The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark John William Burgon 1866 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Last Twelve Verses of the
Gospel According to S. Mark
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark

Author: John William Burgon

Release date: July 27, 2008 [eBook #26134]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26134

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAST
TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK ***

THE

THE LAST TWELVE VERSES
OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

S. MARK

Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors

And Established

by

John W. Burgon B.D.
Vicar of S. Mary-The-Virgin's, Fellow of Oriel College,

and Gresham Lecturer in Divinity.

With Facsimiles of Codex ‫ א‬And Codex L

"'Advice to you,' sir, 'in studying Divinity?' Did you say that you 'wished I
would give you a few words of advice,' sir?... Then let me recommend to
you the practice of always verifying your references, sir!"

Conversation of the late President Routh

Oxford and London:

James Parker and Co.

1871.

Contents

The Codex
Dedication: To Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., M.P.
Preface.
The Last Twelve Verses.
Chapter I. THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK'S
GOSPEL, STATED.
Chapter II. THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN
TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.
Chapter III. THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED
TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.
Chapter IV. THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO
YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF

THESE VERSES.
Chapter V. THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE
EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE
CRITICS.
Chapter VI. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE
OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART I.
Chapter VII. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE
OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART II.
Chapter VIII. 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.
Chapter IX. INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE
VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.
Chapter X. THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO
BE ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE
VERSES.
Chapter XI. THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN
CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND
ACCOUNTED FOR.
Chapter XII. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF
THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT.
APPENDIX (A).
APPENDIX (B).
APPENDIX (C).
APPENDIX (D).
APPENDIX (E).
APPENDIX (F).
APPENDIX (G).
APPENDIX (H).
POSTSCRIPT.
L'ENVOY
GENERAL INDEX.
Footnotes

[pg i]

The Codex

[Transcriber's Note: This e-book contains much Greek text which is central
to the point of the book. In the ASCII versions of the e-book, the Greek is
transliterated into Roman letters, which do not perfectly represent the Greek
original; especially, accent and breathing marks do not transliterate. The
HTML and PDF versions contain the true Greek text of the original book.]

On the next page is exhibited an exact Fac-simile, obtained by Photography,
of fol. 28 b of the Codex Sinaiticus at S. Petersburg, (Tischendorf's ‫)א‬:
shewing the abrupt termination of S. Mark's Gospel at the words
ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ (chap. xvi. 8), as explained at p. 70, and pp. 86-8. The
original Photograph, which is here reproduced on a diminished scale,
measures in height full fourteen inches and one-eighth; in breadth, full
thirteen inches. It was procured for me through the friendly and zealous
offices of the English Chaplain at S. Petersburg, the Rev. A. S. Thompson,
B.D.; by favour of the Keeper of the Imperial Library, who has my hearty
thanks for his liberality and consideration.

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

Up to this hour, every endeavour to obtain a Photograph of the
corresponding page of the Codex Vaticanus, B, (No. 1209, in the Vatican,)
has proved unavailing. If the present Vindication of the genuineness of
Twelve Verses of the everlasting Gospel should have the good fortune to
approve itself to his Holiness, Pope Pius IX., let me be permitted in this
unadorned and unusual manner,—(to which I would fain add some
circumstance of respectful ceremony if I knew how,)—very humbly to
entreat his Holiness to allow me to possess a Photograph, corresponding in
size with the original, of the page of Codex B (it is numbered fol. 1303,)
which exhibits the abrupt termination of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

J. W. B.

Oriel College, Oxford,
June 14, 1871.

[pg iv]

"My Word Will Not Pass Away"

ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν,
ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ,
ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου,
ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.

εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστι
τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν,
ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.

ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται,
οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι.

καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ
ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης
ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ
ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς,
καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας,
καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

[pg v]

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, [pg vi] that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,—
untrustworthy in every particular.

How, in the meantime, can such an one as I am hope to persuade the world
that it is as I say, while the most illustrious Biblical Critics at home and
abroad are agreed, and against me? Clearly, the first thing to be done is to
secure for myself a full and patient hearing. With this view, I have written a
book. But next, instead of waiting for the slow verdict of Public Opinion,
(which yet, I know, must come after many days,) I desiderate for the
Evidence I have collected, a competent and an impartial Judge. And that is
why I dedicate my book to you. If I can but get this case fairly tried, I have
no doubt whatever about the result.

Whether you are able to find time to read these pages, or not, it shall
content me to have shewn in this manner the confidence with which I
advocate my cause; the kind of test to which I propose to bring my
reasonings. If I may be allowed to say so,—S. Mark's last Twelve Verses
shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men. I am able to prove
that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly
mistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But I
claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations which
have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be reckoned
among the things that are absolutely certain.

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

Oriel,
July, 1871.

[pg vii]

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, (except
to a wholly inadequate extent,) on which the future superstructure is to rise.
A careful collation of every extant Codex, (executed after the manner of the
Rev. F. H. Scrivener's labours in this department,) 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 [pg viii] 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.

But when all this has been done,—(and the Science deserves, and requires,
a little more public encouragement than has hitherto been bestowed on the
arduous and—let me not be ashamed to add the word—unremunerative
labour of Textual Criticism,)—it will be discovered that the popular and the
prevailing Theory is a mistaken one. The plausible hypothesis on which
recent recensions of the Text have been for the most part conducted, will be
seen to be no longer tenable. The latest decisions will in consequence be
generally reversed.

I am not of course losing sight of what has been already achieved in this
department of Sacred Learning. While our knowledge of the uncial MSS.
has been rendered tolerably exact and complete, an excellent beginning has
been made, (chiefly by the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the most judicious living
Master of Textual Criticism,) in acquainting us with the contents of about
seventy of the cursive MSS. of the New Testament. And though it is
impossible to deny that the published Texts of Doctors Tischendorf and
Tregelles as Texts are wholly inadmissible, yet is it equally certain that by
the conscientious diligence with which those distinguished Scholars have
respectively [pg ix] laboured, they have erected monuments of their

learning and ability which will endure for ever. Their Editions of the New
Testament will not be superseded by any new discoveries, by any future
advances in the Science of Textual Criticism. The MSS. which they have
edited will remain among the most precious materials for future study. All
honour to them! If in the warmth of controversy I shall appear to have
spoken of them sometimes without becoming deference, let me here once
for all confess that I am to blame, and express my regret. When they have
publicly begged S. Mark's pardon for the grievous wrong they have done
him, I will very humbly beg their pardon also.

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.

And now I dismiss this Work, at which I have conscientiously laboured for
many days and many nights; beginning it in joy and ending it in sorrow.
The College in which I have for the most part written it is designated in the
preamble of its Charter and in its Foundation Statutes, (which are already
much [pg x] more than half a thousand years old,) as Collegium Scholarium
in Sacrâ Theologiâ studentium,—perpetuis temporibus duraturum.
Indebted, under God, to the pious munificence of the Founder of Oriel for
my opportunities of study, I venture, in what I must needs call evil days, to
hope that I have to some extent “employed my advantages,”—(the
expression occurs in a prayer used by this Society on its three solemn
anniversaries,)—as our Founder and Benefactors “would approve if they
were now upon earth to witness what we do.”

J. W. B.

Oriel,
July, 1871.

[pg xvi]

The Last Twelve Verses.

Subjoined, for convenience, are “the Last Twelve Verses.”

(9) Now when Jesus was risen
Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτου early the first day of the week,
ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ He appeared first to Mary
Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ᾽ ῆς ἐκβεβλήκει Magdalene, out of whom He
ἑπτα δαιμόμια. ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα had cast seven devils. (10)
ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ And she went and told them
γενομένοις, πενθοῦσι καὶ that had been with Him, as
κλαίουσι. κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι they mourned and wept. (11)
ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς And they, when they had heard
ἠπίστησαν. that He was alive, and had
been seen of her, believed not.
(12) After that He appeared in
Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν
another form unto two of
περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ
them, as they walked, and
μορφῇ, πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν.
went into the country. (13)
κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν
And they went and told it unto
τοῖς λοιποῖς; οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις
the residue: neither believed
ἐπίστευσαν.
they them.
Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς (14) Afterward He appeared
ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισε unto the eleven as they sat at
τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ meat, and upbraided them with
σκληροκαρδίαν, ὅτι τοῖς their unbelief and hardness of
θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον heart, because they believed
οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, not them which had seen Him
“Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον after He was risen. (15) And

ἄπαντα, κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον He said unto them, “Go ye into
πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ all the world, and preach the
βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται; ὁ δὲ Gospel to every creature. (16)
ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. He that believeth and is
σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεύσασι ταῦτα baptized shall be saved; but he
παρακολουθήσει; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι that believeth not shall be
μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσι; damned. (17) And these signs
γλώσσαις λαλήσουσι καιναῖς; shall follow them that believe;
ὄφεις ἀροῦσι; κὰν θανὰσιμόν τι In My Name shall they cast
πίωσιν, οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψει; ἐπὶ out devils; they shall speak
ἀρρώστους χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσι, καὶ with new tongues; (18) they
καλῶς ἕξουσιν.” 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.”
(19) So then after the Lord
Ὀ μὲν οὄν Κύριος, μετὰ τὸ
had spoken unto them, He was
λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς, ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν
received up into Heaven, and
οὐρανὸν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν
sat on the Right hand of God.
τοῦ Θεοῦ; ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες
(20) And they went forth, and
ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ, τοῦ Κυρίου
preached every where, the
συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον
Lord working with them, and
βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν
confirming the word with
ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. Ἀμήν.
signs following. Amen.

[pg 001]

Chapter I.

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.

It has lately become the fashion to speak of the last Twelve Verses of the
Gospel according to S. Mark, as if it were an ascertained fact that those
verses constitute no integral part of the Gospel. It seems to be generally
supposed, (1) That the evidence of MSS. is altogether fatal to their claims;
(2) That “the early Fathers” witness plainly against their genuineness; (3)
That, from considerations of “internal evidence” they must certainly be
given up. It shall be my endeavour in the ensuing pages to shew, on the
contrary, That manuscript evidence is so overwhelmingly in their favour
that no room is left for doubt or suspicion:—That there is not so much as
one of the Fathers, early or late, who gives it as his opinion that these verses
are spurious:—and, That the argument derived from internal considerations
proves on inquiry to be baseless and unsubstantial as a dream.

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 [pg 002] 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, (I answer,) for widely different
reasons.

(1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief of Christendom
that the Word of God must needs be consistent with itself in every part, and
prove in every part (like its Divine Author) perfectly “faithful and true,” the
difficulty (which was deemed all but insuperable) of bringing certain
statements in S. Mark's last Twelve Verses into harmony with certain
statements of the other Evangelists, is discovered to have troubled Divines
exceedingly. “In fact,” (says Mr. Scrivener,) “it brought suspicion upon
these verses, and caused their omission in some copies seen by Eusebius.”
That the maiming process is indeed attributable to this cause and came
about in this particular way, I am unable to persuade myself; but, if the
desire to provide an escape from a serious critical difficulty did not actually
occasion that copies of S. Mark's Gospel were mutilated, it certainly was
the reason why, in very early times, such mutilated copies were viewed
without displeasure by some, and appealed to with complacency by others.

(2.) But times are changed. We have recently been assured on high authority
that the Church has reversed her ancient convictions in this respect: that
now, “most sound theologians have no dread whatever of acknowledging
minute points of disagreement” (i.e. minute errors) “in the fourfold
narrative even of the life of the Redeemer.”1 There has arisen in these last
days a singular impatience of Dogmatic Truth, (especially Dogma of an
unpalatable kind,) which has even rendered popular the pretext afforded by
these same mutilated copies for the grave resuscitation of doubts, never as it
would seem seriously entertained by any [pg 003] of the ancients; and
which, at all events for 1300 years and upwards, have deservedly sunk into
oblivion.

Whilst I write, that “most divine explication of the chiefest articles of our
Christian belief,” the Athanasian Creed,2 is made the object of incessant

assaults.3 But then it is remembered that statements quite as “uncharitable”
as any which this Creed contains are found in the 16th verse of S. Mark's
concluding chapter; are in fact the words of Him whose very Name is Love.
The precious warning clause, I say, (miscalled “damnatory,”4) which an
impertinent officiousness is for glossing with a rubric and weakening with
an apology, proceeded from Divine lips,—at least if these concluding verses
be genuine. How shall this inconvenient circumstance be more effectually
dealt with than by accepting the suggestion of the most recent editors, that
S. Mark's concluding verses are an unauthorised addition to his Gospel? “If
it be acknowledged that the passage has a harsh sound,” (remarks Dean
Stanley,) “unlike the usual utterances of Him who came not to condemn but
to save, the discoveries of later times have shewn, almost beyond doubt,
that it is not a part of S. Mark's Gospel, but an addition by another hand; of
which the weakness in the external evidence coincides with the internal
evidence in proving its later origin.”5

Modern prejudice, then,—added to a singularly exaggerated estimate of the
critical importance of the testimony [pg 004] of our two oldest Codices,
(another of the “discoveries of later times,” concerning which I shall have
more to say by-and-by,)—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,” (writes Griesbach,) “that Mark cut short the thread of his
narrative at that place.”6 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, (we ask,) 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.

[pg 005]

CHAPTER II.

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

Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses (p. 6).—
Lachmann's fatal principle (p. 8) the clue to the unfavourable verdict of
Tischendorf (p. 9), of Tregelles (p. 10), of Alford (p. 12); which has been
generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and Divines (p. 13).—The nature
of the present inquiry explained (p. 15.)

It is only since the appearance of Griesbach's second edition [1796-1806]
that Critics of the New Testament have permitted themselves to handle the
last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel with disrespect. Previous critical
editions of the New Testament are free from this reproach. “There is no
reason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of Scripture,” wrote
Mill in 1707, after a review of the evidence (as far as he was acquainted
with it) for and against. Twenty-seven years later, appeared Bengel's edition
of the New Testament (1734); and Wetstein, at the end of another seventeen
years (1751-2), followed in the same field. Both editors, after rehearsing the
adverse testimony in extenso, left the passage in undisputed possession of
its place. Alter in 1786-7, and Birch in 1788,7 (suspicious as the latter
evidently was of its genuineness,) followed their predecessors' example. But
Matthaei, (who also brought his labours to a close in the year 1788,) was
not content to give a silent suffrage. He had been for upwards of fourteen
years a laborious collator of Greek MSS. of the New Testament, and was so

convinced of the insufficiency of the arguments which had been brought
against these twelve verses of S. Mark, [pg 006] that with no ordinary
warmth, no common acuteness, he insisted on their genuineness.

“With Griesbach,” (remarks Dr. Tregelles,)8 “Texts which may be called
really critical begin;” and Griesbach is the first to insist that the concluding
verses of S. Mark are spurious. That he did not suppose the second Gospel
to have always ended at verse 8, we have seen already.9 He was of opinion,
however, that “at some very remote period, the original ending of the
Gospel perished,—disappeared perhaps from the Evangelist's own copy,—
and that the present ending was by some one substituted in its place.”
Griesbach further invented the following elaborate and extraordinary
hypothesis to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.

He invites his readers to believe that when, (before the end of the second
century,) the four Evangelical narratives were collected into a volume and
dignified with the title of “The Gospel,”—S. Mark's narrative was furnished
by some unknown individual with its actual termination in order to remedy
its manifest incompleteness; and that this volume became the standard of
the Alexandrine recension of the text: in other words, became the fontal
source of a mighty family of MSS. by Griesbach designated as
“Alexandrine.” But there will have been here and there in existence isolated
copies of one or more of the Gospels; and in all of these, S. Mark's Gospel,
(by the hypothesis,) will have ended abruptly at the eighth verse. These
copies of single Gospels, when collected together, are presumed by
Griesbach to have constituted “the Western recension.” If, in codices of this
family also, the self-same termination is now all but universally found, the
fact is to be accounted for, (Griesbach says,) by the natural desire which
possessors of the Gospels will have experienced to supplement their
imperfect copies as best they might. “Let this conjecture be accepted,”
proceeds the learned veteran,—(unconscious apparently that he has been
demanding acceptance for at least half-a-dozen wholly unsupported as well
as entirely gratuitous conjectures,)—“and every difficulty disappears; and
[pg 007] it becomes perfectly intelligible how there has crept into almost
every codex which has been written, from the second century downwards, a
section quite different from the original and genuine ending of S. Mark,
which disappeared before the four Gospels were collected into a single

volume.”—In other words, if men will but be so accommodating as to
assume that the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel disappeared before any one
had the opportunity of transcribing the Evangelist's inspired autograph, they
will have no difficulty in understanding that the present conclusion of S.
Mark's Gospel was not really written by S. Mark.

It should perhaps be stated in passing, that Griesbach was driven into this
curious maze of unsupported conjecture by the exigencies of his
“Recension Theory;” which, inasmuch as it has been long since exploded,
need not now occupy us. But it is worth observing that the argument already
exhibited, (such as it is,) breaks down under the weight of the very first fact
which its learned author is obliged to lay upon it. Codex B.,—the solitary
manuscript witness for omitting the clause in question, (for Codex ‫ א‬had not
yet been discovered,)—had been already claimed by Griesbach as a chief
exponent of his so-called “Alexandrine Recension.” But then, on the Critic's
own hypothesis, (as we have seen already,) Codex B. ought, on the contrary,
to have contained it. How was that inconvenient fact to be got over?
Griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note that Codex B. “has affinity with
the Eastern family of MSS.”—The misfortune of being saddled with a
worthless theory was surely never more apparent. By the time we have
reached this point in the investigation, we are reminded of nothing so much
as of the weary traveller who, having patiently pursued an ignis fatuus
through half the night, beholds it at last vanish; but not until it has
conducted him up to his chin in the mire.

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 [pg 008]
eagerly vindicated its genuineness.10 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,11—the three latest critics who have formally undertaken to
reconstruct the sacred Text.

They agree in assuring their readers that the genuine Gospel of S. Mark
extends no further than ch. xvi. ver. 8: in other words, that all that follows
the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an unauthorized addition by some later hand;
“a fragment,”—distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel not less by
internal evidence than by external testimony. This verdict becomes the more
important because it proceeds from men of undoubted earnestness and high
ability; who cannot be suspected of being either unacquainted with the
evidence on which the point in dispute rests, nor inexperienced in the art of
weighing such evidence. Moreover, their verdict has been independently
reached; is unanimous; is unhesitating; has been eagerly proclaimed by all
three on many different occasions as well as in many different places;12 and
[pg 009] may be said to be at present in all but undisputed possession of the
field.13 The first-named Editor enjoys a vast reputation, and has been
generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, “the first Biblical Critic in Europe.”
The other two have produced text-books which are deservedly held in high
esteem, and are in the hands of every student. The views of such men will
undoubtedly colour the convictions of the next generation of English
Churchmen. It becomes absolutely necessary, therefore, to examine with the
utmost care the grounds of their verdict, the direct result of which is to
present us with a mutilated Gospel. If they are right, there is no help for it
but that the convictions of eighteen centuries in this respect must be
surrendered. But if Tischendorf and Tregelles are wrong in this particular, it
follows of necessity that doubt is thrown over the whole of their critical
method. The case is a crucial one. Every page of theirs incurs suspicion, if
their deliberate verdict in this instance shall prove to be mistaken.

1. Tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single sentence. “That
these verses were not written by Mark,” [pg 010] (he says,) “admits of
satisfactory proof.” He then recites in detail the adverse external testimony
which his predecessors had accumulated; remarking, that it is abundantly
confirmed by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a solitary sample; but
declares that the whole passage is “abhorrent” to S. Mark's manner. “The

facts of the case being such,” (and with this he dismisses the subject,) “a
healthy piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming
off as Mark's what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn to have known
nothing at all about.”14 A mass of laborious annotation which comes surging
in at the close of verse 8, and fills two of Tischendorf's pages, has the effect
of entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the inspired text of
the Evangelist. On the other hand, the evidence in favour of the place is
despatched in less than twelve lines. What can be the reason that an Editor
of the New Testament parades elaborately every particular of the evidence,
(such as it is,) against the genuineness of a considerable portion of the
Gospel; and yet makes summary work with the evidence in its favour? That
Tischendorf has at least entirely made up his mind on the matter in hand is
plain. Elsewhere, he speaks of the Author of these verses as “Pseudo
Marcus.”15

2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this subject in his
“Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament” (1854). The
respected author undertakes to shew “that the early testimony that S. Mark
did not write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments.”
Accordingly, he announces as the result of the propositions which he thinks
he has established, “that the book of Mark himself extends no further than
ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” He is the [pg 011] only critic I have met with to whom it
does not seem incredible that S. Mark did actually conclude his Gospel in
this abrupt way: observing that “perhaps we do not know enough of the
circumstances of S. Mark when he wrote his Gospel to say whether he did
or did not leave it with a complete termination.” In this modest suggestion
at least Dr. Tregelles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing
whatever about “the circumstances of S. Mark,” (or of any other
Evangelist,) “when he wrote his Gospel:” neither indeed are we quite sure
who S. Mark was. But when he goes on to declare, notwithstanding, “that
the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to
be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel;” and complains that
“there is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to Holy Scripture, as
if all our notions of its authority depended on our knowing who was the
writer of each particular portion; instead of simply seeing and owning that it
was given forth from God, and that it is as much His as were the
Commandments of the Law written by His own finger on the tables of

stone;”16—the learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the question at
issue, which we are least of all prepared to encounter in such a quarter. We
admire his piety but it is at the expense of his critical sagacity. For the
question is not at all one of authorship, but only one of genuineness. Have
the codices been mutilated which do not contain these verses? If they have,
then must these verses be held to be genuine. But on the contrary, Have the
codices been supplemented which contain them? Then are these verses
certainly spurious. There is no help for it but they must either be held to be
an integral part of the Gospel, and therefore, in default of any proof to the
contrary, as certainly by S. Mark as any other twelve verses which can be
named; or else an unauthorized addition to it. If they belong to the post-
apostolic age it is idle to insist on their Inspiration, and to claim that this
“authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down” is as
much the work of God “as were the Ten Commandments written by His
own [pg 012] finger on the tables of stone.” On the other hand, if they
“ought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel as the last
chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as the writer is) is received as the right
and proper conclusion of the book of Moses,”—it is difficult to understand
why the learned editor should think himself at liberty to sever them from
their context, and introduce the subscription ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ after ver. 8.
In short, “How persons who believe that these verses did not form a part of
the original Gospel of Mark, but were added afterwards, can say that they
have a good claim to be received as an authentic or genuine part of the
second Gospel, that is, a portion of canonical Scripture, passes
comprehension.” It passes even Dr. Davidson's comprehension; (for the
foregoing words are his;) and Dr. Davidson, as some of us are aware, is not
a man to stick at trifles.17

3. Dean Alford went a little further than any of his predecessors. He says
that this passage “was placed as a completion of the Gospel soon after the
Apostolic period,—the Gospel itself having been, for some reason unknown
to us, left incomplete. The most probable supposition” (he adds) “is, that the
last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.” The italics in this
conjecture (which was originally Griesbach's) are not mine. The internal
evidence (declares the same learned writer) “preponderates vastly against
the authorship of Mark;” or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against “its
genuineness as a work of the Evangelist.” Accordingly, in his Prolegomena,

(p. 38) he describes it as “the remarkable fragment at the end of the
Gospel.” After this, we are the less astonished to find that he closes the
second Gospel at ver. 8; introduces the Subscription there; and encloses the
twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets. Thus, whereas from the
days of our illustrious countryman [pg 013] Mill (1707), the editors of the
N. T. have either been silent on the subject, or else have whispered only that
this section of the Gospel is to be received with less of confidence than the
rest,—it has been reserved for the present century to convert the ancient
suspicions into actual charges. The latest to enter the field have been the
first to execute Griesbach's adverse sentence pronounced fifty years ago,
and to load the blessed Evangelist with bonds.

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,” (says Abp. Thomson in the Bible Dictionary,) “that this section
is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospels soon after the
times of the Apostles.”18—The Rev. T. S. Green,19 (an able scholar, never to
be mentioned without respect,) 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,” (writes Professor Norton in a recent work on the Genuineness of
the Gospels,) “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.”20—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”21—Meyer insists that this is an “apocryphal
fragment,” and reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which
have ever been [pg 014] arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving.
The “note” with which he takes leave of the subject is even insolent.22 A
comparison (he says) of these “fragments” (ver. 9-18 and 19) 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. (“Hast thou
killed, and also taken possession?”)

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 (1.) on the external evidence of certain
ancient MSS.; and (2.) on Scholia which state “that the more ancient and
accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver. 8.” (3.) They assure us that
this is confirmed by a formidable array of Patristic authorities. (4.) 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 (in the next chapter) 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.

The question at issue being simply this,—Whether it is reasonable to
suspect that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and
unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not?—the whole of our business
clearly resolves itself into an examination of what has been urged in proof
[pg 015] that the former alternative is the correct one. Our opponents
maintain that these verses did not form part of the original autograph of the
Evangelist. But it is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burthen
of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue.23 We have
therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the supposed proof is
exactly worth; remembering always that in this subject-matter a high degree
of probability is the only kind of proof which is attainable. When, for
example, it is contended that the famous words in S. John's first Epistle (1

S. John v. 7, 8,) are not to be regarded as genuine, the fact that they are
away from almost every known Codex is accepted as a proof that they were
also away from the autograph of the Evangelist. On far less weighty
evidence, in fact, we are at all times prepared to yield the hearty assent of
our understanding in this department of sacred science.

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.

1. When it is contended that our Lord's reply to the young ruler (S. Matt.
xix. 17) was not Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εῖς, ὁ Θεός,—it
is at the same time insisted that it was Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εῖς
ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. It is proposed to omit the former words only because an
alternative clause is at hand, which it is proposed to substitute in its room.

2. Again. When it is claimed that some given passage of the Textus
Receptus,—S. Mark ch xv. 28, for example, (καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ
λέγουσα, Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη,) or the Doxology in S. Matth. vi. 13,
—is spurious, all that is pretended is that certain words are an unauthorized
addition to the inspired text; and that by simply omitting them we are so far
restoring the Gospel to its original integrity.—The same is to be said
concerning every other charge of interpolation which can be named. If the
celebrated “pericopa de adulterâ,” for instance, be indeed [pg 016] not
genuine, we have but to leave out those twelve verses of S. John's Gospel,
and to read chap. vii. 52 in close sequence with chap. viii. 12; and we are
assured that we are put in possession of the text as it came from the hands
of its inspired Author. Nor, (it must be admitted), is any difficulty whatever
occasioned thereby; for there is no reason assignable why the two last-
named verses should not cohere; (there is no internal improbability, I mean,
in the supposition;) neither does there exist any à priori reason why a
considerable portion of narrative should be looked for in that particular part
of the Gospel.

3. But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is proposed to
get rid of the twelve verses which for 1700 years and upwards have formed
the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel; no alternative conclusion being

proposed to our acceptance. For let it be only observed what this proposal
practically amounts to and means.

(a.) And first, it does not mean that S. Mark himself, with design, brought
his Gospel to a close at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. That supposition would
in fact be irrational. It does not mean, I say, that by simply leaving out those
last twelve verses we shall be restoring the second Gospel to its original
integrity. And this it is which makes the present a different case from every
other, and necessitates a fuller, if not a different kind of proof.

(b.) What then? It means that although an abrupt and impossible termination
would confessedly be the result of omitting verses 9-20, no nearer
approximation to the original autograph of the Evangelist is at present
attainable. Whether S. Mark was interrupted before he could finish his
Gospel,—(as Dr. Tregelles and Professor Norton suggest;)—in which case
it will have been published by its Author in an unfinished state: or whether
“the last leaf was torn away” before a single copy of the original could be
procured,—(a view which is found to have recommended itself to
Griesbach;)—in which case it will have once had a different termination
from at present; which termination however, by the hypothesis, has since
been irrecoverably lost;—(and to one of these two wild hypotheses the
critics are [pg 017] logically reduced;)—this we are not certainly told. The
critics are only agreed in assuming that S. Mark's Gospel was at first
without the verses which at present conclude it.

But this assumption, (that a work which has been held to be a complete
work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete,) of
course requires proof. The foregoing improbable theories, based on a
gratuitous assumption, are confronted in limine with a formidable obstacle
which must be absolutely got rid of before they can be thought entitled to a
serious hearing. It is a familiar and a fatal circumstance that the Gospel of
S. Mark has been furnished with its present termination ever since the
second century of the Christian æra.24 In default, therefore, of distinct
historical evidence or definite documentary proof that at some earlier
period than that it terminated abruptly, nothing short of the utter unfitness
of the verses which at present conclude S. Mark's Gospel to be regarded as
the work of the Evangelist, would warrant us in assuming that they are the

spurious accretion of the post-apostolic age: and as such, at the end of
eighteen centuries, to be deliberately rejected. We must absolutely be
furnished, I say, with internal evidence of the most unequivocal character;
or else with external testimony of a direct and definite kind, if we are to
admit that the actual conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel is an unauthorized
substitute for something quite different that has been lost. I can only
imagine one other thing which could induce us to entertain such an opinion;
and that would be the general consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions in
leaving these verses out. Else, it is evident that we are logically forced to
adopt the far easier supposition that (not S. Mark, but) some copyist of the
third century left a copy of S. Mark's Gospel unfinished; which unfinished
copy became the fontal source of the mutilated copies which have come
down to our own times.25

[pg 018]
I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully at the outset; not in
order to prejudge the question, (for that could answer no good purpose,) but
only in order that the reader may have clearly set before him the real nature
of the issue. “Is it reasonable to suspect that the concluding verses of S.
Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his Gospel,
or not?” That is the question which we have to consider,—the one question.
And while I proceed to pass under careful review all the evidence on this
subject with which I am acquainted, I shall be again and again obliged to
direct the attention of my reader to its bearing on the real point at issue. In
other words, we shall have again and again to ask ourselves, how far it is
rendered probable by each fresh article of evidence that S. Mark's Gospel,
when it left the hands of its inspired Author, was an unfinished work; the
last chapter ending abruptly at ver. 8?

I will only point out, before passing on, that the course which has been
adopted towards S. Mark xvi. 9-20, by the latest Editors of the New
Testament, is simply illogical. Either they regard these verses as possibly
genuine, or else as certainly spurious. If they entertain (as they say they do)
a decided opinion that they are not genuine, they ought (if they would be
consistent) to banish them from the text.26 Conversely, since they do not
banish them from the text, they have no right to pass a fatal sentence upon
them; to designate their author as “pseudo-Marcus;” to handle them in

contemptuous fashion. The plain truth is, these learned men are better than
their theory; the worthlessness of which they are made to feel in the present
most conspicuous instance. It reduces them to perplexity. It has landed them
in inconsistency and error.—They will find it necessary in the end to
reverse their convictions. They cannot too speedily reconsider their verdict,
and retrace their steps.

[pg 019]

CHAPTER III.

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

Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p. 20).—The
importance of such evidence explained (p. 21).—Nineteen Patristic witnesses
to these Verses, produced (p. 23).—Summary (p. 30).

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:27 for a discussion of the latter, one seventh of
that space will suffice.28 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.

1. It is well known that for determining the Text of the New Testament, we
are dependent on three chief sources of information: viz. (1.) on
Manuscripts,—(2.) on Versions,—(3.) on Fathers. And it is even self-
evident that the most ancient MSS.,—the earliest Versions,—the oldest of
the Fathers, will probably be in every instance the most trustworthy
witnesses.

2. Further, it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must
needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text of
Scripture than can possibly be rendered by any Translation, however

faithful: while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive authority,
even than Versions. The reasons are chiefly these:—(a.) Fathers often quote
Scripture loosely, if not licentiously; and sometimes allude only when they
seem to quote. (b.) They appear to have too often depended on their
memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inaccurate [pg 020] in
their citations; the same Father being observed to quote the same place in
different ways. (c.) Copyists and Editors may not be altogether depended
upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations. Thus the evidence of
Fathers must always be to some extent precarious.

3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed out that when,—
instead of certifying ourselves of the actual words employed by an
Evangelist, their precise form and exact sequence,—our object is only to
ascertain whether a considerable passage of Scripture is genuine or not; is
to be rejected or retained; was known or was not known in the earliest ages
of the Church; then, instead of supplying the least important evidence,
Fathers become by far the most valuable witnesses of all. This entire subject
may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to the problem before us.

4. Of course, if we possessed copies of the Gospels coeval with their
authors, nothing could compete with such evidence. But then unhappily
nothing of the kind is the case. The facts admit of being stated within the
compass of a few lines. We have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is
thought to belong to the first half of the ivth century; and another, the newly
discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, ‫ )א‬which is certainly not
quite so old,—perhaps by 50 years. Next come two famous codices; the
Alexandrine (in the British Museum, A) and the Codex Ephraemi (in the
Paris Library, C), which are probably from 50 to 100 years more recent still.
The Codex Bezae (at Cambridge, D) is considered by competent judges to
be the depository of a recension of the text as ancient as any of the others.
Notwithstanding its strangely depraved condition therefore,—the many
“monstra potius quam variae lectiones” which it contains,—it may be
reckoned with the preceding four, though it must be 50 or 100 years later
than the latest of them. After this, we drop down, (as far as S. Mark is
concerned,) to 2 uncial MSS. of the viiith century,—7 of the ixth,—4 of the
ixth or xth,29 while cursives of the xith and xiith [pg 021] centuries are very

numerous indeed,—the copies increasing in number in a rapid ratio as we
descend the stream of Time. Our primitive manuscript witnesses, therefore,
are but five in number at the utmost. And of these it has never been
pretended that the oldest is to be referred to an earlier date than the
beginning of the ivth century, while it is thought by competent judges that
the last named may very possibly have been written quite late in the vith.

5. Are we then reduced to this fourfold, (or at most fivefold,) evidence
concerning the text of the Gospels,—on evidence of not quite certain date,
and yet (as we all believe) not reaching further back than to the ivth century
of our æra? Certainly not. Here, Fathers come to our aid. There are perhaps
as many as an hundred Ecclesiastical Writers older than the oldest extant
Codex of the N. T.: while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600, (within which
limits our five oldest MSS. may be considered certainly to fall,) there exist
about two hundred Fathers more. True, that many of these have left
wondrous little behind them; and that the quotations from Holy Scripture of
the greater part may justly be described as rare and unsatisfactory. But what
then? From the three hundred, make a liberal reduction; and an hundred
writers will remain who frequently quote the New Testament, and who,
when they do quote it, are probably as trustworthy witnesses to the Truth of
Scripture as either Cod. ‫ א‬or Cod. B. We have indeed heard a great deal too
much of the precariousness of this class of evidence: not nearly enough of
the gross inaccuracies which disfigure the text of those two Codices. Quite
surprising is it to discover to what an extent Patristic quotations from the
New Testament have evidently retained their exact original form. What we
chiefly desiderate at this time is a more careful revision of the text of the
Fathers, and more skilfully elaborated indices of the works of each: not one
of them having been hitherto satisfactorily indexed. It would be easy to
demonstrate the importance of bestowing far more attention on this subject
than it seems to have hitherto enjoyed: but I shall content myself with citing
a single instance; and for this, (in order not to distract the reader's [pg 022]
attention), I shall refer him to the Appendix.30 What is at least beyond the
limits of controversy, whenever the genuineness of a considerable passage
of Scripture is the point in dispute, the testimony of Fathers who
undoubtedly recognise that passage, is beyond comparison the most
valuable testimony we can enjoy.

6. For let it be only considered what is implied by a Patristic appeal to the
Gospel. It amounts to this:—that a conspicuous personage, probably a
Bishop of the Church,—one, therefore, whose history, date, place, are all
more or less matter of notoriety,—gives us his written assurance that the
passage in question was found in that copy of the Gospels which he was
accustomed himself to employ; the uncial codex, (it has long since
perished) which belonged to himself or to the Church which he served. It is
evident, in short, that any objection to quotations from Scripture in the
writings of the ancient Fathers can only apply to the form of those
quotations; not to their substance. It is just as certain that a verse of
Scripture was actually read by the Father who unmistakedly refers to it, as
if we had read it with him; even though the gravest doubts may be
entertained as to the “ipsissima verba” which were found in his own
particular copy. He may have trusted to his memory: or copyists may have
taken liberties with his writings: or editors may have misrepresented what
they found in the written copies. The form of the quoted verse, I repeat, may
have suffered almost to any extent. The substance, on the contrary,
inasmuch as it lay wholly beyond their province, may be looked upon as an
indisputable fact.

7. Some such preliminary remarks, (never out of place when quotations
from the Fathers are to be considered,) cannot well be withheld when the
most venerable Ecclesiastical writings are appealed to. The earliest of the
Fathers are observed to quote with singular licence,—to allude rather than
to quote. Strange to relate, those ancient men seem scarcely to have been
aware of the grave responsibility they incurred when they substituted
expressions of their own for the utterances of the Spirit. It is evidently not
so much [pg 023] that their memory is in fault, as their judgment,—in that
they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to recast, to
reconstruct.31

I. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that Papias refers to S. Mark
xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous tradition concerning “Justus
surnamed Barsabas,” “how that after drinking noxious poison, through the
Lord's grace he experienced no evil consequence.”32 He does not give the
words of the Evangelist. It is even surprising how completely he passes
them by; and yet the allusion to the place just cited is manifest. Now, Papias

is a writer who lived so near the time of the Apostles that he made it his
delight to collect their traditional sayings. His date (according to Clinton) is
A.D. 100.

II. Justin Martyr, the date of whose first Apology is A.D. 151, is observed
to say concerning the Apostles that, after our Lord's Ascension,—
ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν:33 which is nothing else but a quotation
from the last verse of S. Mark's Gospel,—ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν
πανταχοῦ. And thus it is found that the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel was
familiarly known within fifty years of the death of the last of the
Evangelists.

III. When Irenæus, in his third Book against Heresies, deliberately quotes
and remarks upon the 19th verse of the last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel,34
we are put in possession of [pg 024] the certain fact that the entire passage
now under consideration was extant in a copy of the Gospels which was
used by the Bishop of the Church of Lyons sometime about the year A.D.
180, and which therefore cannot possibly have been written much more
than a hundred years after the date of the Evangelist himself: while it may
have been written by a contemporary of S. Mark, and probably was written
by one who lived immediately after his time.—Who sees not that this single
piece of evidence is in itself sufficient to outweigh the testimony of any
codex extant? It is in fact a mere trifling with words to distinguish between
“Manuscript” and “Patristic” testimony in a case like this: for (as I have
already explained) the passage quoted from S. Mark's Gospel by Irenæus is
to all intents and purposes a fragment from a dated manuscript; and that
MS., demonstrably older by at least one hundred and fifty years than the
oldest copy of the Gospels which has come down to our times.

IV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of S. Mark were in the
second century accounted an integral part of his Gospel. Hippolytus, Bishop
of Portus near Borne (190-227), a contemporary of Irenæus, quotes the 17th
and 18th verses in his fragment Περὶ Χαρισμάτων.35 [pg 025] Also in his
Homily on the heresy of Noetus,36 Hippolytus has a plain reference to this
section of S. Mark's Gospel. To an inattentive reader, the passage alluded to
might seem to be only the fragment of a Creed; but this is not the case. In
the Creeds, Christ is invariably spoken of as ανελθόντα: in the Scriptures,

invariably as ἀναληθέντα.37 So that when Hippolytus says of Him,
ἀναλαμβάνεται εἰς οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἐκ δεξιῶν Πατρὸς καθίζεται, the reference
must needs be to S. Mark xvi. 19.

V. At the Seventh Council of Carthage held under Cyprian, A.D. 256, (on
the baptizing of Heretics,) Vincentius, Bishop of Thibari, (a place not far
from Carthage,) in the presence of the eighty-seven assembled African
bishops, quoted two of the verses under consideration;38 and Augustine,
about a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words afresh.39

VI. The Apocryphal Acta Pilati (sometimes called the “Gospel of
Nicodemus”) Tischendorf assigns without hesitation to the iiird century;
whether rightly or wrongly I have no means of ascertaining. It is at all
events a very ancient forgery, and it contains the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th
verses of this chapter.40

VII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver. 15 is clearly
alluded to in two places of the (so-called) “Apostolical Constitutions;”41
and that verse 16 is quoted (with [pg 026] no variety of reading from the
Textus Receptus42) in an earlier part of the same ancient work. The
“Constitutions” are assigned to the iiird or the ivth century.43

VIII and IX. It will be shewn in Chapter V. that Eusebius, the Ecclesiastical
Historian, was profoundly well acquainted with these verses. He discusses
them largely, and (as I shall prove in the chapter referred to) was by no
means disposed to question their genuineness. His Church History was
published A.D. 325.

Marinus also, (whoever that individual may have been,) 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.

X. Tischendorf and his followers state that Jacobus Nisibenus quotes these
verses. For “Jacobus Nisibenus” read “Aphraates the Persian Sage,” and

the statement will be correct. The history of the mistake is curious.

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 Nicæa, A.D. 325. Gennadius of Marseille, (who carried on Jerome's list
to the year 495) 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.44 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 (vol. v.) we are referred
whenever “Jacobus Nisibenus” is quoted.

[pg 027]
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, (which bears date A.D. 337), verses
16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are quoted,45—yet not from the version known as
the Curetonian Syriac, nor yet from the Peshito exactly.46—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 ‫א‬.

XI. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan (A.D. 374-397) freely quotes this
portion of the Gospel,—citing ver. 15 four times: verses 16, 17 and 18, each
three times: ver. 20, once.47

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 entitled 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 [pg 028] 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 [pg 029]
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 [pg 030] 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 rehearses 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
xiith59: 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 [pg 031] Constantinople,—Hierapolis,
Cæsarea 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.

[pg 032]

CHAPTER IV.

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 (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 Manuscripts is incomparably the
most important of all. To early Versions, the second place was assigned. 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 class 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 principal ancient
Versions of the New Testament:—(b.) Each Version is represented by at
least one very ancient Codex:—and (c.) It may be safely assumed 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 identity of the Version of
the Syriac now called the ‘Peshito’ with that used by the Eastern Church
long before the great schism had its beginning, in the native land [pg 033]
of the blessed Gospel.” The Peshito is referred by common consent to the
iind century of our æra; 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 ‫ ;א‬more 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
Peshito Syriac to be executed by his Chorepiscopus Polycarp, A.D. 508;
and by the aid of three62 approved and accurate Greek manuscripts, 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 [pg 034] 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 accumulation of manuscript evidence
on the subject of the verses which of late years it has become the fashion 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 Manuscripts to which a competent scholar
had access in the middle of the fourth century,—(and Jerome assures us that
[pg 035] 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 assigned 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
assigned 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, [pg 036] 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 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,
(ἐυαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαρκον,) 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 mass of additional evidence,—so
various, so weighty, so multitudinous, 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 à Thibari at the viith
Carthaginian Council is sufficiently inexact to make it unsafe to build upon
it. The “Acta Pilati” and the “Apostolical Constitutions,” 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?

[pg 037]
(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
illustrious 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 ‫ א‬probably 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, Irenæus, 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 (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 class. 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 assuming that his “last Twelve Verses” are spurious, shall
be exhibited in the ensuing chapter.

[pg 038]

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 manuscript evidence confirms the
evidence of the ancient Fathers and of the early Versions of Scripture. But it
will be more satisfactory that I should proceed to examine without more
delay the testimony, which, (as it is alleged,) is borne by a cloud of ancient
Fathers against the last twelve verses of S. Mark. “The absence of this
portion from some, from many, or from most copies of his Gospel, or that it
was not written by S. Mark himself,” (says Dr. Tregelles,) “is attested by
Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome,
and by later writers, especially Greeks.”67 The same Fathers are appealed to
by Dr. Davidson, who adds to the list Euthymius; and by Tischendorf and
Alford, who add the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem. They also refer to
“many ancient Scholia.” “These verses” (says Tischendorf) “are not
recognised by the sections of Ammonius nor by the Canons of Eusebius:
Epiphanius and Cæsarius bear witness to the fact.”68 “In the Catenæ on
Mark” (proceeds Davidson) “the section is not explained. Nor is there any

trace of acquaintance with it on the part of Clement of Rome or Clement of
Alexandria;”—a remark which others have made also; as if it were a
surprising circumstance that Clement of Alexandria, who appears to have
no reference to the last chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel, should [pg 039] be
also without any reference to the last chapter of S. Mark's: as if, too, it were
an extraordinary thing that Clement of Rome should have omitted to quote
from the last chapter of S. Mark,—seeing that the same Clement does not
quote from S. Mark's Gospel at all.... The alacrity displayed by learned
writers in accumulating hostile evidence, is certainly worthy of a better
cause. Strange, that their united industry should have been attended with
such very unequal success when their object was to exhibit the evidence in
favour of the present portion of Scripture.

(1) Eusebius then, and (2) Jerome; (3) Gregory of Nyssa and (4) Hesychius
of Jerusalem; (5) Severus of Antioch, (6) Victor of Antioch, and (7)
Euthymius:—Do the accomplished critics just quoted,—Doctors
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Davidson, really mean to tell us that “it is
attested” by these seven Fathers that the concluding section of S. Mark's
Gospel “was not written by S. Mark himself?” Why, there is not one of
them who says so: while some of them say the direct reverse. But let us go
on. It is, I suppose, because there are Twelve Verses to be demolished that
the list is further eked out with the names of (8) Ammonius, (9) Epiphanius,
and (10) Cæsarius,—to say nothing of (11) the anonymous authors of
Catenæ, and (12) “later writers, especially Greeks.”

I. I shall examine these witnesses one by one: but it will be convenient in
the first instance to call attention to the evidence borne by,

Gregory of Nyssa.

This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself as follows in his
second “Homily on the Resurrection;”69—“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.’ ”

[pg 040]

That this testimony should have been so often appealed to as proceeding
from Gregory of Nyssa,70 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.

(1.) For, in the first place, the second “Homily on the Resurrection” printed
in the iiird volume of the works of Gregory of Nyssa, (and which supplies
the critics with their quotation,) is, as every one may see who will take the
trouble to compare them, word for word the same Homily which Combefis
in his “Novum Auctarium,” and Gallandius in his “Bibliotheca Patrum”
printed as the work of Hesychius, and vindicated to that Father, respectively
in 1648 and 1776.71 Now, if a critic chooses to risk his own reputation by
maintaining that the Homily in question is indeed by Gregory of Nyssa, and
is not by Hesychius,—well and good. But since the Homily can have had
but one author, it is surely high time that one of these two claimants should
be altogether dropped from this discussion.

(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same Homily is observed to
reappear, word for word, under the name of “Severus of Antioch,” and to be
unsuspiciously printed as his by Montfaucon in his “Bibliotheca
Coisliniana” (1715), and by Cramer in his “Catena”72 (1844),—although it
may very reasonably become a question among critics whether Hesychius
of Jerusalem or Severus of Antioch [pg 041] was the actual author of the
Homily in question,73 yet it is plain that critics must make their election
between the two names; and not bring them both forward. No one, I say, has
any right to go on quoting “Severus” and “Hesychius,”—as Tischendorf
and Dr. Davidson are observed to do:—“Gregory of Nyssa” and “Severus
of Antioch,”—as Dr. Tregelles is found to prefer.

(3.) In short, here are three claimants for the authorship of one and the same
Homily. To whichever of the three we assign it,—(and competent judges
have declared that there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Hesychius
rather than to Severus,—while no one is found to suppose that Gregory of
Nyssa was its author,)—who will not admit that no further mention must be
made of the other two?

(4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth the name of
“Gregory of Nyssa” must be banished from this discussion. So must the
name of “Severus of Antioch.” The memorable passage which begins,—“In
the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for
they were afraid,’ ”—is found in a Homily which was probably written by
Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem,—a writer of the vith century. I shall
have to recur to his work by-and-by. The next name is

Eusebius,

II. With respect to whom the case is altogether different. What that learned
Father has delivered concerning the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel requires
to be examined with attention, and must be set forth much more in detail.
And yet, I will so far anticipate what is about to be offered, as to say at once
that if any one supposes that Eusebius has anywhere plainly “stated that it is
wanted in many MSS.,”74—he is mistaken. Eusebius nowhere says so. The
reader's attention is invited to a plain tale.

It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by [pg 042] Cardinal
Angelo Mai75 with a few fragmentary specimens of a lost work of Eusebius
on the (so-called) Inconsistencies in the Gospels, from a MS. in the
Vatican.76 These, the learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847,
in his “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca;”77 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.

It is much to be regretted that we are still as little as ever in possession of
the lost work of Eusebius. It appears to have consisted of three Books or
Parts; the former two (addressed “to Stephanus”) being discussions of
difficulties at the beginning of the Gospel,—the last (“to Marinus”) relating

to difficulties in its concluding chapters.78 The Author's plan, (as usual in
such works), was, first, to set forth a difficulty in the form of a Question;
and straightway, to propose a Solution of it,—which commonly assumes the
form of a considerable dissertation. But whether we are at present in
possession of so much as a single entire specimen of these “Inquiries and
Resolutions” exactly as it came from the pen of Eusebius, may reasonably
be doubted. That [pg 043] the work which Mai has brought to light is but a
highly condensed exhibition of the original, (and scarcely that,) its very title
shews; for it is headed,—“An abridged selection from the ‘Inquiries and
Resolutions [of difficulties] in the Gospels’ by Eusebius.”79 Only some of
the original Questions, therefore, are here noticed at all: and even these
have been subjected to so severe a process of condensation and abridgment,
that in some instances amputation would probably be a more fitting
description of what has taken place. Accordingly, what were originally two
Books or Parts, are at present represented by XVI. “Inquiries,” &c,
addressed “to Stephanus;” while the concluding Book or Part is represented
by IV. more, “to Marinus,”—of which, the first relates to our Lord's
appearing to Mary Magdalene after His Resurrection. Now, since the work
which Eusebius addressed to Marinus is found to have contained “Inquiries,
with their Resolutions, concerning our Saviour's Death and Resurrection,”80
—while a quotation professing to be derived from “the thirteenth chapter”
relates to Simon the Cyrenian bearing our Saviour's Cross;81—it is obvious
that the original work must have been very considerable, and that what Mai
has recovered gives an utterly inadequate idea of its extent and
importance.82 It is absolutely necessary [pg 044] that all this should be
clearly apprehended by any one who desires to know exactly what the
alleged evidence of Eusebius concerning the last chapter of S. Mark's
Gospel is worth,—as I will explain more fully by-and-by. Let it, however,
be candidly admitted that there seems to be no reason for supposing that
whenever the lost work of Eusebius comes to light, (and it has been seen
within about 300 years83,) it will exhibit anything essentially different from
what is contained in the famous passage which has given rise to so much
debate, and which may be exhibited in English as follows. It is put in the
form of a reply to one “Marinus,” who is represented as asking, first, the
following question:—

“How is it, that, according to Matthew [xxviii. 1], the Saviour appears to
have risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ but, according to Mark [xvi. 9],
‘early the first day of the week’?”—Eusebius answers,

“This difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for [pg 045] getting
rid of the entire passage,84 will say that it is not met with in all the copies of
Mark's Gospel: the accurate copies, at all events, making the end of Mark's
narrative come after the words of the young man who appeared to the
women and said, ‘Fear not ye! Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth,’ &c.: to which the
Evangelist adds,—‘And when they heard it, they fled, and said nothing to
any man, for they were afraid.’ For at those words, in almost all copies of
the Gospel according to Mark, comes the end. What follows, (which is met
with seldom, [and only] in some copies, certainly not in all,) might be
dispensed with; especially if it should prove to contradict the record of the
other Evangelists. This, then, is what a person will say who is for evading
and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem.

“But another, on no account daring to reject anything whatever which is,
under whatever circumstances, met with in the text of the Gospels, will say
that here are two readings, (as is so often the case elsewhere;) and that both
are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, this reading is
not held to be genuine rather than that; nor that than this.”

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:—

“Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our business is to
interpret the sense of the passage.85 And certainly, if I divide the meaning
into two, we shall find that it is not opposed to what Matthew says of our
Saviour's having risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath.’ For Mark's expression,
[pg 046] (‘Now when He was risen early the first day of the week,’) we
shall read with a pause, putting a comma after ‘Now when He was risen,’—
the sense of the words which follow being kept separate. Thereby, we shall
refer [Mark's] ‘when He was risen’ to Matthew's ‘in the end of the Sabbath,’
(for it was then that He rose); and all that comes after, expressive as it is of
a distinct notion, we shall connect with what follows; (for it was ‘early, the
first day of the week,’ that ‘He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’) This is in

fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the first
day of the week,’ [Jesus] appeared to the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also
says that He appeared to her early: not that He rose early, but long before,
(according to that of Matthew, ‘in the end of the Sabbath:’ for though He
rose then, He did not appear to Mary then, but ‘early.’) In a word, two
distinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of the
Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the season
of our Saviour's Appearing,—which was ‘early.’ The former,86 Mark writes
of when he says, (it requires to be read with a pause,)—‘Now, when He was
risen,’ Then, after a comma, what follows is to be spoken,—‘Early, the first
day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had
cast seven devils.’ ”87—Such is the entire passage. Little did the learned
writer anticipate what bitter fruit his words were destined to bear!

1. Let it be freely admitted that what precedes is calculated at first sight to
occasion nothing but surprise and perplexity. For, in the first place, there
really is no problem to solve. The discrepancy suggested by “Marinus” at
the outset, is plainly imaginary, the result (chiefly) of a strange
misconception of the meaning of the Evangelist's Greek,—as in fact no one
was ever better aware than Eusebius himself. “These places of the Gospels
would never have occasioned any difficulty,” he writes in the very next
page, [pg 047] (but it is the commencement of his reply to the second
question of Marinus,)—“if people would but abstain from assuming that
Matthew's phrase (ὀψὲ σαββάτων) refers to the evening of the Sabbath-day:
whereas, (in conformity with the established idiom of the language,) it
obviously refers to an advanced period of the ensuing night.”88 He proceeds:
—“The self-same moment therefore, or very nearly the self-same, is
intended by the Evangelists, only under different names: and there is no
discrepancy whatever between Matthew's,—‘in the end of the Sabbath, as it
began to dawn toward the first day of the week,’ and John's—‘The first day
of the week cometh Mary Magdalen early, when it was yet dark.’ The
Evangelists indicate by different expressions one and the same moment of
time, but in a broad and general way.” And yet, if Eusebius knew all this so
well, why did he not say so at once, and close the discussion? I really
cannot tell; except on one hypothesis,—which, although at first it may
sound somewhat extraordinary, the more I think of the matter, recommends
itself to my acceptance the more. I suspect, then, that the discussion we

have just been listening to, is, essentially, not an original production: but
that Eusebius, having met with the suggestion in some older writer, (in
Origen probably,) reproduced it in language of his own,—doubtless because
he thought it ingenious and interesting, but not by any means because he
regarded it as true. Except on some such theory, I am utterly unable to
understand how Eusebius can have written so inconsistently. His admirable
remarks just quoted, are obviously a full and sufficient answer,—the proper
answer in fact,—to the proposed difficulty: and it is a memorable
circumstance that the ancients generally were so sensible of this, that they
are found to have invariably89 substituted [pg 048] what Eusebius wrote in
reply to the second question of Marinus for what he wrote in reply to the
first; in other words, for the dissertation which is occasioning us all this
difficulty.

2. But next, even had the discrepancy been real, the remedy for it which is
here proposed, and which is advocated with such tedious emphasis, would
probably prove satisfactory to no one. In fact, the entire method advocated
in the foregoing passage is hopelessly vicious. The writer begins by
advancing statements which, if he believed them to be true, he must have
known are absolutely fatal to the verses in question. This done, he sets
about discussing the possibility of reconciling an isolated expression in S.
Mark's Gospel with another in S. Matthew's: just as if on that depended the
genuineness or spuriousness of the entire context: as if, in short, the major
premiss in the discussion were some such postulate as the following:
—“Whatever in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely consistent with
something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded as genuine.” Did then
the learned Archbishop of Cæsarea really suppose that a comma judiciously
thrown into the empty scale might at any time suffice to restore the
equilibrium, and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of almost every
MS. of the Gospels extant? Why does he not at least deny the truth of the
alleged facts to which he began by giving currency, if not approval; and
which, so long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted, render all
further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory? As before, I really
cannot tell,—except on the hypothesis which has been already hazarded.

3. Note also, (for this is not the least extraordinary feature of the case,) what
vague and random statements those are which we have been listening to.

The entire section [pg 049] (S. Mark xvi. 9-20,) “is not met with in all the
copies:” at all events not “in the accurate” ones. Nay, it is “met with
seldom.” In fact, it is absent from “almost all” copies. But,—Which of these
four statements is to stand? The first is comparatively unimportant. Not so
the second. The last two, on the contrary, would be absolutely fatal,—if
trustworthy? But are they trustworthy?

To this question only one answer can be returned. The exaggeration is so
gross that it refutes itself. Had it been merely asserted that the verses in
question were wanting in many of the copies,—even had it been insisted
that the best copies were without them,—well and good: but to assert that,
in the beginning of the fourth century, from “almost all” copies of the
Gospels they were away,—is palpably untrue. What had become then of the
MSS. from which the Syriac, the Latin, all the ancient Versions were made?
How is the contradictory evidence of every copy of the Gospels in existence
but two to be accounted for? With Irenæus and Hippolytus, with the old
Latin and the Vulgate, with the Syriac, and the Gothic, and the Egyptian
versions to refer to, we are able to assert that the author of such a statement
was guilty of monstrous exaggeration. We are reminded of the loose and
random way in which the Fathers,—(giants in Interpretation, but very
children in the Science of Textual Criticism,)—are sometimes observed to
speak about the state of the Text in their days. We are reminded, for
instance, of the confident assertion of an ancient Critic that the true reading
in S. Luke xxiv. 13 is not “three-score” but “an hundred and three-score;”
for that so “the accurate copies” used to read the place, besides Origen and
Eusebius. And yet (as I have elsewhere explained) the reading ἑκατὸν καὶ
ἑξήκοντα is altogether impossible. “Apud nos mixta sunt omnia,” is
Jerome's way of adverting to an evil which, serious as it was, was yet not
nearly so great as he represents; viz. the unauthorized introduction into one
Gospel of what belongs of right to another. And so in a multitude of other
instances. The Fathers are, in fact, constantly observed to make critical
remarks about the ancient copies which simply cannot be correct.

[pg 050]
And yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be it observed, is
clearly not Eusebius. It is evident that he has nothing to say against the
genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel. Those random

statements about the copies with which he began, do not even purport to
express his own sentiments. Nay, Eusebius in a manner repudiates them; for
he introduces them with a phrase which separates them from himself: and,
“This then is what a person will say,”—is the remark with which he finally
dismisses them. It would, in fact, be to make this learned Father stultify
himself to suppose that he proceeds gravely to discuss a portion of Scripture
which he had already deliberately rejected as spurious. But, indeed, the
evidence before us effectually precludes any such supposition. “Here are
two readings,” he says, “(as is so often the case elsewhere:) both of which
are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, this reading is
not held to be genuine rather than that; nor that than this.” And thus we
seem to be presented with the actual opinion of Eusebius, as far as it can be
ascertained from the present passage,—if indeed he is to be thought here to
offer any personal opinion on the subject at all; which, for my own part, I
entirely doubt. But whether we are at liberty to infer the actual sentiments
of this Father from anything here delivered or not, quite certain at least is it
that to print only the first half of the passage, (as Tischendorf and Tregelles
have done,) and then to give the reader to understand that he is reading the
adverse testimony of Eusebius as to the genuineness of the end of S. Mark's
Gospel, is nothing else but to misrepresent the facts of the case; and,
however unintentionally, to deceive those who are unable to verify the
quotation for themselves.

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 [pg 051] 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.

Are we then to suppose that there was no substratum of truth in the
allegations to which Eusebius gives such prominence in the passage under
discussion? By no means. The mutilated state of S. Mark's Gospel in the
Vatican Codex (B) and especially in the Sinaitic Codex (‫ )א‬sufficiently
establishes the contrary. Let it be freely conceded, (but in fact it has been
freely conceded already,) that there must have existed in the time of
Eusebius many copies of S. Mark's Gospel which were without the twelve
concluding verses. I do but insist that there is nothing whatever in that
circumstance to lead us to entertain one serious doubt as to the genuineness
of these verses. I am but concerned to maintain that there is nothing
whatever in the evidence which has hitherto come before us,—certainly not
in the evidence of Eusebius,—to induce us to believe that they are a
spurious addition to S. Mark's Gospel.

III. We have next to consider what

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.

It will be convenient that I should premise that it is in one of his many
exegetical Epistles that Jerome discusses this matter. A lady named Hedibia,
inhabiting the furthest [pg 052] extremity of Gaul, and known to Jerome
only by the ardour of her piety, had sent to prove him with hard questions.
He resolves her difficulties from Bethlehem:90 and I may be allowed to
remind the reader of what is found to have been Jerome's practice on similar
occasions,—which, to judge from his writings, were of constant occurrence.
In fact, Apodemius, who brought Jerome the Twelve problems from
Hedibia, brought him Eleven more from a noble neighbour of hers,
Algasia.91 Once, when a single messenger had conveyed to him out of the
African province a quantity of similar interrogatories, Jerome sent two
Egyptian monks the following account of how he had proceeded in respect

of the inquiry,—(it concerned 1 Cor. xv. 51,)—which they had addressed to
him:—“Being pressed for time, I have presented you with the opinions of
all the Commentators; for the most part, translating their very words; in
order both to get rid of your question, and to put you in possession of
ancient authorities on the subject.” This learned Father does not even
profess to have been in the habit of delivering his own opinions, or
speaking his own sentiments on such occasions. “This has been hastily
dictated,” he says in conclusion,—(alluding to his constant practice, which
was to dictate, rather than to write,)—“in order that I might lay before you
what have been the opinions of learned men on this subject, as well as the
arguments by which they have recommended their opinions. My own
authority, (who am but nothing,) is vastly inferior to that of our
predecessors in the Lord.” Then, after special commendation of the
learning of Origen and Eusebius, and the valuable Scriptural expositions of
many more,—“My plan,” (he says,) “is to read the ancients; to prove all
things, to hold fast that which is good; and to abide steadfast in the faith of
the Catholic Church.—I must now dictate replies, either original or at
second-hand, to other Questions which lie before me.”92 We are not
surprised, after this straightforward avowal of what was the method [pg
053] on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover that, instead of
hearing Jerome addressing Hedibia,—(who had interrogated him
concerning the very problem which is at present engaging our attention,)—
we find ourselves only listening to Eusebius over again, addressing
Marinus.

“This difficulty admits of a two-fold solution,” Jerome begins; as if
determined that no doubt shall be entertained as to the source of his
inspiration. Then, (making short work of the tedious disquisition of
Eusebius,)—“Either we shall reject the testimony of Mark, which is met
with in scarcely any copies of the Gospel,—almost all the Greek codices
being without this passage:—(especially since it seems to narrate what
contradicts the other Gospels:)—or else, we shall reply that both
Evangelists state what is true: Matthew, when he says that our Lord rose
‘late in the week:’ Mark,—when he says that Mary Magdalene saw Him
‘early, the first day of the week.’ For the passage must be thus pointed,
—‘When He was risen:’ and presently, after a pause, must be added,
—‘Early, the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ He

therefore who had risen late in the week, according to Matthew,—Himself,
early the first day of the week, according to Mark, appeared to Mary
Magdalene. And this is what John also means, shewing that it was early on
the next day that He appeared.”—To understand how faithfully in what
precedes Jerome treads in the footsteps of Eusebius, it is absolutely
necessary to set the Latin of the one over against the Greek of the other, and
to compare them. In order to facilitate this operation, I have subjoined both
originals at foot of the page: from which it will be apparent that Jerome is
here not so much adopting the sentiments of Eusebius as simply translating
his words.93

[pg 054]
This, however, is not by any means the strangest feature of the case. That
Jerome should have availed himself ever so freely of the materials which he
found ready to his hand in the pages of Eusebius cannot be regarded as at
all extraordinary, after what we have just heard from himself of his
customary method of proceeding. It would of course have suggested the
gravest doubts as to whether we were here listening to the personal
sentiment of this Father, or not; but that would have been all. What are we
to think, however, of the fact that Hedibia's question to Jerome proves on
inspection to be nothing more than a translation of the very question which
Marinus had long before addressed to Eusebius? We read on, perplexed at
the coincidence; and speedily make the notable discovery that her next
question, and her next, are also translations word for word of the next two
of Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is again referred to the
foot of the page.94 It is at least decisive: [pg 055] and the fact, which admits
of only one explanation, can be attended by only one practical result. It of
course shelves the whole question as far as the evidence of Jerome is
concerned. Whether Hedibia was an actual personage or not, let those
decide who have considered more attentively than it has ever fallen in my
way to do that curious problem,—What was the ancient notion of the
allowable in Fiction? That different ideas have prevailed in different ages of
the world as to where fiction ends and fabrication begins;—that widely
discrepant views are entertained on the subject even in our own age;—all
must be aware. I decline to investigate the problem on the present occasion.
I do but claim to have established beyond the possibility of doubt or cavil
that what we are here presented with is not the testimony of Jerome at all. It

is evident that this learned Father amused himself with translating for the
benefit of his Latin readers a part of the (lost) work of Eusebius; (which, by
the way, he is found to have possessed in the same abridged form in which
it has come down to ourselves:)—and he seems to have regarded it as
allowable to attribute to “Hedibia” the problems which he there met with.
(He may perhaps have known that Eusebius before him had attributed them,
with just as little reason, to “Marinus.”) In that age, for aught that appears to
the contrary, it may have been regarded as a graceful compliment to address
solutions of Scripture difficulties to persons of distinction, who possibly
had never heard of those difficulties before; and even to represent the
Interrogatories which suggested them as originating with themselves. I offer
this only in the way of suggestion, and am not concerned to defend it. The
only point I am concerned to establish is that Jerome is here a translator,
not an original author: in other words, that it is Eusebius who here speaks,
and not Jerome. For a critic to pretend that it [pg 056] is in any sense the
testimony of Jerome which we are here presented with; that Jerome is one
of those Fathers “who, even though they copied from their predecessors,
were yet competent to transmit the record of a fact,”95—is entirely to
misunderstand the case. The man who translates,—not adopts, but
translates,—the problem as well as its solution: who deliberately asserts
that it emanated from a Lady inhabiting the furthest extremity of Gaul, who
nevertheless was demonstrably not its author: who goes on to propose as
hers question after question verbatim as he found them written in the pages
of Eusebius; and then resolves them one by one in the very language of the
same Father:—such a writer has clearly conducted us into a region where
his individual responsibility quite disappears from sight. We must hear no
more about Jerome, therefore, as a witness against the genuineness of the
concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel.

On the contrary. Proof is at hand that Jerome held these verses to be
genuine. The proper evidence of this is supplied by the fact that he gave
them a place in his revision of the old Latin version of the Scriptures. If he
had been indeed persuaded of their absence from “almost all the Greek
codices,” does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to stand
in the Vulgate? If he had met with them in “scarcely any copies of the
Gospel”—do men really suppose that he would yet have retained them? To
believe this would, again, be to forget what was the known practice of this

Father; who, because he found the expression “without a cause” (εἰκή,—S.
Matth. v. 22,) only “in certain of his codices,” but not “in the true ones,”
omitted it from the Vulgate. Because, however, he read “righteousness”
(where we read “alms”) in S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits “justitiam” in his
revision of the old Latin version. On the other hand, though he knew of
MSS. (as he expressly relates) which read “works” for “children” (ἔργων
for τέκνων) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does not admit that (manifestly corrupt)
reading,—which, however, is found both in the Codex Vaticanus and the
Codex Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press the matter further. It is
an additional proof that Jerome accepted the [pg 057] conclusion of S.
Mark's Gospel that he actually quotes it, and on more than one occasion:
but to prove this, is to prove more than is here required.96 I am concerned
only to demolish the assertion of Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Alford,
and Davidson, and so many more, concerning the testimony of Jerome; and
I have demolished it. I pass on, claiming to have shewn that the name of
Jerome as an adverse witness must never again appear in this discussion.

IV. and V. But now, while the remarks of Eusebius are yet fresh in the
memory, the reader is invited to recall for a moment what the author of the
“Homily on the Resurrection,” contained in the works of Gregory of Nyssa
(above, p. 39), has delivered on the same subject. It will be remembered
that we saw reason for suspecting that not

Severus of Antioch, but
Hesychius of Jerusalem,

(both of them writers of the vith century,) has the better claim to the
authorship of the Homily in question,97—which, however, cannot at all
events be assigned to the illustrious Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of Basil
the Great. “In the more accurate copies,” (says this writer,) “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.’ This, however, seems to contradict to some extent what we
before delivered; for since it happens that the hour of the night when our
Saviour rose is not known, how does it come to be here written that He rose
‘early?’ But the saying will prove to be no ways contradictory, if we read

with skill. We must be careful intelligently to introduce a comma after,
‘Now when He was risen:’ and then to proceed,—‘Early in the Sabbath He
appeared first to Mary Magdalene:’ in order that ‘when He was risen’ may
refer (in conformity with what Matthew says) to the foregoing season;
while ‘early’ is connected with the appearance to Mary.”98—I presume it
would be to abuse a reader's patience to offer any remarks on all this. If a
careful perusal of the foregoing passage [pg 058] does not convince him
that Hesychius is here only reproducing what he had read in Eusebius,
nothing that I can say will persuade him of the fact. The words indeed are
by no means the same; but the sense is altogether identical. He seems to
have also known the work of Victor of Antioch. However, to remove all
doubt from the reader's mind that the work of Eusebius was in the hands of
Hesychius while he wrote, I have printed in two parallel columns and
transferred to the Appendix what must needs be conclusive;99 for it will be
seen that the terms are only not identical in which Eusebius and Hesychius
discuss that favourite problem with the ancients,—the consistency of S.
Matthew's ὀψὲ τῶν σαββάτων with the πρωί of S. Mark.

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, (though it has been
thrown into that form;) but a Dissertation,—into which, Hesychius, (who is
known to have been very curious in questions of that kind100,) 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;101 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 (so-called) “Homily”: but I must not dismiss it without
pointing out that its author [pg 059] 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.102

I shall not be thought unreasonable, therefore, if I contend that Hesychius is
no longer to be cited as a witness in this behalf: if I point out that it is
entirely to misunderstand and misrepresent the case to quote a passing
allusion of his to what Eusebius had long before delivered on the same
subject, as if it exhibited his own individual teaching. It is demonstrable103
that he is not bearing testimony to the condition of the MSS. of S. Mark's
Gospel in his own age: neither, indeed, is he bearing testimony at all. He is
simply amusing himself, (in what is found to have been his favourite way,)
with reconciling an apparent discrepancy in the Gospels; and he does it by
adopting certain remarks of Eusebius. Living so late as the vith century;
conspicuous neither for his judgment nor his learning; a copyist only, so far
as his remarks on the last verses of S. Mark's Gospel are concerned;—this
writer does not really deserve the space and attention we have been
compelled to bestow upon him.

VI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence borne by

Victor of Antioch.

And from the familiar style in which this Father's name is always
introduced into the present discussion, no less than from the invariable
practice of assigning to him the date “A.D. 401,” it might be supposed that
“Victor of Antioch” is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely a
Commentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. Clinton
(who enumerates cccxxii “Ecclesiastical Authors” from A.D. 70 to A.D.
685104) does not even record his name. The recent “Dictionary of Greek and
Roman Biography” is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest
editor) [pg 060] calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute
his Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria.105 Not to delay the
reader needlessly,—Victor of Antioch is an interesting and unjustly
neglected Father of the Church; whose date,—(inasmuch as he apparently
quotes sometimes from Cyril of Alexandria who died A.D. 444, and yet
seems to have written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which took place
A.D. 407), may be assigned to the first half of the vth century,—suppose
A.D. 425-450. And in citing him I shall always refer to the best (and most
easily accessible) edition of his work,—that of Cramer (1840) in the first
volume of his “Catenae.”

But a far graver charge is behind. From the confident air in which Victor's
authority is appealed to by those who deem the last twelve verses of S.
Mark's Gospel spurious, it would of course be inferred that his evidence is
hostile to the verses in question; whereas his evidence to their genuineness
is the most emphatic and extraordinary on record. Dr. Tregelles asserts that
“his testimony to the absence of these twelve verses from some or many
copies, stands in contrast to his own opinion on the subject.” But Victor
delivers no “opinion:” and his “testimony” is the direct reverse of what Dr.
Tregelles asserts it to be. This learned and respected critic has strangely
misapprehended the evidence.106

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.107

Now, his Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel,—as all must see who will be at
the pains to examine it,—is to a great extent a compilation. The same thing
may be said, no doubt, to some extent, of almost every ancient Commentary
in existence. But I mean, concerning this particular work, [pg 061] that it
proves to have been the author's plan not so much to give the general results
of his acquaintance with the writings of Origen, Apollinarius, Theodorus of
Mopsuestia, Eusebius, and Chrysostom; as, with or without
acknowledgment, to transcribe largely (but with great license) from one or
other of these writers. Thus, the whole of his note on S. Mark xv. 38, 39, is
taken, without any hint that it is not original, (much of it, word for word,)
from Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew's Gospel.108 The same is to
be said of the first twelve lines of his note on S. Mark xvi. 9. On the other
hand, the latter half of the note last mentioned professes to give the
substance of what Eusebius had written on the same subject. It is in fact an
extract from those very “Quaestiones ad Marinum” concerning which so
much has been offered already. All this, though it does not sensibly detract
from the interest or the value of Victor's work, must be admitted entirely to
change the character of his supposed evidence. He comes before us rather in
the light of a Compiler than of an Author: his work is rather a “Catena” than
a Commentary: and as such in fact it is generally described. Quite plain is
it, at all events, that the sentiments contained in the sections last referred to,

are not Victor's at all. For one half of them, no one but Chrysostom is
responsible: for the other half, no one but Eusebius.

But it is Victor's familiar use of the writings of Eusebius,—especially of
those Resolutions of hard Questions “concerning the seeming
Inconsistencies in the Evangelical accounts of the Resurrection,” which
Eusebius addressed to Marinus,—on which the reader's attention is now to
be concentrated. Victor cites that work of Eusebius by name in the very first
page of his Commentary. That his last page also contains a quotation from
it, (also by name), has been already pointed out.109 Attention is now invited
to what is found concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 in the last page but one (p.
444) of [pg 062] Victor's work. It shall be given in English; because I will
convince unlearned as well as learned readers. Victor, (after quoting four
lines from the 89th Homily of Chrysostom110), reconciles (exactly as
Eusebius is observed to do111) the notes of time contained severally in S.
Matth. xxviii. 1, S. Mark xvi. 2, S. Luke xxiv. 1, and S. John xx. 1. After
which, he proceeds as follows:—

“In certain copies of Mark's Gospel, next comes,—‘Now when [Jesus] was
risen early the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene;’—a
statement which seems inconsistent with Matthew's narrative. This might be
met by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark's Gospel, though found in
certain copies, is spurious, However, that we may not seem to betake
ourselves to an off-hand answer, we propose to read the place thus:—‘Now
when [Jesus] was risen:’ then, after a comma, to go on,—‘early the first day
of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ In this way we refer [Mark's]
‘Now when [Jesus] was risen’ to Matthew's ‘in the end of the sabbath,’ (for
then we believe Him to have risen;) and all that comes after, expressive as it
is of a different notion, we connect with what follows. Mark relates that He
who ‘arose (according to Matthew) in the end of the Sabbath,’ was seen by
Mary Magdalene ‘early.’ This is in fact what John also declares; for he too
has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ [Jesus] appeared to the
Magdalene. In a word, two distinct seasons are set before us by these
words: first, the season of the Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the
Sabbath;’ secondly, the season of our Saviour's Appearing,—which was
‘early.’ ”112

No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate to admit that he is
here listening to Eusebius “ad Marinum” over again. But if any one really
retains a particle of doubt on the subject, he is requested to cast his eye to
the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader, [pg 063]
surveying the originals with attention, may easily convince himself that
Victor is here nothing else but a copyist.113 That the work in which Eusebius
reconciles “seeming discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives,” was
actually lying open before Victor while he wrote, is ascertained beyond
dispute. He is observed in his next ensuing Comment to quote from it, and
to mention Eusebius as its author. At the end of the present note he has a
significant allusion to Eusebius:—“I [pg 064] know very well,” he says,
“what has been suggested by those who are at the pains to remove the
apparent inconsistencies in this place.”114 But when writing on S. Mark xvi.
9-20, he does more. After abridging, (as his manner is,) what Eusebius
explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the substance of five columns
in about three times as many lines,) he adopts the exact expressions of
Eusebius,—follows him in his very mistakes,—and finally transcribes his
words. The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind that what he has
been listening to is not the testimony of Victor at all: but the testimony of
Eusebius. This is but one more echo therefore of a passage of which we are
all beginning by this time to be weary; so exceedingly rash are the
statements with which it is introduced, so utterly preposterous the proposed
method of remedying a difficulty which proves after all to be purely
imaginary.

What then is the testimony of Victor? Does he offer any independent
statement on the question in dispute, from which his own private opinion
(though nowhere stated) may be lawfully inferred? Yes indeed. Victor,
though frequently a Transcriber only, is observed every now and then to
come forward in his own person, and deliver his individual sentiment.115
But nowhere throughout his work does he deliver such remarkable
testimony as in this place. Hear him!

“Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the
passage beginning, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of the
week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,’ be not found,—(certain
individuals having supposed it to be spurious,)—yet we, at all events,

inasmuch as in very many we have discovered it to exist, have, out of
accurate copies, subjoined also the account of our Lord's Ascension,
(following the words ‘for they were afraid,’) in conformity with the
Palestinian exemplar of Mark [pg 065] which exhibits the Gospel verity:
that is to say, from the words, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first
day of the week,’ &c., down to ‘with signs following. Amen.’116—And with
these words Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on S. Mark to an
end.”

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

(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark are absent from
some ancient copies of his Gospel is because they have been deliberately
omitted by Copyists:

(2.) That the ground for such omission was the subjective judgment of
individuals,—not the result of any appeal to documentary evidence. Victor,
therefore, clearly held that the Verses in question had been expunged in
consequence of their (seeming) inconsistency with what is met with in the
other Gospels:

(3.) That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself by reference to “very
many” and “accurate” copies, that the verses in question are genuine:

(4.) That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which enjoyed the reputation of
“exhibiting the genuine text of S. Mark,” contained the Verses in dispute.—
To Opinion, therefore, Victor opposes Authority. He makes his appeal to the
most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is acquainted; and
the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete counterpoise and
antidote to the loose phrases of Eusebius on the same subject:

(5.) That in consequence of all this, following the Palestinian Exemplar, he
had from accurate copies furnished his own work with the Twelve Verses in
dispute;—which is a categorical refutation of the statement frequently met
with that the work of Victor of Antioch is without them.

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

Six Fathers of the Church have been examined who are commonly
represented as bearing hostile testimony to the last Twelve Verses of S.
Mark's Gospel; and they have been [pg 066] easily reduced to one. Three of
them, (Hesychius, Jerome, Victor,) prove to be echoes, not voices. The
remaining two, (Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices nor
echoes, but merely names: Gregory of Nyssa having really no more to do
with this discussion than Philip of Macedon; and “Severus” and
“Hesychius” representing one and the same individual. Only by a Critic
seeking to mislead his reader will any one of these five Fathers be in future
cited as witnessing against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Eusebius
is the solitary witness who survives the ordeal of exact inquiry.117 But,

I. Eusebius, (as we have seen), instead of proclaiming his distrust of this
portion of the Gospel, enters upon an elaborate proof that its contents are
not inconsistent with what is found in the Gospels of S. Matthew and S.
John. His testimony is reducible to two innocuous and wholly unconnected
propositions: the first,—That there existed in his day a vast number of
copies in which the last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel ended abruptly at ver.
8; (the correlative of which of course would be that there also existed a vast
number which were furnished with the present ending.) The second,—That
by putting a comma after the word Ἀναστάς, S. Mark xvi. 9, is capable of
being reconciled with S. Matth. xxviii. 1118.... I profess myself unable to
understand how it can be pretended that Eusebius would have subscribed to
the opinion of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that the Gospel of S.
Mark was never finished by its inspired Author, or was mutilated before it
came abroad; at all events, that the last Twelve Verses are spurious.

[pg 067]
II. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been adopted, and in part
transcribed, by an unknown writer of the vith century,—whether Hesychius
or Severus is not certainly known: but if it were Hesychius, then it was not
Severus; if Severus, then not Hesychius. This writer, however, (whoever he
may have been,) is careful to convince us that individually he entertained no
doubt whatever about the genuineness of this part of Scripture, for he says

that he writes in order to remove the (hypothetical) objections of others, and
to silence their (imaginary) doubts. Nay, he freely quotes the verses as
genuine, and declares that they were read in his day on a certain Sunday
night in the public Service of the Church.... To represent such an one,—(it
matters nothing, I repeat, whether we call him “Hesychius of Jerusalem” or
“Severus of Antioch,”)—as a hostile witness, is simply to misrepresent the
facts of the case. He is, on the contrary, the strenuous champion of the
verses which he is commonly represented as impugning.

III. As for Jerome, since that illustrious Father comes before us in this place
as a translator of Eusebius only, he is no more responsible for what
Eusebius says concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20, than Hobbes of Malmesbury is
responsible for anything that Thucydides has related concerning the
Peloponnesian war. Individually, however, it is certain that Jerome was
convinced of the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: for in two different
places of his writings he not only quotes the 9th and 14th verses, but he
exhibits all the twelve in the Vulgate.

IV. Lastly, Victor of Antioch, who wrote in an age when Eusebius was
held to be an infallible oracle on points of Biblical Criticism,—having
dutifully rehearsed, (like the rest,) the feeble expedient of that illustrious
Father for harmonizing S. Mark xvi. 9 with the narrative of S. Matthew,—is
observed to cite the statements of Eusebius concerning the last Twelve
Verses of S. Mark, only in order to refute them. Not that he opposes opinion
to opinion,—(for the opinions of Eusebius and of Victor of Antioch on this
behalf were probably identical;) but statement he meets with counter-
statement,—fact he confronts with fact. Scarcely [pg 068] can anything be
imagined more emphatic than his testimony, or more conclusive.

For the reader is requested to observe that here is an Ecclesiastic, writing in
the first half of the vth century, who expressly witnesses to the genuineness
of the Verses in dispute. He had made reference, he says, and ascertained
their existence in very many MSS. (ὡς ἐν πλείστοις). He had derived his
text from “accurate” ones: (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων.) More than that: he
leads his reader to infer that he had personally resorted to the famous
Palestinian Copy, the text of which was held to exhibit the inspired verity,
and had satisfied himself that the concluding section of S. Mark's Gospel

was there. He had, therefore, been either to Jerusalem, or else to Cæsarea;
had inquired for those venerable records which had once belonged to
Origen and Pamphilus;119 and had inspected them. Testimony more express,
more weighty,—I was going to say, more decisive,—can scarcely be
imagined. It may with truth be said to close the present discussion.

With this, in fact, Victor lays down his pen. So also may I. I submit that
nothing whatever which has hitherto come before us lends the slightest
countenance to the modern dream that S. Mark's Gospel, as it left the hands
of its inspired Author, ended abruptly at ver. 8. Neither Eusebius nor
Jerome; neither Severus of Antioch nor Hesychius of Jerusalem; certainly
not Victor of Antioch; least of all Gregory of Nyssa,—yield a particle of
support to that monstrous fancy. The notion is an invention, a pure
imagination of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach.

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

VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of the discussion, to
appeal to

Euthymius Zigabenus,

the Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compilation on the
Gospels, assigned to A.D. 1116. Euthymius lived, in fact, full five hundred
years too late for his testimony to be of the slightest importance. Such as it
is, however, it is [pg 069] not unfavourable. He says,—“Some of the
Commentators state that here,” (viz. at ver. 8,) “the Gospel according to
Mark finishes; and that what follows is a spurious addition.” (Which clearly
is his version of the statements of one or more of the four Fathers whose
testimony has already occupied so large a share of our attention.) “This
portion we must also interpret, however,” (Euthymius proceeds,) “since
there is nothing in it prejudicial to the truth.”120—But it is idle to linger over
such a writer. One might almost as well quote “Poli Synopsis” and then
proceed to discuss it. The cause must indeed be desperate which seeks
support from a quarter like this. What possible sanction can an Ecclesiastic

of the xiith century be supposed to yield to the hypothesis that S. Mark's
Gospel, as it left the hands of its inspired Author, was an unfinished work?

It remains to ascertain what is the evidence of the MSS. on this subject. And
the MSS. require to be the more attentively studied, because it is to them
that our opponents are accustomed most confidently to appeal. On them in
fact they rely. The nature and the value of the most ancient Manuscript
testimony available, shall be scrupulously investigated in the next two
Chapters.

[pg 070]

CHAPTER VI.

MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO
BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF
THESE VERSES.—PART I.

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 (p. 73) and Cod. ‫א‬
(p. 75).—These two Codices shewn to be full of gross Omissions (p. 78),—
Interpolations (p. 80),—Corruptions of the Text (p. 81),—and Perversions of
the Truth (p. 83).—The testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9-20, shewn to
be favorable, notwithstanding (p. 86).

The two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the famous Codex in
the Vatican Library at Rome, known as “Codex B;” and the Codex which
Tischendorf brought from Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by
the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (‫)א‬. These two manuscripts are
probably not of equal antiquity.121 An interval of fifty years at least seems to
be required to account for the marked difference between them. If the first
belongs to the beginning, the second may be referred to the middle or latter
part of the ivth century. But the two Manuscripts agree in this,—that they
are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. In both, after
ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (ver. 8), comes the subscription: in Cod. B,—ΚΑΤΑ
ΜΑΡΚΟΝ; in Cod. ‫א‬,—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ.

Let it not be supposed that we have any more facts of this class to produce.
All has been stated. It is not that the evidence of Manuscripts is one,—the
evidence of Fathers and Versions another. The very reverse is the case.
Manuscripts, Fathers, and Versions alike, are only not unanimous in bearing
consistent testimony. But the consentient witness [pg 071] of the MSS. is
even extraordinary. With the exception of the two uncial MSS. which have

just been named, there is not one Codex in existence, uncial or cursive,—
(and we are acquainted with, at least, eighteen other uncials,122 and about
six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)—which leaves out the last
twelve verses of S. Mark.

The inference which an unscientific observer would draw from this fact, is
no doubt in this instance the correct one. He demands to be shewn the
Alexandrine (A) and the Parisian Codex (C),—neither of them probably
removed by much more than fifty years from the date of the Codex
Sinaiticus, and both unquestionably derived from different originals;—and
he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of those venerable
monuments to the proposed omission of this part of the sacred text. He
discovers that the Codex Bezae (D), the only remaining very ancient MS.
authority,—notwithstanding that it is observed on most occasions to exhibit
an extraordinary sympathy with the Vatican (B),—here sides with A and C
against B and ‫א‬. He inquires after all the other uncials and all the cursive
MSS. in existence, (some of them dating from the xth century,) and requests
to have it explained to him why it is to be supposed that all these many
witnesses,—belonging to so many different patriarchates, provinces, ages of
the Church,—have entered into a grand conspiracy to bear false witness on
a point of this magnitude and importance? But he obtains no intelligible
answer to this question. How, then, is an unprejudiced student to draw any
inference but one from the premisses? That single peculiarity (he tells
himself) of bringing the second Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse
of the xvith chapter, is absolutely fatal to the two Codices in question. It is
useless to din into his ears that those Codices are probably both of the ivth
century,—unless men are prepared to add the assurance that a Codex of the
ivth century is of necessity a more trustworthy witness to the text of the
Gospels than a Codex of the vth. The omission of these twelve verses, I
repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in [pg 072] Cod. B and Cod. ‫א‬: for
it is obvious that a copy of the Gospels which has been so seriously
mutilated in one place may have been slightly tampered with in another. He
is willing to suspend his judgment, of course. The two oldest copies of the
Gospels in existence are entitled to great reverence because of their high
antiquity. They must be allowed a most patient, most unprejudiced, most
respectful, nay, a most indulgent hearing. But when all this has been freely

accorded, on no intelligible principle can more be claimed for any two
MSS. in the world.

The rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious. Mistrust will no doubt have
been thrown over the evidence borne to the text of Scripture in a thousand
other places by Cod. B and Cod. ‫א‬, after demonstration that those two
Codices exhibit a mutilated text in the present place. But what else is this
but the very point requiring demonstration? Why may not these two be
right, and all the other MSS. wrong?

I propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed we to examine the
evidence borne by these two witnesses on certain other occasions which
admit of no difference of opinion; or next to none. Let us endeavour, I say,
to ascertain the character of the Witnesses by a patient and unprejudiced
examination of their Evidence,—not in one place, or in two, or in three; but
on several important occasions, and throughout. If we find it invariably
consentient and invariably truthful, then of course a mighty presumption
will have been established, the very strongest possible, that their adverse
testimony in respect of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel must needs be
worthy of all acceptation. But if, on the contrary, our inquiries shall conduct
us to the very opposite result,—what else can happen but that our
confidence in these two MSS. will be hopelessly shaken? We must in such
case be prepared to admit that it is just as likely as not that this is only one
more occasion on which these “two false witnesses” have conspired to
witness falsely. If, at this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely
trustworthy kind can be procured to confront them: above all, if some one
ancient witness of unimpeachable veracity can be found who shall bear
contradictory evidence: what other [pg 073] alternative will be left us but to
reject their testimony in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with something like
indignation; and to acquiesce in the belief of universal Christendom for
eighteen hundred years that these twelve verses are just as much entitled to
our unhesitating acceptance as any other twelve verses in the Gospel which
can be named?

I. It is undeniable, in the meantime, that for the last quarter of a century, it
has become the fashion to demand for the readings of Codex B something
very like absolute deference. The grounds for this superstitious sentiment,

(for really I can describe it in no apter way,) I profess myself unable to
discover. Codex B comes to us without a history: without recommendation
of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless
transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber
made are of perpetual recurrence. “They are chiefly omissions, of one, two,
or three words; but sometimes of half a verse, a whole verse, or even of
several verses.... I hesitate not to assert that it would be easier to find a folio
containing three or four such omissions than to light on one which should
be without any.”123 In the Gospels alone, Codex B leaves out words or
whole clauses no less than 1,491 times:124 of which by far the largest
proportion is found in S. Mark's Gospel. Many of these, no doubt, are to be
accounted for by the proximity of a “like ending.”125 The Vatican MS. (like
the Sinaitic126) was originally derived [pg 074] from an older Codex which
contained about twelve or thirteen letters in a line.127 And it will be found
that some of its omissions which have given rise to prolonged [pg 075]
discussion are probably to be referred to nothing else but the oscitancy of a
transcriber with such a codex before him:128 without having recourse to any
more abstruse hypothesis; without any imputation of bad faith;—certainly
without supposing that the words omitted did not exist in the inspired
autograph of the Evangelist. But then it is undeniable that some of the
omissions in Cod. B are not to be so explained. On the other hand, I can
testify to the fact that the codex is disfigured throughout with repetitions.
The original scribe is often found to have not only written the same words
twice over, but to have failed whenever he did so to take any notice with his
pen of what he had done.

What then, (I must again inquire,) 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.

II. More recently, a claim to co-ordinate primacy has been set up on behalf
of the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf is actually engaged in remodelling his
seventh Leipsic edition, chiefly in conformity with the readings of his lately
discovered MS.129 And yet the Codex in question abounds with “errors of
the the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather
unusual in documents of first-rate importance.” On many occasions, 10, 20,

30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.130 “Letters and words,
even whole sentences, are frequently written twice [pg 076] over, or begun
and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder ... whereby a clause is
omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause
preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament. Tregelles
has freely pronounced that ‘the state of the text, as proceeding from the first
scribe, may be regarded as very rough.’ ”131 But when “the first scribe” and
his “very rough” performance have been thus unceremoniously disposed of,
one would like to be informed what remains to command respect in Codex
‫ ?א‬Is, then, manuscript authority to be confounded with editorial caprice,
—exercising itself upon the corrections of “at least ten different revisers,”
who, from the vith to the xiith century, have been endeavouring to lick into
shape a text which its original author left “very rough?”

The co-ordinate primacy, (as I must needs call it,) which, within the last few
years, has been claimed for Codex B and Codex ‫א‬, threatens to grow into a
species of tyranny,—from which I venture to predict there will come in the
end an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil. It behoves us, therefore, to look
closely into this matter, and to require a reason for what is being done. The
text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a thing to be sacrificed to an
irrational, or at least a superstitious devotion to two MSS.,—simply because
they may possibly be older by a hundred years than any other which we
possess. “Id verius quod prius,” is an axiom which holds every bit as true in
Textual Criticism as in Dogmatic Truth. But on that principle, (as I have
already shewn,) the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are fully
established;132 and by consequence, the credit of Codd. B and ‫ א‬sustains a
severe shock. Again, “Id verius quod prius;” but it does not of course follow
that a Codex of the ivth century shall exhibit a more correct text of
Scripture than one written in the vth, or even than one written in the xth.
For the proof of this statement, (if it can be supposed to require proof,) it is
enough to appeal to Codex D. That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the
vith century. [pg 077] It is, in fact, one of our five great uncials. No older
MS. of the Greek Text is known to exist,—excepting always A, B, C and ‫א‬.
And yet no text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and
interpolations than that of Codex D. In the Acts, (to use the language of its
learned and accurate Editor,) “it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it

reproduces the textus receptus much in the same way that one of the best
Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the
variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of
expanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom
recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal
probability.”133 Where, then, is the à priori probability that two MSS. of the
ivth century shall have not only a superior claim to be heard, but almost an
exclusive right to dictate which readings are to be rejected, which retained?

How ready the most recent editors of the New Testament have shewn
themselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of Codd. B and ‫א‬,—not
unfrequently in defiance of the evidence of all other MSS., and sometimes
to the serious detriment of the deposit,—would admit of striking illustration
were this place for such details. Tischendorf's English “New
Testament”—“with various readings from the three most celebrated
manuscripts of the Greek Text” translated at the foot of every page,—is a
recent attempt (1869) to popularize the doctrine that we have to look
exclusively to two or three of the oldest copies, if we would possess the
Word of God in its integrity. Dean Alford's constant appeal in his revision
of the Authorized Version (1870) to “the oldest MSS.” (meaning thereby
generally Codd. ‫ א‬and B with one or two others134), is an abler endeavour to
familiarize the public mind with the same belief. I am bent on shewing that
there is nothing whatever in the character of either of the Codices in
question to warrant this servile deference.

(a) And first,—Ought it not sensibly to detract from our [pg 078] opinion of
the value of their evidence to discover that it is easier to find two
consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, than
two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree? Now this is a plain
matter of fact, of which any one who pleases may easily convince himself.
But the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one another
has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On every such occasion, only
one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought
unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies between
Codd. B and ‫א‬,—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones,
—altogether destroy my confidence in either?

(b) 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 (probably not very remote) 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.135

(c) 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.

1. And first, since it is the omission of the end of S. Mark's Gospel which
has given rise to the present discussion, it becomes a highly significant
circumstance that the original [pg 079] scribe of Cod. ‫ א‬had also omitted
the end of the Gospel according to S. John.136 In this suppression of ver. 25,
Cod. ‫ א‬stands alone among MSS. A cloud of primitive witnesses vouch for
the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is nothing else but the reductio ad
absurdum of a theory of recension, (with Tischendorf in his last edition,) to
accommodate our printed text to the vicious standard of the original
penman of Cod. ‫ א‬and bring the last chapter of S. John's Gospel to a close
at ver. 24!

Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two solemn verses
wherein S. Luke describes our Lord's “Agony and bloody Sweat,” together
with the act of the ministering Angel.137 As to the genuineness of those
verses, recognised as they are by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Hippolytus,
Epiphanius, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, by
all the oldest versions, and by almost every MS. in existence, including
Cod. ‫א‬,—it admits of no doubt. Here then is proof positive that in order to
account for omissions from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there is
no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of the
Gospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. “The admitted error of
Cod. B in this place,” (to quote the words of Scrivener,) “ought to make

some of its advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is
less countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us.”

Cod. B (not Cod. ‫ )א‬is further guilty of the “grave error” (as Dean Alford
justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn record of the Evangelist:—“Then
said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” It also
withholds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was “in letters of
Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.”138 Cod. ‫א‬, on the other hand, omits the
confession of the man born blind (ὁ δὲ ἔφη, πιστεύω, κύριε; καὶ
προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ) in S. John ix. 38.—Both Cod. ‫ א‬and Cod. B retain
nothing but the [pg 080] word υἱόν of the expression τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν
πρωτότοκον, in S. Matth. i. 25; and suppress altogether the important
doctrinal statement ὁ ὠν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in S. John iii. 13: as well as the
clause διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν; καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, in S. John viii. 59.
Concerning all of which, let it be observed that I am neither imputing
motives nor pretending to explain the design with which these several
serious omissions were made. All that is asserted is, that they cannot be
imputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were intentional: and I insist
that they effectually dispose of the presumption that when an important
passage is observed to be wanting from Cod. B or Cod. ‫א‬, its absence is to
be accounted for by assuming that it was also absent from the inspired
autograph of the Evangelist.

2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or of
‫א‬, or of both, has clearly been interpolated. There does not exist in the
whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this
than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our
Redeemer's side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and
Cod. ‫א‬, where it is introduced at the end of ver. 49,—in defiance of reason
as well as of authority.139 “This interpolation” (remarks Mr. Scrivener)
“which would represent the Saviour as pierced while yet living, is a good
example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in
attesting a reading unquestionably false.”140 Another singularly gross
specimen of interpolation, in my judgment, is supplied by the purely
apocryphal statement which is met with in Cod. ‫א‬, at the end of S.
Matthew's account of the healing of the Centurion's servant,—και
υποστρεψας ο εκατονταρχος εις τον οικον αυτου εν αυτη τη ωρα, ευρεν τον

παιδα υγιαινοντα (viii. 13.)—Nor can anything well be weaker than the
substitution (for ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου, in S. John ii. 3) of the following,141
which is found only in Cod. ‫א‬:—οινον ουκ ειχον, οτι συνετελεσθε ο οινος
του γαμου.

[pg 081]
But the inspired text has been depraved in the same licentious way
throughout, by the responsible authors of Cod. B and Cod. ‫א‬, although such
corruptions have attracted little notice from their comparative
unimportance. Thus, the reading (in ‫ )א‬ημας δει εργαζεσθαι τα εργα του
πεμψαντος ημας (S. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient
condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by B's substitution of
με for the second ημας.—Instead of τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (S.
Luke vi. 48), B and ‫ א‬present us with the insipid gloss, δια το καλως
οικοδομεισθαι αυτην.—In the last-named codex, we find the name of
“Isaiah” (ησαιου) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance of authority and
of fact.—Can I be wrong in asserting that the reading ο μονογενης θεος (for
υἱός) in S. John i. 18, (a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. ‫ א‬alike,) is
undeserving of serious attention?—May it not also be confidently declared
that, in the face of all MS. evidence,142 no future Editors of the New
Testament will be found to accept the highly improbable reading ο
ανθρωπος ο λεγομενος Ιησους, in S. John ix. 11, although the same two
Codices conspire in exhibiting it?—or, on the authority of one of them (‫)א‬,
to read εν αυτῳ ζωη εστιν143 (for ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν) in S. John i. 4?—Certain
at least it is that no one will ever be found to read (with B) εβδομηκοντα
δϙο in S. Luke x. 1,—or (with ‫ )א‬ο εκλεκτος του θεου (instead of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
θεοῦ) in S. John i. 34.—But let me ask, With what show of reason can the
pretence of Infallibility, (as well as the plea of Primacy), be set up on behalf
of a pair of MSS. licentiously corrupt as these have already been proved to
be? For the readings above enumerated, be it observed, are either critical
depravations of the inspired Text, or else unwarrantable interpolations. They
cannot have resulted from careless transcription.

3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind [pg 082] to
convince me that the text with which Cod. B and Cod. ‫ א‬were chiefly
acquainted, must have been once and again subjected to a clumsy process of
revision. Not unfrequently, as may be imagined, the result (however

tasteless and infelicitous) is not of serious importance; as when, (to give
examples from Cod. ‫א‬,) for τὸν ὄχλον ἐπικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ (in S. Luke v. 1) we
are presented with συναχθηναι τον οχλον:—when for ζῶν ἀσώτως (in S.
Luke xv. 13) we read εις χωραν μακραν; and for οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες αὐτῶν (in
S. Luke xxii. 25), we find οι αρχοντες των [εθνων] εξουσιαζουσιν αυτων,
και, (which is only a weak reproduction of S. Matth. xx. 25):—when again,
for σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει (in S. John vi. 17), we are shewn καταλαβεν δε
αυτους η σκοτια: and when, for καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν (in S.
John vi. 64) we are invited to accept και τις ην ο μελλων αυτον
παραδιδοναι.144 But it requires very little acquaintance with the subject to
foresee that this kind of license may easily assume serious dimensions, and
grow into an intolerable evil. Thus, when the man born blind is asked by the
Holy One if he believes ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ (S. John. ix. 35), we are by
no means willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute, τον υιον του
ανθρωπου: neither, when the Saviour says, γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμων (S.
John x. 14) are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent
γινωσκουσι με τα εμα. Still less is και εμοι αυτους εδωκασ any equivalent
at all for καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστι, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά in S. John xvii. 10: or,
αλλοι [pg 083] ζωσουσιν σε, και ποιησουσιν σοι οσα ου θελεις, for ἄλλος
σε ζώσει; καὶ οὄσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις, in S. John xxi. 18. Indeed, even when
our Lord is not the speaker, such licentious depravation of the text is not to
be endured. Thus, in S. Luke xxiii. 15, Cod. B and Cod. ‫ א‬conspire in
substituting for ἀνέπεμψα γὰρ ὑμᾶς πρὸς αὐτόν,—ανεπεμψεν γαρ αυτον
προς ημας; which leads one to suspect the copyist was misled by the
narrative in ver. 7. Similar instances might be multiplied to an indefinite
extent.

Two yet graver corruptions of the truth of the Gospel, (but they belong to
the same category,) remain to be specified. Mindful, I suppose, of S. James'
explanation “how that by works a man is justified,” the author of the text of
Codices B and ‫ א‬has ventured to alter our Lord's assertion (in S. Matth. xi.
19,) “Wisdom is justified of her children,” into “Wisdom is justified by her
works;” and, in the case of Cod. ‫א‬, his zeal is observed to have so entirely
carried him away, that he has actually substituted εργων for τέκνων in the
parallel place of S. Luke's Gospel.—The other example of error (S. Matth.
xxi. 31) is calculated to provoke a smile. Finding that our Saviour, in
describing the conduct of the two sons in the parable, says of the one,—

ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν, and of the other,—καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν;
some ancient scribe, (who can have been but slenderly acquainted with the
Greek language,) seems to have conceived the notion that a more precise
way of identifying the son who “afterwards repented and went,” would be
to designate him as ὁ ὕστερος. Accordingly, in reply to the question,—τίς
ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; we are presented (but only in
Cod. B) with the astonishing information,—λεγουσιν ο υστερος. And yet,
seeing clearly that this made nonsense of the parable, some subsequent
critic is found to have transposed the order of the two sons: and in that
queer condition the parable comes down to us in the famous Vatican Codex
B.

4. Some of the foregoing instances of infelicitous tampering with the text of
the Gospels are, it must be confessed, very serious. But it is a yet more fatal
circumstance in connexion with Cod. B and Cod. ‫ א‬that they are convicted
[pg 084] of certain perversions of the truth of Scripture which must have
been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in S. Mark xiv, they exhibit
a set of passages—(verses 30, 68, 72)—“which bear clear marks of wilful
and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. ‫א‬, only partially in
Cod. B; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denial
with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by
S. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice. (In Cod. ‫א‬, δίς is omitted in ver.
30,‘—ἐκ δευτέρου and δίς in ver. 72,—’and καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε in ver.
68: the last change being countenanced by B.)”145 One such discovery, I
take leave to point out, is enough to destroy all confidence in the text of
these two manuscripts: for it proves that another kind of corrupting
influence,—besides carelessness, and accident, and tasteless presumption,
and unskilful assiduity,—has been at work on Codices B and ‫א‬. We are
constrained to approach these two manuscripts with suspicion in all cases
where a supposed critical difficulty in harmonizing the statements of the
several Evangelists will account for any of the peculiar readings which they
exhibit.

Accordingly, it does not at all surprise me to discover that in both Codices
the important word ἐξελθοῦσαι (in S. Matth. xxviii. 8) has been altered into
απελθουσαι. I recognise in that substitution of απο for ἔξ the hand of one
who was not aware that the women, when addressed by the Angel, were

inside the sepulchre; but who accepted the belief (it is found to have been as
common in ancient as in modern times) that they beheld him “sitting on the
stone.”146—In consequence of a similar misconception, both Codices are
observed to present us with the word “wine” instead of “vinegar” in S.
Matthew's phrase ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμνγμένον: which results from a
mistaken endeavour on the part of some ancient critic to bring S. Matth.
xxvii. 34 into [pg 085] harmony with S. Mark xv. 23. The man did not
perceive that the cruel insult of the “vinegar and gall” (which the Saviour
tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct thing from the proffered
mercy of the “myrrhed wine” which the Saviour put away from Himself
altogether.

So again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into harmony with a
supposed fact of geography that Cod. ‫ א‬states that Emmaus, (which
Josephus also places at sixty stadia from Jerusalem), was “an hundred and
sixty” stadia distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is known. It
is because some ancient critic (Origen probably) erroneously assumed that
Nicopolis was the place intended. The conjecture met with favour, and there
are not wanting scholia to declare that this was the reading of “the accurate”
copies,—notwithstanding the physical impossibility which is involved by
the statement.147—Another geographical misconception under which the
scribe of Cod. ‫ א‬is found to have laboured was that Nazareth (S. Luke i. 26)
and Capernaum (S. Mark i. 28) were in Judæa. Accordingly he has altered
the text in both the places referred to, to suit his private notion.148—A yet
more striking specimen of the preposterous method of the same scribe is
supplied by his substitution of Καισαριας for Σαμαρείας in Acts viii. 5,—
evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi. 8.—Again, it must
have been with a view of bringing Revelation into harmony with the
(supposed) facts of physical Science that for the highly significant
Theological record καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος at the Crucifixion,149 has been
substituted both in B and ‫א‬, του ηλιου εκλιποντος,—a statement [pg 086]
which (as the ancients were perfectly well aware150) introduces into the
narrative an astronomical contradiction.—It may be worth adding, that
Tischendorf with singular inconsistency admits into his text the
astronomical contradiction, while he rejects the geographical impossibility.
—And this may suffice concerning the text of Codices B and ‫א‬.

III. We are by this time in a condition to form a truer estimate of the value
of the testimony borne by these two manuscripts in respect of the last
twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. If we were disposed before to regard
their omission of an important passage as a serious matter, we certainly
cannot any longer so regard it. We have by this time seen enough to
disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B and ‫ א‬are the very reverse
of infallible guides. Their deflections from the Truth of Scripture are more
constant, as well as more licentious by far, than those of their younger
brethren: their unauthorized omissions from the sacred text are not only far
more frequent but far more flagrant also. And yet the main matter before us,
—their omission of the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel,—when
rightly understood, proves to be an entirely different phenomenon from
what an ordinary reader might have been led to suppose. Attention is
specially requested for the remarks which follow.

IV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest
we possess, S. Mark's Gospel ends abruptly at the 8th verse of the xvith
chapter, and that the [pg 087] customary subscription (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ)
follows,—is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires to be
stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin
every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that
which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the
close of S. Mark's Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. He has
left in this place one column entirely vacant. It is the only vacant column in
the whole manuscript;—a blank space abundantly sufficient to contain the
twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld. Why did he leave that column
vacant? What can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart
from his established rule? The phenomenon,—(I believe I was the first to
call distinct attention to it,)—is in the highest degree significant, and admits
of only one interpretation. The older MS. from which Cod. B was copied
must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was
instructed to leave them out,—and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank
space in memoriam rei. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was
silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the
Vatican Codex is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing
testimony against the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel, by
withholding them: for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary

circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By
leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the
end of fifteen centuries and a half, a more ancient witness than itself. The
venerable Author of the original Codex from which Codex B was copied, is
thereby brought to view. And thus, our supposed adversary (Codex B)
proves our most useful ally: for it procures us the testimony of an hitherto
unsuspected witness. The earlier scribe, I repeat, unmistakably comes
forward at this stage of the inquiry, to explain that he at least is prepared to
answer for the genuineness of these Twelve concluding Verses with which
the later scribe, his copyist, from his omission of them, might unhappily be
thought to have been unacquainted.

It will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting [pg 088] that the
scribe of Cod. B. may have copied from a MS. which exhibited the same
phenomenon which he has himself reproduced. This, by shifting the
question a little further back, does but make the case against Cod. ‫ א‬the
stronger.

But in truth, after the revelation which has been already elicited from Cod.
B, the evidence of Cod. ‫ א‬may be very summarily disposed of. I have
already, on independent grounds, ventured to assign to that Codex a
somewhat later date than is claimed for the Codex Vaticanus.151 My opinion
is confirmed by observing that the Sinaitic contains no such blank space at
the end of S. Mark's Gospel as is conspicuous in the Vatican Codex. I infer
that the Sinaitic was copied from a Codex which had been already
mutilated, and reduced to the condition of Cod. B; and that the scribe, only
because he knew not what it meant, exhibited S. Mark's Gospel in
consequence as if it really had no claim to those twelve concluding verses
which, nevertheless, every authority we have hitherto met with has affirmed
to belong to it of right.

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion, it is at least
undeniable that Cod. B and Cod. ‫ א‬are at variance on the main point. They
contradict one another concerning the twelve concluding verses of S.
Mark's Gospel. For while Cod. ‫ א‬refuses to know anything at all about
those verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by volunteering
the statement that they were found in the older codex, of which it is in every

other respect a faithful representative. The older and the better manuscript
(B), therefore, refutes its junior (‫)א‬. And it will be seen that logically this
brings the inquiry to a close, as far as the evidence of the manuscripts is
concerned. We have referred to the oldest extant copy of the Gospels in
order to obtain its testimony: and,—“Though without the Twelve Verses
concerning which you are so solicitous,” (it seems to say,) “I yet hesitate
not to confess to you that an older copy than myself,—the ancient Codex
from which I was copied,—actually did contain them.”

The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of [pg 089] the four
oldest Codices of the Gospels extant,—B, ‫א‬, A, C,—two (B and ‫ )א‬are
without these twelve verses: two (A and C) are with them. Are these twelve
verses then an unauthorized addition to A and C? or are they an
unwarrantable omission from B and ‫ ?א‬B itself declares plainly that from
itself they are an omission. And B is the oldest Codex of the Gospel in
existence. What candid mind will persist in clinging to the solitary fact that
from the single Codex ‫ א‬these verses are away, in proof that “S. Mark's
Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude it?”

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?

(a) “Those many Fathers whom you represented as hostile, prove on
investigation to be reducible to one, viz. Eusebius: and Eusebius, as we
have seen, does not say that the verses are spurious, but on the contrary
labours hard to prove that they may very well be genuine. On the other
hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote them without any

signs of misgiving. In this way, the positive evidence in their favour is
carried back to the iind century.

(b) “Declining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted on an appeal to
MSS. On the MSS., in fact, you still make your stand,—or rather you rely
on the oldest of them; for, (as you are aware,) every MS. in the world except
the two oldest are against you.

“I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.; and it has
volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than [pg 090] itself—the Codex
from which it was copied—was furnished with those very Verses which you
wish me to believe that some older MS. still must needs have been without.
What else can be said, then, of your method but that it is frivolous? and of
your charge, but that it is contradicted by the evidence to which you
yourselves appeal?

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

“For it is high time to point out that even if it so happened that the oldest
known MS. was observed to be without these twelve concluding verses, it
would still remain a thing unproved (not to say highly improbable) that
from the autograph of the Evangelist himself they were also away.
Supposing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the iind or iiird century
could be found who quoted them: even so, it would not follow that there
existed no such verses for a primitive Father to quote. The earliest of the
Versions might in addition yield faltering testimony; but even so, who
would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis the monstrous
hypothesis, that S. Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of its inspired
Author was without the verses which at present conclude it? How, then,
would you have proposed to account for the consistent testimony of an
opposite kind yielded by every other known document in the world?

“But, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case? (1) The earliest of
the Fathers,—(2) the most venerable of the Versions,—(3) the oldest MS. of
which we can obtain any tidings,—all are observed to recognize these
Verses. ‘Cadit quaestio’ therefore. The last shadow of pretext has vanished
for maintaining with Tischendorf that ‘Mark the Evangelist knew nothing

of’ these verses:—with Tregelles that ‘The book of Mark himself extends
no further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ:’—with Griesbach that ‘the last leaf of the
original Gospel was probably torn away.’... It is high time, I say, that this
case were dismissed. But there are also costs to be paid. Cod. B and Cod. ‫א‬
are convicted of being ‘two false witnesses,’ and must be held to go forth
from this inquiry with an injured reputation.”

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

[pg 091]

CHAPTER VII.

MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO
BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF
THESE VERSES.—PART II.

The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and ‫( א‬viz. the omission of the
words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1) considered.—Antiquity unfavourable to
the omission of those words (p. 93).—The Moderns infelicitous in their
attempts to account for their omission (p. 100).—Marcion probably the
author of this corruption of the Text of Scripture (p. 106).—Other
peculiarities of Codex ‫ א‬disposed of (p. 109).

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.

“There are two remarkable readings,” (says Tischendorf, addressing English
readers on this subject in 1868,) “which are very instructive towards
determining the age of the manuscripts [‫ א‬and B], and their authority.” He
proceeds to adduce,—

1. The absence from both, of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel,—
concerning which, the reader probably thinks that by this time he has heard
enough. Next,—

2. He appeals to their omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from the first verse
of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,—another peculiarity, in which Codd.
‫ א‬and B stand quite alone among MSS.

I. Here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the
New Testament indeed. Altogether unique is it: and that it powerfully
corroborates the general opinion [pg 092] of their high antiquity, no one
will deny. But how about “their authority”? Does the coincidence also raise
our opinion of the trustworthiness of the Text, which these two MSS. concur
in exhibiting? for that is the question which has to be considered,—the only
question. The ancientness of a reading is one thing: its genuineness, (as I
have explained elsewhere,) quite another. The questions are entirely
distinct. It may even be added that while the one is really of little moment,
the latter is of all the importance in the world. I am saying that it matters
very little whether Codd. ‫ א‬and B were written in the beginning of the ivth
century, or in the beginning of the vth: whereas it matters much, or rather it
matters everything, whether they exhibit the Word of God faithfully, or
occasionally with scandalous license. How far the reading which results
from the suppression of the last two words in the phrase τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς
οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, is critically allowable or not, I forbear to inquire. That is
not the point which we have to determine. The one question to be
considered is,—May it possibly be the true reading of the text after all? Is it
any way credible that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as follows:
—Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς
οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ?... If it be eagerly declared in reply that
the thing is simply incredible: that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are required for the
sense; and that the commonly received reading is no doubt the correct one:
then,—there is an end of the discussion. Two extraordinary notes of
sympathy between two Manuscripts will have been appealed to as crucial
proofs of the trustworthiness of the Text of those Manuscripts: (for of their
high Antiquity, let me say it once more, there can be no question whatever:)
and it will have been proved in one case,—admitted in the other,—that the
omission is unwarrantable.—If, however, on the contrary, it be maintained
that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ probably had no place in the original copy of this
Epistle, but are to be regarded as an unauthorized addition to it,—then, (as
in the case of the Twelve Verses omitted from the end of S. Mark's Gospel,
and which it was also pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we
demand [pg 093] to be shewn the evidence on the strength of which this
opinion is maintained, in order that we may ascertain what it is precisely
worth.

Tischendorf,—the illustrious discoverer and champion of Codex ‫א‬, and who
is accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ as the other conclusive proof of the trustworthiness of its text,—
may be presumed to be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as
well as the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its support.
From him, we learn that the evidence for the omission of the words in
question is as follows:—“In the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians
we read, ‘to the saints which are at Ephesus;’ but Marcion (A.D. 130-140),
did not find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy. The same is true of Origen
(A.D. 185-254); and Basil the Great (who died A.D. 379), affirmed that
those words were wanting in old copies. And this omission accords very
well with the encyclical or general character of the Epistle. At the present
day, our ancient Greek MSS., and all ancient Versions, contain the words ‘at
Ephesus;’ yea (sic), even Jerome knew no copy with a different reading.
Now, only the Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the old copies of
Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion.”152—This then is the sum of the
evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat in detail.

(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned writer is absolutely
without authority for his assertion that “Marcion did not find the words ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ in his copy” of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Tischendorf's one
pretence for saying so is Tertullian's statement that certain heretics,
(Marcion he specifies by name,) had given to S. Paul's “Epistle to the
Ephesians” the unauthorized title of “Epistle to the Laodiceans.”153 This,
(argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not have done had he found ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
in the first verse.154 But the proposed inference is clearly invalid. [pg 094]
For, with what show of reason can Marcion,—whom Tertullian taxes with
having dared “titulum interpolare” in the case of S. Paul's “Epistle to the
Ephesians,”—be therefore, assumed to have read the first verse differently
from ourselves? Rather is the directly opposite inference suggested by the
very language in which Tertullian (who was all but the contemporary of
Marcion) alludes to the circumstance.155

Those, however, who would really understand the work of the heretic,
should turn from the African Father,—(who after all does but say that
Marcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,
that it was addressed to the Laodiceans,)—and betake themselves to the

pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a half later. This Father
had for many years made Marcion's work his special study,156 and has
elaborately described it, as well as presented us with copious extracts from
it.157 And [pg 095] the account in Epiphanius proves that Tischendorf is
mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the English reader, (quoted
above;) and that he would have better consulted for his reputation if he had
kept to the “ut videtur” with which (in his edition of 1859) he originally
broached his opinion. It proves in fact to be no matter of opinion at all.
Epiphanius states distinctly that the Epistle to the Ephesians was one of the
ten Epistles of S. Paul which Marcion retained. In his “Apostolicon,” or
collection of the (mutilated) Apostolical Epistles, the “Epistle to the
Ephesians,” (identified by the considerable quotations which Epiphanius
makes from it,158) stood (he says) seventh in order; while the (so called)
“Epistle to the Laodiceans,”—a distinct composition therefore,—had the
eleventh, that is, the last place assigned to it.159 That this latter Epistle
contained a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius
records the fact in two places.160 But then it is to be borne in mind that he
charges Marcion with having derived that quotation from the Apocryphal
Epistle to the Laodiceans;161 instead of taking it, as he ought to have done,
from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage, when faithfully
exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by its very form refutes the heretical
tenet which the context of Marcion's spurious epistle to the Laodiceans was
intended to establish; and which the verse in question, in its interpolated
form, might seem to favour.162—I have entered into [pg 096] this whole
question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: but I was determined to
prove that Tischendorf's statement that “Marcion (A.D. 130-140) did not
find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy,”—is absolutely without foundation.
It is even contradicted by the known facts of the case. I shall have
something more to say about Marcion by-and-by; who, it is quite certain,
read the text of Ephes. i. 1 exactly as we do.

(2.) The only Father who so expresses himself as to warrant the inference
that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were absent from his copy, is Origen, in the
beginning of the third century. “Only in the case of the Ephesians,” (he
writes), “do we meet with the expression ‘the Saints which are:’ and we
inquire,—Unless that additional phrase be simply redundant, what can it
possibly signify? Consider, then, whether those who have been partakers of

His nature who revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I am, may not,
in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as ‘those which are:’
persons, called out, of a state of not-being, so to speak, into a state of
being.”163—If Origen had read τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy,
it is to me incredible that he would have gone so very far out of his way to
miss the sense of such a plain, and in fact, [pg 097] unmistakable an
expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis before him,—reasoning
however only from the place in Basil, (to be quoted immediately,)—are
unwilling to allow that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were ever away from the text.
It must be admitted as the obvious inference from what Jerome has
delivered on this subject (infrà, p. 98 note) that he, too, seems to know
nothing of the reading (if reading it can be called) of Codd. B and ‫א‬.

(3) The influence which Origen's writings exercised over his own and the
immediately succeeding ages of the Church, was prodigious. Basil, bishop
of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, writing against the heresy of Eunomius about
150 years later,—although he read ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his own copy of S. Paul's
Epistles,—thought fit to avail himself of Origen's suggestion. It suited his
purpose. He was proving the eternal existence of the Son of God. Even not
to know God (he remarks) is not to be: in proof of which, he quotes S.
Paul's words in 1 Cor. i. 28:—“Things which are not, hath God chosen.”
“Nay,” (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, “in his Epistle to the Ephesians,
inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge were
truly joined to Him who ‘is,’ designates them specially as ‘those which are:’
saying,—‘To the Saints which are, and faithful in Christ Jesus.’ ” That this
fancy was not original, Basil makes no secret. He derived it, (he says,) from
“those who were before us;” a plain allusion to the writings of Origen. But
neither was the reading his own, either. This is evident. He had found it, he
says,—(an asseveration indispensable to the validity of his argument,)—but
only after he had made search,164—“in the old copies.”165 No doubt, Origen's
strange fancy must have been even unintelligible to Basil when first he met
with it. In plain terms, it sounds to this day incredibly foolish,—when read
apart from the mutilated text which alone suggested it to Origen's fervid
imagination.—But [pg 098] what there is in all this to induce us to suspect
that Origen's reading was after all the right one, and ours the wrong, I
profess myself wholly at a loss to discover. Origen himself complains
bitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time; and attributes it (1) to

the carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of correctors of the text:
(3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopting some of these corrections
and rejecting others, according to their own private caprice.166

(4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters than either Origen or
Basil, after rehearsing the preceding gloss, (but only to reject it,) remarks
that “certain persons” had been “over-fanciful” in putting it forth. He
alludes probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians, in three
books, he expressly relates that he employed:167 but he does not seem to
have apprehended that Origen's text was without the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. If he
was acquainted with Origen's text, (of which, however, his writings afford
no indication,) it is plain that he disapproved of it. Others, he says,
understand S. Paul to say not “the Saints which are:” but,—“the Saints and
faithful which are at Ephesus.”168

(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit that there has been
elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to shake our
confidence in the universally received reading of Ephesians i. 1. The facts
of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully stated in a single
sentence. Two MSS. of the ivth century, (exhibiting in other respects several
striking notes of vicious sympathy,) are found to conspire in omitting a
clause in Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it is to the sense,) may be
inferred to have been absent from Origen's copy: and [pg 099] Basil
testifies that it was absent from “the old copies” to which he himself
obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter: in which it is much
to be noted that Origen does not say that he approved of this reading. Still
less does Basil. They both witness to the fact that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were
omitted from some copies of the iiird century, just as Codd. B and ‫ א‬witness
to the same fact in the ivth. But what then? Origen is known occasionally to
go out of his way to notice readings confessedly worthless; and, why not
here? For not only is the text all but unintelligible if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ be
omitted: but (what is far more to the purpose) the direct evidence of all the
copies, whether uncial or cursive,169—and of all the Versions,—is against
the omission. In the face of this overwhelming mass of unfaltering evidence
to insist that Codd. B and ‫ א‬must yet be accounted right, and all the rest of
Antiquity wrong, is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of

this nonsensical reading, of two MSS. confessedly untrustworthy in
countless other places,—against all the MSS.—all the Versions,—is
nothing else but an act of vulgar prejudice. I venture to declare,—(and with
this I shall close the discussion and dismiss the subject,)—that there does
not exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament of a reading
even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin
concur,—which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings
which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz.

1. The adverse testimony of all the uncial MSS. except two.

2. The adverse testimony of all, or very nearly all, the cursive MSS.

[pg 100]
3. The adverse testimony of all the Versions, without exception.

4. The adverse testimony of the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers.

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

5. The highest inherent improbability,—it is only because I desire to treat
this question purely as one of Evidence.

II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity to account for the phenomenon
on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is
commendable; but I take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set
about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every
corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first
three centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough to
do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod. B
shews marvellous sympathy170,) and explain if he can why there is a grave
omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and how it
comes to pass that Cod. D “reproduces the ‘textus receptus’ of the Acts
much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the
Hebrew of the Old Testament; so wide are the variations in the diction, so
constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means
of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even
a semblance of internal probability.”171 Our business as Critics is not to

invent theories to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to ascertain
where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable depravations
of early Heretics,—the preposterous emendations of ancient Critics,—the
injudicious assiduity of Harmonizers,—the licentious caprice of
individuals;—what with errors resulting from the inopportune recollection
of similar or parallel places,—or from the familiar phraseology of the
Ecclesiastical Lections,—or from the inattention of Scribes,—or from
marginal glosses;—however arising, endless are the corrupt readings of the
oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means safe to [pg 101] follow up
the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory to account for its
existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories are seldom
satisfactory. Guesses only they are at best.

Thus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of Ussher,—
(which, however, found favour with Garnier (Basil's editor), Bengel,
Benson, and Michaelis; and has since been not only eagerly advocated by
Conybeare and Howson following a host of German Critics, but has even
enjoyed Mr. Scrivener's distinct approval;)—that the Epistle to the
Ephesians “was a Circular addressed to other Asiatic Cities besides the
capital Ephesus,—to Laodicea perhaps among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and that
while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephesus in the first
verse, others may have had another city substituted, or the space after τοῖς
οὔσιν left utterly void.”172 At first sight, this conjecture has a kind of
interesting plausibility which recommends it to our favour. On closer
inspection,—(i) It is found to be not only gratuitous; but (ii) altogether
unsupported and unsanctioned by the known facts of the case; and (what is
most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I humbly think, demonstrably erroneous. I
demur to it,—

(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (a) when S. Paul sent his
Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tychicus, the bearer of it,173 was
charged with a distinct Epistle to the Colossians:174 an Epistle nevertheless
so singularly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is scarcely credible S.
Paul would have written those two several Epistles to two of the Churches
of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of them, (that to the
Ephesians,) furnished with a different address, to so large and important a
place as Laodicea, for example, (b) Then further, the provision which S.

Paul made at this very time for communicating with the Churches of Asia
which he did not separately address is found to have been different. The
Laodiceans were to read in their public assembly S. Paul's “Epistle to the
Colossians,” which the Colossians were ordered to send them. The
Colossians [pg 102] in like manner were to read the Epistle,—(to whom
addressed, we know not),—which S. Paul describes as τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας.175
If then it had been S. Paul's desire that the Laodiceans (suppose) should
read publicly in their Churches his Epistle to the Ephesians, surely, he
would have charged the Ephesians to procure that his Epistle to them should
be read in the Church of the Laodiceans. Why should the Apostle be
gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously adopted one method with the
Churches of Colosse and Laodicea,—another with the Churches of Ephesus
and Laodicea,—in respect of his epistolary communications?

(2) (a) But even supposing, for argument's sake, that S. Paul did send
duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the principal
Churches of Asia Minor,—why should he have left the salutation blank,
(“carta bianca,” as Bengel phrases it,176) for Tychicus to fill up when he got
into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short of this would
account for the reading of Codd. B and ‫א‬.

(b) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature be
clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A copy of
what we call S. Paul's “Epistle to the Ephesians” sent into Asia Minor by S.
Paul with a blank address; i.e. “with the space after τοῖς οὔσιν left utterly
void:” (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that blank: and, (what is
remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up for him. Next, (4) That
the same copy became the fontal source of the copy seen by Origen, and (5)
Of the “old copies” seen by Basil; as well as (6) Of Codd. B and ‫א‬. And
even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains us to suppose that, on
the contrary, (7) One other copy of this same “Encyclical Epistle,” filled up
with the Ephesian address, became the archetype of every other copy of this
Epistle in the world.... But of what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed
necessity for building up such a marvellous structure of hypothesis,—of
which the top story overhangs and overbalances all the rest of the edifice?
The thing which puzzles us in Codd. B and ‫ א‬is not that we find the name
of another City in the salutation of S. Paul's “Epistle [pg 103] to the

Ephesians,” but that we find the name of no city at all; nor meet with any
vacant space there.

(c) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to
different Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as of
course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious
documents left his hands,—then, doubtless, each several Church would
have received, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if this
had been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the
Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a word
about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there should
nowhere exist traces of conflicting testimony as to the Church to which S.
Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas all the most ancient
writers, without exception,—(Marcion himself [A.D. 140177], the
“Muratorian” fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Irenæus [A.D. 175], Clemens
Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian,
Eusebius,)—and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying,
unfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. ‫א‬, (and this is much to be
noted,) the superscription of the Epistle attests that it was addressed “to the
Ephesians.” Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in
inventing facts in the history of an Apostle's practice, in order to account for
what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his text?178

[pg 104]
(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such “a Circular” as was
described above, (each copy furnished with a blank, to be filled up with the
name of a different City,) would be a document without parallel in the
annals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware, essentially a
modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the suggestion before us is only
another instance of the fatal misapprehension which results from the
incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some familiar word in a
living language to its supposed equivalent in an ancient tongue. Thus,
because κύκλιος or ἐγκύκλιος confessedly signifies “circularis,” it seems to
be imagined that ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολή may mean “a Circular Letter.”
Whereas it really means nothing of the sort; but—“a Catholic Epistle.”179

An “Encyclical” (and that is the word which has been imported into the
present discussion), was quite a different document from what we call “a
Circular.” Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was
Catholic or General,—the common property of all to whom it came. The
General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, S. John are
“Encyclical.”180 So is the well-known Canonical Epistle which Gregory, Bp.
of Neocæsaræa in Pontus, in the middle of the third century, sent to the
Bishops of his province.181 As for “a blank circular” to be filled up with [pg
105] the words “in Ephesus,” “in Laodicea,” &c.,—its like (I repeat) is
wholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. The two notions
are at all events inconsistent and incompatible. If S. Paul's Epistle to the
Ephesians was “a Circular,” then it was not “Encyclical:” if it was
“Encyclical” then it was not “a Circular.”

Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are logically
reduced,) 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 τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ?
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 ἐν Ἐφέσῳ 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.182 It is observed to collapse before every test
which can be applied to it.

[pg 106]
III. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me,—if men must needs
account for the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from this place,—that they
should have recourse to wild, improbable, and wholly unsupported theories,
like those which go before; while an easy,—I was going to say the obvious,
—solution of the problem is close at hand, and even solicits acceptance.

Marcion the heretic, (A.D. 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (A.D.
200), 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.183 “Instead of a stylus,” (says Tertullian,) “Marcion employed a
knife.” “What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he omits whole
pages?”184 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.

Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul's Epistle “to the Ephesians” that
Apostolical writing which stands fifth in our Canon, (but which stood
seventh in his,) is just as certain as that he recognised as such S. Paul's
Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Colossians,
[pg 107] Philippians. All this has been fully explained in a preceding
page.185

But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul's another Epistle,—
of which all we know for certain is, that it contained portions of the Epistle
to the Ephesians, and purported to be addressed by S. Paul “to the
Laodiceans.” To ascertain with greater precision the truth of this matter at
the end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible. Nor is it
necessary. Obvious is it to suspect that not only did this heretical teacher at
some period of his career prefix a new heading to certain copies of the
Epistle to the Ephesians, but also that some of his followers industriously
erased from certain other copies the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in ver. 1,—as being
the only two words in the entire Epistle which effectually refuted their
Master. It was not needful, (be it observed,) to multiply copies of the Epistle
for the propagation of Marcion's deceit. Only two words had to be erased,—
the very two words whose omission we are trying to account for,—in order
to give some colour to his proposed attribution of the Epistle, (“quasi in isto
diligentissimus explorator,”)—to the Laodiceans. One of these mutilated
copies will have fallen into the hands of Origen,—who often complains of
the corrupt state of his text: while the critical personages for whom Cod. B
and Cod. ‫ א‬were transcribed will probably have been acquainted with other
such mutilated copies. Are we not led, as it were by the hand, to take some
such view of the case? In this way we account satisfactorily, and on grounds
of historic evidence, for the omission which has exercised the Critics so
severely.

I do not lose sight of the fact that the Epistle to the Ephesians ends without
salutations, without personal notices of any kind. But in this respect it is not
peculiar.186 That,—joined to a singular absence of identifying allusion,—
sufficiently explains why Marcion selected this particular Epistle for the
subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this circumstance, in defiance of the
Tradition of the Church Universal, and in defiance of its very Title, that the
Epistle is [pg 108] “Encyclical,” in the technical sense of that word; and to
go on to urge this characteristic as an argument in support of the omission
of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ,—is clearly the device of an eager Advocate; not the
method of a calm and unprejudiced Judge. True it is that S. Paul,—who,
writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus, says “the Churches of Asia salute
you,” (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)—may have known very well that an Epistle of his
“to the Ephesians,” would, as a matter of course, be instantly communicated
to others besides the members of that particular Church: and in fact this
may explain why there is nothing specially “Ephesian” in the contents of
the Epistle. The Apostle,—(as when he addressed “the Churches of
Galatia,”)—may have had certain of the other neighbouring Churches in his
mind while he wrote. But all this is wholly foreign to the question before
us: the one only question being this,—Which of the three following
addresses represents what S. Paul must be considered to have actually
written in the first verse of his “Epistle to the Ephesians”?—

(1) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

(2) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν ... καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

(3) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

What I have been saying amounts to this: that it is absolutely unreasonable
for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting every element of
probability in order to account for the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
from S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have under their eyes the
express testimony of a competent witness of the iind century that a certain
heretic, named Marcion, “presumed to prefix an unauthorized title to that
very Epistle,” (“Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit,”)—which
title obviously could not stand unless those two words were first erased
from the text. To interpolate that new title, and to erase the two words which

were plainly inconsistent with it, were obviously correlative acts which
must always have been performed together.

But however all this may be, (as already pointed out,) the only question to
be determined by us is,—whether it be credible that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
are an unauthorized [pg 109] addition; foisted into the text of Ephes. i. 1 as
far back as the Apostolic age: an interpolation which, instead of dying out,
and at last all but disappearing, has spread and established itself, until the
words are found in every copy,—are represented in every translation,—
have been recognised in every country,—witnessed to by every Father,—
received in every age of the Church? I repeat that the one question which
has to be decided is, not how the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ came to be put in, or
came to be left out; but simply whether, on an impartial review of the
evidence, it be reasonable (with Tischendorf, Tregelles, Conybeare and
Howson, and so many more,) to suspect their genuineness and enclose them
in brackets? Is it credible that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are a spurious and
unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph of the Apostle?... We have
already, as I think, obtained a satisfactory answer to this question. It has
been shewn, as conclusively as in inquiries of this nature is possible, that in
respect of the reading of Ephesians i. 1, Codd. B and ‫ א‬are even most
conspicuously at fault.

IV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted of error in respect of the one
remaining text which their chief upholders have selected, and to which they
still make their most confident appeal,—what remains, but to point out that
it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their minds of the
extravagant opinion which they have been so industriously taught to
entertain of the value of the two Codices in question? It has already
degenerated into an unreasoning prejudice, and threatens at last to add one
more to the already overgrown catalogue of “vulgar errors.”

V. I cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by Tischendorf than by transcribing
in conclusion his remarks on the four remaining readings of Codex ‫ א‬to
which he triumphantly appeals: promising to dismiss them all with a single
remark. He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his “Introduction” to the
Tauchnitz (English) New Testament187:—

“To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen says on John i. 4,
that in some copies it was written, ‘in Him is life’ for ‘in Him was life.’ This
is a reading which [pg 110] we find in sundry quotations before the time
188
of Origen; but now, among all known Greek MSS. it is only in the
Sinaitic, and the famous old Codex Bezae, a copy of the Gospels at
Cambridge; yet it is also found in most of the early Latin versions, in the
most ancient Syriac, and in the oldest Coptic.—Again, in Matth. xiii. 35,
Jerome observes [pg 111] that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist
of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew for having said,
‘which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.’ A writing of the second century
had already witnessed to the same reading; but Jerome adds further that well-
informed men had long ago removed the name of Esaias. Among all our
MSS. of a thousand years old and upwards, there is not a solitary example
containing the name of Esaias in the text referred to,—except the Sinaitic, to
which a few of less than a thousand years old may be added.—Once more,
Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but only the Sinaitic and several
ancient Latin MSS. read it the same as Origen: ‘He that is washed needeth
not to wash, but is clean every whit.’—In John vi. 51, also, where the reading
is very difficult to settle, the Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies
indubitably correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second century, confirms
the Sinaitic reading: ‘If any man eat of my bread, he shall live for ever. The
bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ We omit to
indicate further illustrations of this kind, although there are many others like
189
them.”

Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to [pg 112] exist in the
mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless confusion between the antiquity of
a Codex and the value of its readings. I venture to assert that a reading is
valuable or the contrary, exactly in proportion to the probability of its being
true or false. Interesting it is sure to be, be it what it may, if it be found in a
very ancient codex,—interesting and often instructive: but the editor of
Scripture must needs bring every reading, wherever found, to this test at
last:—Is it to be thought that what I am here presented with is what the
Evangelist or the Apostle actually wrote? If an answer in the negative be
obtained to this question, then, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early
Fathers appear to have so read the place, will not avail to impart to the
rejected reading one particle of value. And yet Tischendorf thinks it enough

in all the preceding passages to assure his reader that a given reading in
Cod. ‫ א‬was recognised by Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have
established this one point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in
all this an utterly false major premiss: viz. That Scriptural quotations found
in the writings of Origen, of Tertullian, of Jerome, must needs be the
ipsissima verba of the Spirit. Whereas it is notorious “that the worst
corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated
within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus and the whole
Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts
to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries
later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”190 And one is astonished that a
Critic of so much sagacity, (who of course knows better,) should
deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy,—not only without a word of
explanation, a word of caution, but in such a manner as inevitably to
mislead an unsuspecting reader. Without offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must
be allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been considering, he
shews himself far more bent on glorifying the “Codex Sinaiticus” than in
establishing the Truth of the pure Word of God. He convinces me that to
have found [pg 113] an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have
“taken a gift.” Verily, “it doth blind the eyes of the wise.”191

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; (and a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New
Testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a
trustworthy basis;) 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 ‫א‬. 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 ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are an unauthorized interpolation of the
inspired Text.

And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex ‫א‬.

I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the “Internal
Evidence,” but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet
fully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient “Scholia”
and “Notes,” and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection of
ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this may reasonably claim
one entire Chapter to itself.

[pg 114]

CHAPTER VIII.

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 (p. 117).—Scholz' serious
blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).—Griesbach's sweeping misstatement (pp.
121-2).—The grave misapprehension which has resulted from all this
inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3); Codex L (p. 123).—Ammonius not the
author of the so-called “Ammonian” Sections (p. 125).—Epiphanius (p. 132).
—“Caesarius,” a misnomer.—“The Catenae,” misrepresented (p. 133).

In the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review whatever manuscript
testimony still remains unconsidered; our attention having been hitherto
exclusively devoted to Codices B and ‫א‬. True, that the rest of the evidence
may be disposed of in a single short sentence:—The Twelve Verses under
discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence with the
exception of Codices B and ‫א‬. But then,

I. We are assured,—(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)—that “a Note or a
Scholion stating the absence of these verses from many, from most, or from
the most correct copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in twenty-

five other cursive Codices.”192 Tischendorf has nearly the same words:
“Scholia” (he says) “in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of Mark in
the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the ninth verse.” That
distinguished Critic supports his assertion by appealing to seven MSS. in
particular,—and referring generally to “about twenty-five others.” Dr.
Davidson adopts every word of this blindfold.

1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department of the
Evidence would become deserving of serious [pg 115] attention. But I
simply deny the fact. I entirely deny that the “Note or Scholion” which
these learned persons affirm to be of such frequent occurrence has any
existence whatever,—except in their own imaginations. On the other hand, I
assert that notes or scholia which state the exact reverse, (viz. that “in the
older” or “the more accurate copies” the last twelve verses of S. Mark's
Gospel are contained,) recur even perpetually. The plain truth is this:—
These eminent persons have taken their information at second-hand,—
partly from Griesbach, partly from Scholz,—without suspicion and without
inquiry. But then they have slightly misrepresented Scholz; and Scholz
(1830) slightly misunderstood Griesbach; and Griesbach (1796) took
liberties with Wetstein; and Wetstein (1751) made a few serious mistakes.
The consequence might have been anticipated. The Truth, once thrust out of
sight, certain erroneous statements have usurped its place,—which every
succeeding Critic now reproduces, evidently to his own entire satisfaction;
though not, it must be declared, altogether to his own credit. Let me be
allowed to explain in detail what has occurred.

2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German plan of setting
down all the twenty-five MSS.193 and all the five Patristic authorities which
up to his time had been cited as bearing on the genuineness of S. Mark xvi.
9-20: giving the former in numerical order, and stating generally
concerning them that in one or other of those authorities it would be found
recorded “that the verses in question were anciently wanting in some, or in
most, or in almost all the Greek copies, or in the most accurate ones:—or
else that they were found in a few, or in the more accurate copies, or in
many, or in most of them, specially in the Palestinian Gospel.” The learned
writer (who had made up his mind long before that the verses in question
are to be rejected) no doubt perceived that this would be the most

convenient way of disposing of the evidence for and against: but one is at a
loss to understand how English scholars can have acquiesced in such a
slipshod statement for well nigh [pg 116] a hundred years. A very little
study of the subject would have shewn them that Griesbach derived the first
eleven of his references from Wetstein,194 the last fourteen from Birch.195 As
for Scholz, he unsuspiciously adopted Griesbach's fatal enumeration of
Codices; adding five to the number; and only interrupting the series here
and there, in order to insert the quotations which Wetstein had already
supplied from certain of them. With Scholz, therefore, rests the blame of
everything which has been written since 1830 concerning the MS. evidence
for this part of S. Mark's Gospel; subsequent critics having been content to
adopt his statements without acknowledgment and without examination.
Unfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such a slovenly style, that
besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones; which, of course,
have been reproduced by those who have simply translated or transcribed
him. And now I shall examine his note “(z)”,196 with which practically all
that has since been delivered on this subject by Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Davidson, and the rest, is identical.

(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two MSS. in the Vatican
Library197 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.198 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
[pg 117] witnesses against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the
Gospel according to S. Mark.

And yet, (let me say it without offence,) a very little attention ought to be
enough to convince any one familiar with this subject that the proposed
inference is absolutely inadmissible. For, in the first place, a solitary
asterisk (not at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.199) has of necessity
no such signification. And even if it does sometimes indicate that all the
verses which follow are suspicious, (of which, however, I have never seen
an example,) it clearly could not have that signification here,—for a reason
which I should have thought an intelligent boy might discover.

Well aware, however, that I should never be listened to, with Birch and
Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and indeed every one else against me,
—I got a learned friend at Rome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and
inspect the two Codices in question.200 That he would find Birch right in his
facts, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more than doubted the
correctness of his proposed inference from them. I even felt convinced that
the meaning and purpose of the asterisks in question would be
demonstrably different from what Birch had imagined.

Altogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found that the learned Dane
has here made one of those (venial, but) unfortunate blunders to which
every one is liable who registers phenomena of this class in haste, and does
not methodize his memoranda until he gets home. To be brief,—there
proves to be no asterisk at all,—either in Cod. 756, or in Cod. 757.

On the contrary. After ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, the former Codex has, in the text of
S. Mark xvi. 9 (fol. 150 b), a plain cross,—(not an asterisk, thus [symbol: x
with dots in corners] or [symbol: broken x with corner dots] or [symbol:
inverse or open x], but a cross, thus +),—the intention of which is to refer
the reader to an annotation on fol. 151 b, (marked, of course, with a cross
also,) to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is undoubtedly [pg 118] genuine.201
The evidence, therefore, not only breaks hopelessly down; but it is
discovered that this witness has been by accident put into the wrong box.
This is, in fact, a witness not for the plaintiff, but for the defendant!—As for
the other Codex, it exhibits neither asterisk nor cross; but contains the same
note or scholion attesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of 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. (“I took thee to curse mine enemies, and,
behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.”)

(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as follows:—“From
here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. In the
ancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text.”202 Scholz (who was
the first to adduce this important testimony to the genuineness of the verses

now under consideration) takes no notice of the singular circumstance that
the two MSS. he mentions have been exactly assimilated in ancient times to
a common model; and that they correspond one with the other so entirely203
that the foregoing rubrical annotation appears in the wrong place in both of
them, viz. at the close of ver. 15, where it interrupts the text. This was,
therefore, once a scholion written in the margin of some very ancient
Codex, which has lost its way in the process of transcription; (for there can
be no doubt that it was originally written against ver. 8.) And let it be noted
that its testimony is express; and that it avouches for the fact that “in the
ancient copies,” S. Mark xvi. 9-20 “formed part of the text.”

[pg 119]
(3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the same two MSS., (of
which also Scholz says nothing,) viz. that they exhibit a text which had
been “collated with the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem.”204 What
need to point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in conjunction with
the express voucher that “although some copies of the Gospels are without
the verses under discussion, yet that in the ancient copies all the verses are
found,” is a critical attestation to the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20,
far outweighing the bare statement (next to be noticed) of the undeniable
historical fact that, “in some copies,” S. Mark ends at ver. 8,—but “in many
does not”?

(4.) Scholz proceeds:—“In Cod. 22, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τελος is read the
following rubric:”—

ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγγελιστής: ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ
καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται.205

And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by all subsequent
Critics and Editors,—cross, and “τέλος,” and all,—as an additional ancient
attestation to the fact that “The End” (τέλος) of S. Mark's Gospel is indeed
at ch. xvi. 8. Strange,—incredible rather,—that among so many learned
persons, not one should have perceived that “τέλος” in this place merely
denotes that here a well-known Ecclesiastical section comes to an end!... As
far, therefore, as the present discussion is concerned, the circumstance is
purely irrelevant;206 [pg 120] and, (as I propose to shew in Chapter XI,) the
less said about it by the opposite party, the better.

(5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,) other Codices very
nearly the same colophon as the preceding recurs, with an important
additional clause. In Codd. 1, 199, 206, 209, (he says) is read,—

“In certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here; up to which place
Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized. In other copies, however, is
found as follows.”207 And then comes the rest of S. Mark's Gospel.

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, (let me in the
meantime ask), 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?

(6.) The reader's attention is specially invited to the imposing statement
which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says Scholz,) “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.

It may sound fabulous, but it is strictly true, that every word of this,
(unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by every Critic who has since gone
over the same ground,) is a mere tissue of mistakes. For first,—Cod. 23
contains nothing whatever pertinent to the present inquiry. (Scholz,
evidently through haste and inadvertence, has confounded his own [pg 121]
“23” with “Coisl. 23,” but “Coisl. 23” is his “39,”—of which by-and-by.
This reference therefore has to be cancelled.)—Cod. 41 contains a scholion
of precisely the opposite tendency: I mean, a scholion which avers that the
accurate copies of S. Mark's Gospel contain these last twelve verses.
(Scholz borrowed this wrong reference from Wetstein,—who, by an
oversight, quotes Cod. 41 three times instead of twice.)—There remain but
Codd. 34 and 39; and in neither of those two manuscripts, from the first
page of S. Mark's Gospel to the last, does there exist any “scholion of

Severus of Antioch” whatever. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently made a
gross misstatement;208 and every Critic who has since written on this subject
has adopted his words,—without acknowledgment and without
examination.... Such is the evidence on which it is proposed to prove that S.
Mark did not write the last twelve verses of his Gospel!

(7.) Scholz proceeds to enumerate the following twenty-two Codices:—24,
34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 199, 206,
209, 210, 221, 222. And this imposing catalogue is what has misled
Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest. They have not perceived that it is a
mere transcript of Griesbach's list; which Scholz interrupts only to give
from Cod. 24, (imperfectly and at second-hand,) the weighty scholion,
(Wetstein had given it from Cod. 41,) which relates, on the authority of an
eye-witness, that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 existed in the ancient Palestinian Copy.
(About that Scholion enough has been offered already.209) Scholz adds that
very nearly the same words are found in 374.—What he says concerning
206 and 209 (and he might have added 199,) has been explained above.

But when the twenty MSS. which remain210 undisposed of have been
scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite [pg 122] different from
what is commonly supposed. One of them (No. 38) has been cited in error:
while the remaining nineteen are nothing else but copies of Victor of
Antioch's commentary on S. Mark,—no less than sixteen of which contain
the famous attestation that in most of the accurate copies, and in particular
the authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel
were found. (See above, pp. 64 and 65.).... And this exhausts the evidence.

(8.) So far, therefore, as “Notes” and “Scholia” in MSS. are concerned, the
sum of the matter proves to be simply this:—(a) Nine Codices211 are
observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark's Gospel,
though wanting “in some,” was yet found “in others,”—“in many,”—“in the
ancient copies.”

(b) Next, four Codices212 contain subscriptions vouching for the
genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring that those four
Codices had been collated with approved copies preserved at Jerusalem.

(c) Lastly, sixteen Codices,—(to which, besides that already mentioned by
Scholz,213 I am able to add at least five others, making twenty-two in all,214)
—contain a weighty critical scholion asserting categorically that in “very
many” and “accurate copies,” specially in the “true Palestinian exemplar,”
these verses had been found by one who seems to have verified the fact of
their existence there for himself.

(9.) And now, shall I be thought unfair if, on a review of the premisses, I
assert that I do not see a shadow of reason for the imposing statement which
has been adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that “there exist
about thirty Codices which state that from the more ancient and more
accurate copies of the Gospel, the last twelve verses of S. Mark were
absent?” I repeat, there is not so much as one single Codex which contains
such a scholion; [pg 123] while twenty-four215 of those commonly
enumerated state the exact reverse.—We may now advance a step: but the
candid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the supposed hostile evidence
is on the contrary entirely in favour of the verses under discussion. (“I
called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed
them these three times.”)

II. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.216 This is the designation of
an uncial MS. of the viiith or ixth century, in the Library at Paris, chiefly
remarkable for the correspondence of its readings with those of Cod. B and
with certain of the citations in Origen; a peculiarity which recommends
Cod. L, (as it recommends three cursive Codices of the Gospels, 1, 33, 69,)
to the especial favour of a school with which whatever is found in Cod. B is
necessarily right. It is described as the work of an ignorant foreign copyist,
who probably wrote with several MSS. before him; but who is found to
have been wholly incompetent to determine which reading to adopt and
which to reject. Certain it is that he interrupts himself, at the end of ver. 8,
to write as follows:—

“Something to this effect is also met with:

“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.

“But this also is met with after the words, ‘for they were afraid:’

217
“Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the week,” &c.

[pg 124]
It cannot be needful that I should delay the reader with any remarks on such
a termination of the Gospel as the foregoing. It was evidently the
production of some one who desired to remedy the conspicuous
incompleteness of his own copy of S. Mark's Gospel, but who had imbibed
so little of the spirit of the Evangelical narrative that he could not in the
least imitate the Evangelist's manner. As for the scribe who executed Codex
L, he was evidently incapable of distinguishing the grossest fabrication
from the genuine text. The same worthless supplement is found in the
margin of the Hharklensian Syriac (A.D. 616), and in a few other quarters
of less importance.218—I pass on, with the single remark that I am utterly at
a loss to understand on what principle Cod. L,—a solitary MS. of the viiith
or ixth century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious text,—is to [pg 125]
be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the present occasion,
rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence it bears concerning the last
twelve verses of the second Gospel by all the seventeen remaining Uncials,
(three of which are from 300 to 400 years more ancient than itself;) and by
every cursive copy of the Gospels in existence. Quite certain at least is it
that not the faintest additional probability is established by Cod. L that S.
Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of its inspired Author was in a
mutilated condition. The copyist shews that he was as well acquainted as
his neighbours with our actual concluding Verses: while he betrays his own
incapacity, by seeming to view with equal favour the worthless alternative
which he deliberately transcribes as well, and to which he gives the
foremost place. Not S. Mark's Gospel, but Codex L is the sufferer by this
appeal.

III. I go back now to the statements found in certain Codices of the xth
century, (derived probably from one of older date,) to the effect that “the
marginal references to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than ver.
8:”—for so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. 120,) ἕως οὖ
Εὐσέβιους ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν, which are found at the end of ver. 8 in
Codd. 1, 206, 209.

(1.) Now this statement need not have delayed us for many minutes. But
then, therewith, recent Critics have seen fit to connect another and an
entirely distinct proposition: viz. that

Ammonius

also, a contemporary of Origen, conspires with Eusebius in disallowing the
genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel. This is in fact a piece of
evidence to which recently special prominence has been given: every Editor
of the Gospels in turn, since Wetstein, having reproduced it; but no one
more emphatically than Tischendorf. “Neither by the sections of Ammonius
nor yet by the canons of Eusebius are these last verses recognised”219 “Thus
it is seen,” [pg 126] proceeds Dr. Tregelles, “that just as Eusebius found
these verses absent in his day from the best and most numerous copies (sic),
so was also the case with Ammonius when he formed his Harmony in the
preceding century.”220

(The opposite page exhibits an exact Fac-simile, obtained by Photography,
of fol. 113 of Evan. Cod. L, (“Codex Regius,” No. 62,) at Paris; containing
S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;—as explained at pp. 123-4. The Text of that MS. has
been published by Dr. Tischendorf in his “Monumenta Sacra Inedita,”
(1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. 206.)

(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the obliging
permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the Manuscript Department
of the “Bibliothèque.” He has my best thanks for the kindness with which
he promoted my wishes and facilitated my researches.)

(It should perhaps be stated that the margin of “Codex L” is somewhat
ampler than can be represented in an octavo volume; each folio measuring
very nearly nine inches, by very nearly six inches and a half.)

A new and independent authority therefore is appealed to,—one of high
antiquity and evidently very great importance,—Ammonius of Alexandria,
A.D. 220. But Ammonius has left behind him no known writings
whatsoever. What then do these men mean when they appeal in this
confident way to the testimony of “Ammonius?”

To make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English reader, I must needs
introduce in this place some account of what are popularly called the
“Ammonian Sections” and the “Eusebian Canons:” concerning both of
which, however, it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing whatever is
known beyond what is discoverable from a careful study of the “Sections”
and “Canons” themselves; added to what Eusebius has told us in that short
Epistle of his “to Carpianus,”—which I suppose has been transcribed and
reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle in the world.

Eusebius there explains that Ammonius of Alexandria constructed with
great industry and labour a kind of Evangelical Harmony; the peculiarity of
which was, that, retaining S. Matthew's Gospel in its integrity, it exhibited
the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists by the side of S.
Matthew's text. There resulted this inevitable inconvenience; that the
sequence of the narrative, in the case of the three last Gospels, was
interrupted throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed.221

The “Diatessaron” of Ammonius, (so Eusebius styles it), has long since
disappeared; but it is plain from the foregoing account of it by a competent
witness that it must [pg 127] have been a most unsatisfactory performance.
It is not easy to see how room can have been found in such a scheme for
entire chapters of S. Luke's Gospel; as well as for the larger part of the
Gospel according to S. John: in short, for anything which was not capable
of being brought into some kind of agreement, harmony, or correspondence
with something in S. Matthew's Gospel.

How it may have fared with the other Gospels in the work of Ammonius is
not in fact known, and it is profitless to conjecture. What we know for

certain is that Eusebius, availing himself of the hint supplied by the very
imperfect labours of his predecessor, devised an entirely different
expedient, whereby he extended to the Gospels of S. Mark, S. Luke and S.
John all the advantages, (and more than all,) which Ammonius had made
the distinctive property of the first Gospel.222 His plan was to retain the Four
Gospels in their integrity; and, besides enabling a reader to ascertain at a
glance the places which S. Matthew has in common with the other three
Evangelists, or with any two, or with any one of them, (which, I suppose,
was the sum of what had been exhibited by the work of Ammonius,)—to
shew which places S. Luke has in common with S. Mark,—which with S.
John only; as well as which places are peculiar to each of the four
Evangelists in turn. It is abundantly clear therefore what Eusebius means by
saying that the labours of Ammonius had “suggested to him” his own.223
The sight of that Harmony of the other three Evangelists with S. Matthew's
Gospel had suggested to him the advantage of establishing a series of
parallels throughout all the Four Gospels. But then, whereas Ammonius
had placed alongside of S. Matthew the dislocated sections themselves of
the [pg 128] other three Evangelists which are of corresponding purport,
Eusebius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same object by means of
a system of double numerical references. He invented X Canons, or Tables:
he subdivided each of the Four Gospels into a multitude of short Sections.
These he numbered; (a fresh series of numbers appearing in each Gospel,
and extending from the beginning right on to the end;) and immediately
under every number, he inserted, in vermillion, another numeral (I to X);
whose office it was to indicate in which of his X Canons, or Tables, the
reader would find the corresponding places in any of the other Gospels.224
(If the section was unique, it belonged to his last or Xth Canon.) Thus,
against S. Matthew's account of the Title on the Cross, is written 335/I: but
in the Ist Canon (which contains the places common to all four Evangelists)
parallel with 335, is found,—214, 324, 199: and the Sections of S. Mark, S.
Luke, and S. John thereby designated, (which are discoverable by merely
casting one's eye down the margin of each of those several Gospels in turn,
until the required number has been reached,) will be found to contain the
parallel record in the other three Gospels.

All this is so purely elementary, that its very introduction in this place calls
for apology. The extraordinary method of the opposite party constrains me

however to establish thus clearly the true relation in which the familiar
labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of Ammonius.

[pg 129]
For if that earlier production be lost indeed,225—if its precise contents, if the
very details of its construction, can at this distance of time be only
conjecturally ascertained,—what right has any one to appeal to “the
Sections of Ammonius,” as to a known document? Why above all do
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim “Ammonius” for
their ally on an occasion like the present; seeing that they must needs be
perfectly well aware that they have no means whatever of knowing (except
from the precarious evidence of Catenæ) what Ammonius thought about
any single verse in any of the four Gospels? At every stage of this
discussion, I am constrained to ask myself,—Do then the recent Editors of
the Text of the New Testament really suppose that their statements will
never be examined? their references never verified? or is it thought that
they enjoy a monopoly of the learning (such as it is) which enables a man to
form an opinion in this department of sacred Science? For,

(1st.) Where then and what are those “Sections of Ammonius” to which
Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently appeal? It is even notorious that
when they say the “Sections of Ammonius,” what they mean are the
“Sections of Eusebius.”—But, (2dly.) Where is the proof,—where is even
the probability,—that these two are identical? The Critics cannot require to
be reminded by me that we are absolutely [pg 130] without proof that so
much as one of the Sections of Ammonius corresponded with one of those
of Eusebius; and yet, (3dly.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of
Ammonius and those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded
throughout, the name of Ammonius has no business whatever to be
introduced into such a discussion as the present? They must at least be told
that in the entire absence of proof of any kind,—(and certainly nothing that
Eusebius says warrants any such inference,226)—to reason from the one to
the other as if they were identical, is what no sincere inquirer after Truth is
permitted to do.

It is time, however, that I should plainly declare that it happens to be no
matter of opinion at all whether the lost Sections of Ammonius were

identical with those of Eusebius or not. It is demonstrable that they cannot
have been so; and the proof is supplied by the Sections themselves. It is
discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they imply and presuppose
the Ten Canons; being in many places even meaningless,—nugatory, in fact,
(I do not of course say that they are practically without use,)—except on
the theory that those Canons were already in existence.227 Now the Canons
are confessedly the invention of Eusebius. He distinctly claims them.228
Thus much then concerning the supposed testimony of Ammonius. It is nil.
—And now for what is alleged concerning the evidence of Eusebius.

The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking), is the
following memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.:—“Thus far did
Eusebius canonize;”229 which [pg 131] means either: (1) That his Canons
recognise no section of S. Mark's Gospel subsequent to § 233, (which
number is commonly set over against ver. 8:) or else, (which comes to the
same thing,)—(2) That no sections of the same Gospel, after § 233, are
referred to any of his X Canons.

On this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious
superstructure. It is assumed,

(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark's Gospel which Eusebius numbers “233,”
and which begins at our ver. 8, cannot have extended beyond ver. 8;—
whereas it may have extended, and probably did extend, down to the end of
ver. 11.

(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian Canons of any
sectional number in S. Mark's Gospel subsequent to § 233, no Section
(with, or without, such a subsequent number) can have existed:—whereas
there may have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly
numbered.230 This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the
memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have canonized no
further than § 233.

I am not disposed, however, to contest the point as far as Eusebius is
concerned. I have only said so much in order to shew how unsatisfactory is
the argumentation on the other side. Let it be assumed, for argument sake,
that the statement “Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8” is equivalent

to this,—“Eusebius numbered no Sections after ver. 8;” (and more it cannot
mean:)—What then? I am at a loss to see what it is that the Critics propose
to themselves by insisting on the circumstance. For we knew before,—it
was in fact Eusebius himself who told us,—that Copies of the Gospel
ending abruptly at ver. 8, were anciently of frequent occurrence. Nay, we
heard the same Eusebius remark that one way of shelving a certain
awkward problem would be, to plead that the subsequent portion of S.
Mark's Gospel is frequently wanting. What more have we learned when we
have ascertained that the same Eusebius allowed no place to that subsequent
portion in his Canons? The new fact, (supposing it to be a fact,) is but the
correlative [pg 132] of the old one; and since it was Eusebius who was the
voucher for that, what additional probability do we establish that the
inspired autograph of S. Mark ended abruptly at ver. 8, by discovering that
Eusebius is consistent with himself, and omits to “canonize” (or even to
“sectionize”) what he had already hypothetically hinted might as well be
left out altogether? (See above, pp. 44-6.)

So that really I am at a loss to see that one atom of progress is made in this
discussion by the further discovery that, (in a work written about A.D. 373,)

Epiphanius

states casually that “the four Gospels contain 1162 sections.”231 From this it
is argued232 that since 355 of these are commonly assigned to S. Matthew,
342 to S. Luke, and 232 to S. John, there do but remain for S. 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 Cæsarius bear witness to the
fact;”—I am constrained to remark that the illustrious 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.

[pg 133]
(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

Cæsarius

is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate the younger
brother of Gregory of Nazianzus; an eminent physician of Constantinople,
who died A.D. 368; and who, (as far as is known,) never wrote anything. A
work called Πεύσεις, (which in the xth century was attributed to Cæsarius,
but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that Cæsarius 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 Cæsarius on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's
Gospel. It is exactly nil. In fact Pseudo-Cæsarius, so far from “bearing
witness to the fact” that the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel are
spurious, actually quotes the 16th 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 Catenæ.

“In the Catenæ on Mark,” (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) “there is no
explanation of this section.”235 [pg 134] “The Catenæ on Mark:” as if they
were quite common things,—“plenty, as blackberries!” But,—Which of “the
Catenæ” 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 Peltanus 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 [pg 135] 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 passage which categorically
asserts the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel.239

Now this exhausts the subject.

To which, then, of “the Catenæ on Mark,” I must again inquire, does this
learned writer allude?—I will venture to answer the question myself; and to
assert 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 assailed, 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 unlikely,—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.

[pg 136]

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 class 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 authorship 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 passage contains none of Mark's peculiarities (no εὐθέως, no
πάλιν, &c, but the baldness [pg 137] 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 passage, and its use in the undisputed
portion of Mark's Gospel, as to furnish strong reasons for believing the
passage 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 assertions, 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 entitled to no manner of attention.

1. In the meantime, as might have been expected, these confident and often-
repeated asseverations 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.
Green243) 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 [pg 138] 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 φίλοι ἄνδρες244
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.

[pg 139]
2. True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been lifted up in the way
of protest245 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 [pg 140] me. I insist that one only result can attend the exact analysis
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 Authorship 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 constitutes identity 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 authorship. Each writer is
supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of ‘formulæ’ within the
range of which he must work. He must in each chapter employ these
formulæ, 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 identity.”247

4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation to [pg 141] such a
method of judging about the Authorship of any twelve verses of Scripture
which can be named, scarcely requires illustration. 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 pass 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.

[pg 142]
I. To begin then with the “Style and manner” of S. Mark in this place.

1. We are assured 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
passage now under consideration.

2. But in truth, (when divested of what is merely a gratuitous assumption,)
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 [pg 143]
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
passage 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.)

(ver. 9.) “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth
of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (10.) And straightway
coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like
a dove descending upon Him: (11.) and there came a voice from heaven
saying, Thou art My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (12.) And
immediately the Spirit driveth Him into the wilderness. (13.) And He was
there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild
beasts; and the Angels ministered unto Him. (14.) Now after that John was
put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom
of God, (15.) and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is
at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel. (16.) Now, as He walked by the
sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the
sea: for they were fishers. (17.) And Jesus [pg 144] said unto them, Come
ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. (18.) And
straightway they forsook their net's, and followed Him. (19.) And when He
had gone a little farther thence, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and John
his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. (20.) And
straightway He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the ship
with the hired servants, and went after Him.”

4. The candid reader must needs admit that precisely the self-same manner
is recognisable in this first chapter of S. Mark's Gospel which is asserted to
be peculiar to the last. Note, that from our Saviour's Baptism (which
occupies the first three verses) the Evangelist passes to His Temptation,
which is dismissed in two. Six months elapse. The commencement of the
Ministry is dismissed in the next two verses. The last five describe the call
of four of the Apostles,—without any distinct allusion to the miracle which
was the occasion of it.... How was it possible that when incidents
considerable as these had to be condensed within the narrow compass of

twelve verses, the same “graphic, detailed description” could reappear
which renders S. Mark's description of the miracle performed in the country
of the Gadarenes (for example) so very interesting; where a single incident
is spread over twenty verses, although the action did not perhaps occupy an
hour? I rejoice to observe that “the abrupt transitions of this section” (ver.
1-13) have also been noticed by Dean Alford: who very justly accounts for
the phenomenon by pointing out that here “Mark appears as an abridger of
previously well-known facts.”253 But then, I want to know what there is in
this to induce us to suspect the genuineness of either the beginning or the
end of S. Mark's Gospel?

5. For it is a mistake to speak as if “graphic, detailed description” invariably
characterise the second Gospel. S. Mark is quite as remarkable for his
practice of occasionally exhibiting a considerable transaction in a highly
abridged form. The opening of his Gospel is singularly concise, and
altogether sudden. His account of John's preaching [pg 145] (i. 1-8) is the
shortest of all. Very concise is his account of our Saviour's Baptism (ver. 9-
11). The brevity of his description of our Lord's Temptation is even
extraordinary (ver. 12, 13.)—I pass on; premising that I shall have occasion
to remind the reader by-and-by of certain peculiarities in these same Twelve
Verses, which seem to have been hitherto generally overlooked.

II. Nothing more true, therefore, than Dr. Tregelles' admission “that
arguments on style are often very fallacious, and that by themselves they
prove very little. But” (he proceeds) “when there does exist external
evidence; and when internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression,
and connection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of
forming a judgment; then, these internal considerations possess very great
weight.”

I have already shewn that there exists no such external evidence as Dr.
Tregelles supposes. And in the absence of it, I am bold to assert that since
nothing in the “Style” or the “Phraseology” of these verses ever aroused
suspicion in times past, we have rather to be on our guard against suffering
our judgment to be warped by arguments drawn from such precarious
considerations now. As for determining from such data the authorship of an
isolated passage; asserting or denying its genuineness for no other reason

but because it contains certain words and expressions which do or do not
occur elsewhere in the Gospel of which it forms part;—let me again declare
plainly that the proceeding is in the highest degree uncritical. We are not
competent judges of what words an Evangelist was likely on any given
occasion to employ. We have no positive knowledge of the circumstances
under which any part of any one of the four Gospels was written; nor the
influences which determined an Evangelist's choice of certain expressions
in preference to others. We are learners,—we can be only learners here. But
having said all this, I proceed (as already declared) without reluctance or
misgiving to investigate the several charges which have been brought
against this section of the Gospel; charges derived from its Phraseology;
and which will be found to be nothing else but repeated assertions that [pg
146] a certain Word or Phrase,—(there are about twenty-four such words
and phrases in all,254)—“occurs nowhere in the Gospel of Mark;” with
probably the alarming asseveration that it is “abhorrent to Mark's manner.”
... The result of the inquiry which follows will perhaps be not exactly what
is commonly imagined.

The first difficulty of this class is very fairly stated by one whose name I
cannot write without a pang,—the late Dean Alford:—

(I.) The expression πρώτη σαββάτου, for the “first day of the week” (in ver.
9) “is remarkable” (he says) “as occurring so soon after” μία σαββάτων (a
precisely equivalent expression) in ver. 2.—Yes, it is remarkable.

Scarcely more remarkable, perhaps, than that S. Luke in the course of one
and the same chapter should four times designate the Sabbath τὸ σάββατον,
and twice τὰ σάββατα: again, twice, τὸ σάββατον,—twice, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ
σαββάτου,—and [pg 147] once, τὰ σάββατα.255 Or again, that S. Matthew
should in one and the same chapter five times call the Sabbath, τὰ σάβββτα,
and three times, τό σάββατον.256 Attentive readers will have observed that
the Evangelists seem to have been fond in this way of varying their phrase;
suddenly introducing a new expression for something which they had
designated differently just before. Often, I doubt not, this is done with the
profoundest purpose, and sometimes even with manifest design; but the
phenomenon, however we may explain it, still remains. Thus, S. Matthew,
(in his account of our Lord's Temptation,—chap. iv.,) has ὁ διάβολος in ver.

1, and ὁ πειράζων in ver. 3, for him whom our Saviour calls Σατανᾶς in ver.
10.—S. Mark, in chap. v. 2, has τὰ μνημεῖα,—but in ver. 5, τὰ μνήματα.—
S. Luke, in xxiv. 1, has τὸ μνῆμα; but in the next verse, τὸ μνημεῗον.—Ἐπί
with an accusative twice in S. Matth. xxv. 21, 23, is twice exchanged for ἐπί
with a genitive in the same two verses: and ἔριφοϋ (in ver. 32) is exchanged
for ἐρίφια in ver. 33.—Instead of ἄρχων τς συναγωγῆς (in S. Luke viii. 41)
we read, in ver. 49, ἀρχισυνάγωγος: and for οἱ ἀπόστολοι (in ix. 10) we find
οἱ δώδεκα in ver. 12.—Οὖς in S. Luke xxii. 50 is exchanged for ὠτίον in the
next verse.—In like manner, those whom S. Luke calls οἱ νεώτεροι in Acts
v. 6, he calls νεανίσκοι in ver. 10.... All such matters strike me as highly
interesting, but not in the least as suspicious. It surprises me a little, of
course, that S. Mark should present me with πρώτη σαββάτου (in ver. 9)
instead of the phrase μία σαββάτων, which he had employed just above (in
ver. 2.) But it does not surprise me much,—when I observe that μία
σαββάτων occurs only once in each of the Four Gospels.257 Whether
surprised much or little, however,—Am I constrained in consequence, (with
Tischendorf and the rest,) to regard this expression (πρώτη σαββάτου) as a
note of spuriousness? That is the only thing [pg 148] I have to consider. Am
I, with Dr. Davidson, to reason as follows:—“πρώτη, Mark would scarcely
have used. It should have been μία, &c. as is proved by Mark xvi. 2, &c.
The expression could scarcely have proceeded from a Jew. It betrays a
Gentile author.”258 Am I to reason thus?... I propose to answer this question
somewhat in detail.

(1.) That among the Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine, in the days of the
Gospel, ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων was the established method of indicating “the
first day of the week,” is plain, not only from the fact that the day of the
Resurrection is so designated by each of the Four Evangelists in turn;259 (S.
John has the expression twice;) but also from S. Paul's use of the phrase in 1
Cor. xvi. 2. It proves, indeed, to have been the ordinary Hellenistic way of
exhibiting the vernacular idiom of Palestine.260 The cardinal (μία) for the
ordinal (πρώτη) in this phrase was a known Talmudic expression, which
obtained also in Syriac.261 Σάββατον and σάββατα,—designations in
strictness of the Sabbath-day,—had come to be also used as designations of
the week. A reference to S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Luke xviii. 12 establishes this
concerning σάββατον: a reference to the six places cited just now in earlier
note establishes it concerning σαββάτα. To see how indifferently the two

forms (σάββατον and σαββάτα) were employed, one has but to notice that
S. Matthew, in the course of one and the same chapter, five times
designates the Sabbath as τὰ σαββάτα, and three times as τὸ σάββατον.262
The origin and history of both words will be found explained in a note at
the foot of the page.263

[pg 149]
(2.) Confessedly, then, a double Hebraism is before us, which must have
been simply unintelligible to Gentile readers. Μία τῶν σαββάτων sounded
as enigmatical to an ordinary Greek ear, as “una sabbatorum” to a Roman.
A convincing proof, (if proof were needed,) how abhorrent to a Latin reader
was the last-named expression, is afforded by the old Latin versions of S.
Matthew xxviii. 1; where ὄψε σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούση εἰς μίαν
σαββάτων is invariably rendered, “Vespere sabbati, quæ lucescit in prima
sabbati.”

(3.) The reader will now be prepared for the suggestion, that when S. Mark,
(who is traditionally related to have written his Gospel at Rome,264) varies,
in ver. 9, the phrase [pg 150] he had employed in ver. 2, he does so for an
excellent and indeed for an obvious reason. In ver. 2, he had conformed to
the prevailing usage of Palestine, and followed the example set him by S.
Matthew (xxviii. 1) in adopting the enigmatical expression, ἡ μία
σαββάτων. That this would be idiomatically represented in Latin by the
phrase “prima sabbati,” we have already seen. In ver. 9, therefore, he is
solicitous to record the fact of the Resurrection afresh; and this time, his
phrase is observed to be the Greek equivalent for the Latin “prima sabbati;”
viz. πρώτη σαββάτου. How strictly equivalent the two modes of expression
were felt to be by those who were best qualified to judge, is singularly
illustrated by the fact that the Syriac rendering of both places is identical.

(4.) But I take leave to point out that this substituted phrase, instead of
being a suspicious circumstance, is on the contrary a striking note of
genuineness. For do we not recognise here, in the last chapter of the Gospel,
the very same hand which, in the first chapter of it, was careful to inform
us, just for once, that “Judæa,” is “a country,” (ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα,)—and
“Jordan,” “a river,” (ὁ Ἰορδάνης ποταμός)?—Is not this the very man who
explained to his readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar Jewish

designation for “Friday,” ἡ παρασκευή, denotes “the day before the
Sabbath?”265—and who was so minute in informing us (in chap. vii. 3, 4)
about certain ceremonial practices of “the Pharisees and all the Jews?” Yet
more,—Is not the self-same writer clearly recognisable in this xvith chapter,
who in chap. vi. 37 presented us with σπεκουλάτωρ (the Latin spiculator)
for “an executioner?” and who, in chap. xv. 39, for “a centurion,” wrote—
not ἑκατόνταρχος, but—κεντυρίων?—and, in chap. xii. 42, explained that
the two λεπτά [pg 151] which the poor widow cast into the Treasury were
equivalent to κοδράντης, the Latin quadrans?—and in chap. vii. 4, 8,
introduced the Roman measure sextarius, (ξέστης)?—and who volunteered
the information (in chap. xv. 16) that αὐλή is only another designation of
πραιτώριον (Prætorium)?—Yes. S. Mark,—who, alone of the four
Evangelists, (in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the Cyrenian was
“the father of Alexander and Rufus,” evidently for the sake of his Latin
readers:266 S. Mark,—who alone ventures to write in Greek letters (οὐά,—
chap. xv. 29,) the Latin interjection “Vah!”—obviously because he was
writing where that exclamation was most familiar, and the force of it best
understood:267 S. Mark,—who attends to the Roman division of the day, in
relating our Lord's prophecy to S. Peter:268—S. Mark, I say, no doubt it was
who,—having conformed himself to the precedent set him by S. Matthew
and the familiar usage of Palestine; and having written τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων,
(which he knew would sound like “una sabbatorum,”269) in ver. 2;—
introduced, also for the benefit of his Latin readers, the Greek equivalent
for “prima sabbati,” (viz. πρώτη σαββάτου,) in ver. 9.—This, therefore, I
repeat, so far from being a circumstance “unfavourable to its authenticity,”
(by which, I presume, the learned writer means its genuineness), is rather
corroborative of the Church's constant belief that the present section of S.
Mark's Gospel is, equally with the rest of it, the production of S. Mark.
“Not only was the document intended for Gentile converts:” (remarks Dr.
Davidson, p. 149,) “but there are also appearances of its adaptation to the
use of Roman Christians in particular.” Just so. And I venture to say that in
the whole of “the document” Dr. Davidson will not find a more striking
“appearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians,”—and
therefore of its genuineness,—than this. I shall have to request my reader
by-and-by to accept it as one of the most striking notes of Divine origin
which these verses contain.—For the moment, I pass on.

[pg 152]
(II.) Less excusable is the coarseness of critical perception betrayed by the
next remark. It has been pointed out as a suspicious circumstance that in
ver. 9, “the phrase ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα δαιμόνια is attached to the name
of Mary Magdalene, although she had been mentioned three times before
without such appendix. It seems to have been taken from Luke viii. 2.”270—
Strange perversity, and yet stranger blindness!

(1.) The phrase cannot have been taken from S. Luke; because S. Luke's
Gospel was written after S. Mark's. It was not taken from S. Luke; because
there ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτα ἐξεληλύθει,—here, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα
δαιμόνια is read.

(2.) More important is it to expose the shallowness and futility of the entire
objection.—Mary Magdalene “had been mentioned three times before,
without such appendix.” Well but,—What then? After twice (ch. xiv. 54, 66)
using the word αὐλή without any “appendix,” in the very next chapter (xv.
16) S. Mark adds, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον.—The beloved Disciple having
mentioned himself without any “appendix” in S. John xx. 7, mentions
himself with a very elaborate “appendix” in ver. 20. But what of it?—The
sister of the Blessed Virgin, having been designated in chap. xv. 40, as
Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆ μήτηρ; is mentioned with one half
of that “appendix,” (Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆ) in ver. 47, and in the very next verse,
with the other half (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου.)—I see no reason why the
Traitor, who, in S. Luke vi. 16, is called Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης, should be
designated as Ἰούδαν τὸν ἐπικαλούμενον Ἰσκαριώτην in S. Luke xxii. 3.—I
am not saying that such “appendices” are either uninteresting or
unimportant. That I attend to them habitually, these pages will best evince. I
am only insisting that to infer from such varieties of expression that a
different author is recognisable, is abhorrent to the spirit of intelligent
Criticism.

(3.) But in the case before us, the hostile suggestion is peculiarly
infelicitous. There is even inexpressible tenderness and beauty, the deepest
Gospel significancy, in the reservation [pg 153] of the clause “out of whom
He had cast seven devils,” for this place. The reason, I say, is even obvious
why an “appendix,” which would have been meaningless before, is

introduced in connexion with Mary Magdalene's august privilege of being
the first of the human race to behold the risen Saviour. Jerome (I rejoice to
find) has been beforehand with me in suggesting that it was done, in order
to convey by an example the tacit assurance that “where Sin had abounded,
there did Grace much more abound.”271 Are we to be cheated of our
birthright by Critics272 who, entirely overlooking a solution of the difficulty
(if difficulty it be) Divine as this, can see in the circumstance grounds only
for suspicion and cavil? Απαγε.

(III.) Take the next example.—The very form of the “appendix” which we
have been considering (ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια) breeds offence.
“Instead of ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό,” (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) “Mark has
ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ.”273

Nothing of the sort, I answer. S. Mark once has ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ,274 and once
ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό. So has S. Matthew, (viz. in chap. vii. 4 and 5): and so has S.
Luke, (viz. in chap. vi. 42, and in Acts xiii. 50.)—But what of all this? Who
sees not that such Criticism is simply nugatory?

(IV.) We are next favoured with the notable piece of information that the
word πορεύεσθαι, “never used by S. Mark, is three times contained in this
passage;” (viz. in verses 10, 12 and 15.)

(1.) Yes. The uncompounded verb, never used elsewhere by S. Mark, is
found here three times. But what then? The compounds of πορεύεσθαι are
common enough in his Gospel. Thus, short as his Gospel is, he alone has
εἰσ-πορεύεσθαι, ἐκ-πορεύεσθαι, συμ-πορεύεσθαι, παρα-πορεύεσθαι,
oftener than all the other three Evangelists put together,—viz. twenty-four
times against their nineteen: while the compound [pg 154] προσπορεύεσθαι
is peculiar to his Gospel.—I am therefore inclined to suggest that the
presence of the verb πορεύεσθαι in these Twelve suspected Verses, instead
of being an additional element of suspicion, is rather a circumstance slightly
corroborative of their genuineness.

(2.) But suppose that the facts had been different. The phenomenon
appealed to is of even perpetual recurrence, and may on no account be
represented as suspicious. Thus, παρουσία, a word used only by S. Matthew
among the Evangelists, is by him used four times; yet are all those four

instances found in one and the same chapter. S. Luke alone has χαρίζεσθαι,
and he has it three times: but all three cases are met with in one and the
same chapter. S. John alone has λύπη, and he has it four times: but all the
four instances occur in one and the same chapter.

(3.) Such instances might be multiplied to almost any extent. Out of the
fifteen occasions when S. Matthew uses the word τάλαντον, no less than
fourteen occur in one chapter. The nine occasions when S. Luke uses the
word μνᾶ all occur in one chapter. S. John uses the verb ἀνιστάναι
transitively only four times: but all four instances of it are found in one
chapter.—Now, these three words (be it observed) are peculiar to the
Gospels in which they severally occur.

(4.) I shall of course be reminded that τάλαντον and μνᾶ are unusual words,
—admitting of no substitute in the places where they respectively occur.
But I reply,—Unless the Critics are able to shew me which of the ordinary
compounds of πορεύεσθαι S. Mark could possibly have employed for the
uncompounded verb, in the three places which have suggested the present
inquiry, viz.:—

ver. 10:—ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽ αυτοῦ γενομένοις.

ver. 12:—δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν ... πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν.

ver. 13:—πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον;—

their objection is simply frivolous, and the proposed adverse reasoning,
worthless. Such, in fact, it most certainly is; for it will be found that
πορευθεῖσα in ver. 10,—πορευομένοις in [pg 155] ver. 12,—πορευθέντες in
ver. 15,—also “admit of no substitute in the places where they severally
occur;” and therefore, since the verb itself is one of S. Mark's favourite
verbs, not only are these three places above suspicion, but they may be
fairly adduced as indications that the same hand was at work here which
wrote all the rest of his Gospel.275

(V.) Then further,—the phrase τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις (in ver. 10) is
noted as suspicious. “Though found in the Acts (xx. 18) it never occurs in
the Gospels: nor does the word μαθηταί in this passage.”

(1.) The phrase οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι occurs nowhere in the Acts or in
the Gospels, except here. But,—Why should it appear elsewhere? or rather,
—How could it? Now, if the expression be (as it is) an ordinary, easy, and
obvious one,—wanted in this place, where it is met with; but not met with
elsewhere, simply because elsewhere it is not wanted;—surely it is
unworthy of any one calling himself a Critic to pretend that there attaches to
it the faintest shadow of suspicion!

(2.) The essence of the phrase is clearly the expression οἱ μετ᾽ αυτοῦ. (The
aorist participle of γίνομαι, is added of necessity to mark the persons
spoken of. In no other, (certainly in no simpler, more obvious, or more
precise) way could the followers of the risen Saviour have been designated
at such a time. For had He not just now “overcome the sharpness of
Death”?) But this expression, which occurs four times in S. Matthew and
four times in S. Luke, occurs also four times in S. Mark: viz. in chap. i. 36;
ii. 25; v. 40, and here. This, therefore, is a slightly corroborative
circumstance,—not at all a ground of suspicion.

(3.) But it seems to be implied that S. Mark, because he mentions τοὺς
μαθητάς often elsewhere in his Gospel, ought to have mentioned them here.

(a) I answer:—He does not mention τοὺς μαθητάς nearly so often as S.
Matthew; while S. John notices them twice as often as he does.

(b) Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them five hundred
times, because he had occasion five hundred [pg 156] times to speak of
them;—what reason would that be for his mentioning them here, where he
is not speaking of them?

(c) It must be evident to any one reading the Gospel with attention that
besides οἱ μαθηταί,—(by which expression S. Mark always designates the
Twelve Apostles,)—there was a considerable company of believers
assembled together throughout the first Easter Day.276 S. Luke notices this
circumstance when he relates how the Women, on their return from the
Sepulchre, “told all these things unto the Eleven, and to all the rest,” (xxiv.
9): and again when he describes how Cleopas and his companion (δύο ἐξ
αὐτῶν as S. Luke and S. Mark call them) on their return to Jerusalem,
“found the Eleven gathered together, and them that were with them” (xxiv.

33.) But this was at least as well known to S. Mark as it was to S. Luke.
Instead, therefore, of regarding the designation “them that had been with
Him” with suspicion,—are we not rather to recognise in it one token more
that the narrative in which it occurs is unmistakably genuine? What else is
this but one of those delicate discriminating touches which indicate the
hand of a great Master; one of those evidences of minute accuracy which
stamp on a narrative the impress of unquestionable Truth?

(VI.) We are next assured by our Critic that θεᾶσθαι “is unknown to Mark;”
but it occurs twice in this section, (viz. in ver. 11 and ver. 14.) Another
suspicious circumstance!

(1.) A strange way (as before) of stating an ordinary fact, certainly! What
else is it but to assume the thing which has to be proved? If the learned
writer had said instead, that the verb θεᾶσθαι, here twice employed by S.
Mark, occurs nowhere else in his Gospel,—he would have acted more
loyally, not to say more fairly by the record: but then he would have been
stating a strictly ordinary phenomenon,—of no significancy, or relevancy to
the matter in hand. He is probably aware that παραβαίνειν in like manner is
to be found in two consecutive verses of S. Matthew's Gospel; παρακούειν,
twice in the course of one [pg 157] verse: neither word being used on any
other occasion either by S. Matthew, or by any other Evangelist. The same
thing precisely is to be said of ἀναζητεῖν and ἀνταποδιδόναι, of
ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι, and διατίθεσθαι, in S. Luke: of ἀνιστάναι and ζωννύναι in
S. John. But who ever dreamed of insinuating that the circumstance is
suspicious?

(2.) As for θεᾶσθαι, we should have reminded our Critic that this verb,
which is used seven times by S. John, and four times by S. Matthew, is used
only three times by S. Luke, and only twice by S. Mark. And we should
have respectfully inquired,—What possible suspicion does θεᾶσθαι throw
upon the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel?

(3.) None whatever, would have been the reply. But in the meantime Dr.
Davidson hints that the verb ought to have been employed by S. Mark in
chap. ii. 14.277—It is, I presume, sufficient to point out that S. Matthew, at
all events, was not of Dr. Davidson's opinion:278 and I respectfully submit

that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here writing about
himself, must be allowed, just for once, to be the better judge.

(4.) In the meantime,—Is it not perceived that θεᾶσθαι is the very word
specially required in these two places,—though nowhere else in S. Mark's
Gospel?279 The occasion is one,—viz. the “beholding” of the person of the
risen Saviour. Does not even natural piety suggest that the uniqueness of
such a “spectacle” as that might well set an Evangelist on casting about for
a word of somewhat less ordinary occurrence? The occasion cries aloud for
this very verb θεᾶσθαι; and I can hardly conceive a more apt illustration of
a darkened eye,—a spiritual faculty perverted from its lawful purpose,—
than that which only discovers “a stumbling-block and occasion of falling”
in expressions like the present which “should have been only for their
wealth,” being so manifestly designed for their edification.

[pg 158]
(VII.) But,—(it is urged by a Critic of a very different stamp,)—ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽
αὐτῆς (ver. 11) “is a construction only found here in the New Testament.”

(1.) Very likely; but what then? The learned writer has evidently overlooked
the fact that the passive θεᾶσθαι occurs but three times in the New
Testament in all.280 S. Matthew, on the two occasions when he employs the
word, connects it with a dative.281 What is there suspicious in the
circumstance that θεᾶσθαι ὑπό should be the construction preferred by S.
Mark? The phenomenon is not nearly so remarkable as that S. Luke, on one
solitary occasion, exhibits the phrase μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπό,282—instead of
making the verb govern the accusative, as he does three times in the very
next verse; and, indeed, eleven times in the course of his Gospel. To be sure,
S. Luke in this instance is but copying S. Matthew, who also has μὴ
φοβεῖσθε ἀπό once;283 and seven times makes the verb govern an
accusative. This, nevertheless, constitutes no reason whatever for
suspecting the genuineness either of S. Matth. x. 28 or of S. Luke xii. 4.

(2.) In like manner, the phrase ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν will be found to
occur once, and once only, in S. Mark,—once, and once only, in S. Luke;284
although S. Mark and S. Luke use the verb φοβεῖσθαι upwards of forty
times. Such facts are interesting. They may prove important. But no one

who is ever so little conversant with such inquiries will pretend that they are
in the least degree suspicious.—I pass on.

(VIII.) It is next noted as a suspicious circumstance that ἀπιστεῖν occurs in
ver. 11 and in ver. 16; but nowhere else in the Gospels,—except in S. Luke
xxiv. 11, 14.

But really, such a remark is wholly without force, as an argument against
the genuineness of the passage in which the word is found: for,

(1.) Where else in the course of this Gospel could ἀπιστεῖν have occurred?
Now, unless some reason can be shewn why the word should, or at least
might have been employed elsewhere, to remark upon its introduction in
this place, where it [pg 159] could scarcely be dispensed with, as a ground
of suspicion, is simply irrational. It might just as well be held to be a
suspicious circumstance, in respect of verses 3 and 4, that the verb
ἀποκυλίζειν occurs there, and there only, in this Gospel. Nothing whatever
follows from the circumstance. It is, in fact, a point scarcely deserving of
attention.

(2.) To be sure, if the case of a verb exclusively used by the two
Evangelists, S. Mark and S. Luke, were an unique, or even an exceedingly
rare phenomenon, it might have been held to be a somewhat suspicious
circumstance that the phenomenon presented itself in the present section.
But nothing of the sort is the fact. There are no fewer than forty-five verbs
exclusively used by S. Mark and S. Luke. And why should not ἀπιστεῖν be,
(as it is,) one of them?

(3.) Note, next, that this word is used twice, and in the course of his last
chapter too, also by S. Luke. Nowhere else does it occur in the Gospels. It is
at least as strange that the word ἀπιστεῖν should be found twice in the last
chapter of the Gospel according to S. Luke, as in the last chapter of the
Gospel according to S. Mark. And if no shadow of suspicion is supposed to
result from this circumstance in the case of the third Evangelist, why should
it in the case of the second?

(4.) But, lastly, the noun ἀπιστία (which occurs in S. Mark xvi. 14) occurs
in two other places of the same Gospel. And this word (which S. Matthew

uses twice,) is employed by none of the other Evangelists.—What need to
add another word? Do not many of these supposed suspicious
circumstances,—this one for example,—prove rather, on closer inspection,
to be confirmatory facts?

(IX.) We are next assured that μετὰ ταῦτα (ver. 12) “is not found in Mark,
though many opportunities occurred for using it.”

(1.) I suppose that what this learned writer means, is this; that if S. Mark
had coveted an opportunity for introducing the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα earlier in
his Gospel, he might have found one. (More than this cannot be meant: for
nowhere before does S. Mark employ any other phrase to express “after
these things,” or “after this,” or “afterwards.”)

[pg 160]
But what is the obvious inference from the facts of the case, as stated by the
learned Critic, except that the blessed Evangelist must be presumed to have
been unconscious of any desire to introduce the expression under
consideration on any other occasion except the present?

(2.) Then, further, it is worth observing that while the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα
occurs five times in S. Luke's Gospel, it is found only twice in the Acts;
while S. Matthew never employs it at all. Why, then,—I would respectfully
inquire—why need S. Mark introduce the phrase more than once? Why,
especially, is his solitary use of the expression to be represented as a
suspicious circumstance; and even perverted into an article of indictment
against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of his Gospel? “Would any
one argue that S. Luke was not the author of the Acts, because the author of
the Acts has employed this phrase only twice,—‘often as he could have
used it?’ (Meyer's phrase here.285)”

(X.) Another objection awaits us,—“Ἓτερος also is unknown to Mark,”
says Dr. Davidson;—which only means that the word occurs in chap. xvi.
12, but not elsewhere in his Gospel.

It so happens, however, that ἕτερος also occurs once only in the Gospel of
S. John. Does it therefore throw suspicion on S. John xix. 37?

(XI.) The same thing is said of ὕστερον (in ver. 14) viz. that it “occurs
nowhere” in the second Gospel.

But why not state the case thus?—Ὕστερον, a word which is twice
employed by S. Luke, occurs only once in S. Mark and once in S. John.—
That would be the true way of stating the facts of the case. But it would be
attended with this inconvenient result,—that it would make it plain that the
word in question has no kind of bearing on the matter in hand.

(XII.) The same thing he says of βλάπτειν (in ver. 18).

But what is the fact? The word occurs only twice in the Gospels,—viz. in S.
Mark xvi. 18 and S. Luke iv. 35. It is one of the eighty-four words which
are peculiar to S. Mark [pg 161] and S. Luke. What possible significancy
would Dr. Davidson attach to the circumstance?

(XIII.) Once more.—“πανταχοῦ” (proceeds Dr. Davidson) “is unknown to
Mark;” which (as we begin to be aware) is the learned gentleman's way of
stating that it is only found in chap. xvi. 20.

Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that it also occurs in S. Mark i. 28.
I respectfully differ from them in opinion: but when it has been pointed out
that the word is only used besides in S. Luke ix. 6, what can be said of such
Criticism but that it is simply frivolous?

(XIV. and XV.) Yet again:—συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν are also said by the
same learned Critic to be “unknown to Mark.”

S. Mark certainly uses these two words only once,—viz. in the last verse of
the present Chapter: but what there is suspicious in this circumstance, I am
at a loss even to divine. He could not have used them oftener; and since one
hundred and fifty-six words are peculiar to his Gospel, why should not
συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν be two of them?

(XVI.) “Πᾶσα κτίσις is Pauline,” proceeds Dr. Davidson, (referring to a
famous expression which is found in ver. 15.)

(1.) All very oracular,—to be sure: but why πᾶσα κτίσις should be thought
“Pauline” rather than “Petrine,” I really, once more, cannot discover; seeing
that S. Peter has the expression as well as S. Paul.286

(2.) In this place, however, the phrase is πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις. But even this
expression is no more to be called “Pauline” than “Marcine;” seeing that as
S. Mark uses it once and once only, so does S. Paul use it once and once
only, viz. in Rom. viii. 22.

(3.) In the meantime, how does it come to pass that the learned Critic has
overlooked the significant fact that the word κτίσις occurs besides in S.
Mark x. 6 and xiii. 19; and that it is a word which S. Mark alone of the
Evangelists uses? Its occurrence, therefore, in this place is a circumstance
the very reverse of suspicious.

(4.) But lastly, inasmuch as the opening words of our [pg 162] Lord's
Ministerial Commission to the Apostles are these,—κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
πάση τῇ κτίσει (ver. 15): inasmuch, too, as S. Paul in his Epistle to the
Colossians (i. 23) almost reproduces those very words; speaking of the
Hope τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάση [τῇ] κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν
οὐρανόν:—Is it not an allowable conjecture that a direct reference to that
place in S. Mark's Gospel is contained in this place of S. Paul's Epistle? that
the inspired Apostle “beholding the universal tendency of Christianity
already realized,” announces (and from imperial Rome!) the fulfilment of
his Lord's commands in his Lord's own words as recorded by the
Evangelist S. Mark?

I desire to be understood to deliver this only as a conjecture. But seeing that
S. Mark's Gospel is commonly thought to have been written at Rome, and
under the eye of S. Peter; and that S. Peter (and therefore S. Mark) must
have been at Rome before S. Paul visited that city in A.D. 61;—seeing, too,
that it was in A.D. 61-2 (as Wordsworth and Alford are agreed) that S. Paul
wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, and wrote it from Rome;—I really can
discover nothing unreasonable in the speculation. If, however, it be well
founded,—(and it is impossible to deny that the coincidence of expression
may be such as I have suggested,)—then, what an august corroboration
would this be of “the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S.
Mark!” ... If, indeed, the great Apostle on reaching Rome inspected S.

Mark's Gospel for the first time, with what awe will he have recognised in
his own recent experience the fulfilment of his Saviour's great
announcement concerning the “signs which should follow them that
believe!” Had he not himself “cast out devils?”—“spoken with tongues
more than they all?”—and at Melita, not only “shaken off the serpent into
the fire and felt no harm,” but also “laid hands on the sick” father of
Publius, “and he had recovered?” ... To return, however, to matters of fact;
with an apology (if it be thought necessary) for what immediately goes
before.

(XVII.) Next,—ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι μου (ver. 17) is noticed as another suspicious
peculiarity. The phrase is supposed to occur only in this place of S. Mark's
Gospel; the Evangelist elsewhere [pg 163] employing the preposition ἐπί:—
(viz. in ix. 37: ix. 39: xiii. 6.)

(1.) Now really, if it were so, the reasoning would be nugatory. S. Luke also
once, and once only, has ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου: his usage elsewhere being,
(like S. Mark's) to use ἐπί. Nay, in two consecutive verses of ch. ix, ἐπί τῷ
ὀνόματί μου—σου is read: and yet, in the very next chapter, his Gospel
exhibits an unique instance of the usage of ἐν. Was it ever thought that
suspicion is thereby cast on S. Luke x. 17?

(2.) But, in fact, the objection is an oversight of the learned (and generally
accurate) objector. The phrase recurs in S. Mark ix. 38,—as the text of that
place has been revised by Tischendorf, by Tregelles and by himself. This is
therefore a slightly corroborative, not a suspicious circumstance.

(XVIII. and XIX.) We are further assured that παρακολουθεῖν (in ver. 17)
and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in ver. 20) “are both foreign to the diction of Mark.”

(1.) But what can the learned author of this statement possibly mean? He is
not speaking of the uncompounded verb ἀκολουθεῖν, of course; for S. Mark
employs it at least twenty times. He cannot be speaking of the compounded
verb; for συνακολουθεῖν occurs in S. Mark v. 37. He cannot mean that
παρακολουθεῖν, because the Evangelist uses it only once, is suspicious; for
that would be to cast a slur on S. Luke i. 3. He cannot mean generally that
verbs compounded with prepositions are “foreign to the diction of Mark;”
for there are no less than forty-two such verbs which are even peculiar to S.

Mark's short Gospel,—against thirty which are peculiar to S. Matthew, and
seventeen which are peculiar to S. John. He cannot mean that verbs
compounded with παρά and ἐπί have a suspicious look; for at least thirty-
three such compounds, (besides the two before us,) occur in his sixteen
chapters.287 What, then, I must [pg 164] really ask, can the learned Critic
possibly mean?—I respectfully pause for an answer.

(2.) In the meantime, I claim that as far as such evidence goes,—(and it
certainly goes a very little way, yet, as far as it goes,)—it is a note of S.
Mark's authorship, that within the compass of the last twelve verses of his
Gospel these two compounded verbs should be met with.

(XX.) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious circumstance, that (in
ver. 18) the phrase χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι ἐπί τινα occurs; “instead of χεῖρας
ἐπιτιθέναι τινι.”

(1.) But on the contrary, the phrase “is in Mark's manner,” says Dean
Alford: the plain fact being that it occurs no less than three times in his
Gospel,—viz. in chap. viii. 25: x. 16: xvi. 18. (The other idiom, he has four
times.288) Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to as a note of
genuineness and as an indication of spurious origin. What can be the value
of such Criticism as this?

(2.) Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt illustration of the
precariousness of the style of remark which is just now engaging our
attention. Within the space of three verses, S. Mark has both expressions,—
viz. ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ (viii. 23) and also ἐπέθηκε τὰς χεῖρας ἐπί (ver.
25.) S. Matthew has the latter phrase once; the former, twice.289 Who will
not admit that all this (so-called) Criticism is the veriest trifling; and that to
pretend to argue about the genuineness of a passage of Scripture from such
evidence as the present is an act of rashness bordering on folly?... The
reader is referred to what was offered above on Art. VII.

(XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver. 19 and ver. 20)
are also declared to be “foreign to the diction of Mark.” I ask leave to
examine these two charges separately.

[pg 165]

(1.) μὲν οὖν occurs only once in S. Mark's Gospel, truly: but then it occurs
only once in S. Luke (iii. 18);—only twice in S. John (xix. 24: xx. 30):—in
S. Matthew, never at all. What imaginable plea can be made out of such
evidence as this, for or against the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of
S. Mark's Gospel?—Once more, I pause for an answer.

(2.) As for ὁ Κύριος being “foreign to the diction of Mark in speaking of the
Lord,”—I really do not know what the learned Critic can possibly mean;
except that he finds our Lord nowhere called ὁ Κύριος by S. Mark, except
in this place.

But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does he find our Lord
anywhere called by S. Mark “Jesus Christ,” except in chap. i. 1. Are we,
therefore, to suspect the beginning of S. Mark's Gospel as well as the end of
it? By no means, (I shall perhaps be told:) a reason is assignable for the use
of that expression in chap. i. 1. And so, I venture to reply, there is a fully
sufficient reason assignable for the use of this expression in chap. xvi. 19.290

(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our Lord is called Ἰησοῦς
Χριστός,—but only in the first Chapter of their respective Gospels. By S.
Luke nowhere. The appellation may,—or may not,—be thought “foreign to
the diction” of those Evangelists. But surely it constitutes no reason
whatever why we should suspect the genuineness of the beginning of the
first, or the second, or the fourth Gospel.

(4.) S. John three times in the first verse of his first Chapter designates the
Eternal Son by the extraordinary title ὁ Λόγος; but nowhere else in his
Gospel, (except once in ver. 14,) does that Name recur. Would it be
reasonable to represent this as a suspicious circumstance? Is not the Divine
fitness of that sublime appellation generally recognised and admitted?291—
Surely, we come to Scripture to be learners only: not to teach the blessed
Writers how they ought to have spoken about God! When will men learn
that “the [pg 166] Scripture-phrase, or language of the Holy Ghost”292 is as
much above them as Heaven is above Earth?

(XXIII.) Another complaint:—ἀναληφθῆναι, which is found in ver. 19,
occurs nowhere else in the Gospels.

(1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs which “occur
nowhere else in the Gospels:” and this happens to be one of them? What
possible inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circumstance?

(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. Ἀναληφθῆναι and ἀνάληψις are words
proper to the Ascension of our Lord into Heaven. The two Evangelists who
do not describe that event, are without these words: the two Evangelists
who do describe it, have them.293 Surely, these are marks of genuineness,
not grounds for suspicion!

It is high time to conclude this discussion.—Much has been said about two
other minute points:—

(XXIV.) It is declared that ἐκεῖνος “is nowhere found absolutely used by S.
Mark:” (the same thing may be said of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:)
“but always emphatically: whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely
used.”294 Another writer says,—“The use of ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11, and 13
(twice) in a manner synonymous with ὁ δέ, is peculiar.”295

(1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not very, that an Evangelist who
employs an ordinary word in the ordinary way about thirty times in all,
should use it “absolutely” in two consecutive verses.

(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves as to which are
precisely the offending instances,—(for it is evidently a moot point whether
ἐκεῖνος be emphatic in ver. 13, or not,)—we may be excused from a
prolonged discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the subject in the
consideration of the next Article (XXV.)

(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that “in the 10th and 14th verses
there are sentences without a copulative: [pg 167] whereas Mark always has
the copulative in such cases, particularly καί.” But then,—

(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other sections of S. Mark's
Gospel resembling the present,—(I mean, passages in which S. Mark
summarizes many disconnected incidents, as he does here,)—is it not plain
that such an objection is wholly without point?

(2.) Two instances are cited. In the latter, (ver. 14), Lachmann and Tregelles
read ὔστερον δέ: and the reading is not impossible. So that the complaint is
really reduced to this,—That in ver. 10 the Evangelist begins Ἐκεὶνη
πορευθεῖσα, instead of saying Καὶ ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα. And (it is implied)
there is something so abhorrent to probability in this, as slightly to
strengthen the suspicion that the entire context is not the work of the
Evangelist.

(3.) Now, suppose we had S. Mark back among us: and suppose that he, on
being shewn this objection, were to be heard delivering himself somewhat
to the following effect:—“Aye. But men may not find fault with that turn of
phrase. I derived it from Simon Peter's lips. I have always suspected that it
was a kind of echo, so to say, of what he and ‘the other Disciple’ had many
a time rehearsed in the hearing of the wondering Church concerning the
Magdalene on the morning of the Resurrection.” And then we should have
remembered the familiar place in the fourth Gospel:—

γύναι τί κλαίεις; τίνα ζητεῖς; ἘΚΕΊΝΗ δοκοῦσα κ.τ.λ.

After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all strange, even
though it be “without a copulative:”—

ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. ἘΚΕΊΝΗ πορευθεῖσα κ.τ.λ.

(4.) For after all, the only question to be asked is,—Will any one pretend
that such a circumstance as this is suspicious? Unless that be asserted, I see
not what is gained by raking together,—(as one easily might do in any
section of any of the Gospels,)—every minute peculiarity of form or
expression which can possibly be found within the space of these twelve
verses. It is an evidence of nothing so much as an incorrigible coarseness of
critical fibre, that every slight variety of manner or language should be thus
pounced upon [pg 168] and represented as a note of spuriousness,—in the
face of (a) the unfaltering tradition of the Church universal that the
document has never been hitherto suspected: and (b) the known proclivity
of all writers, as free moral and intellectual agents, sometimes to deviate
from their else invariable practice.—May I not here close the discussion?

There will perhaps be some to remark, that however successfully the
foregoing objections may seem to have been severally disposed of, yet that
the combined force of such a multitude of slightly suspicious circumstances
must be not only appreciable, but even remain an inconvenient, not to say a
formidable fact. Let me point out that the supposed remark is nothing else
but a fallacy; which is detected the instant it is steadily looked at.

For if there really had remained after the discussion of each of the foregoing
XXV Articles, a slight residuum of suspiciousness, then of course the
aggregate of so many fractions would have amounted to something in the
end.

But since it has been proved that there is absolutely nothing at all
suspicious in any of the alleged circumstances which have been hitherto
examined, the case becomes altogether different. The sum of ten thousand
nothings is still nothing.296 This may be conveniently illustrated by an
appeal to the only charge which remains to be examined.

(XXVI. and XXVII.) The absence from these twelve verses of the adverbs
εὐθέως and πάλιν,—(both of them favourite words with the second
Evangelist,)—has been pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance.
Let us take the words singly:—

(a) The adverb εὐθέως (or εὐθύς) is indeed of very frequent occurrence in S.
Mark's Gospel. And yet its absence from [pg 169] chap. xvi is proved to be
in no degree a suspicious circumstance, from the discovery that though it
occurs as many as

12 times in chap. i;
and 6 times in chap. v;
and 5 times in chap. iv, vi;
and 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv;
and 2 times in chap. vii, xi;
it yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv;
while it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi.

(b) In like manner, πάλιν, which occurs as often as

6 times in chap. xiv;
and 5 times in chap. x;
and 3 times in chap. viii, xv;
and 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii;
and 1 times in chap. iv, v;
occurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.297

(1.) Now,—How can it possibly be more suspicious that πάλιν should be
absent from the last twelve verses of S. Mark, than that it should be away
from the first forty-five?

(2.) Again. Since εὐθέως is not found in the xiith or the xiiith chapters of
this same Gospel,—nor πάλιν in the ist, vith, ixth, or xiiith chapter,—(for
the sufficient reason that neither word is wanted in any of those places,)—
what possible “suspiciousness” can be supposed to result from the absence
of both words from the xvith chapter also, where also neither of them is
wanted? Why is the xvith chapter of S. Mark's Gospel,—or rather, why are
“the last twelve verses” of it,—to labour under such special disfavor and
discredit?

(3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,—“I am well aware that arguments on style
are often very fallacious, and that by themselves they prove very little: but
when there does exist external evidence, and when internal proofs as to
style, manner, verbal expression, and connection, are in accordance with
such independent grounds of forming a judgment; then these internal
considerations possess very great weight.”298—For all [pg 170] rejoinder,
the respected writer is asked,—(a) But when there does not exist any such
external evidence: what then? Next, he is reminded (b) That whether there
does, or does not, it is at least certain that not one of those “proofs as to
style,” &c., of which he speaks, has been able to stand the test of strict
examination. Not only is the precariousness of all such Criticism as has
been brought to bear against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20
excessive, but the supposed facts adduced in evidence have been found out
to be every one of them mistakes;—being either, (1) demonstrably without
argumentative cogency of any kind;—or else, (2) distinctly corroborative

and confirmatory circumstances: indications that this part of the Gospel is
indeed by S. Mark,—not that it is probably the work of another hand.

And thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven grounds of suspicion
vanishes out of sight: fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and
nugatory; and thirteen, more or less clearly witnessing in favour of the
section.299

III. Of these thirteen expressions, some are even eloquent in their witness. I
am saying that it is impossible not to be exceedingly struck by the discovery
that this portion of the Gospel contains (as I have explained already) so
many indications of S. Mark's undoubted manner. Such is the reference to ἡ
κτίσις (in ver. 15):—the mention of ἀπιστία (in ver. 14):—the occurrence of
the verb πορεύεσθαι (in ver. 10 and 12),—of the phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου
(in ver. 17),—and of the phrase χεῖρας ἐτιτιθέναι ἐπί τινα (in ver. 18):—of
the Evangelical term for our Lord's Ascension, viz. ἀνελήφθη (in ver. 19):
—and lastly, of the compounds παρακολουθεῖν and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in verses
17 and 20.)

To these Thirteen, will have to be added all those other notes of identity of
authorship,—such as they are,—which result from recurring identity of
phrase, and of which the assailants of this portion of the Gospel have
prudently said nothing. Such are the following:—

(xiv.) Ἀνίσταναι, for rising from the dead; which is one [pg 171] of S.
Mark's words. Taking into account the shortness of his Gospel, he has it
thrice as often as S. Luke; twelve times as often as S. Matthew or S. John.

(xv.) The idiomatic expression πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν, of which S.
Matthew does not present a single specimen; but which occurs three times
in the short Gospel of S. Mark,300—of which ver. 12 is one.

(xvi.) The expression προί (in ver. 9,)—of which S. Mark avails himself six
times: i.e. (if the length of the present Gospel be taken into account) almost
five times as often as either S. Matthew or S. John,—S. Luke never using
the word at all. In his first chapter (ver. 35), and here in his last (ver. 2), S.
Mark uses λίαν in connexion with προί.

(xvii.) The phrase κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (in ver. 15) is another of S.
Mark's phrases. Like S. Matthew, he employs it four times (i. 14: xiii. 10:
xiv. 9: xvi. 15): but it occurs neither in S. Luke's nor in S. John's Gospel.

(xviii.) The same words singly are characteristic of his Gospel. Taking the
length of their several narratives into account, S. Mark has the word
κηρύσσειν more than twice as often as S. Matthew: three times as often as
S. Luke.

(xix.) εὐαγγέλιον,—a word which occurs only in the first two Gospels,—is
found twice as often in S. Mark's as in S. Matthew's Gospel: and if the
respective length of their Gospels be considered, the proportion will be as
three to one. It occurs, as above stated, in ver. 15.

(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned to vindicate the
genuineness of this section of the Gospel, we should have been assured that
φανερουσθαι is another of S. Mark's words: by which they would have
meant no more than this,—that though employed neither by S. Matthew nor
by S. Luke it is used thrice by S. Mark,—being found twice in this section
(verses 12, 14), as well as in ch. iv. 22.

(xxi.) They would have also pointed out that σκληροκαρδία is another of S.
Mark's words: being employed neither by S. Luke nor by S. John,—by S.
Matthew only once,—but by S. Mark on two occasions; of which ch. xvi.
14 is one.

[pg 172]
(xxii.) In the same spirit, they would have bade us observe that πανταχοῦ
(ver. 20)—unknown to S. Matthew and S. John, and employed only once by
S. Luke,—is twice used by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present
section.

Nor would it have been altogether unfair if they had added that the precisely
similar word πανταχόθεν (or πάντοθεν) is only found in this same Gospel,
—viz. in ch. i. 45.

(xxiii.) They would further have insisted (and this time with a greater show
of reason) that the adverb καλῶς (which is found in ver. 18) is another

favorite word with S. Mark: occurring as it does, (when the length of these
several narratives is taken into account,) more than twice as often in S.
Mark's as in S. John's Gospel,—just three times as often as in the Gospel of
S. Matthew and S. Luke.

(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observation would have
been that ἔχειν, in the sense of “to be,” (as in the phrase καλῶς ἔχειν, ver.
18,) is characteristic of S. Mark. He has it oftener than any of the
Evangelists, viz. six times in all (ch. i. 32, 34: ii. 17: v. 23: vi. 55: xvi. 18.)
Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account, he employs this idiom
twice as often as S. Matthew;—three times as often as S. John;—four times
as often as S. Luke.

(xxv.) They would have told us further that ἄῤῥωστος is another of S.
Mark's favorite words: for that he has it three times,—viz. in ch. vi. 5, 13,
and here in ver. 18. S. Matthew has it only once. S. Luke and S. John not at
all.

(xxvi.) And we should have been certainly reminded by them that the
conjunction of πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι (in ver. 10) is characteristic of S.
Mark,—who has κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας in ch. v. 38: θορυβεῖσθε και
κλαίετε in the very next verse. As for πενθεῖν, it is one of the 123 words
common to S. Matthew and S. Mark, and peculiar to their two Gospels.

(xxvii.) Lastly, “κατακρίνω (in ver. 16), instead of κρίνω, is Mark's word,
(comp. x. 33: xiv. 64).” The simple verb which is used four times by S.
Matthew, five times by S. Luke, nineteen times by S. John, is never at all
employed by S. Mark: whereas the compound verb he has oftener in
proportion than S. Matthew,—more than twice as often as either S. Luke or
S. John.

[pg 173]
Strange,—that there should be exactly “xxvii” notes of genuineness
discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of “XXVII” grounds of
suspicion!

But enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage review the progress
hitherto made in this inquiry.

I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing assertions
respecting the “Style” and “Phraseology” of this section of the Gospel
which were rehearsed at the outset,301—are destitute of foundation. But
from this discovery alone there results a settled conviction which it will be
found difficult henceforth to disturb. A page of Scripture which has been
able to endure so severe an ordeal of hostile inquiry, has been proved to be
above suspicion. That character is rightly accounted blameless which comes
out unsullied after Calumny has done her worst; done it systematically;
done it with a will; done it for a hundred years.

But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the case in respect of
the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel. Something more is certain than that the
charges which have been so industriously brought against this portion of the
Gospel are without foundation. It has been also proved that instead of there
being discovered twenty-seven suspicious words and phrases scattered up
and down these twelve verses of the Gospel, there actually exist exactly as
many words and phrases which attest with more or less certainty that those
verses are nothing else but the work of the Evangelist.

IV. And now it is high time to explain that though I have hitherto
condescended to adopt the method of my opponents, I have only done so in
order to shew that it proves fatal to themselves. I am, to say the truth,
ashamed of what has last been written,—so untrustworthy do I deem the
method which, (following the example of those who have preceded me in
this inquiry,) I have hitherto pursued. The “Concordance test,”—(for that is
probably as apt and intelligible a designation as can be devised for the
purely mechanical process whereby it is proposed by a certain school of
Critics to judge of the authorship of Scripture,)—is about the coarsest as
well as about the most delusive that could be [pg 174] devised. By means of
this clumsy and vulgar instrument, especially when applied, (as in the case
before us,) without skill and discrimination, it would be just as easy to
prove that the first twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are of a suspicious
character as the last.302 In truth, except in very skilful hands, it is no test at
all, and can only mislead.

Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that “Mark nowhere uses the
appellation Jesus Christ:” and (ii.) that “εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” is

“Pauline”—We should be reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere
introduces any of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of
“Isaiah”303 (in ver. 2) is a suspicious circumstance:—(iv.) that a quotation
from the Old Testament is “foreign to his manner,”—(for writers of this
class would not hesitate to assume that S. Mark xv. 28 is no part of the
Gospel;)—and (v.) that the fact that here are quotations from two different
prophets, betrays an unskilful hand.—(vi.) Because S. Mark three times
calls Judæa by its usual name (Ιουδαια, viz. in iii. 7: x. 1: xiii. 14), the
unique designation, ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα (in ver. 5) would be pronounced
decisive against “the authorship of Mark.”—(vii.) The same thing would be
said of the unique [pg 175] expression, ἐν Ἰορδάνη ποταμῷ, which is found
in ver. 5,—seeing that this Evangelist three times designates Jordan simply
as Ἰορδάνης (i. 9: iii. 8: x. 1).—(viii.) That entire expression in ver. 7
(unique, it must be confessed, in the Gospel,) οὖ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανος—
ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ, would be pronounced “abhorrent to the style of
Mark.”—(ix.) τὸ Πνεῦμα twice, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we should be
told is never used by the Evangelist absolutely for the Holy Ghost: but
always τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον (as in ch. iii. 29: xii. 36: xiii. 11).—(x.) The
same would be said of οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται (in ver. 5) for “the inhabitants of
Jerusalem:” we should be assured that S. Mark's phrase would rather be οἱ
ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων,—as in ch. iii. 8 and 22.—And (xi.) the expression
πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῷ (ver. 15), we should be informed “cannot be
Mark's;”—who either employs εἰς and the accusative (as in ch. ix. 92), or
else makes the verb take a dative (as in ch. xi. 31: xvi. 13, 14.)—We should
also probably be told that the ten following words are all “unknown to
Mark:”—(xii.) τρίχες,—(xiii.) δερματίνη,—(xiv.) ὀσφύς,—(xv.) ἀκρίδες,—
(xvi.) μέλι,—(xvii.) ἄγριος,(six instances in a single verse (ver. 6): a highly
suspicious circumstance!),—(xviii.) κύπτειν,—(xix.) ἱμάς,—(xx.)
ὑποδήματα, (all three instances in ver. 7!)—(xxi.) εὐδοκεῖν,—(xxii.) καὶ
ἐγένετο ... ἦλθεν (ver. 9),—unique in S. Mark!—(xxiii.) βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς
(ver 9), another unique phrase!—(xxiv.) οἱ οὐρανοί twice, (viz. in verses 10,
11) yet elsewhere, when S. Mark speaks of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41: vii. 34: viii.
11: xvi. 19) he always uses the singular.—Lastly, (xxv.) the same sorry
objection which was brought against the “last twelve verses,” (that πάλιν, a
favourite adverb with S. Mark, is not found there,) is here even more
conspicuous.

Turning away from all this,—(not, however, without an apology for having
lingered over such frivolous details so long,)—I desire to point out that we
have reverently to look below the surface, if we would ascertain how far it
is to be presumed from internal considerations whether S. Mark was indeed
the author of this portion of his Gospel, or not.

V. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philosophical, more
real test than the coarse, uncritical expedient [pg 176] which has been
hitherto considered of ascertaining by reference to the pages of a Greek
Concordance whether a certain word which is found in this section of the
Gospel is, or is not, used elsewhere by S. Mark. And I suppose it will be
generally allowed to be deserving of attention,—in fact, to be a singularly
corroborative circumstance,—that within the narrow compass of these
Twelve Verses we meet with every principal characteristic of S. Mark's
manner:—Thus,

(i.) Though he is the Author of the shortest of the Gospels, and though to all
appearance he often merely reproduces what S. Matthew has said before
him, or else anticipates something, which is afterwards delivered by S.
Luke,—it is surprising how often we are indebted to S. Mark for precious
pieces of information which we look for in vain elsewhere. Now, this is a
feature of the Evangelist's manner which is susceptible of memorable
illustration from the section before us.

How many and how considerable are the new circumstances which S. Mark
here delivers!—(1) That Mary Magdalene was the first to behold the risen
Saviour: (2) That it was He who had cast out from her the “seven devils:”
(3) How the men were engaged to whom she brought her joyful message,—
(4) who not only did not believe her story, but when Cleopas and his
companion declared what had happened to themselves, “neither believed
they them.” (5) The terms of the Ministerial Commission, as set down in
verses 15 and 16, are unique. (6) The announcement of the “signs which
should follow them that believe” is even extraordinary. Lastly, (7) this is the
only place in the Gospel where The Session at the right Hand of God is
recorded.... So many, and such precious incidents, showered into the Gospel
Treasury at the last moment, and with such a lavish hand, must needs have
proceeded if not from an Apostle at least from a companion of Apostles. O,

if we had no other token to go by, there could not be a reasonable doubt that
this entire section is by no other than S. Mark himself!

(ii.) A second striking characteristic of the second Evangelist is his love of
picturesque, or at least of striking details,—his proneness to introduce
exceedingly minute particulars, [pg 177] often of the profoundest
significancy, and always of considerable interest. Not to look beyond the
Twelve Verses (chap. i. 9-20) which were originally proposed for
comparison,—We are reminded (a) that in describing our Saviour's
Baptism, it is only S. Mark who relates that “He came from Nazareth” to be
baptized.—(b) In his highly elliptical account of our Lord's Temptation, it
is only he who relates that “He was with the wild beasts.”—(c) In his
description of the Call of the four Disciples, S. Mark alone it is who,
(notwithstanding the close resemblance of his account to what is found in S.
Matthew,) records that the father of S. James and S. John was left “in the
ship with the hired servants.”304—Now, of this characteristic, we have also
within these twelve verses, at least four illustrations:—

(a) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently proceeded from an
eye-witness,—“πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι.” S. Mark relates that when Mary
conveyed to the Disciples the joyous tidings of the Lord's Resurrection, she
found them overwhelmed with sorrow,—“mourning and weeping.”

(b) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is recorded only there.

(c) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciples were “going into
the country,” (πορευόμενοι εἰς ἀγρόν,305 ver. 12,) Jesus also “went with
them”—(συν-επορεύετο, as S. Luke relates;)—but that it was as they
actually “walked” along (περιπατοῦσιν) that this manifestation took place.

(d) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning “them that
believe;” what can be imagined more striking than the promise that they
should “take up serpents;” and suffer no harm even if they should “drink
any deadly thing”?

(iii) Next,—all have been struck, I suppose, with S. Mark's proneness to
substitute some expression of his own for what he found in the Gospel of
his predecessor S. Matthew: or, when he anticipates something which is

afterwards met with in the Gospel of S. Luke, his aptness to deliver it in
language entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude, for instance;
to his substitution of ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (xiv. 72) [pg 178] for S. Matthew's
ἔκλαυσε μικρῶς (xxvi. 75);—and of ὁ τέκτων (vi. 3) for ὁ τοῧ τέκτονος
υιος (S. Matth. xiii. 55).—The “woman of Canaan” in S. Matthew's Gospel
(γυνὴ Χαναναία, ch. xv. 22), is called “a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation”
in S. Mark's (Ἑλληνὶς, Συροφοίνισσα τῷ γένει, ch. vii. 26).—At the
Baptism, instead of the “opened” heavens of S. Matthew (ἀνεῷχθησαν, ch.
iii. 16) and S. Luke (ἀνεῳχθῆναι, ch. iii. 22), we are presented by S. Mark
with the striking image of the heavens “cleaving” or “being rent asunder”
(σχιζομένους,306 ch. i. 10).—What S. Matthew calls τὰ ὅρια Μαγδαλά (ch.
xv. 39), S. Mark designates as τὰ μέρθ Δαλμανουθά (ch. viii. 10.)—In place
of S. Matthew's ζύμη Σαδδουκαίων (ch. xvi. 6), S. Mark has ζύμη Ἡρώδου
(ch. viii. 15.)—In describing the visit to Jericho, for the δύο τυφλοί of S.
Matthew (ch. xx. 29), S. Mark gives υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτίμαιος ὁ τυφλὸς ...
προσαιτῶν (ch. ch. 46.)—For the κλάδους of S. Matth. xxi. 8, S. Mark (ch.
xi. 8) has στοιβάδας; and for the other's πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (xxvi. 34),
he has πρὶν ἢ δίς (xiv. 30.)—It is so throughout.

Accordingly,—(as we have already more than once had occasion to
remark,)—whereas the rest say only ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων, S. Mark says
πρώτη σαββάτου (in ver. 9).—Whereas S. Luke (viii. 2) says ἀφ᾽ ἧς
δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ ἐξεληλύθει,—S. Mark records that from her ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ
δαιμόνια.—Very different is the great ministerial Commission as set down
by S. Mark in ver. 15, 16, from what is found in S. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20.
—And whereas S. Luke says “their eyes were holden that they should not
know Him,” S. Mark says that “He appeared to them in another form.” ... Is
it credible that any one fabricating a conclusion to S. Mark's narrative after
S. Luke's Gospel had appeared, would have ventured so to paraphrase S.
Luke's statement? And yet, let the consistent truthfulness of either
expression be carefully noted. Both are historically accurate, but they
proceed from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly side, (God's
side), the Disciples' “eyes” (of course) “were [pg 179] holden:”—viewed on
the earthly side, (Man's side), the risen Saviour (no doubt) “appeared in
another form.”

(iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many expressions into
his Gospel which confirm the prevalent tradition that it was at Rome he
wrote it; and that it was with an immediate view to Latin readers that it was
published. Twelve such expressions were enumerated above (at p. 150-1);
and such, it was also there shewn, most unmistakably is the phrase πρώτη
σαββάτου in ver. 9.—It is simply incredible that any one but an Evangelist
writing under the peculiar conditions traditionally assigned to S. Mark,
would have hit upon such an expression as this,—the strict equivalent, to
Latin ears, for ἡ μία σαββάτων, which has occurred just above, in ver. 2.
Now this, it will be remembered, is one of the hacknied objections to the
genuineness of this entire portion of the Gospel;—quite proof enough, if
proof were needed, of the exceeding improbability which attaches to the
phrase, in the judgment of those who have considered this question the
most.

(v.) The last peculiarity of S. Mark to which I propose to invite attention is
supplied by those expressions which connect his Gospel with S. Peter, and
remind us of the constant traditional belief of the ancient Church that S.
Mark was the companion of the chief of the Apostles.

That the second Gospel contains many such hints has often been pointed
out; never more interestingly or more convincingly than by Townson307 in a
work which deserves to be in the hands of every student of Sacred Science.
Instead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to illustrate my
meaning, I will mention one which has perhaps never been mentioned in
this connexion before.

(a) Reference is made to our Lord's sayings in S. Mark vii, and specially to
what is found in ver. 19. That expression, “purging all meats” (καθαρίζων308
πάντα τὰ βρώματα), does really seem to be no part of the Divine discourse;
but the Evangelist's inspired comment on the Saviour's words.309

[pg 180]
Our Saviour (he explains) by that discourse of His—ipso, facto—“made all
meats clean.” How doubly striking a statement, when it is remembered that
probably Simon Peter himself was the actual author of it;—the same who,
on the house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that “God had made
clean” (ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε310) all His creatures!

(b) Now, let a few words spoken by the same S. Peter on a memorable
occasion be considered:—“Wherefore of these men which have companied
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
beginning from the Baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken
up (ἀνελήφθη) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His
Resurrection.”311 Does not S. Peter thereby define the precise limits of our
Saviour's Ministry,—shewing it to have “begun” (ἀρξάμενος) “from the
Baptism of John,”—and closed with the Day of our Lord's Ascension? And
what else are those but the exact bounds of S. Mark's Gospel,—of which the
ἀρχή (ch. i. 1) is signally declared to have been the Baptism of John,—and
the utmost limit, the day when (as S. Mark says) “He was taken up
(ἀνελήφθη) into Heaven,”—(ch. xvi. 19)?

(c) I will only further remind the reader, in connexion with the phrase, πᾶσῃ
τῇ κτίσει, in ver. 15,—(concerning which, the reader is referred back to
page 162-3,)—that both S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred
writers) conspire to use the expression ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.312 S. Mark has
besides κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισε ὁ Θεός (ch. xiii. 19); while S. Peter alone styles
the Almighty, from His work of Creation, ὁ κτίστης (1 S. Pet. iv. 19).

VI. But besides, and over and above such considerations [pg 181] as those
which precede,—(some of which, I am aware, might be considerably
evacuated of their cogency; while others, I am just as firmly convinced, will
remain forcible witnesses of God's Truth to the end of Time,)—I hesitate
not to avow my personal conviction that abundant and striking evidence is
garnered up within the brief compass of these Twelve Verses that they are
identical in respect of fabric with the rest of the Gospel; were clearly
manufactured out of the same Divine materials,—wrought in the same
heavenly loom.

It was even to have been expected, from what is found to have been
universally the method in other parts of Scripture,—(for it was of course
foreseen by Almighty God from the beginning that this portion of His Word
would be, like its Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, reviled,
hated, rejected, denied,)—that the Spirit would not leave Himself without
witness in this place. It was to have been anticipated, I say, that Eternal
Wisdom would carefully—(I trust there is no irreverence in so speaking of

God and His ways!)—would carefully make provision: meet the coming
unbelief (as His Angel met Balaam) with a drawn sword: plant up and down
throughout these Twelve Verses of the Gospel, sure indications of their
Divine Original,—unmistakable notes of purpose and design,—mysterious
traces and tokens of Himself; not visible indeed to the scornful and
arrogant, the impatient and irreverent; yet clear as if written with a sunbeam
to the patient and humble student, the man who “trembleth at God's
Word.”313 Or, (if the Reader prefers the image,) the indications of a Divine
Original to be met with in these verses shall be likened rather to those
cryptic characters, invisible so long as they remain unsuspected, but which
shine forth clear and strong when exposed to the Light or to the Heat;
(Light and Heat, both emblems of Himself!) so that even he that gropeth in
darkness must now see them, and admit that of a truth “the Lord is in this
place” although he “knew it not!”

(i.) I propose then that in the first instance we compare the conclusion of S.
Mark's Gospel with the beginning of it. We did this before, when our object
was to ascertain whether [pg 182] the Style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 be indeed
as utterly discordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as is commonly
represented. We found, instead, the most striking resemblance.314 We also
instituted a brief comparison between the two in order to discover whether
the Diction of the one might not possibly be found as suggestive of verbal
doubts as the diction of the other: and so we found it.315—Let us for the
third time draw the two extremities of this precious fabric into close
proximity in order again to compare them. Nothing I presume can be fairer
than to elect that, once more, our attention be chiefly directed to what is
contained within the twelve verses (ver. 9-20) of S. Mark's first chapter
which exactly correspond with the twelve verses of his last chapter (ver. 9-
20) which are the subject of the present volume.

Now between these two sections of the Gospel, besides (1) the obvious
verbal resemblance, I detect (2) a singular parallelism of essential structure.
And this does not strike me the less forcibly because nothing of the kind
was to have been expected.

(1.) On the verbal coincidences I do not propose to lay much stress. Yet are
they certainly not without argumentative weight and significancy. I allude

to the following:—

(a) [βαπτίζων, βάπτισμα (i.
4)—καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο (i. 5)
(a) βαπτισθείς (xvi. 16)
—ἐβάπτισα, βαπτίσει (i. 8)]
—καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη (i. 9)
(b) [κηρύσσων, ἐκήρυσσδ
(b) ἐκήρυξαν (xvi. 20)
(i. 7)]
(b and c) κηρύσσων τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον (i. 14)—[ἀρχὴ (c) κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (xvi. 15)
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (i. 1)]
(d) ἠπίστησαν (xvi. 11)—οὐδὲ
ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 13)—τὴν ἀπιστίαν,
(c and d) πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ
οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 14)—ὁ
εὐαγγελίῳ (i. 15)
πιστεύσας, ὁ ἀπιστήσας (xvi. 16)—
τοῖς πιστεύσασι (xvi. 17.)

Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an unmistakable relation
of sympathy between the first page of [pg 183] S. Mark's Gospel and the
last. The same doctrinal phraseology,316—the same indications of Divine
purpose,—the same prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both.
(i.) A Gospel to be everywhere preached;—(ii.) Faith, to be of all required;
—(iii.) Baptism to be universally administered; “one Lord, one Faith, one
Baptism:”—Is not this the theme of the beginning of S. Mark's Gospel as
well as of the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the two extremities
of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether the fabric be identical or not,
it were discovered that those extremities are even meant to clasp!

(2.) But the essential parallelism between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark i.
9-20 is a profounder phenomenon and deserves even more attention. I
proceed to set down side by side, as before, what ought to require neither
comment nor explanation of mine. Thus we find,—

(A) in ch. i. 9 to 11:—Our Lord's (A) in ch. xvi. 9 to 11:—Our
Manifestation to the World Lord's appearance to Mary
(ἐπιφανεία) on His “coming up Magdalene (ἐφάνη) after His
(ἀναβαίνων) out of the water” of Resurrection (ἀναστάς) from
Jordan: (having been “buried by

Baptism,” as the Apostle speaks:) death: “Thou art My Son, this
when the Voice from Heaven day have I begotten Thee.”
proclaimed,—“Thou art My
beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased.”
—12 to 14:—Two other
Manifestations (ἐφανερώθη) to
Disciples.
(B) —17, 18:—Christ's
promise that “they that
(B) —12, 13:—Christ's victory
believe” “shall cast out devils”
over Satan; (whereby is fulfilled
and “shall take up serpents:”
the promise “Thou shalt tread
(as [in S. Luke x. 19] He had
upon the lion and adder: the
given the Seventy “power to
young lion and the dragon shalt
tread on serpents and
Thou trample under feet.”)
scorpions, and over all the
power of the Enemy.”)
(C) —17:—The chief
(C) —8:—The Pentecostal Gift
Pentecostal Gift specified:
foretold: “He shall baptize you
“They shall speak with new
with the Holy Ghost.”
tongues.”

[pg 184]
(D) in ch. i. 14, 15:—Christ (D) in ch. xvi. 15, 16:—He
“comes into Galilee, commands His Apostles to “go into
preaching the Gospel ... and all the world and preach the Gospel
saying ... Repent ye, and to every creature. He that believeth
believe the Gospel.” and is baptized shall be saved.”
(E) —19:—S. Mark's record
(E) —15: His announcement, concerning Him, that “He was
that “The time is fulfilled, received up into Heaven, and sat on
and the Kingdom of God is at the right hand of God” (where He
hand.” must reign till He hath put all
enemies under His feet.)
(F) —16 to 20:—The four (F) —20:—The Apostles' Ministry,
Apostles' Call to the which is everywhere miraculously
Ministry: (which [S. Luke v. attested,—“The Lord working with

8, 9] is miraculously them, and confirming the word by
attested.) the signs that followed.”

It is surely not an unmeaning circumstance, a mere accident, that the
Evangelist should at the very outset and at the very conclusion of his
Gospel, so express himself! If, however, it should seem to the Reader a
mere matter of course, a phenomenon without interest or significancy,—
nothing which I could add would probably bring him to a different mind.

(3.) Then, further: when I scrutinize attentively the two portions of
Scripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am not a little struck by the
discovery that the VIth Article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem (A.D. 348)
is found in the one: the Xth Article, in the other.317 If it be a purely
fortuitous [pg 185] circumstance, that two cardinal verities like these,—
(viz. “He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right Hand of God”—
and “One Baptism for the Remission of sins,”) should be found at either
extremity of one short Gospel,—I will but point out that it is certainly one
of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circumstances.—But in the thing to
be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be, any talk of fortuitousness at
all.

(4.) Allusion is made to the diversity of Name whereby the Son of Man is
indicated in these two several places of the Gospel; which constitutes a
most Divine circumstance, and is profoundly significant. He who in the first
verse (S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title “Ἰησοῦς” and
“Χριστός,”—here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 19, 20) is styled for
the first and for the last time, “Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ”—the Lord.318

And why? Because He who at His Circumcision was named “Jesus,” (a
Name which was given Him from His Birth, yea, and before His Birth); He
who at His Baptism became “the Christ,” (a Title which belonged to His
Office, and which betokens His sacred Unction);—the same, on the
occasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the Right Hand of
God,—when (as we know) “all power had been given unto Him in Heaven
and in Earth” (S. Matth. xxviii. 18),—is designated by His Name of
Dominion; “the Lord” Jehovah ... “Magnifica et opportuna appellatio!”—as
Bengel well remarks.

But I take leave to point out that all this is what never either would or could
have entered into the mind of a fabricator of a conclusion to S. Mark's
unfinished Gospel. No inventor of a supplement, I say, could have planted
his foot in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my assertion is
twofold:—

(a) First, because the present indication that the Holy Ghost was indeed the
Author of these last Twelve Verses is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson and
his School, as a proof of a spurious original. Verily, such Critics do not
recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they see it!

[pg 186]
(b) Next, as a matter of fact, we have a spurious Supplement to the Gospel,
—the same which was exhibited above at p. 123-4; and which may here be
with advantage reproduced in its Latin form:—“Omnia autem quaecumque
praecepta erant illis qui cum Petro erant, breviter exposuerunt. Post haec et
ipse Iesus adparuit, et ab oriente usque in occidentem misit per illos
sanctam et incorruptam praedicationem salutis aeternae. Amen.”319—
Another apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of the Thebaic
version. It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as follows:—“Exeuntes terni
in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evangelium in mundo toto, Christo
operante cum iis in verbo confirmationem cum signis sequentibus eos et
miraculis. Atque hoc modo cognitum est regnum Dei in terra tota et in
mundo toto Israelis in testimonium gentium omnium harum quae exsistunt
ab oriente ad occasum.” It will be seen that the Title of Dominion (ὁ Κύριος
—the Lord) is found in neither of these fabricated passages; but the Names
of Nativity and of Baptism (Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός—Jesus and Christ) occur
instead.

(ii.) Then further:—It is an extraordinary note of genuineness that such a
vast number of minute but important facts should be found accumulated
within the narrow compass of these twelve verses; and should be met with
nowhere else. The writer,—supposing that he had only S. Matthew's Gospel
before him,—traverses (except in one single instance) wholly new ground;
moves forward with unmistakable boldness and a rare sense of security; and
wherever he plants his foot, it is to enrich the soil with fertility and beauty.
But on the supposition that he wrote after S. Luke's and S. John's Gospel

had appeared,—the marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold: for how
then does it come to pass that he evidently draws his information from quite
independent sources? is not bound by any of their statements? even seems
purposely to break away from their guidance, and to adventure some
extraordinary statement [pg 187] of his own,—which nevertheless carries
the true Gospel savour with it; and is felt to be authentic from the very
circumstance that no one would have ever dared to invent such a detail and
put it forth on his own responsibility?

(iii.) Second to no indication that this entire section of the Gospel has a
Divine original, I hold to be a famous expression which (like πρώτη
σαββάτου) has occasioned general offence: I mean, the designation of Mary
Magdalene as one “out of whom” the Lord “had cast seven devils;” and
that, in immediate connexion with the record of her august privilege of
being the first of the Human Race to behold His risen form. There is such
profound Gospel significancy;—such sublime improbability,—such
exquisite pathos in this record,—that I would defy any fabricator, be he who
he might, to have achieved it. This has been to some extent pointed out
already.320

(iv.) It has also been pointed out, (but the circumstance must be by all
means here insisted upon afresh,) that the designation (found in ver. 10) of
the little company of our Lord's followers,—“τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ
γενομένοις,”—is another rare note of veracious origin. No one but S. Mark,
—or just such an one as he,—would or could have so accurately designated
the little band of Christian men and women who, unconscious of their bliss,
were “mourning and weeping” till after sunrise on the first Easter Day. The
reader is reminded of what has been already offered on this subject, at p.
155-6.

(v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but S. Mark, (or such an one
as he321), would have familiarly designated the Apostolic body as “αὐτοῖς
τοῖς ἔνδεκα,” in ver. 14. The phrase οἱ δώδεκα, he uses in proportion far
oftener than any other two of the Evangelists.322 And it is evident that the
phrase οἱ ἕνδεκα soon became an equally recognised designation of the
Apostolic body,—“from which Judas by transgression fell.” Its familiar
introduction into this place by the second Evangelist is exactly what one

might have [pg 188] looked for, or at least what one is fully prepared to
meet with, in him.

(vi.) I will close this enumeration by calling attention to an unobtrusive and
unobserved verb in the last of these verses which (I venture to say) it would
never have entered into the mind of any ordinary writer to employ in that
particular place. I allude to the familiar word ἐξελθόντες.

The precise meaning of the expression,—depending on the known force of
the preposition with which the verb is compounded,—can scarcely be
missed by any one who, on the one hand, is familiar with the Evangelical
method; on the other, is sufficiently acquainted with the Gospel History.
Reference is certainly made to the final departure of the Apostolic body out
of the city of Jerusalem.323 And tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein
contained a recollection of our Saviour's command to His Apostles, twice
expressly recorded by S. Luke, “that they should not depart from
Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father.” “Behold,” (said He,) “I
send the promise of My Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of
Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”324... After many
days “they went forth” or “out.” S. Mark, (or perhaps it is rather S. Peter,)
expressly says so,—ἐξελθόντες. Aye, and that was a memorable
“outgoing,” truly! What else was its purpose but the evangelization of the
World?

VII. Let this suffice, then, concerning the evidence derived from Internal
considerations. But lest it should hereafter be reckoned as an omission, and
imputed to me as a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged
Inconsistency of certain statements contained in these “Twelve Verses” with
the larger notices contained in the parallel narratives of S. Luke and S. John,
—I proceed briefly to explain why I am silent on this head.

1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other [pg 189] words,—
what I should propose to myself as the end to be attained by what I wrote.
For,

2. What would be gained by demonstrating,—(as I am of course prepared to
do,)—that there is really no inconsistency whatever between anything
which S. Mark here says, and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should

have proved that,—(assuming the other Evangelical narratives to be
authentic, i.e. historically true,)—the narrative before us cannot be objected
to on the score of its not being authentic also. But by whom is such proof
required?

(a) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally to be met with in
the Evangelical narratives. In their estimation, the genuineness of an
inspired writing is a thing not in the least degree rendered suspicious by the
erroneousness of its statements. According to them, the narrative may
exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may yet be the work of S.
Mark. If the inconsistencies be but “trifling,” and the inaccuracies
“minute,”—these “sound Theologians,” (for so they style themselves,325)
“have no dread whatever of acknowledging” their existence. Be it so. Then
would it be a gratuitous task to set about convincing them that no
inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable within the compass of these
Twelve concluding Verses.

(b) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers; who, for want of
the requisite Scientific knowledge, are unable to discern the perfect
Harmony of the Evangelical narratives in this place. It is only one of many
places where a primâ facie discrepancy, though it does not fail to strike,—
yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them. Consciously or
unconsciously, such readers reason with themselves somewhat as follows:
—"God's Word, like all God's other Works, (and I am taught to regard God's
Word as a very masterpiece of creative skill;)—the blessed Gospel, I say, is
full of difficulties. And yet those difficulties are observed invariably to
disappear under competent investigation. Can I seriously doubt that if
sufficient critical skill were brought to bear on the highly elliptical portion
of narrative contained in these Twelve Verses, it would present no [pg 190]
exception to a rule which is observed to be else universal; and that any
apparent inconsistency between S. Mark's statements in this place, and
those of S. Luke and S. John, would also be found to be imaginary only?"

This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon a prolonged
Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion of the Principles of
Gospel Harmony,—for which the present would clearly not be the proper
place.

VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,—

1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from “Style,” (in itself a highly
fallacious test,) disappears under investigation.

It has been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the style of S. Mark
xvi. 9-20 is exceedingly like the style of S. Mark i. 9-20; and therefore, that
it is rendered probable by the Style that the Author of the beginning of this
Gospel was also the Author of the end of it.

2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument from “Phraseology,”—
(in itself, a most unsatisfactory test; and as it has been applied to the matter
in hand, a very coarse and clumsy one;)—breaks down hopelessly under
severe analysis.

Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circumstances in the
Phraseology of these Twelve Verses, it has been proved (pp. 170-3) that in
twenty-seven particulars there emerge corroborative considerations.

3. Lastly, I have shewn that a loftier method of Criticism is at hand; and
that, tested by this truer, more judicious, and more philosophical standard; a
presumption of the highest order is created that these Verses must needs be
the work of S. Mark.

[pg 191]

CHAPTER X.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE
LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE
ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO THE
GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.

The Lectionary of the East shewn to be a work of extraordinary antiquity (p.
195).—Proved to be older than any extant MS. of the Gospels, by an appeal
to the Fathers (p. 198).—In this Lectionary, (and also in the Lectionary of the
West,) the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel have, from the first,
occupied a most conspicuous, as well as most honourable place, (p. 204.)—
Now, this becomes the testimony of ante-Nicene Christendom in their favour
(p. 209.)

I have reserved for the last the testimony of the Lectionaries, which has
been hitherto all but entirely overlooked;326—passed by without so much as
a word of comment, by those who have preceded me in this inquiry. Yet is
it, when rightly understood, altogether decisive of the question at issue. And
why? Because it is not the testimony rendered by a solitary father or by a
solitary MS.; no, nor even the testimony yielded by a single Church, or by a
single family of MSS. But it is the united testimony of all the Churches. It is
therefore the evidence borne by a “goodly fellowship of Prophets,” a “noble
array of Martyrs” indeed; as well as by MSS. innumerable which have long

since perished, but which must of necessity once have been. And so, it
comes to us like the voice of many waters: dates, (as I shall shew by-and-
by,) from a period of altogether immemorial antiquity: is endorsed by the
sanction of all the succeeding ages: admits of neither doubt nor evasion.
This subject, in order that it may be intelligibly handled, will be [pg 192]
most conveniently approached by some remarks which shall rehearse the
matter from the beginning.

The Christian Church succeeded to the Jewish. The younger society
inherited the traditions of the elder, not less as a measure of necessity than
as a matter of right; and by a kind of sacred instinct conformed itself from
the very beginning in countless particulars to its divinely-appointed model.
The same general Order of Service went on unbroken,—conducted by a
Priesthood whose spiritual succession was at least as jealously guarded as
had been the natural descent from Aaron in the Church of the
Circumcision.327 It was found that “the Sacraments of the Jews are [but]
types of ours.”328 Still were David's Psalms antiphonally recited, and the
voices of “Moses and the Prophets” were heard in the sacred assemblies of
God's people “every Sabbath day.” Canticle succeeded to Canticle; while
many a Versicle simply held its ground. The congenial utterances of the
chosen race passed readily into the service of the family of the redeemed.
Unconsciously perhaps, the very method of the one became adopted by the
other: as, for example, the method of beginning a festival from the “Eve” of
the preceding Day. The Synagogue-worship became transfigured; but it did
not part with one of its characteristic features. Above all, the same three
great Festivals were still retained which declare “the rock whence we are
hewn and the hole of the pit whence we are digged:” only was it made a
question, a controversy rather, whether Easter should or should not be
celebrated with the Jews.329

But it is the faithful handing on to the Christian community of the
Lectionary practice of the Synagogue to which the reader's attention is now
exclusively invited. That the Christian Church inherited from the Jewish the
practice of reading a first and a second Lesson in its public assemblies, is
demonstrable. What the Synagogue practice was in the time of the Apostles
is known from Acts xiii. 15, 27. Justin [pg 193] Martyr, (A.D. 150)
describes the Christian practice in his time as precisely similar:330 only that

for “the Law,” there is found to have been at once substituted “the Gospel.”
He speaks of the writings of “the Apostles” and of “the Prophets.”
Chrysostom has the same expression (for the two Lessons) in one of his
Homilies.331 Cassian (A.D. 400) says that in Egypt, after the Twelve Prayers
at Vespers and at Matins, two Lessons were read, one out of the Old
Testament and the other out of the New. But on Saturdays and Sundays, and
the fifty days of Pentecost, both Lessons were from the New Testament,—
one from the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles; the other, from the
Gospels.332 Our own actual practice seems to bear a striking resemblance to
that of the Christian Church at the earliest period: for we hear of (1) “Moses
and the Prophets,” (which will have been the carrying on of the old
synagogue-method, represented by our first and second Lesson,)—(2) a
lesson out of the “Epistles or Acts,” together with a lesson out of the
“Gospels.”333 It is, in fact, universally received that the Eastern Church has,
from a period of even Apostolic antiquity, enjoyed a Lectionary,—or
established system of Scripture lessons,—of her own. In its conception, this
Lectionary is discovered to have been fashioned (as was natural) upon the
model of the Lectionary of God's ancient people, the Jews: for it
commences, as theirs did, in the autumn, (in September334); and [pg 194]
prescribes two immovable “Lections” for every Saturday (as well as for
every Sunday) in the year: differing chiefly in this,—that the prominent
place which had been hitherto assigned to “the Law and the Prophets,”335
was henceforth enjoyed by the Gospels and the Apostolic writings.
“Saturday-Sunday” lections—(σαββατοκυριακαί, for so these Lections
were called,)—retain their place in the “Synaxarium” of the East to the
present hour. It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath and
the Sunday succeeding it do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation; so
that the week takes its name—not from the Sunday with which it
commences,336 but—from the Sabbath-and-Sunday with which it concludes.
To mention only one out of a hundred minute traits of identity which the
public Service of the sanctuary retained:—Easter Eve, which from the
earliest period to this day has been called “μέγα σάββατον,”337 is discovered
to have borne the self-same appellation in the Church of the
Circumcision.338—If I do not enter more minutely into the structure of the
Oriental Lectionary,—(some will perhaps think I have said too much, but
the interest of the subject ought to be a sufficient apology,)—it is because

further details would be irrelevant to my present purpose; which is only to
call attention to the three following facts:

(I.) That the practice in the Christian Church of reading publicly before the
congregation certain fixed portions of Holy Writ, according to an
established and generally received rule, must have existed from a period
long anterior to the date of any known Greek copy of the New Testament
Scriptures.

(II.) That although there happens to be extant neither “Synaxarium,” (i.e.
Table of Proper Lessons of the Greek [pg 195] Church), nor
“Evangelistarium,” (i.e. Book containing the Ecclesiastical Lections in
extenso), of higher antiquity than the viiith century,—yet that the scheme
itself, as exhibited by those monuments,—certainly in every essential
particular,—is older than any known Greek MS. which contains it, by at
least four, in fact by full five hundred years.

(III.) Lastly,—That in the said Lectionaries of the Greek and of the Syrian
Churches, the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark which are the subject of
discussion throughout the present pages are observed invariably to occupy
the same singularly conspicuous, as well as most honourable place.

I. The first of the foregoing propositions is an established fact. It is at least
quite certain that in the ivth century (if not long before) there existed a
known Lectionary system, alike in the Church of the East and of the West.
Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 348,) having to speak about our Lord's Ascension,
remarks that by a providential coincidence, on the previous day, which was
Sunday, the event had formed the subject of the appointed lessons;339 and
that he had availed himself of the occasion to discourse largely on the
subject.—Chrysostom, preaching at Antioch, makes it plain that, in [pg
196] the latter part of the ivth century, the order of the lessons which were
publicly read in the Church on Saturdays and Sundays340 was familiarly
known to the congregation: for he invites them to sit down, and study
attentively beforehand, at home, the Sections (περικοπάς) of the Gospel
which they were about to hear in Church.341—Augustine is express in
recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for Festival days;342
and that an innovation which he had attempted on Good Friday had given

general offence.343—Now by these few notices, to look no further, it is
rendered certain that a Lectionary system of some sort must have been in
existence at a period long anterior to the date of any copy of the New
Testament Scriptures extant. I shall shew by-and-by that the fact is
established by the Codices (B, ‫א‬, A, C, D) themselves.

But we may go back further yet; for not only Eusebius, but Origen and
Clemens Alexandrinus, by their habitual use of the technical term for an
Ecclesiastical Lection (περικοπή, ἀνάγνωσις, ἀνάγνωσμα,) remind us that
the Lectionary practice of the East was already established in their days.344

II. The Oriental Lectionary consists of “Synaxarion” and “Eclogadion,” (or
Tables of Proper Lessons from the Gospels and Apostolic writings daily
throughout the year;) [pg 197] together with “Menologion,” (or Calendar of
immovable Festivals and Saints' Days.) That we are thoroughly acquainted
with all of these, as exhibited in Codices of the viiith, ixth and xth centuries,
—is a familiar fact; in illustration of which it is enough to refer the reader to
the works cited at the foot of the page.345 But it is no less certain that the
scheme of Proper Lessons itself is of much higher antiquity.

1. The proof of this, if it could only be established by an induction of
particular instances, would not only be very tedious, but also very difficult
indeed. It will be perceived, on reflection, that even when the occasion of a
Homily (suppose) is actually recorded, the Scripture references which it
contains, apart from the Author's statement that what he quotes had formed
part of that day's Service, creates scarcely so much as a presumption of the
fact: while the correspondence, however striking, between such references
to Scripture and the Lectionary as we have it, is of course no proof
whatever that we are so far in possession of the Lectionary of the Patristic
age. Nay, on famous Festivals, [pg 198] the employment of certain passages
of Scripture is, in a manner, inevitable,346 and may on no account be
pressed.

2. Thus, when Chrysostom347 and when Epiphanius,348 preaching on
Ascension Day, refer to Acts i. 10, 11,—we do not feel ourselves warranted
to press the coincidence of such a quotation with the Liturgical section of
the day.—So, again, when Chrysostom preaches on Christmas Day, and

quotes from S. Matthew ii. 1, 2;349 or on Whitsunday, and quotes from S.
John vii. 38 and Acts ii. 3 and 13;—though both places form part of the
Liturgical sections for the day, no proof results therefrom that either chapter
was actually used.

3. But we are not reduced to this method. It is discovered that nearly three-
fourths of Chrysostom's Homilies on S. Matthew either begin at the first
verse of a known Ecclesiastical Lection; or else at the first ensuing verse
after the close of one. Thirteen of those Homilies in succession (the 63rd to
the 75th inclusive) begin with the first words of as many known Lections.
“Let us attend to this delightful section (περικοπή) which we never cease
turning to,”—are the opening words of Chrysostom's 79th Homily, of which
“the text” is S. Matth. xxv. 31, i.e. the beginning of the Gospel for
Sexagesima Sunday.—Cyril of Alexandria's (so called) “Commentary on S.
Luke” is nothing else but a series of short Sermons, for the most part
delivered on known Ecclesiastical Lections; which does not seem to have
been as yet observed.—Augustine (A.D. 416) says expressly that he had
handled S. John's Gospel in precisely the same way.350—All this is
significant in a high degree.

[pg 199]
4. I proceed, however, to adduce a few distinct proofs that the existing
Lectionary of the great Eastern Church,—as it is exhibited by Matthaei, by
Scholz, and by Scrivener from MSS. of the viiith century,—and which is
contained in Syriac MSS. of the vith and viith—must needs be in the main a
work of extraordinary antiquity. And if I do not begin by insisting that at
least one century more may be claimed for it by a mere appeal to the
Hierosolymitan Version, it is only because I will never knowingly admit
what may prove to be untrustworthy materials351 into my foundations.

(a) “Every one is aware,” (says Chrysostom in a sermon on our Saviour's
Baptism, preached at Antioch, A.D. 387,) “that this is called the Festival of
the Epiphany. Two manifestations are thereby intended: concerning both of
which you have heard this day S. Paul discourse in his Epistle to Titus.”352
Then follows a quotation from ch. ii. 11 to 13,—which proves to be the
beginning of the lection for the day in the Greek Menology. In the time of
Chrysostom, therefore, Titus ii. 11, 12, 13 formed part of one of the

Epiphany lessons,—as it does to this hour in the Eastern Church. What is
scarcely less interesting, it is also found to have been part of the Epistle for
the Epiphany in the old Gallican Liturgy,353 the affinities of which with the
East are well known.

(b) Epiphanius (speaking of the Feasts of the Church) says, that at the
Nativity, a Star shewed that the Word had become incarnate: at the
“Theophania” (our “Epiphany”) John cried, “Behold the Lamb of God,”
&c., and a Voice from Heaven proclaimed Him at His Baptism.
Accordingly, S. Matth. ii. 1-12 is found to be the ancient lection for
Christmas Day: S. Mark i. 9-11 and S. Matth. iii. 13-17 the lections for
Epiphany. On the morrow, was read S. John i. 29-34.

(c) In another of his Homilies, Chrysostom explains with considerable
emphasis the reason why the Book of the Acts was read publicly in Church
during the interval between Easter and Pentecost; remarking, that it had
been the [pg 200] liturgical arrangement of a yet earlier age.354—After such
an announcement, it becomes a very striking circumstance that Augustine
also (A.D. 412) should be found to bear witness to the prevalence of the
same liturgical arrangement in the African Church.355 In the old Gallican
Lectionary, as might have been expected, the same rule is recognisable. It
ought to be needless to add that the same arrangement is observed
universally to prevail in the Lectionaries both of the East and of the West to
the present hour; although the fact must have been lost sight of by the
individuals who recently, under pretence of “making some advantageous
alterations” in our Lectionary, have constructed an entirely new one,—
vicious in principle and liable to the gravest objections throughout,—
whereby this link also which bound the Church of England to the practice
of Primitive Christendom, has been unhappily broken; this note of
Catholicity also has been effaced.356

[pg 201]
(d) The purely arbitrary arrangement, (as Mr. Scrivener phrases it), by
which the Book of Genesis, instead of the Gospel, is appointed to be read357
on the week days of Lent, is discovered to have been fully recognised in the
time of Chrysostom. Accordingly, the two series of Homilies on the Book
of Genesis which that Father preached, he preached in Lent.358

(e) It will be seen in the next chapter that it was from a very remote period
the practice of the Eastern Church to introduce into the lesson for Thursday
in Holy-week, S. Luke's account (ch. xxii. 43, 44) of our Lord's “Agony
and bloody Sweat,” immediately after S. Matth. xxvi. 39. That is, no doubt,
the reason why Chrysostom,—who has been suspected, (I think
unreasonably,) of employing an Evangelistarium instead of a copy of the
Gospels in the preparation of his Homilies, is observed to quote those same
two verses in that very place in his Homily on S. Matthew;359 which shews
that the Lectionary system of the Eastern Church in this respect is at least as
old as the ivth century.

(f) The same two verses used to be left out on the Tuesday after Sexagesima
(τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου) for which day S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1, is the
appointed lection. And this explains why Cyril (A.D. 425) in his Homilies
on S. Luke, passes them by in silence.360

But we can carry back the witness to the Lectionary practice of omitting
these verses, at least a hundred years; for [pg 202] Cod. B, (evidently for
that same reason,) also omits them, as was stated above, in p. 79. They are
wanting also in the Thebaic version, which is of the iiird century.

(g) It will be found suggested in the next chapter (page 218) that the
piercing of our Lord's side, (S. John xix. 34),—thrust into Codd. B and ‫א‬
immediately after S. Matth. xxvii. 49,—is probably indebted for its place in
those two MSS. to the Eastern Lectionary practice. If this suggestion be
well founded, a fresh proof is obtained that the Lectionary of the East was
fully established in the beginning of the ivth century. But see Appendix (H).

(h) It is a remarkable note of the antiquity of that Oriental Lectionary
system with which we are acquainted, that S. Matthew's account of the
Passion (ch. xxvii. 1-61,) should be there appointed to be read alone on the
evening of Good Friday. Chrysostom clearly alludes to this practice;361
which Augustine expressly states was also the practice in his own day.362
Traces of the same method are discoverable in the old Gallican
Lectionary.363

(i) Epiphanius, (or the namesake of his who was the author of a well-known
Homily on Palm Sunday,) remarks that “yesterday” had been read the
history of the rising of Lazarus.364 Now S. John xi. 1-45 is the lection for the
antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries.

(k) In conclusion, I may be allowed so far to anticipate what will be found
fully established in the next chapter, as to point out here that since in
countless places the text of our oldest Evangelia as well as the readings of
the primitive Fathers exhibit unmistakable traces of the corrupting influence
of the Lectionary practice, that very fact becomes irrefragable evidence of
the antiquity of the Lectionary which is the occasion of it. Not only must it
be more [pg 203] ancient than Cod. B or Cod. ‫א‬, (which are referred to the
beginning of the ivth century), but it must be older than Origen in the iiird
century, or the Vetus Itala and the Syriac in the iind. And thus it is
demonstrated, (1st) That fixed Lessons were read in the Churches of the
East in the immediately post-Apostolic age; and (2ndly) That, wherever we
are able to test it, the Lectionary of that remote period corresponded with
the Lectionary which has come down to us in documents of the vith and
viith century, and was in fact constructed in precisely the same way.

I am content in fact to dismiss the preceding instances with this general
remark:—that a System which is found to have been fully recognised
throughout the East and throughout the West in the beginning of the fourth
century, must of necessity have been established very long before. It is as
when we read of three British Bishops attending the Council at Arles, A.D.
314. The Church (we say) which could send out those three Bishops must
have been fully organized at a greatly antecedent period.

4. Let us attend, however, to the great Festivals of the Church. These are
declared by Chrysostom (in a Homily delivered at Antioch 20 Dec. A.D.
386) to be the five following:—(1) Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3)
Pascha: (4) Ascension: (5) Pentecost.365 Epiphanius, his contemporary,
(Bishop of Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the same
enumeration,366 in a Homily on the Ascension.367 In the Apostolical
Constitutions, the same five Festivals are enumerated.368 Let me state a few
Liturgical facts in connexion with each of these.

[pg 204]
It is plain that the preceding enumeration could not have been made at any
earlier period: for the Epiphany of our Saviour and His Nativity were
originally but one Festival.369 Moreover, the circumstances are well known
under which Chrysostom (A.D. 386) announced to his Eastern auditory that
in conformity with what had been correctly ascertained at Rome, the
ancient Festival was henceforth to be disintegrated.370 But this is not
material to the present inquiry. We know that, as a matter of fact, “the
Epiphanies” (for τὰ ἐπιφανία is the name of the Festival) became in
consequence distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5: our Lord's Baptism being
the event chiefly commemorated on the latter anniversary,371—which used
to be chiefly observed in honour of His Birth372—Concerning the Lessons
for Passion-tide and Easter, as well as concerning those for the Nativity and
Epiphany, something has been offered already; to which may be added that
Hesychius, in the opening sentences of that “Homily” which has already
engaged so much of our attention,373 testifies that the conclusion of S.
Mark's Gospel was in his days, as it has been ever since, one of the lections
for Easter. He begins by saying that the Evangelical narratives of the
Resurrection were read on the Sunday night; and proceeds to reconcile S.
Mark's with the rest.—Chrysostom once and again adverts to the practice of
discontinuing the reading of the Acts after Pentecost,374—which is observed
to be also the method of the Lectionaries.

III. I speak separately of the Festival of the Ascension, for an obvious
reason. It ranked, as we have seen, in the estimation of Primitive
Christendom, with the greatest Festivals of the Church. Augustine, in a
well-known passage, hints that it may have been of Apostolical origin;375 so
exceedingly [pg 205] remote was its institution accounted in the days of the
great African Father, as well as so entirely forgotten by that time was its
first beginning. I have to shew that in the Great Oriental Lectionary
(whether of the Greek or of the Syrian Church) the last Twelve Verses of S.
Mark's Gospel occupy a conspicuous as well as a most honourable place.
And this is easily done: for,

(a) The Lesson for Matins on Ascension-Day in the East, in the oldest
documents to which we have access, consisted (as now it does) of the last
Twelve Verses,—neither more nor less,—of S. Mark's Gospel. At the

Liturgy on Ascension was read S. Luke xxiv. 36-53: but at Matins, S. Mark
xvi. 9-20. The witness of the “Synaxaria” is constant to this effect.

(b) The same lection precisely was adopted among the Syrians by the
Melchite Churches,376—(the party, viz. which maintained the decrees of the
Council of Chalcedon): and it is found appointed also in the “Evangeliarium
Hierosolymitanum.”377 In the Evangelistarium used in the Jacobite, (i.e. the
Monophysite) Churches of Syria, a striking difference of arrangement is
discoverable. While S. Luke xxiv. 36-53 was read at Vespers and at Matins
on Ascension Day, the last seven verses of S. Mark's Gospel (ch. xvi. 14-20)
were read at the Liturgy.378 Strange, that the self-same Gospel should have
been adopted at a remote age by some of the Churches of the West,379 and
should survive in our own Book of Common Prayer to this hour!

(c) But S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was not only appointed by the Greek Church to be
read upon Ascension Day. Those same twelve verses constitute the third of
the xi “Matin Gospels of the Resurrection” which were universally held in
high [pg 206] esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian380), and
were read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the year; as well
as daily throughout Easter week.

(d) A rubricated copy of S. Mark's Gospel in Syriac,381 certainly older than
A.D. 583, attests that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was the “Lection for the great First
Day of the week,” (μεγάλη κυριακή, i.e. Easter Day). Other copies almost
as ancient382 add that it was used “at the end of the Service at the dawn.”

(e) Further, these same “Twelve Verses” constituted the Lesson at Matins
for the 2nd Sunday after Easter,—a Sunday which by the Greeks is called
κυριακή τῶν μυροφόρων, but with the Syrians bore the names of “Joseph
and Nicodemus.”383 So also in the “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.”

(f) Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark xvi. 9-18 (or 9-
20384) was also read at Matins on Easter-Tuesday.385 In the Gallican Church,
the third lection for Easter-Monday extended from S. Mark xv. 47 to xvi.
11: for Easter-Tuesday, from xvi. 12 to the end of the Gospel.386 Augustine
says that in Africa also these concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel used to
be publicly read at Easter tide.387 The same verses (beginning with ver. 9)
are indicated in the oldest extant Lectionary of the Roman Church.388

(g) Lastly, it may be stated that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was with the Greeks the
Gospel for the Festival of S. Mary Magdalene (ἡ μυροφόρος), July 22.389

[pg 207]
He knows wondrous little about this department of Sacred Science who can
require to be informed that such a weight of public testimony as this to the
last Twelve Verses of a Gospel is simply overwhelming. The single
discovery that in the age of Augustine [385-430] this portion of S. Mark's
Gospel was unquestionably read at Easter in the Churches of Africa, added
to the express testimony of the Author of the 2nd Homily on the
Resurrection, and of the oldest Syriac MSS., that they were also read by the
Orientals at Easter in the public services of the Church, must be held to be
in a manner decisive of the question.

Let the evidence, then, which is borne by Ecclesiastical usage to the
genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, be summed up, and the entire case caused
again to pass under review.

(1.) That Lessons from the New Testament were publicly read in the
assemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an
established system, at least as early as the fourth century,—has been shewn
to be a plain historical fact. Cyril, at Jerusalem,—(and by implication, his
namesake at Alexandria,)—Chrysostom, at Antioch and at Constantinople,
—Augustine, in Africa,—all four expressly witness to the circumstance. In
other words, there is found to have been at least at that time fully
established throughout the Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, which
seems to have been essentially one and the same in the West390 and in the
East. That it must have been of even Apostolic antiquity may be inferred
from several considerations. But that it dates its beginning from a period
anterior to the age of [pg 208] Eusebius,—which is the age of Codices B
and ‫א‬,—at least admits of no controversy.

(2.) Next,—Documents of the vith century put us in possession of the great
Oriental Lectionary as it is found at that time to have universally prevailed
throughout the vast unchanging East. In other words, several of the actual
Service Books, in Greek and in Syriac,391 have survived the accidents of full
a thousand years: and rubricated copies of the Gospels carry us back three

centuries further. The entire agreement which is observed to prevail among
these several documents,—added to the fact that when tested by the
allusions incidentally made by Greek Fathers of the ivth century to what
was the Ecclesiastical practice of their own time, there are found to emerge
countless as well as highly significant notes of correspondence,—warrants
us in believing, (in the absence of testimony of any sort to the contrary,)
that the Lectionary we speak of differs in no essential respect from that
system of Lections with which the Church of the ivth century was
universally acquainted.

Nothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in the course of the
present inquiry than the fact, that documents alone are wanting to make that
altogether demonstrable which, in default of such evidence, must remain a
matter of inevitable inference only. The forms we are pursuing at last
disappear from our sight: but it is only the mist of the early morning which
shrouds them. We still hear their voices: still track their footsteps: know that
others still see them, although we ourselves see them no longer. We are sure
that there they still are. Moreover they may yet reappear at any moment.
Thus, there exist Syriac MSS. of the Gospels of the viith and even of the
vith century, in which the Lessons are rubricated in the text or on the
margin. A Syriac MS. (of part of the Old T.) is actually dated A.D. 464.392
Should an Evangelium of similar date [pg 209] ever come to light of which
the rubrication was evidently by the original Scribe, the evidence of the
Lectionaries would at once be carried back full three hundred years.

But in fact we stand in need of no such testimony. Acceptable as it would
be, it is plain that it would add no strength to the argument whatever. We are
already able to plant our footsteps securely in the ivth and even in the iiird
century. It is not enough to insist that inasmuch as the Liturgical method of
Christendom was at least fully established in the East and in the West at the
close of the ivth century, it therefore must have had its beginning at a far
remoter period. Our two oldest Codices (B and ‫ )א‬bear witness throughout
to the corrupting influence of a system which was evidently in full
operation before the time of Eusebius. And even this is not all. The readings
in Origen, and of the earliest versions of the Gospel, (the old Latin, the

Syriac, the Egyptian versions,) carry back our evidence on this subject
unmistakably to the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles. This
will be found established in the course of the ensuing Chapter.

Beginning our survey of the problem at the opposite end, we arrive at the
same result; with even a deepened conviction that in its essential structure,
the Lectionary of the Eastern Church must be of truly primitive antiquity:
indeed that many of its leading provisions must date back almost,—nay
quite,—to the Apostolic age. From whichever side we approach this
question,—whatever test we are able to apply to our premisses,—our
conclusion remains still the very same.

(3.) Into this Lectionary then,—so universal in its extent, so consistent in its
witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,—“the Last Twelve Verses of the
Gospel according to S. Mark” from the very first are found to have won for
themselves not only an entrance, a lodgment, an established place; but, the
place of highest honour,—an audience on two of the Church's chiefest
Festivals.

The circumstance is far too important, far too significant to be passed by
without a few words of comment.

For it is not here, (be it carefully observed,) as when [pg 210] we appeal to
some Patristic citation, that the recognition of a phrase, or a verse, or a
couple of verses, must be accepted as a proof that the same ancient Father
recognised the context also in which those words are found. Not so. All the
Twelve Verses in dispute are found in every known copy of the venerable
Lectionary of the East. Those same Twelve Verses,—neither more nor less,
—are observed to constitute one integral Lection.

But even this is not all. The most important fact seems to be that to these
Verses has been assigned a place of the highest possible distinction. It is
found that, from the very first, S. Mark xvi. 9-20 has been everywhere, and
by all branches of the Church Catholic, claimed for two of the Church's
greatest Festivals,—Easter and Ascension. A more weighty or a more
significant circumstance can scarcely be imagined. To suppose that a
portion of Scripture singled out for such extraordinary honour by the
Church universal is a spurious addition to the Gospel, is purely irrational; is

simply monstrous. No unauthorized “fragment,” however “remarkable,”
could by possibility have so established itself in the regards of the East and
of the West, from the very first. No suspected “addition, placed here in very
early times,” would have been tolerated in the Church's solemn public
Service six or seven times a-year. No. It is impossible. Had it been one short
clause which we were invited to surrender: a verse: two verses: even three
or four:—the plea being that (as in the case of the celebrated pericopa de
adulterâ) the Lectionaries knew nothing of them:—the case would have
been entirely different. But for any one to seek to persuade us that these
Twelve Verses, which exactly constitute one of the Church's most famous
Lections, are every one of them spurious:—that the fatal taint begins with
the first verse, and only ends with the last:—this is a demand on our
simplicity which, in a less solemn subject, would only provoke a smile. We
are constrained to testify astonishment and even some measure of concern.
Have the Critics then, (supposing them to be familiar with the evidence
which has now been set forth so much in detail;)—Have the Critics then,
(we ask) utterly taken leave of their [pg 211] senses? or do they really
suppose that we have taken leave of ours?

It is time to close this discussion. It was declared at the outset that the
witness of the Lectionaries to the genuineness of these Verses, though it has
been generally overlooked, is the most important of any: admitting, as it
does, of no evasion: being simply, as it is, decisive. I have now fully
explained the grounds of that assertion. I have set the Verses, which I
undertook to vindicate and establish, on a basis from which it will be found
impossible any more to dislodge them. Whatever Griesbach, and
Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and the rest, may think about the matter,—the
Holy Eastern Church in her corporate capacity, has never been of their
opinion. They may doubt. The ante-Nicene Fathers at least never doubted.
If “the last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark were deservedly omitted from certain
Copies of his Gospel in the ivth century, utterly incredible is it that these
same Twelve Verses should have been disseminated, by their authority,
throughout Christendom;—read, by their command, in all the Churches;—
selected, by their collective judgment, from the whole body of Scripture for
the special honour of being listened to once and again at Easter time, as
well as on Ascension-Day.

[pg 212]

CHAPTER XI.

THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE
VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES
OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND
ACCOUNTED FOR.

The Text of our five oldest Uncials proved, by an induction of instances, to
have suffered depravation throughout by the operation of the ancient
Lectionary system of the Church (p. 217).—The omission of S. Mark's “last
Twelve Verses,” (constituting an integral Ecclesiastical Lection,) shewn to be
probably only one more example of the same depraving influence (p. 224).
This solution of the problem corroborated by the language of Eusebius and of
Hesychius (p. 232); as well as favoured by the “Western” order of the
Gospels (p. 239).

I am much mistaken if the suggestion which I am about to offer has not
already presented itself to every reader of ordinary intelligence who has
taken the trouble to follow the course of my argument thus far with
attention. It requires no acuteness whatever,—it is, as it seems to me, the
merest instinct of mother-wit,—on reaching the present stage of the
discussion, to debate with oneself somewhat as follows:—

1. So then, the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel were anciently often
observed to be missing from the copies. Eusebius expressly says so. I
observe that he nowhere says that their genuineness was anciently
suspected. As for himself, his elaborate discussion of their contents

convinces me that individually, he regarded them with favour. The mere
fact,—(it is best to keep to his actual statement,)—that “the entire
passage”393 was “not met with in all the copies,” is the sum of his evidence:
and two Greek manuscripts, yet extant, supposed to be of the ivth century
(Codd. B and ‫)א‬, mutilated in this precise way, testify to the truth of his
statement.

2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Verses,—neither more
nor less,—anciently constituted an integral [pg 213] Ecclesiastical Lection;
which lection,—inasmuch as it is found to have established itself in every
part of Christendom at the earliest period to which liturgical evidence
reaches back, and to have been assigned from the very first to two of the
chiefest Church Festivals,—must needs be a lection of almost Apostolic
antiquity. Eusebius, I observe, (see p. 45), designates the portion of
Scripture in dispute by its technical name,—κεφάλαιον or περικοπή; (for so
an Ecclesiastical lection was anciently called). Here then is a rare
coincidence indeed. It is in fact simply unique. Surely, I may add that it is in
the highest degree suggestive also. It inevitably provokes the inquiry,—
Must not these two facts be not only connected, but even interdependent?
Will not the omission of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark from
certain ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way occasioned by
the fact that those same twelve verses constituted an integral Church
Lection? How is it possible to avoid suspecting that the phenomenon to
which Eusebius invites attention, (viz. that certain copies of S. Mark's
Gospel in very ancient times had been mutilated from the end of the 8th
verse onwards,) ought to be capable of illustration,—will have in fact to be
explained, and in a word accounted for,—by the circumstance that at the
8th verse of S. Mark's xvith chapter, one ancient Lection came to an end,
and another ancient Lection began?

Somewhat thus, (I venture to think,) must every unprejudiced Reader of
intelligence hold parley with himself on reaching the close of the preceding
chapter. I need hardly add that I am thoroughly convinced he would be
reasoning rightly. I am going to shew that the Lectionary practice of the
ancient Church does indeed furnish a sufficient clue for the unravelment of
this now famous problem: in other words, enables us satisfactorily to
account for the omission of these Twelve Verses from ancient copies of the

collected Gospels. But I mean to do more. I propose to make my appeal to
documents which shall be observed to bear no faltering witness in my
favour. More yet. I propose that Eusebius himself, the chief author of all
this trouble, shall be brought back into Court and invited to resyllable his
[pg 214] Evidence; and I am much mistaken if even he will not be observed
to let fall a hint that we have at last got on the right scent;—have accurately
divined how this mistake took its first beginning;—and, (what is not least to
the purpose,) have correctly apprehended what was his own real meaning in
what he himself has said.

The proposed solution of the difficulty,—if not the evidence on which it
immediately rests,—might no doubt be exhibited within exceedingly
narrow limits. Set down abruptly, however, its weight and value would
inevitably fail to be recognised, even by those who already enjoy some
familiarity with these studies. Very few of the considerations which I shall
have to rehearse are in fact unknown to Critics: yet is it evident that their
bearing on the problem before us has hitherto altogether escaped their
notice. On the other hand, by one entirely a novice to this department of
sacred Science, I could scarcely hope to be so much as understood. Let me
be allowed, therefore, to preface what I have to say with a few explanatory
details which I promise shall not be tedious, and which I trust will not be
found altogether without interest either. If they are anywhere else to be met
with, it is my misfortune, not my fault, that I have been hitherto
unsuccessful in discovering the place.

I. From the earliest ages of the Church, (as I shewed at page 192-5,) it has
been customary to read certain definite portions of Holy Scripture,
determined by Ecclesiastical authority, publicly before the Congregation. In
process of time, as was natural, the sections so required for public use were
collected into separate volumes: Lections from the Gospels being written
out in a Book which was called “Evangelistarium,” (εὐαγγελιστάριον,)—
from the Acts and Epistles, in a book called “Praxapostolus,”
(πραξαπόστολος). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and Syriac, are yet
extant in great numbers,394 and (I may remark in [pg 215] passing) deserve a
far greater amount of attention than has hitherto been bestowed upon
them.395

When the Lectionary first took the form of a separate book, has not been
ascertained. That no copy is known to exist (whether in Greek or in Syriac)
older than the viiith century, proves nothing. Codices in daily use, (like the
Bibles used in our Churches,) must of necessity have been of exceptionally
brief duration; and Lectionaries, more even than Biblical MSS. were liable
to injury and decay.

II. But it is to be observed,—(and to explain this, is much more to my
present purpose,)—that besides transcribing the Ecclesiastical lections into
separate books, it became the practice at a very early period to adapt copies
of the Gospel to lectionary purposes. I suspect that this practice began in
the Churches of Syria; for Syriac copies of the Gospels (at least of the viith
century) abound, which have the Lections more or less systematically
rubricated in the Text.396 There is in the British Museum a copy of S. Mark's
Gospel according to the Peshito version, certainly written previous to A.D.
583, which has at least five or six rubrics so inserted by the original
scribe.397 As a rule, in all later cursive Greek MSS., (I mean those of the
xiith to the xvth century,) the Ecclesiastical lections are indicated
throughout: while either at the summit, or else at the foot of the page, the
formula with which the Lection was to be introduced is elaborately inserted;
prefaced probably by a rubricated statement (not always very easy to
decipher) of the occasion when the ensuing portion of Scripture was to be
read. The ancients, to a far greater extent than ourselves,398 were
accustomed,—(in [pg 216] fact, they made it a rule,)—to prefix
unauthorized formulæ to their public Lections; and these are sometimes
found to have established themselves so firmly, that at last they became as it
were ineradicable; and later copyists of the fourfold Gospel are observed to
introduce them unsuspiciously into the inspired text.399 All that belongs to
this subject deserves particular attention; because it is this which explains
not a few of the perturbations (so to express oneself) which the text of the
New Testament has experienced. We are made to understand how, what was
originally intended only as a liturgical note, became mistaken, through the
inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a critical suggestion; and thus,
besides transpositions without number, there has arisen, at one time, the
insertion of something unauthorized into the text of Scripture,—at another,
the omission of certain inspired words, to the manifest detriment of the

sacred deposit. For although the systematic rubrication of the Gospels for
liturgical purposes is a comparatively recent invention,—(I question if it be
older in Greek MSS. than the xth century,)—yet will persons engaged in the
public Services of God's House have been prone, from the very earliest age,
to insert memoranda of the kind referred to, into the margin of their copies.
In this way, in fact, it may be regarded as certain that in countless minute
particulars [pg 217] the text of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail
to add, that by a judicious, and above all by an unprejudiced use of the
materials at our disposal, it may, even at this distance of time, in every such
particular, be successfully restored.400

III. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances, that even in the
oldest copies in existence, I mean in Codd. B, ‫א‬, A, C, and D, the
Lectionary system of the early Church has left abiding traces of its
operation. When a few such undeniable cases have been adduced, all
objections grounded on primâ facie improbability will have been
satisfactorily disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such a
disturbing force and depraving influence, at least as far back as the
beginning of the ivth century, (but it is in fact more ancient by full two
hundred years,) will have been established: of which I shall only have to
shew, in conclusion, that the omission of “the last Twelve Verses” of S.
Mark's Gospel is probably but one more instance,—though confessedly by
far the most extraordinary of any.

(1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, the two grand verses
which describe our Lord's “Agony and Bloody Sweat,” (S. Luke xxii. 43,
44,) are missing. The same two verses are absent also from a few other
important MSS., as well as from both the Egyptian versions; but I desire to
fasten attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place of Codex
B. “Confessedly erring,” I say; for the genuineness of those two verses is no
longer disputed. Now, in every known Evangelistarium, the two verses here
omitted by Cod. B follow, (the Church so willed it,) S. Matth. xxvi. 39, and
are read as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy Week.401 Of
course they are also omitted in the same Evangelistaria from the lesson for
the Tuesday [pg 218] after Sexagesima, (τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου, as the
Easterns call that day,) when S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1 used to be read.
Moreover, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have been

accommodated to ecclesiastical use, the reader of S. Luke xxii. is invariably
directed by a marginal note to leave out those two verses, and to proceed
per saltum from ver. 42 to ver. 45.402 What more obvious therefore than that
the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in S. Luke's Gospel is to
be attributed to nothing else but the Lectionary practice of the primitive
Church? Quite unreasonable is it to impute heretical motives, or to invent
any other unsupported theory, while this plain solution of the difficulty is at
hand.

(2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. ‫א‬, C, L, U and Γ are observed
here to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the Saviour's side (S. John xix.
34) at the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. Now, I only do not insist that this must
needs be the result of the singular Lectionary practice already described at
p. 202, because a scholion in Cod. 72 records the singular fact that in the
Diatessaron of Tatian, after S. Matth. xxvii. 48, was read ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν
λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν [pg 219] πλευρὰν: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα.
(Chrysostom's codex was evidently vitiated in precisely the same way.) This
interpolation therefore may have resulted from the corrupting influence of
Tatian's (so-called) “Harmony.” See Appendix (H).

(3.) To keep on safe ground. Codd. B and D concur in what Alford justly
calls the “grave error” of simply omitting from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our Lord's
supplication on behalf of His murderers, (ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγε, Πάτερ, ἄφες
αὐτοῖς: οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσι). They are not quite singular in so doing;
being, as usual, kept in countenance by certain copies of the old Latin, as
well as by both the Egyptian versions. How is this “grave error” in so many
ancient MSS. to be accounted for? (for a “grave error” or rather “a fatal
omission” it certainly is). Simply by the fact that in the Eastern Church the
Lection for the Thursday after Sexagesima breaks off abruptly, immediately
before these very words,—to recommence at ver. 44.403

(4.) Note, that at ver. 32, the eighth “Gospel of the Passion” begins,—which
is the reason why Codd. B and ‫( א‬with the Egyptian versions) exhibit a
singular irregularity in that place; and why the Jerusalem Syriac introduces
the established formula of the Lectionaries (σὺν τῷ Ἰησοῦ) at the same
juncture.

(If I do not here insist that the absence of the famous pericopa de adulterâ
(S. John vii. 53-viii. 11,) from so many MSS., is to be explained in precisely
the same way, it is only because the genuineness of that portion of the
Gospel is generally denied; and I propose, in this enumeration of instances,
not to set foot on disputed ground. I am convinced, nevertheless, that the
first occasion of the omission of those memorable verses was the lectionary
practice of the primitive Church, which, on Whitsunday, read from S. John
vii. 37 to viii. 12, leaving out the twelve verses in question. Those verses,
from the nature of their contents, (as Augustine declares,) easily came to be
viewed with dislike or suspicion. The passage, however, is as old as the
second century, for it is found in certain copies of the old Latin. Moreover
Jerome deliberately gave it a place in the Vulgate. I pass on.)

[pg 220]
(5.) The two oldest Codices in existence,—B and ‫א‬,—stand all but alone in
omitting from S. Luke vi. 1 the unique and indubitably genuine word
δευτεροπρώτῳ; which is also omitted by the Peshito, Italic and Coptic
versions. And yet, when it is observed that an Ecclesiastical lection begins
here, and that the Evangelistaria (which invariably leave out such notes of
time) simply drop the word,—only substituting for ἐν σαββάτῳ the more
familiar τοῖς σάββασι,—every one will be ready to admit that if the
omission of this word be not due to the inattention of the copyist, (which,
however, seems to me not at all unlikely,404) it is sufficiently explained by
the Lectionary practice of the Church,—which may well date back even to
the immediately post-Apostolic age.

(6.) In S. Luke xvi. 19, Cod. D introduces the Parable of Lazarus with the
formula,—εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἑτέραν παραβολήν; which is nothing else but a
marginal note which has found its way into the text from the margin; being
the liturgical introduction of a Church-lesson405 which afterwards began
εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην.406

(7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv. begin with the
liturgical formula,—(it survives in our Book of Common Prayer407 to this
very hour!)—καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθήταις αὐτοῦ: in which it is countenanced by
certain MSS. of the Vulgate and of the old Latin Version. Indeed, it may be
stated generally concerning the text of Cod. D, that it bears marks

throughout of the depraving influence of the ancient Lectionary practice.
Instances of this, (in addition to those elsewhere cited in these pages,) will
be discovered in S. Luke iii. 23: iv. 16 (and xix. 45): v. 1 and 17: vi. 37 (and
xviii. 15): vii. 1: x. 1 and 25: xx. 1: in all but three of which, Cod. D is kept
in countenance by the old Latin, often by the Syriac, and by other versions
of the greatest antiquity. But to proceed.

(8.) Cod. A, (supported by Athanasius, the Vulgate, Gothic, and Philoxenian
versions,) for καί, in S. Luke ix. 57, [pg 221] reads ἐγένετο δὲ,—which is
the reading of the Textus Receptus. Cod. D, (with some copies of the old
Latin,) exhibits καὶ ἐγένετο. All the diversity which is observable in this
place, (and it is considerable,) is owing to the fact that an Ecclesiastical
lection begins here.408 In different Churches, the formula with which the
lection was introduced slightly differed.

(9.) Cod. C is supported by Chrysostom and Jerome, as well as by the
Peshito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac, and some MSS. of the old
Latin, in reading ὁ Ἰησοῦς at the beginning of S. Matth. xi. 20. That the
words have no business there, is universally admitted. So also is the cause
of their interpolation generally recognized. The Ecclesiastical lection for
Wednesday in the ivth week after Pentecost begins at that place; and begins
with the formula,—ἐν τῷ καίρῳ ἐκεινῳ, ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὀνειδίζειν.

(10.) Similarly, in S. Matth. xii. 9, xiii. 36, and xiv. 14, Cod. C inserts ὁ
Ἰησοῦς; a reading which on all three occasions is countenanced by the
Syriac and some copies of the old Latin, and on the last of the three, by
Origen also. And yet there can be no doubt that it is only because
Ecclesiastical lections begin at those places,409 that the Holy Name is
introduced there.

(11.) Let me add that the Sacred Name is confessedly an interpolation in the
six places indicated at foot,—its presence being accounted for by the fact
that, in each, an Ecclesiastical lection begins.410 Cod. D in one of these
places, Cod. A in four, is kept in countenance by the old Latin, the Syriac,
the Coptic and other early versions;—convincing indications of the extent
to which the Lectionary practice of the Church had established itself so
early as the second century of our æra.

Cod. D, and copies of the old Latin and Egyptian versions also read τοῦ
Ἰησοῦ, (instead of αὐτοῦ,) in S. Mark xiv. 3; which is only because a
Church lesson begins there.

[pg 222]
(12.) The same Cod. D is all but unique in leaving out that memorable verse
in S. Luke's Gospel (xxiv. 12), in which S. Peter's visit to the Sepulchre of
our risen Lord finds particular mention. It is only because that verse was
claimed both as the conclusion of the ivth and also as the beginning of the
vth Gospel of the Resurrection: so that the liturgical note ἀρχή stands at the
beginning,—τέλος at the end of it. Accordingly, D is kept in countenance
here only by the Jerusalem Lectionary and some copies of the old Latin.
But what is to be thought of the editorial judgment which (with Tregelles)
encloses this verse within brackets; and (with Tischendorf) rejects it from
the text altogether?

(13.) Codices B, ‫א‬, and D are alone among MSS. in omitting the clause
διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν: καὶ παρῆγεν οὔτως, at the end of the 59th verse
of S. John viii. The omission is to be accounted for by the fact that just
there the Church-lesson for Tuesday in the vth week after Easter came to an
end.

(14.) Again. It is not at all an unusual thing to find in cursive MSS., at the
end of S. Matth. viii. 13, (with several varieties), the spurious and tasteless
appendix,—καὶ ὑποστρέψας ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ
ὤρᾳ εὗρεν τὸν παῖδα ὑγιαίνοντα: a clause which owes its existence solely to
the practice of ending the lection for the ivth Sunday after Pentecost in that
unauthorized manner.411 But it is not only in cursive MSS. that these words
are found. They are met with also in the Codex Sinaiticus (‫)א‬: a witness at
once to the inveteracy of Liturgical usage in the ivth century of our æra, and
to the corruptions which the “Codex omnium antiquissimus” will no doubt
have inherited from a yet older copy than itself.

[pg 223]
(15.) In conclusion, I may remark generally that there occur instances, again
and again, of perturbations of the Text in our oldest MSS., (corresponding

sometimes with readings vouched for by the most ancient of the Fathers,)
which admit of no more intelligible or inoffensive solution than by referring
them to the Lectionary practice of the primitive Church.412

Thus when instead of καὶ ἀναβαίνω ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (S. Matth. xx.
17), Cod. B reads, (and, is almost unique in reading,) Μέλλων δὲ
ἀναβαίνειν ὁ Ἰησοῦς; and when Origen sometimes quotes the place in the
same way, but sometimes is observed to transpose the position of the Holy
Name in the sentence; when again six of Matthaei's MSS., (and Origen
once,) are observed to put the same Name after Ἱεροσόλυμα: when, lastly,
two of Field's MSS.,413 and one of Matthaei's, (and I dare say a great many
more, if the truth were known,) omit the words ὁ Ἰησοῦς entirely:—who
sees not that the true disturbing force in this place, from the iind century of
our æra downwards, has been the Lectionary practice of the primitive
Church?—the fact that there the lection for the Thursday after the viiith
Sunday after Pentecost began?—And this may suffice.

IV. It has been proved then, in what goes before, more effectually even than
in a preceding page,414 not only that Ecclesiastical Lections corresponding
with those indicated in the “Synaxaria” were fully established in the
immediately post-Apostolic age, but also that at that early period the
Lectionary system of primitive Christendom had already exercised a
depraving influence of a peculiar kind on the text of Scripture. Further yet,
(and this is the only point I am now concerned to establish), that our five
oldest Copies of the Gospels,—B and ‫ א‬as well as A, C and D,—exhibit [pg
224] not a few traces of the mischievous agency alluded to; errors, and
especially omissions, which sometimes seriously affect the character of
those Codices as witnesses to the Truth of Scripture.—I proceed now to
consider the case of S. Mark xvi. 9-20; only prefacing my remarks with a
few necessary words of explanation.

V. He who takes into his hands an ordinary cursive MS. of the Gospels, is
prepared to find the Church-lessons regularly indicated throughout, in the
text or in the margin.

A familiar contraction, executed probably in vermillion [χ over αρ], ἀρ,
indicates the “beginning” (ἀρχή) of each lection: a corresponding

contraction (ε over τ, τε, τελ), indicates its “end” (τέλοσ.) Generally, these
rubrical directions, (for they are nothing else,) are inserted for convenience
into the body of the text,—from which the red pigment with which they are
almost invariably executed, effectually distinguishes them. But all these
particulars gradually disappear as recourse is had to older and yet older
MSS. The studious in such matters have noticed that even the
memorandums as to the “beginning” and the “end” of a lection are rare,
almost in proportion to the antiquity of a Codex. When they do occur in the
later uncials, they do not by any means always seem to have been the work
of the original scribe; neither has care been always taken to indicate them in
ink of a different colour. It will further be observed in such MSS. that
whereas the sign where the reader is to begin is generally—(in order the
better to attract his attention,)—inserted in the margin of the Codex, the
note where he is to leave off, (in order the more effectually to arrest his
progress,) is as a rule introduced into the body of the text.415 In uncial MSS.,
however, all such symbols are not only rare, but (what is much to be noted)
they are exceedingly irregular in their occurrence. Thus in Codex Γ, in the
Bodleian Library, (a recently acquired uncial MS. of the Gospels, written
A.D. 844), there occurs no indication of the “end” of a single lection in S.
Luke's Gospel, until chap. [pg 225] xvi. 31 is reached; after which, the sign
abounds. In Codex L, the original notes of Ecclesiastical Lections occur at
the following rare and irregular intervals:—S. Mark ix. 2: x. 46: xii. 40
(where the sign has lost its way; it should have stood against ver. 44): xv. 42
and xvi. 1.416 In the oldest uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even
in the Codex Bezæ, (vith century,) not a single liturgical direction coeval
with the MS. is anywhere to be found.

VI. And yet, although the practice of thus indicating the beginning and the
end of a liturgical section, does not seem to have come into general use
until about the xiith century; and although, previous to the ixth century,
systematic liturgical directions are probably unknown;417 the need of them
must have been experienced by one standing up to read before the
congregation, long before. The want of some reminder where he was to
begin,—above all, of some hint where he was to leave off,—will have
infallibly made itself felt from the first. Accordingly, there are not wanting
indications that, occasionally, ΤΕΛΟΣ (or ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) was written in the
margin of Copies of the Gospels at an exceedingly remote epoch. One

memorable example of this practice is supplied by the Codex Bezæ (D):
where in S. Mark xiv. 41, instead of ἀπέχει ἦλθεν ἡ ὤρα,—we meet with
the unintelligible ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ Η ΩΡΑ. Now, nothing else has
here happened but that a marginal note, designed originally to indicate the
end (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of the lesson for [pg 226] the third day of the iind week
of the Carnival, has lost its way from the end of ver. 42, and got thrust into
the text of ver. 41,—to the manifest destruction of the sense.418 I find D's
error here is shared (a) by the Peshito Syriac, (b) by the old Latin, and (c)
by the Philoxenian: venerable partners in error, truly! for the first two
probably carry back this false reading to the second century of our æra; and
so, furnish one more remarkable proof, to be added to the fifteen (or rather
the forty) already enumerated (pp. 217-23), that the lessons of the Eastern
Church were settled at a period long anterior to the date of the oldest MS. of
the Gospels extant.

VII. Returning then to the problem before us, I venture to suggest as
follows:—What if, at a very remote period, this same isolated liturgical note
(ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) occurring at S. Mark xvi. 8, (which is “the end” of the
Church-lection for the iind Sunday after Easter,) should have unhappily
suggested to some copyist,—καλλιγραφίας quam vel Criticæ Sacræ vel
rerum Liturgicarum peritior,—the notion that the entire “Gospel according
to S. Mark,” came to an end at verse 8?... I see no more probable account of
the matter, I say, than this:—That the mutilation of the last chapter of S.
Mark has resulted from the fact, that some very ancient scribe
misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note ΤΕΛΟΣ (or ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ) which he found at the close of verse 8. True, that he will have
probably beheld, further on, several additional στίχοι. But if he did, how
could he acknowledge the fact more loyally than by leaving (as the author
of Cod. B is observed to have done) one entire column blank, before
proceeding with S. Luke? He hesitated, all the same, [pg 227] to transcribe
any further, having before him, (as he thought,) an assurance that “the end”
had been reached at ver. 8.

VIII. That some were found in very early times eagerly to acquiesce in this
omission: to sanction it: even to multiply copies of the Gospel so mutilated;
(critics or commentators intent on nothing so much as reconciling the
apparent discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives:)—appears to me not at

all unlikely.419 Eusebius almost says as much, when he puts into the mouth
of one who is for getting rid of these verses altogether, the remark that “they
would be in a manner superfluous if it should appear that their testimony is
at variance with that of the other Evangelists.”420 (The ancients were giants
in Divinity but children in Criticism.) On the other hand, I altogether agree
with Dean Alford in thinking it highly improbable that the difficulty of
harmonizing one Gospel with another in this place, (such as it is,) was the
cause why these Twelve Verses were originally suppressed.421 (1) First,
because there really was no need to withhold more than three,—at the
utmost, five of them,—if this had been the reason of the omission. (2) Next,
because it would have [pg 228] been easier far to introduce some critical
correction of any supposed discrepancy, than to sweep away the whole of
the unoffending context. (3) Lastly, because nothing clearly was gained by
causing the Gospel to end so abruptly that every one must see at a glance
that it had been mutilated. No. The omission having originated in a mistake,
was perpetuated for a brief period (let us suppose) only through infirmity of
judgment: or, (as I prefer to believe), only in consequence of the religious
fidelity of copyists, who were evidently always instructed to transcribe
exactly what they found in the copy set before them. The Church
meanwhile in her corporate capacity, has never known anything at all of the
matter,—as was fully shewn above in Chap. X.

IX. When this solution of the problem first occurred to me, (and it occurred
to me long before I was aware of the memorable reading ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ in the
Codex Bezæ, already adverted to,) I reasoned with myself as follows:—But
if the mutilation of the second Gospel came about in this particular way, the
MSS. are bound to remember something of the circumstance; and in ancient
MSS., if I am right, I ought certainly to meet with some confirmation of my
opinion. According to my view, at the root of this whole matter lies the fact
that at S. Mark xvi. 8 a well-known Ecclesiastical lesson comes to an end.
Is there not perhaps something exceptional in the way that the close of that
liturgical section was anciently signified?

X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every copy of the
Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris;422 and devoted seventy hours
exactly, with unflagging delight, to the task. The success of the experiment
astonished me.

1. I began with our Cod. 24 ( = Reg. 178) of the Gospels: turned to the last
page of S. Mark: and beheld, in a Codex of the xith Century wholly devoid
of the Lectionary apparatus which is sometimes found in MSS. of a similar
date,423 at fol. 104, the word + ΤΕΛΟΣ + conspicuously written by the
original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as [pg 229] well as at the
close of the Gospel. It occurred besides only at ch. ix. 9, (the end of the
lesson for the Transfiguration.) And yet there are at least seventy occasions
in the course of S. Mark's Gospel where, in MSS. which have been
accommodated to Church use, it is usual to indicate the close of a Lection.
This discovery, which surprised me not a little, convinced me that I was on
the right scent; and every hour I met with some fresh confirmation of the
fact.

2. For the intelligent reader will readily understand that three such
deliberate liturgical memoranda, occurring solitary in a MS. of this date, are
to be accounted for only in one way. They infallibly represent a
corresponding peculiarity in some far more ancient document. The fact that
the word ΤΕΛΟΣ is here (a) set down unabbreviated, (b) in black ink, and
(c) as part of the text,—points unmistakably in the same direction. But that
Cod. 24 is derived from a Codex of much older date is rendered certain by a
circumstance which shall be specified at foot.424

3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. 36.425 The sign + ΤΕΛΟΣ +,
(which occurs punctually at S. Mark xvi. 8 and again at v. 20,) is found
besides in S. Mark's Gospel only at chap. i. 8;426 at chap. xiv. 31; and (+
ΤΕΛΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΕΦΑΛ) at chap. xv. 24;—being on every occasion
incorporated with the Text. Now, when it is perceived that in the second and
third of these places, ΤΕΛΟΣ has clearly lost its way,—appearing where no
Ecclesiastical lection came to an end,—it will be felt that the MS. before us
(of the xith century) if it was not actually transcribed from,—must at least
exhibit at second hand,—a far more ancient Codex.427

[pg 230]
4. Only once more.—Codex 22 ( = Reg. 72) was never prepared for Church
purposes. A rough hand has indeed scrawled indications of the beginnings
and endings of a few of the Lessons, here and there; but these liturgical
notes are no part of the original MS. At S. Mark xvi. 8, however, we are

presented (as before) with the solitary note + ΤΕΛΟΣ +—, incorporated
with the text. Immediately after which, (in writing of the same size,) comes
a memorable statement428 in red letters. The whole stands thus:—

ΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ + ΤΕΛΟΣ +—
[cross] ΕΝ ΤΙΣΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΩΝ.
ΕΩΣ ΩΔΕ ΠΛΗΡΟΥΤΑΙ Ο ΕΥ
ΑΓΓΕΛΙΣΤΗΣ: ΕΝ ΠΟΛΛΟΙΣ
ΔΕ. ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΕΤΑΙ +—
ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ. ΠΡΟΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩΝ.

And then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of which, the sign +
ΤΕΛΟΣ + is again repeated,—which sign, however, occurs nowhere else in
the MS. nor at the end of any of the other three Gospels. A more opportune
piece of evidence could hardly have been invented. A statement so apt and
so significant was surely a thing rather to be wished than to be hoped for.
For here is the liturgical sign ΤΕΛΟΣ not only occurring in the wholly
exceptional way of which we have already seen examples, but actually
followed by the admission that “In certain copies, the Evangelist proceeds
no further.” The two circumstances so brought together seem exactly to
bridge over the chasm between Codd. B and ‫ א‬on the one hand,—and
Codd. 24 and 36 on the other; and to supply us with precisely the link of
evidence which we require. For observe:—During the first six centuries of
our æra, no single instance is known of a codex in which ΤΕΛΟΣ is written
at the end of a Gospel. The subscription of [pg 231] S. Mark for instance is
invariably either ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as in B and ‫)א‬: or else
ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as in A and C, and the other older
uncials): never ΤΕΛΟΣ. But here is a Scribe who first copies the liturgical
note ΤΕΛΟΣ,—and then volunteers the critical observation that “in some
copies of S. Mark's Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no further!” A more
extraordinary corroboration of the view which I am endeavouring to
recommend to the reader's acceptance, I really cannot imagine. Why, the
ancient Copyist actually comes back, in order to assure me that the
suggestion which I have been already offering in explanation of the
difficulty, is the true one!

5. I am not about to abuse the reader's patience with a prolonged
enumeration of the many additional conspiring circumstances,—
insignificant in themselves and confessedly unimportant when considered
singly, but of which the cumulative force is unquestionably great,—which
an examination of 99 MSS. of the Gospels brought to light.429 Enough has
been said already to shew,

(1st.) That it must have been a customary thing, at a very remote age, to
write the word ΤΕΛΟΣ against S. Mark xvi. 8, even when the same note
was withheld from the close of almost every other ecclesiastical lection in
the Gospel.

(2ndly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt [pg 232] was
originally written as a liturgical memorandum in the margin, became at a
very early period incorporated with the text; where, retaining neither its use
nor its significancy, it was liable to misconception, and may have easily
come to be fatally misunderstood.

And although these two facts certainly prove nothing in and by themselves,
yet, when brought close alongside of the problem which has to be solved,
their significancy becomes immediately apparent: for,

(3rdly.) As a matter of fact, there are found to have existed before the time
of Eusebius, copies of S. Mark's Gospel which did come to an end at this
very place. Now, that the Evangelist left off there, no one can believe.430
Why, then, did the Scribe leave off? But the Reader is already in possession
of the reason why. A sufficient explanation of the difficulty has been elicited
from the very MSS. themselves. And surely when, suspended to an old
chest which has been locked up for ages, a key is still hanging which fits
the lock exactly and enables men to open the chest with ease, they are at
liberty to assume that the key belongs to the lock; is, in fact, the only
instrument by which the chest may lawfully be opened.

XI. And now, in conclusion, I propose that we summon back our original
Witness, and invite him to syllable his evidence afresh, in order that we may
ascertain if perchance it affords any countenance whatever to the view
which I have been advocating. Possible at least it is that in the Patristic
record that copies of S. Mark's Gospel were anciently defective from the 8th

verse onwards some vestige may be discoverable of the forgotten truth.
Now, it has been already fully shewn that it is a mistake to introduce into
this discussion any other name but that of Eusebius.431 Do, then, the terms
in which Eusebius alludes to this matter lend us any assistance? Let us have
the original indictment read over to us once more: and this time we are
bound to listen to every word of it with the utmost possible attention.

[pg 233]
1. A problem is proposed for solution. “There are two ways of solving it,”
(Eusebius begins):—ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν
περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, εἔποι ἀν μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτην φέρεσθαι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις
τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου: τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. οἶς ἐπιλέγει,
“καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” Ἐν τούτῳ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς
ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατά Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ432 ...
Let us halt here for one moment.

2. Surely, a new and unexpected light already begins to dawn upon this
subject! How is it that we paid so little attention before to the terms in
which this ancient Father delivers his evidence, that we overlooked the
import of an expression of his which from the first must have struck us as
peculiar, but which now we perceive to be of paramount significancy?
Eusebius is pointing out that one way for a man (so minded) to get rid of
the apparent inconsistency between S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Matth. xxviii. 1,
would be for him to reject the entire “Ecclesiastical Lection”433 in which S.
Mark xvi. 9 occurs. Any one adopting this course, (he proceeds; and it is
much to be noted that Eusebius is throughout delivering the imaginary
sentiments of another,—not his own:) Such an one (he says) “will say that it
is not met with in all the copies of S. Mark's Gospel. The accurate copies, at
all events,”—and then follows an expression in which this ancient Critic is
observed ingeniously to accommodate his language to the phenomenon
which he has to describe, so as covertly to insinuate something else.
Eusebius employs an idiom (it is found elsewhere in his writings)
sufficiently colourless to have hitherto failed to arouse attention; but of
which it is impossible to overlook the actual design and import, after all that
has gone before. He clearly recognises the very phenomenon to which I
have been calling [pg 234] attention within the last two pages, and which I

need not further insist upon or explain: viz. that the words ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ were
in some very ancient (“the accurate”) copies found written after ἐφοβοῦντο
γάρ: although to an unsuspicious reader the expression which he uses may
well seem to denote nothing more than that the second Gospel generally
came to an end there.

3. And now it is time to direct attention to the important bearing of the
foregoing remark on the main point at issue. The true import of what
Eusebius has delivered, and which has at last been ascertained, will be
observed really to set his evidence in a novel and unsuspected light. From
the days of Jerome, it has been customary to assume that Eusebius roundly
states that, in his time almost all the Greek copies were without our “last
Twelve Verses” of S. Mark's Gospel:434 whereas Eusebius really does
nowhere say so. He expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a
somewhat unusual phrase435 which perhaps admits of no exact English
counterpart: but what he says clearly amounts to no more than this,—that
“the accurate copies, at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, circumscribe the end
(ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of Mark's narrative:” that there, “in almost all the Copies of
the Gospel according to Mark, is circumscribed the end.” He says no more.
He does not say that there “is circumscribed the Gospel.” As for the twelve
verses which follow, he merely declares that they were “not met with in all
the copies;” i.e. that some copies did not contain them. But this, so far from
being [pg 235] a startling statement, is no more than what Codd. B and ‫ א‬in
themselves are sufficient to establish. In other words, Eusebius, (whose
testimony on this subject as it is commonly understood is so extravagant
[see above, p. 48-9,] as to carry with it its own sufficient refutation,) is
found to bear consistent testimony to the two following modest
propositions; which, however, are not adduced by him as reasons for
rejecting S. Mark xvi. 9-20, but only as samples of what might be urged by
one desirous of shelving a difficulty suggested by their contents;—

(1st.) That from some ancient copies of S. Mark's Gospel these last Twelve
Verses were away.

(2nd.) That in almost all the copies,—(whether mutilated or not, he does not
state,)—the words ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ were found immediately after ver. 8; which,

(he seems to hint,) let those who please accept as evidence that there also is
the end of the Gospel.

4. But I cannot dismiss the testimony of Eusebius until I have recorded my
own entire conviction that this Father is no more an original authority here
than Jerome, or Hesychius, or Victor.436 He is evidently adopting the
language of some more ancient writer than himself. I observe that he
introduces the problem with the remark that what follows is one of tho
questions “for ever mooted by every body.”437 I suspect (with Matthaei,
[suprà, p. 66,]) that Origen is the true author of all this confusion. He
certainly relates of himself that among his voluminous exegetical writings
was a treatise on S. Mark's Gospel.438 To Origen's works, Eusebius, (his [pg
236] apologist and admirer,) is known to have habitually resorted; and, like
many others, to have derived not a few of his notions from that fervid and
acute, but most erratic intellect. Origen's writings in short, seem to have
been the source of much, if not most of the mistaken Criticism of Antiquity.
(The reader is reminded of what has been offered above at p. 96-7). And
this would not be the first occasion on which it would appear that when an
ancient Writer speaks of “the accurate copies”, what he actually means is
the text of Scripture which was employed or approved by Origen.439 The
more attentively the language of Eusebius in this place is considered, the
more firmly (it is thought) will the suspicion be entertained that he is here
only reproducing the sentiments of another person. But, however this may
be, it is at least certain that the precise meaning of what he says, has been
hitherto generally overlooked. He certainly does not say, as Jerome, from
his loose translation of the passage,440 evidently imagined,—“omnibus [pg
237] Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus:” but only,
—“non in omnibus Evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum inveniri;” which
is an entirely different thing. Eusebius adds,—“Accuratiora saltem
exemplaria finem narrationis secundum Marcum circumscribunt in verbis
ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ;”—and, “In hoc, fere in omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii
secundum Marcum, finem circumscribi.”—The point, however, of greatest
interest is, that Eusebius here calls attention to the prevalence in MSS. of
his time of the very liturgical peculiarity which plainly supplies the one true
solution of the problem under discussion. His testimony is a marvellous
corroboration of what we learn from Cod. 22, (see above, p. 230,) and,
rightly understood, does not go a whit beyond it.

5. What wonder that Hesychius, because he adopted blindly what he found
in Eusebius, should at once betray his author and exactly miss the point of
what his author says? Τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον (so he writes) μέχρι τοῦ
“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,” ἔχει ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.441

6. This may suffice concerning the testimony of Eusebius.—It will be
understood that I suppose Origen to have fallen in with one or more copies
of S. Mark's Gospel which exhibited the Liturgical hint, (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ,)
conspicuously written against S. Mark xvi. 9. Such a copy may, or may not,
have there terminated abruptly. I suspect however that it did. Origen at all
events, (more suo,) will have remarked on the phenomenon before him; and
Eusebius will have adopted his remarks,—as the heralds say, “with a
difference”—simply because they suited his purpose, and seemed to him
ingenious and interesting.

7. For the copy in question,—(like that other copy of S. Mark from which
the Peshito translation was made, and in which ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ most
inopportunely occurs at chap. xiv. 41,442)—will have become the progenitor
of several other copies (as Codd. B and ‫ ;)א‬and some of these, it is pretty
evident, were familiarly known to Eusebius.

[pg 238]
8. Let it however be clearly borne in mind that nothing of all this is in the
least degree essential to my argument. Eusebius, (for aught that I know or
care,) may be solely responsible for every word that he has delivered
concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Every link in my argument will remain
undisturbed, and the conclusion will be still precisely the same, whether the
mistaken Criticism before us originated with another or with himself.

XII. But why, (it may reasonably be asked,)—Why should there have been
anything exceptional in the way of indicating the end of this particular
Lection? Why should τέλος be so constantly found written after S. Mark
xvi. 8?

I answer,—I suppose it was because the Lections which respectively ended
and began at that place were so many, and were Lections of such unusual
importance. Thus,—(1) On the 2nd Sunday after Easter, (κυριακή γ᾽ τῶν
μυροφόρων, as it was called,) at the Liturgy, was read S. Mark xv. 43 to xvi.

8; and (2) on the same day at Matins, (by the Melchite Syrian Christians as
well as by the Greeks,443) S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The severance, therefore, was
at ver. 8. (3) In certain of the Syrian Churches the liturgical section for
Easter Day was S. Mark xvi 2-8:444 in the Churches of the Jacobite, or
Monophysite Christians, the Eucharistic lesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1-
8.445 (4) The second matin lesson of the Resurrection (xvi. 1-8) also ends,—
and (5) the third (xvi. 9-20) begins, at the same place: and these two
Gospels (both in the Greek and in the Syrian Churches) were in constant
use not only at Easter, but throughout the year.446 (6) That same third matin
lesson of the Resurrection was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day;
as well in the Syrian447 as in the Greek448 Churches. (7) With [pg 239] the
Monophysite Christians, the lection “feriae tertiae in albis, ad primam
vesperam,” (i.e. for the Tuesday in Easter-Week) was S. Mark xv. 37-xvi. 8:
and (8) on the same day, at Matins, ch. xvi. 9-18.449—During eighteen
weeks after Easter therefore, the only parts of S. Mark's Gospel publicly
read were (a) the last thirteen [ch. xv. 43-xvi. 8], and (b) “the last twelve”
[ch. xvi. 9-20] verses. Can it be deemed a strange thing that it should have
been found indispensable to mark, with altogether exceptional emphasis,—
to make it unmistakably plain,—where the former Lection came to an end,
and where the latter Lection began?450

XIII. One more circumstance, and but one, remains to be adverted to in the
way of evidence; and one more suggestion to be offered. The circumstance
is familiar indeed to all, but its bearing on the present discussion has never
been pointed out. I allude to the fact that anciently, in copies of the fourfold
Gospel, the Gospel according to S. Mark frequently stood last.

This is memorably the case in respect of the Codex Bezae [vi]: more
memorably yet, in respect of the Gothic version of Ulphilas (A.D. 360): in
both of which MSS., the order of the Gospels is (1) S. Matthew, (2) S. John,
(3) S. Luke, (4) S. Mark. This is in fact the usual Western order.
Accordingly it is thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. Vercellensis (a),
Veronensis (b), Palatinus (e), Brixianus (f) of the old Latin version. But this
order is not exclusively Western. It is found in Cod. 309. It is also observed
in Matthaei's Codd. 13, 14, (which last is our Evan. 256), at Moscow. And
[pg 240] in the same order Eusebius and others of the ancients451 are
occasionally observed to refer to the four Gospels,—which induces a

suspicion that they were not unfamiliar with it. Nor is this all. In Codd. 19
and 90 the Gospel according to S. Mark stands last; though in the former of
these the order of the three antecedent Gospels is (1) S. John, (2) S.
Matthew, (3) S. Luke;452 in the latter, (1) S. John, (2) S. Luke, (3) S.
Matthew. What need of many words to explain the bearing of these facts on
the present discussion? Of course it will have sometimes happened that S.
Mark xvi. 8 came to be written at the bottom of the left hand page of a
MS.453 And we have but to suppose that in the case of one such Codex the
next leaf, which would have been the last, was missing,—(the very thing
which has happened in respect of one of the Codices at Moscow454)—and
what else could result when a copyist reached the words,

ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ. ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ

but the very phenomenon which has exercised critics so sorely and which
gives rise to the whole of the present discussion? The copyist will have
brought S. Mark's Gospel to an end there, of course. What else could he
possibly do?... Somewhat less excusably was our learned countryman Mill
betrayed into the statement, (inadvertently adopted by Wetstein, Griesbach,
and Tischendorf,) that “the last verse of S. John's Gospel is omitted in Cod.
63:” the truth of the matter being (as Mr. Scrivener has lately proved) that
the [pg 241] last leaf of Cod. 63,—on which the last verse of S. John's
Gospel was demonstrably once written,—has been lost.455

XIV. To sum up.

1. It will be perceived that I suppose the omission of “the last Twelve
Verses” of S. Mark's Gospel to have originated in a sheer error and
misconception on the part of some very ancient Copyist. He saw ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ written after ver. 8: he assumed that it was the Subscription, or at
least that it denoted “the End,” of the Gospel.

2. Whether certain ancient Critics, because it was acceptable to them, were
not found to promote this mistake,—it is useless to inquire. That there may
have arisen some old harmonizer of the Gospels, who, (in the words of
Eusebius,) was disposed to “regard what followed as superfluous from its
seeming inconsistency with the testimony of the other Evangelists;”456—and
that in this way the error became propagated;—is likely enough. But an

error it most certainly was: and to that error, the accident described in the
last preceding paragraph would have very materially conduced, and it may
have very easily done so.

3. I request however that it may be observed that the “accident” is not
needed in order to account for the “error.” The mere presence of ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ at ver. 8, so near the end of the Gospel, would be quite enough to
occasion it. And we have seen that in very ancient times the word ΤΕΛΟΣ
frequently did occur in an altogether exceptional manner in that very place.
Moreover, we have ascertained that its meaning was not understood by the
transcribers of ancient MSS.

4. And will any one venture to maintain that it is to him a thing incredible
that an intelligent copyist of the iiird century, because he read the words ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ at S. Mark xvi. 8, can have been beguiled thereby into the
supposition that those words indicated “the End” of S. Mark's Gospel?—
Shall I be told that, even if one can have so entirely overlooked the meaning
of the liturgical sign as to suffer it to insinuate itself into his text,457 it is
nevertheless so improbable [pg 242] as to pass all credence that another can
have supposed that it designated the termination of the Gospel of the second
Evangelist?—For all reply, I take leave to point out that Scholz, and
Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Mai and the rest of the Critics have, one
and all, without exception, misunderstood the same word occurring in the
same place, and in precisely the same way.

Yes. The forgotten inadvertence of a solitary Scribe in the second or third
century has been, in the nineteenth, deliberately reproduced, adopted, and
stereotyped by every Critic and every Editor of the New Testament in turn.

What wonder,—(I propose the question deliberately,)—What wonder that
an ancient Copyist should have been misled by a phenomenon which in our
own days is observed to have imposed upon two generations of professed
Biblical Critics discussing this very textual problem, and therefore fully on
their guard against delusion?458 To this hour, the illustrious Editors of the
text of the Gospels are clearly, one and all, labouring under the grave error
of supposing that “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τέλος,”—(for which they are so careful
to refer us to “Cod. 22,”)—is an indication that there, by rights, comes the

“End” of the Gospel according to S. Mark. They have failed to perceive that
ΤΕΛΟΣ in that place is only a liturgical sign,—the same with which (in its
contracted form) they are sufficiently familiar; and that it serves no other
purpose whatever, but to mark that there a famous Ecclesiastical Lection
comes to an end.

With a few pages of summary, we may now bring this long disquisition to
an end.

[pg 243]

CHAPTER XII.

GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION:
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND
CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE
SUBJECT.

This discussion narrowed to a single issue (p. 244).—That S. Mark's Gospel
was imperfect from the very first, a thing altogether incredible (p. 246):—But
that at some very remote period Copies have suffered mutilation, a
supposition probable in the highest degree (p. 248).—Consequences of this
admission (p. 252).—Parting words (p. 254.)

This Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem was fully explained
at the outset.459 All the known evidence has since been produced,460 every
Witness examined.461 Counsel has been heard on both sides. A just Sentence
will assuredly follow. But it may not be improper that I should in
conclusion ask leave to direct attention to the single issue which has to be
decided, and which has been strangely thrust into the background and
practically kept out of sight, by those who have preceded me in this
Investigation. The case stands simply thus:—

It being freely admitted that, in the beginning of the ivth century, there must
have existed Copies of the Gospels in which the last chapter of S. Mark

extended no further than ver. 8, the Question arises,—How is this
phenomenon to be accounted for?... The problem is not only highly
interesting and strictly legitimate, but it is even inevitable. In the
immediately preceding chapter, I have endeavoured to solve it, and I believe
in a wholly unsuspected way.

But the most recent Editors of the text of the New Testament, declining to
entertain so much as the possibility that certain copies of the second Gospel
had experienced mutilation in very early times in respect of these Twelve
concluding [pg 244] Verses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather with
conjectures as to how it may have happened that S. Mark's Gospel was
without a conclusion from the very first. Persuaded that no more probable
account is to be given of the phenomenon than that the Evangelist himself
put forth a Gospel which (for some unexplained reason) terminated
abruptly at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (chap. xvi. 8),—they have unhappily
seen fit to illustrate the liveliness of this conviction of theirs, by presenting
the world with his Gospel mutilated in this particular way. Practically,
therefore, the question has been reduced to the following single issue:—
Whether of the two suppositions which follow is the more reasonable:

First,—That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the hands of its
inspired Author, was in this imperfect or unfinished state; ending abruptly at
(what we call now) the 8th verse of the last chapter:—of which solemn
circumstance, at the end of eighteen centuries, Cod. B and Cod. ‫ א‬are the
alone surviving Manuscript witnesses?... or,

Secondly,—That certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel having suffered
mutilation in respect of their Twelve concluding Verses in the post-
Apostolic age, Cod. B and Cod. ‫ א‬are the only examples of MSS. so
mutilated which are known to exist at the present day?

I. Editors who adopt the former hypothesis, are observed (a) to sever the
Verses in question from their context:462—(b) to introduce after ver. 8, the
subscription “ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ:”463—(c) to shut up verses 9-20 within
brackets.464 Regarding them as “no integral part of the Gospel”465—“as an
authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down,”466—a
“remarkable Fragment,” “placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early
times;”467—they consider themselves at liberty to go on to suggest that “the

Evangelist may have been interrupted in his work:” at any rate, [pg 245]
that “something may have occurred, (as the death of S. Peter,) to cause him
to leave it unfinished.”468 But “the most probable supposition” (we are
assured) “is, that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.”469

We listen with astonishment; contenting ourselves with modestly suggesting
that surely it will be time to conjecture why S. Mark's Gospel was left by its
Divinely inspired Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has been
established that it probably was so left. In the meantime, we request to be
furnished with some evidence of that fact.

But not a particle of Evidence is forthcoming. It is not even pretended that
any such evidence exists. Instead, we are magisterially informed by “the
first Biblical Critic in Europe,”—(I desire to speak of him with gratitude
and respect, but S. Mark's Gospel is a vast deal more precious to me than
Dr. Tischendorf's reputation,)—that “a healthy piety reclaims against the
endeavours of those who are for palming off as Mark's what the Evangelist
is so plainly shewn [where?] to have known nothing at all about.”470 In the
meanwhile, it is assumed to be a more reasonable supposition,—(α) That S.
Mark published an imperfect Gospel; and that the Twelve Verses with
which his Gospel concludes were the fabrication of a subsequent age; than,
—(β) That some ancient Scribe having with design or by accident left out
these Twelve concluding Verses, copies of the second Gospel so mutilated
become multiplied, and in the beginning of the ivth century existed in
considerable numbers.

And yet it is notorious that very soon after the Apostolic age, liberties
precisely of this kind were freely taken with the text of the New Testament.
Origen (A.D. 185-254) complains of the licentious tampering with the
Scriptures which prevailed in his day. “Men add to them,” (he says) “or
leave out,—as seems good to themselves.”471 Dionysius of Corinth, yet
earlier, (A.D. 168-176) remarks that it was no wonder his own writings
were added to and taken from, seeing that men presumed to deprave the
Word of God [pg 246] in the same manner.472 Irenæus, his contemporary,
(living within seventy years of S. John's death,) complains of a corrupted
Text.473 We are able to go back yet half a century, and the depravations of
Holy Writ become avowed and flagrant.474 A competent authority has

declared it “no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst
corruptions to which the New Testament has been ever subjected originated
within a hundred years after it was composed.”475 Above all, it is
demonstrable that Cod. B and Cod. ‫ א‬abound in unwarrantable omissions
very like the present;476 omissions which only do not provoke the same
amount of attention because they are of less moment. One such
extraordinary depravation of the Text, in which they also stand alone among
MSS. and to which their patrons are observed to appeal with triumphant
complacency, has been already made the subject of distinct investigation. I
am much mistaken if it has not been shewn in my VIIth chapter, that the
omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1, is just as unauthorized,—
quite as serious a blemish,—as the suppression of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.

Now, in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of any Evidence
whatever to prove that S. Mark's Gospel was imperfect from the first,—I
submit that an hypothesis so violent and improbable, as well as so wholly
uncalled for, is simply undeserving of serious attention. For,

(1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the improbability of the
hypothesis is excessive; “the contents of these Verses being such as to
preclude the supposition that they were the work of a post-Apostolic period.
The very difficulties which they present afford the strongest presumption of
their genuineness.” No fabricator of a supplement to S. Mark's Gospel
would have ventured on introducing so many minute seeming
discrepancies: and certainly [pg 247] “his contemporaries would not have
accepted and transmitted such an addition,” if he had. It has also been
shewn at great length that the Internal Evidence for the genuineness of these
Verses is overwhelmingly strong.477 But,

(2nd.) Even external Evidence is not wanting. It has been acutely pointed
out long since, that the absence of a vast assemblage of various Readings in
this place, is, in itself, a convincing argument that we have here to do with
no spurious appendage to the Gospel.478 Were this a deservedly suspected
passage, it must have shared the fate of all other deservedly (or
undeservedly) suspected passages. It never could have come to pass that the
various Readings which these Twelve Verses exhibit would be considerably

fewer than those which attach to the last twelve verses of any of the other
three Gospels.

(3rd.) And then surely, if the original Gospel of S. Mark had been such an
incomplete work as is feigned, the fact would have been notorious from the
first, and must needs have become the subject of general comment.479 It may
be regarded as certain that so extraordinary a circumstance would have been
largely remarked upon by the Ancients, and that evidence of the fact would
have survived in a hundred quarters. It is, I repeat, simply incredible that
Tradition would have proved so utterly neglectful of her office as to remain
quite silent on such a subject, if the facts had been such as are imagined.
Either Papias, or else John the Presbyter,—Justin Martyr, or Hegesippus, or
one of the “Seniores apud Irenæum,”—Clemens Alexandrinus, or
Tertullian, or Hippolytus,—if not Origen, yet at least Eusebius,—if not [pg
248] Eusebius, yet certainly Jerome,—some early Writer, I say, must
certainly have recorded the tradition that S. Mark's Gospel, as it came from
the hands of its inspired author, was an incomplete or unfinished work. The
silence of the Ancients, joined to the inherent improbability of the
conjecture,—(that silence so profound, this improbability so gross!)—is
enough, I submit, in the entire absence of Evidence on the other side, to
establish the very contradictory of the alternative which recent Critics are
so strenuous in recommending to our acceptance.

(4th.) But on the contrary. We have indirect yet convincing testimony that
the oldest copies of all did contain the Verses in question:480 while so far are
any of the Writers just now enumerated from recording that these verses
were absent from the early copies, that five out of those ten Fathers actually
quote, or else refer to the verses in question in a way which shews that in
their day they were the recognised termination of S. Mark's Gospel.481

We consider ourselves at liberty, therefore, to turn our attention to the rival
alternative. Our astonishment is even excessive that it should have been
seriously expected of us that we could accept without Proof of any sort,—
without a particle of Evidence, external, internal, or even traditional,—the
extravagant hypothesis that S. Mark put forth an unfinished Gospel; when
the obvious and easy alternative solicits us, of supposing,

II. That, at some period subsequent to the time of the Evangelist, certain
copies of S. Mark's Gospel suffered that mutilation in respect of their last
Twelve Verses of which we meet with no trace whatever, no record of any
sort, until the beginning of the fourth century.

(i.) And the facts which now meet us on the very threshold, are in a manner
conclusive: for if Papias and Justin Martyr [A.D. 150] do not refer to, yet
certainly Irenæus [A.D. 185] and Hippolytus [A.D. 190-227] distinctly
quote Six out of the Twelve suspected Verses,—which are also met with in
the two oldest Syriac Versions, as well as in the old Latin Translation. Now
the latest of these authorities is [pg 249] earlier by full a hundred years than
the earliest record that the verses in question were ever absent from ancient
MSS. At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as Cyprian relates,) [A.D. 256]
Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven African Bishops there
assembled, quoted the 17th verse in the presence of the Council.

(ii.) Nor is this all.482 Besides the Gothic and Egyptian versions in the ivth
century; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, and Augustine in
the vth, to say nothing of Codices A and C;—the Lectionary of the Church
universal, probably from the second century of our æra, is found to bestow
its solemn and emphatic sanction on every one of these Twelve Verses.
They are met with in every MS. of the Gospels in existence, uncial and
cursive,—except two;483 they are found in every Version; and are contained
besides in every known Lectionary, where they are appointed to be read at
Easter and on Ascension Day.484

(iii.) Early in the ivth century, however, we are encountered by a famous
place in the writings of Eusebius [A.D. 300-340], who, (as I have elsewhere
explained,485) is the only Father who delivers any independent testimony on
this subject at all. What he says has been strangely misrepresented. It is
simply as follows:—

(a) One, “Marinus,” is introduced quoting this part of S. Mark's Gospel
without suspicion, and enquiring, How its opening statement is to be
reconciled with S. Matth. xxviii. 1? Eusebius, in reply, points out that a man
whose only object was to get rid of the difficulty, might adopt the expedient
of saying that this last section of S. Mark's Gospel “is not found in all the

copies:” (μὴ ἐν ἁπᾶσι φέρεσθαι.) Declining, however, to act thus
presumptuously in respect of anything claiming to be a part of Evangelical
Scripture, (οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν εὐαγγελίων
γραφῇ φερομένων,)—he adopts the hypothesis that the text is genuine. Καὶ
δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, he begins: and he
enters at once without hesitation on an elaborate [pg 250] discussion to
shew how the two places may be reconciled.486 What there is in this to
countenance the notion that in the opinion of Eusebius “the Gospel
according to S. Mark originally terminated at the 8th verse of the last
chapter,”—I profess myself unable to discover. I draw from his words the
precisely opposite inference. It is not even clear to me that the Verses in
dispute were absent from the copy which Eusebius habitually employed. He
certainly quotes one of those verses once and again.487 On the other hand,
the express statement of Victor of Antioch [A.D. 450?] that he knew of the
mutilation, but had ascertained by Critical research the genuineness of this
Section of Scripture, and had adopted the Text of the authentic “Palestinian”
Copy,488—is more than enough to outweigh the faint presumption created
(as some might think) by the words of Eusebius, that his own copy was
without it. And yet, as already stated, there is nothing whatever to shew that
Eusebius himself deliberately rejected the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's
Gospel. Still less does that Father anywhere say, or even hint, that in his
judgment the original Text of S. Mark was without them. If he may be
judged by his words, he accepted them as genuine: for (what is at least
certain) he argues upon their contents at great length, and apparently
without misgiving.

(b) It is high time however to point out that, after all, the question to be
decided is, not what Eusebius thought on this subject, but what is
historically probable. As a plain matter of fact, the sum of the Patristic
Evidence against these Verses is the hypothetical suggestion of Eusebius
already quoted; which, (after a fashion well understood by those who have
given any attention to these studies), is observed to have rapidly propagated
itself in the congenial soil of the vth century. And even if it could be shewn
that Eusebius deliberately rejected this portion of Scripture, (which has
never been done,)—yet, inasmuch as it may be regarded as certain that
those famous codices in the library of his friend [pg 251] Pamphilus at
Cæsarea, to which the ancients habitually referred, recognised it as

genuine,489—the only sufferer from such a conflict of evidence would surely
be Eusebius himself: (not S. Mark, I say, but Eusebius:) who is observed to
employ an incorrect text of Scripture on many other occasions; and must (in
such case) be held to have been unduly partial to copies of S. Mark in the
mutilated condition of Cod. B or Cod. ‫א‬. His words were translated by
Jerome;490 adopted by Hesychius;491 referred to by Victor;492 reproduced
“with a difference” in more than one ancient scholion.493 But they are found
to have died away into a very faint echo when Euthymius Zigabenus494
rehearsed them for the last time in his Commentary on the Gospels, A.D.
1116. Exaggerated and misunderstood, behold them resuscitated after an
interval of seven centuries by Griesbach, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles
and the rest: again destined to fall into a congenial, though very differently
prepared soil; and again destined (I venture to predict) to die out and soon
to be forgotten for ever.

(iv.) After all that has gone before, our two oldest Codices (Cod. B and Cod.
‫ )א‬which alone witness to the truth of Eusebius' testimony as to the state of
certain copies of the Gospels in his own day, need not detain us long. They
are thought to be as old as the ivth century: they are certainly without the
concluding section of S. Mark's Gospel. But it may not be forgotten that
both Codices alike are disfigured throughout by errors, interpolations and
omissions without number; that their testimony is continually divergent;
and that it often happens that where they both agree they are both
demonstrably in error.495 Moreover, it is a highly significant circumstance
that the Vatican Codex (B), which is the more ancient of the two, exhibits a
vacant column at the end of S. Mark's Gospel,—the only vacant column in
the whole codex: whereby it is shewn that the Copyist was aware of the
existence of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark's Gospel, even
though he left them out:496 while the [pg 252] original Scribe of the Codex
Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬is declared by Tischendorf to have actually omitted the
concluding verse of S. John's Gospel,—in which unenviable peculiarity it
stands alone among MSS.497

(I.) And thus we are brought back to the point from which we started. We
are reminded that the one thing to be accounted for is the mutilated
condition of certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel in the beginning of the
fourth century; of which, Cod. B and Cod. ‫ א‬are the two solitary surviving

specimens,—Eusebius, the one historical witness. We have to decide, I
mean, between the evidence for this fact,—(namely, that within the first two
centuries and a-half of our æra, the Gospel according to S. Mark suffered
mutilation;)—and the reasonableness of the other opinion, namely, that S.
Mark's original autograph extended no farther than ch. xvi. 8. All is
reduced to this one issue; and unless any are prepared to prove that the
Twelve familiar Verses (ver. 9 to ver. 20) with which S. Mark ends his
Gospel cannot be his,—(I have proved on the contrary that he must needs
be thought to have written them,498)—I submit that it is simply irrational to
persist in asseverating that the reason why those verses are not found in our
two Codexes of the ivth century must be because they did not exist in the
original autograph of the Evangelist. What else is this but to set
unsupported opinion, or rather unreasoning prejudice, before the historical
evidence of a fact? The assumption is not only gratuitous, arbitrary,
groundless; but it is discountenanced by the evidence of MSS., of Versions,
of Fathers, (Versions and Fathers much older than the ivth century:) is
rendered in the highest degree improbable by every internal, every [pg 253]
external consideration: is condemned by the deliberate judgment of the
universal Church,—which, in its corporate capacity, for eighteen hundred
years, in all places, has not only solemnly accepted the last Twelve Verses
of S. Mark's Gospel as genuine, but has even singled them out for special
honour.499

(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 assignable
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 assignable, I reply; neither are there any
inconvenient consequences of any sort to be anticipated,—except indeed to