the oircumoision, having gone to Babylon, where we know there was a. large oolony of Jews, or in his having been accompanied thither by Mark him- self, also o. Jew of the family of Aaron. The whole is consistent with the idea that Mark wrote his Gospel under the direction of St. Peter. Ancient writers, as Irenreus, Tertullian, St. Jerome, and others, with one consent make him the interpreter of St. Peter. Eusebius, quoting from Papias, says, "Mark, being the interpreter of St. Peter, wrote down exactly what- ever things he remembered, yet not in the order in which Christ either spoke or did them; for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of our Lord, but he was afterwards a follower of St. Peter." St. Jerome says, "St. Mark, the interpreter of the Apostle St. Peter, and the first bishop of the Church of Alexandria, related what things he heard his master preaching, rather according to the truth of the facts, than according to the order of the things that were done." St. Augustine calls Mark the "breviator" of St. Matthew, not because he made an abridgment of St. Matthew's Gospel, but because he relates more briefly, according to what he had received from St. Peter, those things which St. Matthew relates more at length. According to the testimony of St. Jerome, he wrote a short Gospel at Rome at the request of the brethren there; and St. Peter, when he had heard it, approved of it, and appointed it to be read in the churches by his authority. St. Jerome says, further, that St. Mark took this Gospel and went into Egypt; and, being the first preacher of Christ at Alexandria, established a Church with so much moderation of doctrine and of life, that he constrained all those who had opposed Christ to follow his example. Eusebius states that he became the first bishop of that Church, and that the catechetical school at Alexandria was founded under his authority. It is further stated that he ultimately died a martyr's death at Alexandria. But the evidence upon this latter point is not sufficiently trustworthy. Tradition says that the body of St. Mark was translated by certain merchants from Alexandria to Venice, A.D. 827, where he was much honoured. The Venetian Senate adopted the emblem of St. Mark-the lion-for their crest; and when they directed anything to be done, they affirmed that it was by the order of St. Mark.
II. OBSERVATIONS ON THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE hlST TWELVE VERSF.s OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL.
These verses have been admitted by the Revisers of 1881 into the text, but with a space between ver. 8 and ver. 9, to show that they have received them with ~ome degree of caution and reserve, and not without having carefully weighed the evidence on both sides. The most imporbwt features in the evidence are the following:- ,;iii INTRODUCTION TO
1. The EiJiclence of Manwcript,,, (1) Of the Uncial Manuscripts. The two oldest, namely, the SiDBitio and the Vatican, omit the whole passage, but under different conditions. The Sinaitic omits the passage absolutely. The Vatican omits it, but with a space left blank between the eighth verse of Mark xvi., and the begin- ning of St. Luke, just sufficient for its insertion; as though the writer of the manuscript, hesit.ating whether to omit or to insert the verses, thought it safest to leave a space for them. But there is another and much later Uncial Manuscript (L), of about the eighth century. Of this manuscript it may be said that, although some four centuries later, it bears a strong family resemblance to the Sinaitic and the Vatican. This manuscript does not omit the passage, but it interpolates between it and the eighth verse an apocryphal addition, and then goes on with ver. 9. This addition is given at p. 538, second edition, of Dr. Scrivener's admirable work on the' Criticism of the New Testament.' It should be added here that there is a strong resemblance between the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts; so that practically the evidential value of these three manuscripts amounts to little more than one authority. With these three exceptions, all the Uncial Manuscripts maintain the twelve verses in their integrity. (2) The CUisive Manuscripts. The evidence of the Cursives is unani- mous in favour of the disputed verses. It is true that some mark the passage as one of which the genuineness had been disputed. But against this there has to be set the fact that the verses are retained in all but two old manuscripts, and those two in all probability not independent. It has been clearly shown by Dean Burgon that the verses were read in the publio services of the Church in the fourth century, and probably much earlier, as shown by the ancient Evangelisteria.
2. Evidence of Ancient Veraiona. The most ancient versions, both of the Eastern and of the Western Churches, without a single exception, recognize this passage. Of the Eastern versions the evidence is very remarkable. The Peshito Syriac, which dates from the second century, bears witness to its genuineness; so does the Philoxenian; while the Curetonian S,yriac, also very ancient, far earlier than the Sinaitio or Vatican manuscripts, bears a very singular testimony. In the only extant copy of that version, the Gospel of St. Mark is wanting, with the excep- tion of one fragment only, and that fragment contains the last four of these disputed verses. The Coptic versions also recognize the passage. The same may be said of the versions of the Western Ohurch. The earlier version of the Vulgate, called the Old Italic, has it. Jerome, who used the best manuscript of the Old Italic when he prepared his. Vulgate, felt himself obliged to admit this disputed passage, although he did not scruple, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. b.
to allege the objections to its reception, which were the same a.e those urged by Eusebius. The Gothic Version of Ulphilas (fourth century) has the passage from ver. 8 to ver. 12.