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

The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa .--The misconception concerning Eusebius .--The oversight concerning Jerome ;--also concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, ;--and concerning Victor of Antioch .

GREGORY OF NYSSA.

This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself as follows in his second "Homily on the Resurrection;"--"In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at 'for they were afraid.' In some copies, however, this also is added,--'Now when He was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.' "

That this testimony should have been so often appealed to as proceeding from Gregory of Nyssa, is little to the credit of modern scholarship. One would have supposed that the gravity of the subject,--the importance of the issue,--the sacredness of Scripture, down to its minutest jot and tittle,--would have ensured extraordinary caution, and induced every fresh assailant of so considerable a portion of the Gospel to be very sure of his ground before reiterating what his predecessors had delivered. And yet it is evident that not one of the recent writers on the subject can have investigated this matter for himself. It is only due to their known ability to presume that had they taken ever so little pains with the foregoing quotation, they would have found out their mistake.

EUSEBIUS,

It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by Cardinal Angelo Mai with a few fragmentary specimens of a lost work of Eusebius on the Inconsistencies in the Gospels, from a MS. in the Vatican. These, the learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in his "Nova Patrum Bibliotheca;" and hither we are invariably referred by those who cite Eusebius as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of the second Gospel.

"How is it, that, according to Matthew , the SAVIOUR appears to have risen 'in the end of the Sabbath;' but, according to Mark , 'early the first day of the week'?"--Eusebius answers,

It will be best to exhibit the whole of what Eusebius has written on this subject,--as far as we are permitted to know it,--continuously. He proceeds:--

It has been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have recognised the verses in question as genuine, because a scholium purporting to be his has been cited by Matthaei from a Catena at Moscow, in which he appears to assert that "according to Mark," our SAVIOUR "is not recorded to have appeared to His Disciples after His Resurrection:" whereas in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is plainly recorded that "Afterwards He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat at meat." May I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the proposed inference, and shall continue to feel so, until I know something more about the scholium in question? Up to the time when this page is printed I have not succeeded in obtaining from Moscow the details I wish for: but they must be already on the way, and I propose to embody the result in a "Postscript" which shall form the last page of the Appendix to the present volume.

JEROME

has delivered on this subject. So great a name must needs command attention in any question of Textual Criticism: and it is commonly pretended that Jerome pronounces emphatically against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. A little attention to the actual testimony borne by this Father will, it is thought, suffice to exhibit it in a wholly unexpected light; and induce us to form an entirely different estimate of its practical bearing upon the present discussion.

SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH, but HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM,

It is, however, only needful to read through the Homily in question to see that it is an attempt to weave into one piece a quantity of foreign and incongruous materials. It is in fact not a Homily at all, but a Dissertation,--into which, Hesychius, ,) is observed to introduce solutions of most of those famous difficulties which cluster round the sepulchre of the world's Redeemer on the morning of the first Easter Day; and which the ancients seem to have delighted in discussing,--as, the number of the Marys who visited the sepulchre; the angelic appearances on the morning of the Resurrection; and above all the seeming discrepancy, already adverted to, in the Evangelical notices of the time at which our LORD rose from the dead. I need not enter more particularly into an examination of this "Homily": but I must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author at all events cannot be thought to have repudiated the concluding verses of S. Mark: for at the end of his discourse, he quotes the 19th verse entire, without hesitation, in confirmation of one of his statements, and declares that the words are written by S. Mark.

VICTOR OF ANTIOCH.

I must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore confine myself to those facts concerning "Victor of Antioch," or rather concerning his work, which are necessary for the purpose in hand.

Here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent Father, writing in the first half of the vth century,--

That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself by reference to "very many" and "accurate" copies, that the verses in question are genuine:

We are now at liberty to sum up; and to review the progress which has been hitherto made in this Inquiry.

It remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove somewhat less unaccommodating.

EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS,

S. Mark xvi. 9-20, contained in every MS. in the world except two.--Irrational Claim to Infallibility set up on behalf of Cod. B and Cod. ? .--These two Codices shewn to be full of gross Omissions ,--Interpolations ,--Corruptions of the Text ,--and Perversions of the Truth .--The testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9-20, shewn to be favorable, notwithstanding .

What then, are the grounds for the superstitious reverence which is entertained in certain quarters for the readings of Codex B? If it be a secret known to the recent Editors of the New Testament, they have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close.

On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is throughout, they yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in exhibiting minute corruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to betray a common corrupt original. These coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish a real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent witnesses.

Further, it is evident that both alike have been subjected, probably during the process of transcription, to the same depraving influences. But because such statements require to be established by an induction of instances, the reader's attention must now be invited to a few samples of the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies of the Gospel.

Let others decide, therefore, whether the present discussion has not already reached a stage at which an unprejudiced Arbiter might be expected to address the prosecuting parties somewhat to the following effect:--

"This case must now be dismissed. The charge brought by yourselves against these Verses was, that they are an unauthorized addition to the second Gospel; a spurious appendix, of which the Evangelist S. Mark can have known nothing. But so far from substantiating this charge, you have not adduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable.

"The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to MSS. It has been accepted. And with what result?

"But it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides.

This entire subject is of so much importance that I must needs yet awhile crave the reader's patience and attention.

The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and ? considered.--Antiquity unfavourable to the omission of those words .--The Moderns infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission .--Marcion probably the author of this corruption of the Text of Scripture .--Other peculiarities of Codex ? disposed of .

The subject which exclusively occupied our attention throughout the foregoing chapter admits of apt and powerful illustration. Its vast importance will be a sufficient apology for the particular disquisition which follows, and might have been spared, but for the plain challenge of the famous Critic to be named immediately.

To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,--

Are we then deliberately to believe, that the Epistle which occupies the fifth place among S. Paul's writings, and which from the beginning of the second century,--that is, from the very dawn of Historical evidence,--has been known as "the Epistle to the Ephesians," was an "Encyclical," "Catholic" or "General Epistle,"--addressed ???? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? 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 ?? ????? 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. It is observed to collapse before every test which can be applied to it.

Marcion the heretic, is distinctly charged by Tertullian , 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. "Instead of a stylus," "Marcion employed a knife." "What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages?" S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian even singles out by name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a new title. All this has been fully explained above, from page 93 to page 96.

???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ?. ?.

???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ... ??? ??????? ?? ?. ?.

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

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; 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 ?? ????? are an unauthorized interpolation of the inspired Text.

And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex ?.

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 .--Scholz' serious blunders .--Griesbach's sweeping misstatement .--The grave misapprehension which has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail ; Codex L .--Ammonius not the author of the so-called "Ammonian" Sections .--Epiphanius .--"Caesarius," a misnomer.--"The Catenae," misrepresented .

Scholz first states that in two MSS. in the Vatican Library 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. 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.

I suppose I may now pass 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.

Scholz proceeds:--"In Cod. 22, after ????????? ??? + ????? is read the following rubric:"--

?? ???? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ????????? ? ????????????: ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ???????.

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

I shall have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, and what he "canonized," by-and-by. But what is there in all this, , to recommend the opinion that the Gospel of S. Mark was published by its Author in an incomplete state; or that the last twelve verses of it are of spurious origin?

The reader's attention is specially invited to the imposing statement which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, "contain these words of Severus of Antioch:--

"In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at 'for they were afraid.' In some copies, however, this also is added,--'Now when He was risen,' &c. This, however, seems to contradict to some extent what was before delivered," &c.

"All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed unto Peter and the rest. And after these things, from East even unto West, did JESUS Himself send forth by their means the holy and incorruptible message of eternal Salvation.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet