The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 3

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 Caesarius bear witness to the fact."(68) "In the Catenae 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 circ.u.mstance that Clement of Alexandria, who appears to have no reference to the last chapter of _S. Matthew's_ Gospel, should 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 acc.u.mulating 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) Caesarius,-to say nothing of (11) the anonymous authors of Catenae, 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 ill.u.s.trious 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.' "

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 t.i.ttle,-would have ensured extraordinary caution, and induced every fresh a.s.sailant 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 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 a.s.sign 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 pa.s.sage 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 vi_th_ 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 antic.i.p.ate 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 Cardinal Angelo Mai(75) 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 Stepha.n.u.s") 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 a.s.sumes 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 the work which Mai has brought to light is but a highly condensed exhibition of the original, (and scarcely that,) its very t.i.tle 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 Stepha.n.u.s;"

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 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 years(83),) it will exhibit anything essentially different from what is contained in the famous pa.s.sage 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 getting rid of the entire pa.s.sage,(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 circ.u.mstances, 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 pa.s.sage.(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, ('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 pa.s.sage. Little did the learned writer antic.i.p.ate 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, (but it is the commencement of his reply to the _second_ question of Marinus,)-"if people would but abstain from a.s.suming that Matthew's phrase (??? sa?t??) 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 circ.u.mstance that the ancients generally were so sensible of this, that they are found to have _invariably_(89) subst.i.tuted 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 pa.s.sage 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 Caesarea 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 (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 a.s.serted 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 a.s.sert 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 Irenaeus 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 a.s.sert 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 a.s.sertion 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 ??at?? ?a? ??????ta 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 mult.i.tude of other instances. The Fathers are, in fact, constantly observed to make critical remarks about the ancient copies which simply _cannot_ be correct.

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 pa.s.sage,-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 pa.s.sage, (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 a.s.sert that "according to Mark," our SAVIOUR "is not recorded to have appeared to His Disciples after His Resurrection:" whereas in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is plainly recorded that "Afterwards He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat at meat." May I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the proposed inference, and shall continue to feel so, until I know something more about the scholium in question? Up to the time when this page is printed I have not succeeded in obtaining from Moscow the details I wish for: but they must be already on the way, and I propose to embody the result in a "Postscript" which shall form the last page of the Appendix to the present volume.

Are we then to suppose that there was no substratum of truth in the allegations to which Eusebius gives such prominence in the pa.s.sage under discussion? By no means. The mutilated state of S. Mark's Gospel in the Vatican Codex (B) and especially in the Sinaitic Codex (?) sufficiently 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 circ.u.mstance 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. .h.i.therto 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 p.r.o.nounces 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 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 n.o.ble neighbour of hers, Algasia.(91) Once, when a single messenger had conveyed to him out of the African province a quant.i.ty 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 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 pa.s.sage:-(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 pa.s.sage 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)

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: 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 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 a.s.serts 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"

(e???,-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 "_just.i.tiam_" 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" (????? for t?????) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does not admit that (manifestly corrupt) reading,-which, however, is found both in the Codex Vatica.n.u.s and the Codex Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press the matter further. It is an additional proof that Jerome accepted the 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 a.s.sertion of Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Alford, and Davidson, and so many more, concerning the testimony of Jerome; and I have demolished it. I pa.s.s 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 a.s.signed to the ill.u.s.trious 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 pa.s.sage 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 ??? t??

sa?t?? with the p??? 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 quant.i.ty 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 kind(100),) is observed to introduce solutions of most of those famous difficulties which cl.u.s.ter 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 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 pa.s.sing allusion of his to what Eusebius had long before delivered on the same subject_, as if it exhibited his own individual teaching. It is demonstrable(103) 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 s.p.a.ce 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 a.s.signing 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.

685(104)) does not even record his name. The recent "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography" is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest editor) 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 a.s.signed 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."