678
that can be adduced in favour of the short conclusion, of Eusebius. Dean Burgon, while contending for the The external evidence in favoiu: of the long* or or- genuineness of the verses, suggested that the omiasioii dinary, conclusion is exceedingly strong. The paa- zuight have come about as follows. One of the an- sage stands in all the great uncials excepts and K — ^in cient church lessons ended with Mark, xvi. 8, and A, C, (D), E, F, G, H, K, M (N), S, U, V, X, r, A, (E, 2), Bureon suggested that the t^Noi, which would stand 0,3 — in all the cursives, in all the Latin MSS.(O.L. and at the enoTof such lesson, may have misled some Vulg.) except k, in all the Syriac versions except the scribe who had before him a copy of the Four Gospels Sinaitic (in the Pesh., Curet., Harcl., Palest.), m the in which Mark stood last, and from which the last leaf, Coptic, Gothic, and most MSS. of the Armenian. It containing the disputed verses, was missing. Given is cited or alluded to, in the fourth century, by Aphra- <me such defective cop^, i^d supposing it fell into the ates, the Syriac Table of Canons, Macarius Magnes, hands of ignorant scribes, the error might easily be Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, spread. Others have suggested that the omission is Pseudo-Ephraem, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, probably to be traced to Alexandria. That Church Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom; in the third ended the Lenten fast and commenced the celebratioc century, by Hippolytus, Vincentius, the *'Acts of of Easter at midnight, contrary to the custom of most Pilate , the " Apostolic Constitutions", and, probably Churches, which waited for cock-crow (cf . Dionysius by Celsus; in the second, by Ircnseus most explicitly of Alexandria in P. G., X, 1272 sq.). Now Mark, xvi, as the end of Mark's Gospel (*' In fine autem evangelii 9: But he rising early'^ etc., might easily be taken ait Marcus et quidem dominus Jesus", etc. — Mark, to favour the practice of the .other Churches, and it is xvi 19), by Tatian in the '^Diatessaron", and most suggested that the Alexandrians may have omitted probably by Justin (*' Apol. I", 45) and Hermas (Pas- verse 9 and what foUows from their lectionaries, and tor, IX, XXV, 2). Moreover, in the fourth century from these the omission might pass on into MSS. of certainly, and probably in the third, the passage was the Gospel. Whether there be any fqroe in these used in the Liturgy of the Greek Churcn, sufficient suggestions, they point at any rate to ways in whidi evidence that no doubt whatever was entertained as it was possible that the passage, though genuine, should to its genuineness. Thus, if the authenticity of the have been absent from a number of MbS. in the time passage were to be judged by external evidence alone, of Eusebius; while, on the other hand, if the verses there could hardly be any doubt about it. were not written by St. Mark, it is extremely hard to Much has been made of the silence of some third and understand how they could have been so widely re- fourth century Fathers, their silence being interpreted ceived in the secona century as to be accepted by to mean that they either did not know the passage or Tatian and Irensus, and probablv by Justin and Her- rejected it. Thus Tertullian,SS. Cyprian, Athanasi us, mas, and find a place in the Old Latin and Syriac Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Versions.
Alexandria are appealed to. In the case of Tertullian When we turn to the internal evidence^ the number, and Cyprian there is room for some doubt, as they and still more the character^ of the peculiarities is oer- might naturally enough be expected to have quoted tainly striking. The f ollowmg words or phrases occur or alluded to Mark, xvi, 16, if they received it; but nowhere else in the Gospel: wptih-ii aap^rov (v. 9), not the passage can hardly have been unknown to Athana- found again in the N. T., instead of r^tl /ua[t] [tQw] 8ius(298-373),sinceit was received by Didjrmus (309- aafifidrvp (v. 2), iKeiPot used absolutely (10, 11, 20), 394), his contemporary in Alexandria (P. G., XXXIX, rop€i^/uu (10, 12, 15), ecdofAoi (11, 14), drurr4w (11, 16)^ 687), nor to Basil, seeing it was received by his younger fifrdk raOra and frepoi (12), rapaKoNovBiut and 4w r^ brother Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XL VI, 652), nor to Mftari, (17), A KOpiot (19, 20), iraiTttxcO, avif€py^, Gregory of Nazianzus, since it was known to his /Sf/Scu^ciy, iwoKoKovOita (20). Instead of the usual con- younger brother Csesarius (P. G., XXXVIII, 1178); nexion by koU and an occasional 94 , we have /xcrd H and as to Cyril of Alexandria, he actually quotes it toOto (12), Co-Tepoi'[W] (14), A /livcdp (19), iKciiKu d4 (20). from Nestonus (P. G., LXXVI, 85). The only seri- Then it is urged that the subject of verse 9 has not been ous difficulties are created by its omission in B and K mentioned immediately before; that Mar;y Magdalen and by the statements of Eusebius and Jerome. But seems now to be introduced for the first tmie, though Tischendorf proved to demonstration (Proleg., p. xx, in fact she has been mentioned three times in the pre- 1 sqq.) that the two famous MSS. are not here two in- ceding sixteen verses; that no reference is made to an depNsndent witnesses, because the scribe of B copied appearance of the Lord in Galilee, though this was to the leaf in M on which our passage stands. Moreover, be expected in view of the message of verse 7. Com- in both MSS., the scribe, though concluding with verse paratively little importance attaches to the last three 8, betrays knowledge that something more followed points, for the subject of verse 9 is sufficiently obvious either in his archetype or in other MS§., for in B, con- from the context; the reference to Magdalen as the trary to his custom, he leaves more than a colunm woman out of whom Christ had cast seven devils is ex- vacant after verse 8, and in M verse 8 is followed by an plicable here, as showing the loving mercy of the Lord elaborate arabesque, such as is met with nowhere else to one who before had been so wretched; and the men- in the whole MS. , showing that the scribe was aware of tion of an appearance in Galilee was hardly necessary, the existence of some conclusion which he meant the important thing being to prove, as this passage deliberately to exclude (cf. Comely, *' Introd.", iii, does, tnat Christ was really risen from the dead, and 96-99;Salmon,*'Introd.", 144-48). Thus both MSS. that His Apostles, almost against their wills^ were bear witness to the existence of a conclusion following forced to believe the fact. But, even when this is said, after verse 8, which they omit. Whether B and K are the cumulative force of the evidence against the Mar- two of the fifty MSS. which Constantine commissioned can origin of the passage is considerable. Some ex- Ehisebius to have copied for his new capital we cannot planation indeed can be offered of nearly every point be sure; but at all events they were written at a time {cf. Knabenbauer, "Comm. in Marc", 445-47), but it when the authority of Eusebius was paramount in is the fact that in the short space of twelve verses so Biblical criticism, and probably their authority is but many points require explanation that constitutes the the authority of Eusebius. The real difficulty, there- strength of the evidence. There is nothing strange fore, against the passage, from external evidence, is about the use, in a passage like this, of many words reduced to what Eusebius and St. Jerome say about rare with the author. Ctoly in the last chapter is its omission in so many Greek MSS., and these, as dwurriu used by St. Luke also (Luke, xxiv, 11, 41), Eusebius says, the accurate ones. But whatever be h-tpos is used oiJy once in St. John's Gospel (xix. 37), the explanation of this omission, it must Ix? remem- and wapaKo\ov04(a is used only once by St. Luke (i, 3). b^n»<l that, as we have seen alx)ve, the disput^Ml verses Besides, in other passages St. Mark uses many words were widely known and received long before the time that are not found in the Gospel outside the particular
