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 a.s.serts 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 a.s.serts 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, 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 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 Chrysostom(110)), reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to do(111)) 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 a.s.serting, 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 pa.s.sage 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, 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 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 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 doc.u.mentary 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 doc.u.mentary 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 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 ??ast??, S. Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with S. Matth.
xxviii. 1(118).... 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.
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 ill.u.s.trious 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 rehea.r.s.ed, (like the rest,) the feeble expedient of that ill.u.s.trious 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 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. (?? ?? p?e?st???). He had derived his text from "accurate" ones: (?? ?????? ??t????f??.) 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 Caesarea; 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. .h.i.therto 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, a.s.signed 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 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 Ma.n.u.script testimony available, shall be scrupulously investigated in the next two Chapters.
CHAPTER VI.
Ma.n.u.sCRIPT 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. ? (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 (?). These two ma.n.u.scripts 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 Ma.n.u.scripts agree in this,-that _they are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark"s Gospel_. In both, after ?f????t? ??? (ver. 8), comes the subscription: in Cod. B,-???? ??????; in Cod. ?,-???GG????? ???? ??????.
Let it not be supposed that we have any _more_ facts of this cla.s.s to produce. All has been stated. It is not that the evidence of Ma.n.u.scripts is one,-the evidence of Fathers and Versions another. The very reverse is the case. Ma.n.u.scripts, Fathers, and Versions alike, are _only not unanimous_ in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness 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 ?. 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 a.s.surance 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 Cod. B and Cod. ?: 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 ent.i.tled 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. ?, _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 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 ent.i.tled 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 superst.i.tious 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 a.s.sert 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 Sinaitic(126)) was originally derived 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 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 _repet.i.tions_. 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.