|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
William Robinson Essays on Christian Unity (1924) |
D
THE
QUESTION OF THE
USE OF
MARK XVI. 16-18,
MATT. XXVIII. 19,
AND
ACTS VIII. 37.
THE question is often asked whether one is justified in using the above texts to support (a) the institution of Baptism by our Lord, (b) the use by the Apostolic Church of a confessional creed before Baptism.
I shall in this note confine myself first to the problem of textual criticism, and conclude by referring to the use of the passages.
The question of the last twelve verses of Mark is one which is known to almost all readers of the Bible, for our own R.V. shows clearly that these verses do not stand on quite the same authority as the rest of the Gospel. It even goes so far as to add in a marginal note that two of the oldest MSS. omit the verses. Most other modern translations do the same. Rotherham and the Twentieth Century New Testament give the ending found in our verses 9 to 20, and also another shorter ending found in some MSS. Moffatt does this, and also gives an expansion of verse 14, found in an MS. which has recently been discovered. Weymouth is content to show that the ending usually given is not found in two of the oldest MSS. A Bible reader, therefore, [259] who possesses only a R.V. must be aware that there is here a textual problem.
The most complete vindication of the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Mark is that given by Burgon, and published in 1871.1 This work has not received the attention it deserves. I may say this, as I do not myself agree with its conclusions. It is only fair to say, however, that since Burgon wrote, new evidence has come to light which I think points to the fact that the last twelve verses as we have them were not written by Mark, though this does not necessarily mean that they do not contain the substance of his ending.
What is the evidence, then, stated as briefly as possible? Two of the oldest MSS. end at verse 8. Verses 9 to 20 are known and used by Irenæus (c. 170), but Jerome says that nearly all Greek MSS. in his day did not contain them. Most of the Fathers after Irenæus are acquainted with them, and use them as part of the Gospel. Another later and shorter attempt to complete the Gospel is known (see Rotherham) showing that there was an idea of incompleteness. A late Armenian MS. was discovered in 1891, which ascribes the disputed portion to Ariston, who is mentioned by Papias as being a companion of St. John. Recently an expanded form of the Greek text has been discovered (see Moffatt) in Egypt. This is much longer than our ending. The new manuscript is known as Codex W, and serves to show that in earliest times there was difficulty about the ending of the Gospel. The internal evidence is very weighty against Mark's authorship. [260] Alford points out that no less than twenty-one words are used (some of them several times) which are never elsewhere used by Mark.
"It would seem, then, that verses 9 to 20 are an authentic fragment placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early times," perhaps written by Ariston, but coming to us with sufficient sanction to call for our reception and reverence.
The question now arises: Did the Gospel as written by Mark end at verse 8 or was there an original ending, corresponding in some way to our verses 9-20? The position has been taken that (for some unknown reason) the Gospel as originally written ended abruptly at verse 8; but there are many facts which point to the theory that Mark supplied an ending. If this is so, it must have been lost from the original MS. at a very early date.
The first fact which points to an original ending is the abrupt finish at verse 8. The Gospel finishes with a description of a group of frightened men and women, who were so afraid that they said nothing to anyone. This is entirely out of harmony with the other three Gospels. But, further, the abrupt character of the finish is more evident in the original. The last phrase is ephobounto gar (they were fearing for), and whilst this ending is not absolutely impossible, most scholars agree that an object is required. Codex B, one of the two oldest MSS., which ends at verse 8, leaves a space vacant, amounting to nearly two columns. This it does at no other point in the New Testament. It is most likely, therefore, that there was an ending to the original Gospel, and that what we now have in verses 9 to 20 [261] is an honest attempt to supply--perhaps from memory--the missing portion. If it had been otherwise--an attempt at forgery--its history must have been very different. As it is, it finds its way into all the most ancient versions. (It is omitted from the Sinaitic Palimpset, c. 778 A. D., but found in a fragment of a Syriac version, which is certainly the oldest of all Syriac versions, and takes us back well into the second century.) Moreover, it is used by the Fathers, and meets with no opposition from them. That there was more than one attempt to fill the blank I have already shown; but all the evidence at present available goes to show that this was the generally accepted ending.
Another very important point is that whoever added these twelve verses did so by using other Scriptures. The whole passage shows unmistakable evidence of dependence on John, Luke and Acts. There is nothing, therefore, in these verses which is not witnessed to in other writings. There is first the appearance to Mary Magdalene and her message to the disciples related so graphically by St. John; then there is the appearance to the two going to Emmaus, found in Luke; and finally the appearance to the Eleven, found in Matthew. Next we get the great commission, also found in Matthew. Next follow the signs, which are found in Luke x., and also borne out by the narratives in Acts. Last we have the ascension, and a brief summary of what Luke gives us in Acts.
The only two phrases which might present any difficulty are: (1) He that believeth not shall be condemned, which, however, has a parallel in [262] John iii. 18, where the condemnation receives further explanation; (2) sat on the right hand of God, which, however, by overwhelming evidence is shown to be the belief of the early Church.
As far as the reference to Baptism goes, the passage is a splendid piece of independent testimony as to the practice of the early Church.
MATT. XXVIII. 19
The question of the authenticity of Matthew xxviii. 19 cannot be placed on the same footing as that of Mark xvi. 9-20, because here there is no variation in either manuscripts or versions. The words are included in every known MS. and V.S. The objection to them is based on theological grounds rather than on textual. There is no objection, however, to any part of the verse except the baptismal formula, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is objected that as these are peculiar to the Matthean account; that as their theology is much more advanced than anything else in the Synoptic Gospels; that because we find in Acts a simpler baptismal formula; and that as Eusebius quotes the words from Matthew, but in a different form, they must have been inserted in the Gospel at a later date. I shall examine these positions, but before doing so I must again emphasise that if they were a later insertion, it is very strange that not a single MS. or V.S. has come down to us possessing the shorter form.
First, with regard to Eusebius. He evidently has Matthew's Gospel in mind when he says, "Go [263] ye, make disciples of all nations in My name."2 But, as Dr. Plummer points out, this may be Eusebius' way of reducing to a compact form the longer saying, and, indeed, this would only be in keeping with his purpose expressed--in his preface to his Ecclesiastical History. As Dr. Lock also says: "an exact and full citation was not his object." Moreover, there is nothing strange in this abbreviation of the longer form into the shorter. The Didache has both forms.3 Thus both forms occur in a single document. It must also be remembered that Irenæus and Tertullian (second century) both use the longer form.4
Secondly, with regard to the formulæ in Acts, it is quite possible that they are not strictly formulæ. It may be that there was a variation in the formula in the early days of the Church, and that the words of Jesus in Matthew were not intended to be a strict ritual formula, but were later universally adopted by the Church. If so, this variation would be represented by Acts. But it is more likely that Luke is simply stating that the people were baptised acknowledging Jesus to be Lord and Christ, and the phraseology is parallel with what we have in 1 Corinthians x. 2, baptised into Moses. With this view I think Acts xix. 1-7 agrees. When St. Paul found disciples who had not so much as heard of the Holy Spirit, he immediately asks, "Into what, then, were ye baptised?" Why should he ask this unless in Baptism as administered there was some reference to the Holy Spirit? The Didache (which is accepted [264] by the majority of scholars as a first century document) also confirms this view, for in chapter VII it definitely commands Baptism to be administered with the full formula, but in chapter IX speaks of those who had been baptised into the name of the Lord. It is clear that these are not two different formulæ, but two different modes of expression.
Lastly, with regard to the theology of the formula. The passage is not an isolated example of Trinitarian teaching in the New Testament. The earliest Apostolic teaching presupposes the doctrine.5 But, above all, the teaching about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is found elsewhere explicit in our Lord's sayings,6 and it is implicit throughout the Synoptic Gospels. The whole evidence--so far as scientific criticism goes--establishes without doubt the genuineness of this verse.7
ACTS VIII. 37
Here we have a totally different problem from that of Matthew xxviii. The passage is omitted by all the best ancient authorities, and although it finds its way into our A.V., it is placed in the margin of the R.V., and omitted by Weymouth, Rotherham and Moffatt. A theory has been put forth--mainly on the ground that the passage is found in the Bezan text and also quoted by Irenæus (c. 180)--that it was in the original Acts as written by Luke, but was struck out by him for the sake of brevity when he [265] revised his text. It is pointed out also that the text of Acts is incomplete if this verse is left out, but this is doubtful. The other theory to account for the fact that most MSS. omit the verse is that it was an early interpolation into the text reflecting the normal custom of the Primitive Church, and this theory, I think, has more to be said in its favour.
If we accept this latter theory, however, it does not at all follow that the baptismal confession was not uttered by the Ethiopian. Luke is not concerned to enter into details at every point, and often does not state things which would be taken for granted by the Christians of the day, or by those who like Theophilus were acquainted with Christianity. The evidence for the baptismal creed, in fact, does not rest upon this verse at all, except that as an early interpolation we have in fact double attestation to the custom of the Apostolic Church. Confession was demanded of Jews, and was made by Abraham when he called upon the name of the Lord.8 These actual words are used in connection with St. Paul's Baptism.9 The great confession of St. Peter was the foundation on which the Church was built, and this open confession was demanded by Jesus of all true disciples.10 Dr. Anderson Scott says: "In the Apostolic Church this confession was insisted upon as a sign of true conversion and a condition of baptism."11 It is not clear that its exact form was always the same; but it is clear that it demanded [266] the recognition of Jesus as Lord.12 In some cases it seems to have included the doctrine of the resurrection.13 As heresy developed, this confession seems to have received further interpretation, as in the Johannine epistles, which had to meet the Docetic heresy about the Person of Christ.14 It is referred to in such passages as 1 Timothy vi. 12, Hebrews iii. 1, Hebrews iv. 14. It is clear that in New Testament times this statement of belief found in Acts viii. 37 was essentially the same everywhere and was demanded at Baptism; and, as Dr. Norwood--referring to this very passage--says: "Is there any evidence that more than this simple affirmation was required in those first days? I cannot find that more was required."15
As to the honesty of using such passages, I think this can only refer to Mark and Acts, as we have no textual grounds for rejecting Matthew. Most preachers, I feel, do not quote them as a basis for any argument without some comment on the textual problem, and if people are possessed of a R.V. they cannot be ignorant of the problem. The question of honesty, I feel, is hardly fair. I cannot conceive that there is any dishonesty if we are convinced that they, are in harmony with what is revealed elsewhere regarding the practice of the Apostolic Church; and this I have tried to show is the case. That the case for Baptism and the confession is weakened by using them as evidence I cannot agree, although it might be if just introduced into a sermon; on the other hand, I think if we are to be guided by the Apostolic [267] Church the case is enormously strengthened, for we have double attestation of a kind which is very valuable. That the case for Baptism is complete without them I quite agree--in fact, the case for Baptism and confession of faith does not rest on textual theology at all, but on the whole history of the Christian Church, as shown to us first in the New Testament and then in the Apostolic Fathers.
[EOCU 259-268]
|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
William Robinson Essays on Christian Unity (1924) |
|
Send Addenda, Corrigenda, and Sententiae to
the editor |