[ 329 ] 



XVI. 



02^ THE GHEEK TEXT OF ST. MIRK'S GOSPEL. 



Ey PEOFESSOR FRIEDRICH BLASS, 



Hon. Litt. D., Dublik. 



[Read April 10, 1899.] 



It is by the request of your Secretary, the Rev. Dr. Bernard, that I 

 have the privilege of addressing you to-day on a subject which may 

 give you some interest. 



The textual criticism in St. Mark is of a more difficult order than 

 that in any other Gospel, except perhaps St. John. It is true that 

 every one of the four Gospels presents its special difficulties, even St. 

 Matthew, the text of which is comparatively well established ; but 

 nevertheless, when one turns from Matthew to Mark, he feels as if he 

 turned from a smooth path into a stony one, or (which is even more to 

 the point) from firm ground into deep and shifting sands. As sands con- 

 sist of an infinite number of very small particles, so the textual criticism 

 iu Mark resolves itself into a nearly infinite number of small questions, 

 which are, perhaps, more harassing than perplexing, but in any case 

 very trying to the patience of the critic. But do not expect that 

 I shall invite you to walk with me through anything like sands. 

 There are, among these sands, some much bigger particles, or, to 

 abandon a simile which only partially suits the condition of this 

 Gospel, there are besides the many small difficulties some very great 

 ones, which may be of interest to any reader. 



You are no doubt aware that there has been a strong, and, upon 

 the whole, victorious tendency, in this country as well as in Germany, 

 to replace the so-called textus-receptus of the New Testament, which 

 had been in authority for centuries, by another textus-receptus, 

 founded upon the evidence of the oldest Greek manuscripts. The 

 different editions of the sacred books, published in this century either 

 in England or in Germany, may disagree in many points; but as the 

 foundation is in every edition the same, the concordance is more promi- 

 nent than the discrepancies, and so I am well entitled to speak of a 

 new textus-receptus. But I feel quite sure that this is by no means 



E.I.A. PEOC, SEE. III., VOL. V. 2B 



