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_ "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 ma.n.u.scripts, 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 remain(210) undisposed of have been scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite 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 Codices(211) 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 Codices(212) 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 a.s.serting 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 a.s.sert 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; while twenty-four(215) 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 rehea.r.s.ed 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:"
"Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the week,"(217) &c.
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 pa.s.s 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 be thought ent.i.tled 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,) ??? ?? ??s????? ? ?af???? ??a????se?, 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," 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.)
[[Ill.u.s.tration: Codex Regius facsimile page.]]
(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the obliging permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the Ma.n.u.script Department of the "Bibliotheque." 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 Carpia.n.u.s,"-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 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 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 mult.i.tude 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 t.i.tle 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.
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 doc.u.ment? 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 Catenae) 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 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 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 a.s.sumed,
(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 a.s.sumed, 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 circ.u.mstance. 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 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 argued(232) that since 355 of these are commonly a.s.signed to S.
Matthew, 342 to S. Luke, and 232 to S. John, there do but remain for S.