The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark.
by John Burgon.
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 either quotes, or else clearly refers to, the Text of the New Testament: while scarcely a t.i.the 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. .h.i.therto 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 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 pa.s.sed 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 more than half a thousand years old,) as _Collegium Scholarium in Sacra Theologia studentium,-perpetuis temporibus duraturum_.
Indebted, under G.o.d, 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_.
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 const.i.tute 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 ma.n.u.script 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 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sured 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 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 a.s.saults.(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 "d.a.m.natory,"(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 circ.u.mstance 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 pa.s.sage 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 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 a.s.sumed, 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 subst.i.tute 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.
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 pa.s.sage 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, 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 subst.i.tuted 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 t.i.tle 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 const.i.tuted "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 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 a.s.sume 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 pa.s.sing, 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 ma.n.u.script witness for _omitting_ the clause in question, (for Codex ? had 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 ill.u.s.trious predecessor had pa.s.sed on the concluding portion of S. Mark"s Gospel. The latter even 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 doc.u.ments; 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 a.s.suring 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 ?f????t? ??? 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 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," (he says,) "admits of satisfactory proof." He then recites in detail the adverse external testimony which his predecessors had acc.u.mulated; remarking, that it is abundantly confirmed by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a solitary sample; but declares that the whole pa.s.sage 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 ma.s.s 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 ?f????t? ???." He is the 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 circ.u.mstances 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 una.s.sailable, since we know absolutely nothing whatever about "the circ.u.mstances 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d "as were the Ten Commandments written by His own 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 ???? ?????? 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, pa.s.ses comprehension." It pa.s.ses even Dr.
Davidson"s comprehension; (for the foregoing words are his;) and Dr.