8. Matt. xxvii. 35. After βάλλοντες κλῆρον the Received text, but not the Complutensian edition, has ἵνα πληρωθτῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου, Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. Internal evidence may be about equal for the omission of the clause by homoeoteleuton of κλῆρον, and for its interpolation from John xix. 24, “with just the phrase τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ (or ἀπὸ) τοῦ προφήτου assimilated to Matthew's usual form of citation” (Alford, ad loc.). External evidence, however, places the spuriousness of the addition beyond doubt. It is first heard of in citations of Eusebius, and is read in the Old Latin codices a b c g2 (not g1) h q, the Clementine (not the Sixtine) Vulgate and even in am. lux., Harl. 2826, lind., in King's Libr. 1. D. ix and the margin of 1. E. vi (but not in fuld. for. tol.* em. ing. jac. san. nor in f ff1.2 g1 l), the Armenian (whose resemblance to the Vulgate is so suspicious), the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon, and as a matter of course in the Roman edition of the Arabic, and in the Persic of the Polyglott. The clause seems to be found in no manuscript of the Peshitto Syriac, and is consequently absent from Widmanstadt's edition and the Antwerp, Paris, and London Polyglotts. Tremellius first turned the Greek words into Syriac and placed them in the margin of his book, whence they were most unwisely admitted into the text of several later editions (but not into Lee's), without the slightest authority. They also appear in the text of the Harkleian, but the marginal note states that 'this passage from the prophet is not in two [“three” Codd. Assemani] Greek copies, nor in the ancient Syriac.' All other versions and Fathers (except Eusebius and the Pseudo-Athanasius), and all Greek manuscripts reject the clause, except Δ, 1, 17, 58 (marg.), 69, 118, 124, 262, 300, 503, 550, Evst. 55: Scholz adds “aliis multis,” which (judging from my own experience) I must take leave to doubt. Besides other slight changes (αυτοις Δ, κλήρους 69 secundâ manu) Codd. Δ, 61, 69, 503 and Eusebius read διά for ὑπό. The present case is one out of many that show an intimate connexion subsisting between Codd. 61 and 69.
9. Mark vi. 20. καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουε. “ ‘Did many things’ Engl. vers. I think it must have occurred to many readers that this is, to say the least, a very singular expression.” So writes Mr. Linwood, very truly, for nothing can well be more tame or unmeaning. His remedy we can say little for. “I think that for πολλὰ ἐποίει we should read πολλοῦ ἐποίει, i.e. magni faciebat. It is true that classical usage would require the middle voice, sc. πολλοῦ ἐποιεῖτο. But this rule is not always observed by the N. T. writers[348]” (Linwood, p. 11). If, instead of resorting to conjecture, he had opened Tischendorf's eighth edition, he would have found there a reading, adopted as well by that editor as by Westcott and Hort, whose felicity, had it been nothing more than a happy conjecture, he might well have admired. Codd. אBL for πολλὰ ἐποίει[349] have πολλὰ ἠπόρει “was much perplexed,” which the Bohairic confirms, only that, in translating, it joins πολλά with ἀκούσας. This close resemblance between the Bohairic version and Codd. אB (especially Cod. B) is very apparent throughout the N. T.; a single example being their united omission of ἰσχυρόν in Matt. xiv. 30 in company with but one other authority, the great cursive Cod. 33. Hence we do not hesitate to receive a variation supported by only a few first-rate authorities, where internal evidence (Canon II, p. [248]) pleads so powerfully in its favour. Although the middle voice is found elsewhere in the N. T., yet the active in this precise sense may be supported by good examples, even when used absolutely, as here: e.g. ἄλλος οἱ ἀπορέοντι ὑπεθήκατο Herod. i. 191: ὁ δ᾽ ἀπορῶν, ὥς φασι, μόλις κατενόησε τὴν πρόσχωσιν ταύτην τοῦ Ἀχελῴου Thuc. ii. 102.
Another less considerable but interesting variation, occurring just before, in chap. v. 36, παρακούσας “overhearing” instead of ἀκούσας, may be deemed probable on the evidence of א*BLΔ and the Latin e, which must have had the reading, though it is mistranslated neglexit[350]. We gladly credit the same group (אBCLΔ, 473, Evst. 150, 259) with another rare compound, κατευλόγει in ch. x. 16, whose intensive force is very excellent. [pg 336] In ch. xii. 17 a similar compound ἐξεθαύμαζον is too feebly vouched for by אB alone.
[Third Edition. It is only fair to retain unchanged the note on Mark vi. 20, inasmuch as the “Two Members of the N. T. Company” have exercised their right of claiming my assent to the change of ἐποίει into ἠπόρει. I must, however, retract that opinion, for the former reading now appears to me to afford an excellent sense. Herod gladly heard the Baptist, and did many things at his exhortation; every thing in fact save the one great sacrifice which he could not persuade himself to make.]
10. Mark vii. 19. The substitution of καθαρίζων for καθαρίζον, so far from being the unmeaning itacism it might seem at first sight, is a happy restoration of the true sense of a passage long obscured by the false reading. For the long vowel there is the overwhelming evidence of אAB (hiat C) EFGH LSXΔ, 1, 13, 28, 48, 50, 53, 58, 59 (me teste), 61**, 64, 65, 69, 122* 124, 229, 235, 244, 251, 282, 346, 435, 473, 492, 508, 515, 570, 622, Evst. 49, 259, and Erasmus' first edition: his second reads ἐκκαθαρίζων, his third καθαρίζον of ΦΣKMUVΓΠ, 547, 558, and perhaps a majority of the cursives. The reading of D καθαρίζει (καθαρίζειν 61 primâ manu), as also καὶ καθαρίζει of Evst. 222 and the Latin i, seem to favour the termination -ον: purgans of a b c (even d) f ff2 g1.2 l? n q and the Vulgate, is of course neutral. The Peshitto ܕܡܕܒܝܐ (or ܐܝܒܕܡܕ) (qui purgat) refers in gender to the noun immediately preceding, and would require καθαρίζοντα. Will any one undertake to say what is meant by the last clause of the verse as it stands in the Authorized English version, and as it must stand, so long as καθαρίζον is read? If, on the other hand, we follow Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, we must take the Lord's words to end with ἐκπορεύεται, and regard καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα as the Evangelist's comment upon them: “This he said, to make all things clean.” Compare Acts x. 15. This, and none other, seems to have been the meaning assigned to the passage by the Greek Fathers. It is indeed most simply expressed by Chrysostom (Hom. II. in Matt. p. 526 A): Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησίν, ὅτι καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα, ταῦτα ἔλεγεν, where Dr. Field's elaborate note should be consulted. [pg 337] He rightly judges that Chrysostom was treading in the steps of Origen: καὶ μάλιστα ἐπεὶ κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτήρ, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. Hence Gregory Thaumaturgus designates the Lord as ὁ σωτὴρ ὁ πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα. I know not how Tischendorf came to overlook the passage from Chrysostom: Tregelles very seldom uses him. It is obvious how well the elliptical form of the expression suits this Evangelist's style, which is often singularly concise and abrupt, yet never obscure.
11. Mark xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. I, we engaged to defend the authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the slightest misgiving (p. 7). Dean Burgon's brilliant monograph, “The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established” (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (vide infra), annexed as an alternative reading (αλλως). Out of all the great manuscripts, the two oldest (אB) stand alone in omitting vers. 9-20 altogether[351]. Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe's part that something is left out, inasmuch as after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ ver. 8, a whole column is left perfectly blank (the only blank one in the whole volume[352]), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8, which is usual [pg 338] in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. No such peculiarity attaches to Cod. א. The testimony of L, that close companion of B, is very suggestive. Immediately after ver. 8 the copyist breaks off; then in the same hand (for all corrections in this manuscript seem primâ manu: see p. [138]), at the top of the next column we read ... φερετε που και ταυτα+ ... πάντα δὲ τα παρηνγελμενα τοῖς περι τον πετρον συντομωσ ἐξηγγιλαν+ μετα δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτος ὁ ισ, ἁπο ἁνατολησ καὶ ἁχρι δυσεωσ ἐξαπεστιλεν δι αὐτων το ϊἑρον καὶ ἁφθαρτον κηρυγμα+τησ αἱῶνιου σωτηριασ+ ... εστην δε και ταῦτα φερομενα μετα το ἑφοβουντο γαρ+ ... Αναστὰσ δὲ πρωï πρωτη σαββατου+κ.τ.λ., ver. 9, ad fin. capit. (Burgon's facsimile, facing his p. 113: our facsimile No. 21): as if vv. 9-20 were just as little to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement[353] which precedes them. Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices[354] and two of the Ethiopic, k of the Old Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the Vatican. The Old Latin Codex k puts in their room a corrupt and careless version of the subscription in L ending with σωτηρίας (k adding amen): the same subscription being appended to the end of the Gospel in the two Ethiopic manuscripts, and (with ἀμήν) in the margin of 274 and the Harkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the Bohairic, translated by Bp. Lightfoot above. Of cursive Greek manuscripts 137, 138, which Birch had hastily reported as marking the passage with an asterisk, each contains the marginal annotation given below, which claims the passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36 and others) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to the note, where (of course) it is repeated[355]. Other manuscripts contain marginal scholia respecting it, of which the following is [pg 339] the substance. Cod. 199 has τέλος[356] after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and before Ἀναστὰς δέ, and in the same hand as τέλος we read, ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα καταπαύει. The kindred Codd. 20, 215, 300 (but after ver. 15, not ver. 8) mark the omission in some (τισί) copies, adding ἐν δὲ τοῖσ ἀρχαίοις πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται, and these had been corrected from Jerusalem copies (see pp. [161] and note, [193]). Cod. 573 has for a subscription ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων κεφαλαίοις σλζ: where Burgon, going back to St. Matthew's Gospel (see p. [161], note) infers that the old Jerusalem copies must have contained our twelve verses. Codd. 15, 22 conclude at ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, then add in red ink that in some copies the Evangelist ends here, ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται, affixing vers. 9-20. In Codd. 1, 205 (in its duplicate 206 also), 209 is the same notice, ἄλλοις standing for πολλοῖς in 206, with the additional assertion that Eusebius “canonized” no further than ver. 8, a statement which is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian and Eusebian numerals beyond that verse in אALSU and at least eleven cursives, with am. fuld. ing. of the Vulgate. It would be no marvel if Eusebius, the author of this harmonizing system, had consistently acted upon his own rash opinion respecting the paragraph, an opinion which we shall have to notice presently, and such action on his part would have added nothing to the strength of the adverse case. But it does not seem that he really did so. These numerals appear in most manuscripts, and in all parts of them, with a good deal of variation which we can easily account for. In the present instance they are annexed to ver. 9 and the rest of the passage in Codd. CEKVΠ, and (with some changes) in GHMΓΔΛ and many others: in Cod. 566 the concluding sections are there (σλδ ver. 11, σλε ver. 12, σλς ver. 14) without the canons. In their respective margins the annotated codices 12 (of Scholz), 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222, 237, 238, 255, 259, 299, 329, 374 (twenty-four in all), present in substance[357] the same [pg 340] weighty testimony in favour of the passage: παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται (thus far also Cod. 119, adding only ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα καταπαύει) ἐν τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι; ἀλλὰ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια, συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν. Now this is none other than an extract from Victor of Antioch's [v] commentary on St. Mark, which they all annex in full to the sacred text, and which is expressly assigned to that Father in Codd. 12, 37, 41. Yet these very twenty-four manuscripts have been cited by critical editors as adverse to the authenticity of a paragraph which their scribes never dreamt of calling into question, but had simply copied Victor's decided judgement in its favour. His appeal to the famous Palestine codices which had belonged to Origen and Pamphilus (see p. [55] and note), is found in twenty-one of them, possibly these documents are akin to the Jerusalem copies mentioned in Codd. Evan. Λ, 20, 164, 262, 300, &c.
All other codices, e.g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15, primâ manu) EFwGH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVXΓΔΠ, 33, 69, the Peshitto, Jerusalem and Curetonian Syriac (which last, by a singular happiness, contains vv. 17-20, though no other part of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic (only ver. 20 is preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the exceptions already named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all extant Old Latins except k (though a primâ manu and b are defective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian, its later manuscripts, and all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in maintaining the paragraph. It is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek and Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr[358] as early as the second [pg 341] century; by Hippolytus (see Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage, by the Acta Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently by Celsus in the third; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated a.d. 337), the Syriac Table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Ps.-Ephraem, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem[359], Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth; by Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator, in the fifth; by Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of Thessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and sixth[360]. Add to this, what has been so forcibly stated by Burgon (ubi supra, p. [205]), that in the Calendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed certainly in the fourth century, very probably much earlier, the disputed verses were honoured by being read as a special matins service for Ascension Day (see p. 81), and as the Gospel for St. Mary Magdalene's Day, July 22 (p. 89); as well as by forming the third of the eleven εὐαγγέλια ἀναστάσιμα ἑωθινά, the preceding part of the chapter forming the second (p. 85): so little were they suspected as of even doubtful authenticity[361].
The earliest objector to vers. 9-20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad Marin.), who tells that they were not ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ that τὰ ἑξῆς are found σπανίως ἔν τισιν, yet not in τὰ ἀκριβῆ: language which Jerome twice echoes and almost exaggerates by saying “in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capitulum fine non habentibus.” [pg 342] A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting them is μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ[362]. The language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent evidence which has been alleged against the passage, whether of Severus, or Hesychius, or any other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a mere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not retailing to us at second-hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations of Origen. Jerome's recklessness in statement has been already noticed (Vol. II. p. [269]); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for how could he have inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious?
With regard to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel, I must say that the same process might be applied—and has been applied—to prove that St. Paul was not the writer of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that to the Hebrews), St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of portions of those prophecies that bear their names. Every one used to literary composition may detect, if he will, such minute variations as have been made so much of in this case[363], either in his own writings, or in those of the authors he is most familiar with.
Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious [pg 343] task of constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive the difficulty of adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9-20 to the narratives of the other Evangelists. Alford regards this inconsistency (more apparent than real, we believe) as “a valuable testimony to the antiquity of the fragment” (N. T. ad loc.): we would go further, and claim for the harder reading the benefit of any critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I. Vol. II. p. [247]). The difficulty was both felt and avowed by Eusebius, and was recited after him by Severus of Antioch or whoever wrote the scholion attributed to him. Whatever Jerome and the rest may have done, these assigned the ἀντιλογία, the ἐναντίωσις they thought they perceived, as a reason (not the first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a reason) for supposing that the Gospel ended with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Yet in the balance of probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St. Mark broke off so abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no ancient writer has noticed or seemed conscious of any such abruptness[364]? This fact has driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest fancies;—namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.