The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 27

In xi. 2. Of _Jesus_ instead of _Christ_.

In xiii. 6. Parable of Sower, a _Targum_-like alteration.

ver. 13 a _most important Targum_.

ver. 33 a _wise woman took and hid in meal_.

xiv. 13 leaves out "by ship," and says "on foot," where the Pes.h.i.tto has "on dry land," an odd change, of an opposite kind to some that I have mentioned.

In St. John iii. 6, Cn. has: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, _because of flesh it is born;_ and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, _because G.o.d is a spirit, and of G.o.d it is born_." And in ver. 8: "So is every one that is born _of water and_ of the Spirit." This is a _Targum_-like expansion: possibly anti-Arian. See Tischendorf's Gr. Test. _in loco_. All the above changes look like deliberate emendations of the text.

[It is curious that the Lewis Codex and the Curetonian both break off from the Traditional account of the Virgin-birth, but in opposite directions.

The Lewis Codex makes Joseph our Lord's actual Father: the Curetonian treats the question as described above. That there were two streams of teaching on this subject, which specially characterized the fifth century, is well known: the one exaggerating the Nestorian division of the two Natures, the other tending in a Eutychian direction. That _two fifth-century MSS. should ill.u.s.trate these deviations_ is but natural; and their survival not a little remarkable.]

APPENDIX VII. THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL.

It would be a manifest defect, if a book upon Textual Criticism pa.s.sing under the name of Dean Burgon were to go forth without some reference to the present state of the controversy on the subject, which first made him famous as a Textual critic.

His argument has been strengthened since he wrote in the following ways:-

1. It will be remembered that the omission of the verses has been rested mainly upon their being left out by B and ?, of which circ.u.mstance the error is mutely confessed in B by the occurrence of a blank s.p.a.ce, amply sufficient to contain the verses, the column in question being the only vacant one in the whole ma.n.u.script. It has been generally taken for granted, that there is nothing in ? to denote any consciousness on the part of the scribe that something was omitted. But a closer examination of the facts will shew that the contrary is the truth. For-

i. The page of ? on which St. Mark ends is the _recto_ of leaf 29, being the second of a pair of leaves (28 and 29), forming a single sheet (containing St. Mark xiv. 54-xvi. 8, St. Luke i. 1-56), which Tischendorf has shewn to have been written not by the scribe of the body of the New Testament in this MS., but by one of his colleagues who wrote part of the Old Testament and acted as _diorthota_ or corrector of the New Testament-and who is further identified by the same great authority as the scribe of B. This person appears to have cancelled the sheet originally written by the scribe of ?, and to have subst.i.tuted for it the sheet as we now have it, written by himself. A correction so extensive and laborious can only have been made for the purpose of introducing some important textual change, too large to be effected by deletion, interlineation, or marginal note. Thus we are led not only to infer that the testimony of ?

is here not independent of that of B, but to suspect that this sheet may have been thus cancelled and rewritten in order to conform its contents to those of the corresponding part of B.

ii. This suspicion becomes definite, and almost rises to a certainty, when we look further into the contents of this sheet. Its second page (28 _v__o_) exhibits four columns of St. Mark (xv. 16-xvi. 1); its third page (29 _r__o_), the two last columns of St. Mark (xvi. 2-8) and the first two of St. Luke (i. 1-18). But the writing of these six columns of St. Mark is so spread out that they contain less matter than they ought; whereas the columns of St. Luke that follow contain the normal amount. It follows, therefore, that the change introduced by the _diorthota_ must have been an extensive excision from St. Mark:-in other words, that these pages as originally written must have contained a portion of St. Mark of considerable length which has been omitted from the pages as they now stand. If these six columns of St. Mark were written as closely as the columns of St. Luke which follow, there would be room in them for the omitted twelve verses.-More particularly, the fifth column (the first of page 29 _r__o_) is so arranged as to contain only about five-sixths of the normal quant.i.ty of matter, and the _diorthota_ is thus enabled to carry over four lines to begin a new column, the sixth, by which artifice he manages to conclude St. Mark not with a blank column such as in B tells its own story, but with a column such as in this MS. is usual at the end of a book, exhibiting the closing words followed by an "arabesque" pattern executed with the pen, and the subscription (the rest being left empty).

But, by the very pains he has thus taken to conform this final column to the ordinary usage of the MS., his purpose of omission is betrayed even more conclusively, though less obviously, than by the blank column of B(628).

iii. A further observation is to be noted, which not only confirms the above, but serves to determine the place where the excision was made to have been at the very _end_ of the Gospel. The last of the four lines of the sixth and last column of St. Mark (the second column of leaf 29 _r__o_) contains only the five letters t? ?a? ([?f????]t? ?a?), and has the rest of the s.p.a.ce (more than half the width of the column) filled up with a minute and elaborate ornament executed with the pen in ink and vermilion, the like of which is nowhere else found in the MS., or in the New Testament part of B, such s.p.a.ces being invariably left unfilled(629).

And not only so, but underneath, the usual "arabesque" above the subscription, marking the conclusion of the text, has its horizontal arm extended all the way across the width of the column,-and not, as always elsewhere, but halfway or less(630). It seems hardly possible to regard these carefully executed works of the pen of the _diorthota_ otherwise than as precautions to guard against the possible restoration, by a subsequent reviser, of a portion of text deliberately omitted by him (the _diorthota_) from _the end_ of the Gospel. They are evidence therefore that he knew of a conclusion to the Gospel which he designedly expunged, and endeavoured to make it difficult for any one else to reinsert.

We have, therefore, good reason to believe that the disputed Twelve Verses were not only in an exemplar known to the scribe of B, but also in the exemplar used by the scribe of ?; and that their omission (or, more properly, disappearance) from these two MSS. is due to one and the same person-the scribe, namely, who wrote B and who revised ?,-or rather, perhaps, to an editor by whose directions he acted.

2. Some early Patristic evidence has been added to the stores which the Dean collected by Dr. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge.

This evidence may be found in a book ent.i.tled "The Witness of Hermas" to the Four Gospels, published in 1892, of which -- 12 in the Second Part is devoted to "The ending of St. Mark's Gospel," and includes also quotations from Justin Martyr, and the Apology of Aristides. A fuller account is given in the Expositor of July 1893, and contains references to the following pa.s.sages:-Irenaeus iii. 11. 6 (quoting xvi. 19); Justin Martyr, Trypho, -- 138; Apol. i. 67; Trypho, -- 85; Apol. i. 45; Barnabas, xv. 9; xvi. 7; Quarto-deciman Controversy (Polycarp)? and Clement of Rome, i. 42.

The pa.s.sages from Hermas are, 1. (xvi. 12-13) Sim. ii. 1, Vis. i. 1, iii.

1, iv. 1, and v. 4; 2. (xvi. 14) Sim. ix. 141 and 20. 4, Vis. iii. 8. 3, iii. 7. 6; 3. (xvi. 15-16) Vis. iii, Sim. ix. 16, 25; 4. (xvi. 17-18) Vis.

iv, Mand. i, xii. 2. 2-3, Sim. ix. 1. 9, iii. 7, ix. 26, Mand. xii. 6. 2; 5. (xvi. 19-20) Vis. iii. 1. Some of the references are not apparent at first sight, but Dr. Taylor's discussions in both places should be read carefully.

3. In my own list given above, p. 109, of the writers who died before A.D.

400, I have added from my two examinations of the Ante-Chrysostom Fathers to the list in The Revision Revised, p. 421, the Clementines, four references from the Apostolic Canons and Const.i.tutions, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, and two references to the four of St. Ambrose mentioned in "The Last Twelve Verses," p. 27. To these Dr. Waller adds, Gospel of Peter, -- 7 (pe?????te?

?a? ??a???te?), and -- 12 (???a??e? ?a? ???p??e?a), referring to the ?pa?

?e??e???, as regards the att.i.tude of the Twelve at the time, in xvi. 10.

4. On the other hand, the recently discovered Lewis Codex, as is well known, omits the verses. The character of that Codex, which has been explained above in the sixth chapter of this work, makes any alliance with it suspicious, and consequently it is of no real importance that its testimony, unlike that of B and ?, is claimed to be unswerving.

For that ma.n.u.script is disfigured by heretical blemishes of the grossest nature, and the obliteration of it for the purpose of covering the vellum with other writing was attended with circ.u.mstances of considerable significance.

In the first chapter of St. Matthew, Joseph is treated as the father of our Lord (vers. 16, 21, 24) as far as His body was concerned, for as to His soul even according to teaching of Gnostic origin He was treated as owing His nature to the Holy Ghost (ver. 20). Accordingly, the blessed Virgin is called in the second chapter of St. Luke Joseph's "wife,"

e??ste???? being left with no equivalent(631): and at His baptism, He is described as "_being as He was called_ the son of Joseph" (St. Luke iii. 23). According to the heretical tenet that our Lord was chosen out of other men to be made the Son of G.o.d at the baptism, we read afterwards, "This is My Son, My chosen" (St. Luke ix. 35), "the chosen of G.o.d" (St.

John i. 34), "Thou art My Son and My beloved" (St. Matt. iii. 17), "This is My Son Who is beloved" (St. Mark ix. 7); and we are told of the Holy Ghost descending like a dove (St. Matt. iii. 16), that It "_abode_ upon Him." Various smaller expressions are also found, but perhaps the most remarkable of those which have been left upon the ma.n.u.script occurs in St.

Matt. xxvii. 50, "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and _His Spirit went up_." After this, can we be surprised because the scribe took the opportunity of leaving out the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark which contain the most detailed account of the Ascension in the Gospels, as well as the ?a? ??ef??et? e?? t?? ???a??? of St. Luke?

Again, at the time when the ma.n.u.script was put out of use, and as is probable in the monastery of St. Catherine so early as the year 778 A.D.

(Introduction by Mrs. Lewis, p. xv), the old volume was pulled to pieces, twenty-two leaves were cast away, the rest used in no regular order, and on one at least, as we are told, a knife was employed to eradicate the writing. Five of the missing leaves must have been blank, according to Mrs. Lewis: but the seventeen remaining leaves contained pa.s.sages of supreme importance as being expressive of doctrine, like St. John i. 1-24, St. Luke i. 16-39, St. Mark i. 1-11, St. Matt. xxviii. 8-end, and others.

Reading the results of this paragraph in connexion with those of the last, must we not conclude that this ma.n.u.script was used for a palimpsest, and submitted to unusual indignity in order to obliterate its bad record?

It will be seen therefore that a cause, which for unchallenged evidence rests solely upon such a witness, cannot be one that will commend itself to those who form their conclusions judicially. The genuineness of the verses, as part of the second Gospel, must, I hold, remain unshaken by such opposition.

5. An ingenious suggestion has been contributed by Mr. F. C. Conybeare, the eminent Armenian scholar, founded upon an entry which he discovered in an Armenian MS. of the Gospels, dated A.D. 986, where "Ariston Eritzou" is written in minioned uncials at the head of the twelve verses. Mr.

Conybeare argues, in the Expositor for October, 1893, that "Ariston Eritzou" is not the copyist himself, who signs himself Johannes, or an Armenian translator, Ariston or Aristion being no Armenian name. He then attempts to identify it with Aristion who is mentioned by Papias in a pa.s.sage quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) as a disciple of the Lord. Both the words "Ariston Eritzou" are taken to be in the genitive, as "Eritzou"

certainly is, and to signify "Of or by Aristion the presbyter," this being the meaning of the latter word. The suggestion is criticized by Dr. Ad.

Harnack in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 795, where Dr. Harnack p.r.o.nounces no opinion upon the soundness of it: but the impression left upon the mind after reading his article is that he is unable to accept it.

It is remarkable that the verses are found in no other Armenian MS. before 1100. Mr. Conybeare traces the version of the pa.s.sage to an old Syrian Codex about the year 500, but he has not very strong grounds for his reasoning; and even then for such an important piece of information the leap to the sub-Apostolic age is a great one. But there is another serious difficulty in the interpretation of this fragmentary expression. Even granting the strong demands that we may construe over the expression of Papias, ???st??? ?a? ? p?es?te??? ???????, and take Aristion to have been meant as a presbyter, and that according to the parallel of Aristion in Eusebius' history having been transliterated in an Armenian version to Ariston, Aristion "the disciple" may be the man mentioned here, there is a formidable difficulty presented by the word "Ariston" as it is written in the place quoted. It ought at least to have had a long o according to Dr.

Harnack, and it is not in the genitive case as "Eritzou" is. Altogether, the expression is so elliptical, and occurs with such isolated mystery in a retired district, and at such a distance of years from the event supposed to be chronicled, that the wonder is, not that a diligent and ingenious explorer should advocate a very curious idea that he has formed upon a very interesting piece of intelligence, but that other Critics should have been led to welcome it as a key to a long-considered problem.

Are we not forced to see in this incident an instance of a truth not unfrequently verified, that when people neglect a plain solution, they are induced to welcome another which does not include a tenth part of the evidence in its support?

Of course the real difficulty in the way of accepting these verses as the composition of St. Mark lies in the change of style found in them. That this change is not nearly so great as it may appear at first sight, any one may satisfy himself by studying Dean Burgon's a.n.a.lysis of the words given in the ninth chapter of his "Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark." But it has been the fashion in some quarters to confine ancient writers to a wondrously narrow form of style in each case, notwithstanding Horace's rough Satires and exquisitely polished Odes, and Cicero's Letters to his Friends and his Orations and Philosophical Treatises. Perhaps the recent flood of discoveries respecting early Literature may wash away some of the film from our sight. There seems to be no valid reason why St. Mark should not have written all the Gospel that goes by his name, only under altered circ.u.mstances. The true key seems to be, that at the end of verse 8 he lost the a.s.sistance of St. Peter. Before ?f????t? ???, he wrote out St.

Peter's story: after it, he filled in the end from his own acquired knowledge, and composed in summary. This very volume may supply a parallel. Sometimes I have transcribed Dean Burgon's materials with only slight alteration, where necessary imitating as I was able his style. In other places, I have written solely as best I could.

I add two suggestions, not as being proved to be true, because indeed either is destructive of the other, but such that one or other may possibly represent the facts that actually occurred. To meet the charge of impossibility, it is enough to shew what is possible, though in the absence of direct evidence it may not be open to any one to advocate any narrative as being absolutely true.

I. Taking the story of Papias and Clement of Alexandria, as given by Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), that St. Mark wrote his gospel at the request of Roman converts, and that St. Peter, as it seems, helped him in the writing, I should suggest that the pause made in ?f????t? ???, so unlike the close of any composition, of any paragraph or chapter, and still less of the end of a book, that I can recollect, indicates a sudden interruption. What more likely than that St. Peter was apprehended at the time, perhaps at the very moment when the MS. reached that place, and was carried off to judgement and death? After all was over, and the opportunity of study returned, St. Mark would naturally write a conclusion. He would not alter a syllable that had fallen from St. Peter's lips. It would be the conclusion composed by one who had lost his literary illuminator, formal, brief, sententious, and comprehensive. The crucifixion of the leading Apostle would thus impress an everlasting mark upon the Gospel which was virtually his. Here the Master's tongue ceased: here the disciple took up his pen for himself.

II. If we follow the account of Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. v. 8) that St. Mark wrote his Gospel-and did not merely publish it-after St. Peter's death, Dr. Gwynn suggests to me that he used his notes made from St. Peter's dictation or composed with his help up to xvi. 8, leaving at the end what were exactly St. Peter's words. After that, he added from his own stores, and indited the conclusion as I have already described.

Whether either of these descriptions, or any other solution of the difficulty, really tallies with the actual event, I submit that it is clear that St. Mark may very well have written the twelve verses himself; and that there is no reason for resorting to Aristion, or to any other person for the authorship. I see that Mr. Conybeare expresses his indebtedness to Dean Burgon's monograph, and expresses his opinion that "perhaps no one so well sums up the evidence for and against them" as he did (Expositor, viii. p. 241). I tender to him my thanks, and echo for myself all that he has said.

APPENDIX VIII. NEW EDITIONS OF THE PEs.h.i.tTO-SYRIAC AND THE HARKLEIAN-SYRIAC VERSIONS.

A book representing Dean Burgon's labours in the province of Sacred Textual Criticism would be incomplete if notice were not taken in it of the influence exercised by him upon the production of editions of the two chief Syriac Versions.

Through his introduction of the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. to the late Philip E. Pusey, a plan was formed for the joint production of an edition of the Pes.h.i.tto New Testament by these two scholars. On the early and lamented death of Philip Pusey, which occurred in the following year, Mr.

Gwilliam succeeded to his labours, being greatly helped by the Dean's encouragement. He has written on the Syriac Canons of the Gospels; and the nature of his work upon the Pes.h.i.tto Gospels, now in the press, may be seen on consulting his article on "The Materials for the Criticism of the Pes.h.i.tto New Testament" in the third volume of Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, pp. 47-104, which indeed seems to be sufficient for the Prolegomena of his edition. A list of his chief authorities was also kindly contributed by him to my Scrivener, and they are enumerated there, vol. II. pp. 12-13. The importance of this work, carried on successively by two such accomplished Syriacists, may be seen from and will ill.u.s.trate the sixth chapter of this work.

In connexion with the Dean, if not on his suggestion, the late Rev. Henry Deane, B.D., when Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford, began to collect materials for a new and critical edition of the Harkleian. His work was carried on during many years, when ill-health and failing eyesight put a stop to all efforts, and led to his early death-for on leaving New College, after having been Tutor there for five years, I examined him then a boy at the top of Winchester College. Mr. Deane has left the results of his work entered in an interleaved copy of Joseph White's "Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana"-named, as my readers will observe, from the translator Mar Xenaias or Philoxenus, not from Thomas of Harkel the subsequent editor. A list of the MSS. on which Mr. Deane based his readings was sent by him to me, and inserted in my Scrivener, vol. II.

p. 29. Mr. Deane added (in a subsequent letter, dated April 16, 1894):-"My labours on the _Gospels_ shew that the H[arkleian] text is much the same in all MSS. The Acts of the Apostles must be worked up for a future edition by some one who knows the work." Since his lamented death, putting a stop to any edition by him, his widow has placed his collation just described in the Library of St. John's College, where by the permission of the Librarian it may be seen, and also used by any one who is recognized as continuing the valuable work of that accomplished member of the College. Is there no capable and learned man who will come forward for the purpose?