be of truly primitive antiquity: indeed that many of its leading provisions must date back almost,-nay _quite_,-to the Apostolic age. From whichever side we approach this question,-whatever test we are able to apply to our premisses,-our conclusion remains still the very same.

(3.) Into this Lectionary then,-so universal in its extent, so consistent in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,-"_the_ LAST TWELVE VERSES _of the Gospel according to S. Mark_" from the very first are found to have won for themselves not only an entrance, a lodgment, an established place; but, _the place of highest honour_,-an audience on two of the Church's chiefest Festivals.

The circ.u.mstance is far too important, far too significant to be pa.s.sed by without a few words of comment.

For it is not here, (be it carefully observed,) as when we appeal to some Patristic citation, that the recognition of a phrase, or a verse, or a couple of verses, must be accepted as a proof that the same ancient Father recognised the context also in which those words are found. Not so. _All the Twelve Verses in dispute are found in every known copy_ of the venerable Lectionary of the East. _Those same Twelve Verses_,-neither more nor less,-_are observed to const.i.tute one integral Lection_.

But even this is not all. The most important fact seems to be that to these Verses has been a.s.signed a place of the highest possible distinction. It is found that, from the very first, S. Mark xvi. 9-20 has been everywhere, and by all branches of the Church Catholic, claimed for _two_ of the Church's greatest Festivals,-Easter and Ascension. A more weighty or a more significant circ.u.mstance can scarcely be imagined. To suppose that a portion of Scripture singled out for such extraordinary honour by the Church universal is a spurious addition to the Gospel, is purely irrational; is simply monstrous. No unauthorized "fragment,"

however "remarkable," could by possibility have so established itself in the regards of the East and of the West, from the very first. No suspected "addition, placed here in very early times," would have been tolerated in the Church's solemn public Service six or seven times a-year. No. _It is impossible._ Had it been one short clause which we were invited to surrender: a verse: two verses: even three or four:-the plea being that (as in the case of the celebrated _pericopa de adultera_) the Lectionaries knew nothing of them:-the case would have been entirely different. But for any one to seek to persuade us that these Twelve Verses, which exactly const.i.tute one of the Church's most famous Lections, are every one of them spurious:-that the fatal taint begins with the first verse, and only ends with the last:-_this_ is a demand on our simplicity which, in a less solemn subject, would only provoke a smile. We are constrained to testify astonishment and even some measure of concern. Have the Critics then, (supposing them to be familiar with the evidence which has now been set forth so much in detail;)-Have the Critics then, (we ask) utterly taken leave of their senses? or do they really suppose that we have taken leave of ours?

It is time to close this discussion. It was declared at the outset that the witness of the Lectionaries to the genuineness of these Verses, though it has been generally overlooked, is the most important of any: admitting, as it does, of no evasion: being simply, as it is, decisive. I have now fully explained the grounds of that a.s.sertion. I have set the Verses, which I undertook to vindicate and establish, on a basis from which it will be found impossible any more to dislodge them. Whatever Griesbach, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and the rest, may think about the matter,-the Holy Eastern Church in her corporate capacity, has never been of their opinion. _They_ may doubt. _The ante-Nicene Fathers_ at least never doubted. If "the last Twelve Verses" of S. Mark were _deservedly_ omitted from certain Copies of his Gospel in the ivth century, utterly incredible is it that these same TWELVE VERSES should have been disseminated, by their authority, throughout Christendom;-read, by their command, in all the Churches;-selected, by their collective judgment, from the whole body of Scripture for the special honour of being listened to once and again at EASTER time, as well as on ASCENSION-DAY.

CHAPTER XI.

THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.

The Text of our five oldest Uncials proved, by an induction of instances, to have suffered depravation throughout by the operation of the ancient Lectionary system of the Church (p.

217).-The omission of S. Mark's "last Twelve Verses,"

(const.i.tuting an integral Ecclesiastical Lection,) shewn to be probably only one more example of the same depraving influence (p.

224). This solution of the problem corroborated by the language of Eusebius and of Hesychius (p. 232); as well as favoured by the "Western" order of the Gospels (p. 239).

I am much mistaken if the suggestion which I am about to offer has not already presented itself to every reader of ordinary intelligence who has taken the trouble to follow the course of my argument thus far with attention. It requires no acuteness whatever,-it is, as it seems to me, the merest instinct of mother-wit,-on reaching the present stage of the discussion, to debate with oneself somewhat as follows:-

1. So then, the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel were anciently often observed to be missing from the copies. Eusebius expressly says so.

I observe that he nowhere says that _their genuineness_ was anciently _suspected_. As for himself, his elaborate discussion of their contents convinces me that individually, he regarded them with favour. The mere fact,-(it is best to keep to his actual statement,)-that "the entire pa.s.sage"(393) was "not met with in all the copies," is the sum of his evidence: and two Greek ma.n.u.scripts, yet extant, supposed to be of the ivth century (Codd. B and ?), mutilated in this precise way, testify to the truth of his statement.

2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Verses,-neither more nor less,-anciently const.i.tuted _an integral __ Ecclesiastical Lection_; which lection,-inasmuch as it is found to have established itself in every part of Christendom at the earliest period to which liturgical evidence reaches back, and to have been a.s.signed from the very first to two of the chiefest Church Festivals,-must needs be a lection of almost Apostolic antiquity. Eusebius, I observe, (see p. 45), designates the portion of Scripture in dispute by its technical name,-?ef??a??? or pe????p?; (for so an Ecclesiastical lection was anciently called). Here then is a rare coincidence indeed. It is in fact simply unique. Surely, I may add that it is in the highest degree suggestive also. It inevitably provokes the inquiry,-Must not these two facts be not only connected, but even _interdependent_? Will not the omission of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark from certain ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way _occasioned by the fact_ that those same twelve verses const.i.tuted an integral Church Lection? How is it possible to avoid suspecting that the phenomenon to which Eusebius invites attention, (viz. that certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel in very ancient times had been mutilated from the end of the 8th verse onwards,) ought to be capable of ill.u.s.tration,-will have in fact _to be explained_, and in a word _accounted for_,-by the circ.u.mstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark's xvith chapter, one ancient Lection _came to an end_, and another ancient Lection _began_?

Somewhat thus, (I venture to think,) must every unprejudiced Reader of intelligence hold parley with himself on reaching the close of the preceding chapter. I need hardly add that I am thoroughly convinced he would be reasoning rightly. I am going to shew that the Lectionary practice of the ancient Church does indeed furnish a sufficient clue for the unravelment of this now famous problem: in other words, enables us satisfactorily to account for the omission of these Twelve Verses from ancient copies of the collected Gospels. But I mean to do more. I propose to make my appeal to doc.u.ments which shall be observed to bear no faltering witness in my favour. More yet. I propose that Eusebius himself, the chief author of all this trouble, shall be brought back into Court and invited to resyllable his Evidence; and I am much mistaken if even _he_ will not be observed to let fall a hint that we have at last got on the right scent;-have accurately divined how this mistake took its first beginning;-and, (what is not least to the purpose,) have correctly apprehended what was his own real meaning in what he himself has said.

The proposed solution of the difficulty,-if not the evidence on which it immediately rests,-might no doubt be exhibited within exceedingly narrow limits. Set down abruptly, however, its weight and value would inevitably fail to be recognised, even by those who already enjoy some familiarity with these studies. Very few of the considerations which I shall have to rehea.r.s.e are in fact unknown to Critics: yet is it evident that their bearing on the problem before us has. .h.i.therto altogether escaped their notice. On the other hand, by one entirely a novice to this department of sacred Science, I could scarcely hope to be so much as understood. Let me be allowed, therefore, to preface what I have to say with a few explanatory details which I promise shall not be tedious, and which I trust will not be found altogether without interest either. If they are anywhere else to be met with, it is my misfortune, not my fault, that I have been hitherto unsuccessful in discovering the place.

I. From the earliest ages of the Church, (as I shewed at page 192-5,) it has been customary to read certain definite portions of Holy Scripture, determined by Ecclesiastical authority, publicly before the Congregation.

In process of time, as was natural, the sections so required for public use were collected into separate volumes: Lections from the Gospels being written out in a Book which was called "_Evangelistarium_,"

(e?a??e??st?????,)-from the Acts and Epistles, in a book called "_Praxapostolus_," (p?a?ap?st????). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and Syriac, are yet extant in great numbers,(394) and (I may remark in pa.s.sing) deserve a far greater amount of attention than has. .h.i.therto been bestowed upon them.(395)

_When_ the Lectionary first took the form of a separate book, has not been ascertained. That no copy is known to exist (whether in Greek or in Syriac) older than the viiith century, proves nothing. Codices in daily use, (like the Bibles used in our Churches,) must of necessity have been of exceptionally brief duration; and Lectionaries, more even than Biblical MSS. were liable to injury and decay.

II. But it is to be observed,-(and to explain this, is much more to my present purpose,)-that besides transcribing the Ecclesiastical lections into separate books, it became the practice at a very early period _to adapt copies of the Gospel to lectionary purposes_. I suspect that this practice began in the Churches of Syria; for Syriac copies of the Gospels (_at least_ of the viith century) abound, which have the Lections more or less systematically rubricated in the Text.(396) There is in the British Museum a copy of S. Mark's Gospel according to the Pes.h.i.+to version, _certainly written previous to _A.D. 583, which has at least five or six rubrics so inserted by the original scribe.(397) As a rule, in all later cursive Greek MSS., (I mean those of the xiith to the xvth century,) the Ecclesiastical lections are indicated throughout: while either at the summit, or else at the foot of the page, the formula with which the Lection was to be introduced is elaborately inserted; prefaced probably by a rubricated statement (not always very easy to decipher) of the occasion _when_ the ensuing portion of Scripture was to be read. The ancients, to a far greater extent than ourselves,(398) were accustomed,-(in fact, they made it _a rule_,)-to prefix unauthorized formulae to their public Lections; and these are sometimes found to have established themselves so firmly, that at last they became as it were ineradicable; and later copyists of the fourfold Gospel are observed to introduce them unsuspiciously into the inspired text.(399) All that belongs to this subject deserves particular attention; because it is _this_ which explains not a few of the perturbations (so to express oneself) which the text of the New Testament has experienced. We are made to understand how, what was originally intended only as a _liturgical note_, became mistaken, through the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a _critical suggestion_; and thus, besides transpositions without number, there has arisen, at one time, the insertion of something unauthorized into the text of Scripture,-at another, the omission of certain inspired words, to the manifest detriment of the sacred deposit. For although the _systematic_ rubrication of the Gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively recent invention,-(I question if it be older in Greek MSS. than the xth century,)-yet will persons engaged in the public Services of G.o.d'S House have been p.r.o.ne, from the very earliest age, to insert memoranda of the kind referred to, into the margin of their copies. In this way, in fact, it may be regarded as certain that in countless minute particulars the text of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail to add, that by a judicious, and above all by an _unprejudiced_ use of the materials at our disposal, it may, even at this distance of time, in every such particular, be successfully restored.(400)

III. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances, that _even in the oldest copies in existence_, I mean in Codd. B, ?, A, C, and D, the Lectionary system of the early Church has left abiding traces of its operation. When a few such undeniable cases have been adduced, all objections grounded on _prima facie_ improbability will have been satisfactorily disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such a disturbing force and depraving influence, _at least_ as far back as the beginning of the ivth century, (but it is in fact more ancient by full two hundred years,) will have been established: of which I shall only have to shew, in conclusion, that the omission of "the last Twelve Verses" of S.

Mark's Gospel is probably but one more instance,-though confessedly by far the most extraordinary of any.

(1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, the two grand verses which describe our LORD'S "Agony and b.l.o.o.d.y Sweat," (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44,) are missing. The same two verses are absent also from a few other important MSS., as well as from both the Egyptian versions; but I desire to fasten attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place of Codex B.

"Confessedly erring," I say; for the genuineness of those two verses is no longer disputed. Now, in every known Evangelistarium, the two verses here omitted by Cod. B follow, (the Church so willed it,) S. Matth. xxvi. 39, and are read as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy Week.(401) Of course they are also _omitted_ in the same Evangelistaria from the lesson for the Tuesday after s.e.xagesima, (t? ?? t?? t???f????, as the Easterns call that day,) when S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1 used to be read. Moreover, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have been accommodated to ecclesiastical use, _the reader of S. Luke xxii. is invariably directed by a marginal note to leave out those two verses_, and to proceed per saltum from ver. 42 to ver. 45.(402) What more obvious therefore than that the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in S. Luke's Gospel is to be attributed to nothing else but the Lectionary practice of the primitive Church? Quite unreasonable is it to impute heretical motives, or to invent any other unsupported theory, while this plain solution of the difficulty is at hand.

(2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. ?, C, L, U and G are observed here to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the SAVIOUR'S side (S. John xix. 34) at the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. Now, I only do not insist that this must needs be the result of the singular Lectionary practice already described at p. 202, because a scholion in Cod. 72 records the singular fact that in the Diatessaron of Tatian, after S. Matth. xxvii. 48, was read ????? d? ?a?? ?????? ????e? a?t?? t?? p?e????: ?a? ?????e? ?d?? ?a?

a?a. (Chrysostom's codex was evidently vitiated in _precisely_ the same way.) This interpolation therefore may have resulted from the corrupting influence of Tatian's (so-called) "Harmony." See Appendix (H).

(3.) To keep on safe ground. Codd. B and D concur in what Alford justly calls the "grave error" of simply omitting from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our LORD'S supplication on behalf of His murderers, (? d? ??s??? ??e?e, ??te?, ?fe? a?t???: ?? ??? ??das? t? p????s?). They are not quite singular in so doing; being, as usual, kept in countenance by certain copies of the old Latin, as well as by both the Egyptian versions. How is this "grave error"

in so many ancient MSS. to be accounted for? (for a "grave error" or rather "a fatal omission" it certainly is). Simply by the fact that in the Eastern Church the Lection for the Thursday after s.e.xagesima _breaks off abruptly, immediately before these very words_,-to recommence at ver.

44.(403)

(4.) Note, that at ver. 32, _the eighth _"Gospel of the Pa.s.sion"_ begins_,-which is the reason why Codd. B and ? (with the Egyptian versions) exhibit a singular irregularity in that place; and why the Jerusalem Syriac introduces the established formula of the Lectionaries (s?? t? ??s??) at the same juncture.

(If I do not here insist that the absence of the famous _pericopa de adultera_ (S. John vii. 53-viii. 11,) from so many MSS., is to be explained in precisely the same way, it is only because the genuineness of that portion of the Gospel is generally denied; and I propose, in this enumeration of instances, not to set foot on disputed ground. I am convinced, nevertheless, that the first occasion of the omission of those memorable verses was the lectionary practice of the primitive Church, which, on Whitsunday, read from S. John vii. 37 to viii. 12, _leaving out the twelve verses_ in question. Those verses, from the nature of their contents, (as Augustine declares,) easily came to be viewed with dislike or suspicion. The pa.s.sage, however, is as old as the second century, for it is found in certain copies of the old Latin. Moreover Jerome deliberately gave it a place in the Vulgate. I pa.s.s on.)

(5.) The two oldest Codices in existence,-B and ?,-stand all but alone in omitting from S. Luke vi. 1 the unique and indubitably genuine word de?te??p??t?; which is also omitted by the Pes.h.i.+to, Italic and Coptic versions. And yet, when it is observed that an _Ecclesiastical lection begins here_, and that the Evangelistaria (which _invariably_ leave out such notes of time) simply drop the word,-only subst.i.tuting for ?? sa?t?

the more familiar t??? s?as?,-every one will be ready to admit that if the omission of this word be not due to the inattention of the copyist, (which, however, seems to me not at all unlikely,(404)) it is sufficiently explained by the Lectionary practice of the Church,-which may well date back even to the immediately post-Apostolic age.

(6.) In S. Luke xvi. 19, Cod. D introduces the Parable of Lazarus with the formula,-e?pe? d? ?a? ?t??a? pa?a????; which is nothing else but a marginal note which has found its way into the text from the margin; being _the liturgical introduction of a Church-lesson_(405) which afterwards began e?pe? ? ?????? t?? pa?a???? ta?t??.(406)

(7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv. begin with _the liturgical formula_,-(it survives in our Book of Common Prayer(407) to this very hour!)-?a? e?pe? t??? a??ta?? a?t??: in which it is countenanced by certain MSS. of the Vulgate and of the old Latin Version.

Indeed, it may be stated generally concerning the text of Cod. D, that it bears marks _throughout_ of the depraving influence of the ancient Lectionary practice. Instances of this, (in addition to those elsewhere cited in these pages,) will be discovered in S. Luke iii. 23: iv. 16 (and xix. 45): v. 1 and 17: vi. 37 (and xviii. 15): vii. 1: x. 1 and 25: xx. 1: in all but three of which, Cod. D is kept in countenance by the old Latin, often by the Syriac, and by other versions of the greatest antiquity. But to proceed.

(8.) Cod. A, (supported by Athanasius, the Vulgate, Gothic, and Philoxenian versions,) for ?a?, in S. Luke ix. 57, reads ????et? d?,-which is the reading of the Textus Receptus. Cod. D, (with some copies of the old Latin,) exhibits ?a? ????et?. All the diversity which is observable in this place, (and it is considerable,) is owing to the fact that _an Ecclesiastical lection begins here_.(408) In different Churches, the formula with which the lection was introduced slightly differed.

(9.) Cod. C is supported by Chrysostom and Jerome, as well as by the Pes.h.i.+to, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac, and some MSS. of the old Latin, in reading ? ??s??? at the beginning of S. Matth. xi. 20. That the words have no business there, is universally admitted. So also is the cause of their interpolation generally recognized. _The Ecclesiastical lection_ for Wednesday in the ivth week after Pentecost _begins at that place_; and begins with the formula,-?? t? ?a??? ??e???, ???at? ? ??s???

??e?d??e??.

(10.) Similarly, in S. Matth. xii. 9, xiii. 36, and xiv. 14, Cod. C inserts ? ??s???; a reading which on all three occasions is countenanced by the Syriac and some copies of the old Latin, and on the last of the three, by Origen also. And yet there can be no doubt that it is only because _Ecclesiastical lections begin at those places_,(409) that the Holy Name is introduced there.

(11.) Let me add that the Sacred Name is confessedly an interpolation in the six places indicated at foot,-its presence being accounted for by the fact that, in each, an _Ecclesiastical lection begins_.(410) Cod. D in one of these places, Cod. A in four, is kept in countenance by the old Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic and other early versions;-convincing indications of the extent to which the Lectionary practice of the Church had established itself so early as the second century of our aera.

Cod. D, and copies of the old Latin and Egyptian versions also read t??

??s??, (instead of a?t??,) in S. Mark xiv. 3; which is only because _a Church lesson begins there_.

(12.) The same Cod. D is all but unique in leaving out that memorable verse in S. Luke's Gospel (xxiv. 12), in which S. Peter's visit to the Sepulchre of our risen LORD finds particular mention. It is only because that verse was claimed both as the _conclusion_ of the ivth and also as the _beginning_ of the vth Gospel of the Resurrection: so that the liturgical note ???? stands at the beginning,-t???? at the end of it.

Accordingly, D is kept in countenance here only by the Jerusalem Lectionary and some copies of the old Latin. But what is to be thought of the editorial judgment which (with Tregelles) encloses this verse within brackets; and (with Tischendorf) _rejects it from the text altogether_?

(13.) Codices B, ?, and D are _alone_ among MSS. in omitting the clause d?e???? d?? ?s?? a?t??: ?a? pa???e? ??t??, at the end of the 59th verse of S. John viii. The omission is to be accounted for by the fact that just _there_ the Church-lesson for Tuesday in the vth week after Easter _came to an end_.

(14.) Again. It is not at all an unusual thing to find in cursive MSS., at the end of S. Matth. viii. 13, (with several varieties), the spurious and tasteless appendix,-?a? ?p?st???a? ? ??at??ta???? e?? t?? ????? a?t?? ??