Read Ebook: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark by Burgon John William

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 732 lines and 133334 words, and 15 pages

THE CODEX

It will be perceived that the text begins at S. Mark xvi. 2, and ends with the first words of S. Luke i. 18.

J. W. B.

"MY WORD WILL NOT PASS AWAY"

???? ??? ???? ????, ??? ?? ??????? ? ??????? ??? ? ??, ???? ?? ? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?????, ??? ?? ????? ???????.

??????????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?????????, ? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??????.

? ??????? ??? ? ?? ?????????????, ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?????????.

??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????, ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?????.

DEDICATION: TO SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, Q.C., M.P.

DEAR SIR ROUNDELL,

I do myself the honour of inscribing this volume to you. Permit me to explain the reason why.

It is not merely that I may give expression to a sentiment of private friendship which dates back from the pleasant time when I was Curate to your Father,--whose memory I never recall without love and veneration;--nor even in order to afford myself the opportunity of testifying how much I honour you for the noble example of conscientious uprightness and integrity which you set us on a recent public occasion. It is for no such reason that I dedicate to you this vindication of the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

It is because I desire supremely to submit the argument contained in the ensuing pages to a practised judicial intellect of the loftiest stamp. Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these "last Twelve Verses" are not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same opinion. Popular Prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the truth. It is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends of mine, who, admitting the adversary's premisses, content themselves with denying the validity of his inference. However true it may be,--and it is true,--that from those premisses the proposed conclusion does not follow, I yet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether. I insist, on the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,--untrustworthy in every particular.

I am, with sincere regard and respect, Dear Sir Roundell, Very faithfully yours, JOHN W. BURGON.

ORIEL, July, 1871.

PREFACE

This volume is my contribution towards the better understanding of a subject which is destined, when it shall have grown into a Science, to vindicate for itself a mighty province, and to enjoy paramount attention. I allude to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Scriptures.

That this Study is still in its infancy, all may see. The very principles on which it is based are as yet only imperfectly understood. The reason is obvious. It is because the very foundations have not yet been laid, on which the future superstructure is to rise. A careful collation of every extant Codex, is the first indispensable preliminary to any real progress. Another, is a revised Text, not to say a more exact knowledge, of the oldest Versions. Scarcely of inferior importance would be critically correct editions of the Fathers of the Church; and these must by all means be furnished with far completer Indices of Texts than have ever yet been attempted.--There is not a single Father to be named whose Works have been hitherto furnished with even a tolerably complete Index of the places in which he either quotes, or else clearly refers to, the Text of the New Testament: while scarcely a tithe of the known MSS. of the Gospels have as yet been satisfactorily collated. Strange to relate, we are to this hour without so much as a satisfactory Catalogue of the Copies which are known to be extant.

In conclusion, I desire to offer my thanks to the Rev. John Wordsworth, late Fellow of Brasenose College, for his patient perusal of these sheets as they have passed through the press, and for favouring me with several judicious suggestions. To him may be applied the saying of President Routh on receiving a visit from Bishop Wordsworth at his lodgings,--"I see the learned son of a learned Father, sir!"--Let me be permitted to add that my friend inherits the Bishop's fine taste and accurate judgment also.

J. W. B.

THE LAST TWELVE VERSES.

??????? ?? ???? ????? Now when Jesus was ???????? ????? ?????? risen early the first day ????? ?? ?????????, ??? of the week, He appeared ?? ?????????? ???? first to Mary Magdalene, ????????. ?????? out of whom He had cast ?????????? ????????? ???? seven devils. And ???? ????? ??????????, she went and told them ???????? ??? ????????. that had been with Him, ???????? ?????????? ??? as they mourned and wept. ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? And they, when they ?????????. had heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? After that He ????? ???????????? appeared in another form ????????? ?? ????? ?????, unto two of them, as they ???????????? ??? ?????. walked, and went into the ???????? ?????????? country. And they ?????????? ???? ???????; went and told it unto the ???? ???????? ??????????. residue: neither believed they them. ??????? ???????????? Afterward He ?????? ???? ?????? appeared unto the eleven ?????????, ??? ???????? as they sat at meat, and ??? ???????? ????? ??? upbraided them with their ?????????????, ??? ???? unbelief and hardness of ??????????? ????? heart, because they ??????????? ??? believed not them which ??????????. ??? ????? had seen Him after He was ??????, "??????????? ??? risen. And He said ??? ?????? ??????, unto them, "Go ye into ???????? ?? ?????????? all the world, and preach ???? ?? ??????. ? the Gospel to every ????????? ??? ?????????? creature. He that ?????????; ? ?? ????????? believeth and is baptized ??????????????. ?????? ?? shall be saved; but he ???? ?????????? ????? that believeth not shall ??????????????; ?? ?? be damned. And these ??????? ??? ???????? signs shall follow them ?????????; ???????? that believe; In My Name ????????? ???????; ????? shall they cast out ??????; ??? ????????? ?? devils; they shall speak ??????, ?? ?? ?????? with new tongues; ??????; ??? ????????? they shall take up ?????? ??????????, ??? serpents; and if they ????? ???????." drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." ? ??? ??? ??????, ???? ?? So then after the ??????? ??????, ???????? LORD had spoken unto ??? ??? ???????, ??? them, He was received up ???????? ?? ?????? ??? into Heaven, and sat on ????; ??????? ?? the Right hand of GOD. ?????????? ???????? And they went forth, ????????, ??? ?????? and preached every where, ????????????, ??? ??? the LORD working with ????? ??????????? ??? ??? them, and confirming the ??????????????? ???????. word with signs ????. following. Amen.

THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL, STATED.

These Verses generally suspected at the present time. The popularity of this opinion accounted for.

But I hope that I shall succeed in doing more. It shall be my endeavour to shew not only that there really is no reason whatever for calling in question the genuineness of this portion of Holy Writ, but also that there exist sufficient reasons for feeling confident that it must needs be genuine. This is clearly as much as it is possible for me to achieve. But when this has been done, I venture to hope that the verses in dispute will for the future be allowed to retain their place in the second Gospel unmolested.

It will of course be asked,--And yet, if all this be so, how does it happen that both in very ancient, and also in very modern times, this proposal to suppress twelve verses of the Gospel has enjoyed a certain amount of popularity? At the two different periods, for widely different reasons.

Modern prejudice, then,--added to a singularly exaggerated estimate of the critical importance of the testimony of our two oldest Codices, --must explain why the opinion is even popular that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious appendix to his Gospel.

Not that Biblical Critics would have us believe that the Evangelist left off at verse 8, intending that the words,--"neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid," should be the conclusion of his Gospel. "No one can imagine," "that Mark cut short the thread of his narrative at that place." It is on all hands eagerly admitted, that so abrupt a termination must be held to mark an incomplete or else an uncompleted work. How, then, in the original autograph of the Evangelist, is it supposed that the narrative proceeded? This is what no one has even ventured so much as to conjecture. It is assumed, however, that the original termination of the Gospel, whatever it may have been, has perished. We appeal, of course, to its actual termination: and,--Of what nature then, is the supposed necessity for regarding the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel as a spurious substitute for what the Evangelist originally wrote? What, in other words, has been the history of these modern doubts; and by what steps have they established themselves in books, and won the public ear?

To explain this, shall be the object of the next ensuing chapters.

THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.

Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses .--Lachmann's fatal principle the clue to the unfavourable verdict of Tischendorf , of Tregelles , of Alford ; which has been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and Divines .--The nature of the present inquiry explained

Neither Hug, nor Scholz his pupil,--who in 1808 and 1830 respectively followed Griesbach with modifications of his recension-theory,--concurred in the unfavourable sentence which their illustrious predecessor had passed on the concluding portion of S. Mark's Gospel. The latter even eagerly vindicated its genuineness. But with Lachmann,--whose unsatisfactory text of the Gospels appeared in 1842,--originated a new principle of Textual Revision; the principle, namely, of paying exclusive and absolute deference to the testimony of a few arbitrarily selected ancient documents; no regard being paid to others of the same or of yet higher antiquity. This is not the right place for discussing this plausible and certainly most convenient scheme of textual revision. That it leads to conclusions little short of irrational, is certain. I notice it only because it supplies the clue to the result which, as far as S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is concerned, has been since arrived at by Dr. Tischendorf, Dr. Tregelles, and Dean Alford,--the three latest critics who have formally undertaken to reconstruct the sacred Text.

It might have been foreseen that when Critics so conspicuous permit themselves thus to handle the precious deposit, others would take courage to hurl their thunderbolts in the same direction with the less concern. "It is probable," "that this section is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospels soon after the times of the Apostles."--The Rev. T. S. Green, considers that "the hypothesis of very early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in evidence,"--which "point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious origin."--"In respect of Mark's Gospel," "there is ground for believing that the last twelve verses were not written by the Evangelist, but were added by some other writer to supply a short conclusion to the work, which some cause had prevented the author from completing."--Professor Westcott--who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, announces a revised Text--assures us that "the original text, from whatever cause it may have happened, terminated abruptly after the account of the Angelic vision." The rest "was added at another time, and probably by another hand." "It is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt close." "The remaining verses cannot be regarded as part of the original narrative of S. Mark"--Meyer insists that this is an "apocryphal fragment," and reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which have ever been arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving. The "note" with which he takes leave of the subject is even insolent. A comparison of these "fragments" with the parallel places in the other Gospels and in the Acts, shews how vacillating and various were the Apostolical traditions concerning the appearances of our LORD after His Resurrection, and concerning His Ascension.

Such, then, is the hostile verdict concerning these last twelve verses which I venture to dispute, and which I trust I shall live to see reversed. The writers above cited will be found to rely on the external evidence of certain ancient MSS.; and on Scholia which state "that the more ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver. 8." They assure us that this is confirmed by a formidable array of Patristic authorities. Internal proof is declared not to be wanting. Certain incoherences and inaccuracies are pointed out. In fine, "the phraseology and style of the section" are declared to be "unfavourable to its authenticity;" not a few of the words and expressions being "foreign to the diction of Mark."--I propose to shew that all these confident and imposing statements are to a great extent either mistakes or exaggerations, and that the slender residuum of fact is about as powerless to achieve the purpose of the critics as were the seven green withs of the Philistines to bind Samson.

In order to exhibit successfully what I have to offer on this subject, I find it necessary to begin at the very beginning. I think it right, however, in this place to premise a few plain considerations which will be of use to us throughout all our subsequent inquiry; and which indeed we shall never be able to afford to lose sight of for long.

And yet, it will be found that evidence of overwhelming weight, if not of an entirely different kind, is required in the present instance: as I proceed to explain.

THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.

Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any .--The importance of such evidence explained .--Nineteen Patristic witnesses to these Verses, produced .--Summary .

The present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds of Evidence, external and internal. For the full consideration of the former, seven Chapters will be necessary: for a discussion of the latter, one seventh of that space will suffice. We have first to ascertain whether the external testimony concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is of such a nature as to constrain us to admit that it is highly probable that those twelve verses are a spurious appendix to S. Mark's Gospel.

MARINUS also, a contemporary of Eusebius,--inasmuch as he is introduced to our notice by Eusebius himself as asking a question concerning the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel without a trace of misgiving as to the genuineness of that about which he inquires,--is a competent witness in their favor who has hitherto been overlooked in this discussion.

Jerome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, makes no mention of Jacob of Nisibis,--a famous Syrian Bishop who was present at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325. Gennadius of Marseille, asserts that the reason of this omission was Jerome's ignorance of the Syriac language; and explains that Jacob was the author of twenty-two Syriac Homilies. Of these, there exists a very ancient Armenian translation; which was accordingly edited as the work of Jacobus Nisibenus with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1756. Gallandius reprinted both the Armenian and the Latin; and to Gallandius we are referred whenever "Jacobus Nisibenus" is quoted.

But the proposed attribution of the Homilies in question,--though it has been acquiesced in for nearly 1400 years,--is incorrect. Quite lately the Syriac originals have come to light, and they prove to be the work of Aphraates, "the Persian Sage,"--a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of the Syrian Church. In the first Homily, , verses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are quoted,--yet not from the version known as the Curetonian Syriac, nor yet from the Peshito exactly.--Here, then, is another wholly independent witness to the last twelve verses of S. Mark, coeval certainly with the two oldest copies of the Gospel extant,--B and ?.

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: 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.

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

The Peshito,--the Curetonian Syriac,--and the Recension of Thomas of Hharkel --The Vulgate --and the Vetus Itala --the Gothic --and the Egyptian Versions .--Review of the Evidence up to this point, .

To these, if I do not add the "Jerusalem version,"--)--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.

After this mass 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, 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 and the Georgian 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.

In the ivth century, --testify to familiar acquaintance with this portion of S. Mark's Gospel.

In the iind century, Irenaeus, the Peshito, 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 of the date of the inspired autograph of the Evangelist himself.

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

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

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet