The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 7

???st? ??s??? There does not live the man who will accept so irrational a supposition. The suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to account for the absence of the words ?? ?f?s? in Ephes. i. 1 is not only in itself in the highest degree improbable, and contradicted by all the evidence to which we have access; but it is even inadmissible on critical grounds, and must be unconditionally surrendered.(182) It is observed to collapse before every test which can be applied to it.

III. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me,-if men must needs account for the omission of the words ?? ?f?s? from this place,-that they should have recourse to wild, improbable, and wholly unsupported theories, like those which go before; while an easy,-I was going to say the obvious,-solution of the problem is close at hand, and even solicits acceptance.

Marcion the heretic, (A.D. 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (A.D.

200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul's Epistles in particular.

Epiphanius compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to a moth-eaten coat.(183) "Instead of a stylus," (says Tertullian,) "Marcion employed a knife." "What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages?"(184) S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian even singles out by name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a new t.i.tle. All this has been fully explained above, from page 93 to page 96.

Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul's Epistle "_to the Ephesians_"

that Apostolical writing which stands fifth in our Canon, (but which stood seventh in his,) is just as certain as that he recognised as such S.

Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Colossians, Philippians. All this has been fully explained in a preceding page.(185)

But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul's _another_ Epistle,-of which all we know for certain is, that it contained portions of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and purported to be addressed by S. Paul "to the Laodiceans." To ascertain with greater precision the truth of this matter at the end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible.

Nor is it necessary. Obvious is it to suspect that not only did this heretical teacher at some period of his career prefix a new heading to certain copies of the Epistle to the Ephesians, but also that some of his followers industriously erased from certain other copies the words ??

?f?s? in ver. 1,-as being _the only two words in the entire Epistle_ which effectually refuted their Master. It was not needful, (be it observed,) to multiply copies of the Epistle for the propagation of Marcion's deceit.

Only two words had to be erased,-_the very two words whose omission we are trying to account for_,-in order to give some colour to his proposed attribution of the Epistle, ("quasi in isto diligentissimus explorator,")-to the Laodiceans. One of these mutilated copies will have fallen into the hands of Origen,-who often complains of the corrupt state of his text: while the critical personages for whom Cod. B and Cod. ? were transcribed will probably have been acquainted with other such mutilated copies. Are we not led, as it were by the hand, to take some such view of the case? In this way we account satisfactorily, and on grounds of historic evidence, for the omission which has exercised the Critics so severely.

I do not lose sight of the fact that the Epistle to the Ephesians ends without salutations, without personal notices of any kind. But in this respect it is not peculiar.(186) _That_,-joined to a singular absence of identifying allusion,-sufficiently explains why Marcion selected this particular Epistle for the subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this circ.u.mstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Universal, and in defiance of its very t.i.tle, that the Epistle is "Encyclical," in the technical sense of that word; and to go on to urge this characteristic as an argument in support of the omission of the words ?? ?f?s?,-is clearly the device of an eager Advocate; not the method of a calm and unprejudiced Judge. True it is that S. Paul,-who, writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus, says "_the Churches of Asia_ salute you," (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)-may have known very well that an Epistle of his "to the Ephesians," would, as a matter of course, be instantly communicated to others besides the members of that particular Church: and in fact this may explain why there is nothing specially "Ephesian" in the contents of the Epistle. The Apostle,-(as when he addressed "the Churches of Galatia,")-may have had certain of the other neighbouring Churches in his mind while he wrote. But all this is wholly foreign to the question before us: the one _only_ question being _this_,-Which of the three following addresses represents what S. Paul must be considered to have actually written in the first verse of his "Epistle to the Ephesians"?-

(1) t??? ?????? t??? ??s?? ?? ?f?s? ?a? p?st??? ?? ?. ?.

(2) t??? ?????? t??? ??s?? ?? ... ?a? p?st??? ?? ?. ?.

(3) t??? ?????? t??? ??s?, ?a? p?st??? ?? ?. ?.

What I have been saying amounts to this: that it is absolutely unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the words ?? ?f?s? from S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have under their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the iind century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, "presumed to prefix an unauthorized t.i.tle to that very Epistle," ("Marcion ei t.i.tulum aliquando interpolare gestiit,")-which t.i.tle obviously _could not stand unless those two words were first erased from the text_. To interpolate that new t.i.tle, and to erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it, were obviously correlative acts which must always have been performed together.

But however all this may be, (as already pointed out,) the only question to be determined by us is,-whether it be credible that the words ?? ?f?s?

are an unauthorized addition; foisted into the text of Ephes. i. 1 as far back as the Apostolic age: an interpolation which, instead of dying out, and at last all but disappearing, has spread and established itself, until the words are found in every copy,-are represented in every translation,-have been recognised in every country,-witnessed to by every Father,-received in every age of the Church? I repeat that the one question which has to be decided is, not _how_ the words ?? ?f?s? came to be put in, or came to be left out; but simply whether, on an impartial review of the evidence, it be reasonable (with Tischendorf, Tregelles, Conybeare and Howson, and so many more,) to suspect their genuineness and enclose them in brackets? Is it _credible_ that the words ?? ?f?s? are a spurious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph of the Apostle?... We have already, as I think, obtained a satisfactory answer to this question. It has been shewn, as conclusively as in inquiries of this nature is possible, that in respect of the reading of Ephesians i. 1, Codd. B and ? are even _most_ conspicuously at fault.

IV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted of error in respect of the one remaining text which their chief upholders have selected, and to which they still make their most confident appeal,-what remains, but to point out that it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their minds of the extravagant opinion which they have been so industriously taught to entertain of the value of the two Codices in question? It has already degenerated into an unreasoning prejudice, and threatens at last to add one more to the already overgrown catalogue of "vulgar errors."

V. I cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by Tischendorf than by transcribing in conclusion his remarks on the four remaining readings of Codex ? to which he triumphantly appeals: promising to dismiss them all with a single remark. He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his "Introduction" to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament(187):-

"To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen says on John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, 'in Him _is_ life'

for 'in Him _was_ life.' This is a reading which we find in sundry quotations before the time of Origen;(188) but now, among all known Greek MSS. it is _only in the Sinaitic, and the famous old Codex Bezae_, a copy of the Gospels at Cambridge; yet it is also found in most of the early Latin versions, in the most ancient Syriac, and in the oldest Coptic.-Again, in Matth. xiii. 35, Jerome observes that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew for having said, 'which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.' A writing of the second century had already witnessed to the same reading; but Jerome adds further that well-informed men had long ago removed the name of Esaias. Among all our MSS. of a thousand years old and upwards, _there is not a solitary example containing the name of Esaias in the text referred to,-except the Sinaitic_, to which a few of less than a thousand years old may be added.-Once more, Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but _only the Sinaitic and several ancient Latin MSS._ read it the same as Origen: 'He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every whit.'-In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difficult to settle, the _Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies_ indubitably correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second century, confirms the Sinaitic reading: 'If any man eat of my bread, he shall live for ever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' We omit to indicate further ill.u.s.trations of this kind, although there are many others like them."(189)

Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to exist in the mind of this ill.u.s.trious Critic a hopeless confusion between the _antiquity_ of a Codex and the _value_ of its readings. I venture to a.s.sert that a reading is valuable or the contrary, exactly in proportion to the probability of its being true or false. Interesting it is sure to be, be it what it may, if it be found in a very ancient codex,-interesting and often instructive: but the editor of Scripture must needs bring every reading, wherever found, to this test at last:-Is it to be thought that what I am here presented with is what the Evangelist or the Apostle actually wrote? If an answer in the negative be obtained to this question, then, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early Fathers appear to have so read the place, will not avail to impart to the rejected reading one particle of _value_. And yet Tischendorf thinks it enough in _all_ the preceding pa.s.sages to a.s.sure his reader that a given reading in Cod. ? was recognised by Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have established this one point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in all this an utterly false major premiss: viz. That Scriptural quotations found in the writings of Origen, of Tertullian, of Jerome, must needs be the _ipsissima verba_ of the SPIRIT. Whereas it is notorious "that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenaeus and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior ma.n.u.scripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus."(190) And one is astonished that a Critic of so much sagacity, (who of course knows better,) should deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy,-not only without a word of explanation, a word of caution, but in such a manner as inevitably to mislead an unsuspecting reader. Without offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must be allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been considering, he shews himself far more bent on glorifying the "Codex Sinaiticus" than in establis.h.i.+ng the Truth of the pure Word of G.o.d. He convinces me that to have found an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have "taken a gift." Verily, "_it doth blind the eyes of the wise_."(191)

And with this, I shall conclude my remarks on these two famous Codices. I humbly record my deliberate conviction that when the Science of Textual Criticism, which is at present only in its infancy, comes to be better understood; (and a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New Testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a trustworthy basis;) a very different estimate will be formed of the importance of not a few of those readings which at present are received with unquestioning submission, chiefly on the authority of Codex B and Codex ?. On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that no future collations, no future discoveries, will ever make it credible that the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel are a spurious supplement to the Evangelical Narrative; or that the words ?? ?f?s? are an unauthorized interpolation of the inspired Text.

And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex ?.

I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the "Internal Evidence," but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet fully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient "Scholia"

and "Notes," and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this may reasonably claim one entire Chapter to itself.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES 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' inaccuracies.-Birch's unfortunate mistake (p.

117).-Scholz' serious blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).-Griesbach's sweeping misstatement (pp. 121-2).-The grave misapprehension which has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3); Codex L (p. 123).-Ammonius not the author of the so-called "Ammonian"

Sections (p. 125).-Epiphanius (p. 132).-"Caesarius," a misnomer.-"The Catenae," misrepresented (p. 133).

In the present Chapter, I propose to pa.s.s under review whatever ma.n.u.script testimony still remains unconsidered; our attention having been hitherto exclusively devoted to Codices B and ?. True, that the rest of the evidence may be disposed of in a single short sentence:-_The Twelve Verses under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence with the exception of Codices B and ?_. But then,

I. We are a.s.sured,-(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)-that "a Note or a Scholion stating the absence of these verses from _many_, from _most_, or from the _most correct_ copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in twenty-five other cursive Codices."(192) Tischendorf has nearly the same words: "Scholia" (he says) "in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of Mark in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the ninth verse." That distinguished Critic supports his a.s.sertion by appealing to seven MSS. in particular,-and referring generally to "about twenty-five others." Dr. Davidson adopts every word of this blindfold.

1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department of the Evidence would become deserving of serious attention. But I simply _deny the fact_. I entirely deny that the "Note or Scholion" which these learned persons affirm to be of such frequent occurrence has any existence whatever,-except in their own imaginations. On the other hand, I a.s.sert that notes or scholia which state the exact reverse, (viz. that "in the older" or "the more accurate copies" the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel _are contained_,) recur even perpetually. The plain truth is this:-These eminent persons have taken their information at second-hand,-partly from Griesbach, partly from Scholz,-without suspicion and without inquiry. But then they have slightly misrepresented Scholz; and Scholz (1830) slightly misunderstood Griesbach; and Griesbach (1796) took liberties with Wetstein; and Wetstein (1751) made a few serious mistakes. The consequence might have been antic.i.p.ated. The Truth, once thrust out of sight, certain erroneous statements have usurped its place,-which every succeeding Critic now reproduces, evidently to his own entire satisfaction; though not, it must be declared, altogether to his own credit. Let me be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred.

2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German plan of setting down _all_ the twenty-five MSS.(193) and _all_ the five Patristic authorities which up to his time had been cited as bearing on the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: giving the former _in numerical order_, and stating generally concerning them that in one or other of those authorities it would be found recorded "that the verses in question were anciently _wanting_ in some, or in most, or in almost all the Greek copies, or in the most accurate ones:-or else that they were _found_ in a few, or in the more accurate copies, or in many, or in most of them, specially in the Palestinian Gospel." The learned writer (who had made up his mind long before that the verses in question are to be rejected) no doubt perceived that this would be the most convenient way of disposing of the evidence for and against: but one is at a loss to understand how English scholars can have acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well nigh a hundred years. A very little study of the subject would have shewn them that Griesbach derived the first eleven of his references from Wetstein,(194) the last fourteen from Birch.(195) As for Scholz, he unsuspiciously adopted Griesbach's fatal enumeration of Codices; adding five to the number; and only interrupting the series here and there, in order to insert the quotations which Wetstein had already supplied from certain of them. With Scholz, therefore, rests the blame of everything which has been written since 1830 concerning the MS. evidence for this part of S. Mark's Gospel; subsequent critics having been content to adopt his statements without acknowledgment and without examination.

Unfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such a slovenly style, that besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones; which, of course, have been reproduced by those who have simply translated or transcribed him. And now I shall examine his note "(z)",(196) with which practically all that has since been delivered on this subject by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is identical.

(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two MSS. in the Vatican Library(197) the verses in question "are marked with an asterisk."

The original author of this statement was Birch, who followed it up by explaining the fatal signification of this mark.(198) From that day to this, the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been religiously reproduced by every Critic in turn; and it is universally taken for granted that they represent two ancient witnesses against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

And yet, (let me say it without offence,) a very little attention ought to be enough to convince any one familiar with this subject that the proposed inference is absolutely inadmissible. For, in the first place, a _solitary_ asterisk (not at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.(199)) has of necessity no such signification. And even if it does sometimes indicate that all the verses which follow are suspicious, (of which, however, I have never seen an example,) it clearly _could_ not have that signification here,-for a reason which I should have thought an intelligent boy might discover.

Well aware, however, that I should never be listened to, with Birch and Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and indeed every one else against me,-I got a learned friend at Rome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and inspect the two Codices in question.(200) That he would find Birch right _in his facts_, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more than doubted the correctness of his proposed inference from them. I even felt convinced that the meaning and purpose of the asterisks in question would be demonstrably different from what Birch had imagined.

Altogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found that the learned Dane has here made one of those (venial, but) unfortunate blunders to which every one is liable who registers phenomena of this cla.s.s in haste, and does not methodize his memoranda until he gets home. To be brief,-_there proves to be no asterisk at all,-either in Cod. 756, or in Cod. 757_.

On the contrary. After ?f????t? ???, the former Codex has, in the text of S. Mark xvi. 9 (_fol. 150 b_), a plain cross,-(_not_ an asterisk, thus [symbol: x with dots in corners] or [symbol: broken x with corner dots] or [symbol: inverse or open x], but a cross, thus +),-the intention of which is to refer the reader to an annotation on _fol. 151 b_, (marked, of course, with a cross also,) _to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is undoubtedly __ genuine_.(201) The evidence, therefore, not only breaks hopelessly down; but it is discovered that this witness has been by accident put into the wrong box. This is, in fact, a witness _not_ for the plaintiff, but _for the defendant!_-As for the other Codex, it exhibits neither asterisk nor cross; but contains the same note or scholion attesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.

I suppose I may now pa.s.s on: but I venture to point out that unless the Witnesses which remain to be examined are able to produce very different testimony from that borne by the last two, the present inquiry cannot be brought to a close too soon. ("I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.")

(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as follows:-"From here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. _In the ancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text_."(202) Scholz (who was the first to adduce this important testimony to the genuineness of the verses now under consideration) takes no notice of the singular circ.u.mstance that the two MSS. he mentions have been _exactly_ a.s.similated in ancient times to a common model; and that they correspond one with the other so entirely(203) that the foregoing rubrical annotation appears _in the wrong place_ in both of them, viz. _at the close of ver._ 15, where it interrupts the text. This was, therefore, once a scholion written in the margin of some very ancient Codex, which has lost its way in the process of transcription; (for there can be no doubt that it was originally written against ver. 8.) And let it be noted that its testimony is express; and that it avouches for the fact that "_in the ancient copies_,"

S. Mark xvi. 9-20 "_formed part of the text_."

(3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the same two MSS., (of which also Scholz says nothing,) viz. that they exhibit a text which had been "collated with the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem."(204) What need to point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in conjunction with the express voucher that "although some copies of the Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that _in the ancient copies_ all the verses are found," is a _critical attestation to the genuineness_ of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20, far outweighing the bare statement (next to be noticed) of the undeniable historical fact that, "_in some copies_," S. Mark _ends at ver._ 8,-but "in many _does not_"?

(4.) Scholz proceeds:-"In Cod. 22, after ?f????t? ??? + te??? is read the following rubric:"-

?? t?s? t?? ??t????f?? ??? ?de p?????ta? ? e?a??e??st??: ?? p?????? d? ?a?

ta?ta f??eta?.(205)

And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by _all_ subsequent Critics and Editors,-cross, and "t????," and all,-as an additional ancient attestation to the fact that "_The End_" (t????) _of S. Mark's Gospel_ is indeed at ch. xvi. 8. Strange,-incredible rather,-that among so many learned persons, not one should have perceived that "t????" in this place merely denotes that here _a well-known Ecclesiastical section comes to an end_!... As far, therefore, as the present discussion is concerned, the circ.u.mstance is purely irrelevant;(206) and, (as I propose to shew in Chapter XI,) the less said about it by the opposite party, the better.

(5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,) other Codices very nearly the same colophon as the preceding recurs, with an important additional clause. In Codd. 1, 199, 206, 209, (he says) is read,-

"In certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here; _up to which place Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized_. In other copies, however, is found as follows."(207) And then comes the rest of S. Mark's Gospel.