XVII. Victor of Antioch, (concerning whom I shall have to speak very largely in [Chapter V].,) flourished about A.D. 425. The critical testimony which he bears to the genuineness of these verses is more emphatic than is to be met with in the pages of any other ancient Father. It may be characterized as the most conclusive testimony which it was in his power to render.
XVIII. Hesychius of Jerusalem, by a singular oversight, has been reckoned among the impugners of these verses. He is on the contrary their eager advocate and champion. It seems to have escaped observation that towards the close of his “Homily on the Resurrection,” (published in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, and erroneously ascribed to that Father,) Hesychius appeals to the 19th verse, and quotes it as S. Mark's at length.[56] The date of Hesychius is uncertain; but he may, I suppose, be considered to belong to the vith century. His evidence is discussed in [Chapter V].
XIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a reference to the Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae,—an ancient work [pg 030] ascribed to Athanasius,[57] but probably not the production of that Father. It is at all events of much older date than any of the later uncials; and it rehearses in detail the contents of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.[58]
It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic authorities; as, by appealing to Gregentius in the vith century, and to Gregory the Great, and Modestus, patriarch of Constantinople in the viith;—to Ven. Bede and John Damascene in the viiith;—to Theophylact in the xith;—to Euthymius in the xiith[59]: but I forbear. It would add no strength to my argument that I should by such evidence support it; as the reader will admit when he has read my Xth chapter.
It will be observed then that three competent Patristic witnesses of the iind century,—four of the iiird,—six of the ivth,—four of the vth,—and two (of uncertain date, but probably) of the vith,—have admitted their familiarity with these “last Twelve Verses.” Yet do they not belong to one particular age, school, or country. They come, on the contrary, from every part of the ancient Church: Antioch and [pg 031] Constantinople,—Hierapolis, Cæsarea and Edessa,—Carthage, Alexandria and Hippo,—Rome and Portus. And thus, upwards of nineteen early codexes have been to all intents and purposes inspected for us in various lands by unprejudiced witnesses,—seven of them at least of more ancient date than the oldest copy of the Gospels extant.
I propose to recur to this subject for an instant when the reader has been made acquainted with the decisive testimony which ancient Versions supply. But the Versions deserve a short Chapter to themselves.
CHAPTER IV.
THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.
The Peshito,—the Curetonian Syriac,—and the Recension of Thomas of Hharkel (p. [33].)—The Vulgate (p. [34])—and the Vetus Itala (p. [35])—the Gothic (p. [35])—and the Egyptian Versions (p. [35]).—Review of the Evidence up to this point, (p. [36]).