The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 6

"For it is high time to point out that even if it so happened that the oldest known MS. was observed to be without these twelve concluding verses, it would still remain a thing unproved (not to say highly improbable) that from the autograph of the Evangelist himself they were also away. Supposing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the iind or iiird century could be found who quoted them: even so, it would not follow that there existed no such verses for a primitive Father to quote.

The earliest of the Versions might in addition yield faltering testimony; but even so, _who_ would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis the monstrous hypothesis, that S. Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of its inspired Author was without the verses which at present conclude it?

How, then, would you have proposed to account for the consistent testimony of an opposite kind yielded by every other known doc.u.ment in the world?

"But, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case? (1) The earliest of the Fathers,-(2) the most venerable of the Versions,-(3) the oldest MS.

of which we can obtain any tidings,-_all_ are observed to _recognize these Verses_. 'Cadit quaestio' therefore. The last shadow of pretext has vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that 'Mark the Evangelist knew nothing of' these verses:-with Tregelles that 'The book of Mark himself extends no further than ?f????t? ???:'-with Griesbach that 'the _last leaf of the original Gospel was probably torn away_.'... It is high time, I say, that this case were dismissed. But there are also costs to be paid.

Cod. B and Cod. ? are convicted of being 'two false witnesses,' and must be held to go forth from this inquiry with an injured reputation."

This entire subject is of so much importance that I must needs yet awhile crave the reader's patience and attention.

CHAPTER VII.

Ma.n.u.sCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.-PART II.

The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and ? (viz. the omission of the words ?? ?f?s? from Ephes. 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 peculiarities of Codex ? disposed of (p. 109).

The subject which exclusively occupied our attention throughout the foregoing chapter admits of apt and powerful ill.u.s.tration. Its vast importance will be a sufficient apology for the particular disquisition which follows, and might have been spared, but for the plain challenge of the famous Critic to be named immediately.

"There are two remarkable readings," (says Tischendorf, addressing English readers on this subject in 1868,) "which are very instructive towards determining the age of the ma.n.u.scripts [? and B], and _their authority_."

He proceeds to adduce,-

1. The absence from both, of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel,-concerning which, the reader probably thinks that by this time he has heard enough. Next,-

2. He appeals to their omission of the words ?? ?f?s? from the first verse of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,-_another peculiarity, in which Codd._ ? _and B stand quite alone among MSS._

I. Here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the New Testament indeed. Altogether unique is it: and that it powerfully corroborates the general opinion of their high antiquity, no one will deny. But how about "their _authority_"? Does the coincidence also raise our opinion of _the trustworthiness of the Text_, which these two MSS.

concur in exhibiting? for _that_ is the question which has to be considered,-the _only_ question. The ancientness of a reading is one thing: its genuineness, (as I have explained elsewhere,) quite another.

The questions are entirely distinct. It may even be added that while the one is really of little moment, the latter is of all the importance in the world. I am saying that it matters very little whether Codd. ? and B were written in the beginning of the ivth century, or in the beginning of the vth: whereas it matters much, or rather it matters _everything_, whether they exhibit the Word of G.o.d faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous license. How far the reading which results from the suppression of the last two words in the phrase t??? ?????? t??? ??s?? ?? ?f?s?, is _critically allowable_ or not, I forbear to inquire. That is not the point which we have to determine. The one question to be considered is,-May it _possibly_ be the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way _credible_ that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as follows:-?a???? ?p?st???? ??s?? ???st?? d?? ?e??at?? Te??, t??? ??????

t??? ??s? ?a? p?st??? ?? ???st? ??s???... If it be eagerly declared in reply that the thing is simply incredible: that the words ?? ?f?s? are required for the sense; and that the commonly received reading is no doubt the correct one: then,-there is an end of the discussion. Two extraordinary notes of sympathy between two Ma.n.u.scripts will have been appealed to as crucial proofs of the _trustworthiness of the Text_ of those Ma.n.u.scripts: (for of their high _Antiquity_, let me say it once more, there can be no question whatever:) and it will have been proved in one case,-admitted in the other,-that _the omission is unwarrantable_.-If, however, on the contrary, it be maintained that the words ?? ?f?s?

probably had no place in the original copy of this Epistle, but are to be regarded as an unauthorized addition to it,-then, (as in the case of the Twelve Verses omitted from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, and which it was _also_ pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand to be shewn the evidence on the strength of which this opinion is maintained, in order that we may ascertain what it is precisely worth.

Tischendorf,-the ill.u.s.trious discoverer and champion of Codex ?, and who is accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words ?? ?f?s?

as _the other_ conclusive proof of the trustworthiness of its text,-may be presumed to be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as well as the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its support. From him, we learn that the evidence for the omission of the words in question is as follows:-"In the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read, 'to the saints which are at Ephesus;' but Marcion (A.D. 130-140), did not find the words 'at Ephesus' in his copy. The same is true of Origen (A.D.

185-254); and Basil the Great (who died A.D. 379), affirmed that those words were wanting in _old_ copies. And this omission accords very well with the encyclical or general character of the Epistle. At the present day, our ancient Greek MSS., and all ancient Versions, contain the words 'at Ephesus;' yea (_sic_), even Jerome knew no copy with a different reading. Now, only the Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the _old_ copies of Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion."(152)-This then is the sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat in detail.

(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned writer is absolutely without authority for his a.s.sertion that "Marcion _did not find_ the words ?? ?f?s? in his copy" of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Tischendorf's one pretence for saying so is Tertullian's statement that certain heretics, (Marcion he specifies by name,) had given to S. Paul's "Epistle to the Ephesians" the unauthorized t.i.tle of "Epistle _to the Laodiceans_."(153) This, (argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not have done had he found ?? ?f?s? in the first verse.(154) But the proposed inference is clearly invalid. For, with what show of reason can Marcion,-whom Tertullian taxes with having dared "_t.i.tulum interpolare_"

in the case of S. Paul's "Epistle to the Ephesians,"-be _therefore_, a.s.sumed to have read the first verse differently from ourselves? Rather is the directly opposite inference suggested by the very language in which Tertullian (who was all but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the circ.u.mstance.(155)

Those, however, who would really understand the work of the heretic, should turn from the African Father,-(who after all does but say that Marcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul's Epistle to the _Ephesians_, that it was addressed to the _Laodiceans_,)-and betake themselves to the pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a half later. This Father had for many years made Marcion's work his special study,(156) and has elaborately described it, as well as presented us with copious extracts from it.(157) And the account in Epiphanius proves that Tischendorf is mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the English reader, (quoted above;) and that he would have better consulted for his reputation if he had kept to the "ut videtur" with which (in his edition of 1859) he originally broached his opinion. It proves in fact to be no matter of opinion at all. Epiphanius states distinctly that the _Epistle to the Ephesians_ was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which Marcion _retained_. In his "Apostolicon," or collection of the (mutilated) Apostolical Epistles, the "Epistle to the Ephesians," (identified by the considerable quotations which Epiphanius makes from it,(158)) stood (he says) _seventh_ in order; while the (so called) "Epistle to the Laodiceans,"-a distinct composition therefore,-had the _eleventh_, that is, the last place a.s.signed to it.(159) That this latter Epistle contained a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius records the fact in two places.(160) But then it is to be borne in mind that he charges Marcion with having derived that quotation _from the Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans_;(161) instead of taking it, as he ought to have done, from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The pa.s.sage, when faithfully exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by its very form refutes the heretical tenet which the context of Marcion's spurious epistle to the Laodiceans was intended to establish; and which the verse in question, in its interpolated form, might seem to favour.(162)-I have entered into this whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: but I was determined to prove that Tischendorf's statement that "Marcion (A.D.

130-140) did not find the words 'at Ephesus' in his copy,"-is absolutely without foundation. It is even _contradicted_ by the known facts of the case. I shall have something more to say about Marcion by-and-by; who, it is quite certain, read the text of Ephes. i. 1 exactly as we do.

(2.) The _only_ Father who so expresses himself as to warrant the inference that the words ?? ?f?s? were absent from his copy, is Origen, in the beginning of the third century. "Only in the case of the Ephesians,"

(he writes), "do we meet with the expression 'the Saints which are:' and we inquire,-Unless that additional phrase be simply redundant, what can it possibly signify? Consider, then, whether those who have been partakers of _His_ nature who revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I AM, may not, in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as 'those _which are_:' persons, called out, of a state of _not_-being, so to speak, into a state of _being_."(163)-If Origen had read t??? ?????? t??? ??s?? ?? ?f?s?

in his copy, it is to me incredible that he would have gone so very far out of his way to miss the sense of such a plain, and in fact, unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis before him,-_reasoning however only from the place in Basil,_ (to be quoted immediately,)-are unwilling to allow that the words ?? ?f?s? were ever away from the text. It must be admitted as the obvious inference from what Jerome has delivered on this subject (_infra_, p. 98 _note_) that he, too, seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be called) of Codd. B and ?.

(3) The influence which Origen's writings exercised over his own and the immediately succeeding ages of the Church, was prodigious. Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150 years later,-although he read ?? ?f?s? in his own copy of S. Paul's Epistles,-thought fit to avail himself of Origen's suggestion. It suited his purpose. He was proving the eternal existence of the SON of G.o.d. Even _not to know_ G.o.d (he remarks) is _not to be_: in proof of which, he quotes S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. i. 28:-"Things _which are not_, hath G.o.d chosen." "Nay," (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, "in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge were truly joined to Him who 'IS,' designates them specially as 'those _which are_:' saying,-'To the Saints _which are_, and faithful in CHRIST JESUS.' " That this fancy was not original, Basil makes no secret. He derived it, (he says,) from "those who were before us;" a plain allusion to the writings of Origen. But neither was _the reading_ his own, either.

This is evident. He had _found_ it, he says,-(an a.s.severation indispensable to the validity of his argument,)-but only after he had made search,(164)-"_in the old copies_."(165) No doubt, Origen's strange fancy must have been even _unintelligible_ to Basil when first he met with it.

In plain terms, it sounds to this day incredibly foolish,-when read apart from the mutilated text which alone suggested it to Origen's fervid imagination.-But what there is in all this to induce us to suspect that Origen's reading was after all the _right_ one, and _ours_ the _wrong_, I profess myself wholly at a loss to discover. Origen himself complains bitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time; and attributes it (1) to the carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of correctors of the text: (3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopting some of these corrections and rejecting others, according to their own private caprice.(166)

(4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters than either Origen or Basil, after rehearsing the preceding gloss, (but only to reject it,) remarks that "certain persons" had been "over-fanciful" in putting it forth. He alludes probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians, in three books, he expressly relates that he employed:(167) but he does not seem to have apprehended that Origen's text _was without the words_ ??

?f?s?. If he was acquainted with Origen's text, (of which, however, his writings afford no indication,) it is plain that he disapproved of it.

Others, he says, understand S. Paul to say not "the Saints _which are_:"

but,-"the Saints and faithful _which are at Ephesus_."(168)

(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit that there has been elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to shake our confidence in the universally received reading of Ephesians i.

1. The facts of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully stated in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the ivth century, (exhibiting in other respects several striking notes of vicious sympathy,) are found to conspire in omitting a clause in Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it is to the sense,) may be inferred to have been absent from Origen's copy: and Basil testifies that it was absent from "the old copies" to which he himself obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter: in which it is much to be noted that Origen does not say that he _approved_ of this reading. Still less does Basil. They both witness to _the fact_ that the words ?? ?f?s? were omitted from _some_ copies of the iiird century, just as Codd. B and ? witness to the same fact in the ivth. But what then?

Origen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings confessedly worthless; and, why not here? For not only is the text all but _unintelligible_ if the words ?? ?f?s? be omitted: but (what is far more to the purpose) the direct evidence of _all_ the copies, whether uncial or cursive,(169)-and of _all_ the Versions,-is _against_ the omission. In the face of this overwhelming ma.s.s of unfaltering evidence to insist that Codd. B and ? must yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity wrong, is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of this nonsensical reading, of _two_ MSS. confessedly untrustworthy in countless other places,-against _all_ the MSS.-_all_ the Versions,-is nothing else but an act of vulgar prejudice. I venture to declare,-(and with this I shall close the discussion and dismiss the subject,)-that _there does not exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament_ of a reading even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin concur,-which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz.

1. The adverse testimony of _all the uncial MSS. except two_.

2. The adverse testimony of all, or _very nearly all_, the cursive MSS.

3. The adverse testimony of _all the Versions_, without exception.

4. The adverse testimony of _the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers_.

To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,-

5. _The highest inherent improbability_,-it is only because I desire to treat this question purely as one of _Evidence_.

II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity _to account for_ the phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is commendable; but I take leave to remark in pa.s.sing that if we are to set about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first three centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough to do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod.

B shews marvellous sympathy(170),) and explain if he can why there is a grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and how it comes to pa.s.s that Cod. D "reproduces the 'textus receptus' of the Acts much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament; so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability."(171) Our business as Critics is not _to invent theories_ to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to ascertain where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable depravations of early Heretics,-the preposterous emendations of ancient Critics,-the injudicious a.s.siduity of Harmonizers,-the licentious caprice of individuals;-what with errors resulting from the inopportune recollection of similar or parallel places,-or from the familiar phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections,-or from the inattention of Scribes,-or from marginal glosses;-however arising, endless are the corrupt readings of the oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means safe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories are seldom satisfactory. _Guesses_ only they are at best.

Thus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of Ussher,-(which, however, found favour with Garnier (Basil's editor), Bengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and has since been not only eagerly advocated by Conybeare and Howson following a host of German Critics, but has even enjoyed Mr. Scrivener's distinct approval;)-that the Epistle to the Ephesians "was _a Circular_ addressed to other Asiatic Cities besides the capital Ephesus,-to Laodicea perhaps among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and that while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephesus in the first verse, _others may have had another city subst.i.tuted, or the s.p.a.ce after_ t??? ??s?? _left utterly void_."(172) At first sight, this conjecture has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it to our favour. On closer inspection,-(i) It is found to be not only gratuitous; but (ii) altogether unsupported and unsanctioned by the known facts of the case; and (what is most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I humbly think, demonstrably erroneous. I demur to it,-

(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (_a_) when S. Paul sent his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tychicus, the bearer of it,(173) was charged with _a distinct Epistle_ to the Colossians:(174) an Epistle nevertheless so singularly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is scarcely credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epistles to two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of them, (_that_ to the Ephesians,) furnished with a different address, to so large and important a place as Laodicea, for example, (_b_) Then further, the provision which S. Paul made at this very time for communicating with the Churches of Asia which he did not separately address is found to have been different. The Laodiceans were to read in their public a.s.sembly S.

Paul's "_Epistle to the Colossians_," which the Colossians were ordered to send them. The Colossians in like manner were to read the Epistle,-(to whom addressed, we know not),-which S. Paul describes as t?? ??

?a?d??e?a?.(175) If then it had been S. Paul's desire that the Laodiceans (suppose) should read publicly in their Churches his Epistle to the Ephesians, surely, he would have charged the Ephesians to procure that _his Epistle to them should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans_. Why should the Apostle be gratuitously a.s.sumed to have simultaneously adopted one method with the Churches of _Colosse_ and Laodicea,-another with the Churches of _Ephesus_ and Laodicea,-in respect of his epistolary communications?

(2) (_a_) But even supposing, for argument's sake, that S. Paul _did_ send duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the princ.i.p.al Churches of Asia Minor,-why should he have left the salutation _blank_, ("carta bianca," as Bengel phrases it,(176)) for Tychicus to fill up when he got into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short of _this_ would account for the reading of Codd. B and ?.

(_b_) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature be clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A copy of what we call S. Paul's "Epistle to the Ephesians" sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul with a blank address; i.e. "with the s.p.a.ce after t???

??s?? left utterly void:" (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that blank: and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up for him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy seen by Origen, and (5) Of the "old copies" seen by Basil; as well as (6) Of Codd. B and ?. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) _One other_ copy of this same "Encyclical Epistle," filled up with the Ephesian address, became the archetype of _every other copy of this Epistle in the world_.... But of what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such a marvellous structure of hypothesis,-of which the top story overhangs and overbalances all the rest of the edifice? The thing which puzzles us in Codd. B and ? is not that we find the name of _another City_ in the salutation of S. Paul's "Epistle to the Ephesians," but that we find the name of _no_ city at all; nor meet with any vacant s.p.a.ce there.

(_c_) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to different Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as of course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious doc.u.ments left his hands,-then, doubtless, each several Church would have received, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if _this_ had been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a word about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there should nowhere exist traces of _conflicting testimony_ as to the Church to which S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas _all_ the most ancient writers, without exception,-(Marcion himself [A.D. 140(177)], the "Muratorian" fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Irenaeus [A.D. 175], Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Eusebius,)-and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying, unfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. ?, (and this is much to be noted,) the _superscription_ of the Epistle attests that it was addressed "to the Ephesians." Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in inventing facts in the history of an Apostle's practice, in order to account for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his text?(178)

(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such "_a Circular_" as was described above, (each copy furnished with a blank, to be filled up with the name of a different City,) would be a doc.u.ment without parallel in the annals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware, essentially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the suggestion before us is only another instance of the fatal misapprehension which results from the incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some familiar word in a living language to its supposed equivalent in an ancient tongue. Thus, because ??????? or ????????? confessedly signifies "circularis," it seems to be imagined that ????????? ?p?st??? may mean "a Circular Letter." Whereas it really means nothing of the sort; but-"_a Catholic Epistle_."(179)

An "_Encyclical_" (and _that_ is the word which has been imported into the present discussion), was quite a different doc.u.ment from what _we_ call "a Circular." Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was Catholic or General,-the common property of all to whom it came. The General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, S. John are "Encyclical."(180) So is the well-known Canonical Epistle which Gregory, Bp. of Neocaesaraea in Pontus, in the middle of the third century, sent to the Bishops of his province.(181) As for "_a blank circular_" to be filled up with the words "in Ephesus," "in Laodicea," &c.,-its like (I repeat) is wholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. The two notions are at all events inconsistent and incompatible. If S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was "a Circular," then it was not "Encyclical:" if it was "Encyclical" then it was not "a Circular."

Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are logically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies the fifth place among S. Paul's writings, and which from the beginning of the second century,-that is, from the very dawn of Historical evidence,-has been known as "the Epistle to the Ephesians," was an "Encyclical," "Catholic"

or "General Epistle,"-addressed t??? ?????? t??? ??s?, ?a? p?st??? ??