FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86  
87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   >>   >|  
to the verses in question. This done, he sets about discussing the possibility of reconciling an isolated expression in S. Mark's Gospel with another in S. Matthew's: just as if on _that_ depended the genuineness or spuriousness of the entire context: as if, in short, the major premiss in the discussion were some such postulate as the following:--"Whatever in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely consistent with something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded as genuine." Did then the learned Archbishop of Caesarea really suppose that a comma judiciously thrown into the empty scale might at any time suffice to restore the equilibrium, and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of almost every MS. of the Gospels extant? Why does he not at least deny the truth of the alleged facts to which he began by giving currency, if not approval; and which, so long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted, render all further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory? As before, I really cannot tell,--except on the hypothesis which has been already hazarded. 3. Note also, (for this is not the least extraordinary feature of the case,) what vague and random statements those are which we have been listening to. The entire section (S. Mark xvi. 9-20,) "_is not met with in all_ the copies:" at all events _not_ "_in the accurate_" ones. Nay, it is "_met with seldom_." In fact, it is _absent from_ "_almost all_" copies. But,--Which of these four statements is to stand? The first is comparatively unimportant. Not so the second. The last two, on the contrary, would be absolutely fatal,--if trustworthy? But _are_ they trustworthy? To this question only one answer can be returned. The exaggeration is so gross that it refutes itself. Had it been merely asserted that the verses in question were wanting in _many_ of the copies,--even had it been insisted that _the best copies_ were without them,--well and good: but to assert that, in the beginning of the fourth century, from "_almost all_" copies of the Gospels they were away,--is palpably untrue. What had become then of the MSS. from which the Syriac, the Latin, _all_ the ancient Versions were made? How is the contradictory evidence of _every copy of the Gospels in existence but two_ to be accounted for? With Irenaeus and Hippolytus, with the old Latin and the Vulgate, with the Syriac, and the Gothic, and the Egyptian versions to refer to, we are able to assert that the author
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86  
87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

copies

 

question

 

Gospels

 
Gospel
 
statements
 

assert

 
trustworthy
 

entire

 

verses

 

Syriac


Hippolytus
 

absent

 

Irenaeus

 

existence

 

unimportant

 
comparatively
 

accounted

 

versions

 

section

 
listening

author

 
accurate
 

events

 

Egyptian

 

Gothic

 

Vulgate

 

seldom

 
insisted
 

random

 

asserted


wanting

 

century

 

palpably

 

fourth

 

untrue

 

beginning

 

contradictory

 

contrary

 

evidence

 

absolutely


answer

 

refutes

 

exaggeration

 

returned

 

Versions

 

ancient

 
simply
 

regarded

 

genuine

 

consistent