The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 25

Next, for the testimony of Basil. His words are,-"Mark makes the preaching of John the beginning of the Gospel, saying, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... as it is written in Isaiah the prophet ... The voice of one crying in the wilderness(611).' " This certainly shews that Basil was treading in Origen's footsteps; but it no more proves that he disallowed the three words in dispute in ver. 1, than that he disallowed the sixteen words not in dispute in ver. 2.-from which it is undeniable that he omits them intentionally, knowing them to be there. As for Victorinus (A.D. 290), his manner of quoting the beginning of St. Mark's Gospel is identical with Basil's(612), and suggests the same observation.

If proof be needed that what precedes is the true account of the phenomenon before us, it is supplied by Cyril of Jerusalem, with reference to this very pa.s.sage. He points out that "John was the end of the prophets, for 'All the prophets and the Law were until John;' but the beginning of the Gospel dispensation, for it says, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,' and so forth. John was baptizing in the wilderness(613)." Cyril has therefore pa.s.sed straight from the middle of the first verse of St. Mark i. to the beginning of ver. 4: not, of course, because he disallowed the eight and thirty words which come in between; but only because it was no part of his purpose to quote them. Like Serapion and t.i.tus, Basil and Cyril of Jerusalem are in fact reproducing Origen: but unlike the former two, the two last-named quote the Gospel elliptically. The liberty indeed which the ancient Fathers freely exercised, when quoting Scripture for a purpose,-of leaving out whatever was irrelevant; of retaining just so much of the text as made for their argument,-may never be let slip out of sight. Little did those ancient men imagine that at the end of some 1500 years a school of Critics would arise who would insist on regarding every irregularity in such casual appeals to Scripture, as a deliberate a.s.sertion concerning the state of the text 1500 years before. Sometimes, happily, they make it plain by what they themselves let fall, that their citations of Scripture may not be so dealt with. Thus, Severia.n.u.s, bishop of Gabala, after appealing to the fact that St. Mark begins his Gospel by styling our Saviour ???? Te??, straightway quotes ver. 1 without that record of Divine Sons.h.i.+p,-a proceeding which will only seem strange to those who omit to read his context. Severia.n.u.s is calling attention to the considerate reserve of the Evangelists in declaring the eternal Generation of Jesus Christ. "Mark does indeed say 'Son of G.o.d'; but straightway, in order to soothe his hearers, he checks himself and cuts short that train of thought; bringing in at once about John the Baptist: saying,-'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ...

as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold,' &c. No sooner has the Evangelist displayed the torch of Truth, than he conceals it(614)." How could Severia.n.u.s have made his testimony more emphatic?

And now the reader is in a position to understand what Epiphanius has delivered. He is shewing that whereas St. Matthew begins his Gospel with the history of the Nativity, "the holy Mark makes what happened at Jordan the introduction of the Gospel: saying,-The beginning of the Gospel ... as it is written in Isaiah the prophet ... The voice of one crying in the wilderness(615)." This does not of course prove that Epiphanius read ver.

1 differently from ourselves. He is but leaving out the one and twenty words (5 in ver. 1: 16 in ver. 2) which are immaterial to his purpose. Our Lord's glorious designation ("Jesus Christ, the Son of G.o.d,") and the quotation from Malachi which precedes the quotation from Isaiah, stand in this writer's way: his one object being to reach "the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Epiphanius in fact is silent on the point in dispute.

But the most ill.u.s.trious name is behind. Irenaeus (A.D. 170) unquestionably read ???? t?? Te?? in this place. He devotes a chapter of his great work to the proof that Jesus is the Christ,-very G.o.d as well as very Man; and establishes the doctrine against the Gnostics, by citing the Evangelists in turn. St. Mark's testimony he introduces by an apt appeal to Rom. i. 1-4, ix. 5, and Gal. iv. 4, 5: adding,-"The Son of G.o.d was made the Son of Man, in order that by Him we might obtain the adoption: Man carrying, and receiving, and enfolding the Son of G.o.d. Hence, Mark says,-'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of G.o.d, as it is written in the prophets(616).' " Irenaeus had already, in an earlier chapter, proved by an appeal to the second and third Gospels that Jesus Christ is G.o.d. "Quapropter et Marcus," (he says) "interpres et sectator Petri, initium Evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic: 'Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in Prophetis,' &c.(617)"

This at all events is decisive. The Latin of either place alone survives: yet not a shadow of doubt can be pretended as to how the man who wrote these two pa.s.sages read the first verse of St. Mark's Gospel(618).

Even more interesting is the testimony of Victor of Antioch; for though he reproduces Origen's criticism, he makes it plain that he will have nothing to say to Origen's text(619). He paraphrases, speaking in the person of the Evangelist, the two opening verses of St. Mark's Gospel, as follows!-"I shall make 'the beginning of the Gospel' from John: of the Gospel, I say 'of the Son of G.o.d:' for so 'it is written in the prophets,'

viz. that He is the Son of G.o.d.... Or, you may connect 'as it is written in the prophets' with 'Behold, I send my messenger': in which case, I shall make 'the beginning of the Gospel of the Son of G.o.d' that which was spoken by the prophets concerning John." And again,-"Mark says that John, the last of the prophets, is 'the beginning of the Gospel': adding, 'as it is written in the prophets, Behold,' &c., &c.(620)" It is therefore clear how Victor at least read the place.

It is time to close this discussion. That the Codexes which Origen habitually employed were of the same type as Cod. ?,-and that from them the words ???? t?? Te?? were absent,-is undeniable. But that is the sum of the evidence for their omission. I have shewn that Serapion and t.i.tus, Basil and Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem, do but reproduce the teaching of Origen: that Epiphanius delivers no testimony either way: while Irenaeus and Severia.n.u.s bear emphatic witness to the genuineness of the clause in dispute. To these must be added Porphyry (A.D. 270)(621), Cyril of Alexandria(622), Victor of Antioch, ps.-Athanasius(623), and Photius(624),-with Ambrose (625), and Augustine(626) among the Latins. The clause is found besides in all the Versions, and in every known copy of the Gospels but three; two of which are cursives. On what principle Tischendorf would uphold the authority of ? and Origen against such a ma.s.s of evidence, has never been explained. In the meantime, the disappearance of the clause (???? t?? Te??) from certain of the earliest copies of St.

Mark's Gospel is only too easily accounted for. So obnoxious to certain precursors of the Gnostic sect was the fundamental doctrine which it embodies, that St. John (xx. 31) declares it to have been the very purpose of his Gospel to establish "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G.o.d."

What is more obvious than that the words at some very remote period should have been fraudulently removed from certain copies of the Gospel?

APPENDIX V. THE SCEPTICAL CHARACTER OF B AND ?.

The sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. affords a strong proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic school. Instances found in these Codexes may be cla.s.sed thus:-

Note 1. The following instances are professedly taken from the Gospels. Only a few are added from elsewhere.

Note 2. Other Uncials are also added, to indicate by specimens how far these two MSS. receive countenance or not from other sources, and also in part how far the same influence enter them.

I. Pa.s.sages detracting from the Scriptural acknowledgement of the Divinity of our Lord:-

???? t?? Te?? omitted-St. Mark i. 1 (?*).

? ???st?? ? ???? ... t?? ???t?? omitted-St. John vi. 69 (?BC*DL).

????e omitted-St. Mark ix. 24 (?ABC*DL).

??? ?????? ??s?? omitted-St. Luke xxiv. 3 (D).

Te?? changed into ??????-Acts xx. 28 (AC*DES).

Omission of faith in CHRIST. e?? ??-St. John vi. 47 (?BLG).

Slur on efficacy of prayer through CHRIST: Insert ?-St. John xiv. 14 (?BEHUG?).

Transfer ?? t? ???at? ??-St. John xxi. 23 (?BC*LXV?).

Omission of e????? in the cure-St. Mark vii. 35 (?BDLWd?) Cf. St. Mark ii.

12.

Judgement-seat of G.o.d instead of CHRIST-Rom. xiv. 10 (?*ABC*D &c.).

? ?? ?? t? ???a?? omitted-St. John iii. 13 (?BLGb).

Omission of ????e in penitent thief's prayer-St. Luke xxiii. 42 (?BC*DLM*).

" " the Ascension in St. Luke, ??ef??et? e?? t?? ???a???-St. Luke xxiv. 51 (?*D).

Insertion of ??d? ? ???? from St. Mark xiii. 32 in St. Matt. xxiv. 36. Cf.

Basil to Amphilochius, iii. 360-2 (Revision Revised, p. 210, note).

Omission of Te?? in reference to the creation of man-St. Mark x. 6 (?BCI?). Cf. St. Matt. xii. 30 (BD).

" " ?p??? p??t?? ?st??-St. John iii. 31 (?*D).

" " ? ???? ??e? e?? t?? a???a-St. John viii. 35 (?XG).

" " d?e???? d?? ?s?? a?t??, ?a? pa???e? ??t??-St. John viii. 59 (?BD).

t?? ???? t?? ?????p?? for t. ?. t. Te??-St. John ix. 35 (?BD).

?????? for Te??-2 Pet. i. 1 (?).

Omission of ?t? ??? ?p??? p??? t?? ?at??a-St. John xvi. 6 (?BD).

" " ??????-1 Cor. xv. 47 (?*BCD*EFG).

?? for Ts?-1 Tim. iii. 16 (?, Revision Revised, pp. 431-43).

? for ??-Col. ii. 10, making the Fulness of the G.o.dHEAD the head of all princ.i.p.ality and power (BDEFG).

II. Generally sceptical tendency:-

N.B.-Omission is in itself sceptical.

??e?a Te?? instead of t? ??e?a t?? Te??-Matt. iii. 16 (?B). Cf. Acts xvi. 7, t? ??e?a ??s?? for t? ??e?a-?ABC2DE2(627).

G??es?? for ?????s??, slurring the Divine Birth-Matt. i. 18 (?BCPSZ?).

Omission of the t.i.tle of "good" applied to our LORD-Matt. xix. 16, 17 (?BDL).

" " the necessity of our LORD to suffer. ?a? ??t?? ?de?-St. Luke xxiv.

46 (?BC*DL).

" " last Twelve Verses of St. Mark (?B).

Omission of pa.s.sages relating to Everlasting Punishment (closely Origenistic): a?????? ?a?t?at?? for a???. ???se??-St. Mark iii. 29 (?BL?).

?a?t?a? (D)-ibid.

?p?? ? s????? a?t?? ?? te?e?t?, ?a? t? p?? ?? s????ta?-St. Mark ix. 44, 46 (?BCL?).

" " the danger of rejecting our Lord-St. Matt. xxi. 44 (D).

" " ?a? p?sa ??s?a ??? ???s??seta?-St. Mark ix. 49 (?BL?).

" " the condemnation of Pharisaic treatment of widows-St. Matt. xxiii.

14 (?BDLZ).

" " ?a? t? ?pt?sa ? ??? apt???a? apt?s???a?-St. Matt. xx. 22, 23 (?BDLZ).

" " a?t?? t?? p??t?t????-St. Matt. i. 25 (?BZ).

" " the verse about prayer and fasting-St. Matt. xvii. 21 (?*B).

" " the words giving authority to the Apostles to heal diseases-St. Mark iii. 15 (?BC*).

" " the forgiveness of sins to those who turn-St. Mark iv. 12 (?BCL).

" " condemnation of cities and mention of the Day of Judgement-St. Mark vi. 11 (?BCDL?).

" " fasting-St. Mark ix. 29 (?*B).

" " taking up the Cross-St. Mark x. 21 (?BCD?).

" " the danger of riches-St. Mark x. 24 (?B?).

" " the danger of not forgiving others-St. Mark xi. 26 (?BLS?).

" " e???????? s? ?? ???a????-St. Luke i. 28 (?BL).

" " ???? ?p? pa?t? ??at? Te??-St. Luke iv. 4 (?BL).

" " ? d?????? e?? ?p?? ??????-St. Luke iv. 5 (?BL).

" " ?pa?e ?p?s? ??, Sata??-St. Luke iv. 8 (?BDL?).

" " reference to Elijah's punishment, and the manner of spirit-St. Luke ix. 55, 56.

" " the saving effect of faith-St. Luke xvii. 19 (B).