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