The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 2

XII. The testimony of CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) has been all but overlooked.

In part of a Homily claimed for him by his Benedictine Editors, he points out that S. Luke alone of the Evangelists describes the Ascension: S.

Matthew and S. John not speaking of it,-S. Mark recording the event only.

Then he quotes verses 19, 20. "This" (he adds) "is the end of the Gospel.

Mark makes no extended mention of the Ascension."(48) Elsewhere he has an unmistakable reference to S. Mark xvi. 9.(49)

XIII. JEROME, on a point like this, is ent.i.tled to more attention than any other Father of the Church. Living at a very early period, (for he was born in 331 and died in 420,)-endowed with extraordinary Biblical learning,-a man of excellent judgment,-and a professed Editor of the New Testament, for the execution of which task he enjoyed extraordinary facilities,-his testimony is most weighty. Not unaware am I that Jerome is commonly supposed to be a witness on the opposite side: concerning which mistake I shall have to speak largely in Chapter V. But it ought to be enough to point out that we should not have met with these last twelve verses in the Vulgate, had Jerome held them to be spurious.(50) He familiarly quotes the 9th verse in one place of his writings;(51) in another place he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the copies, (especially the Greek,) was found after ver. 14 _the reply of the eleven Apostles_, when our SAVIOUR "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen."(52) To discuss so weak and worthless a forgery,-no trace of which is found in any MS. in existence, and of which nothing whatever is known except what Jerome here tells us,-would be to waste our time indeed.

The fact remains, however, that Jerome, besides giving these last twelve verses a place in the Vulgate, quotes S. Mark xvi. 14, as well as ver. 9, in the course of his writings.

XIV. It was to have been expected that AUGUSTINE would quote these verses: but he more than quotes them. He brings them forward again and again,(53)-discusses them as the work of S. Mark,-remarks that "in diebus Paschalibus," S. Mark's narrative of the Resurrection was publicly read in the Church.(54) All this is noteworthy. Augustine flourished A.D. 395-430.

XV. and XVI. Another very important testimony to the genuineness of the concluding part of S. Mark's Gospel is furnished by the unhesitating manner in which NESTORIUS, the heresiarch, quotes ver. 20; and CYRIL of ALEXANDRIA accepts his quotation, adding a few words of his own.(55) Let it be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the discovery of _two_ dated codices containing the last twelve verses of S. Mark,-and _that_ date _anterior_ (it is impossible to say by how many years) to A.D. 430.

XVII. VICTOR OF ANTIOCH, (concerning whom I shall have to speak very largely in Chapter V.,) flourished about A.D. 425. The critical testimony which he bears to the genuineness of these verses is more emphatic than is to be met with in the pages of any other ancient Father. It may be characterized as the most conclusive testimony which it was in his power to render.

XVIII. HESYCHIUS of Jerusalem, by a singular oversight, has been reckoned among the impugners of these verses. He is on the contrary their eager advocate and champion. It seems to have escaped observation that towards the close of his "Homily on the Resurrection," (published in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, and erroneously ascribed to that Father,) Hesychius appeals to the 19th verse, and quotes it as S. Mark's at length.(56) The date of Hesychius is uncertain; but he may, I suppose, be considered to belong to the vith century. His evidence is discussed in Chapter V.

XIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a reference to the SYNOPSIS SCRIPTURAE SACRAE,-an ancient work ascribed to Athanasius,(57) but probably not the production of that Father. It is at all events of much older date than any of the later uncials; and it rehea.r.s.es in detail the contents of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.(58)

It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic authorities; as, by appealing to Gregentius in the vith century, and to Gregory the Great, and Modestus, patriarch of Constantinople in the viith;-to Ven. Bede and John Damascene in the viiith;-to Theophylact in the xith;-to Euthymius in the xiith(59): but I forbear. It would add no strength to my argument that I should by such evidence support it; as the reader will admit when he has read my Xth chapter.

It will be observed then that _three_ competent Patristic witnesses of the iind century,-_four_ of the iiird,-_six_ of the ivth,-_four_ of the vth,-and _two_ (of uncertain date, but probably) of the vith,-have admitted their familiarity with these "last Twelve Verses." Yet do they not belong to one particular age, school, or country. They come, on the contrary, from every part of the ancient Church: Antioch and Constantinople,-Hierapolis, Caesarea and Edessa,-Carthage, Alexandria and Hippo,-Rome and Portus. And thus, upwards of nineteen early codexes have been to all intents and purposes inspected for us in various lands by unprejudiced witnesses,-_seven_ of them at least of more ancient date than the oldest copy of the Gospels extant.

I propose to recur to this subject for an instant when the reader has been made acquainted with the decisive testimony which ancient Versions supply.

But the Versions deserve a short Chapter to themselves.

CHAPTER IV.

THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.

The Pes.h.i.+to,-the Curetonian Syriac,-and the Recension of Thomas of Hharkel (p. 33.)-The Vulgate (p. 34)-and the Vetus Itala (p.

35)-the Gothic (p. 35)-and the Egyptian Versions (p. 35).-Review of the Evidence up to this point, (p. 36).

It was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to establish in detail _the Text_ of the Gospels, the testimony of Ma.n.u.scripts is incomparably the most important of all. To early Versions, the second place was a.s.signed. To Patristic citations, the third. But it was explained that whenever (as here) the only question to be decided is whether a considerable portion of Scripture be genuine or not, then, Patristic references yield to no cla.s.s of evidence in importance. To which statement it must now be added that second only to the testimony of Fathers on such occasions is to be reckoned the evidence of the oldest of the Versions. The reason is obvious, (_a._) We know for the most part the approximate date of the princ.i.p.al ancient Versions of the New Testament:-(_b._) Each Version is represented by at least one very ancient Codex:-and (_c._) It may be safely a.s.sumed that Translators were never dependant on a single copy of the original Greek when they executed their several Translations. Proceed we now to ascertain what evidence the oldest of the Versions bear concerning the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel: and first of all for the Syriac.

I. "Literary history," (says Mr. Scrivener,) "can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for the ident.i.ty of the Version of the Syriac now called the 'PEs.h.i.+TO' with that used by the Eastern Church long before the great schism had its beginning, in the native land of the blessed Gospel." The Pes.h.i.+to is referred by common consent to the iind century of our aera; and is found to contain the verses in question.

II. This, however, is not all. Within the last thirty years, fragments of _another_ very ancient Syriac translation of the Gospels, (called from the name of its discoverer "THE CURETONIAN SYRIAC,") have come to light:(60) and in this translation also the verses in question are found.(61) This fragmentary codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the vth century.

At what earlier date the Translation may have been executed,-as well as how much older the original Greek copy may have been which this translator employed,-can of course only be conjectured. But it is clear that we are listening to another truly primitive witness to the genuineness of the text now under consideration;-a witness (like the last) vastly more ancient than either the Vatican Codex B, or the Sinaitic Codex ?; more ancient, therefore, than any Greek copy of the Gospels in existence. We shall not be thought rash if we claim it for the iiird century.

III. Even this, however, does not fully represent the sum of the testimony which the Syriac language bears on this subject. Philoxenus, Monophysite Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria, caused a revision of the Pes.h.i.+to Syriac to be executed by his Ch.o.r.episcopus Polycarp, A.D. 508; and by the aid of three(62) approved and accurate Greek ma.n.u.scripts, this revised version of Polycarp was again revised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the monastery of Antonia at Alexandria, A.D. 616. The Hharklensian Revision, (commonly called the "PHILOXENIAN,") is therefore an extraordinary monument of ecclesiastical antiquity indeed: for, being the Revision of a revised Translation of the New Testament known to have been executed from MSS. which must have been at least as old as the vth century, it exhibits the result of what may be called a collation of copies made at a time when only four of our extant uncials were in existence. Here, then, is a singularly important acc.u.mulation of ma.n.u.script evidence on the subject of the verses which of late years it has become the fas.h.i.+on to treat as spurious. And yet, neither by Polycarp nor by Thomas of Hharkel, are the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel omitted.(63)

To these, if I do not add the "Jerusalem version,"-(as an independent Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sections, perhaps of the vth century, is called,(64))-it is because our fourfold Syriac evidence is already abundantly sufficient. In itself, it far outweighs in respect of antiquity anything that can be shewn on the other side. Turn we next to the Churches of the West.

IV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382), was the author of that famous Latin version of the Scriptures called THE VULGATE, is known to all. It seems scarcely possible to overestimate the critical importance of such a work,-executed at such a time,-under such auspices,-and by a man of so much learning and sagacity as Jerome. When it is considered that we are here presented with the results of a careful examination of the best Greek Ma.n.u.scripts to which a competent scholar had access in the middle of the fourth century,-(and Jerome a.s.sures us that he consulted several,)-we learn to survey with diminished complacency our own slender stores (if indeed any at all exist) of corresponding antiquity. It is needless to add that the Vulgate contains the disputed verses: that from no copy of this Version are they away. Now, in such a matter as this, Jerome's testimony is very weighty indeed.

V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much older translation, generally known as the VETUS ITALA. This Old Latin, which is of African origin and of almost Apostolic antiquity, (supposed of the iind century,) conspires with the Vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the genuineness of the end of S. Mark's Gospel:(65)-an emphatic witness that in the African province, from the earliest time, no doubt whatever was entertained concerning the genuineness of these last twelve verses.

VI. The next place may well be given to the venerable version of the Gothic Bishop Ulphilas,-A.D. 350. Himself a Cappadocian, Ulphilas probably derived his copies from Asia Minor. His version is said to have been exposed to certain corrupting influences; but the unequivocal evidence which it bears to the last verses of S. Mark is at least unimpeachable, and must be regarded as important in the highest degree.(66) The oldest extant copy of the GOTHIC of Ulphilas is a.s.signed to the vth or early in the vith century: and the verses in question are there also met with.

VII. and VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next for notice: their testimony being so exceedingly ancient and respectable. The MEMPHITIC, or dialect of Lower Egypt, (less properly called the "Coptic" version), which is a.s.signed to the ivth or vth century, contains S. Mark xvi.

9-20.-Fragments of the THEBAIC, or dialect of Upper Egypt, (a distinct version and of considerably earlier date, less properly called the "Sahidic,") survive in MSS. of very nearly the same antiquity: and one of these fragments happily contains the last verse of the Gospel according to S. Mark. The Thebaic version is referred to the iiird century.

After this ma.s.s of evidence, it will be enough to record concerning the Armenian version, that it yields inconstant testimony: some of the MSS.

ending at ver. 8; others putting after these words the subscription, (??a??????? ?at? ?a????,) and then giving the additional verses with a new subscription: others going on without any break to the end. This version may be as old as the vth century; but like the Ethiopic [iv-vii?] and the Georgian [vi?] it comes to us in codices of comparatively recent date. All this makes it impossible for us to care much for its testimony. The two last-named versions, whatever their disadvantages may be, at least bear constant witness to the genuineness of the verses in dispute.

1. And thus we are presented with a ma.s.s of additional evidence,-so various, so weighty, so mult.i.tudinous, so venerable,-in support of this disputed portion of the Gospel, that it might well be deemed in itself decisive.

2. For these Versions do not so much shew what individuals held, as what Churches have believed and taught concerning the sacred Text,-mighty Churches in Syria and Mesopotamia, in Africa and Italy, in Palestine and Egypt.

3. We may here, in fact, conveniently review the progress which has been hitherto made in this investigation. And in order to bar the door against dispute and cavil, let us be content to waive the testimony of Papias as precarious, and that of Justin Martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive.

Let us frankly admit that the citation of Vincentius a Thibari at the viith Carthaginian Council is sufficiently inexact to make it unsafe to build upon it. The "Acta Pilati" and the "Apostolical Const.i.tutions,"

since their date is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the ivth century only, and not for the iiird. And now, how will the evidence stand for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel?

(_a_) In the vth century, to which Codex A and Codex C are referred, (for Codex D is certainly later,) at least three famous Greeks and the most ill.u.s.trious of the Latin Fathers,-(_four_ authorities in all,)-are observed to recognise these verses.

(_b_) In the ivth century, (to which Codex B and Codex ? probably belong, five Greek writers, one Syriac, and two Latin Fathers,-besides the Vulgate, Gothic and Memphitic Versions,-(_eleven_ authorities in all,)-testify to familiar acquaintance with this portion of S. Mark's Gospel.

(_c_) In the iiird century, (and by this time MS. evidence has entirely forsaken us,) we find Hippolytus, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Thebaic Version, bearing plain testimony that at that early period, in at least _three_ distinct provinces of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever attached to these verses. Lastly,-

(_d_) In the iind century, Irenaeus, the Pes.h.i.+to, and the Italic Version as plainly attest that in Gaul, in Mesopotamia and in the African province, the same verses were unhesitatingly received within a century (more or less) of the date of the inspired autograph of the Evangelist himself.

4. Thus, we are in possession of the testimony of _at least six_ independent witnesses, of a date considerably anterior to the earliest extant Codex of the Gospels. They are all of the best cla.s.s. They deliver themselves in the most unequivocal way. And their testimony to the genuineness of these Verses is unfaltering.

5. It is clear that nothing short of direct adverse evidence of the weightiest kind can sensibly affect so formidable an array of independent authorities as this. What must the evidence be which shall set it entirely aside, and induce us to believe, with the most recent editors of the inspired Text, that the last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired author, ended abruptly at ver. 8?

The grounds for a.s.suming that his "last Twelve Verses" are spurious, shall be exhibited in the ensuing chapter.

CHAPTER V.

THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS.

The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p. 39).-The misconception concerning Eusebius (p. 41).-The oversight concerning Jerome (p.

51);-also concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, (or else Severus of Antioch) (p. 57);-and concerning Victor of Antioch (p. 59).

It would naturally follow to shew that ma.n.u.script evidence confirms the evidence of the ancient Fathers and of the early Versions of Scripture.