The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 9

Mark 233; and the 233rd section of S. Mark's Gospel confessedly begins at ch. xvi. 8.-The probability may be thought to be thereby slightly increased that the sectional numbers of Eusebius extended no further than ver. 8: but-Has it been rendered one atom more probable that the inspired Evangelist himself ended his Gospel abruptly at the 8th verse? _That_ fact-(the _only_ thing which our opponents have to establish)-remains exactly where it was; entirely unproved, and in the highest degree improbable.

To conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the pages of Tischendorf:-"These verses are not recognised by the Sections of Ammonius, nor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and Caesarius bear witness to the fact;"-I am constrained to remark that the ill.u.s.trious Critic has drawn upon his imagination for three of his statements, and that the fourth is of no manner of importance.

(1.) About the "Sections of Ammonius," he really knows no more than about the lost Books of Livy. He is, therefore, without excuse for adducing them in the way of evidence.

(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either as to the "Sections of Ammonius" or to "Canons of Eusebius," Tischendorf is perfectly well aware. So is my reader.

(3.) His appeal to

CaeSARIUS

is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate the younger brother of Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus; an eminent physician of Constantinople, who died A.D. 368; and who, (as far as is known,) _never wrote anything_.

A work called ?e?se??, (which in the xth century was attributed to Caesarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that Caesarius was certainly _not_ its author,) is the composition to which Tischendorf refers. Even the approximate date of this performance, however, has never been ascertained. And yet, if Tischendorf had condescended to refer to it, (instead of taking his reference at second-hand,) he would have seen at a glance that the entire context in which the supposed testimony is found, _is nothing else but a condensed paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius_, in which the original statement occurs.(233)

Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of AMMONIUS, of EPIPHANIUS, and of CaeSARIUS on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel.

It is exactly _nil_. In fact Pseudo-Caesarius, so far from "bearing witness to the fact" that the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel are spurious, _actually quotes the 16_th_ verse as genuine_.(234)

(4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added to what we knew before concerning his probable estimate of these verses.

IV. We are now at liberty to proceed to the only head of external testimony which remains undiscussed. I allude to the evidence of

THE CATENae.

"In the Catenae on Mark," (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) "there is no explanation of this section."(235) "The Catenae on Mark:" as if they were quite common things,-"plenty, as blackberries!" But,-_Which_ of "the Catenae" may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined?

1. Not the Catena which Possinus found in the library of Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse, and which forms the basis of his Catena published at Rome in 1673; because _that_ Codex is expressly declared by the learned Editor to be defective from ver. 8 to the end.(236)

2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the Vatican Library and communicated to Possinus; because in _that_ Catena the 9th and 12th verses are distinctly commented on.(237)

3. Still less can Dr. Davidson be thought to have inspected the Catena commonly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,-which Pelta.n.u.s published in Latin in 1580, but which Possinus was the first to publish in Greek (1673). Dr.

Davidson, I say, cannot certainly have examined _that_ Catena; inasmuch as it contains, (as I have already largely shewn, and, in fact, as every one may see,) a long and elaborate dissertation on the best way of reconciling the language of S. Mark in ver. 9 with the language of the other Evangelists.(238)

4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic has inspected either of the last two editions of the same Catena: viz. that of Matthaei, (Moscow 1775,) or that of Cramer, (Oxford 1844,) from MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris and in the Bodleian. This is simply impossible, because (as we have seen), in _these_ is contained the famous pa.s.sage _which_ categorically a.s.serts the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S.

Mark's Gospel.(239)

Now this exhausts the subject.

To _which_, then, of "the Catenae on Mark," I must again inquire, does this learned writer allude?-I will venture to answer the question myself; and to a.s.sert that this is only one more instance of the careless, second-hand (and third-rate) criticism which is to be met with in every part of Dr.

Davidson's book: one proof more of the alacrity with which worn-out objections and worthless arguments are furbished up afresh, and paraded before an impatient generation and an unlearned age, whenever (_tanquam vile corpus_) the writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be a.s.sailed, or the Faith of the Church of CHRIST is to be unsettled and undermined.

V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to p. 39, he will perceive that I have now disposed of every witness whom I originally undertook to examine. He will also, in fairness, admit that there has not been elicited one particle of evidence, from first to last, which renders it in the slightest degree probable that the Gospel of S. Mark, as it originally came from the hands of its inspired Author, was either an imperfect or an unfinished work. Whether there have not emerged certain considerations which render such a supposition in the highest degree _un_likely,-I am quite content that my Reader shall decide.

Dismissing the external testimony, therefore, proceed we now to review those internal evidences, which are confidently appealed to as proving that the concluding Verses of S. Mark's Gospel cannot be regarded as really the work of the Evangelist.

CHAPTER IX.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.

The "Style" and "Phraseology" of these Verses declared by Critics to be not S. Mark's.-Insecurity of such Criticism (p. 140).-The "Style" of chap. xvi. 9-20 shewn to be the same as the style of chap. i. 9-20 (p. 142).-The "Phraseology" examined in twenty-seven particulars, and shewn to be suspicious in none (p. 145),-but in twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reverse (p. 170).-Such Remarks fallacious (p. 173).-Judged of by a truer, a more delicate and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most probably genuine (p. 175).

A distinct cla.s.s of objections remains to be considered. An argument much relied on by those who deny or doubt the genuineness of this portion of S.

Mark's Gospel, is derived from considerations of internal evidence. In the judgment of a recent Editor of the New Testament,-These twelve verses "bear traces of _another hand_ from that which has shaped the _diction_ and _construction_ of the rest of the Gospel."(240) They are therefore "an addition to the narrative,"-of which "the internal evidence will be found to preponderate vastly against the authors.h.i.+p of Mark."-"A difference,"

(says Dr. Tregelles,) "has been remarked, and truly remarked, between _the phraseology_ of this section and the rest of this Gospel."-According to Dr. Davidson,-"The _phraseology and style_ of the section are unfavourable to its authenticity." "The characteristic peculiarities which pervade Mark's Gospel do not appear in it; but, on the contrary, terms and expressions," "phrases and words, are introduced which Mark never uses; or terms for which he employs others."(241)-So Meyer,-"With ver. 9, we suddenly come upon an excerpting process totally different from the previous mode of narration. The pa.s.sage contains none of Mark's peculiarities (no e?????, no p????, &c, but the baldness and lack of clearness which mark a compiler;) while in single expressions, it is altogether contrary to Mark's manner."-"There is" (says Professor Norton) "a difference so great between the use of language in this pa.s.sage, and its use in the undisputed portion of Mark's Gospel, as to furnish strong reasons for believing the pa.s.sage not genuine."-No one, however, has expressed himself more strongly on this subject than Tischendorf.

"Singula" (he says) "multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent."(242)... Here, then, is something very like a consensus of hostile opinion: although the terms of the indictment are somewhat vague. Difference of "Diction and Construction,"-difference of "Phraseology and Style,"-difference of "Terms and Expressions,"-difference of "Words and Phrases;"-the absence of S.

Mark's "characteristic peculiarities." I suppose, however, that all may be brought under two heads,-(I.) STYLE, and (II.) PHRASEOLOGY: meaning by "Style" whatever belongs to the Evangelist's manner; and by "Phraseology"

whatever relates to the words and expressions he has employed. It remains, therefore, that we now examine the proofs by which it is proposed to substantiate these confident a.s.sertions, and ascertain exactly what they are worth by constant appeals to the Gospel. Throughout this inquiry, we have to do not with Opinion but with Fact. The unsupported dicta of Critics, however distinguished, are ent.i.tled to no manner of attention.

1. In the meantime, as might have been expected, these confident and often-repeated a.s.severations have been by no means unproductive of mischievous results:

Like ceaseless droppings, which at last are known To leave their dint upon the solid stone.

I observe that Scholars and Divines of the best type (as the Rev. T. S.

Green(243)) at last put up with them. The wisest however reproduce them under protest, and with apology. The names of Tischendorf and Tregelles, Meyer and Davidson, command attention. It seems to be thought incredible that they can _all_ be _entirely_ in the wrong. They impose upon learned and unlearned readers alike. "Even Barnabas has been carried away with their dissimulation." He has (to my surprise and regret) two suggestions:-

(_a_) The one,-That this entire section of the second Gospel may possibly have been written long after the rest; and that therefore its verbal peculiarities need not perplex or trouble us. It was, I suppose, (according to this learned and pious writer,) a kind of after-thought, or supplement, or Appendix to S. Mark's Gospel. In this way I have seen the last Chapter of S. John once and again accounted for.-To which, it ought to be a sufficient answer to point out that there is _no appearance whatever_ of any such interval having been interposed between S. Mark xvi.

8 and 9: that it is highly improbable that any such interval occurred: and that until the "verbal peculiarities" have been ascertained to exist, it is, to say the least, a gratuitous exercise of the inventive faculty to discover reasons for their existence. Whether there be not something radically unsound and wrong in all such conjectures about "after-thoughts," "supplements," "appendices," and "second editions" when the everlasting Gospel of JESUS CHRIST is the thing spoken of,-a confusing of things heavenly with things earthly which must make the Angels weep,-I forbear to press on the present occasion. It had better perhaps be discussed at another opportunity. But f???? ??d?e?(244) will forgive my freedom in having already made my personal sentiment on the subject sufficiently plain.

(_b_) His other suggestion is,-That this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark himself after all. By which he clearly means no more than this,-that as we are content not to know _who_ wrote the conclusion of the Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, so, if needful, we may well be content not to know who wrote the end of the Gospel of S. Mark.-In reply to which, I have but to say, that after cause has been shewn why we should indeed believe that not S. Mark but some one else wrote the end of S. Mark's Gospel, we shall be perfectly willing to acquiesce in the new fact:-but _not till then_.

2. True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been lifted up in the way of protest(245) against the proposed inference from the familiar premisses; (for the self-same statements have now been so often reproduced, that the eye grows weary at last of the ever-recurring string of offending vocables:)-but, with _one_ honorable exception,(246) men do not seem to have ever thought of calling the premisses themselves in question: examining the statements one by one: contesting the ground inch by inch: refusing absolutely to submit to any dictation whatever in this behalf: insisting on bringing the whole matter to the test of severe inquiry, and making every detail the subject of strict judicial investigation. This is what I propose to do in the course of the present Chapter. I altogether deny the validity of the inference which has been drawn from "the style," "the phraseology," "the diction" of the present section of the Gospel. But I do more. I entirely deny the accuracy of almost _every individual statement_ from which the unfavourable induction is made, and the hostile inference drawn. Even _this_ will not nearly satisfy me. I insist that one only result can attend the exact a.n.a.lysis of this portion of the Gospel into its elements; namely, a profound conviction that S. Mark is most certainly its Author.

3. Let me however distinctly declare beforehand that remarks on "the style" of an Evangelist are singularly apt to be fallacious, especially when (as here) it is proposed to apply them to a very limited portion of the sacred narrative. Altogether to be mistrusted moreover are they, when (as on the present occasion) it is proposed to make them the ground for possibly rejecting such a portion of Scripture as spurious. It becomes a fatal objection to such reasoning that _the style_ may indeed be exceedingly diverse, and yet _the Author_ be confessedly one and the same.

How exceedingly dissimilar in style are the Revelation of S. John and the Gospel of S. John! Moreover, practically, the promised remarks on "style,"

when the Authors.h.i.+p of some portion of Scripture is to be discussed, are commonly observed to degenerate at once into what is really quite a different thing. Single words, perhaps some short phrase, is appealed to, which (it is said) does not recur in any part of the same book; and thence it is argued that the Author can no longer be the same. "According to this argument, _the recurrence of the same words_ const.i.tutes ident.i.ty of style; the want of such recurrence implies difference of style;-difference of style in such a sense as compels us to infer diversity of authors.h.i.+p.

Each writer is supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of 'formulae' within the range of which he must work. He must in each chapter employ these formulae, and these only. He must be content with one small portion of his mother-tongue, and not dare to venture across the limits of that portion,-on pain of losing his ident.i.ty."(247)

4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation to such a method of judging about the Authors.h.i.+p of any twelve verses of Scripture which can be named, scarcely requires ill.u.s.tration. The attentive reader of S.

Matthew's Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is _six times repeated_ in his viiith and ixth chapters is perhaps only once met with besides in his Gospel,-viz. in his xxist chapter.(248) The "style" of the 17th verse of his ist chapter may be thought unlike anything else in S.

Matthew. S. Luke's five opening verses are unique, both in respect of manner and of matter. S. John also in his five opening verses seems to me to have adopted a method which is not recognisable anywhere else in his writings; "rising strangely by degrees," (as Bp. Pearson expresses it,(249)) "making the last word of the former sentence the first of that which followeth."-"_He_ knoweth that he saith true," is the language of the same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35. But, "_we_ know that his testimony is true," is his phrase in chap. xxi. 24. Twice, and twice only throughout his Gospel, (viz. in chap. xix. 35: xx. 31), is he observed to address his readers, and on both occasions in the same words: ("that _ye_ may believe.") But what of all this? Is it to be supposed that S. Matthew, S. Luke, S. John are not the authors of those several places?

From facts like these no inference whatever is to be drawn as to the genuineness or the spuriousness of a writing. It is quite to mistake the Critic's vocation to imagine that he is qualified, or called upon, to pa.s.s any judgment of the sort.

5. I have not said all this, of course, as declining the proposed investigation. I approach it on the contrary right willingly, being confident that it can be attended by only one result. With what is true, endless are the harmonies which evolve themselves: from what is false, the true is equally certain to stand out divergent.(250) And we all desire nothing but the Truth.

I. To begin then with the "STYLE AND MANNER" of S. Mark in this place.

1. We are a.s.sured that "instead of the _graphic, detailed_ description by which this Evangelist is distinguished, we meet with an abrupt, sententious manner, resembling that of brief notices extracted from larger accounts and loosely linked together."(251) Surely if this be so, the only lawful inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, _has_ "extracted brief notices from larger accounts, and loosely linked them together:" and unless such a proceeding on the part of the Evangelist be judged incredible, it is hard to see what is the force of the adverse criticism, as directed against the _genuineness_ of the pa.s.sage now under consideration.

2. But in truth, (when divested of what is merely a gratuitous a.s.sumption,) the preceding account of the matter is probably not far from the correct one. Of S. Mark's practice of making "_extracts_," I know nothing: nor Dr. Davidson either. That there existed _any_ "larger accounts" which would have been available for such a purpose, (except the Gospel according to S. Matthew,) there is neither a particle of evidence, nor a shadow of probability. On the other hand, that, notwithstanding the abundant oral information to which confessedly he had access, S. Mark has been divinely guided in this place to handle, in the briefest manner, some of the chiefest things which took place after our LORD'S Resurrection,-is simply undeniable. And without at all admitting that the style of the Evangelist is in consequence either "abrupt" or "sententious,"(252) I yet recognise the inevitable consequence of relating many dissimilar things within very narrow limits; namely, that the transition from one to the other forces itself on the attention. What wonder that the same phenomenon should _not_ be discoverable in other parts of the Gospel where the Evangelist is _not_ observed to be doing the same thing?

3. But wherever in his Gospel S. Mark _is_ doing the same thing, he is observed to adopt the style and manner which Dr. Davidson is pleased to call "sententious" and "abrupt." Take twelve verses in his first chapter, as an example. Between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark i. 9-20, I profess myself unable to discern any real difference of style. I proceed to transcribe the pa.s.sage which I deliberately propose for comparison; _the twelve corresponding verses_, namely, in S. Mark's _first_ chapter, which are to be compared with the twelve verses already under discussion, from his _last_; and they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as in Greek:-

(_S. MARK_ i. 9-20.)