The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. John William Burgon
tion>
John William Burgon
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark
Published by Good Press, 2020
EAN 4064066104238
Table of Contents
THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED. TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.
MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY. IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART I.
MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY. IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART II.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY. REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.
GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF. THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE. SUBJECT.
CHAPTER III.
THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.
Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p. 20).—The importance of such evidence explained (p. 21).—Nineteen Patristic witnesses to these Verses, produced (p. 23).—Summary (p. 30).
The present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds of Evidence, external and internal. For the full consideration of the former, seven Chapters will be necessary:27 for a discussion of the latter, one seventh of that space will suffice.28 We have first to ascertain whether the external testimony concerning S. Mark xvi. 9–20 is of such a nature as to constrain us to admit that it is highly probable that those twelve verses are a spurious appendix to S. Mark's Gospel.
1. It is well known that for determining the Text of the New Testament, we are dependent on three chief sources of information: viz. (1.) on Manuscripts—(2.) on Versions—(3.) on Fathers. And it is even self-evident that the most ancient MSS.—the earliest Versions—the oldest of the Fathers, will probably be in every instance the most trustworthy witnesses.
2. Further, it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text of Scripture than can possibly be rendered by any Translation, however faithful: while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive authority, even than Versions. The reasons are chiefly these:—(a.) Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not licentiously; and sometimes allude only when they seem to quote. (b.) They appear to have too often depended on their memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inaccurate [pg 020] in their citations; the same Father being observed to quote the same place in different ways. (c.) Copyists and Editors may not be altogether depended upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations. Thus the evidence of Fathers must always be to some extent precarious.
3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed out that when—instead of certifying ourselves of the actual words employed by an Evangelist, their precise form and exact sequence—our object is only to ascertain whether a considerable passage of Scripture is genuine or not; is to be rejected or retained; was known or was not known in the earliest ages of the Church; then, instead