In 1844, the year when Constantine Tischendorf first saw
pages of Codex Sinaiticus at St. Catherine’s monastery, Samuel Tregelles
released An Account of the Printed Text
of the New Testament, a book which had a significant influence among
researchers into the text of the New Testament.
Recently, after discussing Mark 16:9-20 with Stephen Boyce of Explain
International, someone observed that my position (that Mark was permanently interrupted as he wrote 16:8, and someone else attached verses 9-20 (from another composition by Mark) to complete the narrative, before the Gospel of Mark began to be disseminated for church-use, and that verses 9-20 are thus part of the original text) resembled the view of
Tregelles, and it occurred to me that many discussion-viewers might not know
what that means. (I had read Tregelles,
years ago, but on the spur of the moment I couldn’t recall his view in detail.) So here, I have reproduced a large excerpt
from Tregelles’ own statements on the subject, along with a few notes of my
own, from pages 246-261 of An Account of the Printed
Text of the New Testament. I
have not included the footnotes, in the interest of brevity. Some readers, wearied by Tregelles’ thoroughness, may wish to proceed to
Tregelles’ closing comments, which I have marked with “···.”
Tregelles wrote:
“St. Mark xvi. 9-20. The last twelve verses of this Gospel
have some remarkable phenomena connected with their history; in order fully to
discuss their authority, it is needful first to establish by evidence of facts
certain propositions.
I. That it is historically
known that in the early ages it was denied that these verses formed a part of
the Gospel written by St. Mark.
II. That it is certain, on
grounds of historical transmission, that they were from the second century, at
least, and onward, known as part of this book.
III. That the early testimony
that they were not written by St. Mark is confirmed by existing monuments.
After these propositions have been established, the
conclusions to be drawn may assume the form of corollaries.
(I) The absence of this portion from some, many,
or most copies of St. Mark’s Gospel, or that it was not written by St. Mark
himself, is attested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus
of Antioch, Jerome; and by later writers (especially Greeks), who, even though
they copied from their predecessors, were competent to transmit the record of a
fact.
(i) Eusebius, in the first of his Questiones ad Marinum, discusses πως παρα μεν τω Ματθαιω “οψε
σαββάτων” φαίνεται εγηγερμενος ο σωτηρ, παρα δε τω Μάρκω “πρωι τη μια των
σαββάτων.” [Tregelles then presents an
extract from Eusebius’ composition Ad
Marinum, which is similar to what Roger Pearse presents on p. 96 of Eusebius
of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and
Solutions, and which translates in that book to:
“The
answer to this would be twofold. The
actual nub of the matter is the pericope which says this. One who athetises
that pericope would say that it is not found in all copies of the gospel
according to Mark: accurate copies end
their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man whom the women
saw, and who said to them: “‘Do not be afraid; it is Jesus the Nazarene that
you are looking for, etc. … ’ ”, after which it adds: “And when they heard
this, they ran away, and said nothing to anyone, because they were frightened.” That is where the text does end, in almost
all copies of the gospel according to Mark. What occasionally follows in some
copies, not all, would be extraneous, most particularly if it contained
something contradictory to the evidence of the other evangelists.” That, then, would be one person’s answer: to
reject it, entirely obviating the question as superfluous.”]
Tregelles continues:
“Eusebius then goes on to explain the supposed difficulty, irrespective
of the supposed authorship of these verses. This testimony, then, is clear, that the
greater part of the Greek copies had not the twelve verses in question. It is evident that Eusebius did not believe
that they were written by Mark himself, for he says, κατὰ Μάρκον μετὰ τὴν ανάστασιν οὐ λέγεται
ὤφθαι τοις μαθηταις. The arrangement of
the Eusebian Canons are also an argument that he did not own the passage; for
in genuine copies of the notation of these sections the numbers do not go
beyond ver. 8, which is marked σλγʹ (233). Some copies, carry indeed, this notation as
far as ver. 14, and some to the end of the chapter; but these are unauthorised
additions, and contradicted by not only good copies which contain these
sections, both Greek and Latin (for instance A, and the Codex Amiatinus), but
also by a scholion found in a good many MSS. at ver. 8, εως ωδε Εὐσέβιος
εκανόνισεν. It has been objected that
these sections show nothing as to the MSS. extant in
Eusebius’s time, but only the condition of the Harmony of Ammonius, from which
the divisions were taken. [It does not seem to have occurred
to Tregelles that Eusebius, after endorsing to Marinus the inclusion of verses
9-20, could have changed his mind when subsequently creating his Canons.] The objection
is not without significance; but it really carries back our evidence from the
fourth century to the third; and thus it is seen, that just as Eusebius found
these verses absent in his day from the best and most numerous copies, so was
also the case with Ammonius when he formed his Harmony in the preceding
century.”
[That
the “Ammonian Sections” are the work of Eusebius, and not Ammonius, was later demonstrated
by John Burgon in Appendix G of his 1871 book, The Last
Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent
Critical Objectors and Established.]
[Tregelles
then reviews the testimony from Gregory of Nyssa – which, subsequent to
Tregelles, was regarded as the work of Hesychius – and Victor of Antioch, noting
that Victor’s remark] “is worthy of
attention; for his testimony to the absence of these twelve verses from some or
many copies, stands in contrast to his own opinion on the
subject. He seems to speak of having
added the passage in question (to his own copy, perhaps) on the authority of a
Palestinian exemplar.”
Next, Tregelles reviews a statement from Severus of
Antioch, and says, “This testimony may
be but a repetition of that already cited from Gregory of Nyssa; but if so, it
is, at least, an approving quotation.”
“It is worthy of remark that both Eusebius and Victor have τῇ
μιᾷ where our text has πρώτη; this may
be an accidental variation; as they do not afterwards give the words precisely as they had before quoted
them; or it may show that they spoke of the passage, ver. 9-20, without having
before them a copy which contained it, and thus that they unintentionally used τῇ
μιᾷ as the more customary phraseology in the New Testament.
“Dionysius of Alexandria has been brought forward as a
witness on each side. Scholz refers to
his Epistle to Basilides, as though he had there stated that some, or many,
copies did not contain the passage;
and Tischendorf similarly mentions his testimony; while, on the other hand, Dr.
Davidson (Introd. i. 165) places Dionysius amongst those by whom the passage “is
sanctioned.” All, however, that I can
gather from his Epistle to Basilides (Routh, Rel. Sac. iii. 223-32) is, that in
discussing the testimony of the four evangelists to the time (whether night, or
early in the morning) at which our Lord arose from the dead, he takes no notice whatever of Mark xvi.
9; and this he could hardly fail to have done, as bearing more closely on the
question, when referring to the beginning of the same chapter, if he had
acknowledged or known the last twelve verses. His testimony, then, quantum valeat, is purely negative.
“Jerome’s testimony is yet to be adduced. He discusses (Ad Hedibiam, Qusest. II. ed.
Vallarsi, i. col. 819,) the difficulties brought forward as to the time of the resurrection. “Hujus
qusestionis duplex solutio est; aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus
Grceciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus, praesertim quum
diversa atque contraria Evangelistis caeteris narrare videatur ; aut hoc
respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit,” etc. He then proposes to remove the difficulty by a
different punctuation, in the same manner as Eusebius and Victor did.”
“But an endeavour has been made to invalidate Jerome s
testimony by referring to what he says in his Dialogue against the Pelagians,
II. 15. “In quibusdam exemplaribus, et maxime in Græcis codicibus juxta Marcum
in fine ejus Evangelii scribitur: Postea
quum accubuissent undecim apparuit eis lesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et
duritiam cordis eorum, quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem non crediderunt. Et illi
satisfaciebant dicentes; Sæculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis substantia* est, quæ non
sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc
revela justitiam tuam. Cui si
contradicitis, illud certe renuere non audebitis; Mundus in maligno positus est,” etc. (Ed. Vallarsi. ij. 744, 5.) Hence it has been inferred that Jerome contradicts himself as to the Greek
copies. But (i.) that conclusion does
not follow, because he may here speak of those Greek copies which did contain
the verses in question, and not of the MSS. in general, (ii.) If this testimony
be supposed to relate to Greek MSS. in general, it is at least remarkable that
we have no other trace of such an addition at ver. 14. [The situation to which Tregelles
alluded changed when Codex W was discovered.] (iii.) Jerome wrote against the
Pelagians in extreme old age, and he made in that work such demonstrable errors
(e. g. citing II. 2, Ignatius instead of Polycarp), that it would be a bold
step if any were to reject an unequivocal testimony to a fact stated in his
earlier writings on the ground of something contained in this; especially when,
if the latter testimony be admitted as conclusive, it would involve our
accepting a strange addition at ver. 14 (otherwise wholly unknown to MSS.,
versions, and fathers) as a reading then
current in Greek copies.
These testimonies sufficiently establish, as an historical
fact, that in the early ages it was denied that these twelve concluding verses
formed a part of the Gospel of St. Mark.
(II.) I now pass to the
proofs of the second proposition;
that it is certain, on grounds of historical transmission, that, from the
second century at least, this Gospel concluded as it does now in our copies.
This is shown by the citations of early writers who
recognise the existence of the section in question. These testimonies commence
with Irenaeus: “In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus, Et quidem Dominus Iesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in caelos,
et sedet ad dexteram Dei” (C. H. iii. 10. 6). This sentence of the old Latin translator of
Irenseus is thus cited in Greek in confirmation of his having used this part of
the Gospel: Ὁ μὲν ουν κύριος μετὰ τὸ
λαλησαι αὐτοις ἀνελήφθε εις τὸν ουρανόν, καὶ εκάθισεν εκ δεξιων του θεου. Εἰρηναιος ὁ των ἀποστόλων πλησίον ἐν τω πρὸς τὰς αιρέσεις γʹ λόγω τουτο ανήνεγκεν τὸ ρητὸν ὡς Μάρκῳ ειρημένον. [A footnote in Printed Account states that this was
drawn by Cramer from Cod.
Harl. 5647, that
is, minuscule 72. What Tregelles
presented is a combination of 72’s text of Mark 16:19, and the note in 72’s
side-margin.]
“Whether this part of St. Mark was known to Celsus has been
disputed. My own opinion is, that that
early writer against Christianity did, in the passage which Origen discusses
(lib. II. §§ 59 and 70), refer to the appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalen, as
found in Mark xvi. 9; but that Origen, in answering him, did not exactly
apprehend the purport of his objection, from (probably) not knowing or using
that section of this Gospel. This would
not be the only place in which Origen has misapprehended the force of remarks
of Celsus from difference of reading in the copies which they respectively
used, or from his not being aware of the facts to which Celsus
referred.
Tregelles
turns next to Hippolytus, and supplies an extensive quotation from Περὶ Χαρισμάτων Ἀποστολικὴ Παράδοσις “in which this
part of St. Mark s Gospel is distinctly
quoted.”
“After these testimonies of the second and third centuries,
there are many who use the passage; such for instance as Cyril of Jerusalem,
Ambrose, Augustine, Nestorius, (ap. Cyr. Alex. vi. 46.)
Under this head may be mentioned the MSS. and versions in general (the conspectus of their
evidence on both sides will be given under the next proposition); and amongst
the MSS. Those may in particular be
specified which continue the Ammonian Sections on to the end of the chapter. This seems to have been done to supply a
supposed omission; and in ancient MSS., such as C, it is clear that the copyist
took this section for an integral part of the book.
The early mention and use of this section, and the place
that it holds in the ancient versions in general, and in the MSS., sufficiently
show, on historical grounds, that it had a place, and was transmitted as a part
of the second Gospel.
III. To consider properly the
third proposition (that the early
testimony that St. Mark did not write these verses is confirmed by existing
monuments), the evidence of the MSS. and versions must be stated in full.
The passage is wholly omitted
in Codex B.,* in the Latin Codex Bobbiensis (k),
in old MSS. of the Armenian, and in an Arabic version in the Vatican (Cod. Arab. Vat. 13). [This was later shown to be an effect of damage to the
manuscript, as Metzger says in a footnote in his Textual Commentary: “Since,
however, through an accidental loss of leaves the original hand breaks off just
before the end of Mark 16.8, its testimony is without significance in
discussing the textual problem.” See
also Clarence Russell Williams’ comments about Cod. Arab. Vat. 13 on p. 398 of
Williams’ The Appendices to the Gospel of
St. Mark, which is contained as the last
essay in Transactions of the
Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol.
18 (Feb. 1915, Yale University
Press).] Of these versions, the Codex Bobbiensis adds a
different brief conclusion, “Omnia autem quaecunque praecepta erant et qui cum
puero [1. cum Petro] erant breviter exposuerunt. Posthaec et ipse jhesus
adparuit. et ab orientem usque. usque in orientem. misit per illos sanctam et
incorruptam (add. praedicationis,
-nem ?) salutis aeternae. Amen.” And the
Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab, separates the concluding twelve verses from
the rest of the Gospel. Mr. Rieu thus
notices the Armenian MSS.; “ἐφοβουντο γάρ·
Some of the oldest MSS. end here
: many put after these words the final Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, and then give
the additional verses with a new superscription, εὐαγγ. κατὰ Μ. Oscan goes on without any break.” The Arabic MS. in the Vatican is that described by Scholz
in his “Biblisch-Kritische Keise” (pp. 117-126); and though the Arabic versions
are of too recent a date to possess much critical value, this MS., so far as
may be judged from the few extracts made, seems to be based on an ancient Greek
text. Besides the MS. which omits the
verses, they are marked with an asterisk in two cursive copies. [The two cursive copies to which
Tregelles referred here are 137 and 138 – neither of
which is as Tregelles described it; both have the Catena Marcum and feature the
comment that alludes to a cherished Palestinian exemplar.]
[Tregelles then reviews the note
in Codex L that appears before the Shorter Ending, and L’s text of the Shorter
Ending.] “Thus far L is supported by the
cursive cod. 274, by the marg. of the Harclean Syriac, and by the Latin Codex
Bobbiensis (see above). L then continues : “ἔστην [i. e. -τιν] δὲ καὶ ταυτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ Ἐφοβουνται γάρ” ~ - - - - - - - ~ ἀναστὰς δὲ κτλ. (and then follow the twelve verses).
In Cod. 1, ver. 8 ends on folio 220 A, and at the top of
the next page is written in vermillion, ἔν τισι μὲν των ἀντυγράφων ἕως ωδε
πληρουται ὁ ευαγγελιστής· ἔως ου καὶ
Ευσέβιος ὁ παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν. ἐν πολλοις δὲ καὶ ταυτα φέρεται (and
then follow ver. 9 20). A similar note or a scholion stating the absence of the
following verses from many, from most, or from the most correct copies (often from Victor or Severus), is found in
twenty-five other cursive codices; sometimes with τελος interposed after ver.
8. The absence of Ammonian divisions in
A L and other good copies after ver. 8 should here be remembered.
Such is the testimony of existing monuments confirming the
ancient witnesses against this
passage.
On the other hand, the passage is found in the uncial codd.
A C D, X Δ, E G Π K M S U V (F is defective); as well as in 33, 69, and the
rest of the cursive copies which have been collated. It is in copies of the Old Latin; in the Vulg. in the Curetonian Syriac, as well as
the Peshito and the Harclean (with the marginal note given above), and the
Jerusalem Syriac; in the Memphitic, Gothic, and Æthiopic; besides those which
have been previously mentioned as characterised by some peculiarity. The Thebaic is here defective, but it is
supposed that a citation in that language may be a
paraphrase of ver. 20. The Gothic is
defective in the concluding verses, but enough is extant to show that it
recognised the passage; [The
final page of Mark in the Gothic manuscript Codex Argenteus, containing verse
12-20 of the sixteenth chapter, was not recovered until 1970, when Franz
Haffner found it in St. Afra’s Chapel in the cathedral
in Speyer, Germany.] and of the Curetonian Syriac no part of this Gospel
is found except a fragment containing ver. 17 to the end of this chapter.
The Old Latin is here defective in the best copies; for the
Codex Vercellensis is imperfect from ch. xv. 15, and Cod. Veronensis from xiii.
24. Also the Cod. Brixianus is defective
from xiv. 70. The mode in which Cod.
Bobbiensis concludes has been noticed already. The Codices Colbertinus,
Corbiensis, and others, are those which may be quoted as showing that the Old
Latin contains this section.
It has been suggested that this portion of St. Mark was omitted by those who found a difficulty
in reconciling what it contains with the other Evangelists. But so far from there being any proof of this,
which would have required a far less change, we find that the same writers who
mention the non-existence of the passage in many copies, do
themselves show how it may be harmonised with what is contained in the other
Gospels ; we have no reason for entertaining the supposition that such a
Marcion-like excision had been here adopted.
In opposing the authenticity of this section, some have
argued on the nature of the contents;‒ that the appearance of our Lord to Mary
Magdalene first, is not (it is said)
in accordance with what we learn elsewhere; that the supposition of miraculous
powers to be received (ver. 17, 18) is carried too far; that (in ver. 16) Baptism is too highly exalted. I mention
these objections, though I do not think any one of them separately, nor yet the whole combined, to be of
real weight. There is no historical difficulty which would be regarded as of
real force, if, on other grounds, doubt had not been
cast on the passage; for else we might object to many Scripture narrations,
because we cannot harmonise them, owing
to our not being acquainted with all the circumstances. As to the doctrinal
points specified, it is hard to imagine what difficulty is supposed to exist; I
see nothing that would involve the feelings and opinions of an age subsequent
to the apostolic.
The style of
these twelve verses has been relied on as though it were an argument that they
were not written by Mark himself. I am
well aware that arguments on style
are often very fallacious, and that by
themselves they prove very little; but when there does exist external
evidence, and when internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and
connection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of
forming a judgment, then these internal considerations possess very great
weight.
A difference has been remarked, and truly remarked, between
the phraseology of this section and the rest of this Gospel. This difference is in part negative and in
part positive. The phraseology of St. Mark possesses characteristics which do
not appear in these verses. And besides
these negative features, this section
has its own peculiarities; amongst which may be specified πρώτη σαββάτω (ver.
9), instead of which τη μια των σαββάτων would have been expected: in ver. 10
and 14 sentences are conjoined without a copulative, contrary to the common
usage in St. Mark. εκεινος is used four
times in a manner different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel. The periodic structure of verses 19 and 20 is
such as only occurs once elsewhere in this Gospel (xiv. 38).
Many words, expressions, and constructions occur in this
section, and not in any other part of St. Mark: e. g. πορεύομαι (thrice), θεάομαι (twice), απίστεω
(twice), ἕτερος, παρακολουθέω, βλάπτω, επακολουθέω, συνεργέω, βεβαιόω,
πανταχου, μετὰ ταυτα, εν τω ονοματι, ὁ κυριος, as applied absolutely to Christ
(twice). Now, while each of these
peculiarities (except the first) may possess singly no weight, yet their combination, and that in so short a
portion, has a force which can rather be felt
than stated. And if any parallel be attempted, as to these
peculiarities, by a comparison of other portions of St. Mark, it will be found
that many chapters must be taken together before we shall find any list of
examples as numerous or as striking as those which are crowded together here in
these few verses.
These considerations must be borne in mind as additional to
the direct evidence stated before.
It has been asked, as an argument that the section before
us was actually written by St. Mark, whether it is credible that he could have
ended his Gospel with . . . ἐφοβουντο γάρ. Now, however improbable, such a difficulty
must not be taken as sufficient, per se,
to invalidate testimony to a fact as such. We often do not know what may have
caused the abrupt conclusion of many works. The last book of Thucydides has no proper
termination at all; and in the Scripture some books conclude with extraordinary
abruptness: Ezra and Jonah are instances of this. Perhaps we do not know enough of the
circumstances of St. Mark when he wrote his Gospel to say whether he did or did
not leave it with a complete termination. And if there is difficulty in supposing that the work ever ended abruptly at ver.
8, would this have been transmitted as a fact by good witnesses, if there had
not been real grounds for regarding it to be true? And further, irrespective of recorded
evidence, we could not doubt that copies in ancient times did so end, for B,
the oldest that we have, actually does so. Also the copies which add the concluding
twelve verses as something separate, and those (as L) which give another brief termination, show that
this fact is not incredible. Such a peculiarity would not have been invented.
It has also been urged with great force that the contents
of this section are such as preclude its having been added at a post-apostolic
period, and that the very difficulties which it contains afford a strong
presumption that it is an authentic history: the force of this argument is such
that I do not see how it can be avoided; for even if a writer went out
of his way to make difficulties in a supplement to St. Mark’s Gospel, it is but
little likely that his contemporaries would have accepted and transmitted such
an addition, except on grounds of known and certain truth as to the facts
recorded. If there are points not easy
to be reconciled with the other Gospels, it is all the less probable that any
writer should have put forth, and that others should have received, the
narrative, unless it were really authentic history. As such it is confirmed by the real or supposed points of
difficulty.
As, then, the facts of the case, and the early reception
and transmission of this section, uphold its authenticity, and as it has been
placed from the second century, at least, at the close of our second canonical
Gospel; and as, likewise, its transmission has been accompanied by a continuous
testimony that it was not a part of the book as
originally written by St. Mark; and as both these points are confirmed by
internal considerations―
The following corollaries flow from the propositions
already established:‒
[···]
I. That the book of
Mark himself extends no farther than ἐφοβουντο γάρ, xvi. 8.
II. That the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever
written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second
Gospel, and that the full reception of early testimony on this question does
not in the least involve their rejection as not being a part of Canonical
Scripture.
It may, indeed, be said that they might have been written
by St. Mark at a later period; but,
even on this supposition, the attested fact that the book once ended at ver. 8
would remain the same, and the assumption that the same Evangelist had added
the conclusion would involve new difficulties, instead of removing any.
There is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to
Holy Scripture, as if all our notions of its authority depended on our knowing
who was the writer of each particular portion; instead of simply seeing and
owning that it was given forth from God, and that it is as much his as were the
commandments of the Law written by his own finger on
the tables of stone. As to many books of
Scripture, we know not who the writers may have been; and yet this is no reason
for questioning their authority in the slightest degree. If we try to be certain as to points of which there is no proof, we really shall
find ourselves to be substituting conjecture in the place of evidence. Thus some of the early Church received the
Epistle to the Hebrews as Holy Scripture; who, instead of absolutely
dogmatising that it was written by St. Paul ‒ a point of which they had no
proof ‒ were content to say that “God only knoweth the real writer”: and yet to
many in the present day, though they have not one whit more evidence on the
subject, it seems, that to doubt or disbelieve that Epistle to have been
written by St. Paul himself, and to doubt or disbelieve its canonical
authority, is one and the same thing. But
this mode of treating Scripture is very
different from what ought to be found
amongst those who own it as the word of God.
I thus look on this section as an authentic anonymous
addition to what Mark himself wrote down from the narration of St. Peter (as we
learn from the testimony of their contemporary, John the Presbyter); and that
it ought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel, as the last
chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as the writer is) is received as the right and
proper conclusion of the books of Moses.
I cannot but believe that many upholders of orthodox and
evangelical truth practically narrow their field of vision as to Scripture by
treating it (perhaps unconsciously) as though we had to consider the thoughts,
mind, and measure of apprehension possessed personally by each individual
writer through whom the Holy Ghost gave it forth. This is a practical hindrance to our receiving
it, in the full sense, as from God; that is, as being really inspired: for, if inspired, the true and
potential author was God, and not the individual writer, known or
anonymous.
We know from John the Presbyter just enough of the origin
of St. Mark’s Gospel to be aware that it sprang from the oral narrations of the
Apostle Peter; and we have the testimony of that long-surviving immediate
disciple of Christ when on earth (in recording this fact) that Mark erred in
nothing. But even with this information,
if we thought of mere human authorship, how many questions might be started :
but if we receive inspiration as a fact,
then inquiries as to the relation of human authors become a matter of secondary
importance. It has its value to know
that Apostles bore testimony to what they had seen of Christ’s actions, and
that they were inspired to write as eye and ear witnesses of his deeds and
teaching. So it is of importance to know
that in this Gospel we have the testimony of Peter confirmed by John the
Presbyter; but the real essential value of the record for the continuous
instruction of believers, is that inspiration of the Holy Ghost which constitutes
certain writings to be Holy Scripture.
Those which were originally received on good grounds as such, and which
have been authentically transmitted to us, we may confidently and reverently
receive, even though we may not know by what pen they were recorded.
To sum up: Tregelles
believed that verses 9-20 were not written by Mark, but that verses 9-20
nevertheless “have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the
second Gospel,” just as Deuteronomy 34 is received as the proper conclusion of
the books of Moses.
On page
132-133 Warfield expresses his position very clearly: he endorses Hort’s approach, stating that
“his results may be safely accepted as sound,” and regards Vaticanus as
“plainly the best single codex known.”
Little by little, he reveals his confident adherence to Hort’s
transmission-model, including the Lucianic recension. At the same time he rejects the reading of ÀBCLUΓ
at Matthew 27:49.
