2. He appeals to their omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from the first verse of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,—another peculiarity, in which Codd. א and B stand quite alone among MSS.

I. Here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the New Testament indeed. Altogether unique is it: and that it powerfully corroborates the general opinion of their high antiquity, no one will deny. But how about "their authority"? Does the coincidence also raise our opinion of the trustworthiness of the Text, which these two MSS. concur in exhibiting? for that is the question which has to be considered,—the only question. The ancientness of a reading is one thing: its genuineness, (as I have explained elsewhere,) quite another. The questions are entirely distinct. It may even be added that while the one is really of little moment, the latter is of all the importance in the world. I am saying that it matters very little whether Codd. א and B were written in the beginning of the ivth century, or in the beginning of the vth: whereas it matters much, or rather it matters everything, whether they exhibit the Word of GOD faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous license. How far the reading which results from the suppression of the last two words in the phrase τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, is critically allowable or not, I forbear to inquire. That is not the point which we have to determine. The one question to be considered is,—May it possibly be the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way credible that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as follows:—Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ?... If it be eagerly declared in reply that the thing is simply incredible: that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are required for the sense; and that the commonly received reading is no doubt the correct one: then,—there is an end of the discussion. Two extraordinary notes of sympathy between two Manuscripts will have been appealed to as crucial proofs of the trustworthiness of the Text of those Manuscripts: (for of their high Antiquity, let me say it once more, there can be no question whatever:) and it will have been proved in one case,—admitted in the other,—that the omission is unwarrantable.—If, however, on the contrary, it be maintained that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ probably had no place in the original copy of this Epistle, but are to be regarded as an unauthorized addition to it,—then, (as in the case of the Twelve Verses omitted from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, and which it was also pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand to be shewn the evidence on the strength of which this opinion is maintained, in order that we may ascertain what it is precisely worth.

Tischendorf,—the illustrious discoverer and champion of Codex א, and who is accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ as the other conclusive proof of the trustworthiness of its text,—may be presumed to be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as well as the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its support. From him, we learn that the evidence for the omission of the words in question is as follows:—"In the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read, 'to the saints which are at Ephesus;' but Marcion (A.D. 130-140), did not find the words 'at Ephesus' in his copy. The same is true of Origen (A.D. 185-254); and Basil the Great (who died A.D. 379), affirmed that those words were wanting in old copies. And this omission accords very well with the encyclical or general character of the Epistle. At the present day, our ancient Greek MSS., and all ancient Versions, contain the words 'at Ephesus;' yea (sic), even Jerome knew no copy with a different reading. Now, only the Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the old copies of Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion."(152)—This then is the sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat in detail.

(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned writer is absolutely without authority for his assertion that "Marcion did not find the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy" of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Tischendorf's one pretence for saying so is Tertullian's statement that certain heretics, (Marcion he specifies by name,) had given to S. Paul's "Epistle to the Ephesians" the unauthorized title of "Epistle to the Laodiceans."(153) This, (argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not have done had he found ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the first verse.(154) But the proposed inference is clearly invalid. For, with what show of reason can Marcion,—whom Tertullian taxes with having dared "titulum interpolare" in the case of S. Paul's "Epistle to the Ephesians,"—be therefore, assumed to have read the first verse differently from ourselves? Rather is the directly opposite inference suggested by the very language in which Tertullian (who was all but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the circumstance.(155)

Those, however, who would really understand the work of the heretic, should turn from the African Father,—(who after all does but say that Marcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, that it was addressed to the Laodiceans,)—and betake themselves to the pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a half later. This Father had for many years made Marcion's work his special study,(156) and has elaborately described it, as well as presented us with copious extracts from it.(157) And the account in Epiphanius proves that Tischendorf is mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the English reader, (quoted above;) and that he would have better consulted for his reputation if he had kept to the "ut videtur" with which (in his edition of 1859) he originally broached his opinion. It proves in fact to be no matter of opinion at all. Epiphanius states distinctly that the Epistle to the Ephesians was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which Marcion retained. In his "Apostolicon," or collection of the (mutilated) Apostolical Epistles, the "Epistle to the Ephesians," (identified by the considerable quotations which Epiphanius makes from it,(158)) stood (he says) seventh in order; while the (so called) "Epistle to the Laodiceans,"—a distinct composition therefore,—had the eleventh, that is, the last place assigned to it.(159) That this latter Epistle contained a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius records the fact in two places.(160) But then it is to be borne in mind that he charges Marcion with having derived that quotation from the Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans;(161) instead of taking it, as he ought to have done, from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage, when faithfully exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by its very form refutes the heretical tenet which the context of Marcion's spurious epistle to the Laodiceans was intended to establish; and which the verse in question, in its interpolated form, might seem to favour.(162)—I have entered into this whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: but I was determined to prove that Tischendorf's statement that "Marcion (A.D. 130-140) did not find the words 'at Ephesus' in his copy,"—is absolutely without foundation. It is even contradicted by the known facts of the case. I shall have something more to say about Marcion by-and-by; who, it is quite certain, read the text of Ephes. i. 1 exactly as we do.

(2.) The only Father who so expresses himself as to warrant the inference that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were absent from his copy, is Origen, in the beginning of the third century. "Only in the case of the Ephesians," (he writes), "do we meet with the expression 'the Saints which are:' and we inquire,—Unless that additional phrase be simply redundant, what can it possibly signify? Consider, then, whether those who have been partakers of His nature who revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I AM, may not, in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as 'those which are:' persons, called out, of a state of not-being, so to speak, into a state of being."(163)—If Origen had read τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy, it is to me incredible that he would have gone so very far out of his way to miss the sense of such a plain, and in fact, unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis before him,—reasoning however only from the place in Basil, (to be quoted immediately,)—are unwilling to allow that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were ever away from the text. It must be admitted as the obvious inference from what Jerome has delivered on this subject (infra, p. 98 note) that he, too, seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be called) of Codd. B and א.

(3) The influence which Origen's writings exercised over his own and the immediately succeeding ages of the Church, was prodigious. Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150 years later,—although he read ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his own copy of S. Paul's Epistles,—thought fit to avail himself of Origen's suggestion. It suited his purpose. He was proving the eternal existence of the SON of GOD. Even not to know GOD (he remarks) is not to be: in proof of which, he quotes S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. i. 28:—"Things which are not, hath GOD chosen." "Nay," (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, "in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge were truly joined to Him who 'IS,' designates them specially as 'those which are:' saying,—'To the Saints which are, and faithful in CHRIST JESUS.' " That this fancy was not original, Basil makes no secret. He derived it, (he says,) from "those who were before us;" a plain allusion to the writings of Origen. But neither was the reading his own, either. This is evident. He had found it, he says,—(an asseveration indispensable to the validity of his argument,)—but only after he had made search,(164)—"in the old copies."(165) No doubt, Origen's strange fancy must have been even unintelligible to Basil when first he met with it. In plain terms, it sounds to this day incredibly foolish,—when read apart from the mutilated text which alone suggested it to Origen's fervid imagination.—But what there is in all this to induce us to suspect that Origen's reading was after all the right one, and ours the wrong, I profess myself wholly at a loss to discover. Origen himself complains bitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time; and attributes it (1) to the carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of correctors of the text: (3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopting some of these corrections and rejecting others, according to their own private caprice.(166)

(4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters than either Origen or Basil, after rehearsing the preceding gloss, (but only to reject it,) remarks that "certain persons" had been "over-fanciful" in putting it forth. He alludes probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians, in three books, he expressly relates that he employed:(167) but he does not seem to have apprehended that Origen's text was without the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. If he was acquainted with Origen's text, (of which, however, his writings afford no indication,) it is plain that he disapproved of it. Others, he says, understand S. Paul to say not "the Saints which are:" but,—"the Saints and faithful which are at Ephesus."(168)

(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit that there has been elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to shake our confidence in the universally received reading of Ephesians i. 1. The facts of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully stated in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the ivth century, (exhibiting in other respects several striking notes of vicious sympathy,) are found to conspire in omitting a clause in Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it is to the sense,) may be inferred to have been absent from Origen's copy: and Basil testifies that it was absent from "the old copies" to which he himself obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter: in which it is much to be noted that Origen does not say that he approved of this reading. Still less does Basil. They both witness to the fact that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were omitted from some copies of the iiird century, just as Codd. B and א witness to the same fact in the ivth. But what then? Origen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings confessedly worthless; and, why not here? For not only is the text all but unintelligible if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ be omitted: but (what is far more to the purpose) the direct evidence of all the copies, whether uncial or cursive,(169)—and of all the Versions,—is against the omission. In the face of this overwhelming mass of unfaltering evidence to insist that Codd. B and א must yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity wrong, is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of this nonsensical reading, of two MSS. confessedly untrustworthy in countless other places,—against all the MSS.—all the Versions,—is nothing else but an act of vulgar prejudice. I venture to declare,—(and with this I shall close the discussion and dismiss the subject,)—that there does not exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament of a reading even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin concur,—which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz.

1. The adverse testimony of all the uncial MSS. except two.

2. The adverse testimony of all, or very nearly all, the cursive MSS.

3. The adverse testimony of all the Versions, without exception.

4. The adverse testimony of the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers.

To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,—

5. The highest inherent improbability,—it is only because I desire to treat this question purely as one of Evidence.

II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity to account for the phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is commendable; but I take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first three centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough to do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod. B shews marvellous sympathy(170),) and explain if he can why there is a grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and how it comes to pass that Cod. D "reproduces the 'textus receptus' of the Acts much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament; so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability."(171) Our business as Critics is not to invent theories to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to ascertain where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable depravations of early Heretics,—the preposterous emendations of ancient Critics,—the injudicious assiduity of Harmonizers,—the licentious caprice of individuals;—what with errors resulting from the inopportune recollection of similar or parallel places,—or from the familiar phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections,—or from the inattention of Scribes,—or from marginal glosses;—however arising, endless are the corrupt readings of the oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means safe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories are seldom satisfactory. Guesses only they are at best.

Thus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of Ussher,—(which, however, found favour with Garnier (Basil's editor), Bengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and has since been not only eagerly advocated by Conybeare and Howson following a host of German Critics, but has even enjoyed Mr. Scrivener's distinct approval;)—that the Epistle to the Ephesians "was a Circular addressed to other Asiatic Cities besides the capital Ephesus,—to Laodicea perhaps among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and that while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephesus in the first verse, others may have had another city substituted, or the space after τοῖς οὔσιν left utterly void."(172) At first sight, this conjecture has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it to our favour. On closer inspection,—(i) It is found to be not only gratuitous; but (ii) altogether unsupported and unsanctioned by the known facts of the case; and (what is most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I humbly think, demonstrably erroneous. I demur to it,—

(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (a) when S. Paul sent his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tychicus, the bearer of it,(173) was charged with a distinct Epistle to the Colossians:(174) an Epistle nevertheless so singularly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is scarcely credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epistles to two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of them, (that to the Ephesians,) furnished with a different address, to so large and important a place as Laodicea, for example, (b) Then further, the provision which S. Paul made at this very time for communicating with the Churches of Asia which he did not separately address is found to have been different. The Laodiceans were to read in their public assembly S. Paul's "Epistle to the Colossians," which the Colossians were ordered to send them. The Colossians in like manner were to read the Epistle,—(to whom addressed, we know not),—which S. Paul describes as τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας.(175) If then it had been S. Paul's desire that the Laodiceans (suppose) should read publicly in their Churches his Epistle to the Ephesians, surely, he would have charged the Ephesians to procure that his Epistle to them should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans. Why should the Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously adopted one method with the Churches of Colosse and Laodicea,—another with the Churches of Ephesus and Laodicea,—in respect of his epistolary communications?

(2) (a) But even supposing, for argument's sake, that S. Paul did send duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the principal Churches of Asia Minor,—why should he have left the salutation blank, ("carta bianca," as Bengel phrases it,(176)) for Tychicus to fill up when he got into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short of this would account for the reading of Codd. B and א.

(b) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature be clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A copy of what we call S. Paul's "Epistle to the Ephesians" sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul with a blank address; i.e. "with the space after τοῖς οὔσιν left utterly void:" (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that blank: and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up for him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy seen by Origen, and (5) Of the "old copies" seen by Basil; as well as (6) Of Codd. B and א. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) One other copy of this same "Encyclical Epistle," filled up with the Ephesian address, became the archetype of every other copy of this Epistle in the world.... But of what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such a marvellous structure of hypothesis,—of which the top story overhangs and overbalances all the rest of the edifice? The thing which puzzles us in Codd. B and א is not that we find the name of another City in the salutation of S. Paul's "Epistle to the Ephesians," but that we find the name of no city at all; nor meet with any vacant space there.

(c) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to different Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as of course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious documents left his hands,—then, doubtless, each several Church would have received, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if this had been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a word about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there should nowhere exist traces of conflicting testimony as to the Church to which S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas all the most ancient writers, without exception,—(Marcion himself [A.D. 140(177)], the "Muratorian" fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Irenaeus [A.D. 175], Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Eusebius,)—and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying, unfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. א, (and this is much to be noted,) the superscription of the Epistle attests that it was addressed "to the Ephesians." Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in inventing facts in the history of an Apostle's practice, in order to account for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his text?(178)

(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such "a Circular" as was described above, (each copy furnished with a blank, to be filled up with the name of a different City,) would be a document without parallel in the annals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware, essentially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the suggestion before us is only another instance of the fatal misapprehension which results from the incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some familiar word in a living language to its supposed equivalent in an ancient tongue. Thus, because κύκλιος or ἐγκύκλιος confessedly signifies "circularis," it seems to be imagined that ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολή may mean "a Circular Letter." Whereas it really means nothing of the sort; but—"a Catholic Epistle."(179)

An "Encyclical" (and that is the word which has been imported into the present discussion), was quite a different document from what we call "a Circular." Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was Catholic or General,—the common property of all to whom it came. The General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, S. John are "Encyclical."(180) So is the well-known Canonical Epistle which Gregory, Bp. of Neocaesaraea in Pontus, in the middle of the third century, sent to the Bishops of his province.(181) As for "a blank circular" to be filled up with the words "in Ephesus," "in Laodicea," &c.,—its like (I repeat) is wholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. The two notions are at all events inconsistent and incompatible. If S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was "a Circular," then it was not "Encyclical:" if it was "Encyclical" then it was not "a Circular."

Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are logically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies the fifth place among S. Paul's writings, and which from the beginning of the second century,—that is, from the very dawn of Historical evidence,—has been known as "the Epistle to the Ephesians," was an "Encyclical," "Catholic" or "General Epistle,"—addressed τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ? There does not live the man who will accept so irrational a supposition. The suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to account for the absence of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in Ephes. i. 1 is not only in itself in the highest degree improbable, and contradicted by all the evidence to which we have access; but it is even inadmissible on critical grounds, and must be unconditionally surrendered.(182) It is observed to collapse before every test which can be applied to it.

III. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me,—if men must needs account for the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from this place,—that they should have recourse to wild, improbable, and wholly unsupported theories, like those which go before; while an easy,—I was going to say the obvious,—solution of the problem is close at hand, and even solicits acceptance.

Marcion the heretic, (A.D. 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (A.D. 200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul's Epistles in particular. Epiphanius compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to a moth-eaten coat.(183) "Instead of a stylus," (says Tertullian,) "Marcion employed a knife." "What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages?"(184) S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian even singles out by name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a new title. All this has been fully explained above, from page 93 to page 96.

Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul's Epistle "to the Ephesians" that Apostolical writing which stands fifth in our Canon, (but which stood seventh in his,) is just as certain as that he recognised as such S. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Colossians, Philippians. All this has been fully explained in a preceding page.(185)

But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul's another Epistle,—of which all we know for certain is, that it contained portions of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and purported to be addressed by S. Paul "to the Laodiceans." To ascertain with greater precision the truth of this matter at the end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible. Nor is it necessary. Obvious is it to suspect that not only did this heretical teacher at some period of his career prefix a new heading to certain copies of the Epistle to the Ephesians, but also that some of his followers industriously erased from certain other copies the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in ver. 1,—as being the only two words in the entire Epistle which effectually refuted their Master. It was not needful, (be it observed,) to multiply copies of the Epistle for the propagation of Marcion's deceit. Only two words had to be erased,—the very two words whose omission we are trying to account for,—in order to give some colour to his proposed attribution of the Epistle, ("quasi in isto diligentissimus explorator,")—to the Laodiceans. One of these mutilated copies will have fallen into the hands of Origen,—who often complains of the corrupt state of his text: while the critical personages for whom Cod. B and Cod. א were transcribed will probably have been acquainted with other such mutilated copies. Are we not led, as it were by the hand, to take some such view of the case? In this way we account satisfactorily, and on grounds of historic evidence, for the omission which has exercised the Critics so severely.

I do not lose sight of the fact that the Epistle to the Ephesians ends without salutations, without personal notices of any kind. But in this respect it is not peculiar.(186) That,—joined to a singular absence of identifying allusion,—sufficiently explains why Marcion selected this particular Epistle for the subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this circumstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Universal, and in defiance of its very Title, that the Epistle is "Encyclical," in the technical sense of that word; and to go on to urge this characteristic as an argument in support of the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ,—is clearly the device of an eager Advocate; not the method of a calm and unprejudiced Judge. True it is that S. Paul,—who, writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus, says "the Churches of Asia salute you," (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)—may have known very well that an Epistle of his "to the Ephesians," would, as a matter of course, be instantly communicated to others besides the members of that particular Church: and in fact this may explain why there is nothing specially "Ephesian" in the contents of the Epistle. The Apostle,—(as when he addressed "the Churches of Galatia,")—may have had certain of the other neighbouring Churches in his mind while he wrote. But all this is wholly foreign to the question before us: the one only question being this,—Which of the three following addresses represents what S. Paul must be considered to have actually written in the first verse of his "Epistle to the Ephesians"?—

(1) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

(2) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν ... καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

(3) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

What I have been saying amounts to this: that it is absolutely unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have under their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the iind century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, "presumed to prefix an unauthorized title to that very Epistle," ("Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit,")—which title obviously could not stand unless those two words were first erased from the text. To interpolate that new title, and to erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it, were obviously correlative acts which must always have been performed together.

But however all this may be, (as already pointed out,) the only question to be determined by us is,—whether it be credible that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are an unauthorized addition; foisted into the text of Ephes. i. 1 as far back as the Apostolic age: an interpolation which, instead of dying out, and at last all but disappearing, has spread and established itself, until the words are found in every copy,—are represented in every translation,—have been recognised in every country,—witnessed to by every Father,—received in every age of the Church? I repeat that the one question which has to be decided is, not how the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ came to be put in, or came to be left out; but simply whether, on an impartial review of the evidence, it be reasonable (with Tischendorf, Tregelles, Conybeare and Howson, and so many more,) to suspect their genuineness and enclose them in brackets? Is it credible that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are a spurious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph of the Apostle?... We have already, as I think, obtained a satisfactory answer to this question. It has been shewn, as conclusively as in inquiries of this nature is possible, that in respect of the reading of Ephesians i. 1, Codd. B and א are even most conspicuously at fault.

IV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted of error in respect of the one remaining text which their chief upholders have selected, and to which they still make their most confident appeal,—what remains, but to point out that it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their minds of the extravagant opinion which they have been so industriously taught to entertain of the value of the two Codices in question? It has already degenerated into an unreasoning prejudice, and threatens at last to add one more to the already overgrown catalogue of "vulgar errors."

V. I cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by Tischendorf than by transcribing in conclusion his remarks on the four remaining readings of Codex א to which he triumphantly appeals: promising to dismiss them all with a single remark. He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his "Introduction" to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament(187):—

"To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen says on John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, 'in Him is life' for 'in Him was life.' This is a reading which we find in sundry quotations before the time of Origen;(188) but now, among all known Greek MSS. it is only in the Sinaitic, and the famous old Codex Bezae, a copy of the Gospels at Cambridge; yet it is also found in most of the early Latin versions, in the most ancient Syriac, and in the oldest Coptic.—Again, in Matth. xiii. 35, Jerome observes that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew for having said, 'which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.' A writing of the second century had already witnessed to the same reading; but Jerome adds further that well-informed men had long ago removed the name of Esaias. Among all our MSS. of a thousand years old and upwards, there is not a solitary example containing the name of Esaias in the text referred to,—except the Sinaitic, to which a few of less than a thousand years old may be added.—Once more, Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but only the Sinaitic and several ancient Latin MSS. read it the same as Origen: 'He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every whit.'—In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difficult to settle, the Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies indubitably correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second century, confirms the Sinaitic reading: 'If any man eat of my bread, he shall live for ever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' We omit to indicate further illustrations of this kind, although there are many others like them."(189)

Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to exist in the mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless confusion between the antiquity of a Codex and the value of its readings. I venture to assert that a reading is valuable or the contrary, exactly in proportion to the probability of its being true or false. Interesting it is sure to be, be it what it may, if it be found in a very ancient codex,—interesting and often instructive: but the editor of Scripture must needs bring every reading, wherever found, to this test at last:—Is it to be thought that what I am here presented with is what the Evangelist or the Apostle actually wrote? If an answer in the negative be obtained to this question, then, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early Fathers appear to have so read the place, will not avail to impart to the rejected reading one particle of value. And yet Tischendorf thinks it enough in all the preceding passages to assure his reader that a given reading in Cod. א was recognised by Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have established this one point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in all this an utterly false major premiss: viz. That Scriptural quotations found in the writings of Origen, of Tertullian, of Jerome, must needs be the ipsissima verba of the SPIRIT. Whereas it is notorious "that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenaeus and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus."(190) And one is astonished that a Critic of so much sagacity, (who of course knows better,) should deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy,—not only without a word of explanation, a word of caution, but in such a manner as inevitably to mislead an unsuspecting reader. Without offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must be allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been considering, he shews himself far more bent on glorifying the "Codex Sinaiticus" than in establishing the Truth of the pure Word of GOD. He convinces me that to have found an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have "taken a gift." Verily, "it doth blind the eyes of the wise."(191)

And with this, I shall conclude my remarks on these two famous Codices. I humbly record my deliberate conviction that when the Science of Textual Criticism, which is at present only in its infancy, comes to be better understood; (and a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New Testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a trustworthy basis;) a very different estimate will be formed of the importance of not a few of those readings which at present are received with unquestioning submission, chiefly on the authority of Codex B and Codex א. On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that no future collations, no future discoveries, will ever make it credible that the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel are a spurious supplement to the Evangelical Narrative; or that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are an unauthorized interpolation of the inspired Text.

And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex א.

I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the "Internal Evidence," but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet fully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient "Scholia" and "Notes," and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this may reasonably claim one entire Chapter to itself.



CHAPTER VIII.

THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE SUBJECT OF THESE VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED.

Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their predecessors' inaccuracies.—Birch's unfortunate mistake (p. 117).—Scholz' serious blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).—Griesbach's sweeping misstatement (pp. 121-2).—The grave misapprehension which has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3); Codex L (p. 123).—Ammonius not the author of the so-called "Ammonian" Sections (p. 125).—Epiphanius (p. 132).—"Caesarius," a misnomer.—"The Catenae," misrepresented (p. 133).

In the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review whatever manuscript testimony still remains unconsidered; our attention having been hitherto exclusively devoted to Codices B and א. True, that the rest of the evidence may be disposed of in a single short sentence:—The Twelve Verses under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence with the exception of Codices B and א. But then,

I. We are assured,—(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)—that "a Note or a Scholion stating the absence of these verses from many, from most, or from the most correct copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in twenty-five other cursive Codices."(192) Tischendorf has nearly the same words: "Scholia" (he says) "in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of Mark in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the ninth verse." That distinguished Critic supports his assertion by appealing to seven MSS. in particular,—and referring generally to "about twenty-five others." Dr. Davidson adopts every word of this blindfold.

1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department of the Evidence would become deserving of serious attention. But I simply deny the fact. I entirely deny that the "Note or Scholion" which these learned persons affirm to be of such frequent occurrence has any existence whatever,—except in their own imaginations. On the other hand, I assert that notes or scholia which state the exact reverse, (viz. that "in the older" or "the more accurate copies" the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are contained,) recur even perpetually. The plain truth is this:—These eminent persons have taken their information at second-hand,—partly from Griesbach, partly from Scholz,—without suspicion and without inquiry. But then they have slightly misrepresented Scholz; and Scholz (1830) slightly misunderstood Griesbach; and Griesbach (1796) took liberties with Wetstein; and Wetstein (1751) made a few serious mistakes. The consequence might have been anticipated. The Truth, once thrust out of sight, certain erroneous statements have usurped its place,—which every succeeding Critic now reproduces, evidently to his own entire satisfaction; though not, it must be declared, altogether to his own credit. Let me be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred.

2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German plan of setting down all the twenty-five MSS.(193) and all the five Patristic authorities which up to his time had been cited as bearing on the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: giving the former in numerical order, and stating generally concerning them that in one or other of those authorities it would be found recorded "that the verses in question were anciently wanting in some, or in most, or in almost all the Greek copies, or in the most accurate ones:—or else that they were found in a few, or in the more accurate copies, or in many, or in most of them, specially in the Palestinian Gospel." The learned writer (who had made up his mind long before that the verses in question are to be rejected) no doubt perceived that this would be the most convenient way of disposing of the evidence for and against: but one is at a loss to understand how English scholars can have acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well nigh a hundred years. A very little study of the subject would have shewn them that Griesbach derived the first eleven of his references from Wetstein,(194) the last fourteen from Birch.(195) As for Scholz, he unsuspiciously adopted Griesbach's fatal enumeration of Codices; adding five to the number; and only interrupting the series here and there, in order to insert the quotations which Wetstein had already supplied from certain of them. With Scholz, therefore, rests the blame of everything which has been written since 1830 concerning the MS. evidence for this part of S. Mark's Gospel; subsequent critics having been content to adopt his statements without acknowledgment and without examination. Unfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such a slovenly style, that besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones; which, of course, have been reproduced by those who have simply translated or transcribed him. And now I shall examine his note "(z)",(196) with which practically all that has since been delivered on this subject by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is identical.

(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two MSS. in the Vatican Library(197) the verses in question "are marked with an asterisk." The original author of this statement was Birch, who followed it up by explaining the fatal signification of this mark.(198) From that day to this, the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been religiously reproduced by every Critic in turn; and it is universally taken for granted that they represent two ancient witnesses against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

And yet, (let me say it without offence,) a very little attention ought to be enough to convince any one familiar with this subject that the proposed inference is absolutely inadmissible. For, in the first place, a solitary asterisk (not at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.(199)) has of necessity no such signification. And even if it does sometimes indicate that all the verses which follow are suspicious, (of which, however, I have never seen an example,) it clearly could not have that signification here,—for a reason which I should have thought an intelligent boy might discover.

Well aware, however, that I should never be listened to, with Birch and Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and indeed every one else against me,—I got a learned friend at Rome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and inspect the two Codices in question.(200) That he would find Birch right in his facts, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more than doubted the correctness of his proposed inference from them. I even felt convinced that the meaning and purpose of the asterisks in question would be demonstrably different from what Birch had imagined.

Altogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found that the learned Dane has here made one of those (venial, but) unfortunate blunders to which every one is liable who registers phenomena of this class in haste, and does not methodize his memoranda until he gets home. To be brief,—there proves to be no asterisk at all,—either in Cod. 756, or in Cod. 757.

On the contrary. After ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, the former Codex has, in the text of S. Mark xvi. 9 (_fol. 150 b_), a plain cross,—(_not_ an asterisk, thus [symbol: x with dots in corners] or [symbol: broken x with corner dots] or [symbol: inverse or open x], but a cross, thus +),—the intention of which is to refer the reader to an annotation on _fol. 151 b_, (marked, of course, with a cross also,) _to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is undoubtedly _ genuine_.(201) The evidence, therefore, not only breaks hopelessly down; but it is discovered that this witness has been by accident put into the wrong box. This is, in fact, a witness _not_ for the plaintiff, but _for the defendant!_—As for the other Codex, it exhibits neither asterisk nor cross; but contains the same note or scholion attesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.

I suppose I may now pass on: but I venture to point out that unless the Witnesses which remain to be examined are able to produce very different testimony from that borne by the last two, the present inquiry cannot be brought to a close too soon. ("I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.")

(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as follows:—"From here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. In the ancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text."(202) Scholz (who was the first to adduce this important testimony to the genuineness of the verses now under consideration) takes no notice of the singular circumstance that the two MSS. he mentions have been exactly assimilated in ancient times to a common model; and that they correspond one with the other so entirely(203) that the foregoing rubrical annotation appears in the wrong place in both of them, viz. at the close of ver. 15, where it interrupts the text. This was, therefore, once a scholion written in the margin of some very ancient Codex, which has lost its way in the process of transcription; (for there can be no doubt that it was originally written against ver. 8.) And let it be noted that its testimony is express; and that it avouches for the fact that "in the ancient copies," S. Mark xvi. 9-20 "formed part of the text."

(3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the same two MSS., (of which also Scholz says nothing,) viz. that they exhibit a text which had been "collated with the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem."(204) What need to point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in conjunction with the express voucher that "although some copies of the Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that in the ancient copies all the verses are found," is a critical attestation to the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20, far outweighing the bare statement (next to be noticed) of the undeniable historical fact that, "in some copies," S. Mark ends at ver. 8,—but "in many does not"?

(4.) Scholz proceeds:—"In Cod. 22, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τελος is read the following rubric:"—

ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγγελιστής: ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται.(205)

And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by all subsequent Critics and Editors,—cross, and "τέλος," and all,—as an additional ancient attestation to the fact that "The End" (τέλος) of S. Mark's Gospel is indeed at ch. xvi. 8. Strange,—incredible rather,—that among so many learned persons, not one should have perceived that "τέλος" in this place merely denotes that here a well-known Ecclesiastical section comes to an end!... As far, therefore, as the present discussion is concerned, the circumstance is purely irrelevant;(206) and, (as I propose to shew in Chapter XI,) the less said about it by the opposite party, the better.

(5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,) other Codices very nearly the same colophon as the preceding recurs, with an important additional clause. In Codd. 1, 199, 206, 209, (he says) is read,—

"In certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here; up to which place Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized. In other copies, however, is found as follows."(207) And then comes the rest of S. Mark's Gospel.

I shall have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, and what he "canonized," by-and-by. But what is there in all this, (let me in the meantime ask), to recommend the opinion that the Gospel of S. Mark was published by its Author in an incomplete state; or that the last twelve verses of it are of spurious origin?

(6.) The reader's attention is specially invited to the imposing statement which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says Scholz,) "contain these words of Severus of Antioch:—

"In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at 'for they were afraid.' In some copies, however, this also is added,—'Now when He was risen,' &c. This, however, seems to contradict to some extent what was before delivered," &c.

It may sound fabulous, but it is strictly true, that every word of this, (unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by every Critic who has since gone over the same ground,) is a mere tissue of mistakes. For first,—Cod. 23 contains nothing whatever pertinent to the present inquiry. (Scholz, evidently through haste and inadvertence, has confounded his own "23" with "Coisl. 23," but "Coisl. 23" is his "39,"—of which by-and-by. This reference therefore has to be cancelled.)—Cod. 41 contains a scholion of precisely the opposite tendency: I mean, a scholion which avers that the accurate copies of S. Mark's Gospel contain these last twelve verses. (Scholz borrowed this wrong reference from Wetstein,—who, by an oversight, quotes Cod. 41 three times instead of twice.)—There remain but Codd. 34 and 39; and in neither of those two manuscripts, from the first page of S. Mark's Gospel to the last, does there exist any "scholion of Severus of Antioch" whatever. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently made a gross misstatement;(208) and every Critic who has since written on this subject has adopted his words,—without acknowledgment and without examination.... Such is the evidence on which it is proposed to prove that S. Mark did not write the last twelve verses of his Gospel!

(7.) Scholz proceeds to enumerate the following twenty-two Codices:—24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222. And this imposing catalogue is what has misled Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest. They have not perceived that it is a mere transcript of Griesbach's list; which Scholz interrupts only to give from Cod. 24, (imperfectly and at second-hand,) the weighty scholion, (Wetstein had given it from Cod. 41,) which relates, on the authority of an eye-witness, that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 existed in the ancient Palestinian Copy. (About that Scholion enough has been offered already.(209)) Scholz adds that very nearly the same words are found in 374.—What he says concerning 206 and 209 (and he might have added 199,) has been explained above.

But when the twenty MSS. which remain(210) undisposed of have been scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite different from what is commonly supposed. One of them (No. 38) has been cited in error: while the remaining nineteen are nothing else but copies of Victor of Antioch's commentary on S. Mark,—no less than sixteen of which contain the famous attestation that in most of the accurate copies, and in particular the authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel WERE FOUND. (See above, pp. 64 and 65.).... And this exhausts the evidence.

(8.) So far, therefore, as "Notes" and "Scholia" in MSS. are concerned, the sum of the matter proves to be simply this:—(a) Nine Codices(211) are observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark's Gospel, though wanting "in some," was yet found "in others,"—"in many,"—"in the ancient copies."

(b) Next, four Codices(212) contain subscriptions vouching for the genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring that those four Codices had been collated with approved copies preserved at Jerusalem.

(c) Lastly, sixteen Codices,—(to which, besides that already mentioned by Scholz,(213) I am able to add at least five others, making twenty-two in all,(214))—contain a weighty critical scholion asserting categorically that in "very many" and "accurate copies," specially in the "true Palestinian exemplar," these verses had been found by one who seems to have verified the fact of their existence there for himself.

(9.) And now, shall I be thought unfair if, on a review of the premisses, I assert that I do not see a shadow of reason for the imposing statement which has been adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that "there exist about thirty Codices which state that from the more ancient and more accurate copies of the Gospel, the last twelve verses of S. Mark were absent?" I repeat, there is not so much as one single Codex which contains such a scholion; while twenty-four(215) of those commonly enumerated state the exact reverse.—We may now advance a step: but the candid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the supposed hostile evidence is on the contrary entirely in favour of the verses under discussion. ("I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed them these three times.")

II. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.(216) This is the designation of an uncial MS. of the viiith or ixth century, in the Library at Paris, chiefly remarkable for the correspondence of its readings with those of Cod. B and with certain of the citations in Origen; a peculiarity which recommends Cod. L, (as it recommends three cursive Codices of the Gospels, 1, 33, 69,) to the especial favour of a school with which whatever is found in Cod. B is necessarily right. It is described as the work of an ignorant foreign copyist, who probably wrote with several MSS. before him; but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to determine which reading to adopt and which to reject. Certain it is that he interrupts himself, at the end of ver. 8, to write as follows:—

"SOMETHING TO THIS EFFECT IS ALSO MET WITH:

"All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed unto Peter and the rest. And after these things, from East even unto West, did JESUS Himself send forth by their means the holy and incorruptible message of eternal Salvation.

"BUT THIS ALSO IS MET WITH AFTER THE WORDS, 'FOR THEY WERE AFRAID:'

"Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the week,"(217) &c.

It cannot be needful that I should delay the reader with any remarks on such a termination of the Gospel as the foregoing. It was evidently the production of some one who desired to remedy the conspicuous incompleteness of his own copy of S. Mark's Gospel, but who had imbibed so little of the spirit of the Evangelical narrative that he could not in the least imitate the Evangelist's manner. As for the scribe who executed Codex L, he was evidently incapable of distinguishing the grossest fabrication from the genuine text. The same worthless supplement is found in the margin of the Hharklensian Syriac (A.D. 616), and in a few other quarters of less importance.(218)—I pass on, with the single remark that I am utterly at a loss to understand on what principle Cod. L,—a solitary MS. of the viiith or ixth century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious text,—is to be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the present occasion, rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence it bears concerning the last twelve verses of the second Gospel by all the seventeen remaining Uncials, (three of which are from 300 to 400 years more ancient than itself;) and by every cursive copy of the Gospels in existence. Quite certain at least is it that not the faintest additional probability is established by Cod. L that S. Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of its inspired Author was in a mutilated condition. The copyist shews that he was as well acquainted as his neighbours with our actual concluding Verses: while he betrays his own incapacity, by seeming to view with equal favour the worthless alternative which he deliberately transcribes as well, and to which he gives the foremost place. Not S. Mark's Gospel, but Codex L is the sufferer by this appeal.

III. I go back now to the statements found in certain Codices of the xth century, (derived probably from one of older date,) to the effect that "the marginal references to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than ver. 8:"—for so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. 120,) ἕως οὖ Εὐσέβιους ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν, which are found at the end of ver. 8 in Codd. 1, 206, 209.

(1.) Now this statement need not have delayed us for many minutes. But then, therewith, recent Critics have seen fit to connect another and an entirely distinct proposition: viz. that

AMMONIUS

also, a contemporary of Origen, conspires with Eusebius in disallowing the genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel. This is in fact a piece of evidence to which recently special prominence has been given: every Editor of the Gospels in turn, since Wetstein, having reproduced it; but no one more emphatically than Tischendorf. "Neither by the sections of Ammonius nor yet by the canons of Eusebius are these last verses recognised"(219) "Thus it is seen," proceeds Dr. Tregelles, "that just as Eusebius found these verses absent in his day from the best and most numerous copies (sic), so was also the case with Ammonius when he formed his Harmony in the preceding century."(220)

(The opposite page exhibits an exact Fac-simile, obtained by Photography, of fol. 113 of EVAN. COD. L, ("Codex Regius," No. 62,) at Paris; containing S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;—as explained at pp. 123-4. The Text of that MS. has been published by Dr. Tischendorf in his "Monumenta Sacra Inedita," (1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. 206.)

[]

(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the obliging permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the Manuscript Department of the "Bibliotheque." He has my best thanks for the kindness with which he promoted my wishes and facilitated my researches.)

(It should perhaps be stated that the margin of "Codex L" is somewhat ampler than can be represented in an octavo volume; each folio measuring very nearly nine inches, by very nearly six inches and a half.)

A new and independent authority therefore is appealed to,—one of high antiquity and evidently very great importance,—Ammonius of Alexandria, A.D. 220. But Ammonius has left behind him no known writings whatsoever. What then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident way to the testimony of "Ammonius?"

To make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English reader, I must needs introduce in this place some account of what are popularly called the "Ammonian Sections" and the "Eusebian Canons:" concerning both of which, however, it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing whatever is known beyond what is discoverable from a careful study of the "Sections" and "Canons" themselves; added to what Eusebius has told us in that short Epistle of his "to Carpianus,"—which I suppose has been transcribed and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle in the world.

Eusebius there explains that Ammonius of Alexandria constructed with great industry and labour a kind of Evangelical Harmony; the peculiarity of which was, that, retaining S. Matthew's Gospel in its integrity, it exhibited the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists by the side of S. Matthew's text. There resulted this inevitable inconvenience; that the sequence of the narrative, in the case of the three last Gospels, was interrupted throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed.(221)

The "Diatessaron" of Ammonius, (so Eusebius styles it), has long since disappeared; but it is plain from the foregoing account of it by a competent witness that it must have been a most unsatisfactory performance. It is not easy to see how room can have been found in such a scheme for entire chapters of S. Luke's Gospel; as well as for the larger part of the Gospel according to S. John: in short, for anything which was not capable of being brought into some kind of agreement, harmony, or correspondence with something in S. Matthew's Gospel.

How it may have fared with the other Gospels in the work of Ammonius is not in fact known, and it is profitless to conjecture. What we know for certain is that Eusebius, availing himself of the hint supplied by the very imperfect labours of his predecessor, devised an entirely different expedient, whereby he extended to the Gospels of S. Mark, S. Luke and S. John all the advantages, (and more than all,) which Ammonius had made the distinctive property of the first Gospel.(222) His plan was to retain the Four Gospels in their integrity; and, besides enabling a reader to ascertain at a glance the places which S. Matthew has in common with the other three Evangelists, or with any two, or with any one of them, (which, I suppose, was the sum of what had been exhibited by the work of Ammonius,)—to shew which places S. Luke has in common with S. Mark,—which with S. John only; as well as which places are peculiar to each of the four Evangelists in turn. It is abundantly clear therefore what Eusebius means by saying that the labours of Ammonius had "suggested to him" his own.(223) The sight of that Harmony of the other three Evangelists with S. Matthew's Gospel had suggested to him the advantage of establishing a series of parallels throughout all the Four Gospels. But then, whereas Ammonius had placed alongside of S. Matthew the dislocated sections themselves of the other three Evangelists which are of corresponding purport, Eusebius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same object by means of a system of double numerical references. He invented X Canons, or Tables: he subdivided each of the Four Gospels into a multitude of short Sections. These he numbered; (a fresh series of numbers appearing in each Gospel, and extending from the beginning right on to the end;) and immediately under every number, he inserted, in vermillion, another numeral (I to X); whose office it was to indicate in which of his X Canons, or Tables, the reader would find the corresponding places in any of the other Gospels.(224) (If the section was unique, it belonged to his last or Xth Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew's account of the Title on the Cross, is written 335/I: but in the Ist Canon (which contains the places common to all four Evangelists) parallel with 335, is found,—214, 324, 199: and the Sections of S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John thereby designated, (which are discoverable by merely casting one's eye down the margin of each of those several Gospels in turn, until the required number has been reached,) will be found to contain the parallel record in the other three Gospels.

All this is so purely elementary, that its very introduction in this place calls for apology. The extraordinary method of the opposite party constrains me however to establish thus clearly the true relation in which the familiar labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of Ammonius.

For if that earlier production be lost indeed,(225)—if its precise contents, if the very details of its construction, can at this distance of time be only conjecturally ascertained,—what right has any one to appeal to "the Sections of Ammonius," as to a known document? Why above all do Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim "Ammonius" for their ally on an occasion like the present; seeing that they must needs be perfectly well aware that they have no means whatever of knowing (except from the precarious evidence of Catenae) what Ammonius thought about any single verse in any of the four Gospels? At every stage of this discussion, I am constrained to ask myself,—Do then the recent Editors of the Text of the New Testament really suppose that their statements will never be examined? their references never verified? or is it thought that they enjoy a monopoly of the learning (such as it is) which enables a man to form an opinion in this department of sacred Science? For,

(1st.) Where then and what are those "Sections of Ammonius" to which Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently appeal? It is even notorious that when they say the "Sections of Ammonius," what they mean are the "Sections of Eusebius."—But, (2dly.) Where is the proof,—where is even the probability,—that these two are identical? The Critics cannot require to be reminded by me that we are absolutely without proof that so much as one of the Sections of Ammonius corresponded with one of those of Eusebius; and yet, (3dly.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of Ammonius and those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded throughout, the name of Ammonius has no business whatever to be introduced into such a discussion as the present? They must at least be told that in the entire absence of proof of any kind,—(and certainly nothing that Eusebius says warrants any such inference,(226))—to reason from the one to the other as if they were identical, is what no sincere inquirer after Truth is permitted to do.

It is time, however, that I should plainly declare that it happens to be no matter of opinion at all whether the lost Sections of Ammonius were identical with those of Eusebius or not. It is demonstrable that they cannot have been so; and the proof is supplied by the Sections themselves. It is discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they imply and presuppose the Ten Canons; being in many places even meaningless,—nugatory, in fact, (I do not of course say that they are practically without use,)—except on the theory that those Canons were already in existence.(227) Now the Canons are confessedly the invention of Eusebius. He distinctly claims them.(228) Thus much then concerning the supposed testimony of Ammonius. It is nil.—And now for what is alleged concerning the evidence of Eusebius.

The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking), is the following memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.:—"Thus far did Eusebius canonize;"(229) which means either: (1) That his Canons recognise no section of S. Mark's Gospel subsequent to 233, (which number is commonly set over against ver. 8:) or else, (which comes to the same thing,)—(2) That no sections of the same Gospel, after 233, are referred to any of his X Canons.

On this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious superstructure. It is assumed,

(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark's Gospel which Eusebius numbers "233," and which begins at our ver. 8, cannot have extended beyond ver. 8;—whereas it may have extended, and probably did extend, down to the end of ver. 11.

(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian Canons of any sectional number in S. Mark's Gospel subsequent to 233, no Section (with, or without, such a subsequent number) can have existed:—whereas there may have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly numbered.(230) This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have canonized no further than 233.

I am not disposed, however, to contest the point as far as Eusebius is concerned. I have only said so much in order to shew how unsatisfactory is the argumentation on the other side. Let it be assumed, for argument sake, that the statement "Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8" is equivalent to this,—"Eusebius numbered no Sections after ver. 8;" (and more it cannot mean:)—What then? I am at a loss to see what it is that the Critics propose to themselves by insisting on the circumstance. For we knew before,—it was in fact Eusebius himself who told us,—that Copies of the Gospel ending abruptly at ver. 8, were anciently of frequent occurrence. Nay, we heard the same Eusebius remark that one way of shelving a certain awkward problem would be, to plead that the subsequent portion of S. Mark's Gospel is frequently wanting. What more have we learned when we have ascertained that the same Eusebius allowed no place to that subsequent portion in his Canons? The new fact, (supposing it to be a fact,) is but the correlative of the old one; and since it was Eusebius who was the voucher for that, what additional probability do we establish that the inspired autograph of S. Mark ended abruptly at ver. 8, by discovering that Eusebius is consistent with himself, and omits to "canonize" (or even to "sectionize") what he had already hypothetically hinted might as well be left out altogether? (See above, pp. 44-6.)

So that really I am at a loss to see that one atom of progress is made in this discussion by the further discovery that, (in a work written about A.D. 373,)

EPIPHANIUS

states casually that "the four Gospels contain 1162 sections."(231) From this it is argued(232) that since 355 of these are commonly assigned to S. Matthew, 342 to S. Luke, and 232 to S. John, there do but remain for S. Mark 233; and the 233rd section of S. Mark's Gospel confessedly begins at ch. xvi. 8.—The probability may be thought to be thereby slightly increased that the sectional numbers of Eusebius extended no further than ver. 8: but—Has it been rendered one atom more probable that the inspired Evangelist himself ended his Gospel abruptly at the 8th verse? That fact—(the only thing which our opponents have to establish)—remains exactly where it was; entirely unproved, and in the highest degree improbable.

To conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the pages of Tischendorf:—"These verses are not recognised by the Sections of Ammonius, nor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and Caesarius bear witness to the fact;"—I am constrained to remark that the illustrious Critic has drawn upon his imagination for three of his statements, and that the fourth is of no manner of importance.

(1.) About the "Sections of Ammonius," he really knows no more than about the lost Books of Livy. He is, therefore, without excuse for adducing them in the way of evidence.

(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either as to the "Sections of Ammonius" or to "Canons of Eusebius," Tischendorf is perfectly well aware. So is my reader.

(3.) His appeal to

CAESARIUS

is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate the younger brother of Gregory of Nazianzus; an eminent physician of Constantinople, who died A.D. 368; and who, (as far as is known,) never wrote anything. A work called Πεύσεις, (which in the xth century was attributed to Caesarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that Caesarius was certainly not its author,) is the composition to which Tischendorf refers. Even the approximate date of this performance, however, has never been ascertained. And yet, if Tischendorf had condescended to refer to it, (instead of taking his reference at second-hand,) he would have seen at a glance that the entire context in which the supposed testimony is found, is nothing else but a condensed paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius, in which the original statement occurs.(233)

Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of AMMONIUS, of EPIPHANIUS, and of CAESARIUS on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel. It is exactly nil. In fact Pseudo-Caesarius, so far from "bearing witness to the fact" that the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel are spurious, actually quotes the 16th verse as genuine.(234)

(4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added to what we knew before concerning his probable estimate of these verses.

IV. We are now at liberty to proceed to the only head of external testimony which remains undiscussed. I allude to the evidence of

THE CATENAE.

"In the Catenae on Mark," (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) "there is no explanation of this section."(235) "The Catenae on Mark:" as if they were quite common things,—"plenty, as blackberries!" But,—Which of "the Catenae" may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined?

1. Not the Catena which Possinus found in the library of Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse, and which forms the basis of his Catena published at Rome in 1673; because that Codex is expressly declared by the learned Editor to be defective from ver. 8 to the end.(236)