CHAPTER XII.

GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT.

This discussion narrowed to a single issue (p. 244).—That S. Mark’s Gospel was imperfect from the very first, a thing altogether incredible (p. 246):—But that at some very remote period Copies have suffered mutilation, a supposition probable in the highest degree (p. 248).—Consequences of this admission (p. 252).—Parting words (p. 254.)

This Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem was fully explained at the outset.(459) All the known evidence has since been produced,(460) every Witness examined.(461) Counsel has been heard on both sides. A just Sentence will assuredly follow. But it may not be improper that I should in conclusion ask leave to direct attention to the _single issue_ which has to be decided, and which has been strangely thrust into the background and practically kept out of sight, by those who have preceded me in this Investigation. The case stands simply thus:—

It being freely admitted that, in the beginning of the ivth century, there must have existed Copies of the Gospels in which the last chapter of S. Mark extended no further than ver. 8, the Question arises,—_How is this phenomenon to be accounted for?_... The problem is not only highly interesting and strictly legitimate, but it is even inevitable. In the immediately preceding chapter, I have endeavoured to solve it, and I believe in a wholly unsuspected way.

But the most recent Editors of the text of the New Testament, declining to entertain so much as the _possibility_ that certain copies of the second Gospel _had experienced mutilation in very early times_ in respect of these Twelve concluding Verses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather with conjectures as to how it may have happened that S. Mark’s Gospel _was without a conclusion from the very first_. Persuaded that no more probable account is to be given of the phenomenon than that _the Evangelist himself put forth a Gospel which_ (for some unexplained reason) _terminated abruptly at the words_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (chap. xvi. 8),—they have unhappily seen fit to illustrate the liveliness of this conviction of theirs, by presenting the world with his Gospel mutilated in this particular way. Practically, therefore, the question has been reduced to the following single issue:—Whether of the two suppositions which follow is the more reasonable:

_First_,—That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the hands of its inspired Author, _was in this imperfect or unfinished state_; ending abruptly at (what we call now) the 8th verse of the last chapter:—of which solemn circumstance, at the end of eighteen centuries, Cod. B and Cod. א are the alone surviving Manuscript witnesses?... or,

_Secondly_,—That certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel _having suffered mutilation_ in respect of their Twelve concluding Verses in the post-Apostolic age, Cod. B and Cod. א are the only examples of MSS. so mutilated which are known to exist at the present day?

I. Editors who adopt the former hypothesis, are observed (_a_) to sever the Verses in question from their context:(462)—(_b_) to introduce after ver. 8, the subscription “ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ:”(463)—(_c_) to shut up verses 9-20 within brackets.(464) Regarding them as “no integral part of the Gospel”(465)—“as an authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down,”(466)—a “remarkable Fragment,” “placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early times;”(467)—they consider themselves at liberty to go on to suggest that “the Evangelist may have been interrupted in his work:” at any rate, that “something may have occurred, (as the death of S. Peter,) to cause him to leave it unfinished.”(468) But “the most probable supposition” (we are assured) “is, that _the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away_.”(469)

We listen with astonishment; contenting ourselves with modestly suggesting that surely it will be time to conjecture _why_ S. Mark’s Gospel was left by its Divinely inspired Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has been established that it probably _was_ so left. In the meantime, we request to be furnished with some evidence of _that fact_.

But not a particle of Evidence is forthcoming. It is not even pretended that any such evidence exists. Instead, we are magisterially informed by “the first Biblical Critic in Europe,”—(I desire to speak of him with gratitude and respect, but S. Mark’s Gospel is a vast deal more precious to me than Dr. Tischendorf’s reputation,)—that “_a healthy piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as Mark’s what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn_ [where?] _to have known nothing at all about_.”(470) In the meanwhile, it is assumed to be a more reasonable supposition,—(α) That S. Mark published an imperfect Gospel; and that the Twelve Verses with which his Gospel concludes were the fabrication of a subsequent age; than,—(β) That some ancient Scribe having with design or by accident left out these Twelve concluding Verses, copies of the second Gospel so mutilated become multiplied, and in the beginning of the ivth century existed in considerable numbers.

And yet it is notorious that very soon after the Apostolic age, liberties precisely of this kind were freely taken with the text of the New Testament. Origen (A.D. 185-254) complains of the licentious tampering with the Scriptures which prevailed in his day. “Men add to them,” (he says) “or _leave out_,—as seems good to themselves.”(471) Dionysius of Corinth, yet earlier, (A.D. 168-176) remarks that it was no wonder his own writings were added to and _taken from_, seeing that men presumed to deprave the Word of GOD in the same manner.(472) Irenæus, his contemporary, (living within seventy years of S. John’s death,) complains of a corrupted Text.(473) We are able to go back yet half a century, and the depravations of Holy Writ become avowed and flagrant.(474) A competent authority has declared it “no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that _the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has been ever subjected_ originated within a hundred years after it was composed.”(475) Above all, it is demonstrable that Cod. B and Cod. א abound in unwarrantable omissions very like the present;(476) omissions which only do not provoke the same amount of attention because they are of less moment. One such extraordinary depravation of the Text, _in which they also stand alone among MSS._ and to which their patrons are observed to appeal with triumphant complacency, has been already made the subject of distinct investigation. I am much mistaken if it has not been shewn in my VIIth chapter, that the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1, is just as unauthorized,—quite as serious a blemish,—as the suppression of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.

Now, in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of _any Evidence whatever_ to prove that S. Mark’s Gospel was imperfect from the first,—I submit that an hypothesis so violent and improbable, as well as so wholly uncalled for, is simply undeserving of serious attention. For,

(1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the improbability of the hypothesis is excessive; “the contents of these Verses being such as to preclude the supposition that they were the work of a post-Apostolic period. The very difficulties which they present afford the strongest presumption of their genuineness.” No fabricator of a supplement to S. Mark’s Gospel would have ventured on introducing so many minute _seeming_ discrepancies: and certainly “his contemporaries would not have accepted and transmitted such an addition,” if he had. It has also been shewn at great length that the Internal Evidence for the genuineness of these Verses is overwhelmingly strong.(477) But,

(2nd.) Even external Evidence is not wanting. It has been acutely pointed out long since, that the absence of a vast assemblage of various Readings in this place, is, in itself, a convincing argument that we have here to do with no spurious appendage to the Gospel.(478) Were this a deservedly suspected passage, it must have shared the fate of all other deservedly (or undeservedly) suspected passages. It never could have come to pass that the various Readings which these Twelve Verses exhibit would be _considerably fewer_ than those which attach to the last twelve verses of any of the other three Gospels.

(3rd.) And then surely, if the original Gospel of S. Mark had been such an incomplete work as is feigned, the fact would have been notorious from the first, and must needs have become the subject of general comment.(479) It may be regarded as certain that so extraordinary a circumstance would have been largely remarked upon by the Ancients, and that evidence of the fact would have survived in a hundred quarters. It is, I repeat, simply incredible that Tradition would have proved so utterly neglectful of her office as to remain _quite_ silent on such a subject, if the facts had been such as are imagined. Either Papias, or else John the Presbyter,—Justin Martyr, or Hegesippus, or one of the “Seniores apud Irenæum,”—Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, or Hippolytus,—if not Origen, yet at least Eusebius,—if not Eusebius, yet certainly Jerome,—_some_ early Writer, I say, must _certainly_ have recorded the tradition that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired author, was an incomplete or unfinished work. The silence of the Ancients, joined to the inherent improbability of the conjecture,—(_that_ silence so profound, _this_ improbability so gross!)—is enough, I submit, _in the entire absence of Evidence on the other side_, to establish _the very contradictory_ of the alternative which recent Critics are so strenuous in recommending to our acceptance.

(4th.) But on the contrary. We have indirect yet convincing testimony that the _oldest_ copies of all _did contain_ the Verses in question:(480) while so far are any of the Writers just now enumerated from recording that these verses were absent from the early copies, that five out of those ten Fathers actually quote, or else refer to the verses in question in a way which shews that in their day they were the recognised termination of S. Mark’s Gospel.(481)

We consider ourselves at liberty, therefore, to turn our attention to the rival alternative. Our astonishment is even excessive that it should have been seriously expected of us that we could accept without Proof of any sort,—without a particle of Evidence, external, internal, or even traditional,—the extravagant hypothesis that S. Mark put forth an unfinished Gospel; when the obvious and easy alternative solicits us, of supposing,

II. That, at some period _subsequent_ to the time of the Evangelist, certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel suffered that mutilation in respect of their last Twelve Verses of which we meet with _no trace whatever, no record of any sort, until the beginning of the fourth century_.

(i.) And the facts which _now_ meet us on the very threshold, are in a manner conclusive: for if Papias and Justin Martyr [A.D. 150] do not refer to, yet certainly Irenæus [A.D. 185] and Hippolytus [A.D. 190-227] _distinctly quote_ Six out of the Twelve suspected Verses,—which are also met with in the two oldest Syriac Versions, as well as in the old Latin Translation. Now the latest of these authorities is earlier by full a hundred years than _the earliest record_ that the verses in question were ever absent from ancient MSS. At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as Cyprian relates,) [A.D. 256] Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven African Bishops there assembled, quoted the 17th verse in the presence of the Council.

(ii.) Nor is this all.(482) Besides the Gothic and Egyptian versions in the ivth century; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, and Augustine in the vth, to say nothing of Codices A and C;—the Lectionary of the Church universal, _probably from the second century of our æra_, is found to bestow its solemn and emphatic sanction on _every one_ of these Twelve Verses. They are met with _in every MS. of the Gospels in existence_, uncial and cursive,—_except two_;(483) they are found _in every Version_; and are contained besides in _every known Lectionary_, where they are appointed to be read at Easter and on Ascension Day.(484)

(iii.) Early in the ivth century, however, we are encountered by a famous place in the writings of Eusebius [A.D. 300-340], who, (as I have elsewhere explained,(485)) is the _only_ Father who delivers any independent testimony on this subject at all. What he says has been strangely misrepresented. It is simply as follows:—

(_a_) One, “Marinus,” is introduced _quoting this part of S. Mark’s Gospel without suspicion_, and enquiring, How its opening statement is to be reconciled with S. Matth. xxviii. 1? Eusebius, in reply, points out that a man whose only object was to get rid of the difficulty, might adopt the expedient of saying that this last section of S. Mark’s Gospel “is _not found in all the copies_:” (μὴ ἐν ἁπᾶσι φέρεσθαι.) Declining, however, to act thus presumptuously in respect of anything claiming to be a part of Evangelical Scripture, (οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ φερομένων,)—_he adopts the hypothesis that the text is genuine_. Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, he begins: and he enters at once without hesitation on an elaborate discussion to shew _how the two places may be reconciled_.(486) What there is in this to countenance the notion that in the opinion of Eusebius “the Gospel according to S. Mark originally terminated at the 8th verse of the last chapter,”—I profess myself unable to discover. I draw from his words the precisely opposite inference. It is not even clear to me that the Verses in dispute were absent from the copy which Eusebius habitually employed. He certainly quotes one of those verses once and again.(487) On the other hand, the express statement of Victor of Antioch [A.D. 450?] _that he knew of the mutilation, but had ascertained by Critical research the genuineness of this Section of Scripture, and had adopted the Text of the authentic _“Palestinian”_ Copy_,(488)—is more than enough to outweigh the faint presumption created (as some might think) by the words of Eusebius, that his own copy was without it. And yet, as already stated, there is nothing whatever to shew that Eusebius himself deliberately rejected the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. Still less does that Father anywhere say, or even hint, that in his judgment the original Text of S. Mark was without them. If he may be judged by his words, _he accepted them as genuine_: for (what is at least certain) he argues upon their contents at great length, and apparently without misgiving.

(_b_) It is high time however to point out that, after all, the question to be decided is, not _what Eusebius thought_ on this subject, but what is historically probable. As a plain matter of fact, the sum of the Patristic Evidence against these Verses is the hypothetical suggestion of Eusebius already quoted; which, (after a fashion well understood by those who have given any attention to these studies), is observed to have rapidly propagated itself in the congenial soil of the vth century. And even if it could be shewn that Eusebius deliberately _rejected_ this portion of Scripture, (which has never been done,)—yet, inasmuch as it may be regarded as certain that those famous codices in the library of his friend Pamphilus at Cæsarea, to which the ancients habitually referred, _recognised it as genuine_,(489)—the only sufferer from such a conflict of evidence would surely be Eusebius himself: (not _S. Mark_, I say, but _Eusebius_:) who is observed to employ an incorrect text of Scripture on many other occasions; and must (in such case) be held to have been unduly partial to copies of S. Mark in the mutilated condition of Cod. B or Cod. א. His words were translated by Jerome;(490) adopted by Hesychius;(491) referred to by Victor;(492) reproduced “with a difference” in more than one ancient scholion.(493) But they are found to have died away into a very faint echo when Euthymius Zigabenus(494) rehearsed them for the last time in his Commentary on the Gospels, A.D. 1116. Exaggerated and misunderstood, behold them resuscitated after an interval of seven centuries by Griesbach, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles and the rest: again destined to fall into a congenial, though very differently prepared soil; and again destined (I venture to predict) to die out and soon to be forgotten for ever.

(iv.) After all that has gone before, our two oldest Codices (Cod. B and Cod. א) which alone witness to the truth of Eusebius’ testimony as to the state of certain copies of the Gospels in his own day, need not detain us long. They are thought to be as old as the ivth century: they are certainly without the concluding section of S. Mark’s Gospel. But it may not be forgotten that both Codices alike are disfigured throughout by errors, interpolations and omissions without number; that their testimony is continually divergent; and that it often happens that where they both agree they are both demonstrably in error.(495) Moreover, it is a highly significant circumstance that the Vatican Codex (B), which is the more ancient of the two, exhibits _a vacant column_ at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel,—_the only vacant column in the whole codex_: whereby it is shewn that the Copyist was aware of the existence of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, even though he left them out:(496) while the original Scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus (א) is declared by Tischendorf to have actually _omitted the concluding verse of S. John’s Gospel_,—in which unenviable peculiarity _it stands alone among MSS._(497)

(I.) And thus we are brought back to the point from which we started. We are reminded that the one thing to be accounted for is _the mutilated condition of certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel in the beginning of the fourth century_; of which, Cod. B and Cod. א are the two solitary surviving specimens,—Eusebius, the one historical witness. We have to decide, I mean, between the _evidence_ for this _fact_,—(namely, that within the first two centuries and a-half of our æra, the Gospel according to S. Mark _suffered mutilation_;)—and the _reasonableness_ of the other _opinion_, namely, that S. Mark’s _original autograph_ extended no farther than ch. xvi. 8. All is reduced to this one issue; and unless any are prepared to prove that the Twelve familiar Verses (ver. 9 to ver. 20) with which S. Mark ends his Gospel _cannot_ be his,—(I have proved on the contrary that he must needs be thought to have written them,(498))—I submit that it is simply irrational to persist in asseverating that the reason why those verses are not found in our two Codexes of the ivth century must be because they did not exist in the original autograph of the Evangelist. What else is this but to set unsupported _opinion_, or rather unreasoning _prejudice_, before the _historical evidence_ of a _fact_? The assumption is not only gratuitous, arbitrary, groundless; but it is discountenanced by the evidence of MSS., of Versions, of Fathers, (Versions and Fathers much older than the ivth century:) is rendered in the highest degree improbable by every internal, every external consideration: is condemned by _the deliberate judgment of the universal Church_,—which, in its corporate capacity, for eighteen hundred years, in all places, has not only solemnly accepted the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel as genuine, but has even singled them out for special honour.(499)

(II.) Let it be asked in conclusion,—(for this prolonged discussion is now happily at an end,)—Are any inconveniences likely to result from a frank and loyal admission, (_in the absence of any Evidence whatever to the contrary_,) that doubtless the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are just as worthy of acceptation as the rest? It might reasonably be supposed, from the strenuous earnestness with which the rejection of these Verses is generally advocated, that some considerations must surely be assignable why the opinion of their genuineness ought on no account to be entertained. Do any such reasons exist? Are any inconveniences whatever likely to supervene?

_No_ reasons whatever are assignable, I reply; neither are there _any_ inconvenient consequences of any sort to be anticipated,—except indeed to the Critics: to whom, it must be confessed, the result proves damaging enough.

It will only follow,

(1st) That Cod. B and Cod. א must be henceforth allowed to be _in one more serious particular_ untrustworthy and erring witnesses. They have been convicted, in fact, of bearing false witness in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, where their evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most undoubting confidence.

(2ndly) That the critical statements of recent Editors, and indeed the remarks of Critics generally, in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, will have to undergo serious revision: in every important particular, will have to be unconditionally withdrawn.

(3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Testament, these “Twelve Verses” will have to be restored to their rightful honours: never more appearing disfigured with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished from their context, or molested with notes of suspicion. On the contrary. A few words of caution against the resuscitation of what has been proved to be a “vulgar error,” will have henceforth to be introduced _in memoriam rei_.

(4thly) Lastly, men must be no longer taught to look with distrust on this precious part of the Deposit; and encouraged to dispute the Divine sayings which it contains on the plea that _perhaps_ they may not be Divine, after all; for that _probably_ the entire section is not genuine. They must be assured, on the contrary, that these Twelve Verses are wholly undistinguishable in respect of genuineness from the rest of the Gospel of S. Mark; and it may not be amiss to remind them the Creed called the “Athanasian” speaks no other language than that employed by the Divine Author of our Religion and Object of our Faith. The Church warns her children against the peril incurred by as many as wilfully reject the Truth, in no other language but that of the Great Head of the Church. No person may presume to speak disparagingly of S. Mark xvi. 16, any more.

(III.) Whether,—after the foregoing exposure of a very prevalent and highly popular, but at the same time most calamitous misapprehension,—it will not become necessary for Editors of the Text of the New Testament to reconsider their conclusions in countless other places:—whether they must not be required to review their method, and to remodel their text throughout, now that they have been shewn the insecurity of the foundation on which they have so confidently builded, and been forced to reverse their verdict in respect of a place of Scripture where at least they supposed themselves impregnable;—I forbear at this time to inquire.

Enough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now done, that _not a particle of doubt_, that _not an atom of suspicion_, attaches to “THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK.”

ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.

APPENDIX (A).

On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture.—The correct Text of S. LUKE ii. 14, established.

(Referred to at p. 22.)

In Chapter III. the importance of attending to Patristic citations of Scripture has been largely insisted upon. The controverted reading of S. Luke ii. 14 supplies an apt illustration of the position there maintained, viz. that this subject has not hitherto engaged nearly as much attention as it deserves.

I. Instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, (which is the reading of the “Textus Receptus,”) Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford present us with ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. Their authority for this reading is the consentient testimony of THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. WHICH CONTAIN S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. B, א, A, D): THE LATIN VERSIONS generally (“_in hominibus bonae voluntatis_”); and THE GOTHIC. Against these are to be set, COD. A (in the Hymn at the end of the Psalms); ALL THE OTHER UNCIALS; together WITH EVERY KNOWN CURSIVE MS.; and EVERY OTHER ANCIENT VERSION in existence.

So far, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed to preponderate in favour of εὐδοκίας: though no judicious Critic, it is thought, should hesitate in deciding in favour of εὐδοκία, even upon the evidence already adduced. The advocates of the popular Theory ask,—But _why_ should the four oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic Versions, conspire in reading εὐδοκίας, if εὐδοκία be right? That question shall be resolved by-and-by. Let them in the mean time tell us, if they can,—How is it credible that, in such a matter as this, _every other MS. and every other Version in the world_ should read εὐδοκία, if εὐδοκία be wrong? But the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited. I proceed to set it forth in detail.

It is found then, that whereas εὐδοκίας _is read by none_, εὐδοκία is read by all the following Fathers:—

(1) ORIGEN, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 D: ii. 714 B: iv. 15 B,—A.D. 240.]

(2) The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, twice, [vii. 47: viii. 12 _ad fin._,—IIrd cent.]

(3) METHODIUS, [_Galland._ iii. 809 B,—A.D. 290.]

(4) EUSEBIUS, twice, [_Dem. Ev._ 163 C: 342 B,—A.D. 320.]

(5) APHRAATES THE PERSIAN, (for whose name [_suprà_, pp. 26-7] that of “Jacobus of Nisibis” has been erroneously substituted), twice, [i. 180 and 385,—A.D. 337.]

(6) TITUS OF BOSTRA, twice, [_in loc._, but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29 (_Cramer_, ii. 141, _line_ 20),—A.D. 350.]

(7) GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, [i. 845 C,—A.D. 360.]

(8) CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, [A.D. 370], as will be found explained below.

(9) EPIPHANIUS, [i. 154 D,—A.D. 375.]

(10) CHRYSOSTOM, four times, [vii. 311 B: 674 C: viii. 85 C: xi. 374 B expressly,—A.D. 400.]

(11) CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, in three places, [_Comm. on S. Luke_, pp. 12 and 16. Also _Opp._ ii. 593 A: vi. 398 C,—A.D. 420.]

(12) THEODORET, [_in Coloss._ i. 20,-A.D. 430.]

(13) THEODOTUS OF ANCYRA, [_Galland._ x. 446 B,—A.D. 430.]

(14) PROCLUS, Abp. of Constantinople, [_Gall._ x. 629 A,—A.D. 434.]

To which may be added the evidence of

(15) COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, four times repeated, [_Coll. Nov. PP._, (Montfaucon,) ii. 152 A, 160 D, 247 E, 269 C,—A.D. 535.]

(16) EULOGIUS, Abp. of Alexandria, [_Gall._ xii. 308 E,—A.D. 581.]

(17) ANDREAS OF CRETE, twice, [_Gall._ xiii. 100 D, 123 C,—A.D. 635.]

Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers of the Church(500) all concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn _as our own Textus Receptus exhibits it_,—(viz. ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία,)—_who_ does not see that the four oldest uncial authorities for εὐδοκίας are hopelessly outvoted by authorities yet older than themselves? Here is, to all intents and purposes, a record of what was once found in _two Codices of the iii_rd_ century_; in _nine of the iv_th; in _three of the v_th;—added to the testimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian versions. In this instance therefore the evidence of Antiquity is even overwhelming.

Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form in which _the Churches of the East_ preserved the Angelic Hymn in their private, as well as their solemn public Devotions. Take it, from a document of the vth century:—

ΔΟΞΑ ΕΝ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΙΣ ΘΕΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΓΗΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ ΕΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ ΕΥΔΟΚΙΑ.(501)

But the text of this Hymn, as a Liturgical document, at a yet earlier period is unequivocally established by the combined testimony of the Apostolical Constitutions (already quoted,) and of Chrysostom, who says expressly:—Εὐχαριστοῦντες λέγομεν, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. [_Opp._ xi. 347 B.] Now this incontestably proves that _the Church’s established way of reciting the Angelic Hymn in the iv_th_ century_ was in conformity with the reading of the Textus Receptus. And this fact infinitely outweighs the evidence of any extant MSS. which can be named: for it is the consentient evidence of hundreds,—or rather of thousands of copies of the Gospels of a date anterior to A.D. 400, which have long since perished.

To insist upon this, however, is not at all my present purpose. About the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14, (which is _not_ the reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,) there is clearly no longer any room for doubt. It is perhaps one of the best established readings in the whole compass of the New Testament. My sole object is to call attention to the two following facts:—

(1) That _the four oldest Codices which contain S. Luke_ ii. 14 (B, א, A, D, A.D. 320-520), and two of the oldest Versions, conspire in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn _incorrectly_.

(2) That we are indebted to _fourteen of the Fathers_ (A.D. 240-434), and to the rest of the ancient Versions, for the true reading of that memorable place of Scripture.

II. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,—

1. IRENÆUS sides with the oldest uncials.—Now, the Greek of the place referred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that survives. According to _that_ evidence, Irenæus, having quoted the place in conformity with the Vulgate reading (iii. c. x. § 41,—“_Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis_,”) presently adds,—“In eo quod dicunt, _Gloria in altissimis __DEO__ et in terra pax_, eum qui sit altissimorum, hoc est, supercaelestium factor et eorum, quae super terram omnium conditor, his sermonibus glorificaverunt; qui suo plasmati, hoc est hominibus suam benignitatem salutis de caelo misit.” (_ed._ Stieren, i. 459).—But it must suffice to point out (1) that these words really prove nothing: and (2) that it would be very unsafe to build upon them, even if they did; since (3) it is plain that the Latin translator exhibits the place in the Latin form most familiar to himself: (consider his substitution of “excelsis” for “altissimis.”)

2. Next, ORIGEN is claimed on the same side, on the strength of the following passage in (Jerome’s version of) his lost Homilies on S. Luke:—“Si scriptum esset, _Super terram pax_, et hucusque esset finita sententia, recte quaestio nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est, hoc est, quod post pacem dicitur, _In hominibus bonae voluntatis_, solvit quaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super terram, non est pax bonae voluntatis.” (_Opp._ iii. p. 946.) “From this,” (says Tischendorf, who is followed by Tregelles,) “it is plain that Origen regarded εὐδοκίας as the true reading; not εὐδοκία—which is now thrice found in his Greek writings.”—But,

Is one here more struck with the unfairness of the Critic, or with the feebleness of his reasoning? For,—(to say nothing of the insecurity of building on a Latin Translation,(502) especially in such a matter as the present,)—How can testimony like this be considered to outweigh the three distinct places in the original writings of this Father, where he reads not εὐδοκίας but εὐδοκία? Again. Why is a doubt insinuated concerning the trustworthiness of those three places, (“ut _nunc_ reperitur,”) where there really is _no_ doubt? How is Truth ever to be attained if investigations like the present are to be conducted in the spirit of an eager partisan, instead of with the calm gravity of an impartial judge?

But I may as well state plainly that the context of the passage above quoted shews that Tischendorf’s proposed inference is inadmissible. Origen is supposing some one to ask the following question:—“Since Angels on the night when CHRIST was born proclaimed ‘on earth _Peace_,’—why does our SAVIOUR say, ‘I am _not_ come to send Peace upon earth, but a sword?’... Consider,” (he proceeds) “whether the answer may not be this:”—and then comes the extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with colloquial truthfulness,) is _at his old tricks_. He is evidently acquainted with the reading εὐδοκίας: and because it enables him to offer (what appears to him) an ingenious solution of a certain problem, he adopts it for the nonce: his proposal to take the words εἰρήνη εὐδοκίας together, being simply preposterous,—as no one ever knew better than Origen himself.(503)

3. Lastly, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM is invariably cited by the latest Critics as favouring the reading εὐδοκίας. Those learned persons have evidently overlooked the candid acknowledgment of De Touttée, Cyril’s editor, (p. 180, cf. bottom of p. 102,) that though _the MSS. of Cyril_ exhibit εὐδοκία, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured _to print_ εὐδοκίας. This therefore is one more Patristic attestation to the trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of S. Luke ii. 14, which has been hitherto unaccountably lost sight of by Critics. (May I, without offence, remind Editors of Scripture that instead of _copying_, they ought in every instance _to verify_ their references?)

III. The history of this corruption of the Text is not hard to discover. It is interesting and instructive also.

(1.) In the immediately post-Apostolic age,—if not earlier still,—some Copyist will have omitted the ἐν before ἀνθρώποις. The resemblance of the letters and the similarity of the sound (ΕΝ, ΑΝ,) misled him:—

ΕΝΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ

Every one must see at a glance how easily the thing may have happened. (It is in fact precisely what _has_ happened in Acts iv. 12; where, for ἐν ἀνθρώποις, D and a few cursive MSS. read ἀνθρώποις,—being countenanced therein by the Latin Versions generally, and by them only.)

(2.) The result however—(δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία)—was obviously an impossible sentence. It could not be allowed to stand. And yet it was not by any means clear what had happened to it. In order, as it seems, to _force_ a meaning into the words, some one with the best intentions will have put the sign of the genitive (Σ) at the end of εὐδοκία. The copy so depraved was destined to play an important part; for it became the fontal source of the Latin Version, which exhibits the place thus:—_Gloria in altissimis __DEO__, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis...._ It is evident, by the way, (if the quotation from Irenæus, given above, is to be depended upon,) that Irenæus must have so read the place: (viz. εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.)

(3.) To restore the preposition (ΕΝ) which had been accidentally thrust out, and to obliterate the sign of the genitive (Σ) which had been without authority thrust in, was an obvious proceeding. Accordingly, _every Greek Evangelium extant_ exhibits ἐν ἀνθρώποις: while _all but four_ (B, א, A, D) read εὐδοκία. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vulgate (e.g. the _Cod. Amiatinus_,) the preposition (“in”) has found its way back; but the genitive (“bonae voluntatis”) has never been rectified in a single copy of the Latin version.—The Gothic represents a copy which exhibited ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.(504)

The consequence is that a well-nigh untranslatable expression retains its place in the Vulgate to the present hour. Whether (with Origen) we connect εὐδοκίας with εἰρήνη,—or (with the moderns) we propose to understand “men of good pleasure,”—the result is still the same. The harmony of the three-part Anthem which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity is hopelessly marred, and an unintelligible discord substituted in its place. Logic, Divinity, Documents are here all at one. The reading of Stephens is unquestionably correct. The reading of the latest Editors is as certainly corrupt. This is a case therefore where the value of Patristic testimony becomes strikingly apparent. It affords also one more crucial proof of the essential hollowness of the theory on which it has been recently proposed by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest to reconstruct the text of the New Testament.

To some, it may perhaps seem unreasonable that so many words should be devoted to the establishment of the text of a single place of Scripture,—depending, as that text does, on the insertion or the omission of a single letter. I am content to ask in reply,—_What_ is important, if not the utterance of Heaven, when, at the laying of the corner-stone of the New Creation, “the Morning Stars sang together, and all the Sons of GOD shouted for joy?”

IV. Only one word in conclusion.

Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they can pretend to translate it. As for supposing that Scholars who have been appointed to revise _a Translation_ are competent at a moment’s notice, as every fresh difficulty presents itself, to develop the skill requisite for revising _the original Text_,—it is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts in one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in another.

But it so happens that, on the present occasion, that _other_ Science is one of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists _here_ will find it necessary altogether to disabuse their minds of the _Theory_ of Textual Criticism which is at present the dominant and the popular one,—and of which I have made it my business to expose the fallaciousness, in respect of several crucial texts, in the course of the present work.

I cannot so far forget the unhappy circumstances of the times as to close this note without the further suggestion, (sure therein of the approval of our trans-Atlantic brethren,) that, for a Revision of the Authorized Version to enjoy the confidence of the Nation, and to procure for itself acceptance at the hands of the Church,—it will be found necessary that the work should be confided to _Churchmen_. The Church may never abdicate her function of being “a Witness and a Keeper of Holy Writ.” Neither can she, without flagrant inconsistency and scandalous consequence, ally herself in the work of Revision with the Sects. Least of all may she associate with herself in the sacred undertaking an Unitarian Teacher,—one who avowedly [see the letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.,” in the “Times” of July 11, 1870] denies the eternal GODhead of her LORD. That the individual alluded to has shewn any peculiar aptitude for the work of a Revisionist; or that he is a famous Scholar; or that he can boast of acquaintance with any of the less familiar departments of Sacred Learning; is not even pretended. (It would matter nothing if the reverse were the case.) What else, then, is this but to offer a deliberate insult to the Majesty of Heaven in the Divine Person of Him who is alike the Object of the Everlasting Gospel, and its Author?

APPENDIX (B).

EUSEBIUS “ad Marinum” concerning the reconcilement of S. Mark xvi. 9 with S. Matthew xxviii. 1.

(Referred to at pp. 46, 47, 54, and 233.)

SUBJOINED is the original text of EUSEBIUS, taken from the “Quæstiones ad Marinum” published by Card. Mai, in his “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca” (Romae, 1847,) vol. iv. pp. 255-7.

I. Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῷ ὄψε σαββάτων φαίνεται ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων.

Τούτου διττὴ ἄν εἴη ἡ λύσις; ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ _del._?(505)] τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, εἴποι ἄν μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτὴν φέρεσθαι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου; τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ τέλος περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ ὀφθέντος νεανίσκου ταῖς γυναιξὶ καὶ εἰρηκότος αὐταῖς “μὴ φοβεῖσθε, Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνόν.” καὶ τοῖς ἐξῆς, οἶς ἐπιλέγει: “καὶ ἀκούσασαι ἔφυγον, καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος; τὰ δὲ ἑξῆς σπανίως ἔν τισιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσι φερόμενα περιττὰ ἄν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπεν ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν εἴποι ἄν τις παραιτούμενος καὶ τάντη ἀναιρῶν περιττὸν ἐρώτημα. Ἄλλος δέ τις οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ φερομένον, διπλῆν εἶναι φησι τὴν ἀναγνωσιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις πολλοῖς, ἑκατέραν τε παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρχειν, τῷ μὴ μᾶλλον ταύτην ἐκείνης, ἥ ἐκείνην ταύτης, παρὰ τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ εὐλαβέσιν ἐγκρίνεσθαι.

Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, προσήκει τὸν νοῦν διερμηνεύειν τοῦ ἀναγνώσματος; εἰ γοῦν διέλοιμεν τὴν τοῦ λόγου διάνοιαν, οὐκ ἄν εὕροιμεν αὐτὴν ἐναντίαν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Ματθαίου ὀψὲ σαββάτων ἐγηγέρθαι τὸν Σωτῆρα λελεγμένοις; τὸ γὰρ “ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου” κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον, μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωσόμεθα