CHAPTER XII.

GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT.

This discussion narrowed to a single issue (p. 244).—That S. Mark’s Gospel was imperfect from the very first, a thing altogether incredible (p. 246):—But that at some very remote period Copies have suffered mutilation, a supposition probable in the highest degree (p. 248).—Consequences of this admission (p. 252).—Parting words (p. 254.)

This Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem was fully explained at the outset.(459) All the known evidence has since been produced,(460) every Witness examined.(461) Counsel has been heard on both sides. A just Sentence will assuredly follow. But it may not be improper that I should in conclusion ask leave to direct attention to the single issue which has to be decided, and which has been strangely thrust into the background and practically kept out of sight, by those who have preceded me in this Investigation. The case stands simply thus:—

It being freely admitted that, in the beginning of the ivth century, there must have existed Copies of the Gospels in which the last chapter of S. Mark extended no further than ver. 8, the Question arises,—How is this phenomenon to be accounted for?... The problem is not only highly interesting and strictly legitimate, but it is even inevitable. In the immediately preceding chapter, I have endeavoured to solve it, and I believe in a wholly unsuspected way.

But the most recent Editors of the text of the New Testament, declining to entertain so much as the possibility that certain copies of the second Gospel had experienced mutilation in very early times in respect of these Twelve concluding Verses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather with conjectures as to how it may have happened that S. Mark’s Gospel was without a conclusion from the very first. Persuaded that no more probable account is to be given of the phenomenon than that the Evangelist himself put forth a Gospel which (for some unexplained reason) terminated abruptly at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (chap. xvi. 8),—they have unhappily seen fit to illustrate the liveliness of this conviction of theirs, by presenting the world with his Gospel mutilated in this particular way. Practically, therefore, the question has been reduced to the following single issue:—Whether of the two suppositions which follow is the more reasonable:

First,—That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the hands of its inspired Author, was in this imperfect or unfinished state; ending abruptly at (what we call now) the 8th verse of the last chapter:—of which solemn circumstance, at the end of eighteen centuries, Cod. B and Cod. א are the alone surviving Manuscript witnesses?... or,

Secondly,—That certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel having suffered mutilation in respect of their Twelve concluding Verses in the post-Apostolic age, Cod. B and Cod. א are the only examples of MSS. so mutilated which are known to exist at the present day?

I. Editors who adopt the former hypothesis, are observed (a) to sever the Verses in question from their context:(462)—(b) to introduce after ver. 8, the subscription “ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ:”(463)—(c) to shut up verses 9-20 within brackets.(464) Regarding them as “no integral part of the Gospel”(465)—“as an authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down,”(466)—a “remarkable Fragment,” “placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early times;”(467)—they consider themselves at liberty to go on to suggest that “the Evangelist may have been interrupted in his work:” at any rate, that “something may have occurred, (as the death of S. Peter,) to cause him to leave it unfinished.”(468) But “the most probable supposition” (we are assured) “is, that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.”(469)

We listen with astonishment; contenting ourselves with modestly suggesting that surely it will be time to conjecture why S. Mark’s Gospel was left by its Divinely inspired Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has been established that it probably was so left. In the meantime, we request to be furnished with some evidence of that fact.

But not a particle of Evidence is forthcoming. It is not even pretended that any such evidence exists. Instead, we are magisterially informed by “the first Biblical Critic in Europe,”—(I desire to speak of him with gratitude and respect, but S. Mark’s Gospel is a vast deal more precious to me than Dr. Tischendorf’s reputation,)—that “a healthy piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as Mark’s what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn [where?] to have known nothing at all about.”(470) In the meanwhile, it is assumed to be a more reasonable supposition,—(α) That S. Mark published an imperfect Gospel; and that the Twelve Verses with which his Gospel concludes were the fabrication of a subsequent age; than,—(β) That some ancient Scribe having with design or by accident left out these Twelve concluding Verses, copies of the second Gospel so mutilated become multiplied, and in the beginning of the ivth century existed in considerable numbers.

And yet it is notorious that very soon after the Apostolic age, liberties precisely of this kind were freely taken with the text of the New Testament. Origen (A.D. 185-254) complains of the licentious tampering with the Scriptures which prevailed in his day. “Men add to them,” (he says) “or leave out,—as seems good to themselves.”(471) Dionysius of Corinth, yet earlier, (A.D. 168-176) remarks that it was no wonder his own writings were added to and taken from, seeing that men presumed to deprave the Word of GOD in the same manner.(472) Irenæus, his contemporary, (living within seventy years of S. John’s death,) complains of a corrupted Text.(473) We are able to go back yet half a century, and the depravations of Holy Writ become avowed and flagrant.(474) A competent authority has declared it “no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has been ever subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed.”(475) Above all, it is demonstrable that Cod. B and Cod. א abound in unwarrantable omissions very like the present;(476) omissions which only do not provoke the same amount of attention because they are of less moment. One such extraordinary depravation of the Text, in which they also stand alone among MSS. and to which their patrons are observed to appeal with triumphant complacency, has been already made the subject of distinct investigation. I am much mistaken if it has not been shewn in my VIIth chapter, that the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1, is just as unauthorized,—quite as serious a blemish,—as the suppression of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.

Now, in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of any Evidence whatever to prove that S. Mark’s Gospel was imperfect from the first,—I submit that an hypothesis so violent and improbable, as well as so wholly uncalled for, is simply undeserving of serious attention. For,

(1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the improbability of the hypothesis is excessive; “the contents of these Verses being such as to preclude the supposition that they were the work of a post-Apostolic period. The very difficulties which they present afford the strongest presumption of their genuineness.” No fabricator of a supplement to S. Mark’s Gospel would have ventured on introducing so many minute seeming discrepancies: and certainly “his contemporaries would not have accepted and transmitted such an addition,” if he had. It has also been shewn at great length that the Internal Evidence for the genuineness of these Verses is overwhelmingly strong.(477) But,

(2nd.) Even external Evidence is not wanting. It has been acutely pointed out long since, that the absence of a vast assemblage of various Readings in this place, is, in itself, a convincing argument that we have here to do with no spurious appendage to the Gospel.(478) Were this a deservedly suspected passage, it must have shared the fate of all other deservedly (or undeservedly) suspected passages. It never could have come to pass that the various Readings which these Twelve Verses exhibit would be considerably fewer than those which attach to the last twelve verses of any of the other three Gospels.

(3rd.) And then surely, if the original Gospel of S. Mark had been such an incomplete work as is feigned, the fact would have been notorious from the first, and must needs have become the subject of general comment.(479) It may be regarded as certain that so extraordinary a circumstance would have been largely remarked upon by the Ancients, and that evidence of the fact would have survived in a hundred quarters. It is, I repeat, simply incredible that Tradition would have proved so utterly neglectful of her office as to remain quite silent on such a subject, if the facts had been such as are imagined. Either Papias, or else John the Presbyter,—Justin Martyr, or Hegesippus, or one of the “Seniores apud Irenæum,”—Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, or Hippolytus,—if not Origen, yet at least Eusebius,—if not Eusebius, yet certainly Jerome,—some early Writer, I say, must certainly have recorded the tradition that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired author, was an incomplete or unfinished work. The silence of the Ancients, joined to the inherent improbability of the conjecture,—(that silence so profound, this improbability so gross!)—is enough, I submit, in the entire absence of Evidence on the other side, to establish the very contradictory of the alternative which recent Critics are so strenuous in recommending to our acceptance.

(4th.) But on the contrary. We have indirect yet convincing testimony that the oldest copies of all did contain the Verses in question:(480) while so far are any of the Writers just now enumerated from recording that these verses were absent from the early copies, that five out of those ten Fathers actually quote, or else refer to the verses in question in a way which shews that in their day they were the recognised termination of S. Mark’s Gospel.(481)

We consider ourselves at liberty, therefore, to turn our attention to the rival alternative. Our astonishment is even excessive that it should have been seriously expected of us that we could accept without Proof of any sort,—without a particle of Evidence, external, internal, or even traditional,—the extravagant hypothesis that S. Mark put forth an unfinished Gospel; when the obvious and easy alternative solicits us, of supposing,

II. That, at some period subsequent to the time of the Evangelist, certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel suffered that mutilation in respect of their last Twelve Verses of which we meet with no trace whatever, no record of any sort, until the beginning of the fourth century.

(i.) And the facts which now meet us on the very threshold, are in a manner conclusive: for if Papias and Justin Martyr [A.D. 150] do not refer to, yet certainly Irenæus [A.D. 185] and Hippolytus [A.D. 190-227] distinctly quote Six out of the Twelve suspected Verses,—which are also met with in the two oldest Syriac Versions, as well as in the old Latin Translation. Now the latest of these authorities is earlier by full a hundred years than the earliest record that the verses in question were ever absent from ancient MSS. At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as Cyprian relates,) [A.D. 256] Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven African Bishops there assembled, quoted the 17th verse in the presence of the Council.

(ii.) Nor is this all.(482) Besides the Gothic and Egyptian versions in the ivth century; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, and Augustine in the vth, to say nothing of Codices A and C;—the Lectionary of the Church universal, probably from the second century of our æra, is found to bestow its solemn and emphatic sanction on every one of these Twelve Verses. They are met with in every MS. of the Gospels in existence, uncial and cursive,—except two;(483) they are found in every Version; and are contained besides in every known Lectionary, where they are appointed to be read at Easter and on Ascension Day.(484)

(iii.) Early in the ivth century, however, we are encountered by a famous place in the writings of Eusebius [A.D. 300-340], who, (as I have elsewhere explained,(485)) is the only Father who delivers any independent testimony on this subject at all. What he says has been strangely misrepresented. It is simply as follows:—

(a) One, “Marinus,” is introduced quoting this part of S. Mark’s Gospel without suspicion, and enquiring, How its opening statement is to be reconciled with S. Matth. xxviii. 1? Eusebius, in reply, points out that a man whose only object was to get rid of the difficulty, might adopt the expedient of saying that this last section of S. Mark’s Gospel “is not found in all the copies:” (μὴ ἐν ἁπᾶσι φέρεσθαι.) Declining, however, to act thus presumptuously in respect of anything claiming to be a part of Evangelical Scripture, (οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ φερομένων,)—he adopts the hypothesis that the text is genuine. Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, he begins: and he enters at once without hesitation on an elaborate discussion to shew how the two places may be reconciled.(486) What there is in this to countenance the notion that in the opinion of Eusebius “the Gospel according to S. Mark originally terminated at the 8th verse of the last chapter,”—I profess myself unable to discover. I draw from his words the precisely opposite inference. It is not even clear to me that the Verses in dispute were absent from the copy which Eusebius habitually employed. He certainly quotes one of those verses once and again.(487) On the other hand, the express statement of Victor of Antioch [A.D. 450?] that he knew of the mutilation, but had ascertained by Critical research the genuineness of this Section of Scripture, and had adopted the Text of the authentic “Palestinian” Copy,(488)—is more than enough to outweigh the faint presumption created (as some might think) by the words of Eusebius, that his own copy was without it. And yet, as already stated, there is nothing whatever to shew that Eusebius himself deliberately rejected the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. Still less does that Father anywhere say, or even hint, that in his judgment the original Text of S. Mark was without them. If he may be judged by his words, he accepted them as genuine: for (what is at least certain) he argues upon their contents at great length, and apparently without misgiving.

(b) It is high time however to point out that, after all, the question to be decided is, not what Eusebius thought on this subject, but what is historically probable. As a plain matter of fact, the sum of the Patristic Evidence against these Verses is the hypothetical suggestion of Eusebius already quoted; which, (after a fashion well understood by those who have given any attention to these studies), is observed to have rapidly propagated itself in the congenial soil of the vth century. And even if it could be shewn that Eusebius deliberately rejected this portion of Scripture, (which has never been done,)—yet, inasmuch as it may be regarded as certain that those famous codices in the library of his friend Pamphilus at Cæsarea, to which the ancients habitually referred, recognised it as genuine,(489)—the only sufferer from such a conflict of evidence would surely be Eusebius himself: (not S. Mark, I say, but Eusebius:) who is observed to employ an incorrect text of Scripture on many other occasions; and must (in such case) be held to have been unduly partial to copies of S. Mark in the mutilated condition of Cod. B or Cod. א. His words were translated by Jerome;(490) adopted by Hesychius;(491) referred to by Victor;(492) reproduced “with a difference” in more than one ancient scholion.(493) But they are found to have died away into a very faint echo when Euthymius Zigabenus(494) rehearsed them for the last time in his Commentary on the Gospels, A.D. 1116. Exaggerated and misunderstood, behold them resuscitated after an interval of seven centuries by Griesbach, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles and the rest: again destined to fall into a congenial, though very differently prepared soil; and again destined (I venture to predict) to die out and soon to be forgotten for ever.

(iv.) After all that has gone before, our two oldest Codices (Cod. B and Cod. א) which alone witness to the truth of Eusebius’ testimony as to the state of certain copies of the Gospels in his own day, need not detain us long. They are thought to be as old as the ivth century: they are certainly without the concluding section of S. Mark’s Gospel. But it may not be forgotten that both Codices alike are disfigured throughout by errors, interpolations and omissions without number; that their testimony is continually divergent; and that it often happens that where they both agree they are both demonstrably in error.(495) Moreover, it is a highly significant circumstance that the Vatican Codex (B), which is the more ancient of the two, exhibits a vacant column at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel,—the only vacant column in the whole codex: whereby it is shewn that the Copyist was aware of the existence of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, even though he left them out:(496) while the original Scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus (א) is declared by Tischendorf to have actually omitted the concluding verse of S. John’s Gospel,—in which unenviable peculiarity it stands alone among MSS.(497)

(I.) And thus we are brought back to the point from which we started. We are reminded that the one thing to be accounted for is the mutilated condition of certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel in the beginning of the fourth century; of which, Cod. B and Cod. א are the two solitary surviving specimens,—Eusebius, the one historical witness. We have to decide, I mean, between the evidence for this fact,—(namely, that within the first two centuries and a-half of our æra, the Gospel according to S. Mark suffered mutilation;)—and the reasonableness of the other opinion, namely, that S. Mark’s original autograph extended no farther than ch. xvi. 8. All is reduced to this one issue; and unless any are prepared to prove that the Twelve familiar Verses (ver. 9 to ver. 20) with which S. Mark ends his Gospel cannot be his,—(I have proved on the contrary that he must needs be thought to have written them,(498))—I submit that it is simply irrational to persist in asseverating that the reason why those verses are not found in our two Codexes of the ivth century must be because they did not exist in the original autograph of the Evangelist. What else is this but to set unsupported opinion, or rather unreasoning prejudice, before the historical evidence of a fact? The assumption is not only gratuitous, arbitrary, groundless; but it is discountenanced by the evidence of MSS., of Versions, of Fathers, (Versions and Fathers much older than the ivth century:) is rendered in the highest degree improbable by every internal, every external consideration: is condemned by the deliberate judgment of the universal Church,—which, in its corporate capacity, for eighteen hundred years, in all places, has not only solemnly accepted the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel as genuine, but has even singled them out for special honour.(499)

(II.) Let it be asked in conclusion,—(for this prolonged discussion is now happily at an end,)—Are any inconveniences likely to result from a frank and loyal admission, (in the absence of any Evidence whatever to the contrary,) that doubtless the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are just as worthy of acceptation as the rest? It might reasonably be supposed, from the strenuous earnestness with which the rejection of these Verses is generally advocated, that some considerations must surely be assignable why the opinion of their genuineness ought on no account to be entertained. Do any such reasons exist? Are any inconveniences whatever likely to supervene?

No reasons whatever are assignable, I reply; neither are there any inconvenient consequences of any sort to be anticipated,—except indeed to the Critics: to whom, it must be confessed, the result proves damaging enough.

It will only follow,

(1st) That Cod. B and Cod. א must be henceforth allowed to be in one more serious particular untrustworthy and erring witnesses. They have been convicted, in fact, of bearing false witness in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, where their evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most undoubting confidence.

(2ndly) That the critical statements of recent Editors, and indeed the remarks of Critics generally, in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, will have to undergo serious revision: in every important particular, will have to be unconditionally withdrawn.

(3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Testament, these “Twelve Verses” will have to be restored to their rightful honours: never more appearing disfigured with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished from their context, or molested with notes of suspicion. On the contrary. A few words of caution against the resuscitation of what has been proved to be a “vulgar error,” will have henceforth to be introduced in memoriam rei.

(4thly) Lastly, men must be no longer taught to look with distrust on this precious part of the Deposit; and encouraged to dispute the Divine sayings which it contains on the plea that perhaps they may not be Divine, after all; for that probably the entire section is not genuine. They must be assured, on the contrary, that these Twelve Verses are wholly undistinguishable in respect of genuineness from the rest of the Gospel of S. Mark; and it may not be amiss to remind them the Creed called the “Athanasian” speaks no other language than that employed by the Divine Author of our Religion and Object of our Faith. The Church warns her children against the peril incurred by as many as wilfully reject the Truth, in no other language but that of the Great Head of the Church. No person may presume to speak disparagingly of S. Mark xvi. 16, any more.

(III.) Whether,—after the foregoing exposure of a very prevalent and highly popular, but at the same time most calamitous misapprehension,—it will not become necessary for Editors of the Text of the New Testament to reconsider their conclusions in countless other places:—whether they must not be required to review their method, and to remodel their text throughout, now that they have been shewn the insecurity of the foundation on which they have so confidently builded, and been forced to reverse their verdict in respect of a place of Scripture where at least they supposed themselves impregnable;—I forbear at this time to inquire.

Enough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now done, that not a particle of doubt, that not an atom of suspicion, attaches to “THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK.”

ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.

APPENDIX (A).

On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture.—The correct Text of S. LUKE ii. 14, established.

(Referred to at p. 22.)

In Chapter III. the importance of attending to Patristic citations of Scripture has been largely insisted upon. The controverted reading of S. Luke ii. 14 supplies an apt illustration of the position there maintained, viz. that this subject has not hitherto engaged nearly as much attention as it deserves.

I. Instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, (which is the reading of the “Textus Receptus,”) Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford present us with ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. Their authority for this reading is the consentient testimony of THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. WHICH CONTAIN S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. B, א, A, D): THE LATIN VERSIONS generally (“in hominibus bonae voluntatis”); and THE GOTHIC. Against these are to be set, COD. A (in the Hymn at the end of the Psalms); ALL THE OTHER UNCIALS; together WITH EVERY KNOWN CURSIVE MS.; and EVERY OTHER ANCIENT VERSION in existence.

So far, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed to preponderate in favour of εὐδοκίας: though no judicious Critic, it is thought, should hesitate in deciding in favour of εὐδοκία, even upon the evidence already adduced. The advocates of the popular Theory ask,—But why should the four oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic Versions, conspire in reading εὐδοκίας, if εὐδοκία be right? That question shall be resolved by-and-by. Let them in the mean time tell us, if they can,—How is it credible that, in such a matter as this, every other MS. and every other Version in the world should read εὐδοκία, if εὐδοκία be wrong? But the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited. I proceed to set it forth in detail.

It is found then, that whereas εὐδοκίας is read by none, εὐδοκία is read by all the following Fathers:—

(1) ORIGEN, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 D: ii. 714 B: iv. 15 B,—A.D. 240.]

(2) The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, twice, [vii. 47: viii. 12 ad fin.,—IIrd cent.]

(3) METHODIUS, [Galland. iii. 809 B,—A.D. 290.]

(4) EUSEBIUS, twice, [Dem. Ev. 163 C: 342 B,—A.D. 320.]

(5) APHRAATES THE PERSIAN, (for whose name [suprà, pp. 26-7] that of “Jacobus of Nisibis” has been erroneously substituted), twice, [i. 180 and 385,—A.D. 337.]

(6) TITUS OF BOSTRA, twice, [in loc., but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29 (Cramer, ii. 141, line 20),—A.D. 350.]

(7) GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, [i. 845 C,—A.D. 360.]

(8) CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, [A.D. 370], as will be found explained below.

(9) EPIPHANIUS, [i. 154 D,—A.D. 375.]

(10) CHRYSOSTOM, four times, [vii. 311 B: 674 C: viii. 85 C: xi. 374 B expressly,—A.D. 400.]

(11) CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, in three places, [Comm. on S. Luke, pp. 12 and 16. Also Opp. ii. 593 A: vi. 398 C,—A.D. 420.]

(12) THEODORET, [in Coloss. i. 20,-A.D. 430.]

(13) THEODOTUS OF ANCYRA, [Galland. x. 446 B,—A.D. 430.]

(14) PROCLUS, Abp. of Constantinople, [Gall. x. 629 A,—A.D. 434.]

To which may be added the evidence of

(15) COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, four times repeated, [Coll. Nov. PP., (Montfaucon,) ii. 152 A, 160 D, 247 E, 269 C,—A.D. 535.]

(16) EULOGIUS, Abp. of Alexandria, [Gall. xii. 308 E,—A.D. 581.]

(17) ANDREAS OF CRETE, twice, [Gall. xiii. 100 D, 123 C,—A.D. 635.]

Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers of the Church(500) all concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn as our own Textus Receptus exhibits it,—(viz. ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία,)—who does not see that the four oldest uncial authorities for εὐδοκίας are hopelessly outvoted by authorities yet older than themselves? Here is, to all intents and purposes, a record of what was once found in two Codices of the iiird century; in nine of the ivth; in three of the vth;—added to the testimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian versions. In this instance therefore the evidence of Antiquity is even overwhelming.

Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form in which the Churches of the East preserved the Angelic Hymn in their private, as well as their solemn public Devotions. Take it, from a document of the vth century:—

ΔΟΞΑ ΕΝ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΙΣ ΘΕΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΓΗΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ ΕΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ ΕΥΔΟΚΙΑ.(501)

But the text of this Hymn, as a Liturgical document, at a yet earlier period is unequivocally established by the combined testimony of the Apostolical Constitutions (already quoted,) and of Chrysostom, who says expressly:—Εὐχαριστοῦντες λέγομεν, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. [Opp. xi. 347 B.] Now this incontestably proves that the Church’s established way of reciting the Angelic Hymn in the ivth century was in conformity with the reading of the Textus Receptus. And this fact infinitely outweighs the evidence of any extant MSS. which can be named: for it is the consentient evidence of hundreds,—or rather of thousands of copies of the Gospels of a date anterior to A.D. 400, which have long since perished.

To insist upon this, however, is not at all my present purpose. About the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14, (which is not the reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,) there is clearly no longer any room for doubt. It is perhaps one of the best established readings in the whole compass of the New Testament. My sole object is to call attention to the two following facts:—

(1) That the four oldest Codices which contain S. Luke ii. 14 (B, א, A, D, A.D. 320-520), and two of the oldest Versions, conspire in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn incorrectly.

(2) That we are indebted to fourteen of the Fathers (A.D. 240-434), and to the rest of the ancient Versions, for the true reading of that memorable place of Scripture.

II. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,—

1. IRENÆUS sides with the oldest uncials.—Now, the Greek of the place referred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that survives. According to that evidence, Irenæus, having quoted the place in conformity with the Vulgate reading (iii. c. x. § 41,—“Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,”) presently adds,—“In eo quod dicunt, Gloria in altissimis DEO et in terra pax, eum qui sit altissimorum, hoc est, supercaelestium factor et eorum, quae super terram omnium conditor, his sermonibus glorificaverunt; qui suo plasmati, hoc est hominibus suam benignitatem salutis de caelo misit.” (ed. Stieren, i. 459).—But it must suffice to point out (1) that these words really prove nothing: and (2) that it would be very unsafe to build upon them, even if they did; since (3) it is plain that the Latin translator exhibits the place in the Latin form most familiar to himself: (consider his substitution of “excelsis” for “altissimis.”)

2. Next, ORIGEN is claimed on the same side, on the strength of the following passage in (Jerome’s version of) his lost Homilies on S. Luke:—“Si scriptum esset, Super terram pax, et hucusque esset finita sententia, recte quaestio nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est, hoc est, quod post pacem dicitur, In hominibus bonae voluntatis, solvit quaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super terram, non est pax bonae voluntatis.” (Opp. iii. p. 946.) “From this,” (says Tischendorf, who is followed by Tregelles,) “it is plain that Origen regarded εὐδοκίας as the true reading; not εὐδοκία—which is now thrice found in his Greek writings.”—But,

Is one here more struck with the unfairness of the Critic, or with the feebleness of his reasoning? For,—(to say nothing of the insecurity of building on a Latin Translation,(502) especially in such a matter as the present,)—How can testimony like this be considered to outweigh the three distinct places in the original writings of this Father, where he reads not εὐδοκίας but εὐδοκία? Again. Why is a doubt insinuated concerning the trustworthiness of those three places, (“ut nunc reperitur,”) where there really is no doubt? How is Truth ever to be attained if investigations like the present are to be conducted in the spirit of an eager partisan, instead of with the calm gravity of an impartial judge?

But I may as well state plainly that the context of the passage above quoted shews that Tischendorf’s proposed inference is inadmissible. Origen is supposing some one to ask the following question:—“Since Angels on the night when CHRIST was born proclaimed ‘on earth Peace,’—why does our SAVIOUR say, ‘I am not come to send Peace upon earth, but a sword?’... Consider,” (he proceeds) “whether the answer may not be this:”—and then comes the extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with colloquial truthfulness,) is at his old tricks. He is evidently acquainted with the reading εὐδοκίας: and because it enables him to offer (what appears to him) an ingenious solution of a certain problem, he adopts it for the nonce: his proposal to take the words εἰρήνη εὐδοκίας together, being simply preposterous,—as no one ever knew better than Origen himself.(503)

3. Lastly, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM is invariably cited by the latest Critics as favouring the reading εὐδοκίας. Those learned persons have evidently overlooked the candid acknowledgment of De Touttée, Cyril’s editor, (p. 180, cf. bottom of p. 102,) that though the MSS. of Cyril exhibit εὐδοκία, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured to print εὐδοκίας. This therefore is one more Patristic attestation to the trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of S. Luke ii. 14, which has been hitherto unaccountably lost sight of by Critics. (May I, without offence, remind Editors of Scripture that instead of copying, they ought in every instance to verify their references?)

III. The history of this corruption of the Text is not hard to discover. It is interesting and instructive also.

(1.) In the immediately post-Apostolic age,—if not earlier still,—some Copyist will have omitted the ἐν before ἀνθρώποις. The resemblance of the letters and the similarity of the sound (ΕΝ, ΑΝ,) misled him:—

ΕΝΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ

Every one must see at a glance how easily the thing may have happened. (It is in fact precisely what has happened in Acts iv. 12; where, for ἐν ἀνθρώποις, D and a few cursive MSS. read ἀνθρώποις,—being countenanced therein by the Latin Versions generally, and by them only.)

(2.) The result however—(δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία)—was obviously an impossible sentence. It could not be allowed to stand. And yet it was not by any means clear what had happened to it. In order, as it seems, to force a meaning into the words, some one with the best intentions will have put the sign of the genitive (Σ) at the end of εὐδοκία. The copy so depraved was destined to play an important part; for it became the fontal source of the Latin Version, which exhibits the place thus:—Gloria in altissimis DEO, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.... It is evident, by the way, (if the quotation from Irenæus, given above, is to be depended upon,) that Irenæus must have so read the place: (viz. εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.)

(3.) To restore the preposition (ΕΝ) which had been accidentally thrust out, and to obliterate the sign of the genitive (Σ) which had been without authority thrust in, was an obvious proceeding. Accordingly, every Greek Evangelium extant exhibits ἐν ἀνθρώποις: while all but four (B, א, A, D) read εὐδοκία. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vulgate (e.g. the Cod. Amiatinus,) the preposition (“in”) has found its way back; but the genitive (“bonae voluntatis”) has never been rectified in a single copy of the Latin version.—The Gothic represents a copy which exhibited ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.(504)

The consequence is that a well-nigh untranslatable expression retains its place in the Vulgate to the present hour. Whether (with Origen) we connect εὐδοκίας with εἰρήνη,—or (with the moderns) we propose to understand “men of good pleasure,”—the result is still the same. The harmony of the three-part Anthem which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity is hopelessly marred, and an unintelligible discord substituted in its place. Logic, Divinity, Documents are here all at one. The reading of Stephens is unquestionably correct. The reading of the latest Editors is as certainly corrupt. This is a case therefore where the value of Patristic testimony becomes strikingly apparent. It affords also one more crucial proof of the essential hollowness of the theory on which it has been recently proposed by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest to reconstruct the text of the New Testament.

To some, it may perhaps seem unreasonable that so many words should be devoted to the establishment of the text of a single place of Scripture,—depending, as that text does, on the insertion or the omission of a single letter. I am content to ask in reply,—What is important, if not the utterance of Heaven, when, at the laying of the corner-stone of the New Creation, “the Morning Stars sang together, and all the Sons of GOD shouted for joy?”

IV. Only one word in conclusion.

Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they can pretend to translate it. As for supposing that Scholars who have been appointed to revise a Translation are competent at a moment’s notice, as every fresh difficulty presents itself, to develop the skill requisite for revising the original Text,—it is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts in one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in another.

But it so happens that, on the present occasion, that other Science is one of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists here will find it necessary altogether to disabuse their minds of the Theory of Textual Criticism which is at present the dominant and the popular one,—and of which I have made it my business to expose the fallaciousness, in respect of several crucial texts, in the course of the present work.

I cannot so far forget the unhappy circumstances of the times as to close this note without the further suggestion, (sure therein of the approval of our trans-Atlantic brethren,) that, for a Revision of the Authorized Version to enjoy the confidence of the Nation, and to procure for itself acceptance at the hands of the Church,—it will be found necessary that the work should be confided to Churchmen. The Church may never abdicate her function of being “a Witness and a Keeper of Holy Writ.” Neither can she, without flagrant inconsistency and scandalous consequence, ally herself in the work of Revision with the Sects. Least of all may she associate with herself in the sacred undertaking an Unitarian Teacher,—one who avowedly [see the letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.,” in the “Times” of July 11, 1870] denies the eternal GODhead of her LORD. That the individual alluded to has shewn any peculiar aptitude for the work of a Revisionist; or that he is a famous Scholar; or that he can boast of acquaintance with any of the less familiar departments of Sacred Learning; is not even pretended. (It would matter nothing if the reverse were the case.) What else, then, is this but to offer a deliberate insult to the Majesty of Heaven in the Divine Person of Him who is alike the Object of the Everlasting Gospel, and its Author?

APPENDIX (B).

EUSEBIUS “ad Marinum” concerning the reconcilement of S. Mark xvi. 9 with S. Matthew xxviii. 1.

(Referred to at pp. 46, 47, 54, and 233.)

SUBJOINED is the original text of EUSEBIUS, taken from the “Quæstiones ad Marinum” published by Card. Mai, in his “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca” (Romae, 1847,) vol. iv. pp. 255-7.

I. Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῷ ὄψε σαββάτων φαίνεται ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων.

Τούτου διττὴ ἄν εἴη ἡ λύσις; ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ del.?(505)] τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, εἴποι ἄν μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτὴν φέρεσθαι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου; τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ τέλος περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ ὀφθέντος νεανίσκου ταῖς γυναιξὶ καὶ εἰρηκότος αὐταῖς “μὴ φοβεῖσθε, Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνόν.” καὶ τοῖς ἐξῆς, οἶς ἐπιλέγει: “καὶ ἀκούσασαι ἔφυγον, καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος; τὰ δὲ ἑξῆς σπανίως ἔν τισιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσι φερόμενα περιττὰ ἄν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπεν ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν εἴποι ἄν τις παραιτούμενος καὶ τάντη ἀναιρῶν περιττὸν ἐρώτημα. Ἄλλος δέ τις οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ φερομένον, διπλῆν εἶναι φησι τὴν ἀναγνωσιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις πολλοῖς, ἑκατέραν τε παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρχειν, τῷ μὴ μᾶλλον ταύτην ἐκείνης, ἥ ἐκείνην ταύτης, παρὰ τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ εὐλαβέσιν ἐγκρίνεσθαι.

Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, προσήκει τὸν νοῦν διερμηνεύειν τοῦ ἀναγνώσματος; εἰ γοῦν διέλοιμεν τὴν τοῦ λόγου διάνοιαν, οὐκ ἄν εὕροιμεν αὐτὴν ἐναντίαν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Ματθαίου ὀψὲ σαββάτων ἐγηγέρθαι τὸν Σωτῆρα λελεγμένοις; τὸ γὰρ “ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου” κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον, μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωσόμεθα; καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀναστὰς δὲ, ὑποστίξομεν;(506) καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀφορίζομεν τῶν ἑξῆς ἐπιλεγομένων. εἶτα τὸ μὲν ἀναστὰς ἄν, ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψέ σαββάτων. τότε γὰρ ἐγήγετο; τὸ δὲ ἐξῆς ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις; πρωί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης πρωί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας. οὕτως οὖν καί παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί ἐφάνη αὐτῇ. οὐ πρωί ἀναστὰς, ἀλλὰ πολὺ πρότερον κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου. τότε γὰρ ἀναστὰς ἐφάνη τῇ Μαρίᾳ, οὐ τότε ἀλλὰ πρωί. ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο. τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τὸν ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου, τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν πρωί, ὃν ἔγραψεν ὁ Μάρκος εἰπὼν (ὃ καὶ μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον) ἀναστὰς δέ; εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες, τὸ ἑξῆς ρητέον, πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.

II. Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον ὀψὲ σαββάτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου.

Οὐδὲν ἄν ζητηθείν κατὰ τοὺς τόπους, εἰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων μὴ τὴν ἑσπερινήν ὥραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν, ὥς τινες ὑπειλήφασιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς νυκτὸς τῆς μετὰ τὸ σάββατον, κ.τ.λ.

APPENDIX (C).

Proof that HESYCHIUS is a copyist only in what he says concerning the end of S. Mark’s Gospel.

(Referred to at pp. 57-58.)

§ 1. It was confidently stated above (at p. 58) that HESYCHIUS, discussing the consistency of S. Matthew’s ὀψὲ τῶν σαββάτων (chap. xxviii. 1), with the πρωί of S. Mark (chap. xvi. 9), is a copyist only; and that he copies from the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of EUSEBIUS. The proof of that statement is subjoined. It should perhaps be explained that the extracts in the right-hand column have been dislocated in order to shew their close resemblance to what is set down in the left-hand column from Eusebius:—

(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.) τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων μὴ τὴν τὸ δὲ ὀψὲ σαββάτων οὺ τὴν ἑσπερινὴν ὥραν τὴν μετὰ ἑσπέραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου δύσιν τοῦ ἡλίου δηλοί ... λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς ἀλλὰ ... τὸ βράδιον καὶ νυκτὸς. πολὺ διεστηκὸς ... οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς ὤρας καὶ γάρ που καὶ οὕτως εἰώθαμεν λέγειν, καὶ ὀψὲ ημῖν σύνηθες λέγειν, ὀψὲ τοῦ καιροῦ, καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς τοῦ καιροῦ παραγέγονας; χρείας; οὸ τὴν ἑσπέραν ὀψὲ τῆς ὤρας, ὀψὲ τῆς δηλοῦντες, οὐδὲ τὸν μετὰ χρείας; οὐχὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν, ἡλίου δυσμὰς χρόνον, τὸ καὶ τὸν μετὰ ἡλίου δυσμὰς δὲ σφόδρα βράδιον τούτῳ χρόνον δηλοῦσιν; ἀλλὰ τὸ σημαίνοντες τῷ τρόπῳ; βράδιον ... τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον μηνύουσι. ὄθεν ὥσπερ διερμηνεύων ὁ Ματθαῖος ... ὥσπερ αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ὁ Ματθαῖος ἑρμηνεύων ἑαυτὸν, ἐπήγαγε μετὰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν ἐπήγαγε τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῇ σαββάτων. εἰς μίαν σαββάτων. Ἔθος δὲ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα σάββατον δὲ τὴν πᾶσαν σάββατον καλεῖν. ἑβδομάσα καλεῖν Ἑβραίοις ἔθος. λέγεται γοῦν παρὰ τοῖς αὐτίκα γοῦν οἱ Εὐαγγελισταῖς τῇ μιᾷ τῶν εὐαγγελισταὶ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; σαββάτων φασί; ἐν δὲ τῇ συνηθείᾳ, οὔτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ δευτέρα σαββάτων, καί συνηθείᾳ κεκχρήμεθα, τρίτη σαββάτων. δευτέραν σαββάτων, καὶ τρίτη σαββάτων. (EUSEBIUS ad Marinum, (GREG. NYSS. [vid. apud Mai, vol. iv. p. suprà, p. 39 bto 41.] 257-8.) Opp. vol. iii. p. 402.)

§ 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original text of the passage of HESYCHIUS exhibited in English at p. 57. The intention of setting down the parallel passages from EUSEBIUS, and from VICTOR of Antioch, is in order to shew the sources from which Hesychius obtained his materials,—as explained at p. 58:—

(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.) τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀντιγράφων τὸ τέλος ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς μεχρὶ τοῦ “ἐφοβοῦντο λόγοις κ.τ.λ. οἶς γὰρ,” ἔχει τὸ τέλος. ἐπιλέγει; ... “καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν, εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” (EUSEBIUS ad Marinum, apud Mai, iv. p. 255.) (VICTOR OF ANTIOCH.) ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι ... ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ πρόσκειται ... “Ἀναστὰς” ταῦτα. “Ἀναστὰς” κ.τ.λ. κ.τ.λ. δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτο τοῦτο δὲ ἐναντίωσίν τινα διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου δοκεῖ ἔχειν πρὸς τὰ εἰρημένῳ.... ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένα; [τῆς γὰρ ὤρας τῆς νυκτὸς ἀγνώστου τυγχανούσης καθ᾽ ἤν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνέστη, πῶς ἐνταῦθα ἀναστῆναι “πρωί” γέγραπται; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐναντίον φανήσεται τὸ ῥητὸν, εἱ] οὅτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα; μετ᾽ ἐπιστήμης “Ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ ἀναγνωσόμεθα; καὶ γὰρ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, ὑποστῖξαι δεῖ συνετῶς; “πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων “Ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ οὕτως ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ ἐπαγάγειν, “πρωί πρώτῃ Μαγδαληνῇ;” ἵνα τὸ μὲν σαββάτων ἐφάνη πρῶτον “ἀναστὰς”— Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.” ἵνα τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς” (VICTOR ANTIOCH, ed. Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to line 27.) [ἔχη τὴν ἀναφορὰν συμφώνως τῷ Ματθαίῳ, πρὸς τὸν προλαβόντα καιρὸν, τὸ δὲ “πρωί” πρὸς τὴν τῆς Μαρίας γενομένην ἐπιφάνειαν ἀποδοθείη.] (GREG. NYSS. Opp. vol. iii. p. 411, B, C, D: which may be also seen in Cramer’s Catenae, [vol. i. p. 250, line 21 to line 33,] ascribed to “SEVERUS, Archbishop of Antioch,” [Ibid., p. 243.])

APPENDIX (D).

Some account of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH’S Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain Victor’s Work.

(Referred to at p. 60.)

“Après avoir examiné avec soin les MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roi,” (says the Père Simon in his Hist. Crit. du N. T. p. 79,) “j’ai réconnu que cet ouvrage” (he is speaking of the Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel popularly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,) “n’est ni d’Origéne, ni de Victor d’Antioche, ni de Cyrille, ni d’aucun autre auteur en particulier. C’est un recueil de plusieurs Pères, dont on a marqué les noms dans quelques exemplaires; et si ces noms ne se trouvent point dans d’autres, cela est assez ordinaire à ces recueils, qu’on appelle chaînes.”(507) It will be seen from the notices of the work in question already offered, (suprà, p. 59 to p. 65,) that I am able to yield only a limited acquiescence in this learned writer’s verdict. That the materials out of which VICTOR OF ANTIOCH constructed his Commentary are scarcely ever original,—is what no one will deny who examines the work with attention. But the Author of a compilation is an Author still; and to put Victor’s claim to the work before us on a level with that of Origen or of Cyril, is entirely to misrepresent the case and hopelessly to perplex the question.

Concerning VICTOR himself, nothing whatever is known except that he was “a presbyter of Antioch.” Concerning his Work, I will not here repeat what I have already stated elsewhere; but, requesting the Reader to refer to what was remarked at pp. 59 to 65, I propose to offer a few observations with which I was unwilling before to encumber the text; holding it to be a species of duty for those who have given any time and attention to a subject like the present to contribute the result, (however slender and unsatisfactory it may prove,) to the common store. Let abler men enlarge the ensuing scanty notices, and correct me if in any respect I shall have inadvertently fallen into error.

1. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark’s Gospel, which generally claims on its front “VICTOR, PRESBYTER OF ANTIOCH,” for its Author.(508) A Latin translation of this work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the first instance, published at Ingolstadt in 1580,(509) by Theodore Peltanus. His Latin version found its way at once into “Bibliothecæ,” (or Collections of Writings of the Fathers,) and has been again and again reprinted.

2. The Greek text of Victor was first published at Rome by Peter Possinus in 1673, from a MS. existing somewhere in Germany; which Bathazar Corderius had transcribed and presented to Possinus about thirty years before. Corderius gave Possinus at the same time his transcript of an anonymous Commentary on S. Mark preserved in the Vatican; and Possinus had already in his possession the transcript of a third Commentary on the same Evangelist (also anonymous) which he had obtained from the Library of Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse. These three transcripts Possinus published in a well-known volume. It is to be wished that he had kept them distinct, instead of to some extent blending their contents confusedly into one.(510) Still, the dislocated paragraphs of Victor of Antioch are recognisable by the name of their author (“Victor Antiochenus”) prefixed to each: while “Tolosanus” designates the Toulouse MS.: “Vaticanus” (or simply “Anonymus”) the Vatican.

3. At the end of another century, (1775) C. F. Matthaei put forth at Moscow, with his usual skill and accuracy, a new and independent Edition of Victor’s Commentary:(511) the text of which is based on four of the Moscow MSS. This work, which appeared in two parts, has become of extraordinary rarity. I have only just ascertained (June, 1871,) that one entire Copy is preserved in this country.

4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume of his Catenae on the N. T., reproduced Victor’s work from independent MS. sources. He took for his basis two Codices in the Paris Library, (No. 186 and No. 188), which, however, prove to have been anciently so exactly assimilated the one to the other [infrà, p. 279] as to be, in fact, but duplicates of one and the same original. Cramer supplemented their contents from Laud. Gr. 33, (in the Bodleian:) Coisl. 23: and Reg. 178 at Paris. The result has been by far the fullest and most satisfactory exhibition of the Commentary of Victor of Antioch which has hitherto appeared. Only is it to be regretted that the work should have been suffered to come abroad disfigured in every page with errors so gross as to be even scandalous, and with traces of slovenly editorship which are simply unintelligible. I cannot bring myself to believe that Dr. Cramer ever inspected the MSS. in the Paris Library in person. Else would the slender advantage which those abundant materials have proved to so learned and accomplished a scholar, be altogether unaccountable. Moreover, he is incorrect in what he says about them:(512) while his reasons for proposing to assign the work of Victor of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are undeserving of serious attention.

On a comparison of these four Editions of the same work, it is discovered that the Latin version of Peltanus (1580), represents the same Greek text which Possinus gave to the world in 1673. Peltanus translates very loosely; in fact he paraphrases rather than translates his author, and confesses that he has taken great liberties with Victor’s text. But I believe it will be found that there can have been no considerable discrepancy between the MS. which Peltanus employed, and that which Possinus afterwards published.—Not so the text which Matthaei edited, which is in fact for the most part, (though not invariably,) rather an Epitome of Victor’s Commentary. On the other hand, Cramer’s text is more full than that of Possinus. There seem to be only a few lines in Possinus, here and there, which are not to be met with in Cramer; whereas no less than twenty-eight of Cramer’s pages are not found in the work of Possinus. Cramer’s edition, therefore, is by far the most complete which has hitherto appeared. And though it cries aloud for revision throughout; though many important corrections might easily be introduced into it, and the whole brought back in countless particulars more nearly to the state in which it is plain that Victor originally left it;—I question whether more than a few pages of additional matter could easily be anywhere recovered. I collated several pages of Cramer (Oct. 1869) with every MS. of Victor in the Paris Library; and all but invariably found that Cramer’s text was fuller than that of the MS. which lay before me. Seldom indeed did I meet with a few lines in any MS. which had not already seen the light in Cramer’s edition. One or other of the four Codices which he employed seems to fill up almost every hiatus which is met with in any of the MSS. of this Father.

For it must be stated, once for all, that an immense, and I must add, a most unaccountable discrepancy is observable between the several extant copies of Victor: yet not so much in respect of various readings, or serious modifications of his text; (though the transpositions are very frequent, and often very mischievous;(513)) as resulting from the boundless license which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed himself chiefly in abridging his author.—To skip a few lines: to omit an explanatory paragraph, quotation, or digression: to pass per saltum from the beginning to the end of a passage: sometimes to leave out a whole page: to transpose: to paraphrase: to begin or to end with quite a different form of words;—proves to have been the rule. Two copyists engaged on the same portion of Commentary are observed to abridge it in two quite different ways. I question whether there exist in Europe three manuscripts of Victor which correspond entirely throughout. The result is perplexing in a high degree. Not unfrequently (as might be expected) we are presented with two or even three different exhibitions of one and the same annotation.(514) Meanwhile, as if to render the work of collation (in a manner) impossible,—(1) Peltanus pleads guilty to having transposed and otherwise taken liberties with the text he translated: (2) Possinus confessedly welded three codices into one: (3) Matthaei pieced and patched his edition out of four MSS.; and (4) Cramer, out of five.

The only excuse I can invent for this strange licentiousness on the part of Victor’s ancient transcribers is this:—They must have known perfectly well, (in fact it is obvious,) that the work before them was really little else but a compilation; and that Victor had already abridged in the same merciless way the writings of the Fathers (Chrysostom chiefly) from whom he obtained his materials. We are to remember also, I suppose, the labour which transcription involved, and the costliness of the skins out of which ancient books were manufactured. But when all has been said, I must candidly admit that the extent of license which the ancients evidently allowed themselves quite perplexes me.(515) Why, for example, remodel the structure of a sentence and needlessly vary its phraseology? Never I think in my life have I been more hopelessly confused than in the Bibliothèque, while attempting to collate certain copies of Victor of Antioch.

I dismiss this feature of the case by saying that if any person desires a sample of the process I have been describing, he cannot do better than bestow a little attention on the “Preface” (ὑπόθεσις) at the beginning of Victor’s Commentary. It consists of thirty-eight lines in Cramer’s edition: of which Possinus omits eleven; and Matthaei also, eleven;—but not the same eleven. On the other hand, Matthaei(516) prolongs the Preface by eight lines. Strange to relate, the MS. from which Cramer professes to publish, goes on differently. If I may depend on my hasty pencilling, after ἐκκλησίαις [Cramer, i. p. 264, line 16,] Evan. 300, [ = Reg. 186, fol. 93, line 16 from bottom] proceeds,—Κλήμης ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων, (thirty-one lines, ending) χαρακτήρ ἐγένετο.

On referring to the work of Possinus, “Anonymus Vaticanus” is found to exhibit so admirable a condensation (?) of the ὑπόθεσις in question, that it is difficult to divest oneself of the suspicion that it must needs be an original and independent composition; the germ out of which the longer Preface has grown.... We inspect the first few pages of the Commentary, and nothing but perplexity awaits us at every step. It is not till we have turned over a few pages that we begin to find something like exact correspondence.

As for the Work,—(for I must now divest myself of the perplexing recollections which the hurried collation of so many MSS. left behind; and plainly state that, in spite of all, I yet distinctly ascertained, and am fully persuaded that the original work was one,—the production, no doubt, of “Victor, Presbyter of Antioch,” as 19 out of the 52 MSS. declare):—For the Commentary itself, I say, Victor explains at the outset what his method had been. Having failed to discover any separate exposition of S. Mark’s Gospel, he had determined to construct one, by collecting the occasional notices scattered up and down the writings of Fathers of the Church.(517) Accordingly, he presents us in the first few lines of his Commentary (p. 266) with a brief quotation from the work of Eusebius “to Marinus, on the seeming inconsistency of the Evangelical accounts of the Resurrection;” following it up with a passage from “the vith [viith?] tome of Origen’s Exegetics on S. John’s Gospel.” We are thus presented at the outset with two of Victor’s favorite authorities. The work of Eusebius just named he was evidently thoroughly familiar with.(518) I suspect that he has many an unsuspected quotation from its pages. Towards the end of his Commentary, (as already elsewhere explained,) he quotes it once and again.

Of Origen also Victor was evidently very fond(519): and his words on two or three occasions seem to shew that he had recourse besides habitually to the exegetical labours of Apolinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Titus of Bostra.(520) Passages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met with;(521) and once at least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil. The historian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name.(522)

But the Father to whom Victor is chiefly indebted is Chrysostom,—whom he styles “the blessed John, Bishop of the Royal City;” (meaning Constantinople(523)). Not that Victor, strictly speaking, transcribes from Chrysostom; at least, to any extent. His general practice is slightly to adapt his Author’s language to his own purpose; sometimes, to leave out a few words; a paragraph; half a page.(524) Then, he proceeds to quote another Father probably; or, it may be, to offer something of his own. But he seldom gives any intimation of what it is he does: and if it were not for the occasional introduction of the phrase ὁ μέν φησι or ἄλλος δέ φησι,(525) a reader of Victor’s Commentary might almost mistake it for an original composition. So little pains does this Author take to let his reader know when he is speaking in his own person, when not, that he has not scrupled to retain Chrysostom’s phrases ἐγὼ δὲ οἶμαι,(526) &c. The result is that it is often impossible to know to whose sentiments we are listening. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that ancient ideas concerning authorship differed entirely from those of modern times; especially when Holy Scripture was to be commented on.

I suspect that, occasionally, copyists of Victor’s work, as they recognised a fragment here and there, prefixed to it the name of its author. This would account for the extremely partial and irregular occurrence of such notes of authorship; as well as explain why a name duly prefixed in one copy is often missing in another.(527) Whether Victor’s Commentary can in strictness be called a “Catena,” or not, must remain uncertain until some one is found willing to undertake the labour of re-editing his pages; from which, by the way, I cannot but think that some highly interesting (if not some important) results would follow.

Yet, inasmuch as Victor never, or certainly very seldom, prefixes to a passage from a Father the name of its Author;—above all, seeing that sometimes, at all events, he is original, or at least speaks in his own person;—I think the title of “Catena” inappropriate to his Commentary.

As favourable and as interesting a specimen of this work as could be found, is supplied by his annotation on S. Mark xiv. 3. He begins as follows, (quoting Chrysostom, p. 436):—“One and the same woman seems to be spoken of by all the Evangelists. Yet is this not the case. By three of them one and the same seems to be spoken of; not however by S. John, but another famous person,—the sister of Lazarus. This is what is said by John, the Bishop of the Royal City.—Origen on the other hand says that she who, in S. Matthew and S. Mark, poured the ointment in the house of Simon the leper was a different person from the sinner whom S. Luke writes about who poured the ointment on His feet in the house of the Pharisee.—Apolinarius(528) and Theodorus say that all the Evangelists mention one and the same person; but that John rehearses the story more accurately than the others. It is plain, however, that Matthew, Mark, and John speak of the same individual; for they relate that Bethany was the scene of the transaction; and this is a village; whereas Luke [viii. 37] speaks of some one else; for, ‘Behold,’ (saith he) ‘a woman in the city which was a sinner,’ ” &c., &c.

But the most important instance by far of independent and sound judgment is supplied by that concluding paragraph, already quoted and largely remarked upon, at pp. 64-5; in which, after rehearsing all that had been said against the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, Victor vindicates their genuineness by appealing in his own person to the best and the most authentic copies. The Reader is referred to Victor’s Text, which is given below, at p. 288.

It only remains to point out, that since Chrysostom, (whom Victor speaks of as ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις,[p. 408,] and ὁ μακαριος, [p. 442,]) died in A.D. 407, it cannot be right to quote “401” as the date of Victor’s work. Rather would A.D. 450 be a more reasonable suggestion: seeing that extracts from Cyril, who lived on till A.D. 444, are found here and there in Victor’s pages. We shall not perhaps materially err if we assign A.D. 430-450 as Victor of Antioch’s approximate date.

I conclude these notices of an unjustly neglected Father, by specifying the MSS. which contain his Work. Dry enough to ordinary readers, these pages will not prove uninteresting to the critical student. An enumeration of all the extant Codices with which I am acquainted which contain VICTOR OF ANTIOCH’S Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel, follows:—

(i.) EVAN. 12 ( = Reg. 230) a most beautiful MS.

The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to VICTOR by name; being a recension very like that which Matthaei has published. S. Mark’s text is given in extenso.

(ii.) EVAN. 19 ( = Reg. 189: anciently numbered 437 and 1880. Also 134 and 135. At back, 1603.) A grand folio, well-bound and splendidly written. Pictures of the Evangelists in such marvellous condition that the very tools employed by a scribe might be reproduced. The ground gilded. Headings, &c. and words from Scripture all in gold.

Here also the Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel is assigned to VICTOR. The differences between this text and that of Cramer (e.g. at fol. 320-3, 370,) are hopelessly numerous and complicated. There seem to have been extraordinary liberties taken with the text of this copy throughout.

(iii.) EVAN. 20 (= Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.) A splendid folio,—the work of several hands and beautifully written.

Victor’s Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel is generally considered to be claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA by the following words:

ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΑΓΙΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ.

The correspondence between Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 [infrà, No. xiv], (= Reg. 188 and 186), is extraordinary.(529) In S. Mark’s Gospel, (which alone I examined,) every page begins with the same syllable, both of Text and Commentary: (i.e. Reg. 186, fol. 94 to 197 = Reg. 188, fol. 87 to 140). Not that the number of words and letters in every line corresponds: but the discrepancy is compensated for by a blank at the end of each column, and at the foot of each page. Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 seem, therefore, in some mysterious way referable to a common original. The sacred Text of these two MSS., originally very dissimilar, has been made identical throughout; some very ancient (the original?) possessor of Reg. 188 having carefully assimilated the readings of his MS. to those of Reg. 186, the more roughly written copy; which therefore, in the judgment of the possessor of Reg. 188, exhibits the purer text. But how then does it happen that in both Codices alike, each of the Gospels (except S. Matthew’s Gospel in Reg. 188,) ends with the attestation that it has been collated with approved copies? Are we to suppose that the colophon in question was added after the one text had been assimilated to the other? This is a subject which well deserves attention. The reader is reminded that these two Codices have already come before us at pp. 118-9,—where see the notes.

I proceed to set down some of the discrepancies between the texts of these two MSS.: in every one of which, Reg. 188 has been made conformable to Reg. 186:—

(COD. REG. 186.) (COD. REG. 188.) (1) Matth. xxvi. 70. αυτων παντων λεγων αὐτῶν λέγων (2) Mk. i. 2. ώς κάθως (3) Mk. i. 11. ῷ σοι (4) Mk. i. 16. βάλλοντας ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον ἀμφίβληστρον (5) Mk. ii. 21. παλαιῷ: παλαιῷ: εἰ δὲ μή, αἅρει εἰ δἐ μή γε αἱρεῖ απ᾽ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ αυτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα (6) Mk. iii. 10. ἐθεράπευσεν ἐθεράπευεν (7) Mk. iii. 17. τοῦ Ἰακώβου Ἰακώβου (8) Mk. iii. 18. καὶ καί Μ. τὸν τελώνην καὶ Θ. Ματθαῖον καὶ Θ. (9) Mk. vi. 9. μὴ ἐνδέδυσθαι ἐνδύσησθε (10) Mk. vi. 10. μένετε μείνατε

In the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th of these instances, Tischendorf is found (1869) to adopt the readings of Reg. 188: in the last four, those of Reg. 186. In the 1st, 4th, and 5th, he follows neither.

(iv.) EVAN. 24 (= Reg. 178.) A most beautifully written fol.

Note, that this Codex has been mutilated at p. 70-1; from S. Matth. xxvii. 20 to S. Mark iv. 22 being away. It cannot therefore be ascertained whether the Commentary on S. Mark was here attributed to Victor or not. Cramer employed it largely in his edition of Victor (Catenae, vol. i. p. xxix,), as I have explained already at p. 271. Some notices of the present Codex are given above at p. 228-9.

(v.) EVAN. 25 (= Reg. 191: anciently numbered Colb. 2259): 1880. Folio: grandly written.

No Author’s name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of the Evangelist is given in extenso.

(vi.) EVAN. 34 (= Coisl. 195.) A grand folio, splendidly written, and in splendid condition: the paintings as they came from the hand of the artist.

At fol. 172, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR. It will be found that Coisl. 23 (infrà, No. ix.) and Coisl. 195 are derived from a common original; but Cod. 195 is the more perfect copy, and should have been employed by Cramer in preference to the other (suprà, p. 271.) There has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the Commentary.

(vii.) EVAN. 36 (= Coisl. 20.) A truly sumptuous Codex.

Some notices of this Codex have been given already, at p. 229. The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name.

(viii.) EVAN. 37 (= Coisl. 21.) Fol.

The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR at fol. 117. It seems to be very much the same recension which is exhibited by Coisl. 19 (infrà, No. xviii.) and Coisl. 24 (infrà, No. xi.) The Text is given in extenso: the Commentary, in the margin.

(ix.) EVAN. 39 (= Coisl. 23.) A grand large fol. The writing singularly abbreviated.

The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR: but is very dissimilar in its text from that which forms the basis of Cramer’s editions. (See above, on No. vi.) It is Cramer’s “P.” (See his Catenae, vol. i. p. xxviii; and vide supra, p. 271.)

(x.) EVAN. 40 (= Coisl. 22.)

No Author’s name is prefixed to the Commentary (fol. 103); which is a recension resembling Matthaei’s. The Text is in extenso: the Commentary, in the margin.

(xi.) EVAN. 41 (= Coisl. 24.) Fol.

This is a Commentary, not a Text. It is expressly claimed for VICTOR. The recension seems to approximate to that published by Matthaei. (See on No. viii.) One leaf is missing. (See fol. 136 b.)

(xii.) EVAN. 50 (= Bodl. Laud. Gracc. 33.) 4to. The Commentary here seems to be claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, but in the same unsatisfactory way as No. iii and xiv. (See Coxe’s Cat. i. 516.)

(xiii.) EVAN. 299 (= Reg. 177: anciently numbered 22423).

The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name. The Text of S. Mark is given in extenso: Victor’s Commentary, in the margin.

(xiv.) EVAN. 300 (= Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750, and 1882.) A noble Codex: but the work of different scribes. It is most beautifully written.

At fol. 94, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, in the same equivocal manner as above in No. iii and xii. The writer states in the colophon that he had diversely found it ascribed to Cyril and to Victor. (ἐπληρώθη σὺν Θεῷ ἡ ἑρμηνεία τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου ἀπὸ φωνῆς, ἔν τισιν εὗρον Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρέως, ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρον.)

See above, the note on Evan. 20 (No. iii),—a MS. which, as already explained, has been elaborately assimilated to the present.

(xv.) EVAN. 301 (= Reg. 187: anciently numbered 504, 537 and 1879.) A splendid fol. beautifully written throughout.

The Commentary on S. Mark is here claimed for VICTOR.

(xvi.) EVAN. 309 (= Reg. 201: anciently numbered 176 and 2423.) A very interesting little fol.: very peculiar in its style. Drawings old and curious. Beautifully written.

The Commentary is here claimed for VICTOR. This is not properly a text of the Gospel; but parts of the text interwoven with the Commentary. Take a specimen(530): (S. Mark xvi. 8-20.)

ΚΑΙ ΕΞΕΛΘΟΥΣΑΙ ΕΦΥΓΟΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΝΗΜΕΙΟΥ. ΕΙΧΕΝ ΔΕ ΑΥΤΑΣ ΤΡΟΜΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΚΣΤΑΣΙΣ. ΕΩΣ ΔΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΕΠΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΝΤΩΝ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΝ.

Over the text is written ΚΕΙΜ (κειμένον i.e. Text) and over the Commentary ΕΡΜ (ἑρμηνεία, i.e. Interpretation.) See the next.

(xvii.) EVAN. 312 (= Reg. 206: anciently numbered 968, 1058, 2283; and behind, 1604. Also A. 67.) A beautiful little fol.

Contains only the Commentary, which is expressly assigned to VICTOR. This Copy of Victor’s Commentary is very nearly indeed a duplicate of Cod. 309, (No. xvi.) both in its contents and in its method; but it is less beautifully written.

(xviii.) EVAN. 329 (= Coisl. 19.) A very grand fol.

The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name. (See above, on No. viii.)

(xix.) REG. 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Reg. 2330: also No. 18.) A grand large 4to.

The Commentary is here claimed for ORIGEN. Such at least is probably the intention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of the Prologue:—

ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΠΡΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΥ.

See on this subject the note at foot of p. 235.

(xx.) EVAN. 304 ( = Reg. 194. Teller 1892.) The text of S. Mark is hero interwoven with a Commentary which I do not recognise. But from the correspondence of a note at the end with what is found in Possinus, pp. 361-3, I am led to suspect that the contents of this MS. will be found to correspond with what Possinus published and designated as “Tolosanus.”

(xxi.) EVAN. 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambec. 29.) Victor’s Commentary is here anonymous.

(xxii.) EVAN. 92 (which belonged to Faesch of Basle [see Wetstein’s Proleg.], and which Haenel [p. 658 b] says is now in Basle Library). Wetstein’s account of this Codex shows that the Commentary on S. Mark is here distinctly ascribed to Victor. He says,—“Continet Marcum et in eum Victoris Antiocheni Commentarios, foliis 5 mutilos. Item Scholia in Epistolas Catholicas,” &c. And so Haenel.

(xxiii.) EVAN. 94 (As before, precisely; except that Haenel’s [inaccurate] notice is at p. 657 b.) This Codex contains VICTOR of Antioch’s Commentary on S. Mark, (which is evidently hero also assigned to him by name;) and Titus of Bostra on S. Luke. Also several Scholia: among the rest, I suspect, (from what Haenel says), the Scholia spoken of suprà, p. 47, note (x).

(xxiv.) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning them, Haenel says there also exists in the Library at Basle,—“VICTORIS Antiocheni Scholia in Evang. Marci: chart.”(531)

(xxv.) EVAN. 108 (Vind. Forlos. d. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225) refers to it for the Scholion given in the next article. (Append. E.)

(xxvi.) EVAN. 129 (Vat. 358.) ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ. ΠΓ ΑΝΤΙΟΧ ΕΡΜ ΕΙΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ. The Commentary is written along the top and bottom and down the side of each page; and there are references (α, β, γ) inserted in the text to the paragraphs in the margin,—as in some of the MSS. at Paris. Prefixed is an exegetical apparatus by Eusebius, &c.

Note, that of these five MSS. in the Vatican, (358, 756, 757, 1229, 1445), the 3rd and 4th are without the prefatory section (beginning πολλῶν εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μ.)—All 5 begin, Μάρκος ὁ εὐαγγελιστής. In all but the 4th, the second paragraph begins σαφέστερον.

The third passage begins in all 5, Ἰσοδυναμεῖ τοῦτο. Any one seeking to understand this by a reference to the editions of Cramer or of Possinus will recognise the truth of what was stated above, p. 274, line 24 to 27.

(xxvii.) EVAN. 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358 (No. xxvi): but no Author’s name is given.

(xxviii.) EVAN. 138 (Vat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at the beginning are these words:—ὁ ἀντίγραφος (sic) οὗτος ἐστὶν ὁ Πέτρος ὁ τῆς Λαοδικείας ὅστις προηγεῖται τῶν ἄλλων ἐξηγητῶν ενταῦθα. (Comp. No. xlvii.) The Commentary and Text are not kept distinct, as in the preceding Codex. Both are written in an ill-looking, slovenly hand.

(xxix.) EVAN. 143 (Vat. 1,229.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358 (No. xxvi), but without the references; and no Author’s name is given.

(xxx.) EVAN. 181 (Xavier, Cod. Zelada.) Birch was shewn this Codex of the Four Gospels in the Library of Cardinal Xavier of Zelada (Prolegomena, p. lviii): “Cujus forma est in folio, pp. 596. In margine passim occurrunt scholia ex Patrum Commentariis exscripta.”

(xxxi.) EVAN. 186 (Laur. vi. 18.) This Codex is minutely described by Bandini (Cat. i. 130), who gives the Scholion (infra, p. 388-9), and says that the Commentary is without any Author’s name.

(xxxii.) EVAN. 194 (Laur. vi. 33.) Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον. (See the description of this Codex in Bandini’s Cat. i. 158.)

(xxxiii.) EVAN. 195 (Laur. vi. 34.) This Codex seems to correspond in its contents with No. xxxi. suprà: the Commentary containing the Scholion, and being anonymous. (See Bandini, p. 161.)

(xxxiv.) EVAN. 197 (Laur. viii. 14.) The Commentary, (which is Victor’s, but has no Author’s name prefixed,) is defective at the end. (See Bandini, p. 355.)

(xxxv.) EVAN. 210 (Venet. 27.) “Conveniunt initio Commentarii eum iis qui Victori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autem discrepant.” (Theupoli Graeca D. Marci Bibl. Codd. MSS. Venet. 1740.) I infer that the work is anonymous.

(xxxvi.) Venet. 495. “VICTORIS ANTIOCHENI Presbyteri expositio in Evangelium Marci, collecta ex diversis Patribus.” (I obtain this reference from the Catalogue of Theupolus.)

(xxxvii.) EVAN. 215 (Venet. 544.) I presume, from the description in the Catalogue of Theupolus, that this Codex also contains a copy of Victor’s Commentary.

(xxxviii.) EVAN. 221 (Vind. Ness. 117, Lambec. 38). Kollar has a long note (B) [iii. 157] on the Commentary, which has no Author’s name prefixed. Birch (p. 225) refers to it for the purpose recorded under No. xxv.

(xxxix.) EVAN. 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Lambec. 39.) The Commentary is anonymous. Birch refers to it, as before.

Add the following six MSS. at Moscow, concerning which, see Matthaei’s Nov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. xii.:—

(xl.) EVAN. 237 (This is Matthaei’s d or D [described in his N. T. ix. 242. Also Vict. Ant. ii. 137.] “SS. Synod. 42:”) and is one of the MSS. employed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor.—The Commentary on S. Mark has no Author’s name prefixed.

(xli.) EVAN. 238 (Matthaei’s e or E [described in his N. T. ix. 200. Also Vict. Ant. ii. 141.] “SS. Synod. 48.”) This Codex formed the basis of Matthaei’s ed. of Victor, [See the Not. Codd. MSS. at the end of vol. ii. p. 123. Also N. T. ix. 202.] The Commentary on S. Mark is anonymous.

(xlii.) EVAN. 253 (Matthaei’s 10 [described in his N. T. ix. 234.] It was lent him by Archbishop Nicephorus.) Matthaei says (p. 236) that it corresponds with a (our Evan. 259). No Author’s name is prefixed to the Commentary on S. Mark.

(xliii.) EVAN. 255 (Matthaei’s 12 [described in his N. T. ix. 222. Also Vict. Ant. ii. 133.]) “SS. Synod. 139.” The Scholia on S. Mark are here entitled ἐξηγητικαὶ ἐκλογαί, and (as in 14) are few in number. For some unexplained reason, in his edition of Victor of Antioch, Matthaei saw fit to designate this MS. as “B.” [N.T. ix. 224 note.] ... See by all means, infrà, the “Postscript.”

(xliv.) EVAN. 256 (Matthaei’s 14 [described in his N. T. ix. 220.] “Bibl. Typ. Synod. 3.”) The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to VICTOR, presbyter of Antioch; but the Scholia are said to be (as in “12” [No. xxxix]) few in number.

(xlv.) EVAN. 259 (Matthaei’s a or A [described in his N. T. ix. 237. Also Vict. Ant. ii. 128.] “SS. Synod. 45.”) This is one of the MSS. employed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor. No Author’s name is prefixed to the Commentary.

(xlvi.) EVAN. 332 (Taurin. xx b iv. 20.) Victor’s Commentary is here given anonymously. (See the Catalogue of Pasinus, P. i. p. 91.)

(xlvii.) EVAN. 353 (Ambros. M. 93): with the same Commentary as Evan. 181, (i.e. No. xxx.)

(xlviii.) EVAN. 374 (Vat. 1445.) Written continuously in a very minute character. The Commentary is headed (in a later Greek hand) + ἑρμηνεία Πέτρου Λαοδικείας εἰς τοὺς δ᾽ αγ [ίους] εὐαγγελιστάς +. This is simply a mistake. No such work exists: and the Commentary on the second Evangelist is that of Victor. (See No. xxviii.)

(xlix.) EVAN. 428 (Monacensis 381. Augsburg 11): said to be duplicate of Evan. 300 (i.e. of No. xiv.)

(1.) EVAN. 432 (Monacensis 99.) The Commentary contained in this Codex is evidently assigned to VICTOR.

(li.) EVAN. 7pe (ix. 3. 471.) A valuable copy of the Four Gospels, dated 1062; which Edw. de Muralto (in his Catalogue of the Greek MSS. in the Imperial Library at S. Petersburg) says contains the Commentary of VICTOR ANT. (See Scrivener’s Introduction, p. 178.).

(lii.) At Toledo, in the “Biblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor,” Haenel [p. 885] mentions:—“VICTOR ANTIOCHENUS Comm. Graec. in iv. [?] Evangelia saec. xiv. membr. fol.”

To this enumeration, (which could certainly be very extensively increased,) will probably have to be added the following:—

EVAN. 146 (Palatino Vat. 5.) EVAN. 233 (Escurial [Upsilon]. ii. 8.) EVAN. 373 (Vat. 1423.) EVAN. 379 (Vat. 1769.) EVAN. 427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.)

Middle Hill, No. 13,975,—a MS. in the collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps.

In conclusion, it can scarcely require to be pointed out that VICTOR’S Commentary,—of which the Church in her palmiest days shewed herself so careful to multiply copies, and of which there survive to this hour such a vast number of specimens,—must needs anciently have enjoyed very peculiar favour. It is evident, in fact, that an Epitome of Chrysostom’s Homilies on S. Matthew, together with VICTOR’S compilation on S. Mark,—Titus of Bostra on S. Luke,—and a work in the main derived from Chrysostom’s Homilies on S. John;—that these four constituted the established Commentary of ancient Christendom on the fourfold Gospel. Individual copyists, no doubt, will have been found occasionally to abridge certain of the Annotations, and to omit others: or else, out of the multitude of Scholia by various ancient Fathers which were evidently once in circulation, and must have been held in very high esteem,—(Irenæus, Origen, Ammonius, Eusebius, Apolinarius, Cyril, Chrysostom, the Gregorys, Basil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodore of Heraclea,) they will have introduced extracts according to their individual caprice. In this way, the general sameness of the several copies is probably to be accounted for, while their endless discrepancy in matters of detail is perhaps satisfactorily explained.

These last remarks are offered in the way of partial elucidation of the difficulty pointed out above, at pp. 272-4.

APPENDIX (E).

Text of the concluding Scholion of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH’S Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to the genuineness of “the last Twelve Verses.”

(Referred to at p. 65.)

I have thought this very remarkable specimen of the method of an ancient and (as I think) unjustly neglected Commentator, deserving of extraordinary attention. Besides presenting the reader, therefore, with what seems to be a fair approximation to the original text of the passage, I have subjoined as many various readings as have come to my knowledge. It is hoped that they are given with tolerable exactness; but I have been too often obliged to depend on printed books and the testimony of others. I can at least rely on the readings furnished me from the Vatican.

The text chiefly followed is that of Coisl. 20, (in the Paris Library,—our EVAN. 36;) supplemented by several other MSS., which, for convenience, I have arbitrarily designated by the letters of the alphabet.(532)

Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ “Ἀναστὰς(533) δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ,” καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς ἐπιφερόμενα, ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ παρὰ(534) πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται,(535) (ὡς νόθα γὰρ ἐνόμισαν αὐτά τινες εἶναι(536)) ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων, ὡς ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ,(537) κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια, συντεθείκαμεν(538) καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομόνην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ τὸ “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ”(539) τούτεστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ “ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτου,” καὶ καθ᾽ ἑξῇς μέχρι τοῦ “διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. Αμήν.”(540)

More pains than enough (it will perhaps be thought) have been taken to exhibit accurately this short Scholion. And yet, it has not been without design (the reader may be sure) that so many various readings have been laboriously accumulated. The result, it is thought, is eminently instructive, and (to the student of Ecclesiastical Antiquity) important also.

For it will be perceived by the attentive reader that not more than two or three of the multitude of various readings afforded by this short Scholion can have possibly resulted from careless transcription.(541) The rest have been unmistakably occasioned by the merest licentiousness: every fresh Copyist evidently considering himself at liberty to take just whatever liberties he pleased with the words before him. To amputate, or otherwise to mutilated; to abridge; to amplify; to transpose; to remodel;—this has been the rule with all. The types (so to speak) are reducible to two, or at most to three; but the varieties are almost as numerous as the MSS. of Victor’s work.

And yet it is impossible to doubt that this Scholion was originally one, and one only. Irrecoverable perhaps, in some of its minuter details, as the actual text of Victor may be, it is nevertheless self-evident that in the main we are in possession of what he actually wrote on this occasion. In spite of all the needless variations observable in the manner of stating a certain fact, it is still unmistakably one and the same fact which is every time stated. It is invariably declared,—

(1.) That from certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel the last Twelve Verses had been LEFT OUT; and (2) That this had been done because their genuineness had been by certain persons suspected: but, (3) That the Writer, convinced of their genuineness, had restored them to their rightful place; (4) Because he had found them in accurate copies, and in the authentic Palestinian copy, which had supplied him with his exemplar.

It is obvious to suggest that after familiarizing ourselves with this specimen of what proves to have been the licentious method of the ancient copyists in respect of the text of an early Father, we are in a position to approach more intelligently the Commentary of Victor itself; and, to some extent, to understand how it comes to pass that so many liberties have been taken with it throughout. The Reader is reminded of what has been already offered on this subject at pp. 272-3.

APPENDIX (F).

On the Relative antiquity of the CODEX VATICANUS (B), and the CODEX SINAITICUS (א).

(Referred to at p. 70.)

I. “Vix differt aetate a Codice Sinaitico,” says Tischendorf, (ed. 8va, 1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus (B). Yet does he perpetually designate his own Sinaitic Codex (א) as “omnium antiquissimus.” Now,

(1) The (all but unique) sectional division of the Text of Codex B,—confessedly the oldest scheme of chapters extant, is in itself a striking note of primitiveness. The author of the Codex knew nothing, apparently, of the Eusebian method. But I venture further to suggest that the following peculiarities in Codex א unmistakably indicate for it a later date than Codex B.

(2) Cod. א, (like C, and other later MSS.,) is broken up into short paragraphs throughout. The Vatican Codex, on the contrary, has very few breaks indeed: e.g. it is without break of any sort from S. Matth. xvii. 24 to xx. 17: whereas, within the same limits, there are in Cod. א as many as thirty interruptions of the context. From S. Mark xiii. 1 to the end of the Gospel the text is absolutely continuous in Cod. B, except in one place: but in Cod. א it is interrupted upwards of fifty times. Again: from S. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of the Gospel there is but one break in Cod. B. But it is broken into well nigh an hundred and fifty short paragraphs in Cod. א.

There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B, (resembling the style of the papyrus of Hyperides published by Mr. Babington,) is the more ancient. The only places where it approximates to the method of Cod. א, is where the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, &c.), and where our LORD proclaims the eight Beatitudes (S. Matth. v.)

(3) Again; Cod. א is prone to exhibit, on extraordinary occasions, a single word in a line, as at—

S. MATTH. XV. 30. ΧΩΛΟΥΣ ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ ΚΥΛΛΟΥΣ ΚΩΦΟΥΣ

S. MARK X. 29. Η ΑΔΕΛΦΑΣ Η ΠΑΤΕΡΑ Η ΜΗΤΕΡΑ Η ΤΕΚΝΑ Η ΑΓΡΟΥΣ

S. LUKE XIV. 13 ΠΤΩΧΟΥΣ ΑΝΑΠΗΡΟΥΣ ΧΩΛΟΥΣ ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ

This became a prevailing fashion in the vith century; e.g. when the Cod. Laudianus of the Acts (E) was written. The only trace of anything of the kind in Cod. B is at the Genealogy of our LORD.

(4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the initial letter in Cod. א slightly projects into the margin,—beyond the left hand edge of the column; as usual in all later MSS. This characteristic is only not undiscoverable in Cod. B. Instances of it there are in the earlier Codex; but they are of exceedingly rare occurrence.

(5) Further; Cod. א abounds in such contractions as ΑΝΟΣ, ΟΥΝΟΣ (with all their cases), for ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ, ΟΥΡΑΝΟΣ, &c. Not only ΠΝΑ, ΠΗΡ, ΠΕΡ, ΠΡΑ, ΜΡΑ (for ΠΝΕΥΜΑ, ΠΑΤΗΡ-ΤΕΡ-ΤΕΡΑ, ΜΗΤΕΡΑ), but also ΣΤΡΘΗ, ΙΗΛ, ΙΗΛΗΜ, for ΣΤΑΥΡΩΘΗ, ΙΣΡΑΗΛ, ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ.

But Cod. B, though familiar with ΙΣ, and a few other of the most ordinary abbreviations, knows nothing of these compendia: which certainly cannot have existed in the earliest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable to suppose that their constant occurrence in Cod א indicates for that Codex a date subsequent to Cod. B.

(6) The very discrepancy observable between these two Codices in their method of dealing with “the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel,” (already adverted to at p. 88,) is a further indication, and as it seems to the present writer a very striking one, that Cod. B is the older of the two. Cod. א is evidently familiar with the phenomenon which astonishes Cod. B by its novelty and strangeness.

(7) But the most striking feature of difference, after all, is only to be recognised by one who surveys the Codices themselves with attention. It is that general air of primitiveness in Cod. B which makes itself at once felt. The even symmetry of the unbroken columns;—the work of the prima manus everywhere vanishing through sheer antiquity;—the small, even, square writing, which partly recalls the style of the Herculanean rolls; partly, the papyrus fragments of the Oration against Demosthenes (published by Harris in 1848):—all these notes of superior antiquity infallibly set Cod. B before Cod. א; though it may be impossible to determine whether by 50, by 75, or by 100 years.

II. It has been conjectured by one whose words are always entitled to most respectful attention, that Codex Sinaiticus may have been “one of the fifty Codices of Holy Scripture which Eusebius prepared A.D. 331, by Constantine’s direction, for the use of the new Capital.” (Scrivener’s Collation of the Cod. Sin., Introd. p. xxxvii-viii.)

1. But this, which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave discrepancy between its readings and those with which Eusebius proves to have been most familiar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is without S. Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section numbered “216” in S. Mark’s Gospel. [Quite in vain has Tischendorf perversely laboured to throw doubt on this circumstance. It remains altogether undeniable,—as a far less accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at a glance. Tischendorf’s only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he might have added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, which explains the phenomenon in Cod. M), against ver. 29 is set the number, “216,” instead of against ver. 28. But what then? Has not the number demonstrably lost its place? And is there not still one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And which can it possibly have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28?] Again. Cod. א, (like B, C, L, U, Γ, and some others), gives the piercing of the SAVIOUR’S side at S. Matth. xxvii. 49: but if Eusebius had read that incident in the same place, he would have infallibly included S. John xix. 34, 35, with S. Matth. xxvii. 49, in his viith Canon, where matters are contained which are common to S. Matthew and S. John,—instead of referring S. John xix. 31-37 to his xth Canon, which specifies things peculiar to each of the four Evangelists. Eusebius, moreover, in a certain place (Dem. Evan. x. 8 [quoted by Tisch.]) has an allusion to the same transaction, and expressly says that it is recorded by S. John.

2. No inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can be drawn from the Eusebian notation of Sections in the margin: that notation having been confessedly added at a subsequent date.

3. On the other hand, the subdivision of Cod. א into paragraphs, proves to have been made without any reference to the sectional distribution of Eusebius. Thus, there are in the Codex thirty distinct paragraphs from S. Matthew xi. 20 to xii. 34, inclusive; but there are comprised within the same limits only seventeen Eusebian sections. And yet, of those seventeen sections only nine correspond with as many paragraphs of the Codex Sinaiticus. This, in itself, is enough to prove that Eusebius knew nothing of the present Codex. His record is express:—ἐφ᾽ ἐκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος κ.τ.λ.

III. The supposed resemblance of the opened volume to an Egyptian papyrus,—when eight columns (σελίδες) are exhibited to the eye at once, side by side,—seems to be a fallacious note of high antiquity. If Cod. א has four columns in a page,—Cod. B three,—Cod. A two,—Cod. C has only one. But Cod. C is certainly as old as Cod. A. Again, Cod. D, which is of the vith century, is written (like Cod. C) across the page: yet was it “copied from an older model similarly divided in respect to the lines or verses,”—and therefore similarly written across the page. It is almost obvious that the size of the skins on which a Codex was written will have decided whether the columns should be four or only three in a page.

IV. In fine, nothing doubting the high antiquity of both Codices, (B and א,) I am nevertheless fully persuaded that an interval of at least half a century,—if not of a far greater span of years,—is absolutely required to account for the marked dissimilarity between them.

APPENDIX (G).

On the so-called “AMMONIAN SECTIONS” and “EUSEBIAN CANONS.”

(Referred to at p. 130.)

I. That the Sections (popularly miscalled “Ammonian”) with which EUSEBIUS [A.D. 320] has made the world thoroughly familiar, and of which some account was given above (pp. 127-8), cannot be the same which AMMONIUS of Alexandria [A.D. 220] employed,—but must needs be the invention of EUSEBIUS himself,—admits of demonstration. On this subject, external testimony is altogether insecure.(542) The only safe appeal is to the Sections themselves.

1. The Call of the Four Apostles is described by the first three Evangelists, within the following limits of their respective Gospels:—S. Matthew iv. 18-22: S. Mark i. 16-20: S. Luke (with the attendant miraculous draught of fishes,) v. 1-11. Now, these three portions of narrative are observed to be dealt with in the sectional system of EUSEBIUS after the following extraordinary fashion: (the fourth column represents the Gospel according to S. John):—

(1.) § 29, (v. 1-3) (2.) § 20, (iv. § 9, (i. 17, 18) 14-1/2-16) (3.) § 30, (v. 4-7) § 219, (xxi. 1-6) (4.) § 30 (v. 4-7) § 222, (xxi. 11) (5.) § 31, (v. 8-10-1/2) (6.) § 21, (iv. § 10, (i. 17, § 32, (v. 19, 20) 18) 10-1/2, 11) (7.) § 22, (iv. § 11, (i. 19, 21, 22) 20)

It will be perceived from this, that EUSEBIUS subdivides these three portions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sections (“§§;”)—of which three belong to S. Matthew, viz. §§ 20, 21, 22:—three to S. Mark, viz. §§ 9, 10, 11:—four to S. Luke, viz. §§ 29, 30, 31, 32: which ten Sections, EUSEBIUS distributed over four of his Canons: referring three of there to his IInd Canon, (which exhibits what S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in common); four of them to his VIth Canon, (which shews what S. Matthew and S. Mark have in common); one, to his IXth, (which contains what is common to S. Luke and S. John); two, to his Xth, (in which is found what is peculiar to each Evangelist.)

Now, the design which EUSEBIUS had in breaking up this portion of the sacred Text, (S. Matth. iv. 18-22, S. Mark i. 16-20, S. Luke v. 1-11,) after so arbitrary a fashion, into ten portions; divorcing three of those Sections from S. Matthew’s Gospel, (viz. S. Luke’s §§ 29, 30, 31); and connecting one of these last three (§ 30) with two Sections (§§ 219, 222) of S. John;—is perfectly plain. His object was, (as he himself explains,) to shew—not only (a) what S. Matthew has in common with S. Mark and S. Luke; but also (b) what S. Luke has in common with S. John;—as well as (c) what S. Luke has peculiar to himself. But, in the work of AMMONIUS, as far as we know anything about that work, all this would have been simply impossible. (I have already described his “Diatessaron,” at pp. 126-7.) Intent on exhibiting the Sections of the other Gospels which correspond with the Sections of S. Matthew, AMMONIUS would not if he could,—(and he could not if he would,)—have dissociated from its context S. Luke’s account of the first miraculous draught of fishes in the beginning of our LORD’S Ministry, for the purpose of establishing its resemblance to S. John’s account of the second miraculous draught of fishes which took place after the Resurrection, and is only found in S. John’s Gospel. These Sections therefore are “EUSEBIAN,” not Ammonian. They are necessary, according to the scheme of EUSEBIUS. They are not only unnecessary and even meaningless, but actually impossible, in the AMMONIAN scheme.

2. Let me call attention to another, and, as I think, a more convincing instance. I am content in fact to narrow the whole question to the following single issue:—Let me be shewn how it is rationally conceivable that AMMONIUS can have split up S. John xxi. 12, 13, into three distinct Sections; and S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17, into six? and yet, after so many injudicious disintegrations of the sacred Text, how it is credible that he can have made but one Section of S. John xxi. 18 to 25,—which nevertheless, from its very varied contents, confessedly requires even repeated subdivision?... Why EUSEBIUS did all this, is abundantly plain. His peculiar plan constrained him to refer the former half of ver. 12,—the latter half of verses 15, 16, 17—to his IXth Canon, where S. Luke and S. John are brought together; (ἐν ᾧ οἱ δύο τὰ παρακλήσια εἰρήκασι):—and to consign the latter half of ver. 12,—the former half of verses 15, 16, 17,—together with the whole of the last eight verses of S. John’s Gospel, to his Xth (or last) Canon, where what is peculiar to each of the four Evangelists is set down, (ἐν ᾧ περὶ τίνων ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἰδίως ἀνέγραψεν.) But AMMONIUS, because he confessedly recognised no such Canons, was under no such constraint. He had in fact no such opportunity. He therefore simply cannot have adopted the same extraordinary sectional subdivision.

3. To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps to exhibit the argument in a more convincing form:—The Canons of EUSEBIUS, and the so-called “AMMONIAN SECTIONS,”—(by which, confessedly, nothing else whatever is meant but the Sections of EUSEBIUS,)—are discovered mutually to imply one another. Those Canons are without meaning or use apart from the Sections,—for the sake of which they were clearly invented. Those Sections, whatever convenience they may possess apart from the Canons, nevertheless are discovered to presuppose the Canons throughout: to be manifestly subsequent to them in order of time: to depend upon them for their very existence: in some places to be even unaccountable in the eccentricity of their arrangement, except when explained by the requirements of the EUSEBIAN Canons. I say—That particular sectional subdivision, in other words, to which the epithet “AMMONIAN” is popularly applied,—(applied however without authority, and in fact by the merest license,)—proves on careful inspection to have been only capable of being devised by one who was already in possession of the Canons of EUSEBIUS. In plain terms, they are demonstrably the work of EUSEBIUS himself,—who expressly claims The Canons for his own (κανόνας δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι), and leaves it to be inferred that he is the Author of the Sections also. Wetstein (Proleg. p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the “Monitum” prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand the matter; and Mr. Scrivener (Introduction, p. 51) evidently inclines to the same opinion.

II. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful inspection of the Eusebian “Sections,” (for Eusebius himself calls them περικοπαί, not κεφάλαια,) leads inevitably to the inference that they are only rightly understood when regarded in the light of “MARGINAL REFERENCES.” This has been hitherto overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting “Monitum” already quoted, remarks of the Eusebian Canons,—“quorum haec est utilitas, ut eorum scilicet ope quivis, nullo labore, Harmoniam sibi quatuor Evangeliorum possit conficere.” The learned Prelate can never have made the attempt in this way “Harmoniam sibi conficere,” or he would not have so written. He evidently did not advert to the fact that Eusebius refers his readers (in his IIIrd Canon) from S. John’s account of the Healing of the Nobleman’s son to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the Healing of the Centurion’s servant. It is perfectly plain in fact that to enable a reader “to construct for himself a Harmony of the Gospels,” was no part of Eusebius’ intention; and quite certain that any one who shall ever attempt to avail himself of the system of Sections and Canons before us with that object, will speedily find himself landed in hopeless confusion.(543)

But in fact there is no danger of his making much progress in his task. His first discovery would probably be that S. John’s weighty doctrinal statements concerning our LORD’S Eternal GODhead in chap. i. 1-5: 9, 10: 14, are represented as parallel with the Human Genealogy of our SAVIOUR as recorded by S. Matthew i. 1-16, and by S. Luke iii. 23-38:—the next, that the first half of the Visit of the Magi (S. Matthew ii. 1-6) is exhibited as corresponding with S. John vii. 41, 42.—Two such facts ought to open the eyes of a reader of ordinary acuteness quite wide to the true nature of the Canons of Eusebius. They are Tables of Reference only.

Eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing them; which (he says) was twofold: (1st) To enable a reader to see at a glance, “which of the Evangelists have said things of the same kind,” (τίνες τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκαςι: the phrase occurs four times in the course of his short Epistle): and (2ndly), To enable him to find out where they have severally done so: (τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τόπους, ἐν οἶς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν εἰπεῖν; Eusebius uses the phrase twice.) But this, (as all are aware) is precisely the office of (what are called) “Marginal References.” Accordingly,

(a.) Whether referring from S. Matth. x. 40 (§ 98); S. Mark ix. 37 (§ 96); or S. Luke x. 16 (§ 116);—we find ourselves referred to the following six places of S. John,—v. 23: xii. 44, 45: xiii. 20: xiv. 21: xiv. 24, 25: xv. 23(544) (= §§ 40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144.) Again,

(b.) Whether we refer from S. Matth. xi. 27 (§§ 111, 112,) or S. Luke x. 22 (§ 119),—we find ourselves referred to the following eleven places of S. John,—i. 18: iii. 35: v. 37: vi. 46: vii. 28, 29: viii. 19: x. 15: xiii. 3: xv. 21: xvi. 15: xvii. 25 (§§ 8, 30, 44, 61, 76, 87, 90, 114, 142, 148, 154.)

(c.) So also, from S. Matthew’s (xvi. 13-16), S. Mark’s (viii. 27-29), and S. Luke’s (ix. 18-20) account of S. Peters Confession at Cæsarea Philippi,—we are referred to S. John i. 42, 43,—a singular reference; and to S. John vi. 68, 69.

(d.) From the mention of the last Passover by the three earlier Evangelists, (S. Matth. xxvi. 1, 2: S. Mark xiv. 1: S. Luke xxii. 1,) we are referred to S. John’s mention of the first Passover (ii. 13 = § 20); and of the second (vi. 4 = § 48); as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = § 96.)

(e.) From the words of Consecration at the Last Supper, as recorded by S. Matth. (xxvi. 16), S. Mark (xiv. 22), and S. Luke (xxii. 19),—we are referred to the four following Sections of our LORD’S Discourse in the Synagogue at Capernaum recorded by S. John, which took place a year before,—S. John vi. 35, 36: 48: 51: 55: (§§ 55, 63, 65, 67).

(f.) Nothing but the spirit in which “Marginal References” are made would warrant a critic in linking together three incidents like the following,—similar, indeed, yet entirely distinct: viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 34: S. Mark xv. 24: and S. John xix. 28, 29.

(g.) I was about to say that scarcely could such an excuse be invented for referring a Reader from S. Luke xxii. 32, to S. John xxi. 15, and 16, and 17 (= §§ 227, 228, 229,)—but I perceive that the same three References stand in the margin of our own Bibles. Not even the margin of the English Bible, however, sends a Reader (as the IXth Canon of Eusebius does) from our LORD’S eating “broiled fish and honeycomb,” in the presence of the ten Apostles at Jerusalem on the evening of the first Easter-Day, (S. Luke xxiv. 41-43 (= § 341,)) to His feeding the seven Apostles with bread and fish at the Sea of Galilee many days after. (S. John xxi. 9, 10: 12: 13 = §§ 221, 223, 224.)—And this may suffice.

It is at all events certain that the correctest notion of the use and the value of the Eusebian Sections will be obtained by one who will be at the pains to substitute for the Eusebian Numbers in the margin of a copy of the Greek Gospels the References which these numbers severally indicate. It will then become plain that the system of Sections and Canons which Eusebius invented,—ingenious, interesting, and useful as it certainly is; highly important also, as being the known work of an illustrious Father of the Church, as well as most precious occasionally for critical purposes,(545)—is nothing else but a clumsy substitute for what is achieved by an ordinary “Reference Bible”:—participating in every inconvenience incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which English readers are familiar,(546) and yet inferior in the following four respects:—

(1st.) The references of Eusebius, (except those found in Canon X.), require in every instance to be deciphered, before they can be verified; and they can only be deciphered by making search, (and sometimes laborious search,) in another part of the volume. They are not, in fact, (nor do they pretend to be,) references to the inspired Text at all; but only references to the Eusebian Canons.

(2ndly.) In their scope, they are of course strictly confined to the Gospels,—which most inconveniently limits their use, as well as diminishes their value. (Thus, by no possibility is Eusebius able to refer a reader from S. Luke xxii. 19, 20 to 1 Cor. xi. 23-25.)

(3rdly.) By the very nature of their constitution, reference even to another part of the same Gospel is impossible. (Eusebius is unable, for example, to refer a reader from S. John xix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.)

But besides the preceding, which are disadvantages inherent in the scheme and inseparable from it, it will be found (4thly), That Eusebius, while he introduces not a few wholly undesirable references, (of which some specimens are supplied above), is observed occasionally to withhold references which cannot by any means be dispensed with. Thus, he omits to refer his reader from S. Luke’s account of the visit to the Sepulchre (chap. xxiv. 12) to S. John’s memorable account of the same transaction (chap. xx. 3-10): not because he disallowed the verse in S. Luke’s Gospel,—for in a certain place he discusses its statements.(547)

III. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before that the work of EUSEBIUS was entirely different in its structure and intention from the work of AMMONIUS. Enough, in fact, has been said to make it fully apparent that it is nothing short of impossible that there can have been any extensive correspondence between the two. According to EUSEBIUS, S. Mark has 21 Sections(548) peculiar to his Gospel: S. Luke, 72: S. John, 97.(549) According to the same EUSEBIUS, 14 Sections(550) are common to S. Luke and S. Mark only: 21, to S. Luke and S. John only. But those 225 Sections can have found no place in the work of AMMONIUS. And if, (in some unexplained way,) room was found for those parts of the Gospels, with what possible motive can AMMONIUS have subdivided them into exactly 225 portions? It is nothing else but irrational to assume that he did so.

Not unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most judicious living Critic as a “ground for hesitation before we ascribe the Sections as well as the Canons to Eusebius, that not a few ancient MSS. contain the former while they omit the latter.”(551) He considers it to be certainly indicated thereby “that in the judgment of critics and transcribers, (whatever that judgment may be deemed worth,) the Ammonian Sections had a previous existence to the Eusebian Canons, as well as served for an independent purpose.” But I respectfully demur to the former of the two proposed inferences. I also learn with surprise that “those who have studied them most, can the least tell what use the Ammonian Sections can serve, unless in connection with Canons of Harmony.”(552)

However irregular and arbitrary these subdivisions of the Evangelical text are observed to be in their construction, their usefulness is paramount. They are observed to fulfil exactly the same office as our own actual division of the Text into 89 Chapters and 3780 Verses. Of course, 1165 subdivisions are (for certain purposes) somewhat less convenient than 3780;—but on the other hand, a place in the Gospels would be more easily discovered, I suspect, for the most part, by the employment of such a single set of consecutive numbers, than by requiring a Reader first to find the Chapter by its Roman numeral, and then the Verse by its Arabic figure. Be this as it may, there can be at least only one opinion as to the supreme convenience to a Reader, whether ancient or modern, of knowing that the copy of the Gospels which he holds in his hands is subdivided into exactly the same 1165 Sections as every other Greek copy which is likely to come in his way; and that, in every such copy, he may depend on finding every one of those sections invariably distinguished by the self-same number.

A Greek copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin furnished with the Eusebian Sectional notation, may be considered to correspond generally with an English copy merely divided into Chapters and Verses. The addition of the Eusebian Canons at the beginning, with numerical references thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but superadd something analogous to the convenience of our Marginal References,—and may just as reasonably (or just as unreasonably) be dispensed with.

I think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation of a Codex, it will have been sometimes judged commercially expedient to leave its purchaser to decide whether he would or would not submit to the additional expense (which in the case of illuminated MSS. must have been very considerable) of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the commencement of his Book,(553)—without which the References thereto would confessedly have been of no manner of avail. In this way it will have come to pass, (as Mr. Scrivener points out,) that “not a few ancient MSS. contain the Sections but omit the Canons.” Whether, however, the omission of References to the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the sectional numbers, is to be explained in this way, or not,—AMMONIUS, at all events, will have had no more to do with either the one or the other, than with our modern division into Chapters and Verses. It is, in short, nothing else but a “vulgar error” to designate the Eusebian Sections as the “Sections of AMMONIUS.” The expression cannot be too soon banished from our critical terminology. Whether banished or retained, to reason about the lost work of AMMONIUS from the Sections of EUSEBIUS (as Tischendorf and the rest habitually do) is an offence against historical Truth which no one who values his critical reputation will probably hereafter venture to commit.

IV. This subject may not be dismissed until a circumstance of considerable interest has been explained which has already attracted some notice, but which evidently is not yet understood by Biblical Critics.(554)

As already remarked, the necessity of resorting to the Eusebian Tables of Canons in order to make any use of a marginal reference, is a tedious and a cumbersome process; for which, men must have early sought to devise a remedy. They were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expedient would be to note at the foot of every page of a Gospel the numbers of the Sections of that Gospel contained in extenso on the same page; and, parallel with those numbers, to exhibit the numbers of the corresponding Sections in the other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an apparatus at the foot of the page, are known to exist.(555) For instance, in Cod. 262 (= Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written in double columns, at foot of the first page (fol. 111) of S. Mark, is found as follows:—

The meaning of this, every one will see who,—(remembering what is signified by the monograms ΜΡ, ΛΟ, ΙΩ, ΜΘ,(556))—will turn successively to the IInd, the Ist, the VIth, and the Ist of the Eusebian Canons. Translated into expressions more familiar to English readers, it evidently amounts to this: that we are referred,

(§ 1) From S. Mark i. 1, 2,—to S. Matth. xi. 10: S. Luke vii. 27. (§ 2) From S. Mark i. 3,—to S. Matth. iii. 3: S. Luke iii. 3-6. (§ 3) From S. Mark i. 4, 5, 6,—to S. Matth. iii. 4-6. (§ 4) From S. Mark i. 7, 8,—to S. Matth. iii. 11: S. Luke iii. 16: S. John i. 15, 26-27, 30-1: iii. 28.

(I venture to add that any one who will compare the above with the margin of S. Mark’s Gospel in a common English “reference Bible,” will obtain a very fair notion of the convenience, and of the inconveniences of the Eusebian system. But to proceed with our remarks on the apparatus at the foot of Cod. 262.)

The owner of such a MS. was able to refer to parallel passages, (as above,) by merely turning over the pages of his book. E.g. The parallel places to S. Mark’s § 1 (Α) being § 70 of S. Luke (Ο) and § 103 of S. Matthew (ΡΓ),—it was just as easy for him to find those two places as it is for us to turn to S. Luke vii. 27 and S. Matth. xi. 10: perhaps easier.

V. I suspect that this peculiar method of exhibiting the Eusebian references (Canons as well as Sections) at a glance, was derived to the Greek Church from the Syrian Christians. What is certain, a precisely similar expedient for enabling readers to discover Parallel Passages prevails extensively in the oldest Syriac Evangelia extant. There are in the British Museum about twelve Syriac Evangelia furnished with such an apparatus of reference;(557) of which a specimen is subjoined,—derived however (because it was near at hand) from a MS. in the Bodleian,(558) of the viith or viiith century.

From this MS., I select for obvious reasons the last page but one (fol. 82) of S. Mark’s Gospel, which contains ch. xvi. 8-18. The Reader will learn with interest and surprise that in the margin of this page against ver. 8, is written in vermilion, by the original scribe, 281/1: against ver. 9,—282/10: against ver. 10,—283/1: against ver. 11,—284/8: against ver. 12:—285/8: against ver. 13,—286/8: against ver. 14,—287/10: against ver. 15,—288/6: against ver. 16,—289/10: against ver. 19,—290/8. That these sectional numbers,(559) with references to the Eusebian Canons subscribed, are no part of the (so-called) “Ammonian” system, will be recognised at a glance. According to that scheme, S. Mark xiv. 8 is numbered 233/2. But to proceed.

At the foot of the same page, (which is written in two columns), is found the following set of rubricated references to parallel places in the other three Gospels:—

The exact English counterpart of which,—(I owe it to the kind help of M. Neubauer, of the Bodleian),—is subjoined. The Reader will scarcely require to be reminded that the reason why §§ 282, 287, 289 do not appear in this Table is because those Sections, (belonging to the tenth Canon,) have nothing parallel to them in the other Gospels.

Luke Matthew Mark John Luke Matthew Mark 391 ... 286 247 390 421 281 ... 426 288 247 390 421 283 ... 391 ... 284 ... 393 ... 285

The general intention of this is sufficiently obvious: but the Reader must be told that on making reference to S. MATTHEW’S Gospel, in this Syriac Codex, it is found that § 421 = chap, xxviii. 8; and § 426 = chap. xxviii. 19, 20:

That, in S. LUKE’S Gospel,—§ 390 = chap. xxiv. 8-10: § 391 = chap. xxiv. 11; and § 393 = chap. xxiv. 13-17:(560)

That, in S. JOHN’S Gospel,—§ 247 = chap. xx. 17 (πορεύου down to Θεὸν ὑμῶν.)

So that, exhibited in familiar language, these Syriac Marginal References are intended to guide a Reader,

(§ 281) From S. Mark xvi. 8,—to S. Matth. xxviii. 8: S. Luke From S. Mark xxiv. 8-10: S. John xx. 17 (πορεύου to the end of the verse). (§ 283) From S. Mark xvi. 10,—to the same three places. (§ 284) From S. Mark xvi. 11,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11. (§ 285) From S. Mark xvi. 12,—to S. Luke xxiv. 13-17. (§ 286) From S. Mark xvi. 13,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11. (§ 288) From S. Mark xvi. 15,—to S. Matth. xxiv. 19, 20.

Here then, although the Ten Eusebian Canons are faithfully retained, it is much to be noted that we are presented with a different set of Sectional subdivisions. This will be best understood by attentively comparing all the details which precede with the Eusebian references in the inner margin of a copy of Lloyd’s Greek Testament.

But the convincing proof that these Syriac Sections are not those with which we have been hitherto acquainted from Greek MSS., is supplied by the fact that they are so many more in number. The sum of the Sections in each of the Gospels follows; for which, (the Bodleian Codex being mutilated,) I am indebted to the learning and obligingness of Dr. Wright.(561) He quotes from “the beautiful MS. Addit. 7,157, written A.D. 768.”(562) From this, it appears that the Sections in the Gospel according to,—

S. MATTHEW, (instead of being from 359 to 355,) are 426: (the last Section, § 426/6, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)

S. MARK, (instead of being from 241 to 233,) are 290: (the last Section, § 290/8, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)

S. LUKE, (instead of being from 349 to 342,) are 402: (the last Section, § 402/10, consisting of ver. 52, 53.)

S. JOHN, (instead of being 232,) is 271: (the last Section, § 271/10, consisting of ver. 18-25.)

The sum of the Sections therefore, in Syriac MSS. instead of being between 1181 and 1162,(563) is found to be invariably 1389.

But here, the question arises,—Did the Syrian Christians then retain the Ten Tables, dressing their contents afresh, so as to adapt them to their own ampler system of sectional subdivision? or did they merely retain the elementary principle of referring each Section to one of Ten Canons, but substitute for the Eusebian Tables a species of harmony, or apparatus of reference, at the foot of every page?

The foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a reference to Assemani’s engraved representation, on xxii Copper Plates, of the X Eusebian Tables from a superb Syriac Codex (A.D. 586) in the Medicean Library.(564) The student who inquires for Assemani’s work will find that the numbers in the last line of each of the X Tables is as follows:—

Matthew Mark Luke John Canon i 421 283 390 247 Canon ii 416 276 383 ... Canon iii 134 ... 145 178 Canon iv 394 212 ... 223 Canon v 319 ... 262 ... Canon vi 426 288 ... ... Canon vii 425 ... ... 249 Canon vii ... 290 401 ... Canon ix ... ... 399 262 Canon x 424 289 402 271

The Syrian Church, therefore, from a period of the remotest antiquity, not only subdivided the Gospels into a far greater number of Sections than were in use among the Greeks, but also habitually employed Eusebian Tables which—identical as they are in appearance and in the principle of their arrangement with those with which Greek MSS. have made us familiar,—yet differ materially from these as to the numerical details of their contents.

Let abler men follow up this inquiry to its lawful results. When the extreme antiquity of the Syriac documents is considered, may it not almost be made a question whether Eusebius himself put forth the larger or the smaller number of Sections? But however that may be, more palpably precarious than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident assertion of the Critics that, “just as EUSEBIUS found these Verses [S. Mark xvi. 9-20] absent in his day from the best and most numerous [sic] copies, so was also the case with AMMONIUS when he formed his Harmony in the preceding century.”(565)To speak plainly, the statement is purely mythical.

VI. Birch [Varr. Lectt. p. 226], asserts that in the best Codices, the Sections of S. Mark’s Gospel are not numbered beyond ch. xvi. 8. Tischendorf prudently adds, “or ver. 9:” but to introduce that alternative is to surrender everything. I subjoin the result of an appeal to 151 Greek Evangelia. There is written opposite to,

ver. 6, ... § 232, in 3 Codices, (viz. A, U, 286) ver. 8, ... § 233, in 34 Codices, (including L, S)(566) ver. 9, (?) § 234, in 41 Codices, (including Γ, Δ, Π)(567) ver. 10, (?) § 235, in 4 Codices, (viz. 67, 282, 331, 406) ver. 12, (?) § 236, in 7 Codices, (the number assigned by Suidas)(568) ver. 14, (?) § 237, in 12 Codices, (including Λ)(569) ver. 15, ... § 238, in 3 Codices, (viz. Add. 19,387: 27,861, Ti) ver. 17, ... § 239, in 1 Codex, (viz. G) ver. 19, ... § 240, in 10 Codices, (including H, M, and the Codices from which the Hharklensian Revision, A.D. 616, was made)(570) ver. 20, ... § 241, in 36 Codices, (including C, E, K, V)(571)

Thus, it is found that 114 Codices sectionize the last Twelve Verses, against 37 which close the account at ver. 8, or sooner. I infer—(a) That the reckoning which would limit the sections to precisely 233, is altogether precarious; and—(b) That the sum of the Sections assigned to S. Mark’s Gospel by Suidas and by Stephens (viz. 236) is arbitrary.

VII. To some, it may not be unacceptable, in conclusion, to be presented with the very words in which Eusebius explains how he would have his Sections and Canons used. His language requires attention. He says:—

Εἰ οὖν ἀναπτύξας ἕν τι τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ὁποιονδήποτε, βουληθείης ἐπιστῆναι τινι ᾧ βούλει κεφαλαίῳ, καὶ γνῶναι τίνες τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκασι, καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους ἐν ἑκάστῳ τόπους εὑρεῖν ἐν οἶς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν, ἧς ἐπέχεις περικοπῆς ἀναλαβὼν τὸν προκείμενον ἀριθμὸν, ἐπιζητήσας τὲ αὐτὸν ἔνδον ἐν τῷ κανόνι ὄν ἡ διὰ τοῦ κινναβάρεως ὑποσημείωσις ὑποβέβληκεν, εἴσῃ μὲν εὐθὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐπὶ μετώπου τοῦ κανόνος προγραφῶν, ὁπόσοι καὶ τίνες τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκασιν; ἐπιστήσας δὲ καὶ τοῖς τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμοῖς τοῖς ἐν τῷ κανόνι ᾧ ἐπέχεις ἀριθμῷ παρακειμένοις, ἐπιζητήσας τὲ αὐτοὺς ἔνδον ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις ἑκάστου εὐαγγελίου τόποις, τὰ παραπλήσια λέγοντας εὑρήσεις.

Jerome,—who is observed sometimes to exhibit the sense of his author very loosely,—renders this as follows:—

“Cum igitur aperto Codice, verbi gratia, illud sive illud Capitulum scire volueris cujus Canonis sit, statim ex subjecto numero doceberis; et recurrens ad principia, in quibus Canonum est distincta congeries, eodemque statim Canone ex titulo frontis invento, illum quem quærebas numerum, ejusdem Evangelistæ, qui et ipse ex inscriptione signatur, invenies; atque e vicino ceterorum tramitibus inspectis, quos numeros e regione habeant, annotabis. Et cum scieris, recurres ad volumina singulorum, et sine mora repertis numeris quos ante signaveras, reperies et loca in quibus vel eadem, vel vicina dixerunt.”

This may be a very masterly way of explaining the use of the Eusebian Canons. But the points of the original are missed. What Eusebius actually says is this:—

“If therefore, on opening any one soever of the four Gospels, thou desirest to study any given Section, and to ascertain which of the Evangelists have said things of the same kind; as well as to discover the particular place where each has been led [to speak] of the same things;—note the number of the Section thou art studying, and seek that number in the Canon indicated by the numeral subscribed in vermilion. Thou wilt be made aware, at once, from the heading of each Canon, how many of the Evangelists, and which of them, have said things of the same kind. Then, by attending to the parallel numbers relating to the other Gospels in the same Canon, and by turning to each in its proper place, thou wilt discover the Evangelists saying things of the same kind.”

APPENDIX (H).

On the Interpolation of the text of CODEX B and CODEX א at S. MATTHEW xxvii. 48 or 49.

(Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.)

It is well known that our two oldest Codices, Cod. B and Cod. א, (see above, p. 80,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvii. 49, as follows. After σωσων [Cod. Sinait. σωσαι] αυτον, they read:—

(COD. B.) αλλος δε λαβω λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πνευραν και εξηλ θεν υδωρ και αιμα

(COD. א.) αλλος δε λαβων λογχη ενυξεν αυτου ΤΗ πνευραν και εξηλ θεν υδωρ και αι μα

Then comes, ο δε ΙΣ παλιν κραξας κ.τ.λ. The same is also the reading of Codd. C, L, U, Γ: and it is known to recur in the following cursives,—5, 48, 67, 115, 127.(572)

Obvious is it to suspect with Matthaei, (ed. 1803, vol. i. p. 158,) that it was the Lectionary practice of the Oriental Church which occasioned this interpolation. In S. John xix. 34 occurs the well-known record,—ἀλλ᾽ εἶς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ: and it was the established practice of the Easterns, in the Ecclesiastical lection for Good Friday, (viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 1-61,) to interpose S. John xix. 31 to 37 between the 54th and the 55th verses of S. Matthew. This will be found alluded to above, at p. 202 and again at pp. 218-9.

After the pages just quoted were in type, while examining Harl. MS. 5647 in the British Museum, (our Evan. 72,) I alighted on the following Scholion, which I have since found that Wetstein duly published; but which has certainly not attracted the attention it deserves, and which is incorrectly represented as referring to the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. It is against ver. 48 that there is written in the margin,—

(Η(573) Ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διαδώρου καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων: τοῦτο πρόσκειται:

(Η Ἄλλος δὲ λαβών: λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πνευρὰν. καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα: τοῦτο λέγει καὶ ὁ Χρυσόστομος.

This writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In Chrysostom’s 88th Homily on S. Matthew’s Gospel, (Opp. vii, 825 C: [vol. ii, p. 526, ed. Field.]) is read as follows:—Ἐνόμισαν Ἠλίαν εἶναι, φησὶ, τὸν καλούμενον, καὶ εὐθέως ἐπότισαν αὐτὸν ὄξος: (which is clearly meant to be a summary of the contents of ver. 48: then follows) ἕτερος δὲ προσελθών λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τῆν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε. (Chrysostom quotes no further, but proceeds,—Τί γένοιτ ἄν τούτων παρανομώτερον, τί δὲ θηριωδέστερον, κ.τ.λ.)

I find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere to the opinion I once held, and have partially expressed above, (viz. at p. 202,) that the Lectionary-practice of the Eastern Church was the occasion of this corrupt reading in our two oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably is; and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. B, א, (not to say Codd. C, L, U, Γ,) must continue to sustain. That Chrysostom and Cyril also employed Codices disfigured by this self-same blemish, is certain. It is an interesting and suggestive circumstance. Nor is this all. Severus(574) relates that between A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had known this very reading strenuously discussed: whereupon had been produced a splendid copy of S. Matthew’s Gospel, traditionally said to have been found with the body of the Apostle Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the time of the Emperor Zeno (A.D. 474-491); and preserved in the palace with superstitious veneration in consequence. It contained no record of the piercing of the SAVIOUR’S side: nor (adds Severus) does any ancient Interpreter mention the transaction in that place,—except Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria; into whose Commentaries it has found its way.—Thus, to Codices B, א, C and the copy familiarly employed by Chrysostom, has to be added the copy which Cyril of Alexandria(575) employed; as well as evidently sundry other Codices extant at Constantinople about A.D. 500. That the corruption of the text of S. Matthew’s Gospel under review is ancient therefore, and was once very widely spread, is certain. The question remains,—and this is the only point to be determined,—How did it originate?

Now it must be candidly admitted, that if the strange method of the Lectionaries already explained, (viz. of interposing seven verses of S. John’s xixth chapter [ver. 31-7] between the 54th and 55th verses of S. Matth. xxvii,) really were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John xix. 34 after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49,—two points would seem to call for explanation which at present remain unexplained: First, (1) Why does only that one verse find place in the interpolated copies? And next, (2) How does it come to pass that that one verse is exhibited in so very depraved and so peculiar a form?

For, to say nothing of the inverted order of the two principal words, (which is clearly due to 1 S. John v. 6,) let it be carefully noted that the substitution of ἄλλος δὲ λαβών λόγχην, for ἀλλ᾽ εἶς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ of the Evangelist, is a tell-tale circumstance. The turn thus licentiously given to the narrative clearly proceeded from some one who was bent on weaving incidents related by different writers into a connected narrative, and who was sometimes constrained to take liberties with his Text in consequence. (Thus, S. Matthew having supplied the fact that “ONE OF THEM ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink,” S. John is made to say, “AND ANOTHER—took a spear.”) Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by Eusebius to have done: viz. “after some fashion of his own, to have composed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative.”(576)

When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient Critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost “Diatessaron” of Tatian, comes before us with the express declaration that in that famous monument of the primitive age (A.D. 173), S. John’s record of the piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side was thrust into S. Matthew’s History of the Passion in this precise way and in these very terms,—(for, “Note,” he says, “That into the Evangelical History of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other holy Fathers, is introduced the following addition: ‘And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water and Blood.’ This, Chrysostom also says”),—it is even unreasonable to seek for any other explanation of the vitiated text of our two oldest Codices. Not only is the testimony to the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the proposed solution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable, is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important. For,—May we not venture to opine that the same καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον,—as this Writer aptly designates Tatian’s work,—is responsible for not a few of the monstra potius quam variae lectiones(577) which are occasionally met with in the earliest MSS. of all? And,—Am I not right in suggesting that the circumstance before us is the only thing we know for certain about the text of Tatian’s (miscalled) “Harmony?”

To conclude.—That the “Diatessaron” of Tatian, (for so, according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled it,) has long since disappeared, no one now doubts.(578) That Eusebius himself, (who lived 150 years after the probable date of its composition,) had never seen it, may I suppose be inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it. Jerome does not so much as mention its existence. Epiphanius, who is very full and particular concerning the heresy of Tatian, affords no indication that he was acquainted with his work. On the contrary. “The Diatessaron Gospel,” (he remarks in passing,) “which some call the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is said to have been the production of this writer.”(579) The most interesting notice we have of Tatian’s work is from the pen of Theodoret. After explaining that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist, and next a disciple of Justin Martyr [A.D. 150], after Justin’s death aspired to being a heretical leader,—(statements which are first found in Irenæus,)—Theodoret enumerates his special tenets. “This man” (he proceeds) “put together the so-called Diatessaron Gospel,—from which he cut away the genealogies, and whatever else shews that the LORD was born of the seed of David. The book was used not only by those who favoured Tatian’s opinions, but by the orthodox as well; who, unaware of the mischievous spirit in which the work had been executed, in their simplicity used the book as an epitome. I myself found upwards of two hundred such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place,” (Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made Bishop, A.D. 423,)—“all of which I collected together, and put aside; substituting the Gospels of the Four Evangelists in their room.”(580)

The diocese of Theodoret (he says) contained eight hundred Parishes.(581) It cannot be thought surprising that a work of which copies had been multiplied to such an extraordinary extent, and which was evidently once held in high esteem, should have had some influence on the text of the earliest Codices; and here, side by side with a categorical statement as to one of its licentious interpolations, we are furnished with documentary proof that many an early MS. also was infected with the same taint. To assume that the two phenomena stand related to one another in the way of cause and effect, seems to be even an inevitable proceeding.

I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the “Diodorus” of whom the unknown author of this scholion speaks: but I suppose it was that Diodorus who was made Bishop of Tarsus in A.D. 378. He is related to have been the preceptor of Chrysostom; was a very voluminous writer; and, among the rest, according to Suidas, wrote a work “on the Four Gospels.”

Lastly,—How about the singular introduction into the Lection for Good-Friday of this incident of the piercing of the REDEEMER’S side? Is it allowable to conjecture that, indirectly, the Diatessaron of Tatian may have been the occasion of that circumstance also; as well as of certain other similar phenomena in the Evangeliaria?

POSTSCRIPT.

(PROMISED AT p. 51.)

I proceed to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.—C.F. Matthaei (Nov. Test., 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of the MSS. at Moscow occurs the following “Scholion of EUSEBIUS:—κατὰ Μάρκον μετὰ τῆν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς.” On this, Griesbach remarks (Comm. Crit. ii. 200),—“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset:” the record in S. Mark xvi. 14, being express,—Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη. The epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach’s dictum has recommended it to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourably on the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel; and to this hour the Scholion of Matthaei remains unchallenged.

But to accept the proposed inference from it, is impossible. It ought to be obvious to every thoughtful person that problems of this class will not bear to be so handled. It is as if one were to apply the rigid mathematical method to the ordinary transactions of daily life, for which it is clearly unsuitable. Before we move a single step, however, we desire a few more particulars concerning this supposed evidence of Eusebius.

Accordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the Rev. W. G. Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain for me the entire context in which this “Scholion of Eusebius” occurs: little anticipating the trouble I was about to give him. His task would have been comparatively easy had I been able to furnish him (which I was not) with the exact designation of the Codex required. At last by sheer determination and the display of no small ability, he discovered the place, and sent me a tracing of the whole page: viz. fol. 286 (the last ten words being overleaf) of Matthaei’s “12,” (“Synod. 139,”) our EVAN. 255.

It proves to be the concluding portion of Victor’s Commentary, and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of Possinus, and p. 446-7 of Cramer: except that after the words “ἀποκυλίσειε τὸν λίθον,” and before the words “ἄλλος δέ φησιν” [Possinus, line 12 from bottom: Cramer, line 3 from the top], is read as follows:—

οχολ εὐσεβίου

κατὰ Μάρκον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς: κατὰ Ματθαῖον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.

κατὰ Ἰωάννην: ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὁ Ἰησοῦς μέσος τῶν μαθητῶν μὴ παρόντος τοῦ Θωμᾶ ἔστη; καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας πάλιν ὀκτὼ συμπαρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ. μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς θαλασσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος.

κατὰ Λουκᾶν: ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως: καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὤφθη τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνηγμένων τῶν λοιπῶν μαθητῶν: καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι: καὶ πάλιν ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν καὶ διέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν.

But surely no one who considers the matter attentively, will conceive that he is warranted in drawing from this so serious an inference as that Eusebius disallowed the last Section of S. Mark’s Gospel.

(1.) In the first place, we have already [suprà, p. 44] heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question. That he allowed it, is therefore certain.

(2.) But next, this σχόλιον εὐσεβίου at the utmost can only be regarded as a general summary of what Eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our LORD’S appearances after His Resurrection. As it stands, it clearly is not the work of Eusebius.

(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement cannot be accepted on my own mere “ipse dixit,” I proceed to subjoin the original Scholion of which the preceding is evidently only an epitome. It is found in three of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but without any Author’s name:—

Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι συνεχῶς αὐτοῖς συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ὁ Κύριος μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν; οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφανερώθη τοῖς μαθηταῖς. κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὤφθη αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαιᾳ μόνον; κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἰωάννην, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, μέσος αὐτῶν ἔστη ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, μὴ παρόντος ἐκει Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, παρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ, ὤφθη αὐτοῖς, ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ού τοῖς ΙΑ ἀλλὰ μόνοις ζ. κατὰ δὲ Λουκᾶν ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν, ὤφθη Σίμωνι. καὶ πάλιν ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν, ὅτε καὶ διέστη ἀναληφθεὶς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν; ὡς ἐκ τοῦτου παρίστασθαι ζ. εἶναι τοὺς μαθητὰς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν γεγονυίας ὀπτασίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. μίαν μὲν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, τρεῖς δὲ παρὰ τῷ Ἰώαννῃ, καὶ τρεῖς τῷ Λουκᾷ ὁμοίως.(582)

(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—the only thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,—is the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of Eusebius,—(“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset,”)—is no longer discoverable. To say that “it has disappeared,” would be incorrect. In the original document it has no existence. In plain terms, the famous “σχόλιον εὐσεβίου” proves to be every way a figment. It is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some nameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as I shall presently shew) cannot have been the Author.

(5.) I may as well point out why the person who wrote the longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark’s Gospel. It is because there was nothing for him to say. He is enumerating our LORD’S appearances to His Disciples after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these were exactly seven in number: one being peculiar to S. Matthew,—three, to S. John,—three, to S. Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there exists no record of an appearance to the Disciples peculiar to S. Mark’s Gospel, the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark perforce.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei can have overlooked all this: how he can have failed to recognise the identity of his longer and his shorter Scholion: how he came to say of the latter, “conjicias ergo Eusebium hunc totum locum repudiasse;” and, of the former, “ultimam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere:”(583) lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write,—“est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat:”(584)—I profess myself unable to understand.

(6.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his Author,—besides enumerating all the appearances of our SAVIOUR which S. Luke anywhere records,—is further convicted of having injudiciously invented the negative statement about S. Mark’s Gospel which is occasioning us all this trouble.

(7.) And yet, by that unlucky sentence of his, he certainly did not mean what is commonly imagined. I am not concerned to defend him: but it is only fair to point out that, to suppose he intended to disallow the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, is altogether to misapprehend the gist of his remarks, and to impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew nothing. Note, how he throws his first two statements into a separate paragraph; contrasts, and evidently balances one against the other: thus,—

κατὰ Μάρκον, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι,—κατὰ Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ὤφθη,—τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.

Perfectly evident is it that the “plena locutio” so to speak, of the Writer would have been somewhat as follows:—

“[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our SAVIOUR’S appearance to His Disciples in Galilee: but] by S. Mark, He is not—by S. Matthew, He is—related to have been actually seen by them there.

“[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances in Jerusalem: and] according to S. John, &c. &c.

“According to S. Luke,” &c. &c.

(8.) And on passing the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of Eusebius under review, I am constrained to admit that the Scholion before us is just such a clumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed into, who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient Father.(585) Its remote parentage would fully account for its being designated “σχόλιον εὐσεβίου” all the same.

(9.) Least of all am I concerned to say anything more about the longer Scholion; seeing that S. Mark is not so much as mentioned in it. But I may as well point out that, as it stands, Eusebius cannot have been its Author: the proof being, that whereas the Scholion in question is a note on S. John xxi. 12, (as Matthaei is careful to inform us,)—its opening sentence is derived from Chrysostom’s Commentary on that same verse in his 87th Homily on S. John.(586)

(10.) And thus, one by one, every imposing statement of the Critics is observed hopelessly to collapse as soon as it is questioned, and to vanish into thin air.

So much has been offered, only because of the deliberate pledge I gave in p. 51.—Never again, I undertake to say, will the “Scholion of Eusebius” which has cost my friend at Moscow, his Archimandrites, and me, so much trouble, be introduced into any discussion of the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. As the oversight of one (C. F. Matthaei) who was singularly accurate, and towards whom we must all feel as towards a Benefactor, let it be freely forgiven as well as loyally forgotten!

L’ENVOY

As one, escaped the bustling trafficking town, Worn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill And thinks it Heaven to see the calm green fields Mapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet: Or walks enraptured where the fitful south Comes past the beans in blossom; and no sight Or scent or sound but fills his soul with glee:— So I,—rejoicing once again to stand Where Siloa’s brook flows softly, and the meads Are all enamell’d o’er with deathless flowers, And Angel voices fill the dewy air. Strife is so hateful to me! most of all A strife of words about the things of GOD. Better by far the peasant’s uncouth speech Meant for the heart’s confession of its hope. Sweeter by far in village-school the words But half remembered from the Book of Life, Or scarce articulate lispings of the Creed.

And yet, three times that miracle of Spring The grand old tree that darkens Exeter wall Hath decked itself with blossoms as with stars, Since I, like one that striveth unto death, Find myself early and late and oft all day Engaged in eager conflict for GOD’S Truth; GOD’S Truth, to be maintained against Man’s lie. And lo, my brook which widened out long since Into a river, threatens now at length To burst its channel and become a sea.

O Sister, who ere yet my task is done Art lying (my loved Sister!) in thy shroud With a calm placid smile upon thy lips As thou wert only “taking of rest in sleep,” Soon to wake up to ministries of love,— Open those lips, kind Sister, for my sake In the mysterious place of thy sojourn, (For thou must needs be with the bless’d,—yea, where The pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to GOD,) And tell the Evangelist of thy brother’s toil; Adding (be sure!) “He found it his reward, Yet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers, The blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers, Sure at the least unceasingly of mine!”

One other landed on the eternal shore! One other garnered into perfect peace! One other hid from hearing and from sight!... O but the days go heavily, and the toil Which used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy. There come no tokens to us from the dead: Save—it may be—that now and then we reap Where not we sowed, and that may be from them, Fruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray! Meantime there comes no message, comes no word: Day after day no message and no sign: And the heart droops, and finds that it was Love Not Fame it longed for, lived for: only Love.

CANTERBURY.

GENERAL INDEX.

Under “Codices” will be found all the Evangelia described or quoted: under “Texts” all the places of Scripture illustrated or referred to.

“Acta Pilati,” p. 25.

ACTS, p. 199-200. See Texts.

Addit. See Codices.

Adler, J. G. C, p. 33-4.

Alford, Dean, p. 8, 13, 38, 77, 103, 164, 227, 244-5, 259.

Algasia, p. 52.

Ambrose, p. 27.

“Ammonian” Sections, p. 126-32, 295-311; in the four Gospels, p. 309; in S. Mark’s Gospel, p. 311.

Ammonius, p. 125-32.

ἀνάγνωσις, p. 196.

ἀνάγνωσμα, p. 45, 196.

ἀναληφθῆναι, p. 166.

Andreas of Crete, p. 258.

Angelic Hymn, p. 257-63.

ἀντεβλήθη, p. 119.

ἀπέχει, p. 225, 6.

ἀφορμή, p. 127, 137.

Aphraates the Persian, p. 26-7, 258.

ἀπιστεῖν, p. 158-9.

Apocrypha, p. 301.

Apolinarius, p. 275, 277.

“Apostolical Constitutions,” p. 25, 258.

ἀρχή, p. 224-5.

Armenian Version, p. 36, 239.

Ascension, The, p. 195. Lessons, p. 204-5, 238-9.

Assemani, p. 309-10, 315.

Asterisks, p. 116-8, 218.

Athanasian Creed, p. 3, 254.

Athanasius, p. 30, 275; how he read S. Jo. xvii. 15, 16, p. 74.

Augustine, p. 28, 198, 200.

Babington, Rev. C, p. 291.

Basil, p. 93-9, 275.

βαςιλίς, p. 275.

Basle, p. 283. See Codices.

Bede, Ven., p. 30.

Bengel, J. A., p. 17, 101-2, 185.

Benson, Rev. Dr., p. 101.

Βηθαβαρά and Βηθανία, p. 236.

Bibliothèque at Paris, p. 228-31, 278-83.

Birch’s N. T., Andr., p. 5, 116-8, 311.

Βλάπτειν, p. 160.

Bobbiensis, Codex, p. 35, 124, 186.

Bodleian. See Codices.

Book of Common Prayer, p. 215.

Bostra, see Titus.

Bosworth, Rev. Prof., p. 262.

Broadus, Prof., p. 139, 155, 168, 174.

Cæsarius, p. 133.

Canons, p. 127-31, 295-312. See Sections.

Carpian, Letter to, p. 126-8, 311-2.

Carthage. See Council.

Cassian, p. 193.

Catenaæ, p. 133-5. See Corderius, Cramer, Matthaei, Peltanus, Possinus, Victor.

Chrysostom, p. 27, 85, 110, 179, 193, 198-9, 201-4, 223, 258-9, 275-7, 278, 314-6, 323.

Church, the Christian, p. 192. Festivals, p. 203.

Churton, Rev. W. R., p. 236.

“Circular,” A, p. 101-5.

Citations, see Patristic.

Clemens Alex., p. 30.

Codices, depraved, p. 80-6, 217-24. See Corrupt readings, Dated, Syriac. 151, referred to p. 311.

CODICES. Codex א, p. 70-90, 77, 109-13, 218-22, 252, 257, 313; how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 88-90; omissions, 73-5, 79, 80; Ephes. i. 1, 91-109; interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6; affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24; sympathy with B, 78; not so old as B, 291-4; facsimile, p. ii. A, p. 220-1, 222, 257-9, 311. B, p. 70-90, 257, 202, 217-20, 222-3, 313; how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 86-90; omissions, 74-5, 79, 80; Ephes. i. 1, 91-109; interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6; affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24; sympathy with א, 78; older than א 291-4. C, p. 218, 221-2, 302, 311; depraved by the Lectionary practice, p. 220. D, p. 100, 219-25, 257, 262, 302. E, p. 305, 311. F, p. 302. G, p. 306, 311. H, p. 302, 306, 311. K, p. 197, 302, 311. L, p. 123-5, 218, 225, 311; facsimile, p. 124. M, p. 197, 305, 306, 311. P, Q, R, Y, Z, p. 302. S, V, Δ, Π, p. 311. Tb, p. 305. U, p. 218, 311. Wb, p. 302. Wd, p. 305. Γ, p. 218, 224, 311. Λ, p. 119, 122, 311. Codex 1, p. 120, 123, 125. Codex 7, p. 239. Codex 10, p. 224, 231. Codex 12, p. 122, 278, 288-9. Codex 13, p. 226. Codex 15, p. 119. Codex 19, p. 240, 278. Codex 20, p. 118-9 22, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2. Codex 22, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242. Codex 23, p. 120. Codex 24, p. 121-3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 288-9. Codex 25, p. 225, 280. Codex 27, p. 239. Codex 30, p. 231. Codex 33, p. 123. Codex 34, p. 66, 120, 121-3, 280. Codex 36, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9. Codex 37, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9. Codex 38, p. 121-3. Codex 39, p. 120, 121-3, 271, 281. Codex 40, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9. Codex 41, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9. Codex 47, p. 226. Codex 50, p. 271, 281. Codex 54, 56 and 61, p. 226. Codex 63, p. 240-1. Codex 69, p. 123, 226. Codex 72, p. 23, 218, 314. Codex 77, p. 283. Codex 90, p. 240. Codex 92 and 94, p. 283. Codex 108, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. Codex 113, p. 218. Codex 117, p. 302. Codex 124, p. 226. Codex 129, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. Codex 137, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 138, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 143, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 146, p. 286. Codex 181 and 186, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. Codex 194, p. 284. Codex 195, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 197, p. 284. Codex 199, 206 and 209, p. 120, 1-3, 5. Codex 210, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 215, p. 285. Codex 221 and 222, p. 121-3, 285, 8-9. Codex 233, p. 286. Codex 237 and 238, p. 285, 8-9, 321. Codex 239, p. 321. Codex 253, p. 285. Codex 255, p. 285, 288-9, 319-23. Codex 256, p. 239, 286. Codex 259, p. 286, 288-9, 321. Codex 262, p. 119, 122, 305. Codex 263, p. 302, 304. Codex 264, p. 117, 305-6. Codex 265, p. 225. Codex 266, p. 238. Codex 267, p. 216. Codex 268, p. 231. Codex 270, p. 224. Codex 274, p. 124. Codex 282 and 293, p. 231. Codex 299, p. 122, 281, 288-9. Codex 300, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2. Codex 301, p. 282. Codex 304, p. 283. Codex 309, p. 239, 282. Codex 312, p. 282. Codex 329, p. 122, 282, 288-9. Codex 332 and 353, p. 286. Codex 373, p. 287. Codex 374, p. 122, 121, 2, 286, 288-9. Codex 379 and 427, p. 287. Codex 428 and 432, p. 286. Codex 436, p. 218. Codex 439, p. 226. Addit. 7, 157, p. 309. Addit. 12,141, p. 215. Addit. 14,449, p. 215, 306, 309. Addit. 14,450, p. 215, 306, 310. Addit. 14,451, p. 306. Addit. 14,452-4-5, p. 215, 306. Addit. 14,456, p. 215. Addit. 14,457-8, p. 215, 306, 309. Addit. 14,461, p. 215. Addit. 14,463, p. 215, 306. Addit. 14,464, p. 215. Addit. 14,469, p. 306. Addit. 14,485-8, p. 208. Addit. 14,492, p. 208. Addit. 17,113, p. 215, 306. Addit. 17,114-5-6, p. 215. Addit. 17,213, p. 310. Ambros. M. 93, p. 286. Basil., p. 283, (three Codd.) Bobbiensis, p. 35, 124, 186. Bodleian, see Codd. Γ, Λ, 47, 50, 54, Dawkins. Coisl. 19, p. 122, 282, 8-9. Coisl. 20, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9. Coisl. 21, p. 121-3, 281, 8-9. Coisl. 22, p. 281, 288. Coisl. 23, p. 271, 281, 288. Coisl. 24, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9. Coisl. 195, p. 66, 120, 1-3, 280. Dawkins 3, p. 306-9. Escurial Υ, ii. 8, p. 286. Florence, S. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv. p. 120, 1-3, 5. Harl. 1, 810, p. 218. Harl. 5,107, p. 226. Harl. 5,647, p. 23, 218, 314. Laur. vi. 18, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. Laur. vi. 33, p. 284. Laur. vi. 34, p. 284, 288. Laur. viii. 14, p. 284. Matthaei’s a, 286, 288-9, 321. Matthaei’s d, p. 285, 288-9. Matthaei’s e, p. 285, 288-9. Matthaei’s 10, p. 285. Matthaei’s 12, p. 285, 288, 319-23. Matthaei’s 14, p. 239, 286. Meerman 117, p. 218. Middle Hill 13, 975, p. 287. Monacen. 99 and 381, p. 286. Monacen 465, p. 287. Moscow, see Matthaei. Reg. 14, p. 123. Reg. 50, p. 226. Reg. 53, p. 119, 122, 305. Reg. 61 p. 302, 304. Reg. 62, see Codex L. Reg. 64, p. 119. Reg. 65, p. 117, 305-6. Reg. 66, p. 225. Reg. 67, p. 238. Reg. 69, p. 216. Reg. 71, p. 239. Reg. 72, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242. Reg. 73, p. 231. Reg. 75, p. 224. Reg. 77, p. 120. Reg. 79, p. 124. Reg. 90, p. 231. Reg. 91, p. 224, 231. Reg. 100, p. 231. Reg. 115, p. 239. Reg. 117, p. 231. Reg. 177, p. 121, 281, 8-9. Reg. 178, p. 121, 3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 8, 9. Reg. 186, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2. Reg. 187, p. 282. Reg. 188, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2. Reg. 189, p. 240, 278. Reg. 191, p. 225, 280. Reg. 194, p. 283. Reg. 201, p. 239, 282. Reg. 206, p. 282. Reg. 230, p. 122, 278, 288-9. Reg. 703, p. 282. 2pe, p. 226. 7pe, p. 286. cscr, p. 226. iscr and sscr, p. 302. Tb, p. 305. Taurin. xx b. iv. 20, p. 286. Toledo, p. 286. Vat. 358, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. Vat. 756-7, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9. Vat. 1,229 p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Vat. 1,423, p. 287. Vat. 1,445, p. 122, 286, 288-9. Vat. 1,769, p. 287. Vat. Palat. 5, p. 286. Venet. 6, 10, p. 120, 121-3, 5. Venet. 27, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Venet. 495, p. 285. Venet. 544, p. 285. Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. 121, 3, 283, 288-9. Vind. Kell. Nep. 114, Lambec. 29, p. 283. Vind. Kell. 117, Vind. Kell. 38, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9. Vind. Kill. 118, 31, p. 226. Vind. Kill. 180, 39, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9. Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. 311. Xavier de Zelada, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.

Cod. Evstt. 47 and 50, p. 197. Paul, 67, p. 99.

Collation of MSS. p. vii.-viii., 218.

Colossians, Ep. to, p. 101, 162. See Texts.

Commentaries, Ancient, p. 287.

Common Prayer, see Book.

Concordance test, p. 173.

Constantinople, p. 275.

Conybeare and Howson, p. 103.

Coptic Version, p. 35.

Copyists of MSS., p. 262, 273-4, 320-3.

Corderius, B., p. 44, 134, 270, 4, 7.

Corrupt readings in MSS., p. 100-1, 112, 262-3.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, p. 258.

Council of Carthage, p. 25, 249.

Cramer, Dr. J. A., p. 44, 60, 271-3.

Creed of Jerusalem, p. 184-5. see Athanasian.

Curetonian Syriac Version, p. 33.

Cyprian, 25, 249.

Cyprus, p. 315.

Cyril of Alex., p. 29, 60, 110, 198, 201, 258, 271, 5, 7, 9, 281, 315. Cyril of Jer., p. 184-5, 195, 258, 261.

Cyrus in Syria, p. 317, 8.

Damascene, John, p. 30.

Dated MSS., p. 208, 224, 309.

Davidson. Dr., p. 12, 38, 114, 133-5, 6; 142, 8; 153, 160, 1, 4; 185.

De Touttée, p. 184, 261.

δευτεροπρώτῳ, p. 75, 220.

Diatessaron, p. 126, 314-8.

Diodorus, p. 314-8.

Dionysius of Corinth, p. 245.

Dionysius Syrus, p. 41.

δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, p. 257-63.

Easter Lessons, p. 204-6, 238-9.

Eden, Rev. C. P., p. 3.

ἐγκύκλιον, p. 104-5.

ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ and ἀπό, p. 153.

ἐκεῖνος, p. 166-7.

ἔκλειψις, p. 86.

Ellicott, Bishop, p. 9.

Encyclical, p. 101-5.

Ephesians, Ep. to, p. 91-109. See Texts.

ἐπί, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4.

ἐπιφανία, τὰ, p. 204.

Epiphanius, p. 95, 132-3, 199, 202-3, 258.

Epiphany, Festival of, p. 204, 7; lessons, 199.

Erizzo, F. M. p. 34.

Ethiopic Version, p. 36.

εὐδοκία, p. 257-63.

Eulogius, p. 258.

Eusebius, p. 26, 41-51, 43, 61-4, 66, 84, 126-33, 332-8, 240, 249-52, 265-6, 267-8, 275, 314, 316, 323; knew nothing of Cod. א, p. 293-4; was the Author of the “Ammonian” Sections, p. 295; Eusebian Tables in Syriac MSS., p. 309-10; Scholion wrongly ascribed to, p. 319-23.

εὐθέως, p. 168-9.

Euthymius Zig., p. 30, 68-9.

Evangelia, see Codices.

Evangeliaria, p. 195, 197, 214-5.

Evangelists vary their expressions, p. 147.

Evidence, Law of, p. 15.

ἐξελθόντες, p. 188.

Facsimile of Cod. א, p. ii.; of Cod. L, p. 124.

Fathers badly indexed, p. vii, 21, 30, 315: see Patristic.

Festivals of the Church, p. 203.

Field’s ed. of Chrysostom, p. 180.

Florence. See Codices.

Formulæ of the Lectionaries, p. 215-224, 5.

Gandell, Rev. Prof., p. 148.

Garnier, J., p. 101.

Genesis, when read, p. 201.

Gennadius, p. 26.

Georgian Version, p. 36.

Gloria in Excelsis, p. 257-63.

Gothic Version, p. 35, 262.

Green, Rev. T. S., p. 13, 137, 153.

Gregentius, p. 30.

Gregory of Nazianzus, p. 258. Gregory of Nyssa, p. 29, 39-41, 66, 267-8. Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. 180. Gregory the Great, p. 30.

Griesbach, D. J. J., p. 4-7, 115-6, 232, 251, 319.

Harleian. See Codices.

Harmonia, &c., Oxon. 1805, p. 298.

Harmony of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with the other Gospels, p. 188-90, Tables of, in Greek MSS., p. 304-6; in Syriac MSS., p. 306-11.

Harris, A. C, p. 293.

Hedibia, p. 51-6.

Hesychius of Jerusalem, p. 29, 40-1, 57-9, 67, 204, 237, 267-8.

Heurtley, Rev. Prof., p. 184.

Hharklensian Revision, p. 33, 124, 315.

Hierosolymitan Version, p. 34, 199.

Hippolytus, p. 24-5, 248.

Hort, Rev. F. J. A., p. 13.

Huet, P. D., p. 269, 275, 314.

Hypapante, p. 207.

Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, p. 165.

Indices, p. vii-viii, 21, 30, 315.

Interpolations in B and א p. 80-6; from the Lectionary practice, p. 217-214.

Irenæus, p. 23, 246, 8, 260.

Itala, Vetus, p. 35.

Jacobus Bar-Salibi, p. 41.

“Jacobus Nisibenus,” p. 26, 258.

James’ Ecloga, p. 236.

Jerome, p. 26, 27-8, 34, 42, 49, 51-7, 67, 98, 106, 128, 153, 236, 260, 295, 312, 314.

Jerusalem, Version, p. 34, 199. Copies at, p. 119. See Creed.

Jewish Church, p. 192.

Jewish Lectionary, p. 194.

JOHN, S. See Texts.

John Damascene, p. 30.

Josephus, p. 275.

Justin Martyr, p. 23, 193.

καθαρίζων, p. 179-80.

κανονίζειν, p. 120-1, 125.

Kay, Rev. Dr. W., p. 140, 183.

κείμενον, p. 131, 282.

κεφάλαιον, p. 45, 229, 298.

Kollar, p. 269.

κτίσις, p. 161-2, 180.

Κύριος, p. 165, 185.

Lachmann, C., p. 8, 259, 263-4

Laodiceans, Ep. to, p. 93-107.

Latinus Latinius, p. 42-44.

Lectionary System, p. 191-211, 214-5, 217-24, 240, 313-5, 318. Eastern p. 196-211. Jewish, p. 192-4. Syrian, p. 205-8. the New, p. 200.

Lections, p. 238-9. See Lectionary System, Syrian Lessons.

Lessons. See Lections.

Licentious. See Copyists.

Liturgical Formulæ, p. 216-25.

Lloyd, Bishop C, p. 298.

λόγος, p. 165.

LUKE, S. See Texts.

Macknight, p. 105.

Mai, Card. A., p. 42-4, 242, 265.

Manuscripts. See CODICES.

Marcion, p. 93-6, 103, 106-8.

Marginal references, p. 298-304.

Marinus, p. 26, 53-6, 249-50.

Mark, S., p. 161-2.

MARK, S. (See Texts), p. 167, 176, 7, 9; Latinisms, 149-51; style of ch. i. 9-20, p. 143-4; phraseology of ch. i. 1-12, p. 174-5; ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 36-73; structure of ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 181-4. xvi. 9-20, a Lection in the Ancient Church, p. 204-11.

Matthaei, C. F., p. 5, 66, 191, 197, 227, 247, 271-3, 319-23. See Codices.

MATTHEW, S. See Texts.

μέγα σάββατον, p. 194.

Meerman 117, Cod., p. 218.

Memphitic Version, p. 35.

Menologium, p. 197.

Methodius, p. 258.

Meyer, p. 13, 136, 160. τῶν σαββάτων, p. 146-51.

Michaelis, J. D., p. 101.

Middle Hill, see Codices.

Middleton, Bp., p. 105.

Mill, Dr. John, p. 129, 130, 2.

Modestus, p. 30.

Montfaucon, B. de, p. 121.

Moscow, see Codices, Rev. W. G. Penny.

Munich, see Codices.

Muratorian fragment, p. 103.

Nativity, Festival of, p. 199, 204.

Nazianzus, see Gregory.

Nestorius, p. 29.

Neubauer, M., p. 307.

Nisibenus, see Aphraates.

Norton, Prof., p. 13, 137, 245.

Nyssa, see Gregory.

Omissions in B and א, p. 73-5, 79, 80, 91, &c.

ὁμοιοτέλευτον, p. 73, 4.

Order of the Gospels, p. 239-240.

Oriel College, p. ix, x.

Origen, p. 47, 66, 85, 93-9, 107, 179, 222, 236, 245, 258, 260-1, 275, 277, 282; on S. Mark, 235.

Palestinian exemplar, p. 64-5, 121, 289.

πάλιν, p. 168-9.

Palmer, Sir Roundell, p. v, vi. Palmer, Rev. W. J., p. v.

Papias, p. 23.

παρά, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4.

Parallel passages. See Tables of Reference.

παρασκευή, p. 150.

Paris, MSS. at, p. 228-31, 278-83: see Codices, Coisl. and Reg.

Passion-tide Lessons, p. 202, 204.

“Patres App.,” p. 240.

Patristic Citations of SS., p. 20-3, 37, 257-63.

Paul, S., p. 161-2.

Peltanus, p. 134, 270-3.

Penny, Rev. W. G., p. 319-23.

περιγράφειν τὸ τέλος, p. 233-4.

περικοπή, p. 45, 196, 8, 298.

Peshito Version, p. 32.

Peter, S., p. 161-2, 179, 180-1. See Texts. Peter of Laodicea, p. 284, 286.

Petersburg. See Rev. A. S. Thompson.

Petrus junior, p. 315.

Phillipps, Sir T. See Codices (Middle Hill).

Philoxenian Version, p. 33, 4.

Phraseology of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-173, 146.

Pius IX., p. ii.

Polycarp, p. 240.

πορεύεσθαι, p. 153.

Possevinus, p. 235.

Possinus, p. 44, 134, 226, 270-4, 277, 290-2.

Prayer-Book, see Book.

Proclus, p. 258.

Proper, see Lessons.

πρώτη σαββάτου, p. 146-51.

Reference Bibles, p. 300-1. ancient Tables of, p. 304-11.

Revision of Auth. Version, p. 263-4. Greek Text, p. 263. Lectionary, p. 200-1.

Rose, Ven. Archd., p. 27. Rev. W. F., p. 218.

Routh, Rev. President, p. ix.

Rufinus, p. 314.

S. (G. V.) p. 264.

σαββατοκυριακαί, p. 194.

σάββατον—τα, p. 146-51.

Sahidic Version, p. 36.

Saturday Lessons, p. 193, 4.

Scholia, p. 122, 236, 288-9, 314, 319-23.

Scholz, J. M. A., p. 7, 116-222, 197, 227, 242.

Scrivener, Rev. F. H., p. vii, viii, 9, 77, 139, 197, 215, 227, 246, 302-4.

Sections without Canons in MSS., p. 302; their use, 303-10. see Ammonian.

σελίδες, p. 294.

Severus of Antioch, p. 40-1, 57-9, 67, 121, 267-8, 315.

σημείωσις, p. 314.

Simon, Père, p. 48, 269.

Sinaiticus, see Codex.

Sirletus, Card., p. 44.

Smith, Dean Payne, p. 41, 205-6, 214, 306.

Stanley, Dean A. P., p. 3.

Style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-45.

Subscription of Gospels, p. 230-1.

Suidas, p. 309, 311.

Synagogue worship, p. 192-3.

Synaxarium, p. 197.

“Synopsis Script. S.,” p. 29.

Syriac MSS., p. 208, 214-5, 225, 306-11.

Syrian Lessons, p. 205, 226, 238-9.

Tables of Reference in MSS, p. 304-11.

Tait, Abp., p. 2, 3, 189, 314-8.

Tatian, p. 129, 314-8.

τέλος, p. 119-20, 224-42.

Tertullian, p. 30, 93-4, 106.

Textual Criticism, p. vii-ix, 113.

TEXTS. S. MATTHEW i. 10, p. 178; i. 25, p. 80. iii. 16, p. 178; iii. 17, p. 30. iv. 18-22, p. 295-6. viii. 9, p. 82; viii. 13, p. 80, 222. xi. 19, p. 83; xi. 20, p. 221. xii. 9, p. 221. xiii. 35, p. 81, 110-1; xiii. 36, p. 221; xiii. 39, 55, p. 178. xiv. 14, p. 221; xiv. 22, p. 216; xiv. 30, p. 82. xv. 22, p. 178. xvi. 10, p. 177; xvi. 12, p. 178-9; xvi. 15, p. 162. xx. 17, p. 223; xx. 29, p. 178. xxi. 8, p. 178; xxi. 31, p. 83. xxv. 24, p. 82. xxvi. 34, 75, p. 178; xxvi. 39, p. 217-8. xxvii. 32, p. 188; xxvii. 34, p. 84; xxvii. 35, p. 75; xxvii. 48, 49, p. 80, 218, 313-8; xxvii. 54, 55, p. 315. xxviii. 2, 3, p. 73; xxviii. 8, p. 84; xxviii. 19, 20, p. 178. S. MARK i. 1, p. 180, 185; i. 9-20, p. 182; i. 10, p. 178; i. 11, 13, p. 30; i. 16-20, p. 295-6; i. 28, p. 85. vi. 3, p. 178. vii. 3, 4, p. 82; vii. 19, p. 179; vii. 26, p. 178. viii. 10, 15, p. 178. x. 6, p. 180; x. 42, p. 82; x. 46, p. 178. xi. 8, p. 178. xiii. 19, p. 180. xiv. 3, p. 221; xiv. 30, p. 178; xiv. 30, 68, 72, p. 84; xiv. 41, p. 225; xiv. 58, p. 82; xiv. 72, p. 177. xv. 28, p. 301; xv. 46, p. 82. xvi. 8 and 9, p. 239; xvi. 8-20, p. 306; xvi. 9, p. 152-3, 178-9, 187, 216; xvi. 9-20, p. 182, 224; xvi. 10, 14, p. 187, 319; xvi. 15, p. 180; xvi. 15, 16, p. 178; xvi. 19, p. 180, 195. S. LUKE i. 26, p. 85; i. 27, p. 82. ii. 14, p. 257-63; ii. 37, p. 82. iii. 22, p. 30, 178; iii. 23, p. 220. iv. 5, p. 74; iv. 16, p. 220; iv. 44, p. 85. (S. LUKE) v. 1, p. 82, 220; i. 1-11, p. 295-6; i. 17, p. 220. vi. 1, p. 75, 220; vi. 37, p. 220; vi. 48, p. 81. vii. 1, p. 220; vii. 31, p. 216. viii. 2, p. 152, 178. ix. 57, p. 220. x. 1, p. 81, 220; x. 25, p. 220. xiii. 2, p. 221. xv. 13, p. 82. xvi. 6, p. 178; xvi. 16, p. 74; xvi. 19, p. 220. xviii. 15, p. 220. xix. 45, p. 220. xx. 1, p. 220. xxii. 25, p. 82; xxii. 43, 44, p. 79, 201, 217-8, 301; xxii. 64, p. 74. xxiii. 15, p. 83; xxiii. 34, p. 79, 219; xxiii. 38, p. 79; xxiii. 45, p. 85-6. xxiv. 12, p. 222; xxiv. 13, p. 85, 236; xxiv. 16, p. 178-9; xxiv. 31, p. 73; xxiv. 36, p. 221; xxiv. 42, 52, 53, p. 74; xxiv. 51, p. 195. S. JOHN i. 3, 4, p. 30, 110; i. 3, 18, 50, p. 30; i. 4, p. 81, 109-11; i. 18, p. 30, 81; i. 28, p. 236; i. 29, 44, p. 221; i. 34, p. 81; i. 50, p. 30. ii. 3, p. 80. iii. 13, p. 80. vi. 14, p. 221; vi. 17, 64, p. 82; vi. 51, p. 111. vii. 53-viii. 11, p. 219. viii. 57, p. 82; viii. 59, p. 80, 222. ix. 4, 11, p. 81; ix. 35, p. 82; ix. 38, p. 79. x. 14, p. 82; x. 29, p. 223. xiii. 3, p. 221; xiii. 10, p. 111. xiv. 1, p. 220; xiv. 31, p. 188. xvii. 10, p. 82; xvii. 15, 16, p. 76. xviii. 1, p. 188. xix. 13, p. 223; xix. 17, p. 188; xix. 34, p. 218, 313-5. xxi. 1, p. 221, 3; xxi. 1-6, 11, p. 295-6; xxi. 12, 13, 15-17, p. 297; xxi. 18, p. 83; xxi. 25, p. 79. ACTS i. 2, 22, 23, p. 180; i. 9, p. 195. iv. 12, p. 262. viii. 5, p. 85. x. 15, p. 180. xiii. 15, 27, p. 192. EPHES. i. 1, p. 91-109. vi. 21, 2, p. 101. COLOSS. i. 23, p. 162. iv. 7, 16, p. 101, 105. 1 S. PET. ii. 13, p. 180. iv. 19, p. 180. 2 S. PET. iii. 4, p. 180.

ECCLUS. xliii. 11, 12, p. 301. 1 MACC. iv. 59, p. 301.

θεᾶσθαι, p. 156-8.

Thebaic Version, p. 35.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. 275, 7.

Theodoret, p. 258, 317-8.

Theodotus of Ancyra, p. 258.

Theophania, p. 207.

Theophylact, p. 30, 266.

θεωρεῖν, p. 157.

Thompson, Rev. A. S., p. ii, 252.

Thomson, Abp., p. 13.

Tischendorf, Dr., p. 8, 9, 10, 38, 77-9, 85-6, 93, 109-14, 123, 125-33, 137, 153, 222, 7, 242, 4, 251-2, 9, 260-1, 280, 293, 311, 322, viii-ix.

Titus of Bostra, p. 258, 275, 283.

Toledo, see Codices.

Townson, Rev. Dr., p. 151, 179.

Tregelles, Dr., p. 9, 10-12, 38, 9, 60, 76, 114, 126-9, 136, 145, 169, 222-3, 227, 234, 242, 4, 5, 7, 251, 9, 260, 319, viii-ix.

Turin, see Codices.

Ulphilas, p. 35, 262.

Uncial MSS. p. 20, 71. See Codices.

ὑπόθεσις, p. 274-5.

ὕστερον, p. 160.

Vatican, p. 117, 283-4, 288-9: see Codices.

Vaticanus, see Codex.

Venice, see Codices.

Vercellone, C., p. 73.

Versions, see Armenian, &c.

Vetus Itala, p. 35.

Victor of Antioch, p. 29, 59-65, 67, 122, 134, 178, 180, 235, 250, 268, 269-87; Codices, 278-87; Scholion, 288-90.

Victor of Capua, p. 129.

Vienna, see Codices.

Vincentius a Thibari, p. 25.

Vulgate, p. 34.

Westcott, Rev. Prof., p. 13, 23.

Wetstein, J. J., p. 121, 125, 129.

Wordsworth, Bishop, p. ix, 9. Wordsworth, Rev. John, p. ix.

Wright, Prof., p. 27, 33, 206, 8, 214-5, 225, 306, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Xavier de Zelada, see Codices.

Xiphilinus, John, p. 44.

ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.

FOOTNOTES

1 Abp. Tait’s Harmony of Revelation and the Sciences, (1864,) p. 21.

2 See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13.

3 Abp. Tait is of opinion that it “should not retain its place in the public Service of the Church:” and Dean Stanley gives sixteen reasons for the same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that “many excellent laymen, including King George III., have declined to take part in the recitation.” (Final) Report of the Ritual Commission, 1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.

4 In the words of a thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P. Eden),—“Condemnatory is just what these clauses are not. I understand myself, in uttering these words, not to condemn a fellow creature, but to acknowledge a truth of Scripture, GOD’S judgment namely on the sin of unbelief. The further question,—In whom the sin of unbelief is found; that awful question I leave entirely in His hands who is the alone Judge of hearts; who made us, and knows our infirmities, and whose tender mercies are over all His works.”

5 “The Athanasian Creed,” by the Dean of Westminster (Contemporary Review, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).

6 Commentarius Criticus, ii. 197.

7 Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd. MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit Andreas Birch, Havniae, 1788. A copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may be seen in the King’s Library (Brit. Mus.)

8 Account of the Printed Text, p. 83.

9 See above, p. 3.

10 “Eam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant gravissimae.”

11 I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this amiable and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am finishing my task. I consign these pages to the press with a sense of downright reluctance,—(constrained however by the importance of the subject,)—seeing that he is no longer among us either to accept or to dispute a single proposition. All I can do is to erase every word which might have occasioned him the least annoyance; and indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. An open grave reminds one of the nothingness of earthly controversy; as nothing else does, or indeed can do.

12 Tischendorf, besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the Greek Text, has edited our English “Authorized Version” (Tauchnitz, 1869,) with an “Introduction” addressed to unlearned readers, and the various readings of Codd. א, B and A, set down in English at the foot of every page.—Tregelles, besides his edition of the Text of the N. T., is very full on the subject of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, in his “Account of the Printed Text,” and in his “Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.” (vol. iv. of Horne’s Introd.)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek Testament, and an abridgment “for the upper forms of Schools and for passmen at the Universities,” put forth two editions of a “N. T. for English Readers,” and three editions of “the Authorized Version newly compared with the original Greek and revised;”—in every one of which it is stated that these twelve verses are “probably an addition, placed here in very early times.”

13 The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent Divine reluctantly admitting that “this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark himself;” and Bishop Ellicott (Historical Lectures, pp. 26-7) asking “Why may not this portion have been written by S. Mark at a later period?;”—both alike resolutely insist on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the popular outcry against this portion of the Gospel. “Without the slightest misgiving” he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (Introduction, pp. 7 and 429-32.)

14 “Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,” (p. 320.) “Quæ testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba αφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.” (p. 322.)—I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf’s 8th ed. (1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the following addition:—“Quæ quum ita sint, sanæ erga sacrum textum pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.” (p. 407.)

15 Evangelia Apocrypha, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.

16 Pp. 253, 7-9.

17 In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced it “manifestly untenable” that S. Mark’s Gospel was the last written; and assigned A.D. 64 as “its most probable” date. In his second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—“When we consider that the Gospel was not written till the second century, internal evidence loses much of its force against the authenticity of these verses.”—Introduction to N.T.

18 Vol. ii. p. 239.

19 Developed Criticism, , p. 53.

20 Ed. 1847. i. p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader’s acceptance in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.

21 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 311.

22 Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92.

23 In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,—“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.” Taylor on the Law of Evidence, 1868, i. p. 369.

24 This is freely allowed by all. “Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam jam in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.” Tregelles N.T. p. 214.

25 This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 626) accounts for the phenomenon:—“Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam partem scribere differret, et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii quasi perfectum sequerentur, praesertim quum ea pars cum reliquâ historiâ evangelicâ minus congruere videretur.”

26 It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his latest edition) S. John xxi. 25.

27 Chap. III.-VIII., also Chap. X.

28 Chap. IX.

29 Viz. E, L, : K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch. ed. 8va.) : G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective here,—F (ver. 9-19), H (ver. 9-14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z.

30 See Appendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14.

31 Consider how Ignatius (ad Smyrn., c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39; and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep. ad Ephes. c. 17.

32 Ἱστορεῖ [sc. Παπίας] ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονὸς,—evidently a slip of the pen for Βαρσαβᾶν τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Ἰοῦστον (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately afterwards,)—ὡς δηλητήριον φάρμακον ἐμπιόντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν ὑπομείναντος. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.

33 Apol. I. c. 45.—The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the Fragment De Resurrectione (Westcott and others) are clearly references to S. Luke xxiv.,—not to S. Mark xvi.

34 lib. iii. c. x. ad fin. (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). “In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus, et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est sis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.” Accordingly, against S. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 ( = Evan. 72) occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already published:—Εἰρηναῖος ὁ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πλησίον, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις γ᾽ λόγῳ τοῦτο ἀνήνεγκεν τὸ ῥητον ὡς Μάρκῳ ειρημένον.

35 First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ; and by that name the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter of the (so called) “Apostolical Constitutions,” (τὰ μὲν σῦν πρῶτα τοῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Χαρισμάτων, κ.τ.λ.),—in which singular monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the “Apostolical Constitutions;” of which the ivth chapter is also claimed for Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such appears in the last edition of the Father’s collected works, (Hippolyti Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. 74.

The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of the heading,—Διατάξεις τῶν ἀυτῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν, διὰ Ἱππολύτου,) is part of the “Octateuchus Clementinus,” concerning which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to his Reliquiæ Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimæ, 1856. The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact correspondence between the “Octateuchus Clementinus” and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend no further than the single chapter (the ivth) specified in the text. In the meantime the fragment περὶ χαρισμάτων (containing S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in Lagarde’s Reliquiæ, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there headed Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων.

36 Ad fin. See Routh’s Opuscula, i. p. 80.

37 For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf’s remark (ed. 8va. p. 407), “Quod idem [Justinus] Christum ἀνεληλυθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐράνους dicit, [Apol. I. c. 50?] minus valet.”

38 “In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,” (Cyprian Opp. p. 237 [Reliqq. Sacr. iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,)—“In nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus imponent et bene habebunt.”

39 Responsa ad Episcopos, c. 44, (Reliqq. v. 248.)

40 Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: also Proleg. p. lvi.

41 In l. vii. c. 7 (ad fin.),—λαβόντες ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κηρύξαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον: and in l. viii. c. 1,—ἡμῖν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Observe, this immediately follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.

42 Lib. vi. c. 15.—The quotation (at the beginning of lib. viii.) of the 17th and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper place. Supra, p. 24.

43 Scrivener’s Introduction, p. 421.

44 Apud Hieron. Opp. ed. Vallars., ii. 951-4.

45 See Dr. Wright’s ed. of “Aphraates,” (4to. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am entirely indebted to the learned Editor’s Preface for the information in the text.

46 From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose.

47 Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver. 15 and 16: vol. ii. 663 B, C quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 639 E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver. 17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes ver. 20.

48 Opp. iii. 765 A, B.

49 Καὶ μὴν τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρία πρώτῃ [ὤφθη]. Chrys. Opp. ch. 355 B.

50 “Cogis” (he says to Pope Damasus) “ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se variant, quae sint illa quae cum Graecâ consentiant veritate decernam.—Haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia ... codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione, sed et veterum.”

51 Vol. i. p. 327 C (ed. Vallars.)

52 Contra Pelagianos, II. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5):—“In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine Evangelii scribitur: Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis Jesus, 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, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam.”

53 E.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149); Vol. v. 988 C.—Verses 15, 16, in vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F.

54 Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.

55 ἐξελθόντες γάρ, φησι, διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ. τοῦ Κυρίοῦ συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων σημειων. Nestorius c. Orthodoxos: (Cyril. Alexand. adv. Nestorian. Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,—τῇ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι, διεκηρύσσοντο καὶ εἰργάζοντο τὰς θεοσημείας οἱ θεοπέσιοι μαθηταὶ. (Ibid. D.) This quotation was first noticed by Matthaei (Enthym. Zig. i. 161.)

56 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένον; Ὁ μὲν οὄν Κύριος—ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 415.

57 Athanasii Opp. vol. ii. p. 181 F, 182 A. See the Præfat., pp. vii., viii.

58 In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have overlooked. The necessity one is under, on occasions like the present, of depending to a great extent on “Indices,” is fatal; so scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be named. To judge from the Index in Oehler’s edition of Tertullian, that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times. According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no less than fourteen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9-20 at all.

Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf’s new Oxford ed. of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in Potter’s ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3 (or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, l. 8: S. John i. 18, 50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, l. 26: S. Mark i. 13, interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7:—are nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at our SAVIOUR’S Baptism,—a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, l. 14),—does not appear in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i. 11), or S. Luke (iii. 22.)]

59 Gregentius apud Galland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in Evang.)—Modestus apud Photium cod. 275.—Johannis Damasceni Opp. (ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and Theophylact (who quotes all the verses) and Euthymius in loc.

60 Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that some more leaves of this Version have just been recovered.

61 By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the last four verses.

62 In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii. 5, Thomas writes,—“In tribus codicibus Græcis, et in uno Syriaco antiquæ versionis, non inventum est nomen, ‘Nazarenus.’ ”—Cf. ad xxvii. 35.—Adler’s N. T. Verss. Syrr., p. 97.

63 That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the Gospels relegated to the Philoxenian margin, should occur the worthless supplement which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch. viii.)—is not at all surprising. Of these 437 readings and notes, 91 are not found in White’s Edition; while 105 (the supplement in question being one of them) are found in White only. This creates a suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must exhibit traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text. (So Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of some of those marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to refer to Adler’s learned work, (pp. 79-134) and examine the notes on the following places:—S. Matth. xv. 21: xx. 28 ( = D): xxvi. 7. S. Mk. i. 16: xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 ( = B D): 42 ( = B א L): xi. 1: 53. S. Jo. ii. 1 ( = א): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly = B): x. 8, &c. &c.

64 This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, 1861-4, under the following title:—Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit, Prolegomenis et Glossario adornavit, Comes FRANCISCUS MINISCALCHI ERIZZO.

65 It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that one ancient codex, the “Codex Bobbiensis” (k), which Tregelles describes as “a revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS. is discernible,” [Printed text, &c. p. 170.] and which therefore may not be cited in the present controversy,—exhibits after ver. 8 a Latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in Cod. L.

66 “Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint, vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.” Mai, Nova Patt. Bibl. iv. 256.

67 Account of the Printed Text, p. 247.

68 Gr. Test. p. 322.

69 Ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὺαγγέλιον μέχρι τοῦ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, ἔχει τὸ τέλος. ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτων (sic) ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. Opp. (ed. 1638) iii, 411 B.

70 Tregelles, Printed Text, p. 248, also in Horne’s Introd. iv. 434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &c.

71 Nov. Auct. i. 743-74.—Bibl. Vett. PP. xi. 221-6.

72 Bibl. Coisl. pp. 68-75.—Catena, i. 243-51.

73 Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean Payne Smith’s Cat. of Syrr. MSS. p. 411] who died A.D. 1171) in his Exposition of S. Mark’s Gospel (published at Dublin by Dudley Loftus, 1672, 4to.) seems (at p. 59) to give this homily to Severus.—I have really no independent opinion on the subject.

74 Alford, Greek Test. i. p. 433.

75 Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101.

76 At p. 217, (ed. 1847), Mai designates it as “Codex Vat. Palat. cxx pulcherrimus, sæculi ferme x.” At p. 268, he numbers it rightly,—ccxx. We are there informed that the work of Eusebius extends from fol. 61 to 96 of the Codex.

77 Vol. iv. pp. 219-309.

78 See Nova P. P. Bibliotheca, iv. 255.—That it was styled “Inquiries with their Resolutions” (Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσεις), Eusebius leads us to suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name, (Demonstr. Evang. lib. vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus, Mai, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ (Mai, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so designate the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual title is correctly indicated by Jerome,—De Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ: “Edidit” (he says) “de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ,” (De Scriptt. Illustt. c. 81.) Again, Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων, (Hieron. in Matth. i. 16.) Consider also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given below, p. 44, note (q). “Indicated” by Jerome, I say: for the entire title was probably, Περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ. διαφωνίας. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by Cramer (i. p. 266), quotes an opinion of Eusebius ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν εὐαγγελίοις περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας: words which are extracted from the same MS. by Simon, Hist. Crit. N. T. p. 89.

79 Ἐκλογὴ ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ Εὐσεβίου πρὸς Στέφανον [and πρὸς Μαρῖνον] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων. Ibid. pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes facing the title of vol. i. ed. 1825.)

80 Σὐσέβιος ... ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἐπὶ ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου πάθους καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ζητήσεσι καὶ ἐκλύσεσι, κ.τ.λ. I quote the place from the less known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to Severus of Antioch: but it occurs also in Corderii Cat. in Joan. p. 436. (See Mai, iv. 299.)

81 This passage is too grand to be withheld:—Οὐ γὰρ ἤν ἀξιός τις ἐν τῇ πόλει Ἰουδαίων, (ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος κεφαλαίωιγ πρὸς Μαρνον,) τὸ κατὰ τοῦ διαβόλου τρόπαιον τὸν σταυρὸν βαστάσαι; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐξ ἀγροῦ, ὅς μηδὲν ἐπικεκοινώνηκε τῇ κατὰ χριστο μιαιφονίᾳ. (Possini Cat. in Marcum, p. 343.)

82 Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenæ, inasmuch as their compilers are observed to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently full of disjecta membra of the work. These are recognisable for the most part by their form; but sometimes they actually retain the name of their author. Accordingly, Catenæ have furnished Mai with a considerable body of additional materials; which (as far as a MS. Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A. seu Vat. 1611,] enabled him,) he has edited with considerable industry; throwing them into a kind of Supplement. (Vol. iv. pp. 268-282, and pp. 283-298.) It is only surprising that with the stores at his command, Mai has not contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject. It would not be difficult to indicate sundry passages which he has overlooked. Neither indeed can it be denied that the learned Cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner. He does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp. 357-8—262—283—295, is to be found in the Catena of Corderius at pp. 448-9—449—450—457.—He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of John Xiphilinus, (Cod. Vat. p. 160,) what he might have found in Possinus; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) He was evidently unacquainted with Cramer’s work, though it had been published 3 (if not 7) years before his own,—else, at p. 299, instead of quoting Simon, he would have quoted Cramer’s Catenæ, i. 266.—It was in his power to solve his own shrewd doubt, (at p. 299,—concerning the text of a passage in Possinus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus published was transcribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican. (Possini Præfat. p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of the Catena of Possinus. In countless places he might, by such references, have improved his often manifestly faulty text.

83 Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (Opp. ii. 116.) to Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis) “scire te vult in Siciliâ inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensis de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.” The letter is dated 1563.

I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will be found that Eusebius digested his “Questions” under heads: e.g. περὶ το τάφου, καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p. 299.)

84 I translate according to the sense,—the text being manifestly corrupt. Τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν is probably a gloss, explanatory of τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό. In strictness, the κεφάλαιον begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end of the Gospel. There are 48 such κεφάλαια in S. Mark. But this term was often loosely employed by the Greek Fathers, (as “capitulum” by the Latins,) to denote a passage of Scripture, and it is evidently so used here. Περικοπή, on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true technical meaning, and to denote the liturgical section, or “lesson.”

85 Ἀνάγνωσμα (like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to be here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgical section, or “lectio.” See Suicer, in voce.

86 The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement and depravation here.

87 Mai, Bibl. P.P. Nova, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the original of this passage is given in the Appendix (B).

88 Mai, iv. 257. So far, I have given the substance only of what Eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity. It follows,—ὥστε τὸν αὐτὸν σχεδὸν νοεῖσθαι καιρὸν, ἡ τὸν σφόδρα ἐγγὺς, παρὰ τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς διαφόροις ὀνόμασι τετηρημένον. μηδέν τε διαφέρειν Ματθαῖον ἰρηκότα “ὀψὲ—τάφον” [xxviii. 1.] Ἰωάννου φήσαντος “τῇ δὲ μιᾷ—ἔτι οὔσης σκοτίας.” [xx. 1.] πλατυκῶς γὰρ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν δηλοῦσι χρόνον διαφόροις ῥήμασι. [xxviii. 1.]—For the principal words in the text, see the Appendix (B) ad fin.

89 I allude to the following places:—Combefis, Novum Auctarium, col. 780.—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei, Anectt. Græc. ii. 62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195 fol. 165.—Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer, Catt. i. 251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4, fol. 169.—Cod. Bodl. Laud. Gr. 33, fol. 79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this subject will do well to begin by reading Simon Hist. Crit. du N. T. p. 89. See Mai’s foot-note, iv. p. 257.

90 Ep. cxx. Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43.

91 Ibid. p. 844.

92 Ibid. p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.

93 “Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est. [Τοῦτου διττὴ ἂν εἴν ἡ λύσεις.] Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur [σπανίωσ ἔν τισι φερόμενα] Evangeliis, omnibus Græciæ libris pene hec capitulum [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] in fine non habentibus; [ἐν τουτῷ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος]; præsertim cum diversa atque contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.] Aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [ἐκατέραν παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρϗειν ... συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς.] Matthæus, quando Dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati: Marcus autem, quando tum viderit Maria Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est, Cum autem resurrexisset: [μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον Ἀναστὰς δέ:] et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane apparuit Mariæ Magdalenæ: [εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες ῥητέον, Πρωι τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta Matthæum surrexerat, [παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τοτε γὰρ ἐγήγερατο.] ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Mariæ Magdalenæ. [προί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius diei visum esse demonstrans.” [τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.]

For the Latin of the above, see Hieronymi Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).

94 ἠρώτας τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; [Eusebius ad Marinum,(Mai, iv. 255.)]

Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymus ad Hedibiam, (Opp. i. 818-9.)]

Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ μίᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου. [Ut suprà, p. 257.]

Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit Dominum resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere? [Ut suprà, p. 819.]

Πῶς, κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἁψαμένη τῶν ποσῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἡ αὐτὴ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἀκούει μή μου ἅπτου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην. [Ut suprà, p. 262.]

Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem, audierit à Domino, Noli me tangere. [Ut suprà, p. 821.]

95 Tregelles, Printed Text, p. 247.

96 See above, p. 28.

97 See above, p. 40-1.

98 See the Appendix (C) § 2.

99 See the Appendix (C) § 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § 2.

100 In the Eccl. Grac. Monumenta of Cotelerius, (iii. 1-53,) may be seen the discussion of 60 problems, headed,—Συναγωγή ἀποριῶν καὶ ἐπιλύσεων, ἐκλεγεῖσα ἐν ἐπιτομῇ ἐκ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς συμφωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου Ἱεροσολύμων. From this it appears that Hesychius, following the example of Eusebius, wrote a work on “Gospel Harmony,”—of which nothing but an abridgment has come down to us.

101 He says that he writes,—Πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου προβλήματος λύσιν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν ῥητῶν ἀναφουμένων ζητήσεων, κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 400 c.

102 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένομ;Ὁ μὲν οῦν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 415 D.—See above, p. 29, note (g).

103 See below, chap. X.

104 Fasti Romani, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395-495.

105 Vol. i. Præfat. p. xxviii. See below, note (p).

106 “Victor Antiochenus” (writes Dr. Tregelles in his N. T. vol. i. p. 214,) “dicit ὅτι νενόθενται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον.”

107 For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and his work, the studious in such matters are referred to the Appendix (D).

108 Opp. vol. vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field’s edition, p. 527, line 3 to 20.

109 Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,—ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος ὁ Καισαρείας ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον κ.τ.λ. And at p. 446, line 19,—Εὐσεβιός φησιν ὁ Καισαρείας κ.τ.λ.

110 Compare Cramer’s Vict. Ant. i. p. 444, line 6-9, with Field’s Chrys. iii. p. 539, line 7-21.

111 Mai, iv. p. 257-8.

112 Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4.

113 The following is the original of what is given above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ, “ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ Μαγδαληνῇ,” δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου εὶρημένῳ, ὲροῦμεν ὡς δυνατὸν μὲν εἰπεῖν ὅτι νενόθευται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον. πλὴν ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτοιμον καταφεύγειν, οὔτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα; “ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, “πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.” ἵνα [The extract from VICTOR is continued below in the right hand column: the left exhibiting the text of EUSEBIUS “ad Marinum.”] [Transcriber’s Note: The extracts will be on alternating paragraphs.]

(Eusebius.) τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς,” ἀν[απέμψωμεν?] ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ “ὀψὲ σαββάτων.” (τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις.

(Victor.) τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς,” ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ “ὀψὲ σαββάτων.” (τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις;

(Eusebius.) (“πρωί” γὰρ “τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”)

(Victor.) (τὸν γὰρ “ὀψὲ σαββάτων” κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ “πρωί” ἑωρακέναι Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.)

(Eusebius.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης “πρωί” καί αὐτὸς “τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου” ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.

(Victor.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες, “πρωί” καὶ αὐτὸς “τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων” ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.

(Eusebius.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς αναστάσεως τὸν “ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.” τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν “πρωί.”

(Victor.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τὸν “ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου;” τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸ “προί.”

Note, that Victor twice omits the word πρῶτον, and twice reads τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου), only because Eusebius had inadvertently (three times) done the same thing in the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai. Nova P. P. Bibl. iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.

114 οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δἐ ὡς διαφόρους ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί φασιν οἱ τὴν δοκοῦσαν διαφωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες. Vict. Ant. ed. Cramer, vol. i. p. 445, l. 23-5: referring to what Eusebius says apud Mai, iv. 264 and 265 (§ iiii): 287-290 (§§ v, vi, vii.)

115 e.g. in the passage last quoted.

116 For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred to the Appendix (E).

117 How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,—“Scholia certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omnia ex uno fonte promanarunt. Ex eodem fonte Hieronymum etiam hausisse intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.—Similiter Scholiastæ omnes in principio hujus Evangelii in disputatione de lectione ἐν ἡσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτη ex uno pendent. Fortasse Origenes auctor est hujus dubitationis.” (N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)—The reader is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47 (line 23.)

118 It is not often, I think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually inserted after Ἀναστάς δέ. Such a point is found, however, in Cod. 34 ( = Coisl. 195,) and Cod. 22 ( = Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many other copies.

119 Scrivener’s Introduction, pp. 47, 125, 431.

120 Φασὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἐνταῦθα συμπληροῦσθαι τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον; τὰ δὲ ἐφεξῆς προσθήκην εἶναι μεταγενεστέραν. Χρὴ δὲ καὶ ταύτην ἑρμηνεῦσαι μηδὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ λυμαινομένην.—Euthym. Zig. (ed. Matthaei, 1792), in loc.

121 For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to the Appendix (F).

122 Viz. A, C ; D ; E, L ; F, K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π ; G, H, X, S, U [ix, x].

123 Vercellone,—Del antichissimo Codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca, Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)

124 Dublin Univ. Mag. (Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.

125 ὁμοιοτέλευτον.

126 See Scrivener’s Introduction to his ed. of the Codex Bezæ, p. xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface to the 2nd ed. of his Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus.—Add to his instances, this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:—

ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ Ε ΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕ Η ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣ ΑΣΤΡΑΠΗ

It is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:—

ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗ ΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙ ΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝ ΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ

Hence the omission of και επεγνωσαν αυτον in א.—The following explains the omission from א (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke xxiv. 52:—

ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝ ΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥ ΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙ

The next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke xxii. 64:—

ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕ ΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε [ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ] ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟ

The next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are absent in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:—

ΕΥΑΓΓΕ ΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙ ΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩ ΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ

127 In this way, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt reading of Cod. B (ινα τηρησης αυτους εκ του κοσμου)—which, however, was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (Opp. p. 1035: al. ed. p. 825)—is explained:—

ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ. ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥ ΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣ

Thus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42:—

ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ [ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙ ΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ] ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ

And why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S. Luke xxiv. 53:—

ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝ ΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟ ΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝ

And why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of the Temptation (S. Luke iv. 5) :—

ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥ ΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗ ΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ

128 In this way the famous omission (א, B, L) of the word δευτεροπρώτῳ, in S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the least) capable of being explained:—

ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘ ΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟ ΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕ

and of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:—

ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ [ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ] ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ

129 He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii. (1 Cor. v. 7.)

130 In this way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. א in S. Mark xv. 47—xvi. 1:—19 words in S. Mark i. 32-4:—20 words in S. John xx. 5, 6:—39 words in S. John xix. 20, 21.

131 Scrivener’s Full Collation, &c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles’ N. T.