The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 28

After the pages just quoted were in type, while examining Harl. MS. 5647 in the British Museum, (_our_ Evan. 72,) I alighted on the following Scholion, which I have since found that Wetstein duly published; but which has certainly not attracted the attention it deserves, and which is incorrectly represented as referring to the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. It is _against ver._ 48 that there is written in the margin,-

(?(573) ?t? e?? t? ?a?? ?st???a? e?a??????? ??ad???? ?a? ?at?a??? ?a?

????? d?af???? ????? pat????: t??t? p??s?e?ta?:

(? ????? d? ?a??: ?????? ????e? a?t?? t?? p?e????. ?a? ?????e? ?d?? ?a?

a?a: t??t? ???e? ?a? ? ???s?st???.

This writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew's Gospel, (_Opp._ vii, 825 C: [vol. ii, p. 526, _ed._ Field.]) is read as follows:-????sa? ???a? e??a?, f?s?, t?? ?a???e???, ?a? e????? ?p?t?sa? a?t?? ????: (which is clearly meant to be a summary of the contents _of ver._ 48: then follows) ?te??? d? p??se???? ????? a?t??

t?? p?e???? ????e. (Chrysostom quotes no further, but proceeds,-?? ?????t ?? t??t?? pa?a???te???, t? d? ?????d?ste???, ?.t.?.)

I find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere to the opinion I once held, and have partially expressed above, (viz. at p. 202,) that the Lectionary-practice of the Eastern Church was the occasion of this corrupt reading in our two oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably is; and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. B, ?, (not to say Codd. C, L, U, G,) must continue to sustain. That Chrysostom and Cyril also employed Codices disfigured by this self-same blemish, is certain. It is an interesting and suggestive circ.u.mstance. Nor is this all. Severus(574) relates that between A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had known this very reading strenuously discussed: whereupon had been produced a splendid copy of S. Matthew's Gospel, traditionally said to have been found with the body of the Apostle Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the time of the Emperor Zeno (A.D. 474-491); and preserved in the palace with superst.i.tious veneration in consequence. It contained no record of the piercing of the SAVIOUR'S side: nor (adds Severus) does any ancient Interpreter mention the transaction in that place,-except Chrysostom and _Cyril of Alexandria_; into whose Commentaries it has found its way.-Thus, to Codices B, ?, C and the copy familiarly employed by Chrysostom, has to be added the copy which Cyril of Alexandria(575) employed; as well as evidently sundry other Codices extant at Constantinople about A.D. 500.

That the corruption of the text of S. Matthew's Gospel under review is ancient therefore, and was once very widely spread, is certain. The question remains,-and this is the only point to be determined,-How did it _originate_?

Now it must be candidly admitted, that if the strange method of the Lectionaries already explained, (viz. of interposing seven verses of S.

John's xixth chapter [ver. 31-7] between the 54th and 55th verses of S.

Matth. xxvii,) really were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John xix. 34 after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49,-two points would seem to call for explanation which at present remain unexplained: First, (1) Why does _only that one verse_ find place in the interpolated copies? And next, (2) How does it come to pa.s.s that _that_ one verse is exhibited in so very depraved and so peculiar a form?

For, to say nothing of the inverted order of the two princ.i.p.al words, (which is clearly due to 1 S. John v. 6,) let it be carefully noted that the subst.i.tution of ????? d? ?a?? ??????, for ???? e?? t?? st?at??t??

????? of the Evangelist, is a tell-tale circ.u.mstance. The turn thus licentiously given to the narrative clearly proceeded from some one who was bent on weaving incidents related by different writers into a connected narrative, and who was sometimes constrained to take liberties with his Text in consequence. (Thus, S. Matthew having supplied the fact that "ONE OF THEM ran, and _took a sponge_, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink," S. John is made to say, "AND ANOTHER-_took a spear_.") Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by Eusebius to have done: viz. "after some fas.h.i.+on of his own, to have composed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative."(576)

When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient Critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost "Diatessaron" of Tatian, comes before us with the express declaration that in that famous monument of the primitive age (A.D. 173), S. John's record of the piercing of our SAVIOUR'S side was thrust into S. Matthew's History of the Pa.s.sion in this precise way and in these very terms,-(for, "Note," he says, "That into the Evangelical History of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other holy Fathers, is introduced [here] the following addition: 'And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water and Blood.'

This, Chrysostom also says"),-it is even unreasonable to seek for any other explanation of the vitiated text of our two oldest Codices. Not only is the testimony to the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the proposed solution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable, is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important. For,-May we not venture to opine that the same ?a?? ?st???a? e?a???????,-as this Writer aptly designates Tatian's work,-is responsible for not a few of the _monstra potius quam variae lectiones_(577) which are occasionally met with in the earliest MSS. of all? And,-Am I not right in suggesting that the circ.u.mstance before us is _the only thing we know for certain_ about the text of Tatian's (miscalled) "Harmony?"

To conclude.-That the "Diatessaron" of Tatian, (for so, according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled it,) has long since disappeared, no one now doubts.(578) That Eusebius himself, (who lived 150 years after the probable date of its composition,) had never seen it, may I suppose be inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it. Jerome does not so much as mention its existence. Epiphanius, who is very full and particular concerning the heresy of Tatian, affords no indication that he was acquainted with his work. On the contrary. "The Diatessaron Gospel,"

(he remarks in pa.s.sing,) "which some call the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is said to have been the production of this writer."(579) The most interesting notice we have of Tatian's work is from the pen of Theodoret. After explaining that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist, and next a disciple of Justin Martyr [A.D. 150], after Justin's death aspired to being a heretical leader,-(statements which are first found in Irenaeus,)-Theodoret enumerates his special tenets. "This man" (he proceeds) "put together the so-called _Diatessaron Gospel_,-from which he cut away the genealogies, and whatever else shews that the LORD was born of the seed of David. The book was used not only by those who favoured Tatian's opinions, but by the orthodox as well; who, unaware of the mischievous spirit in which the work had been executed, in their simplicity used the book as an epitome. _I myself found upwards of two hundred such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place_,"

(Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made Bishop, A.D.

423,)-"all of which I collected together, and put aside; subst.i.tuting the Gospels of the Four Evangelists in their room."(580)

The diocese of Theodoret (he says) contained eight hundred Parishes.(581) It cannot be thought surprising that a work of which copies had been multiplied to such an extraordinary extent, and which was evidently once held in high esteem, should have had _some_ influence on the text of the earliest Codices; and here, side by side with a categorical statement as to one of its licentious interpolations, we are furnished with doc.u.mentary proof that many an early MS. also was infected with the same taint. To a.s.sume that the two phenomena stand related to one another in the way of cause and effect, seems to be even an inevitable proceeding.

I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the "Diodorus" of whom the unknown author of this scholion speaks: but I suppose it was _that_ Diodorus who was made Bishop of Tarsus in A.D. 378. He is related to have been the preceptor of Chrysostom; was a very voluminous writer; and, among the rest, according to Suidas, wrote a work "on the Four Gospels."

Lastly,-How about the singular introduction _into the Lection for Good-Friday_ of this incident of the piercing of the REDEEMER'S side? Is it allowable to conjecture that, indirectly, the Diatessaron of Tatian may have been the occasion of that circ.u.mstance also; as well as of certain other similar phenomena in the Evangeliaria?

POSTSCRIPT.

(PROMISED AT p. 51.)

I proceed to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.-C.F. Matthaei (_Nov.

Test._, 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of the MSS. at Moscow occurs the following "Scholion of EUSEBIUS:-?at? ?????? et? t?? ???stas??

?? ???eta? ?f?a? t??? a??ta??." On this, Griesbach remarks (_Comm. Crit._ ii. 200),-"quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset:"

the record in S. Mark xvi. 14, being express,-?ste??? ??a?e?????? a?t???

t??? ??de?a ?fa?e????. The epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach's dictum has recommended it to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourably on the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel; and to this hour the Scholion of Matthaei remains unchallenged.

But to accept the proposed inference from it, is impossible. It ought to be obvious to every thoughtful person that problems of this cla.s.s will not bear to be so handled. It is as if one were to apply the rigid mathematical method to the ordinary transactions of daily life, for which it is clearly unsuitable. Before we move a single step, however, we desire a few more particulars concerning this supposed evidence of Eusebius.

Accordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the Rev. W. G.

Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain for me _the entire context_ in which this "Scholion of Eusebius" occurs: little antic.i.p.ating the trouble I was about to give him. His task would have been comparatively easy had I been able to furnish him (which I was not) with the exact designation of the Codex required. At last by sheer determination and the display of no small ability, he discovered the place, and sent me a tracing of the whole page: viz. fol. 286 (the last ten words being overleaf) of Matthaei's "12," ("Synod. 139,") our EVAN. 255.

It proves to be the concluding portion of Victor's Commentary, and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of Possinus, and p. 446-7 of Cramer: except that after the words "?p?????se?e t?? ?????," and before the words "????? d? f?s??" [Possinus, _line_ 12 _from bottom_: Cramer, _line_ 3 _from the top_], is read as follows:-

???? e?se???

?at? ??????: et? t?? ???stas?? ?? ???eta? ?f?a? t??? a??ta??: ?at?

?at?a???: et? t?? ???stas?? t??? a??ta?? ?f?? ?? t? Ga???a??.

?at? ???????: ?? a?t? t? ???? t?? ??ast?se?? t?? ????? ?e??e?s???? ?

??s??? ?s?? t?? a??t?? ? pa???t?? t?? T?? ?st?; ?a? e?? ???a? p????

??t? s?pa???t?? ?a? t?? T??. et? ta?ta p???? ?f??? a?t??? ?p? t??

?a?a.s.s?? t?? ??e???d??.

?at? ??????: ?f?? ??e?p? s?? t? ?ta??? a?t?? a?t? t? ???? t?? ??ast?se??: ?a? p???? ?p?st???as?? e?? ?e???sa?? ?f?? t? a?t? ???? s???????? t??

???p?? a??t??: ?a? ?f?? S????: ?a? p???? ????a?e? a?t??? e?? ???a??a?

?a? d??st? ?p? a?t??.

But surely no one who considers the matter attentively, will conceive that he is warranted in drawing from this so serious an inference as that Eusebius disallowed the last Section of S. Mark's Gospel.

(1.) In the first place, we have already [_supra_, p. 44] heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question. That he allowed it, is therefore _certain_.

(2.) But next, this s?????? e?se??? at the utmost can only be regarded as a general summary of what Eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our LORD'S appearances after His Resurrection. _As it stands_, it clearly is not the work of Eusebius.

(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement cannot be accepted on my own mere "ipse dixit," I proceed to subjoin the original Scholion of which the preceding is evidently only an epitome. It is found in three of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but without any Author's name:-

?e????? d? ? e?a??e??st??, ?t? et? t?? ???stas?? ????t? s??e??? a?t???

s????, ???e?, t??t? ?d? t??t?? _t??? a??ta?? ?f??_ ? ?????? _et? t??

???stas??;_ ?? t??t? ?????, ?t? ???? t??t??, ???? t? t??? ??????

pa?a?e?e???a ?????, t??t? ?d? p??? t??? ?????? t??t?? ?fa?e???? t???

a??ta??. _?at?_ ?? ??? t?? _?at?a???,_ ?f?? a?t??? _?? t? Ga???a??_ ????; _?at?_ d? t?? _???????, ?? a?t? t? ???? t?? ??ast?se??, t?? ?????

?e??e?s????, ?s??_ a?t?? _?st?_ ??t?? ?? ?e???sa??, _? pa???t??_ ??e?

T??. ?a? p???? e?? ???a? ??t?, pa???t?? ?a? _t?? T??,_ ?f?? a?t???, ?d? ?e??e?s???? t?? ?????. _et? ta?ta ?p? t?? ?a??ss?? t?? ??e???d??

?f??? a?t???,_ ?? t??? ?? ???? ????? ?. _?at?_ d? _?????? ?f?? ??e?p? s??

t? ?ta??? a?t??, a?t? t? ???? t?? ??ast?se??. ?a? p???? ?p?st???as?? e??

?e???sa?? a?t? t? ????, s???????? t?? a??t??, ?f?? S????. ?a? p????

??a?a??? a?t??? e?? ???a??a?,_ ?te _?a? d??st?_ ??a??f?e?? _?p? a?t??;_ ??

?? t??t?? pa??stas?a? ?. e??a? t??? a??t?? et? t?? ???stas?? ?e?????a?

?ptas?a? t?? S?t???? ??? ??s?? ???st??. ?a? ?? pa?? t? ?at?a??, t?e??

d? pa?? t? ??a???, ?a? t?e?? t? ????? ?????.(582)

(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,-the _only_ thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,-is the notable circ.u.mstance that the supposed dictum of Eusebius,-("quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset,")-_is no longer discoverable_. To say that "it has disappeared," would be incorrect. In the original doc.u.ment _it has no existence_. In plain terms, the famous "s?????? e?se???" proves to be every way a figment. It is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some nameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as I shall presently shew) _cannot_ have been the Author.

(5.) I may as well point out _why_ the person who wrote the longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark's Gospel. It is because there was nothing for him to say. He is enumerating our LORD'S _appearances to His Disciples_ after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these were exactly seven in number: _one_ being peculiar to S. Matthew,-_three_, to S. John,-_three_, to S. Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there exists _no_ record of an appearance to the Disciples _peculiar_ to S.

Mark's Gospel, the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark _perforce_.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei can have overlooked all this: how he can have failed to recognise the ident.i.ty of his longer and his shorter Scholion: how he came to say of the latter, "conjicias ergo Eusebium hunc totum loc.u.m repudia.s.se;" and, of the former, "ultimam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere:"(583) lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write,-"est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat:"(584)-I profess myself unable to understand.