Part 6 (1/2)
”For it is high time to point out that even if it so happened that the oldest known MS. was observed to be without these twelve concluding verses, it would still remain a thing unproved (not to say highly improbable) that from the autograph of the Evangelist himself they were also away. Supposing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the iind or iiird century could be found who quoted them: even so, it would not follow that there existed no such verses for a primitive Father to quote.
The earliest of the Versions might in addition yield faltering testimony; but even so, _who_ would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis the monstrous hypothesis, that S. Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of its inspired Author was without the verses which at present conclude it?
How, then, would you have proposed to account for the consistent testimony of an opposite kind yielded by every other known doc.u.ment in the world?
”But, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case? (1) The earliest of the Fathers,-(2) the most venerable of the Versions,-(3) the oldest MS.
of which we can obtain any tidings,-_all_ are observed to _recognize these Verses_. 'Cadit quaestio' therefore. The last shadow of pretext has vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that 'Mark the Evangelist knew nothing of' these verses:-with Tregelles that 'The book of Mark himself extends no further than ?f????t? ???:'-with Griesbach that 'the _last leaf of the original Gospel was probably torn away_.'... It is high time, I say, that this case were dismissed. But there are also costs to be paid.
Cod. B and Cod. ? are convicted of being 'two false witnesses,' and must be held to go forth from this inquiry with an injured reputation.”
This entire subject is of so much importance that I must needs yet awhile crave the reader's patience and attention.
CHAPTER VII.
Ma.n.u.sCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.-PART II.
The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and ? (viz. the omission of the words ?? ?f?s? from Ephes. i. 1) considered.-Antiquity unfavourable to the omission of those words (p. 93).-The Moderns infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission (p.
100).-Marcion probably the author of this corruption of the Text of Scripture (p. 106).-Other peculiarities of Codex ? disposed of (p. 109).
The subject which exclusively occupied our attention throughout the foregoing chapter admits of apt and powerful ill.u.s.tration. Its vast importance will be a sufficient apology for the particular disquisition which follows, and might have been spared, but for the plain challenge of the famous Critic to be named immediately.
”There are two remarkable readings,” (says Tischendorf, addressing English readers on this subject in 1868,) ”which are very instructive towards determining the age of the ma.n.u.scripts [? and B], and _their authority_.”
He proceeds to adduce,-
1. The absence from both, of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel,-concerning which, the reader probably thinks that by this time he has heard enough. Next,-
2. He appeals to their omission of the words ?? ?f?s? from the first verse of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,-_another peculiarity, in which Codd._ ? _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. ? 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 G.o.d faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous license. How far the reading which results from the suppression of the last two words in the phrase t??? ?????? t??? ??s?? ?? ?f?s?, 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:-?a???? ?p?st???? ??s?? ???st?? d?? ?e??at?? Te??, t??? ??????
t??? ??s? ?a? p?st??? ?? ???st? ??s???... If it be eagerly declared in reply that the thing is simply incredible: that the words ?? ?f?s? 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 Ma.n.u.scripts will have been appealed to as crucial proofs of the _trustworthiness of the Text_ of those Ma.n.u.scripts: (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 ?? ?f?s?
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 ill.u.s.trious discoverer and champion of Codex ?, and who is accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words ?? ?f?s?
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 a.s.sertion that ”Marcion _did not find_ the words ?? ?f?s? 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 t.i.tle of ”Epistle _to the Laodiceans_.”(153) This, (argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not have done had he found ?? ?f?s? 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 ”_t.i.tulum interpolare_”
in the case of S. Paul's ”Epistle to the Ephesians,”-be _therefore_, a.s.sumed 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 circ.u.mstance.(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 a.s.signed 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 pa.s.sage, 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 ?? ?f?s? 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 t??? ?????? t??? ??s?? ?? ?f?s?
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 ?? ?f?s? 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 ?.