Appendix IV. St. Mark i. 1

[280]

St. Mark's Gospel opens as follows:—“The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD. ” The significancy of the announcement is apparent when the opening of St. Matthew's Gospel is considered,—“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David.” Surely if there be a clause in the Gospel which carries on its front the evidence of its genuineness, it is this606. But in fact the words are found in every known copy but three ( , 28, 255); in all the Versions; in many Fathers. The evidence in its favour is therefore overwhelming. Yet it has of late become the fashion to call in question the clause—•1øÊ ƒøÊ òµøÊ. Westcott and Hort shut up the words in brackets. Tischendorf ejects them from the text. The Revisers brand them with suspicion. High time is it to ascertain how much of doubt really attaches to the clause which has been thus assailed.

Tischendorf relies on the testimony of ten ancient Fathers, whom he quotes in the following order,—Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Origen, Basil, Titus, Serapion, Cyril of Jerusalem, Severianus, Victorinus, Jerome. But the learned critic has to be reminded (1) that pro hac vice, Origen, Serapion, Titus, Basil, Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem are not six fathers, but only one. Next (2), that Epiphanius delivers no testimony whatever on the point in dispute. Next (3), that Jerome607 is rather to be reckoned with

606 It is right to state that Tischendorf thought differently. “Videtur illud huic quidem loco parum apte illatum.” He can only bring himself to admit that the text had been “jam Irenaei tempore nobili additamento auctum.” He insists that it is absurd, as well as at variance with the entire history of the sacred text, to suppose that the title “SON OF GOD{FNS” has here been removed by unscrupulous Unbelief, rather than thrust in by officious Piety. 607 v. 10; vii. 17; and in the Vulgate. Twice however (viz. i. 311 and vi. 969) Jerome omits the clause.

Appendix IV. St. Mark i. 1. 305

the upholders, than the impugners, of the disputed clause: while (4) Irenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness in its favour. All this quite changes the aspect of the Patristic testimony. The scanty residuum of hostile evidence proves to be Origen and three Codexes,—of which two are cursives. I proceed to shew that the facts are as I have stated them.

As we might expect, the true author of all the mischief was Origen. At the outset of his commentary on St. John, he writes with reference to St. Mark i. 1,—“Either the entire Old Testament (represented by John Baptist) is here spoken of as ‘the beginning’ of the New; or else, only the end of it (which John quotes) is so spoken of, on account of this linking on of the New Testament to the Old. For Mark says,—‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger, &c. The voice of one, &c.’ I can but wonder therefore at those heretics,”—he means the followers of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdon, Marcion, and the rest of the Gnostic crew,—“who attribute the two Testaments to two different Gods; seeing that this very place sufficiently refutes them. For how can John be ‘the beginning of the Gospel,’ if, as they pretend, he belongs to another God, and does not recognize the divinity of the New Testament?” Presently,—“In illustration of the former way of taking the passage, viz. that John stands for the entire Old Testament, I will quote what is found in the Acts [viii. 35] ‘Beginning at the same Scripture of Isaiah, He was [281] brought as a lamb, &c., Philip preached to the eunuch the Lord Jesus.’ How could Philip, beginning at the prophet, preach unto him Jesus, unless Isaiah be some part of ‘the beginning of the Gospel608?’ ” From the day that Origen wrote those memorable words [A.D. 230], an appeal to St. Mark i. 1-3 became one of the commonplaces of Theological controversy. St. Mark's assertion that the voices of the ancient Prophets, were “the beginning

608 In Joan. iv. 15, 16.—See also contra Cels. i. 389 d e f, where Origen says the same thing more briefly. The other places are iv. 125 and 464.

[282] 306 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

of the Gospel”—of whom John Baptist was assumed to be the symbol,—was habitually cast in the teeth of the Manichaeans.

On such occasions, not only Origen's reasoning, but often Origen's mutilated text was reproduced. The heretics in question, though they rejected the Law, professed to hold fast the Gospel. “But” (says Serapion) “they do not understand the Gospel; for they do not receive the beginning of it:—‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet609 . ’ ” What the author of this curt statement meant, is explained by Titus of Bostra, who exhibits the quotation word for word as Serapion, following Origen, had exhibited it before him; and adding that St. Mark in this way “connects the Gospel with the Law; recognizing the Law as the beginning of the Gospel610 . ” How does this prove that either Serapion or Titus disallowed the words 1øÊ ƒøÊ òµøÊ? The simple fact is that they are both reproducing Origen: and besides availing themselves of his argument, are content to adopt the method of quotation with which he enforces it.

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 wilderness611 . ’ ” 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

609 üTƒµ ¿ ƒuº ƒøÊ µP± µªwø «ø , ƒt ƒˆ µP± µªw… £«t ºt ¿±£±ª± y ƒµ¬; £«t ƒøÊ µP± µªwø 8 øÊ ß£ ƒøÊ. ± |¬ s £±¿ƒ± ( ±”± ƒ˜ ¿£ø uƒ . adv. Manichaeos (ap. Galland. v. 61). 610 ap. Galland. v. 329. 611 i. 250.

Appendix IV. St. Mark i. 1. 307

beginning of St. Mark's Gospel is identical with Basil's612, 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 passage. 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 wilderness613 . ” Cyril has therefore passed 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 Titus, Basil and Cyril of Jerusalem are in fact reproducing Origen: but unlike the former two, the two lastnamed 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 [283] casual appeals to Scripture, as a deliberate assertion 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, Severianus, bishop of Gabala, after appealing to the fact that St. Mark begins his Gospel by styling our Saviour •1x¬ òµøÊ, straightway quotes ver. 1 without that record of Divine Sonship,—a proceeding which will only seem strange to those who omit to read his context. Severianus is calling attention to the considerate reserve of the Evangelists in declaring the eternal Generation of Jesus

612 ap. Galland. iv. 55. 613 p. 42.

[284] 308 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

Christ. “Mark does indeed say ‘Son of God’; 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 it614 . ” How could Severianus 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 wilderness615 . ” 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 God,”) 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 illustrious name is behind. Irenaeus (A.D. 170) unquestionably read •1øÊ ƒøÊ òµøÊ in this place. He

614 A.D.{FNS 400. De Sigill. ap. Chrys. xii. 412:—A º± q£ ø¬ úq£ ø¬, ± µv¬ ± ƒx µ6¬ ƒx µP± sª ø , ±v ±£ u ±¬ ƒø÷¬ ¿£ø µ º ± ºs ø ¬, ªs µ ºr “ 1x òµøÊ, ” ªª µP s…¬ s ƒµ ªµ ƒx ªy ø , ±v øªy … µ ƒt ø ± , 5 ± º±ªqæ ƒx £ø±ƒu . ¿q µ øV µP s…¬ ƒp ±ƒp ƒx í±¿ƒ ƒu , ªs … , “ £«t ƒøÊ µP± µªwø 8 øÊ ß£ ƒøÊ, ± |¬ s £±¿ƒ± ( ±w ƒ˜ ¿£ø uƒ 0¥ø ” .ƒ.ª. ¥µ æµ ƒt ª±º¿q¥± ƒ ¬ ª µw±¬, ±v µP s±¬ ¿s £ »µ. 615 i. 427:— £«t ƒøÊ µP± µªwø ... a¬ s £±¿ƒ± ( ±” ƒ˜ ¿£ø uƒ ... … t øˆ ƒø¬ ƒ« £uºÛ.

Appendix IV. St. Mark i. 1. 309

devotes a chapter of his great work to the proof that Jesus is the Christ,—very God 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 God 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 God. Hence, Mark says,—‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets616 . ’ ” Irenaeus had already, in an earlier chapter, proved by an appeal to the second and third Gospels that Jesus Christ is God. “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 passages read the first verse of St. Mark's Gospel618 .

obviously have stood in the original. 616 i. 506 (lib. iii. cap. xvi). 617 i. 461 (lib. iii. cap. x). 618 Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the four Gospels may be severally identified with the four living creatures described in the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John, who says: “In the beginning was the Word: and ... all things were made by him: and without him was not anything made:” the flying eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his gospel with an appeal to “the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men from on high; saying, ‘The beginning of the Gospel ... as it is written in the prophets.’ Hence the Evangelists' concise and elliptical manner, which is a characteristic of prophecy” (lib. iii. cap. xi. § 8, p. 470). Such quotations as these (18 words being omitted in one case, 5 in the other) do not help us. I derive the above notice from the scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei's e,—N. T. ii. 21); Curzon's “73. 8.”

The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by Grabe from a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita, in the Bodleian (Barocc. 206, fol. ¿ ). It is the solution of the 144th Quaestio. But it is to be found in many other places besides. In Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost words of

[285]

[286] 310 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

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 text619 . . 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 God:’ for so ‘it is written in the prophets,’ viz. that He is the Son of God.... 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 God’ 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 •1øÊ ƒøÊ òµøÊ were absent,—is undeniable. But that is the sum of the evidence for

Irenaeus are found: viz. üTƒµ ¿ªµwø ± ƒx £ ºy , øTƒµ ªqƒƒø ± ¥s«µƒ± µ6 ± ƒp µP± sª ±; ¿µv p£ ... Germanus also (A.D.{FNS 715, ap. Gall. xiii. 215) quoting the place, confirms the reading ƒø÷¬ ¿£ø uƒ± ¬, —which must 619 Note, that he actually reads “The beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God,”—omitting the words “JESUS CHRIST{FNS”: not, of course, as disallowing them, but in order the more effectually to emphasize the Divine Sonship of MESSIAH{FNS 620 } (sc. A úq£ ø¬) ƒt £«t ƒøÊ ïP± µªwø ¿x 8…q ø ¿ø u øº± ; ïP± µªwø ¥r ƒøÊ 1øÊ òµøÊ, øUƒ… p£ ƒø÷¬ ¿£ø uƒ± ¬ s £±¿ƒ± , Eƒ 1y¬ ƒ òµøÊ.... ¥{ ± ± ¥r ƒy, a¬ s £±¿ƒ± ƒø÷¬ ¿£ø uƒ± ¬, q»± ƒ˜, 0¥øz | ¿ø ƒsªª… ƒx µªy ºø ; 5 ± ƒt £«t ¿ø u øº± ƒøÊ ïP± µªwø ƒøÊ 1øÊ òµøÊ ƒx ƒø÷¬ ¿£ø uƒ± ¬ ¿µ£v 8…q ø µ0£ ºs ø . This is the first scholium in the Catena as edited by Possinus,—p. 6. What follows is a well-known scholium of the same Catena, (the first in Cramer's ed.), which C. F. Matthaei (N. T. ii. 20) prints from six of his MSS.:—8…q øV ƒx ƒµªµ ƒ±÷ø ƒˆ ¿£ø ƒˆ £«t µ6 ± ƒøÊ ïP± µªwø v A úq£ ø¬, ¿ s£… “a¬ s £±¿ƒ± ƒø÷¬ ¿£ø uƒ± ¬; 8¥øz .ƒ.ª.

Appendix IV. St. Mark i. 1. 311

their omission. I have shewn that Serapion and Titus, Basil and Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem, do but reproduce the teaching of Origen: that Epiphanius delivers no testimony either way: while Irenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness to the genuineness of the clause in dispute. To these must be added Porphyry (A.D. 270)621, Cyril of Alexandria622, Victor of Antioch, ps.-Athanasius623, and Photius624 , —with Ambrose 625 , and Augustine626 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 mass of evidence, has never been explained. In the meantime, the disappearance of the clause (•1øÊ ƒøÊ òµøÊ) 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 God.” What is more obvious than that the words at some very remote period should have been fraudulently removed from certain copies of the Gospel?

[287]

621 Ap. Hieron. vii. 17. 622 vi. 330 diserte. 623 ii. 413. 624 A.D.{FNS 890. De objectionibus Manichaeorum, ap. Galland. xiii. 667. 625 i. 1529 d. 626 Cons. 39.