The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 19

(II.) Let it be asked in conclusion,-(for this prolonged discussion is now happily at an end,)-Are any inconveniences likely to result from a frank and loyal admission, (_in the absence of any Evidence whatever to the contrary_,) that doubtless the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel are just as worthy of acceptation as the rest? It might reasonably be supposed, from the strenuous earnestness with which the rejection of these Verses is generally advocated, that some considerations must surely be a.s.signable why the opinion of their genuineness ought on no account to be entertained. Do any such reasons exist? Are any inconveniences whatever likely to supervene?

_No_ reasons whatever are a.s.signable, I reply; neither are there _any_ inconvenient consequences of any sort to be antic.i.p.ated,-except indeed to the Critics: to whom, it must be confessed, the result proves damaging enough.

It will only follow,

(1st) That Cod. B and Cod. ? must be henceforth allowed to be _in one more serious particular_ untrustworthy and erring witnesses. They have been convicted, in fact, of bearing false witness in respect of S. Mark xvi.

9-20, where their evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most undoubting confidence.

(2ndly) That the critical statements of recent Editors, and indeed the remarks of Critics generally, in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, will have to undergo serious revision: in every important particular, will have to be unconditionally withdrawn.

(3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Testament, these "Twelve Verses" will have to be restored to their rightful honours: never more appearing disfigured with brackets, enc.u.mbered with doubts, banished from their context, or molested with notes of suspicion. On the contrary.

A few words of caution against the resuscitation of what has been proved to be a "vulgar error," will have henceforth to be introduced _in memoriam rei_.

(4thly) Lastly, men must be no longer taught to look with distrust on this precious part of the Deposit; and encouraged to dispute the Divine sayings which it contains on the plea that _perhaps_ they may not be Divine, after all; for that _probably_ the entire section is not genuine. They must be a.s.sured, on the contrary, that these Twelve Verses are wholly undistinguishable in respect of genuineness from the rest of the Gospel of S. Mark; and it may not be amiss to remind them the Creed called the "Athanasian" speaks no other language than that employed by the Divine Author of our Religion and Object of our Faith. The Church warns her children against the peril incurred by as many as wilfully reject the Truth, in no other language but that of the Great Head of the Church. No person may presume to speak disparagingly of S. Mark xvi. 16, any more.

(III.) Whether,-after the foregoing exposure of a very prevalent and highly popular, but at the same time most calamitous misapprehension,-it will not become necessary for Editors of the Text of the New Testament to reconsider their conclusions in countless other places:-whether they must not be required to review their method, and to remodel their text throughout, now that they have been shewn the insecurity of the foundation on which they have so confidently builded, and been forced to reverse their verdict in respect of a place of Scripture where at least they supposed themselves impregnable;-I forbear at this time to inquire.

Enough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now done, that _not a particle of doubt_, that _not an atom of suspicion_, attaches to "THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK."

?? ????S.

APPENDIX (A).

On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture.-The correct Text of S. LUKE ii. 14, established.

(Referred to at p. 22.)

In Chapter III. the importance of attending to Patristic citations of Scripture has been largely insisted upon. The controverted reading of S.

Luke ii. 14 supplies an apt ill.u.s.tration of the position there maintained, viz. that this subject has not hitherto engaged nearly as much attention as it deserves.

I. Instead of ?? ?????p??? e?d???a, (which is the reading of the "Textus Receptus,") Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford present us with ??

?????p??? e?d???a?. Their authority for this reading is the consentient testimony of THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. WHICH CONTAIN S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. B, ?, A, D): THE LATIN VERSIONS generally ("_in hominibus bonae voluntatis_"); and THE GOTHIC. Against these are to be set, COD. A (in the Hymn at the end of the Psalms); ALL THE OTHER UNCIALS; together WITH EVERY KNOWN CURSIVE MS.; and EVERY OTHER ANCIENT VERSION in existence.

So far, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed to preponderate in favour of e?d???a?: though no judicious Critic, it is thought, should hesitate in deciding in favour of e?d???a, even upon the evidence already adduced. The advocates of the popular Theory ask,-But _why_ should the four oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic Versions, conspire in reading e?d???a?, if e?d???a be right? That question shall be resolved by-and-by. Let them in the mean time tell us, if they can,-How is it credible that, in such a matter as this, _every other MS. and every other Version in the world_ should read e?d???a, if e?d???a be wrong? But the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited. I proceed to set it forth in detail.

It is found then, that whereas e?d???a? _is read by none_, e?d???a is read by all the following Fathers:-

(1) ORIGEN, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 D: ii. 714 B: iv. 15 B,-A.D. 240.]

(2) The APOSTOLICAL CONSt.i.tUTIONS, twice, [vii. 47: viii. 12 _ad fin._,-IIrd cent.]

(3) METHODIUS, [_Galland._ iii. 809 B,-A.D. 290.]

(4) EUSEBIUS, twice, [_Dem. Ev._ 163 C: 342 B,-A.D. 320.]

(5) APHRAATES THE PERSIAN, (for whose name [_supra_, pp. 26-7] that of "Jacobus of Nisibis" has been erroneously subst.i.tuted), twice, [i. 180 and 385,-A.D. 337.]

(6) t.i.tUS OF BOSTRA, twice, [_in loc._, but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29 (_Cramer_, ii. 141, _line_ 20),-A.D. 350.]

(7) GREGORY OF n.a.z.iANZUS, [i. 845 C,-A.D. 360.]

(8) CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, [A.D. 370], as will be found explained below.

(9) EPIPHANIUS, [i. 154 D,-A.D. 375.]

(10) CHRYSOSTOM, four times, [vii. 311 B: 674 C: viii. 85 C: xi. 374 B expressly,-A.D. 400.]

(11) CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, in three places, [_Comm. on S. Luke_, pp. 12 and 16. Also _Opp._ ii. 593 A: vi. 398 C,-A.D. 420.]

(12) THEODORET, [_in Coloss._ i. 20,-A.D. 430.]

(13) THEODOTUS OF ANCYRA, [_Galland._ x. 446 B,-A.D. 430.]

(14) PROCLUS, Abp. of Constantinople, [_Gall._ x. 629 A,-A.D. 434.]

To which may be added the evidence of

(15) COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, four times repeated, [_Coll. Nov. PP._, (Montfaucon,) ii. 152 A, 160 D, 247 E, 269 C,-A.D. 535.]

(16) EULOGIUS, Abp. of Alexandria, [_Gall._ xii. 308 E,-A.D. 581.]

(17) ANDREAS OF CRETE, twice, [_Gall._ xiii. 100 D, 123 C,-A.D. 635.]

Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers of the Church(500) all concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn _as our own Textus Receptus exhibits it_,-(viz. ?? ?????p??? e?d???a,)-_who_ does not see that the four oldest uncial authorities for e?d???a? are hopelessly outvoted by authorities yet older than themselves? Here is, to all intents and purposes, a record of what was once found in _two Codices of the iii_rd_ century_; in _nine of the iv_th; in _three of the v_th;-added to the testimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian versions. In this instance therefore the evidence of Antiquity is even overwhelming.

Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form in which _the Churches of the East_ preserved the Angelic Hymn in their private, as well as their solemn public Devotions. Take it, from a doc.u.ment of the vth century:-

???? ?? ???S???S T?O ??? ??? G?S ??????

?? ??T?O???S ???????.(501)

But the text of this Hymn, as a Liturgical doc.u.ment, at a yet earlier period is unequivocally established by the combined testimony of the Apostolical Const.i.tutions (already quoted,) and of Chrysostom, who says expressly:-???a??st???te? ????e?, ???a ?? ???st??? Te?, ?a? ?p? ???

e?????, ?? ?????p??? e?d???a. [_Opp._ xi. 347 B.] Now this incontestably proves that _the Church's established way of reciting the Angelic Hymn in the iv_th_ century_ was in conformity with the reading of the Textus Receptus. And this fact infinitely outweighs the evidence of any extant MSS. which can be named: for it is the consentient evidence of hundreds,-or rather of thousands of copies of the Gospels of a date anterior to A.D. 400, which have long since perished.

To insist upon this, however, is not at all my present purpose. About the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14, (which is _not_ the reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,) there is clearly no longer any room for doubt. It is perhaps one of the best established readings in the whole compa.s.s of the New Testament. My sole object is to call attention to the two following facts:-

(1) That _the four oldest Codices which contain S. Luke_ ii. 14 (B, ?, A, D, A.D. 320-520), and two of the oldest Versions, conspire in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn _incorrectly_.

(2) That we are indebted to _fourteen of the Fathers_ (A.D. 240-434), and to the rest of the ancient Versions, for the true reading of that memorable place of Scripture.

II. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,-

1. IRENaeUS sides with the oldest uncials.-Now, the Greek of the place referred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that survives. According to _that_ evidence, Irenaeus, having quoted the place in conformity with the Vulgate reading (iii. c. x. - 41,-"_Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis_,") presently adds,-"In eo quod dic.u.n.t, _Gloria in altissimis __DEO__ et in terra pax_, eum qui sit altissimorum, hoc est, supercaelestium factor et eorum, quae super terram omnium conditor, his sermonibus glorificaverunt; qui suo plasmati, hoc est hominibus suam benignitatem salutis de caelo misit." (_ed._ Stieren, i.

459).-But it must suffice to point out (1) that these words really prove nothing: and (2) that it would be very unsafe to build upon them, even if they did; since (3) it is plain that the Latin translator exhibits the place in the Latin form most familiar to himself: (consider his subst.i.tution of "excelsis" for "altissimis.")