The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark
Author: Burgon, John William, 1813-1888
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark" ***

THE

THE LAST TWELVE VERSES

OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

S. MARK

Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors

And Established

John W. Burgon B.D.

Vicar of S. Mary-The-Virgin’s, Fellow of Oriel College,

and Gresham Lecturer in Divinity.

_With Facsimiles of Codex א And Codex L_

"’Advice to you,’ sir, ’in studying Divinity?’ Did you say that you
’wished I would give you a few words of advice,’ sir?... Then let me
recommend to you the practice of always _verifying your references_, sir!"

_Conversation of the late_ PRESIDENT ROUTH

Oxford and London:

James Parker and Co.

1871.

CONTENTS

The Codex
Dedication: To Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., M.P.
Preface.
The Last Twelve Verses.
Chapter I. THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK’S GOSPEL, STATED.
Chapter II. THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF
RECENT DATE.
Chapter III. THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR
FAVOURABLE WITNESS.
Chapter IV. THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING
TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.
Chapter V. THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS
PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS.
Chapter VI. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF
THESE VERSES.—PART I.
Chapter VII. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF
THESE VERSES.—PART II.
Chapter VIII. THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE
SUBJECT OF THESE VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY
SUPPOSED.
Chapter IX. INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF
UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.
Chapter X. THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY
DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.
Chapter XI. THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES
OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.
Chapter XII. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND
CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT.
APPENDIX (A).
APPENDIX (B).
APPENDIX (C).
APPENDIX (D).
APPENDIX (E).
APPENDIX (F).
APPENDIX (G).
APPENDIX (H).
POSTSCRIPT.
L’ENVOY
GENERAL INDEX.
Footnotes

THE CODEX

[Transcriber’s Note: This e-book contains much Greek text which is central
to the point of the book. In the ASCII versions of the e-book, the Greek
is transliterated into Roman letters, which do not perfectly represent the
Greek original; especially, accent and breathing marks do not
transliterate. The HTML and PDF versions contain the true Greek text of
the original book.]

On the next page is exhibited an _exact Fac-simile_, obtained by
Photography, of fol. 28 _b_ of the CODEX SINAITICUS at S. Petersburg,
(Tischendorf’s א): shewing the abrupt termination of S. Mark’s Gospel at
the words ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ (chap. xvi. 8), as explained at p. 70, and pp.
86-8. The original Photograph, which is here reproduced on a diminished
scale, measures in height full fourteen inches and one-eighth; in breadth,
full thirteen inches. It was procured for me through the friendly and
zealous offices of the English Chaplain at S. Petersburg, the Rev. A. S.
Thompson, B.D.; by favour of the Keeper of the Imperial Library, who has
my hearty thanks for his liberality and consideration.

It will be perceived that the text begins at S. Mark xvi. 2, and ends with
the first words of S. Luke i. 18.

Up to this hour, every endeavour to obtain a Photograph of the
corresponding page of the CODEX VATICANUS, B, (No. 1209, in the Vatican,)
has proved unavailing. If the present Vindication of the genuineness of
Twelve Verses of the everlasting Gospel should have the good fortune to
approve itself to his Holiness, POPE PIUS IX., let me be permitted in this
unadorned and unusual manner,—(to which I would fain add some circumstance
of respectful ceremony if I knew how,)—very humbly to entreat his Holiness
to allow me to possess a Photograph, corresponding in size with the
original, of the page of CODEX B (it is numbered fol. 1303,) which
exhibits the abrupt termination of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

J. W. B.

ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD,
_June 14, 1871_.

[[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]]

"MY WORD WILL NOT PASS AWAY"

ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν,
ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ,
ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου,
ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.

εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστι
τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν,
ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.

ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται,
οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι.

καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ
ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης
ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ
ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς,
καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας,
καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

DEDICATION: TO SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, Q.C., M.P.

DEAR SIR ROUNDELL,

I do myself the honour of inscribing this volume to you. Permit me to
explain the reason why.

It is not merely that I may give expression to a sentiment of private
friendship which dates back from the pleasant time when I was Curate to
your Father,—whose memory I never recall without love and veneration;—nor
even in order to afford myself the opportunity of testifying how much I
honour you for the noble example of conscientious uprightness and
integrity which you set us on a recent public occasion. It is for no such
reason that I dedicate to you this vindication of the last Twelve Verses
of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

It is because I desire supremely to submit the argument contained in the
ensuing pages to a practised judicial intellect of the loftiest stamp.
Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these “last Twelve Verses”
are not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same
opinion. Popular Prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted
on the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse
is the truth. It is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends
of mine, who, admitting the adversary’s premisses, content themselves with
denying the validity of his inference. However true it may be,—and it is
true,—that from those premisses the proposed conclusion does not follow, I
yet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether. I
insist, on the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is
untrustworthy,—untrustworthy in every particular.

How, in the meantime, can such an one as I am hope to persuade the world
that it is as I say, while the most illustrious Biblical Critics at home
and abroad are agreed, and against me? Clearly, the first thing to be done
is to secure for myself a full and patient hearing. With this view, I have
written a book. But next, instead of waiting for the slow verdict of
Public Opinion, (which yet, I know, must come after many days,) I
desiderate for the Evidence I have collected, a competent and an impartial
Judge. And _that_ is why I dedicate my book to you. If I can but get this
case fairly tried, I have no doubt whatever about the result.

Whether you are able to find time to read these pages, or not, it shall
content me to have shewn in this manner the confidence with which I
advocate my cause; the kind of test to which I propose to bring my
reasonings. If I may be allowed to say so,—_S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses
shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men._ I am able to prove
that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly
mistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But
I claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations
which have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be
reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain.

I am, with sincere regard and respect,
Dear Sir Roundell,
Very faithfully yours,
JOHN W. BURGON.

ORIEL,
July, 1871.

PREFACE.

This volume is my contribution towards the better understanding of a
subject which is destined, when it shall have grown into a Science, to
vindicate for itself a mighty province, and to enjoy paramount attention.
I allude to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Scriptures.

That this Study is still in its infancy, all may see. The very principles
on which it is based are as yet only imperfectly understood. The reason is
obvious. It is because the very foundations have not yet been laid,
(except to a wholly inadequate extent,) on which the future superstructure
is to rise. A careful collation of every extant Codex, (executed after the
manner of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener’s labours in this department,) is the
first indispensable preliminary to any real progress. Another, is a
revised Text, not to say a more exact knowledge, of the oldest Versions.
Scarcely of inferior importance would be critically correct editions of
the Fathers of the Church; and these must by all means be furnished with
far completer Indices of Texts than have ever yet been attempted.—There is
not a single Father to be named whose Works have been hitherto furnished
with even a tolerably complete Index of the places in which he either
quotes, or else clearly refers to, the Text of the New Testament: while
scarcely a tithe of the known MSS. of the Gospels have as yet been
satisfactorily collated. Strange to relate, we are to this hour without so
much as a satisfactory Catalogue of the Copies which are known to be
extant.

But when all this has been done,—(and the Science deserves, and requires,
a little more public encouragement than has hitherto been bestowed on the
arduous and—let me not be ashamed to add the word—_unremunerative_ labour
of Textual Criticism,)—it will be discovered that the popular and the
prevailing Theory is a mistaken one. The plausible hypothesis on which
recent recensions of the Text have been for the most part conducted, will
be seen to be no longer tenable. The latest decisions will in consequence
be generally reversed.

I am not of course losing sight of what has been already achieved in this
department of Sacred Learning. While our knowledge of the uncial MSS. has
been rendered tolerably exact and complete, an excellent beginning has
been made, (chiefly by the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the most judicious living
Master of Textual Criticism,) in acquainting us with the contents of about
seventy of the cursive MSS. of the New Testament. And though it is
impossible to deny that the published Texts of Doctors Tischendorf and
Tregelles as _Texts_ are wholly inadmissible, yet is it equally certain
that by the conscientious diligence with which those distinguished
Scholars have respectively laboured, they have erected monuments of their
learning and ability which will endure for ever. Their Editions of the New
Testament will not be superseded by any new discoveries, by any future
advances in the Science of Textual Criticism. The MSS. which they have
edited will remain among the most precious materials for future study. All
honour to them! If in the warmth of controversy I shall appear to have
spoken of them sometimes without becoming deference, let me here once for
all confess that I am to blame, and express my regret. When they have
publicly begged S. Mark’s pardon for the grievous wrong they have done
_him_, I will very humbly beg their pardon also.

In conclusion, I desire to offer my thanks to the Rev. John Wordsworth,
late Fellow of Brasenose College, for his patient perusal of these sheets
as they have passed through the press, and for favouring me with several
judicious suggestions. To him may be applied the saying of President Routh
on receiving a visit from Bishop Wordsworth at his lodgings,—“I see the
learned son of a learned Father, sir!”—Let me be permitted to add that my
friend inherits the Bishop’s fine taste and accurate judgment also.

And now I dismiss this Work, at which I have conscientiously laboured for
many days and many nights; beginning it in joy and ending it in sorrow.
The College in which I have for the most part written it is designated in
the preamble of its Charter and in its Foundation Statutes, (which are
already much more than half a thousand years old,) as _Collegium
Scholarium in Sacrâ Theologiâ studentium,—perpetuis temporibus duraturum_.
Indebted, under GOD, to the pious munificence of the Founder of Oriel for
my opportunities of study, I venture, in what I must needs call evil days,
to hope that I have to some extent “employed my advantages,”—(the
expression occurs in a prayer used by this Society on its three solemn
anniversaries,)—as our Founder and Benefactors “would approve if they were
now upon earth to witness what we do.”

J. W. B.

ORIEL,
_July, 1871_.

THE LAST TWELVE VERSES.

_Subjoined, for convenience, are_ “the Last Twelve Verses.”

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ (9) Now when Jesus was
σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον risen early the first day
Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ᾽ of the week, He appeared
ῆς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα first to Mary Magdalene,
δαιμόμια. ἐκείνη out of whom He had cast
πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς seven devils. (10) And
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, she went and told them
πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι. that had been with Him,
κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι as they mourned and wept.
ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (11) And they, when they
ἠπίστησαν. had heard that He was
alive, and had been seen
of her, believed not.
Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀυσὶν ἐξ (12) After that He
αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν appeared in another form
ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, unto two of them, as they
πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν. walked, and went into the
κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες country. (13) And they
ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς; went and told it unto the
οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν. residue: neither believed
they them.
Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις (14) Afterward He
αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα appeared unto the eleven
ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισε as they sat at meat, and
τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ upbraided them with their
σκληροκαρδίαν, ὅτι τοῖς unbelief and hardness of
θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν heart, because they
ἐγηγερμένον οὐκ believed not them which
ἐπίστευσαν. Καὶ εἶπεν had seen Him after He was
αὐτοῖς, “Πορευθέντες εἰς risen. (15) And He said
τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, unto them, “Go ye into
κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον all the world, and preach
πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. ὁ the Gospel to every
πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς creature. (16) He that
σωθήσεται; ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας believeth and is baptized
κατακριθήσεται. σημεῖα δὲ shall be saved; but he
τοῖς πιστεύσασι ταῦτα that believeth not shall
παρακολουθήσει; ἐν τῷ be damned. (17) And these
ὀνόματι μου δαιμόνια signs shall follow them
ἐκβαλοῦσι; γλώσσαις that believe; In My Name
λαλήσουσι καιναῖς; ὄφεις shall they cast out
ἀροῦσι; κὰν θανὰσιμόν τι devils; they shall speak
πίωσιν, οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς with new tongues; (18)
βλάψει; ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους they shall take up
χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσι, καὶ serpents; and if they
καλῶς ἕξουσιν.” drink any deadly thing,
it shall not hurt them;
they shall lay hands on
the sick, and they shall
recover.”
Ὀ μὲν οὄν Κύριος, μετὰ τὸ (19) So then after the
λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς, ἀνελήφθη LORD had spoken unto
εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, καὶ them, He was received up
ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ into Heaven, and sat on
Θεοῦ; ἐκεῖνοι δὲ the Right hand of GOD.
ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν (20) And they went forth,
πανταχοῦ, τοῦ Κυρίου and preached every where,
συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν the LORD working with
λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν them, and confirming the
ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. word with signs
Ἀμήν. following. Amen.

Chapter I.

THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK’S GOSPEL, STATED.

These Verses generally suspected at the present time. The
popularity of this opinion accounted for.

It has lately become the fashion to speak of the last Twelve Verses of the
Gospel according to S. Mark, as if it were an ascertained fact that those
verses constitute no integral part of the Gospel. It seems to be generally
supposed, (1) That the evidence of MSS. is altogether fatal to their
claims; (2) That “the early Fathers” witness plainly against their
genuineness; (3) That, from considerations of “internal evidence” they
must certainly be given up. It shall be my endeavour in the ensuing pages
to shew, on the contrary, That manuscript evidence is so overwhelmingly in
their favour that no room is left for doubt or suspicion:—That there is
not so much as _one_ of the Fathers, early or late, who gives it as his
opinion that these verses are spurious:—and, That the argument derived
from internal considerations proves on inquiry to be baseless and
unsubstantial as a dream.

But I hope that I shall succeed in doing more. It shall be my endeavour to
shew not only that there really is no reason whatever for calling in
question the genuineness of this portion of Holy Writ, but also that there
exist sufficient reasons for feeling confident that it must needs be
genuine. This is clearly as much as it is possible for me to achieve. But
when this has been done, I venture to hope that the verses in dispute will
for the future be allowed to retain their place in the second Gospel
unmolested.

It will of course be asked,—And yet, if all this be so, how does it happen
that both in very ancient, and also in very modern times, this proposal to
suppress twelve verses of the Gospel has enjoyed a certain amount of
popularity? At the two different periods, (I answer,) for widely different
reasons.

(1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief of Christendom
that the Word of GOD must needs be consistent with itself in every part,
and prove in every part (like its Divine Author) perfectly “faithful and
true,” the difficulty (which was deemed all but insuperable) of bringing
certain statements in S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses into harmony with
certain statements of the other Evangelists, is discovered to have
troubled Divines exceedingly. “In fact,” (says Mr. Scrivener,) “it brought
suspicion upon these verses, and caused their omission in some copies seen
by Eusebius.” That the maiming process is indeed attributable to this
cause and came about in this particular way, I am unable to persuade
myself; but, if the desire to provide an escape from a serious critical
difficulty did not actually _occasion_ that copies of S. Mark’s Gospel
were mutilated, it certainly was the reason why, in very early times, such
mutilated copies were viewed without displeasure by some, and appealed to
with complacency by others.

(2.) But times are changed. We have recently been assured on high
authority that the Church has reversed her ancient convictions in this
respect: that _now_, “most sound theologians have no dread whatever of
acknowledging minute points of disagreement” (i.e. minute _errors_) “in
the fourfold narrative even of the life of the Redeemer.”(1) There has
arisen in these last days a singular impatience of Dogmatic Truth,
(especially Dogma of an unpalatable kind,) which has even rendered popular
the pretext afforded by these same mutilated copies for the grave
resuscitation of doubts, never as it would seem seriously entertained by
any of the ancients; and which, at all events for 1300 years and upwards,
have deservedly sunk into oblivion.

Whilst I write, _that_ “most divine explication of the chiefest articles
of our Christian belief,” the Athanasian Creed,(2) is made the object of
incessant assaults.(3) But then it is remembered that statements quite as
“uncharitable” as any which this Creed contains are found in the 16th
verse of S. Mark’s concluding chapter; are in fact the words of Him whose
very Name is Love. The precious _warning clause_, I say, (miscalled
“damnatory,”(4)) which an impertinent officiousness is for glossing with a
rubric and weakening with an apology, proceeded from Divine lips,—at least
if these concluding verses be genuine. How shall this inconvenient
circumstance be more effectually dealt with than by accepting the
suggestion of the most recent editors, that S. Mark’s concluding verses
are an unauthorised addition to his Gospel? “If it be acknowledged that
the passage has a harsh sound,” (remarks Dean Stanley,) “unlike the usual
utterances of Him who came not to condemn but to save, the discoveries of
later times have shewn, almost beyond doubt, that it is _not a part of S.
Mark’s Gospel, but an addition by another hand_; of which the weakness in
the external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in proving its
later origin.”(5)

Modern prejudice, then,—added to a singularly exaggerated estimate of the
critical importance of the testimony of our two oldest Codices, (another
of the “discoveries of later times,” concerning which I shall have more to
say by-and-by,)—must explain why the opinion is even popular that the last
twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious appendix to his Gospel.

Not that Biblical Critics would have us believe that the Evangelist left
off at verse 8, intending that the words,—“neither said they anything to
any man, for they were afraid,” should be the conclusion of his Gospel.
“No one can imagine,” (writes Griesbach,) “that Mark cut short the thread
of his narrative at that place.”(6) It is on all hands eagerly admitted,
that so abrupt a termination must be held to mark an incomplete or else an
uncompleted work. How, then, in the original autograph of the Evangelist,
is it supposed that the narrative proceeded? This is what no one has even
ventured so much as to conjecture. It is assumed, however, that the
original termination of the Gospel, whatever it may have been, has
perished. We appeal, of course, to its actual termination: and,—Of what
nature then, (we ask,) is the supposed necessity for regarding the last
twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel as a spurious substitute for what the
Evangelist originally wrote? What, in other words, has been the history of
these modern doubts; and by what steps have they established themselves in
books, and won the public ear?

To explain this, shall be the object of the next ensuing chapters.

CHAPTER II.

THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.

Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses (p.
6).—Lachmann’s fatal principle (p. 8) the clue to the unfavourable
verdict of Tischendorf (p. 9), of Tregelles (p. 10), of Alford (p.
12); which has been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and
Divines (p. 13).—The nature of the present inquiry explained (p.
15.)

It is only since the appearance of Griesbach’s second edition [1796-1806]
that Critics of the New Testament have permitted themselves to handle the
last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel with disrespect. Previous critical
editions of the New Testament are free from this reproach. “There is no
reason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of Scripture,” wrote
Mill in 1707, after a review of the evidence (as far as he was acquainted
with it) for and against. Twenty-seven years later, appeared Bengel’s
edition of the New Testament (1734); and Wetstein, at the end of another
seventeen years (1751-2), followed in the same field. Both editors, after
rehearsing the adverse testimony _in extenso_, left the passage in
undisputed possession of its place. Alter in 1786-7, and Birch in 1788,(7)
(suspicious as the latter evidently was of its genuineness,) followed
their predecessors’ example. But Matthaei, (who also brought his labours
to a close in the year 1788,) was not content to give a silent suffrage.
He had been for upwards of fourteen years a laborious collator of Greek
MSS. of the New Testament, and was so convinced of the insufficiency of
the arguments which had been brought against these twelve verses of S.
Mark, that with no ordinary warmth, no common acuteness, he insisted on
their genuineness.

“With Griesbach,” (remarks Dr. Tregelles,)(8) “Texts which may be called
really critical begin;” and Griesbach is the first to insist that the
concluding verses of S. Mark are spurious. That he did not suppose the
second Gospel to have always ended at verse 8, we have seen already.(9) He
was of opinion, however, that “at some very remote period, the original
ending of the Gospel perished,—disappeared perhaps _from the Evangelist’s
own copy_,—and that the present ending was by some one substituted in its
place.” Griesbach further invented the following elaborate and
extraordinary hypothesis to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi.
9-20.

He invites his readers to believe that when, (before the end of the second
century,) the four Evangelical narratives were collected into a volume and
dignified with the title of “The Gospel,”—S. Mark’s narrative was
furnished by some unknown individual with its actual termination in order
to remedy its manifest incompleteness; and that this volume became the
standard of the Alexandrine recension of the text: in other words, became
the fontal source of a mighty family of MSS. by Griesbach designated as
“Alexandrine.” But there will have been here and there in existence
isolated copies of one or more of the Gospels; and in all of these, S.
Mark’s Gospel, (by the hypothesis,) will have ended abruptly at the eighth
verse. These copies of single Gospels, when collected together, are
presumed by Griesbach to have constituted “the Western recension.” If, in
codices of this family also, the self-same termination is now all but
universally found, the fact is to be accounted for, (Griesbach says,) by
the natural desire which possessors of the Gospels will have experienced
to supplement their imperfect copies as best they might. “Let this
conjecture be accepted,” proceeds the learned veteran,—(unconscious
apparently that he has been demanding acceptance for at least half-a-dozen
wholly unsupported as well as entirely gratuitous conjectures,)—“and every
difficulty disappears; and it becomes perfectly intelligible how there has
crept into almost every codex which has been written, from the second
century downwards, a section quite different from the original and genuine
ending of S. Mark, which disappeared before the four Gospels were
collected into a single volume.”—In other words, if men will but be so
accommodating as to assume that the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel
disappeared before any one had the opportunity of transcribing the
Evangelist’s inspired autograph, they will have no difficulty in
understanding that the present conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel was not
really written by S. Mark.

It should perhaps be stated in passing, that Griesbach was driven into
this curious maze of unsupported conjecture by the exigencies of his
“Recension Theory;” which, inasmuch as it has been long since exploded,
need not now occupy us. But it is worth observing that the argument
already exhibited, (such as it is,) breaks down under the weight of the
very first fact which its learned author is obliged to lay upon it. Codex
B.,—the solitary manuscript witness for _omitting_ the clause in question,
(for Codex א had not yet been discovered,)—had been already claimed by
Griesbach as a chief exponent of his so-called “Alexandrine Recension.”
But then, on the Critic’s own hypothesis, (as we have seen already,) Codex
B. ought, on the contrary, to have _contained_ it. How was that
inconvenient fact to be got over? Griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note
that Codex B. “_has affinity_ with the Eastern family of MSS.”—The
misfortune of being saddled with a worthless theory was surely never more
apparent. By the time we have reached this point in the investigation, we
are reminded of nothing so much as of the weary traveller who, having
patiently pursued an _ignis fatuus_ through half the night, beholds it at
last vanish; but not until it has conducted him up to his chin in the
mire.

Neither Hug, nor Scholz his pupil,—who in 1808 and 1830 respectively
followed Griesbach with modifications of his recension-theory,—concurred
in the unfavourable sentence which their illustrious predecessor had
passed on the concluding portion of S. Mark’s Gospel. The latter even
eagerly vindicated its genuineness.(10) But with Lachmann,—whose
unsatisfactory text of the Gospels appeared in 1842,—originated a new
principle of Textual Revision; the principle, namely, of paying exclusive
and absolute deference to the testimony of a few arbitrarily selected
ancient documents; no regard being paid to others of the same or of yet
higher antiquity. This is not the right place for discussing this
plausible and certainly most convenient scheme of textual revision. That
it leads to conclusions little short of irrational, is certain. I notice
it only because it supplies the clue to the result which, as far as S.
Mark xvi. 9-20 is concerned, has been since arrived at by Dr. Tischendorf,
Dr. Tregelles, and Dean Alford,(11)—the three latest critics who have
formally undertaken to reconstruct the sacred Text.

They agree in assuring their readers that the genuine Gospel of S. Mark
extends no further than ch. xvi. ver. 8: in other words, that all that
follows the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an unauthorized addition by some later
hand; “a fragment,”—distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel not less
by internal evidence than by external testimony. This verdict becomes the
more important because it proceeds from men of undoubted earnestness and
high ability; who cannot be suspected of being either unacquainted with
the evidence on which the point in dispute rests, nor inexperienced in the
art of weighing such evidence. Moreover, their verdict has been
independently reached; is unanimous; is unhesitating; has been eagerly
proclaimed by all three on many different occasions as well as in many
different places;(12) and may be said to be at present in all but
undisputed possession of the field.(13) The first-named Editor enjoys a
vast reputation, and has been generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, “the
first Biblical Critic in Europe.” The other two have produced text-books
which are deservedly held in high esteem, and are in the hands of every
student. The views of such men will undoubtedly colour the convictions of
the next generation of English Churchmen. It becomes absolutely necessary,
therefore, to examine with the utmost care the grounds of their verdict,
the direct result of which is to present us with a mutilated Gospel. If
they are right, there is no help for it but that the convictions of
eighteen centuries in this respect must be surrendered. But if Tischendorf
and Tregelles are wrong in this particular, it follows of necessity that
doubt is thrown over the whole of their critical method. The case is a
crucial one. Every page of theirs incurs suspicion, if their deliberate
verdict in _this_ instance shall prove to be mistaken.

1. Tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single sentence. “That
these verses were not written by Mark,” (he says,) “admits of satisfactory
proof.” He then recites in detail the adverse external testimony which his
predecessors had accumulated; remarking, that it is abundantly confirmed
by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a solitary sample; but declares
that the whole passage is “abhorrent” to S. Mark’s manner. “The facts of
the case being such,” (and with this he dismisses the subject,) “a healthy
piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as
Mark’s what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn to have known nothing at
all about.”(14) A mass of laborious annotation which comes surging in at
the close of verse 8, and fills two of Tischendorf’s pages, has the effect
of entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the inspired text
of the Evangelist. On the other hand, the evidence _in favour_ of the
place is despatched in less than twelve lines. What can be the reason that
an Editor of the New Testament parades elaborately every particular of the
evidence, (such as it is,) _against_ the genuineness of a considerable
portion of the Gospel; and yet makes summary work with the evidence in its
favour? That Tischendorf has at least entirely made up his mind on the
matter in hand is plain. Elsewhere, he speaks of the Author of these
verses as “_Pseudo Marcus_.”(15)

2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this subject in his
“Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament” (1854). The
respected author undertakes to shew “that the early testimony that S. Mark
did not write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments.”
Accordingly, he announces as the result of the propositions which he
thinks he has established, “that the _book of Mark himself_ extends no
further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” He is the only critic I have met with to whom
it does not seem incredible that S. Mark did actually conclude his Gospel
in this abrupt way: observing that “perhaps we do not know enough of the
circumstances of S. Mark when he wrote his Gospel to say whether he did or
did not leave it with a complete termination.” In this modest suggestion
at least Dr. Tregelles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing
whatever about “the circumstances of S. Mark,” (or of any other
Evangelist,) “when he wrote his Gospel:” neither indeed are we quite sure
_who_ S. Mark _was_. But when he goes on to declare, notwithstanding,
“that the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full
claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel;” and
complains that “there is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to
Holy Scripture, as if all our notions of its authority depended on our
knowing who was the writer of each particular portion; instead of simply
seeing and owning that it was given forth from GOD, and that it is as much
His as were the Commandments of the Law written by His own finger on the
tables of stone;”(16)—the learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the
question at issue, which we are least of all prepared to encounter in such
a quarter. We admire his piety but it is at the expense of his critical
sagacity. For the question is not at all one of _authorship_, but only one
of _genuineness_. Have the codices been _mutilated_ which do _not_ contain
these verses? If they have, then must these verses be held to be
_genuine_. But on the contrary, Have the codices been _supplemented_ which
contain them? Then are these verses certainly _spurious_. There is no help
for it but they must either be held to be an integral part of the Gospel,
and therefore, in default of any proof to the contrary, as certainly by S.
Mark as any other twelve verses which can be named; or else an
unauthorized addition to it. If they belong to the post-apostolic age it
is idle to insist on their Inspiration, and to claim that this “authentic
anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down” is as much the work of
GOD “as were the Ten Commandments written by His own finger on the tables
of stone.” On the other hand, if they “ought as much to be received as
part of our second Gospel as the last chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as
the writer is) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the book
of Moses,”—it is difficult to understand why the learned editor should
think himself at liberty to sever them from their context, and introduce
the subscription ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ after ver. 8. In short, “How persons who
believe that these verses did not form a part of the original Gospel of
Mark, but were added afterwards, can say that they have a good claim to be
received as an authentic or genuine part of the second Gospel, that is, a
portion of canonical Scripture, passes comprehension.” It passes even Dr.
Davidson’s comprehension; (for the foregoing words are his;) and Dr.
Davidson, as some of us are aware, is not a man to stick at trifles.(17)

3. Dean Alford went a little further than any of his predecessors. He says
that this passage “was placed as a completion of the Gospel soon after the
Apostolic period,—the Gospel itself having been, for some reason unknown
to us, left incomplete. The most probable supposition” (he adds) “is, that
_the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away_.” The italics in this
conjecture (which was originally Griesbach’s) are not mine. The internal
evidence (declares the same learned writer) “preponderates vastly against
the authorship of Mark;” or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against “its
genuineness as a work of the Evangelist.” Accordingly, in his Prolegomena,
(p. 38) he describes it as “_the remarkable fragment_ at the end of the
Gospel.” After this, we are the less astonished to find that he _closes
the second Gospel at ver._ 8; introduces the Subscription there; and
encloses the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets. Thus,
whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman Mill (1707), the
editors of the N. T. have either been silent on the subject, or else have
whispered only that this section of the Gospel is to be received with less
of confidence than the rest,—it has been reserved for the present century
to convert the ancient suspicions into actual charges. The latest to enter
the field have been the first to execute Griesbach’s adverse sentence
pronounced fifty years ago, and to load the blessed Evangelist with bonds.

It might have been foreseen that when Critics so conspicuous permit
themselves thus to handle the precious deposit, others would take courage
to hurl their thunderbolts in the same direction with the less concern.
“It is probable,” (says Abp. Thomson in the _Bible Dictionary_,) “that
this section is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospels soon
after the times of the Apostles.”(18)—The Rev. T. S. Green,(19) (an able
scholar, never to be mentioned without respect,) considers that “the
hypothesis of very early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in
evidence,”—which “point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious
origin.”—“In respect of Mark’s Gospel,” (writes Professor Norton in a
recent work on the _Genuineness of the Gospels_,) “there is ground for
believing that the last twelve verses were not written by the Evangelist,
but were added by some other writer to supply a short conclusion to the
work, which some cause had prevented the author from
completing.”(20)—Professor Westcott—who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A.
Hort, announces a revised Text—assures us that “the original text, from
whatever cause it may have happened, terminated abruptly after the account
of the Angelic vision.” The rest “was added at another time, and probably
by another hand.” “It is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt
close.” “The remaining verses cannot be regarded as part of the original
narrative of S. Mark”(21)—Meyer insists that this is an “apocryphal
fragment,” and reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which
have ever been arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving. The
“note” with which he takes leave of the subject is even insolent.(22) A
comparison (he says) of these “fragments” (ver. 9-18 and 19) with the
parallel places in the other Gospels and in the Acts, shews how
vacillating and various were the Apostolical traditions concerning the
appearances of our LORD after His Resurrection, and concerning His
Ascension. (“Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?”)

Such, then, is the hostile verdict concerning these last twelve verses
which I venture to dispute, and which I trust I shall live to see
reversed. The writers above cited will be found to rely (1.) on the
external evidence of certain ancient MSS.; and (2.) on Scholia which state
“that the more ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver.
8.” (3.) They assure us that this is confirmed by a formidable array of
Patristic authorities. (4.) Internal proof is declared not to be wanting.
Certain incoherences and inaccuracies are pointed out. In fine, “the
phraseology and style of the section” are declared to be “unfavourable to
its authenticity;” not a few of the words and expressions being “foreign
to the diction of Mark.”—I propose to shew that all these confident and
imposing statements are to a great extent either mistakes or
exaggerations, and that the slender residuum of fact is about as powerless
to achieve the purpose of the critics as were the seven green withs of the
Philistines to bind Samson.

In order to exhibit successfully what I have to offer on this subject, I
find it necessary to begin (in the next chapter) at the very beginning. I
think it right, however, in this place to premise a few plain
considerations which will be of use to us throughout all our subsequent
inquiry; and which indeed we shall never be able to afford to lose sight
of for long.

The question at issue being simply this,—Whether it is reasonable to
suspect that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion
and unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not?—the whole of our
business clearly resolves itself into an examination of what has been
urged in proof that the former alternative is the correct one. Our
opponents maintain that these verses did not form part of the original
autograph of the Evangelist. But it is a known rule in the Law of Evidence
that _the burthen of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative
of the issue_.(23) We have therefore to ascertain in the present instance
what the supposed proof is exactly worth; remembering always that in this
subject-matter a _high degree of probability_ is the only kind of proof
which is attainable. When, for example, it is contended that the famous
words in S. John’s first Epistle (1 S. John v. 7, 8,) are not to be
regarded as genuine, the fact that they are away from almost every known
Codex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph
of the Evangelist. On far less weighty evidence, in fact, we are at all
times prepared to yield the hearty assent of our understanding in this
department of sacred science.

And yet, it will be found that evidence of overwhelming weight, if not of
an entirely different kind, is required in the present instance: as I
proceed to explain.

1. When it is contended that our LORD’s reply to the young ruler (S. Matt.
xix. 17) _was not_ Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εῖς, ὁ
Θεός,—it is at the same time insisted that _it was_ Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ
ἀγαθοῦ; εῖς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. It is proposed to omit the former words _only_
because an alternative clause is at hand, which it is proposed to
substitute in its room.

2. Again. When it is claimed that some given passage of the Textus
Receptus,—S. Mark ch xv. 28, for example, (καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα,
Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη,) or the Doxology in S. Matth. vi. 13,—is
spurious, all that is pretended is that certain words are an unauthorized
addition to the inspired text; and that by simply omitting them we are so
far restoring the Gospel to its original integrity.—The same is to be said
concerning _every other charge of interpolation which can be named_. If
the celebrated “pericopa de adulterâ,” for instance, be indeed not
genuine, we have but to leave out those twelve verses of S. John’s Gospel,
and to read chap. vii. 52 in close sequence with chap. viii. 12; and we
are assured that we are put in possession of the text as it came from the
hands of its inspired Author. Nor, (it must be admitted), is any
difficulty whatever occasioned thereby; for there is no reason assignable
why the two last-named verses should _not_ cohere; (there is no internal
improbability, I mean, in the supposition;) neither does there exist any
_à priori_ reason why a considerable portion of narrative should be looked
for in that particular part of the Gospel.

3. But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is
proposed to get rid of the twelve verses which for 1700 years and upwards
have formed the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel; no alternative conclusion
being proposed to our acceptance. For let it be only observed what this
proposal practically amounts to and means.

(_a._) And first, it does _not_ mean that S. Mark himself, with design,
brought his Gospel to a close at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. _That_
supposition would in fact be irrational. It does not mean, I say, that by
simply leaving out those last twelve verses we shall be restoring the
second Gospel to its original integrity. And this it is which makes the
present a different case from every other, and necessitates a fuller, if
not a different kind of proof.

(_b._) What then? It means that although an abrupt and impossible
termination would confessedly be the result of omitting verses 9-20, no
nearer approximation to the original autograph of the Evangelist is at
present attainable. Whether S. Mark was _interrupted_ before he could
finish his Gospel,—(as Dr. Tregelles and Professor Norton suggest;)—in
which case it will have been published by its Author in an unfinished
state: or whether “_the last leaf was torn away_” before a single copy of
the original could be procured,—(a view which is found to have recommended
itself to Griesbach;)—in which case it will have once had a different
termination from at present; which termination however, by the hypothesis,
has since been irrecoverably lost;—(and to one of these two wild
hypotheses the critics are logically reduced;)—_this_ we are not certainly
told. The critics are only agreed in assuming that S. Mark’s Gospel _was
at first without the verses which at present conclude it_.

But this assumption, (that a work which has been held to be a complete
work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete,) of
course requires _proof_. The foregoing improbable theories, based on a
gratuitous assumption, are confronted _in limine_ with a formidable
obstacle which must be absolutely got rid of before they can be thought
entitled to a serious hearing. It is a familiar and a fatal circumstance
that the Gospel of S. Mark has been furnished with its present termination
ever since the second century of the Christian æra.(24) In default,
therefore, of distinct historical evidence or definite documentary proof
that _at some earlier period than that_ it terminated abruptly, nothing
short of the utter unfitness of the verses which at present conclude S.
Mark’s Gospel to be regarded as the work of the Evangelist, would warrant
us in assuming that they are the spurious accretion of the post-apostolic
age: and as such, at the end of eighteen centuries, to be deliberately
rejected. We must absolutely be furnished, I say, with internal evidence
of the most unequivocal character; or else with external testimony of a
direct and definite kind, if we are to admit that the actual conclusion of
S. Mark’s Gospel is an unauthorized substitute for something quite
different that has been lost. I can only imagine one other thing which
could induce us to entertain such an opinion; and that would be the
_general_ consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions in leaving these verses
out. Else, it is evident that we are logically _forced_ to adopt the far
easier supposition that (_not_ S. Mark, but) _some copyist of the third
century_ left a copy of S. Mark’s Gospel unfinished; which unfinished copy
became the fontal source of the mutilated copies which have come down to
our own times.(25)

I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully at the outset;
not in order to prejudge the question, (for _that_ could answer no good
purpose,) but only in order that the reader may have clearly set before
him the real nature of the issue. “Is it reasonable to suspect that the
concluding verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized
supplement to his Gospel, or not?” _That_ is the question which we have to
consider,—the _one_ question. And while I proceed to pass under careful
review all the evidence on this subject with which I am acquainted, I
shall be again and again obliged to direct the attention of my reader to
its bearing on the real point at issue. In other words, we shall have
again and again to ask ourselves, how far it is rendered probable by each
fresh article of evidence that S. Mark’s Gospel, when it left the hands of
its inspired Author, was an unfinished work; the last chapter ending
abruptly at ver. 8?

I will only point out, before passing on, that the course which has been
adopted towards S. Mark xvi. 9-20, by the latest Editors of the New
Testament, is simply illogical. Either they regard these verses as
_possibly_ genuine, or else as _certainly_ spurious. If they entertain (as
they say they do) a decided opinion that they are _not_ genuine, they
ought (if they would be consistent) _to banish them from the text_.(26)
Conversely, _since they do not banish them from the text_, they have no
right to pass a fatal sentence upon them; to designate their author as
“pseudo-Marcus;” to handle them in contemptuous fashion. The plain truth
is, these learned men are better than their theory; the worthlessness of
which they are made to _feel_ in the present most conspicuous instance. It
reduces them to perplexity. It has landed them in inconsistency and
error.—They will find it necessary in the end to reverse their
convictions. They cannot too speedily reconsider their verdict, and
retrace their steps.

CHAPTER III.

THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.

Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p.
20).—The importance of such evidence explained (p. 21).—Nineteen
Patristic witnesses to these Verses, produced (p. 23).—Summary (p.
30).

The present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds of Evidence,
external and internal. For the full consideration of the former, seven
Chapters will be necessary:(27) for a discussion of the latter, one
seventh of that space will suffice.(28) We have first to ascertain whether
the external testimony concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is of such a nature as
to constrain us to admit that it is highly probable that those twelve
verses are a spurious appendix to S. Mark’s Gospel.

1. It is well known that for determining the Text of the New Testament, we
are dependent on three chief sources of information: viz. (1.) on
MANUSCRIPTS,—(2.) on VERSIONS,—(3.) on FATHERS. And it is even
self-evident that the _most ancient_ MSS.,—the _earliest_ Versions,—the
_oldest_ of the Fathers, will probably be in every instance the most
trustworthy witnesses.

2. Further, it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must
needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text
of Scripture than can possibly be rendered by any Translation, however
faithful: while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive
authority, even than Versions. The reasons are chiefly these:—(_a._)
Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not licentiously; and sometimes
_allude_ only when they seem to _quote_. (_b._) They appear to have too
often depended on their memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and
inaccurate in their citations; the same Father being observed to quote the
same place in different ways. (_c._) Copyists and Editors may not be
altogether depended upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations.
Thus the evidence of Fathers must always be to some extent precarious.

3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed out that
when,—instead of certifying ourselves of the _actual words employed_ by an
Evangelist, their precise _form_ and exact _sequence_,—our object is only
to ascertain whether a considerable passage of Scripture is genuine or
not; is to be rejected or retained; was known or was not known in the
earliest ages of the Church; then, instead of supplying the least
important evidence, Fathers become by far the most valuable witnesses of
all. This entire subject may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to
the problem before us.

4. Of course, if we possessed copies of the Gospels coeval with their
authors, nothing could compete with such evidence. But then unhappily
nothing of the kind is the case. The facts admit of being stated within
the compass of a few lines. We have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is
thought to belong to the first half of the ivth century; and another, the
newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, א) which is
certainly not quite so old,—perhaps by 50 years. Next come two famous
codices; the Alexandrine (in the British Museum, A) and the Codex Ephraemi
(in the Paris Library, C), which are probably from 50 to 100 years more
recent still. The Codex Bezae (at Cambridge, D) is considered by competent
judges to be the depository of a recension of the text as ancient as any
of the others. Notwithstanding its strangely depraved condition
therefore,—the many “monstra potius quam variae lectiones” which it
contains,—it may be reckoned with the preceding four, though it must be 50
or 100 years later than the latest of them. After this, we drop down, (as
far as S. Mark is concerned,) to 2 uncial MSS. of the viiith century,—7 of
the ixth,—4 of the ixth or xth,(29) while cursives of the xith and xiith
centuries are very numerous indeed,—the copies increasing in number in a
rapid ratio as we descend the stream of Time. Our primitive manuscript
witnesses, therefore, are but _five_ in number at the utmost. And of these
it has never been pretended that the oldest is to be referred to an
earlier date than the beginning of the ivth century, while it is thought
by competent judges that the last named may very possibly have been
written quite late in the vith.

5. Are we then reduced to this fourfold, (or at most fivefold,) evidence
concerning the text of the Gospels,—on evidence of not quite certain date,
and yet (as we all believe) not reaching further back than to the ivth
century of our æra? Certainly not. Here, FATHERS come to our aid. There
are perhaps as many as an hundred Ecclesiastical Writers older than the
oldest extant Codex of the N. T.: while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600,
(within which limits our five oldest MSS. may be considered certainly to
fall,) there exist about two hundred Fathers more. True, that many of
these have left wondrous little behind them; and that the quotations from
Holy Scripture of the greater part may justly be described as rare and
unsatisfactory. But what then? From the three hundred, make a liberal
reduction; and an hundred writers will remain who _frequently_ quote the
New Testament, and who, when they do quote it, are probably as trustworthy
witnesses to the Truth of Scripture as either Cod. א or Cod. B. We have
indeed heard a great deal too much of the precariousness of this class of
evidence: not nearly enough of the gross inaccuracies which disfigure the
text of those two Codices. Quite surprising is it to discover to what an
extent Patristic quotations from the New Testament have evidently retained
their exact original form. What we chiefly desiderate at this time is a
more careful revision of the text of the Fathers, and more skilfully
elaborated indices of the works of each: _not one_ of them having been
hitherto satisfactorily indexed. It would be easy to demonstrate the
importance of bestowing far more attention on this subject than it seems
to have hitherto enjoyed: but I shall content myself with citing a single
instance; and for this, (in order not to distract the reader’s attention),
I shall refer him to the Appendix.(30) What is at least beyond the limits
of controversy, whenever _the genuineness of a considerable passage of
Scripture_ is the point in dispute, the testimony of Fathers who
undoubtedly recognise that passage, is beyond comparison the most valuable
testimony we can enjoy.

6. For let it be only considered what is implied by a Patristic appeal to
the Gospel. It amounts to this:—that a conspicuous personage, probably a
Bishop of the Church,—one, therefore, whose history, date, place, are all
more or less matter of notoriety,—gives us his written assurance that the
passage in question was found in that copy of the Gospels which he was
accustomed himself to employ; _the uncial codex_, (it has long since
perished) _which belonged to himself_ or to the Church which he served. It
is evident, in short, that any objection to quotations from Scripture in
the writings of the ancient Fathers can only apply to the form of those
quotations; not to their _substance_. It is just as certain that a verse
of Scripture was actually read by the Father who unmistakedly refers to
it, as if we had read it with him; even though the gravest doubts may be
entertained as to the “ipsissima verba” which were found in his own
particular copy. He may have trusted to his memory: or copyists may have
taken liberties with his writings: or editors may have misrepresented what
they found in the written copies. The _form_ of the quoted verse, I
repeat, may have suffered almost to any extent. The _substance_, on the
contrary, inasmuch as it lay wholly beyond their province, may be looked
upon as an indisputable _fact_.

7. Some such preliminary remarks, (never out of place when quotations from
the Fathers are to be considered,) cannot well be withheld when the most
venerable Ecclesiastical writings are appealed to. The earliest of the
Fathers are observed to quote with singular licence,—to _allude_ rather
than to quote. Strange to relate, those ancient men seem scarcely to have
been aware of the grave responsibility they incurred when they substituted
expressions of their own for the utterances of the SPIRIT. It is evidently
not so much that their _memory_ is in fault, as their _judgment_,—in that
they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to recast, to
reconstruct.(31)

I. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that PAPIAS refers to S.
Mark xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous tradition concerning “Justus
surnamed Barsabas,” “how that after drinking noxious poison, through the
LORD’s grace he experienced no evil consequence.”(32) He does not give
_the words_ of the Evangelist. It is even surprising how completely he
passes them by; and yet the allusion to the place just cited is manifest.
Now, Papias is a writer who lived so near the time of the Apostles that he
made it his delight to collect their traditional sayings. His date
(according to Clinton) is A.D. 100.

II. JUSTIN MARTYR, the date of whose first Apology is A.D. 151, is
observed to say concerning the Apostles that, after our LORD’s
Ascension,—ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν:(33) which is nothing else but a
quotation from the last verse of S. Mark’s Gospel,—ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες
ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ. And thus it is found that the conclusion of S. Mark’s
Gospel was familiarly known within fifty years of the death of the last of
the Evangelists.

III. When IRENÆUS, in his third Book against Heresies, deliberately quotes
and remarks upon the 19th verse of the last chapter of S. Mark’s
Gospel,(34) we are put in possession of the certain fact that the entire
passage now under consideration was extant in a copy of the Gospels which
was used by the Bishop of the Church of Lyons sometime about the year A.D.
180, and which therefore cannot possibly have been written much more than
a hundred years after the date of the Evangelist himself: while it _may_
have been written by a contemporary of S. Mark, and probably _was_ written
by one who lived immediately after his time.—Who sees not that this single
piece of evidence is in itself sufficient to outweigh the testimony of any
codex extant? It is in fact a mere trifling with words to distinguish
between “Manuscript” and “Patristic” testimony in a case like this: for
(as I have already explained) the passage quoted from S. Mark’s Gospel by
Irenæus is to all intents and purposes _a fragment from a dated
manuscript_; and _that_ MS., demonstrably older by at least one hundred
and fifty years than the oldest copy of the Gospels which has come down to
our times.

IV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of S. Mark were in the
second century accounted an integral part of his Gospel. HIPPOLYTUS,
Bishop of Portus near Borne (190-227), a contemporary of Irenæus, quotes
the 17th and 18th verses in his fragment Περὶ Χαρισμάτων.(35) Also in his
Homily on the heresy of Noetus,(36) Hippolytus has a plain reference to
this section of S. Mark’s Gospel. To an inattentive reader, the passage
alluded to might seem to be only the fragment of a Creed; but this is not
the case. In the Creeds, CHRIST is _invariably_ spoken of as ανελθόντα: in
the Scriptures, _invariably_ as ἀναληθέντα.(37) So that when Hippolytus
says of Him, ἀναλαμβάνεται εἰς οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἐκ δεξιῶν Πατρὸς καθίζεται,
the reference must needs be to S. Mark xvi. 19.

V. At the Seventh COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE held under Cyprian, A.D. 256, (on
the baptizing of Heretics,) Vincentius, Bishop of Thibari, (a place not
far from Carthage,) in the presence of the eighty-seven assembled African
bishops, quoted two of the verses under consideration;(38) and Augustine,
about a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words
afresh.(39)

VI. The Apocryphal ACTA PILATI (sometimes called the “Gospel of
Nicodemus”) Tischendorf assigns without hesitation to the iiird century;
whether rightly or wrongly I have no means of ascertaining. It is at all
events a very ancient forgery, and it contains the 15th, 16th, 17th and
18th verses of this chapter.(40)

VII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver. 15 is clearly
alluded to in two places of the (so-called) “APOSTOLICAL
CONSTITUTIONS;”(41) and that verse 16 is quoted (with no variety of
reading from the _Textus Receptus_(42)) in an earlier part of the same
ancient work. The “Constitutions” are assigned to the iiird or the ivth
century.(43)

VIII and IX. It will be shewn in Chapter V. that EUSEBIUS, the
Ecclesiastical Historian, was profoundly well acquainted with these
verses. He discusses them largely, and (as I shall prove in the chapter
referred to) was by no means disposed to question their genuineness. His
Church History was published A.D. 325.

MARINUS also, (whoever that individual may have been,) a contemporary of
Eusebius,—inasmuch as he is introduced to our notice by Eusebius himself
as asking a question concerning the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel
without a trace of misgiving as to the genuineness of that about which he
inquires,—is a competent witness in their favor who has hitherto been
overlooked in this discussion.

X. Tischendorf and his followers state that Jacobus Nisibenus quotes these
verses. For “Jacobus Nisibenus” read “APHRAATES the Persian Sage,” and the
statement will be correct. The history of the mistake is curious.

Jerome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, makes no mention of
Jacob of Nisibis,—a famous Syrian Bishop who was present at the Council of
Nicæa, A.D. 325. Gennadius of Marseille, (who carried on Jerome’s list to
the year 495) asserts that the reason of this omission was Jerome’s
ignorance of the Syriac language; and explains that Jacob was the author
of twenty-two Syriac Homilies.(44) Of these, there exists a very ancient
Armenian translation; which was accordingly edited as the work of Jacobus
Nisibenus with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1756. Gallandius reprinted
both the Armenian and the Latin; and to Gallandius (vol. v.) we are
referred whenever “Jacobus Nisibenus” is quoted.

But the proposed attribution of the Homilies in question,—though it has
been acquiesced in for nearly 1400 years,—is incorrect. Quite lately the
Syriac originals have come to light, and they prove to be the work of
Aphraates, “the Persian Sage,”—a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of
the Syrian Church. In the first Homily, (which bears date A.D. 337),
verses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are quoted,(45)—yet not from the version
known as the Curetonian Syriac, nor yet from the Peshito
exactly.(46)—Here, then, is another wholly independent witness to the last
twelve verses of S. Mark, coeval certainly with the two oldest copies of
the Gospel extant,—B and א.

XI. AMBROSE, Archbishop of Milan (A.D. 374-397) freely quotes this portion
of the Gospel,—citing ver. 15 four times: verses 16, 17 and 18, each three
times: ver. 20, once.(47)

XII. The testimony of CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) has been all but overlooked.
In part of a Homily claimed for him by his Benedictine Editors, he points
out that S. Luke alone of the Evangelists describes the Ascension: S.
Matthew and S. John not speaking of it,—S. Mark recording the event only.
Then he quotes verses 19, 20. “This” (he adds) “is the end of the Gospel.
Mark makes no extended mention of the Ascension.”(48) Elsewhere he has an
unmistakable reference to S. Mark xvi. 9.(49)

XIII. JEROME, on a point like this, is entitled to more attention than any
other Father of the Church. Living at a very early period, (for he was
born in 331 and died in 420,)—endowed with extraordinary Biblical
learning,—a man of excellent judgment,—and a professed Editor of the New
Testament, for the execution of which task he enjoyed extraordinary
facilities,—his testimony is most weighty. Not unaware am I that Jerome is
commonly supposed to be a witness on the opposite side: concerning which
mistake I shall have to speak largely in Chapter V. But it ought to be
enough to point out that we should not have met with these last twelve
verses in the Vulgate, had Jerome held them to be spurious.(50) He
familiarly quotes the 9th verse in one place of his writings;(51) in
another place he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the
copies, (especially the Greek,) was found after ver. 14 _the reply of the
eleven Apostles_, when our SAVIOUR “upbraided them with their unbelief and
hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after
He was risen.”(52) To discuss so weak and worthless a forgery,—no trace of
which is found in any MS. in existence, and of which nothing whatever is
known except what Jerome here tells us,—would be to waste our time indeed.
The fact remains, however, that Jerome, besides giving these last twelve
verses a place in the Vulgate, quotes S. Mark xvi. 14, as well as ver. 9,
in the course of his writings.

XIV. It was to have been expected that AUGUSTINE would quote these verses:
but he more than quotes them. He brings them forward again and
again,(53)—discusses them as the work of S. Mark,—remarks that “in diebus
Paschalibus,” S. Mark’s narrative of the Resurrection was publicly read in
the Church.(54) All this is noteworthy. Augustine flourished A.D. 395-430.

XV. and XVI. Another very important testimony to the genuineness of the
concluding part of S. Mark’s Gospel is furnished by the unhesitating
manner in which NESTORIUS, the heresiarch, quotes ver. 20; and CYRIL of
ALEXANDRIA accepts his quotation, adding a few words of his own.(55) Let
it be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the discovery of _two_
dated codices containing the last twelve verses of S. Mark,—and _that_
date _anterior_ (it is impossible to say by how many years) to A.D. 430.

XVII. VICTOR OF ANTIOCH, (concerning whom I shall have to speak very
largely in Chapter V.,) flourished about A.D. 425. The critical testimony
which he bears to the genuineness of these verses is more emphatic than is
to be met with in the pages of any other ancient Father. It may be
characterized as the most conclusive testimony which it was in his power
to render.

XVIII. HESYCHIUS of Jerusalem, by a singular oversight, has been reckoned
among the impugners of these verses. He is on the contrary their eager
advocate and champion. It seems to have escaped observation that towards
the close of his “Homily on the Resurrection,” (published in the works of
Gregory of Nyssa, and erroneously ascribed to that Father,) Hesychius
appeals to the 19th verse, and quotes it as S. Mark’s at length.(56) The
date of Hesychius is uncertain; but he may, I suppose, be considered to
belong to the vith century. His evidence is discussed in Chapter V.

XIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a reference to the
SYNOPSIS SCRIPTURAE SACRAE,—an ancient work ascribed to Athanasius,(57)
but probably not the production of that Father. It is at all events of
much older date than any of the later uncials; and it rehearses in detail
the contents of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.(58)

It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic authorities; as,
by appealing to Gregentius in the vith century, and to Gregory the Great,
and Modestus, patriarch of Constantinople in the viith;—to Ven. Bede and
John Damascene in the viiith;—to Theophylact in the xith;—to Euthymius in
the xiith(59): but I forbear. It would add no strength to my argument that
I should by such evidence support it; as the reader will admit when he has
read my Xth chapter.

It will be observed then that _three_ competent Patristic witnesses of the
iind century,—_four_ of the iiird,—_six_ of the ivth,—_four_ of the
vth,—and _two_ (of uncertain date, but probably) of the vith,—have
admitted their familiarity with these “last Twelve Verses.” Yet do they
not belong to one particular age, school, or country. They come, on the
contrary, from every part of the ancient Church: Antioch and
Constantinople,—Hierapolis, Cæsarea and Edessa,—Carthage, Alexandria and
Hippo,—Rome and Portus. And thus, upwards of nineteen early codexes have
been to all intents and purposes inspected for us in various lands by
unprejudiced witnesses,—_seven_ of them at least of more ancient date than
the oldest copy of the Gospels extant.

I propose to recur to this subject for an instant when the reader has been
made acquainted with the decisive testimony which ancient Versions supply.
But the Versions deserve a short Chapter to themselves.

CHAPTER IV.

THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO
THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.

The Peshito,—the Curetonian Syriac,—and the Recension of Thomas of
Hharkel (p. 33.)—The Vulgate (p. 34)—and the Vetus Itala (p.
35)—the Gothic (p. 35)—and the Egyptian Versions (p. 35).—Review
of the Evidence up to this point, (p. 36).

It was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to establish in
detail _the Text_ of the Gospels, the testimony of Manuscripts is
incomparably the most important of all. To early Versions, the second
place was assigned. To Patristic citations, the third. But it was
explained that whenever (as here) the only question to be decided is
whether a considerable portion of Scripture be genuine or not, then,
Patristic references yield to no class of evidence in importance. To which
statement it must now be added that second only to the testimony of
Fathers on such occasions is to be reckoned the evidence of the oldest of
the Versions. The reason is obvious, (_a._) We know for the most part the
approximate date of the principal ancient Versions of the New
Testament:—(_b._) Each Version is represented by at least one very ancient
Codex:—and (_c._) It may be safely assumed that Translators were never
dependant on a single copy of the original Greek when they executed their
several Translations. Proceed we now to ascertain what evidence the oldest
of the Versions bear concerning the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel:
and first of all for the Syriac.

I. “Literary history,” (says Mr. Scrivener,) “can hardly afford a more
powerful case than has been established for the identity of the Version of
the Syriac now called the ‘PESHITO’ with that used by the Eastern Church
long before the great schism had its beginning, in the native land of the
blessed Gospel.” The Peshito is referred by common consent to the iind
century of our æra; and is found to contain the verses in question.

II. This, however, is not all. Within the last thirty years, fragments of
_another_ very ancient Syriac translation of the Gospels, (called from the
name of its discoverer “THE CURETONIAN SYRIAC,”) have come to light:(60)
and in this translation also the verses in question are found.(61) This
fragmentary codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the vth century.
At what earlier date the Translation may have been executed,—as well as
how much older the original Greek copy may have been which this translator
employed,—can of course only be conjectured. But it is clear that we are
listening to another truly primitive witness to the genuineness of the
text now under consideration;—a witness (like the last) vastly more
ancient than either the Vatican Codex B, or the Sinaitic Codex א; more
ancient, therefore, than any Greek copy of the Gospels in existence. We
shall not be thought rash if we claim it for the iiird century.

III. Even this, however, does not fully represent the sum of the testimony
which the Syriac language bears on this subject. Philoxenus, Monophysite
Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria, caused a revision of the
Peshito Syriac to be executed by his Chorepiscopus Polycarp, A.D. 508; and
by the aid of three(62) approved and accurate Greek manuscripts, this
revised version of Polycarp was again revised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the
monastery of Antonia at Alexandria, A.D. 616. The Hharklensian Revision,
(commonly called the “PHILOXENIAN,”) is therefore an extraordinary
monument of ecclesiastical antiquity indeed: for, being the Revision of a
revised Translation of the New Testament known to have been executed from
MSS. which must have been at least as old as the vth century, it exhibits
the result of what may be called a collation of copies made at a time when
only four of our extant uncials were in existence. Here, then, is a
singularly important accumulation of manuscript evidence on the subject of
the verses which of late years it has become the fashion to treat as
spurious. And yet, neither by Polycarp nor by Thomas of Hharkel, are the
last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel omitted.(63)

To these, if I do not add the “Jerusalem version,”—(as an independent
Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sections, perhaps of the vth
century, is called,(64))—it is because our fourfold Syriac evidence is
already abundantly sufficient. In itself, it far outweighs in respect of
antiquity anything that can be shewn on the other side. Turn we next to
the Churches of the West.

IV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382), was the author
of that famous Latin version of the Scriptures called THE VULGATE, is
known to all. It seems scarcely possible to overestimate the critical
importance of such a work,—executed at such a time,—under such
auspices,—and by a man of so much learning and sagacity as Jerome. When it
is considered that we are here presented with the results of a careful
examination of the best Greek Manuscripts to which a competent scholar had
access in the middle of the fourth century,—(and Jerome assures us that he
consulted several,)—we learn to survey with diminished complacency our own
slender stores (if indeed any at all exist) of corresponding antiquity. It
is needless to add that the Vulgate contains the disputed verses: that
from no copy of this Version are they away. Now, in such a matter as this,
Jerome’s testimony is very weighty indeed.

V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much older translation,
generally known as the VETUS ITALA. This Old Latin, which is of African
origin and of almost Apostolic antiquity, (supposed of the iind century,)
conspires with the Vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the
genuineness of the end of S. Mark’s Gospel:(65)—an emphatic witness that
in the African province, from the earliest time, no doubt whatever was
entertained concerning the genuineness of these last twelve verses.

VI. The next place may well be given to the venerable version of the
Gothic Bishop Ulphilas,—A.D. 350. Himself a Cappadocian, Ulphilas probably
derived his copies from Asia Minor. His version is said to have been
exposed to certain corrupting influences; but the unequivocal evidence
which it bears to the last verses of S. Mark is at least unimpeachable,
and must be regarded as important in the highest degree.(66) The oldest
extant copy of the GOTHIC of Ulphilas is assigned to the vth or early in
the vith century: and the verses in question are there also met with.

VII. and VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next for notice: their
testimony being so exceedingly ancient and respectable. The MEMPHITIC, or
dialect of Lower Egypt, (less properly called the “Coptic” version), which
is assigned to the ivth or vth century, contains S. Mark xvi.
9-20.—Fragments of the THEBAIC, or dialect of Upper Egypt, (a distinct
version and of considerably earlier date, less properly called the
“Sahidic,”) survive in MSS. of very nearly the same antiquity: and one of
these fragments happily contains the last verse of the Gospel according to
S. Mark. The Thebaic version is referred to the iiird century.

After this mass of evidence, it will be enough to record concerning the
Armenian version, that it yields inconstant testimony: some of the MSS.
ending at ver. 8; others putting after these words the subscription,
(ἐυαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαρκον,) and then giving the additional verses with a new
subscription: others going on without any break to the end. This version
may be as old as the vth century; but like the Ethiopic [iv-vii?] and the
Georgian [vi?] it comes to us in codices of comparatively recent date. All
this makes it impossible for us to care much for its testimony. The two
last-named versions, whatever their disadvantages may be, at least bear
constant witness to the genuineness of the verses in dispute.

1. And thus we are presented with a mass of additional evidence,—so
various, so weighty, so multitudinous, so venerable,—in support of this
disputed portion of the Gospel, that it might well be deemed in itself
decisive.

2. For these Versions do not so much shew what individuals held, as what
Churches have believed and taught concerning the sacred Text,—mighty
Churches in Syria and Mesopotamia, in Africa and Italy, in Palestine and
Egypt.

3. We may here, in fact, conveniently review the progress which has been
hitherto made in this investigation. And in order to bar the door against
dispute and cavil, let us be content to waive the testimony of Papias as
precarious, and that of Justin Martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive.
Let us frankly admit that the citation of Vincentius à Thibari at the
viith Carthaginian Council is sufficiently inexact to make it unsafe to
build upon it. The “Acta Pilati” and the “Apostolical Constitutions,”
since their date is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the ivth
century only, and not for the iiird. And now, how will the evidence stand
for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel?

(_a_) In the vth century, to which Codex A and Codex C are referred, (for
Codex D is certainly later,) at least three famous Greeks and the most
illustrious of the Latin Fathers,—(_four_ authorities in all,)—are
observed to recognise these verses.

(_b_) In the ivth century, (to which Codex B and Codex א probably belong,
five Greek writers, one Syriac, and two Latin Fathers,—besides the
Vulgate, Gothic and Memphitic Versions,—(_eleven_ authorities in
all,)—testify to familiar acquaintance with this portion of S. Mark’s
Gospel.

(_c_) In the iiird century, (and by this time MS. evidence has entirely
forsaken us,) we find Hippolytus, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Thebaic
Version, bearing plain testimony that at that early period, in at least
_three_ distinct provinces of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever
attached to these verses. Lastly,—

(_d_) In the iind century, Irenæus, the Peshito, and the Italic Version as
plainly attest that in Gaul, in Mesopotamia and in the African province,
the same verses were unhesitatingly received within a century (more or
less) of the date of the inspired autograph of the Evangelist himself.

4. Thus, we are in possession of the testimony of _at least six_
independent witnesses, of a date considerably anterior to the earliest
extant Codex of the Gospels. They are all of the best class. They deliver
themselves in the most unequivocal way. And their testimony to the
genuineness of these Verses is unfaltering.

5. It is clear that nothing short of direct adverse evidence of the
weightiest kind can sensibly affect so formidable an array of independent
authorities as this. What must the evidence be which shall set it entirely
aside, and induce us to believe, with the most recent editors of the
inspired Text, that the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel, as it came from
the hands of its inspired author, ended abruptly at ver. 8?

The grounds for assuming that his “last Twelve Verses” are spurious, shall
be exhibited in the ensuing chapter.

CHAPTER V.

THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE
AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS.

The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p. 39).—The misconception
concerning Eusebius (p. 41).—The oversight concerning Jerome (p.
51);—also concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, (or else Severus of
Antioch) (p. 57);—and concerning Victor of Antioch (p. 59).

It would naturally follow to shew that manuscript evidence confirms the
evidence of the ancient Fathers and of the early Versions of Scripture.
But it will be more satisfactory that I should proceed to examine without
more delay the testimony, which, (as it is alleged,) is borne by a cloud
of ancient Fathers against the last twelve verses of S. Mark. “The absence
of this portion from some, from many, or from most copies of his Gospel,
or that it was not written by S. Mark himself,” (says Dr. Tregelles,) “is
attested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of
Antioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especially Greeks.”(67) The same
Fathers are appealed to by Dr. Davidson, who adds to the list Euthymius;
and by Tischendorf and Alford, who add the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem.
They also refer to “many ancient Scholia.” “These verses” (says
Tischendorf) “are not recognised by the sections of Ammonius nor by the
Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and Cæsarius bear witness to the fact.”(68)
“In the Catenæ on Mark” (proceeds Davidson) “the section is not explained.
Nor is there any trace of acquaintance with it on the part of Clement of
Rome or Clement of Alexandria;”—a remark which others have made also; as
if it were a surprising circumstance that Clement of Alexandria, who
appears to have no reference to the last chapter of _S. Matthew’s_ Gospel,
should be also without any reference to the last chapter of _S. Mark’s_:
as if, too, it were an extraordinary thing that Clement of Rome should
have omitted to quote from the last chapter of S. Mark,—seeing that the
same Clement does not quote from S. Mark’s Gospel _at all_.... The
alacrity displayed by learned writers in accumulating hostile evidence, is
certainly worthy of a better cause. Strange, that their united industry
should have been attended with such very unequal success when their object
was to exhibit the evidence _in favour of_ the present portion of
Scripture.

(1) Eusebius then, and (2) Jerome; (3) Gregory of Nyssa and (4) Hesychius
of Jerusalem; (5) Severus of Antioch, (6) Victor of Antioch, and (7)
Euthymius:—Do the accomplished critics just quoted,—Doctors Tischendorf,
Tregelles, and Davidson, really mean to tell us that “it is attested” by
these seven Fathers that the concluding section of S. Mark’s Gospel “was
not written by S. Mark himself?” Why, there is _not one_ of them who says
so: while some of them say the direct reverse. But let us go on. It is, I
suppose, because there are Twelve Verses to be demolished that the list is
further eked out with the names of (8) Ammonius, (9) Epiphanius, and (10)
Cæsarius,—to say nothing of (11) the anonymous authors of Catenæ, and (12)
“later writers, especially Greeks.”

I. I shall examine these witnesses one by one: but it will be convenient
in the first instance to call attention to the evidence borne by,

GREGORY OF NYSSA.

This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself as follows in
his second “Homily on the Resurrection;”(69)—“In the more accurate copies,
the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In
some copies, however, this also is added,—‘Now when He was risen early the
first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He
had cast seven devils.’ ”

That this testimony should have been so often appealed to as proceeding
from Gregory of Nyssa,(70) is little to the credit of modern scholarship.
One would have supposed that the gravity of the subject,—the importance of
the issue,—the sacredness of Scripture, down to its minutest jot and
tittle,—would have ensured extraordinary caution, and induced every fresh
assailant of so considerable a portion of the Gospel to be very sure of
his ground before reiterating what his predecessors had delivered. And yet
it is evident that not one of the recent writers on the subject can have
investigated this matter for himself. It is only due to their known
ability to presume that had they taken ever so little pains with the
foregoing quotation, they would have found out their mistake.

(1.) For, in the first place, the second “Homily on the Resurrection”
printed in the iiird volume of the works of Gregory of Nyssa, (and which
supplies the critics with their quotation,) is, as every one may see who
will take the trouble to compare them, _word for word the same Homily_
which Combefis in his “Novum Auctarium,” and Gallandius in his
“Bibliotheca Patrum” printed as the work of Hesychius, and vindicated to
that Father, respectively in 1648 and 1776.(71) Now, if a critic chooses
to risk his own reputation by maintaining that the Homily in question is
indeed by Gregory of Nyssa, and is not by Hesychius,—well and good. But
since the Homily can have had but one author, it is surely high time that
one of these two claimants should be altogether dropped from this
discussion.

(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same Homily is observed to
reappear, _word for word_, under the name of “Severus of Antioch,” and to
be unsuspiciously printed as his by Montfaucon in his “Bibliotheca
Coisliniana” (1715), and by Cramer in his “Catena”(72) (1844),—although it
may very reasonably become a question among critics whether Hesychius of
Jerusalem or Severus of Antioch was the actual author of the Homily in
question,(73) yet it is plain that critics must make their election
between the two names; and not bring them _both_ forward. No one, I say,
has any right to go on quoting “Severus” _and_ “Hesychius,”—as Tischendorf
and Dr. Davidson are observed to do:—“Gregory of Nyssa” _and_ “Severus of
Antioch,”—as Dr. Tregelles is found to prefer.

(3.) In short, here are three claimants for the authorship of one and the
same Homily. To whichever of the three we assign it,—(and competent judges
have declared that there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Hesychius
rather than to Severus,—while _no one_ is found to suppose that Gregory of
Nyssa was its author,)—_who_ will not admit that no further mention must
be made of the other two?

(4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth the name of
“Gregory of Nyssa” must be banished from this discussion. So must the name
of “Severus of Antioch.” The memorable passage which begins,—“In the more
accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they
were afraid,’ ”—is found in _a Homily which was probably written by
Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem,—a writer of the vi_th_ century_. I
shall have to recur to his work by-and-by. The next name is

EUSEBIUS,

II. With respect to whom the case is altogether different. What that
learned Father has delivered concerning the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel
requires to be examined with attention, and must be set forth much more in
detail. And yet, I will so far anticipate what is about to be offered, as
to say at once that if any one supposes that Eusebius has anywhere plainly
“stated that it is _wanted in many MSS._,”(74)—he is mistaken. Eusebius
nowhere says so. The reader’s attention is invited to a plain tale.

It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by Cardinal Angelo
Mai(75) with a few fragmentary specimens of a lost work of Eusebius on the
(so-called) Inconsistencies in the Gospels, from a MS. in the Vatican.(76)
These, the learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in his
“Nova Patrum Bibliotheca;”(77) and hither we are invariably referred by
those who cite Eusebius as a witness against the genuineness of the
concluding verses of the second Gospel.

It is much to be regretted that we are still as little as ever in
possession of the lost work of Eusebius. It appears to have consisted of
three Books or Parts; the former two (addressed “to Stephanus”) being
discussions of difficulties at the beginning of the Gospel,—the last (“to
Marinus”) relating to difficulties in its concluding chapters.(78) The
Author’s plan, (as usual in such works), was, first, to set forth a
difficulty in the form of a Question; and straightway, to propose a
Solution of it,—which commonly assumes the form of a considerable
dissertation. But whether we are at present in possession of so much as a
single entire specimen of these “Inquiries and Resolutions” exactly as it
came from the pen of Eusebius, may reasonably be doubted. That the work
which Mai has brought to light is but a highly condensed exhibition of the
original, (and scarcely that,) its very title shews; for it is headed,—“An
abridged selection from the ‘Inquiries and Resolutions [of difficulties]
in the Gospels’ by Eusebius.”(79) Only _some_ of the original Questions,
therefore, are here noticed at all: and even these have been subjected to
so severe a process of condensation and abridgment, that in some instances
_amputation_ would probably be a more fitting description of what has
taken place. Accordingly, what were originally two Books or Parts, are at
present represented by XVI. “Inquiries,” &c, addressed “to Stephanus;”
while the concluding Book or Part is represented by IV. more, “to
Marinus,”—of which, _the first_ relates to our LORD’S appearing to Mary
Magdalene after His Resurrection. Now, since the work which Eusebius
addressed to Marinus is found to have contained “Inquiries, with their
Resolutions, concerning our SAVIOUR’S _Death_ and Resurrection,”(80)—while
a quotation professing to be derived from “the _thirteenth_ chapter”
relates to Simon the Cyrenian bearing our SAVIOUR’S Cross;(81)—it is
obvious that the original work must have been very considerable, and that
what Mai has recovered gives an utterly inadequate idea of its extent and
importance.(82) It is absolutely necessary that all this should be clearly
apprehended by any one who desires to know exactly what the alleged
evidence of Eusebius concerning the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel is
worth,—as I will explain more fully by-and-by. Let it, however, be
candidly admitted that there seems to be no reason for supposing that
whenever the lost work of Eusebius comes to light, (and it has been seen
within about 300 years(83),) it will exhibit anything essentially
different from what is contained in the famous passage which has given
rise to so much debate, and which may be exhibited in English as follows.
It is put in the form of a reply to one “Marinus,” who is represented as
asking, first, the following question:—

“How is it, that, according to Matthew [xxviii. 1], the SAVIOUR appears to
have risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ but, according to Mark [xvi. 9],
‘early the first day of the week’?”—Eusebius answers,

“This difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for getting rid
of the entire passage,(84) will say that it is not met with in _all_ the
copies of Mark’s Gospel: the accurate copies, at all events, making the
end of Mark’s narrative come after the words of the young man who appeared
to the women and said, ‘Fear not ye! Ye seek JESUS of Nazareth,’ &c.: to
which the Evangelist adds,—‘And when they heard it, they fled, and said
nothing to any man, for they were afraid.’ For at those words, in almost
all copies of the Gospel according to Mark, comes the end. What follows,
(which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, certainly not in
all,) might be dispensed with; especially if it should prove to contradict
the record of the other Evangelists. This, then, is what a person will say
who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem.

“But another, on no account daring to reject anything whatever which is,
under whatever circumstances, met with in the text of the Gospels, will
say that here are two readings, (as is so often the case elsewhere;) and
that _both_ are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious,
_this_ reading is not held to be genuine rather than _that_; nor _that_
than _this_.”

It will be best to exhibit the whole of what Eusebius has written on this
subject,—as far as we are permitted to know it,—continuously. He
proceeds:—

“Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our business is to
interpret the sense of the passage.(85) And certainly, if I divide the
meaning into two, we shall find that it is not opposed to what Matthew
says of our SAVIOUR’s having risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath.’ For Mark’s
expression, (‘Now when He was risen early the first day of the week,’) we
shall read with a pause, putting a comma after ‘Now when He was
risen,’—the sense of the words which follow being kept separate. Thereby,
we shall refer [Mark’s] ‘when He was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of
the Sabbath,’ (for it was _then_ that He _rose_); and all that comes
after, expressive as it is of a distinct notion, we shall connect with
what follows; (for it was ‘_early_, the first day of the week,’ that ‘He
_appeared to Mary Magdalene_.’) This is in fact what John also declares;
for he too has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ [JESUS]
appeared to the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also says that He appeared to
her early: not that He _rose_ early, but long before, (according to that
of Matthew, ‘in the end of the Sabbath:’ for though He _rose_ then, He did
not _appear to Mary_ then, but ‘early.’) In a word, two distinct seasons
are set before us by these words: first, the season of the
Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the season
of our SAVIOUR’s Appearing,—which was ‘early.’ The former,(86) Mark writes
of when he says, (it requires to be read with a pause,)—‘Now, when He was
risen,’ Then, after a comma, what follows is to be spoken,—‘Early, the
first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had
cast seven devils.’ ”(87)—Such is the entire passage. Little did the
learned writer anticipate what bitter fruit his words were destined to
bear!

1. Let it be freely admitted that what precedes is calculated at first
sight to occasion nothing but surprise and perplexity. For, in the first
place, there really is _no problem to solve_. The discrepancy suggested by
“Marinus” at the outset, is plainly imaginary, the result (chiefly) of a
strange misconception of the meaning of the Evangelist’s Greek,—as in fact
no one was ever better aware than Eusebius himself. “These places of the
Gospels would never have occasioned any difficulty,” he writes in the very
next page, (but it is the commencement of his reply to the _second_
question of Marinus,)—“if people would but abstain from assuming that
Matthew’s phrase (ὀψὲ σαββάτων) refers to _the evening of the
Sabbath-day_: whereas, (in conformity with the established idiom of the
language,) it obviously refers to an advanced period of the ensuing
night.”(88) He proceeds:—“The self-same moment therefore, or very nearly
the self-same, is intended by the Evangelists, only under different names:
and there is no discrepancy whatever between Matthew’s,—‘in the end of the
Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,’ and
John’s—‘The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalen early, when it was
yet dark.’ The Evangelists indicate by different expressions one and the
same moment of time, but in a broad and general way.” And yet, if Eusebius
knew all this so well, why did he not say so at once, and close the
discussion? I really cannot tell; except on one hypothesis,—which,
although at first it may sound somewhat extraordinary, the more I think of
the matter, recommends itself to my acceptance the more. I suspect, then,
that the discussion we have just been listening to, is, essentially, _not
an original production_: but that Eusebius, having met with the suggestion
in some older writer, (in Origen probably,) reproduced it in language of
his own,—doubtless because he thought it ingenious and interesting, but
not by any means because he regarded it as true. Except on some such
theory, I am utterly unable to understand how Eusebius can have written so
inconsistently. His admirable remarks just quoted, are obviously a full
and sufficient answer,—the proper answer in fact,—to the proposed
difficulty: and it is a memorable circumstance that the ancients generally
were so sensible of this, that they are found to have _invariably_(89)
substituted what Eusebius wrote in reply to the _second_ question of
Marinus for what he wrote in reply to _the first_; in other words, for the
dissertation which is occasioning us all this difficulty.

2. But next, even had the discrepancy been real, the remedy for it which
is here proposed, and which is advocated with such tedious emphasis, would
probably prove satisfactory to no one. In fact, the entire method
advocated in the foregoing passage is hopelessly vicious. The writer
begins by advancing statements which, if he believed them to be true, he
must have known are absolutely fatal to the verses in question. This done,
he sets about discussing the possibility of reconciling an isolated
expression in S. Mark’s Gospel with another in S. Matthew’s: just as if on
_that_ depended the genuineness or spuriousness of the entire context: as
if, in short, the major premiss in the discussion were some such postulate
as the following:—“Whatever in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely
consistent with something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded as
genuine.” Did then the learned Archbishop of Cæsarea really suppose that a
comma judiciously thrown into the empty scale might at any time suffice to
restore the equilibrium, and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of
almost every MS. of the Gospels extant? Why does he not at least deny the
truth of the alleged facts to which he began by giving currency, if not
approval; and which, so long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted,
render all further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory? As
before, I really cannot tell,—except on the hypothesis which has been
already hazarded.

3. Note also, (for this is not the least extraordinary feature of the
case,) what vague and random statements those are which we have been
listening to. The entire section (S. Mark xvi. 9-20,) “_is not met with in
all_ the copies:” at all events _not_ “_in the accurate_” ones. Nay, it is
“_met with seldom_.” In fact, it is _absent from_ “_almost all_” copies.
But,—Which of these four statements is to stand? The first is
comparatively unimportant. Not so the second. The last two, on the
contrary, would be absolutely fatal,—if trustworthy? But _are_ they
trustworthy?

To this question only one answer can be returned. The exaggeration is so
gross that it refutes itself. Had it been merely asserted that the verses
in question were wanting in _many_ of the copies,—even had it been
insisted that _the best copies_ were without them,—well and good: but to
assert that, in the beginning of the fourth century, from “_almost all_”
copies of the Gospels they were away,—is palpably untrue. What had become
then of the MSS. from which the Syriac, the Latin, _all_ the ancient
Versions were made? How is the contradictory evidence of _every copy of
the Gospels in existence but two_ to be accounted for? With Irenæus and
Hippolytus, with the old Latin and the Vulgate, with the Syriac, and the
Gothic, and the Egyptian versions to refer to, we are able to assert that
the author of such a statement was guilty of monstrous exaggeration. We
are reminded of the loose and random way in which the Fathers,—(giants in
Interpretation, but very children in the Science of Textual
Criticism,)—are sometimes observed to speak about the state of the Text in
their days. We are reminded, for instance, of the confident assertion of
an ancient Critic that the true reading in S. Luke xxiv. 13 is not
“three-score” but “_an hundred_ and three-score;” for that so “the
accurate copies” used to read the place, besides Origen and Eusebius. And
yet (as I have elsewhere explained) the reading ἑκατὸν καὶ ἑξήκοντα is
altogether impossible. “Apud nos mixta sunt omnia,” is Jerome’s way of
adverting to an evil which, serious as it was, was yet not nearly so great
as he represents; viz. the unauthorized introduction into one Gospel of
what belongs of right to another. And so in a multitude of other
instances. The Fathers are, in fact, constantly observed to make critical
remarks about the ancient copies which simply _cannot_ be correct.

And yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be it observed, is
clearly _not Eusebius_. It is evident that _he_ has nothing to say against
the genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. Those random
statements about the copies with which he began, do not even purport to
express his own sentiments. Nay, Eusebius in a manner repudiates them; for
he introduces them with a phrase which separates them from himself: and,
“This then is what a person will say,”—is the remark with which he finally
dismisses them. It would, in fact, be to make this learned Father stultify
himself to suppose that he proceeds gravely to discuss a portion of
Scripture which he had already deliberately rejected as spurious. But,
indeed, the evidence before us effectually precludes any such supposition.
“Here are two readings,” he says, “(as is so often the case elsewhere:)
_both_ of which are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious,
_this_ reading is not held to be genuine rather than _that_; nor _that_
than _this_.” And thus we seem to be presented with the actual opinion of
Eusebius, as far as it can be ascertained from the present passage,—if
indeed he is to be thought here to offer any personal opinion on the
subject at all; which, for my own part, I entirely doubt. But whether we
are at liberty to infer the actual sentiments of this Father from anything
here delivered or not, quite certain at least is it that to print only the
first half of the passage, (as Tischendorf and Tregelles have done,) and
then to give the reader to understand that he is reading the adverse
testimony of Eusebius as to the genuineness of the end of S. Mark’s
Gospel, is nothing else but to misrepresent the facts of the case; and,
however unintentionally, to deceive those who are unable to verify the
quotation for themselves.

It has been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have recognised the verses
in question as genuine, because a scholium purporting to be his has been
cited by Matthaei from a Catena at Moscow, in which he appears to assert
that “according to Mark,” our SAVIOUR “is not recorded to have appeared to
His Disciples after His Resurrection:” whereas in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is
plainly recorded that “Afterwards He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat
at meat.” May I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the
proposed inference, and shall continue to feel so, until I know something
more about the scholium in question? Up to the time when this page is
printed I have not succeeded in obtaining from Moscow the details I wish
for: but they must be already on the way, and I propose to embody the
result in a “Postscript” which shall form the last page of the Appendix to
the present volume.

Are we then to suppose that there was no substratum of truth in the
allegations to which Eusebius gives such prominence in the passage under
discussion? By no means. The mutilated state of S. Mark’s Gospel in the
Vatican Codex (B) and especially in the Sinaitic Codex (א) sufficiently
establishes the contrary. Let it be freely conceded, (but in fact it has
been freely conceded already,) that there must have existed in the time of
Eusebius _many_ copies of S. Mark’s Gospel which were without the twelve
concluding verses. I do but insist that there is nothing whatever in that
circumstance to lead us to entertain one serious doubt as to the
genuineness of these verses. I am but concerned to maintain that there is
nothing whatever in the evidence which has hitherto come before
us,—certainly not _in the evidence of Eusebius_,—to induce us to believe
that they are a spurious addition to S. Mark’s Gospel.

III. We have next to consider what

JEROME

has delivered on this subject. So great a name must needs command
attention in any question of Textual Criticism: and it is commonly
pretended that Jerome pronounces emphatically against the genuineness of
the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. A little
attention to the actual testimony borne by this Father will, it is
thought, suffice to exhibit it in a wholly unexpected light; and induce us
to form an entirely different estimate of its practical bearing upon the
present discussion.

It will be convenient that I should premise that it is in one of his many
exegetical Epistles that Jerome discusses this matter. A lady named
Hedibia, inhabiting the furthest extremity of Gaul, and known to Jerome
only by the ardour of her piety, had sent to prove him with hard
questions. He resolves her difficulties from Bethlehem:(90) and I may be
allowed to remind the reader of what is found to have been Jerome’s
practice on similar occasions,—which, to judge from his writings, were of
constant occurrence. In fact, Apodemius, who brought Jerome the Twelve
problems from Hedibia, brought him Eleven more from a noble neighbour of
hers, Algasia.(91) Once, when a single messenger had conveyed to him out
of the African province a quantity of similar interrogatories, Jerome sent
two Egyptian monks the following account of how he had proceeded in
respect of the inquiry,—(it concerned 1 Cor. xv. 51,)—which they had
addressed to him:—“Being pressed for time, I have presented you with the
opinions of all the Commentators; for the most part, translating their
very words; in order both to get rid of your question, and to put you in
possession of ancient authorities on the subject.” This learned Father
does not even profess to have been in the habit of delivering his own
opinions, or speaking his own sentiments on such occasions. “This has been
hastily dictated,” he says in conclusion,—(alluding to his constant
practice, which was to dictate, rather than to write,)—“in order that I
might lay before you what have been the opinions of learned men on this
subject, as well as the arguments by which they have recommended their
opinions. My own authority, (who am but nothing,) is vastly inferior to
that of our predecessors in the LORD.” Then, after special commendation of
the learning of Origen and Eusebius, and the valuable Scriptural
expositions of many more,—“My plan,” (he says,) “is to read the ancients;
to prove all things, to hold fast that which is good; and to abide
steadfast in the faith of the Catholic Church.—I must now dictate replies,
either original or at second-hand, to other Questions which lie before
me.”(92) We are not surprised, after this straightforward avowal of what
was the method on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover
that, instead of hearing _Jerome_ addressing _Hedibia_,—(who had
interrogated him concerning the very problem which is at present engaging
our attention,)—we find ourselves only listening to _Eusebius_ over again,
addressing _Marinus_.

“This difficulty admits of a two-fold solution,” Jerome begins; as if
determined that no doubt shall be entertained as to the source of his
inspiration. Then, (making short work of the tedious disquisition of
Eusebius,)—“Either we shall reject the testimony of Mark, which is met
with in scarcely any copies of the Gospel,—almost all the Greek codices
being without this passage:—(especially since it seems to narrate what
contradicts the other Gospels:)—or else, we shall reply that both
Evangelists state what is true: Matthew, when he says that our LORD rose
‘late in the week:’ Mark,—when he says that Mary Magdalene saw Him ‘early,
the first day of the week.’ For the passage must be thus pointed,—‘When He
was risen:’ and presently, after a pause, must be added,—‘Early, the first
day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ He therefore who had
risen late in the week, according to Matthew,—Himself, early the first day
of the week, according to Mark, appeared to Mary Magdalene. And this is
what John also means, shewing that it was early on the next day that He
appeared.”—To understand how faithfully in what precedes Jerome treads in
the footsteps of Eusebius, it is absolutely necessary to set the Latin of
the one over against the Greek of the other, and to compare them. In order
to facilitate this operation, I have subjoined both originals at foot of
the page: from which it will be apparent that Jerome is here not so much
adopting the sentiments of Eusebius as simply _translating his words_.(93)

This, however, is not by any means the strangest feature of the case. That
Jerome should have availed himself ever so freely of the materials which
he found ready to his hand in the pages of Eusebius cannot be regarded as
at all extraordinary, after what we have just heard from himself of his
customary method of proceeding. It would of course have suggested the
gravest doubts as to whether we were here listening to the personal
sentiment of this Father, or not; but that would have been all. What are
we to think, however, of the fact that _Hedibia’s question to Jerome_
proves on inspection to be nothing more than a translation of _the very
question which Marinus had long before addressed to Eusebius_? We read on,
perplexed at the coincidence; and speedily make the notable discovery that
her next question, and her next, are _also_ translations _word for word_
of the next two of Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is
again referred to the foot of the page.(94) It is at least decisive: and
the fact, which admits of only one explanation, can be attended by only
one practical result. It of course shelves the whole question as far as
the evidence of Jerome is concerned. Whether Hedibia was an actual
personage or not, let those decide who have considered more attentively
than it has ever fallen in my way to do that curious problem,—What was the
ancient notion of the allowable in Fiction? That different ideas have
prevailed in different ages of the world as to where fiction ends and
fabrication begins;—that widely discrepant views are entertained on the
subject even in our own age;—all must be aware. I decline to investigate
the problem on the present occasion. I do but claim to have established
beyond the possibility of doubt or cavil that what we are here presented
with _is not the testimony of Jerome at all_. It is evident that this
learned Father amused himself with translating for the benefit of his
Latin readers a part of the (lost) work of Eusebius; (which, by the way,
he is found to have possessed in the same abridged form in which it has
come down to ourselves:)—and he seems to have regarded it as allowable to
attribute to “Hedibia” the problems which he there met with. (He may
perhaps have known that Eusebius before him had attributed them, with just
as little reason, to “Marinus.”) In that age, for aught that appears to
the contrary, it may have been regarded as a graceful compliment to
address solutions of Scripture difficulties to persons of distinction, who
possibly had never heard of those difficulties before; and even to
represent the Interrogatories which suggested them as originating with
themselves. I offer this only in the way of suggestion, and am not
concerned to defend it. The only point I am concerned to establish is that
Jerome is here a _translator_, not an original author: in other words,
that it is _Eusebius_ who here speaks, and not Jerome. For a critic to
pretend that it is in _any_ sense the testimony of Jerome which we are
here presented with; that Jerome is one of those Fathers “who, even though
they copied from their predecessors, were yet competent to transmit the
record of a fact,”(95)—is entirely to misunderstand the case. The man who
translates,—not adopts, but _translates_,—_the problem_ as well as its
solution: who deliberately asserts that it emanated from a Lady inhabiting
the furthest extremity of Gaul, who nevertheless was demonstrably not its
author: who goes on to propose as hers question after question _verbatim
as he found them written in the pages of Eusebius_; and then resolves them
one by one _in the very language of the same Father_:—such a writer has
clearly conducted us into a region where his individual responsibility
quite disappears from sight. We must hear no more about Jerome, therefore,
as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of S. Mark’s
Gospel.

On the contrary. Proof is at hand that Jerome held these verses to be
genuine. The proper evidence of this is supplied by the fact that he gave
them a place in his revision of the old Latin version of the Scriptures.
If he had been indeed persuaded of their absence from “_almost all the
Greek codices_,” does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to
stand in the Vulgate? If he had met with them in “_scarcely any copies of
the Gospel_”—do men really suppose that he would yet have retained them?
To believe this would, again, be to forget what was the known practice of
this Father; who, because he found the expression “without a cause”
(εἰκή,—S. Matth. v. 22,) only “in certain of his codices,” but not “in the
true ones,” _omitted_ it from the Vulgate. Because, however, he read
“righteousness” (where we read “alms”) in S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits
“_justitiam_” in his revision of the old Latin version. On the other hand,
though he knew of MSS. (as he expressly relates) which read “works” for
“children” (ἔργων for τέκνων) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does not admit that
(manifestly corrupt) reading,—which, however, is found both in the Codex
Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press
the matter further. It is an additional proof that Jerome accepted the
conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel that he actually quotes it, and on more
than one occasion: but to prove this, is to prove more than is here
required.(96) I am concerned only to demolish the assertion of
Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Alford, and Davidson, and so many more,
concerning the testimony of Jerome; and I have demolished it. I pass on,
claiming to have shewn that the name of Jerome as an adverse witness must
never again appear in this discussion.

IV. and V. But now, while the remarks of Eusebius are yet fresh in the
memory, the reader is invited to recall for a moment what the author of
the “Homily on the Resurrection,” contained in the works of Gregory of
Nyssa (above, p. 39), has delivered on the same subject. It will be
remembered that we saw reason for suspecting that not

SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH, but
HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM,

(both of them writers of the vith century,) has the better claim to the
authorship of the Homily in question,(97)—which, however, cannot at all
events be assigned to the illustrious Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of
Basil the Great. “In the more accurate copies,” (says this writer,) “the
Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some
copies, however, this also is added,—‘Now when He was risen early the
first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He
had cast seven devils.’ This, however, seems to contradict to some extent
what we before delivered; for since it happens that the hour of the night
when our SAVIOUR rose is not known, how does it come to be here written
that He rose ‘early?’ But the saying will prove to be no ways
contradictory, if we read with skill. We must be careful intelligently to
introduce a comma after, ‘Now when He was risen:’ and then to
proceed,—‘Early in the Sabbath He appeared first to Mary Magdalene:’ in
order that ‘when He was risen’ may refer (in conformity with what Matthew
says) to the foregoing season; while ‘early’ is connected with the
appearance to Mary.”(98)—I presume it would be to abuse a reader’s
patience to offer any remarks on all this. If a careful perusal of the
foregoing passage does not convince him that Hesychius is here only
reproducing what he had read in Eusebius, nothing that I can say will
persuade him of the fact. The _words_ indeed are by no means the same; but
the sense is altogether identical. He seems to have also known the work of
Victor of Antioch. However, to remove all doubt from the reader’s mind
that the work of Eusebius was in the hands of Hesychius while he wrote, I
have printed in two parallel columns and transferred to the Appendix what
must needs be conclusive;(99) for it will be seen that the terms are only
not identical in which Eusebius and Hesychius discuss that favourite
problem with the ancients,—the consistency of S. Matthew’s ὀψὲ τῶν
σαββάτων with the πρωί of S. Mark.

It is, however, only needful to read through the Homily in question to see
that it is an attempt to weave into one piece a quantity of foreign and
incongruous materials. It is in fact not a Homily at all, (though it has
been thrown into that form;) but a Dissertation,—into which, Hesychius,
(who is known to have been very curious in questions of that kind(100),)
is observed to introduce solutions of most of those famous difficulties
which cluster round the sepulchre of the world’s Redeemer on the morning
of the first Easter Day;(101) and which the ancients seem to have
delighted in discussing,—as, the number of the Marys who visited the
sepulchre; the angelic appearances on the morning of the Resurrection; and
above all the seeming discrepancy, already adverted to, in the Evangelical
notices of the time at which our LORD rose from the dead. I need not enter
more particularly into an examination of this (so-called) “Homily”: but I
must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author at all events
cannot be thought to have repudiated the concluding verses of S. Mark: for
at the end of his discourse, he quotes the 19th verse entire, without
hesitation, in confirmation of one of his statements, and declares that
the words are written by S. Mark.(102)

I shall not be thought unreasonable, therefore, if I contend that
Hesychius is no longer to be cited as a witness in this behalf: if I point
out that it is entirely to misunderstand and misrepresent the case to
quote _a passing allusion of his to what Eusebius had long before
delivered on the same subject_, as if it exhibited his own individual
teaching. It is demonstrable(103) that he is not bearing testimony to the
condition of the MSS. of S. Mark’s Gospel in his own age: neither, indeed,
is he bearing testimony _at all_. He is simply amusing himself, (in what
is found to have been his favourite way,) with reconciling an apparent
discrepancy in the Gospels; and he does it by adopting certain remarks of
Eusebius. Living so late as the vith century; conspicuous neither for his
judgment nor his learning; a copyist only, so far as his remarks on the
last verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are concerned;—this writer does not really
deserve the space and attention we have been compelled to bestow upon him.

VI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence borne by

VICTOR OF ANTIOCH.

And from the familiar style in which this Father’s name is always
introduced into the present discussion, no less than from the invariable
practice of assigning to him the date “A.D. 401,” it might be supposed
that “Victor of Antioch” is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely
a Commentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. Clinton
(who enumerates cccxxii “Ecclesiastical Authors” from A.D. 70 to A.D.
685(104)) does not even record his name. The recent “Dictionary of Greek
and Roman Biography” is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest
editor) calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute his
Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria.(105) Not to delay the reader
needlessly,—Victor of Antioch is an interesting and unjustly neglected
Father of the Church; whose date,—(inasmuch as he apparently quotes
sometimes from Cyril of Alexandria who died A.D. 444, and yet seems to
have written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which took place A.D.
407), may be assigned to the first half of the vth century,—suppose A.D.
425-450. And in citing him I shall always refer to the best (and most
easily accessible) edition of his work,—that of Cramer (1840) in the first
volume of his “Catenae.”

But a far graver charge is behind. From the confident air in which
Victor’s authority is appealed to by those who deem the last twelve verses
of S. Mark’s Gospel spurious, it would of course be inferred that his
evidence is hostile to the verses in question; whereas his evidence to
their genuineness is the most emphatic and extraordinary on record. Dr.
Tregelles asserts that “his _testimony_ to the absence of these twelve
verses from some or many copies, stands in contrast to his own _opinion_
on the subject.” But Victor delivers _no_ “opinion:” and his “testimony”
is the direct reverse of what Dr. Tregelles asserts it to be. This learned
and respected critic has strangely misapprehended the evidence.(106)

I must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore confine myself to
those facts concerning “Victor of Antioch,” or rather concerning his work,
which are necessary for the purpose in hand.(107)

Now, his Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel,—as all must see who will be at
the pains to examine it,—is to a great extent a compilation. The same
thing may be said, no doubt, to some extent, of almost every ancient
Commentary in existence. But I mean, concerning this particular work, that
it proves to have been the author’s plan not so much to give the general
results of his acquaintance with the writings of Origen, Apollinarius,
Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Eusebius, and Chrysostom; as, with or without
acknowledgment, to transcribe largely (but with great license) from one or
other of these writers. Thus, the whole of his note on S. Mark xv. 38, 39,
is taken, without any hint that it is not original, (much of it, _word for
word_,) from Chrysostom’s 88th Homily on S. Matthew’s Gospel.(108) The
same is to be said of the first twelve lines of his note on S. Mark xvi.
9. On the other hand, the latter half of the note last mentioned professes
to give the substance of what _Eusebius_ had written on the same subject.
It is in fact an extract from those very “Quaestiones ad Marinum”
concerning which so much has been offered already. All this, though it
does not sensibly detract from the interest or the value of Victor’s work,
must be admitted entirely to change the character of his supposed
evidence. He comes before us rather in the light of a Compiler than of an
Author: his work is rather a “Catena” than a Commentary: and as such in
fact it is generally described. Quite plain is it, at all events, that the
sentiments contained in the sections last referred to, are _not Victor’s
at all_. For one half of them, no one but Chrysostom is responsible: for
the other half, no one but Eusebius.

But it is Victor’s familiar use of the writings of Eusebius,—especially of
those Resolutions of hard Questions “concerning the seeming
Inconsistencies in the Evangelical accounts of the Resurrection,” which
Eusebius addressed to Marinus,—on which the reader’s attention is now to
be concentrated. Victor cites that work of Eusebius _by name_ in the very
_first_ page of his Commentary. That his _last_ page also contains a
quotation from it, (also _by name_), has been already pointed out.(109)
Attention is now invited to what is found concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 in
the _last page but one_ (p. 444) of Victor’s work. It shall be given in
English; because I will convince unlearned as well as learned readers.
Victor, (after quoting four lines from the 89th Homily of
Chrysostom(110)), reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to do(111))
the notes of time contained severally in S. Matth. xxviii. 1, S. Mark xvi.
2, S. Luke xxiv. 1, and S. John xx. 1. After which, he proceeds as
follows:—

“In certain copies of Mark’s Gospel, next comes,—‘Now when [JESUS] was
risen early the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene;’—a
statement which seems inconsistent with Matthew’s narrative. This might be
met by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, though found in
certain copies, is spurious, However, that we may not seem to betake
ourselves to an off-hand answer, we propose to read the place thus:—‘Now
when [JESUS] was risen:’ then, after a comma, to go on,—‘early the first
day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ In this way we refer
[Mark’s] ‘Now when [JESUS] was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of the
sabbath,’ (for _then_ we believe Him to have _risen_;) and all that comes
after, expressive as it is of a different notion, we connect with what
follows. Mark relates that He who ‘_arose_ (according to Matthew) _in the
end of the Sabbath_,’ _was seen_ by Mary Magdalene ‘_early_.’ This is in
fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the
first day of the week,’ [JESUS] appeared to the Magdalene. In a word, two
distinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of
the Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the
season of our SAVIOUR’S Appearing,—which was ‘early.’ ”(112)

No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate to admit that he
is here listening to Eusebius “ad Marinum” over again. But if any one
really retains a particle of doubt on the subject, he is requested to cast
his eye to the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader,
surveying the originals with attention, may easily convince himself that
_Victor is here nothing else but a copyist_.(113) That the work in which
Eusebius reconciles “seeming discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives,”
was actually lying open before Victor while he wrote, is ascertained
beyond dispute. He is observed in his next ensuing Comment to quote from
it, and to mention Eusebius as its author. At the end of the present note
he has a significant allusion to Eusebius:—“I know very well,” he says,
“what has been suggested _by those who are at the pains to remove the
apparent inconsistencies in this place_.”(114) But when writing on S. Mark
xvi. 9-20, he does more. After abridging, (as his manner is,) what
Eusebius explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the substance of
five columns in about three times as many lines,) he adopts the exact
expressions of Eusebius,—follows him in his very mistakes,—and finally
transcribes his words. The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind
that what he has been listening to is _not the testimony of Victor at
all_: but _the testimony of Eusebius_. This is but one more echo therefore
of a passage of which we are all beginning by this time to be weary; so
exceedingly rash are the statements with which it is introduced, so
utterly preposterous the proposed method of remedying a difficulty which
proves after all to be purely imaginary.

What then _is_ the testimony of Victor? Does he offer any independent
statement on the question in dispute, from which his own private opinion
(though nowhere stated) may be lawfully inferred? Yes indeed. Victor,
though frequently a Transcriber only, is observed every now and then to
come forward in his own person, and deliver his individual sentiment.(115)
But nowhere throughout his work does he deliver such remarkable testimony
as in this place. Hear him!

“Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the
passage beginning, ‘Now when [JESUS] was risen early the first day of the
week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,’ be not found,—(certain
individuals having supposed it to be spurious,)—yet WE, at all events,
inasmuch as in very many we have discovered it to exist, have, out of
accurate copies, subjoined also the account of our Lord’s Ascension,
(following the words ‘for they were afraid,’) in conformity with the
Palestinian exemplar of Mark which exhibits the Gospel verity: that is to
say, from the words, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of
the week,’ &c., down to ‘with signs following. Amen.’(116)—And with these
words Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on S. Mark to an end.”

Here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent Father,
writing in the first half of the vth century,—

(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark are absent from
some ancient copies of his Gospel is _because they have been deliberately
omitted by Copyists_:

(2.) That the ground for such omission was the _subjective judgment_ of
individuals,—_not_ the result of any appeal to documentary evidence.
Victor, therefore, clearly held that the Verses in question had been
_expunged_ in consequence of their (seeming) inconsistency with what is
met with in the other Gospels:

(3.) That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself by reference to
“very many” and “accurate” copies, that the verses in question are
genuine:

(4.) That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which enjoyed the reputation
of “exhibiting the genuine text of S. Mark,” contained the Verses in
dispute.—To _Opinion_, therefore, Victor opposes _Authority_. He makes his
appeal to the most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is
acquainted; and the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete
counterpoise and antidote to the loose phrases of Eusebius on the same
subject:

(5.) That in consequence of all this, following the Palestinian Exemplar,
he had from accurate copies _furnished his own work with the Twelve Verses
in dispute_;—which is a categorical refutation of the statement frequently
met with that the work of Victor of Antioch is _without_ them.

We are now at liberty to sum up; and to review the progress which has been
hitherto made in this Inquiry.

Six Fathers of the Church have been examined who are commonly represented
as bearing hostile testimony to the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s
Gospel; and they have been easily reduced to _one_. Three of them,
(Hesychius, Jerome, Victor,) prove to be echoes, not voices. The remaining
two, (Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices nor echoes, but
merely _names_: GREGORY OF NYSSA having really no more to do with this
discussion than Philip of Macedon; and “Severus” and “Hesychius”
representing one and the same individual. Only by a Critic seeking to
mislead his reader will any one of these five Fathers be in future cited
as witnessing against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Eusebius is
the solitary witness who survives the ordeal of exact inquiry.(117) But,

I. EUSEBIUS, (as we have seen), instead of proclaiming his distrust of
this portion of the Gospel, enters upon an elaborate proof that its
contents are not inconsistent with what is found in the Gospels of S.
Matthew and S. John. His testimony is reducible to two innocuous and
wholly unconnected propositions: the first,—That there existed in his day
a vast number of copies in which the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel
ended abruptly at ver. 8; (the correlative of which of course would be
that there also existed a vast number which were furnished with the
present ending.) The second,—That by putting a comma after the word
Ἀναστάς, S. Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with S. Matth.
xxviii. 1(118).... I profess myself unable to understand how it can be
pretended that Eusebius would have subscribed to the opinion of
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that the Gospel of S. Mark was never
finished by its inspired Author, or was mutilated before it came abroad;
at all events, that the last Twelve Verses are spurious.

II. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been adopted, and in
part transcribed, by an unknown writer of the vith century,—whether
HESYCHIUS or SEVERUS is not certainly known: but if it were Hesychius,
then it was not Severus; if Severus, then not Hesychius. This writer,
however, (whoever he may have been,) is careful to convince us that
individually he entertained _no doubt whatever_ about the genuineness of
this part of Scripture, for he says that he writes in order to remove the
(hypothetical) objections of others, and to silence their (imaginary)
doubts. Nay, he freely _quotes the verses as genuine_, and declares that
they were read in his day on a certain Sunday night in the public Service
of the Church.... To represent such an one,—(it matters nothing, I repeat,
whether we call him “Hesychius of Jerusalem” or “Severus of Antioch,”)—as
a hostile witness, is simply to misrepresent the facts of the case. He is,
on the contrary, the strenuous champion of the verses which he is commonly
represented as impugning.

III. As for JEROME, since that illustrious Father comes before us in this
place as a _translator_ of Eusebius only, he is no more responsible for
what Eusebius says concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20, than Hobbes of Malmesbury
is responsible for anything that Thucydides has related concerning the
Peloponnesian war. Individually, however, it is certain that Jerome was
convinced of the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: for in two different
places of his writings he not only quotes the 9th and 14th verses, but he
exhibits all the twelve in the Vulgate.

IV. Lastly, VICTOR OF ANTIOCH, who wrote in an age when Eusebius was held
to be an infallible oracle on points of Biblical Criticism,—having
dutifully rehearsed, (like the rest,) the feeble expedient of that
illustrious Father for harmonizing S. Mark xvi. 9 with the narrative of S.
Matthew,—is observed to cite the statements of Eusebius concerning _the
last Twelve Verses_ of S. Mark, only in order to refute them. Not that he
opposes opinion to opinion,—(for the opinions of Eusebius and of Victor of
Antioch on this behalf were probably identical;) but statement he meets
with counter-statement,—fact he confronts with fact. Scarcely can anything
be imagined more emphatic than his testimony, or more conclusive.

For the reader is requested to observe that here is an Ecclesiastic,
writing in the first half of the vth century, who _expressly witnesses to
the genuineness_ of the Verses in dispute. He had made reference, he says,
and ascertained their existence in very many MSS. (ὡς ἐν πλείστοις). He
had derived his text from “accurate” ones: (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων.) More
than that: he leads his reader to infer that he had personally resorted to
the famous Palestinian Copy, the text of which was held to exhibit the
inspired verity, and had satisfied himself that the concluding section of
S. Mark’s Gospel _was there_. He had, therefore, been either to Jerusalem,
or else to Cæsarea; had inquired for those venerable records which had
once belonged to Origen and Pamphilus;(119) and had inspected them.
Testimony more express, more weighty,—I was going to say, more
decisive,—can scarcely be imagined. It may with truth be said to close the
present discussion.

With this, in fact, Victor lays down his pen. So also may I. I submit that
nothing whatever which has hitherto come before us lends the slightest
countenance to the modern dream that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the
hands of its inspired Author, ended abruptly at ver. 8. Neither Eusebius
nor Jerome; neither Severus of Antioch nor Hesychius of Jerusalem;
certainly not Victor of Antioch; least of all Gregory of Nyssa,—yield a
particle of support to that monstrous fancy. The notion is an invention, a
pure imagination of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach.

It remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove somewhat less
unaccommodating.

VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of the discussion,
to appeal to

EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS,

the Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compilation on the
Gospels, assigned to A.D. 1116. Euthymius lived, in fact, full five
hundred years too late for his testimony to be of the slightest
importance. Such as it is, however, it is not unfavourable. He says,—“Some
of the Commentators state that here,” (viz. at ver. 8,) “the Gospel
according to Mark finishes; and that what follows is a spurious addition.”
(Which clearly is his version of the statements of one or more of the four
Fathers whose testimony has already occupied so large a share of our
attention.) “This portion we must also interpret, however,” (Euthymius
proceeds,) “since there is nothing in it prejudicial to the
truth.”(120)—But it is idle to linger over such a writer. One might almost
as well quote “Poli _Synopsis_” and then proceed to discuss it. The cause
must indeed be desperate which seeks support from a quarter like this.
What possible sanction can an Ecclesiastic of the xiith century be
supposed to yield to the hypothesis that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the
hands of its inspired Author, was an unfinished work?

It remains to ascertain what is the evidence of the MSS. on this subject.
And the MSS. require to be the more attentively studied, because it is to
_them_ that our opponents are accustomed most confidently to appeal. On
them in fact they rely. The nature and the value of the most ancient
Manuscript testimony available, shall be scrupulously investigated in the
next two Chapters.

CHAPTER VI.

MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE
VERSES.—PART I.

S. Mark xvi. 9-20, contained in every MS. in the world except
two.—Irrational Claim to Infallibility set up on behalf of Cod. B
(p. 73) and Cod. א (p. 75).—These two Codices shewn to be full of
gross Omissions (p. 78),—Interpolations (p. 80),—Corruptions of
the Text (p. 81),—and Perversions of the Truth (p. 83).—The
testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9-20, shewn to be favorable,
notwithstanding (p. 86).

The two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the famous Codex in
the Vatican Library at Rome, known as “Codex B;” and the Codex which
Tischendorf brought from Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by
the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (א). These two manuscripts are
probably not of equal antiquity.(121) An interval of fifty years at least
seems to be required to account for the marked difference between them. If
the first belongs to the beginning, the second may be referred to the
middle or latter part of the ivth century. But the two Manuscripts agree
in this,—that _they are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s
Gospel_. In both, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (ver. 8), comes the subscription: in
Cod. B,—ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ; in Cod. א,—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ.

Let it not be supposed that we have any _more_ facts of this class to
produce. All has been stated. It is not that the evidence of Manuscripts
is one,—the evidence of Fathers and Versions another. The very reverse is
the case. Manuscripts, Fathers, and Versions alike, are _only not
unanimous_ in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness of
the MSS. is even extraordinary. With the exception of the two uncial MSS.
which have just been named, there is _not one_ Codex in existence, uncial
or cursive,—(and we are acquainted with, at least, eighteen other
uncials,(122) and about six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)—which
leaves out the last twelve verses of S. Mark.

The inference which an unscientific observer would draw from this fact, is
no doubt in this instance the correct one. He demands to be shewn the
Alexandrine (A) and the Parisian Codex (C),—neither of them probably
removed by much more than fifty years from the date of the Codex
Sinaiticus, and both unquestionably _derived from different
originals_;—and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of
those venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this part of the
sacred text. He discovers that the Codex Bezae (D), the only remaining
very ancient MS. authority,—notwithstanding that it is observed on most
occasions to exhibit an extraordinary sympathy with the Vatican (B),—here
sides with A and C against B and א. He inquires after all the other
uncials and all the cursive MSS. in existence, (some of them dating from
the xth century,) and requests to have it explained to him _why_ it is to
be supposed that all these many witnesses,—belonging to so many different
patriarchates, provinces, ages of the Church,—have entered into a grand
conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and
importance? But he obtains no intelligible answer to this question. How,
then, is an unprejudiced student to draw any inference but one from the
premisses? _That_ single peculiarity (he tells himself) of bringing the
second Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse of the xvith chapter,
is absolutely fatal to the two Codices in question. It is useless to din
into his ears that those Codices are probably both of the ivth
century,—unless men are prepared to add the assurance that a Codex of the
ivth century is _of necessity_ a more trustworthy witness to the text of
the Gospels than a Codex of the vth. The omission of these twelve verses,
I repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in Cod. B and Cod. א: for it
is obvious that a copy of the Gospels which has been so seriously
mutilated in one place may have been slightly tampered with in another. He
is willing to suspend his judgment, of course. The two oldest copies of
the Gospels in existence are entitled to great reverence _because_ of
their high antiquity. They must be allowed a most patient, most
unprejudiced, most respectful, nay, a most indulgent hearing. But when all
this has been freely accorded, on no intelligible principle can more be
claimed for any two MSS. in the world.

The rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious. Mistrust will no doubt
have been thrown over the evidence borne to the text of Scripture in a
thousand other places by Cod. B and Cod. א, _after demonstration that
those two Codices exhibit a mutilated text_ in the present place. But what
else is this but the very point requiring demonstration? Why may not these
two be right, and all the other MSS. wrong?

I propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed we to examine
the evidence borne by these two witnesses on certain _other_ occasions
which admit of _no_ difference of opinion; or next to none. Let us
endeavour, I say, to ascertain _the character of the Witnesses_ by a
patient and unprejudiced examination of their Evidence,—not in one place,
or in two, or in three; but on several important occasions, and
throughout. If we find it invariably consentient and invariably truthful,
then of course a mighty presumption will have been established, the very
strongest possible, that their adverse testimony in respect of the
conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel must needs be worthy of all acceptation.
But if, on the contrary, our inquiries shall conduct us to the very
opposite result,—what else can happen but that our confidence in these two
MSS. will be hopelessly shaken? We must in such case be prepared to admit
that it is just as likely as not that this is only _one more occasion_ on
which these “two false witnesses” have conspired to witness falsely. If,
at this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely trustworthy kind can
be procured to confront them: above all, if some one ancient witness of
unimpeachable veracity can be found who shall bear contradictory evidence:
what other alternative will be left us but to reject their testimony in
respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with something like indignation; and to
acquiesce in the belief of universal Christendom for eighteen hundred
years that these twelve verses are just as much entitled to our
unhesitating acceptance as any other twelve verses in the Gospel which can
be named?

I. It is undeniable, in the meantime, that for the last quarter of a
century, it has become the fashion to demand for the readings of Codex B
something very like absolute deference. The grounds for this superstitious
sentiment, (for really I can describe it in no apter way,) I profess
myself unable to discover. Codex B comes to us without a history: without
recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces
of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original
transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence. “They are chiefly omissions,
of one, two, or three words; but sometimes of half a verse, a whole verse,
or even of several verses.... I hesitate not to assert that it would be
easier to find a folio containing three or four such omissions than to
light on one which should be without any.”(123) In the Gospels alone,
Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times:(124)
of which by far the largest proportion is found in S. Mark’s Gospel. Many
of these, no doubt, are to be accounted for by the proximity of a “like
ending.”(125) The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic(126)) was originally
derived from an older Codex which contained about twelve or thirteen
letters in a line.(127) And it will be found that some of its omissions
which have given rise to prolonged discussion are probably to be referred
to nothing else but the oscitancy of a transcriber with such a codex
before him:(128) without having recourse to any more abstruse hypothesis;
without any imputation of bad faith;—_certainly without supposing that the
words omitted did not exist in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist_.
But then it is undeniable that some of the omissions in Cod. B are not to
be so explained. On the other hand, I can testify to the fact that the
codex is disfigured throughout with _repetitions_. The original scribe is
often found to have not only written the same words twice over, but to
have failed whenever he did so to take any notice with his pen of what he
had done.

What then, (I must again inquire,) are the grounds for the superstitious
reverence which is entertained in certain quarters for the readings of
Codex B? If it be a secret known to the recent Editors of the New
Testament, they have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close.

II. More recently, a claim to co-ordinate primacy has been set up on
behalf of the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf is actually engaged in
remodelling his seventh Leipsic edition, chiefly in conformity with the
readings of his lately discovered MS.(129) And yet the Codex in question
abounds with “errors of the the eye and pen, to an extent not
unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate
importance.” On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through
very carelessness.(130) “Letters and words, even whole sentences, are
frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while
that gross blunder ... whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to
end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115
times in the New Testament. Tregelles has freely pronounced that ‘the
state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as
_very rough_.’ ”(131) But when “the first scribe” and his “very rough”
performance have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would like to
be informed what remains to command respect in Codex א? Is, then,
_manuscript authority_ to be confounded with _editorial
caprice_,—exercising itself upon the corrections of “at least ten
different revisers,” who, from the vith to the xiith century, have been
endeavouring to lick into shape a text which its original author left
“_very rough_?”

The co-ordinate primacy, (as I must needs call it,) which, within the last
few years, has been claimed for Codex B and Codex א, threatens to grow
into a species of tyranny,—from which I venture to predict there will come
in the end an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil. It behoves us,
therefore, to look closely into this matter, and to require a reason for
what is being done. The text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a
thing to be sacrificed to an irrational, or at least a superstitious
devotion to two MSS.,—simply because they may possibly be older by a
hundred years than any other which we possess. “Id verius quod prius,” is
an axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as in Dogmatic
Truth. But on that principle, (as I have already shewn,) the last twelve
verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are fully established;(132) and by consequence,
the credit of Codd. B and א sustains a severe shock. Again, “Id verius
quod prius;” but it does not of course follow that a Codex of the ivth
century shall exhibit a more correct text of Scripture than one written in
the vth, or even than one written in the xth. For the proof of this
statement, (if it can be supposed to require proof,) it is enough to
appeal to Codex D. That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the vith
century. It is, in fact, one of our five great uncials. No older MS. of
the Greek Text is known to exist,—excepting always A, B, C and א. And yet
_no_ text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations
than that of Codex D. In the Acts, (to use the language of its learned and
accurate Editor,) “it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it
reproduces the _textus receptus_ much in the same way that one of the best
Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the
variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of
expanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend
themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”(133)
Where, then, is the _à priori_ probability that two MSS. of the ivth
century shall have not only a superior claim to be heard, but almost an
exclusive right to dictate which readings are to be rejected, which
retained?

How ready the most recent editors of the New Testament have shewn
themselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of Codd. B and א,—not
unfrequently in defiance of the evidence of all other MSS., and sometimes
to the serious detriment of the deposit,—would admit of striking
illustration were this place for such details. Tischendorf’s English “_New
Testament_”—“with various readings from the three most celebrated
manuscripts of the Greek Text” translated at the foot of every page,—is a
recent attempt (1869) to popularize the doctrine that we have to look
exclusively to two or three of the oldest copies, if we would possess the
Word of GOD in its integrity. Dean Alford’s constant appeal in his
revision of the Authorized Version (1870) to “the oldest MSS.” (meaning
thereby generally Codd. א and B with one or two others(134)), is an abler
endeavour to familiarize the public mind with the same belief. I am bent
on shewing that there is nothing whatever in the character of either of
the Codices in question to warrant this servile deference.

(_a_) And first,—Ought it not sensibly to detract from our opinion of the
value of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two
consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other,
than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_? Now this is a
plain matter of fact, of which any one who pleases may easily convince
himself. But the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one
another has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On every such
occasion, only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be
thought unreasonable if I confess that these _perpetual_ inconsistencies
between Codd. B and א,—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross
ones,—altogether destroy my confidence in either?

(_b_) On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is
throughout, they yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in
exhibiting minute corruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to
betray a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. These
coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish
a real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to
any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent
witnesses.(135)

(_c_) Further, it is evident that both alike have been subjected, probably
during the process of transcription, to the same depraving influences. But
because such statements require to be established by an induction of
instances, the reader’s attention must now be invited to a few samples of
the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies of the Gospel.

1. And first, since it is the omission of the end of S. Mark’s Gospel
which has given rise to the present discussion, it becomes a highly
significant circumstance that the original scribe of Cod. א had _also_
omitted the _end of the Gospel according to S. John_.(136) In this
suppression of ver. 25, Cod. א stands _alone_ among MSS. A cloud of
primitive witnesses vouch for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is
nothing else but the _reductio ad absurdum_ of a theory of recension,
(with Tischendorf in his last edition,) to accommodate our printed text to
the vicious standard of the original penman of Cod. א and bring the last
chapter of S. John’s Gospel to a close at ver. 24!

Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two solemn verses
wherein S. Luke describes our LORD’s “Agony and bloody Sweat,” together
with the act of the ministering Angel.(137) As to the genuineness of those
verses, recognised as they are by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Hippolytus,
Epiphanius, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, by all
the oldest versions, and by almost every MS. in existence, including Cod.
א,—it admits of _no_ doubt. Here then is proof positive that in order to
account for omissions from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there
is no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of the
Gospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. “The admitted error of
Cod. B in this place,” (to quote the words of Scrivener,) “ought to make
some of its advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is
less countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us.”

Cod. B (not Cod. א) is further guilty of the “grave error” (as Dean Alford
justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn record of the Evangelist:—“Then
said JESUS, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” It also
withholds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was “in letters
of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.”(138) Cod. א, on the other hand, omits
the confession of the man born blind (ὁ δὲ ἔφη, πιστεύω, κύριε; καὶ
προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ) in S. John ix. 38.—Both Cod. א and Cod. B retain
nothing but the word υἱόν of the expression τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον,
in S. Matth. i. 25; and suppress altogether the important doctrinal
statement ὁ ὠν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in S. John iii. 13: as well as the clause
διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν; καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, in S. John viii. 59.
Concerning all of which, let it be observed that I am neither imputing
motives nor pretending to explain _the design_ with which these several
serious omissions were made. All that is asserted is, that they cannot be
imputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were intentional: and I
insist that they effectually dispose of the presumption that when an
important passage is observed to be wanting from Cod. B or Cod. א, its
absence is to be accounted for by assuming that it was also absent _from
the inspired autograph of the Evangelist_.

2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or
of א, or of both, has clearly been _interpolated_. There does not exist in
the whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this
than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our
Redeemer’s side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and
Cod. א, where it is introduced at the end of ver. 49,—in defiance of
reason as well as of authority.(139) “This interpolation” (remarks Mr.
Scrivener) “which would represent the SAVIOUR as pierced while yet living,
is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may
combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false.”(140) Another
singularly gross specimen of interpolation, in my judgment, is supplied by
the purely apocryphal statement which is met with in Cod. א, at the end of
S. Matthew’s account of the healing of the Centurion’s servant,—και
υποστρεψας ο εκατονταρχος εις τον οικον αυτου εν αυτη τη ωρα, ευρεν τον
παιδα υγιαινοντα (viii. 13.)—Nor can anything well be weaker than the
substitution (for ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου, in S. John ii. 3) of the
following,(141) which is found _only_ in Cod. א:—οινον ουκ ειχον, οτι
συνετελεσθε ο οινος του γαμου.

But the inspired text has been depraved in the same licentious way
throughout, by the responsible authors of Cod. B and Cod. א, although such
corruptions have attracted little notice from their comparative
unimportance. Thus, the reading (in א) ημας δει εργαζεσθαι τα εργα του
πεμψαντος ημας (S. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient
condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by B’s substitution
of με for the second ημας.—Instead of τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (S.
Luke vi. 48), B and א present us with the insipid gloss, δια το καλως
οικοδομεισθαι αυτην.—In the last-named codex, we find the name of “Isaiah”
(ησαιου) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance of authority and of
*fact*.—Can I be wrong in asserting that the reading ο μονογενης θεος (for
υἱός) in S. John i. 18, (a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. א alike,) is
undeserving of serious attention?—May it not also be confidently declared
that, in the face of all MS. evidence,(142) no future Editors of the New
Testament will be found to accept the highly improbable reading ο ανθρωπος
ο λεγομενος Ιησους, in S. John ix. 11, although the same two Codices
conspire in exhibiting it?—or, on the authority of one of them (א), to
read εν αυτῳ ζωη εστιν(143) (for ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν) in S. John i. 4?—Certain
at least it is that no one will _ever_ be found to read (with B)
εβδομηκοντα δϙο in S. Luke x. 1,—or (with א) ο εκλεκτος του θεου (instead
of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) in S. John i. 34.—But let me ask, With what show of
reason can the pretence of _Infallibility_, (as well as the plea of
Primacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of MSS. licentiously corrupt as
these have already been _proved_ to be? For the readings above enumerated,
be it observed, are either critical depravations of the inspired Text, or
else unwarrantable interpolations. They _cannot_ have resulted from
careless transcription.

3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind to convince
me that the text with which Cod. B and Cod. א were chiefly acquainted,
must have been once and again subjected to a clumsy process of _revision_.
Not unfrequently, as may be imagined, the result (however tasteless and
infelicitous) is not of serious importance; as when, (to give examples
from Cod. א,) for τὸν ὄχλον ἐπικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ (in S. Luke v. 1) we are
presented with συναχθηναι τον οχλον:—when for ζῶν ἀσώτως (in S. Luke xv.
13) we read εις χωραν μακραν; and for οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες αὐτῶν (in S. Luke
xxii. 25), we find οι αρχοντες των [εθνων] εξουσιαζουσιν αυτων, και,
(which is only a weak reproduction of S. Matth. xx. 25):—when again, for
σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει (in S. John vi. 17), we are shewn καταλαβεν δε αυτους
η σκοτια: and when, for καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν (in S. John vi.
64) we are invited to accept και τις ην ο μελλων αυτον παραδιδοναι.(144)
But it requires very little acquaintance with the subject to foresee that
this kind of license may easily assume serious dimensions, and grow into
an intolerable evil. Thus, when the man born blind is asked by the HOLY
ONE if he believes ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ (S. John. ix. 35), we are by no
means willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute, τον υιον του
ανθρωπου: neither, when the SAVIOUR says, γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμων (S. John
x. 14) are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent γινωσκουσι
με τα εμα. Still less is και εμοι αυτους εδωκασ any equivalent at all for
καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστι, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά in S. John xvii. 10: or, αλλοι
ζωσουσιν σε, και ποιησουσιν σοι οσα ου θελεις, for ἄλλος σε ζώσει; καὶ
οὄσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις, in S. John xxi. 18. Indeed, even when our LORD is
not the speaker, such licentious depravation of the text is not to be
endured. Thus, in S. Luke xxiii. 15, Cod. B and Cod. א conspire in
substituting for ἀνέπεμψα γὰρ ὑμᾶς πρὸς αὐτόν,—ανεπεμψεν γαρ αυτον προς
ημας; which leads one to suspect the copyist was misled by the narrative
in ver. 7. Similar instances might be multiplied to an indefinite extent.

Two yet graver corruptions of the truth of the Gospel, (but they belong to
the same category,) remain to be specified. Mindful, I suppose, of S.
James’ explanation “how that _by works_ a man is justified,” the author of
the text of Codices B and א has ventured to alter our LORD’s assertion (in
S. Matth. xi. 19,) “Wisdom is justified of _her children_,” into “Wisdom
is justified by _her works_;” and, in the case of Cod. א, his zeal is
observed to have so entirely carried him away, that he has actually
substituted εργων for τέκνων in the parallel place of S. Luke’s
Gospel.—The other example of error (S. Matth. xxi. 31) is calculated to
provoke a smile. Finding that our SAVIOUR, in describing the conduct of
the two sons in the parable, says of the one,—ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς
ἀπῆλθεν, and of the other,—καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν; some ancient scribe, (who can
have been but slenderly acquainted with the Greek language,) seems to have
conceived the notion that a more precise way of identifying the son who
“_afterwards_ repented and went,” would be to designate him as ὁ ὕστερος.
Accordingly, in reply to the question,—τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα
τοῦ πατρός; we are presented (but _only in Cod._ B) with the astonishing
information,—λεγουσιν ο υστερος. And yet, seeing clearly that this made
nonsense of the parable, some subsequent critic is found to have
_transposed the order of the two sons_: and in that queer condition the
parable comes down to us in the famous Vatican Codex B.

4. Some of the foregoing instances of infelicitous tampering with the text
of the Gospels are, it must be confessed, very serious. But it is a yet
more fatal circumstance in connexion with Cod. B and Cod. א that they are
convicted of certain perversions of the truth of Scripture which _must_
have been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in S. Mark xiv, they
exhibit a set of passages—(verses 30, 68, 72)—“which bear clear marks of
wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. א, only
partially in Cod. B; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative
of Peter’s denial with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the
fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed _twice_. (In Cod.
א, δίς is omitted in ver. 30,‘—ἐκ δευτέρου and δίς in ver. 72,—’and καὶ
ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε in ver. 68: the last change being countenanced by
B.)”(145) One such discovery, I take leave to point out, is enough to
destroy all confidence in the text of these two manuscripts: for it proves
that another kind of corrupting influence,—besides carelessness, and
accident, and tasteless presumption, and unskilful assiduity,—has been at
work on Codices B and א. We are constrained to approach these two
manuscripts with suspicion in all cases where a supposed critical
difficulty in harmonizing the statements of the several Evangelists will
account for any of the peculiar readings which they exhibit.

Accordingly, it does not at all surprise me to discover that in both
Codices the important word ἐξελθοῦσαι (in S. Matth. xxviii. 8) has been
altered into απελθουσαι. I recognise in that substitution of απο for ἔξ
the hand of one who was not aware that the women, when addressed by the
Angel, were _inside the sepulchre_; but who accepted the belief (it is
found to have been as common in ancient as in modern times) that they
beheld him “sitting on the stone.”(146)—In consequence of a similar
misconception, both Codices are observed to present us with the word
“_wine_” instead of “_vinegar_” in S. Matthew’s phrase ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς
μεμνγμένον: which results from a mistaken endeavour on the part of some
ancient critic to bring S. Matth. xxvii. 34 into harmony with S. Mark xv.
23. The man did not perceive that the cruel insult of the “vinegar and
gall” (which the SAVIOUR tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct
thing from the proffered mercy of the “myrrhed wine” which the SAVIOUR put
away from Himself altogether.

So again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into harmony with a
supposed fact of geography that Cod. א states that Emmaus, (which Josephus
also places at sixty stadia from Jerusalem), was “_an hundred_ and sixty”
stadia distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is known. It
is because some ancient critic (Origen probably) erroneously assumed that
_Nicopolis_ was the place intended. The conjecture met with favour, and
there are not wanting scholia to declare that this was the reading of “the
accurate” copies,—notwithstanding the physical impossibility which is
involved by the statement.(147)—Another geographical misconception under
which the scribe of Cod. א is found to have laboured was that Nazareth (S.
Luke i. 26) and Capernaum (S. Mark i. 28) were _in Judæa_. Accordingly he
has altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his private
notion.(148)—A yet more striking specimen of the preposterous method of
the same scribe is supplied by his substitution of Καισαριας for Σαμαρείας
in Acts viii. 5,—evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi.
8.—Again, it must have been with a view of bringing Revelation into
harmony with the (supposed) facts of physical Science that for the highly
significant Theological record καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος at the
Crucifixion,(149) has been substituted both in B and א, του ηλιου
εκλιποντος,—a statement which (as the ancients were perfectly well
aware(150)) introduces into the narrative an astronomical
contradiction.—It may be worth adding, that Tischendorf with singular
inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contradiction, while
he rejects the geographical impossibility.—And this may suffice concerning
the text of Codices B and א.

III. We are by this time in a condition to form a truer estimate of the
value of the testimony borne by these two manuscripts in respect of the
last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. If we were disposed before to
regard their omission of an important passage as a serious matter, we
certainly cannot any longer so regard it. We have by this time seen enough
to disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B and א are the very
reverse of infallible guides. Their deflections from the Truth of
Scripture are more constant, as well as more licentious by far, than those
of their younger brethren: their unauthorized omissions from the sacred
text are not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also. And yet
the main matter before us,—_their omission of the last twelve verses of S.
Mark’s Gospel_,—when rightly understood, proves to be an entirely
different phenomenon from what an ordinary reader might have been led to
suppose. Attention is specially requested for the remarks which follow.

IV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the
oldest we possess, S. Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly at the 8th verse of the
xvith chapter, and that the customary subscription (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ)
follows,—is true; but it is far from being _the whole_ truth. It requires
to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been
to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of _the next ensuing
column_ to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding
book, has at the close of S. Mark’s Gospel deviated from his else
invariable practice. He has left in this place one column entirely vacant.
It is _the only vacant column_ in the whole manuscript;—a blank space
_abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless
withheld. Why_ did he leave that column vacant? _What_ can have induced
the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule?
The phenomenon,—(I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to
it,)—is in the highest degree significant, and admits of only one
interpretation. _The older MS._ from which Cod. B was copied must have
infallibly _contained_ the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was
instructed to leave them out,—and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank
space _in memoriam rei_. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was
silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the
Vatican Codex is made to _refute itself_ even while it seems to be bearing
testimony against the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, by
withholding them: for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary
circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By
_leaving room_ for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at
the end of fifteen centuries and a half, _a more ancient witness than
itself_. The venerable Author of the original Codex from which Codex B was
copied, is thereby brought to view. And thus, our supposed adversary
(Codex B) proves our most useful ally: for it procures us the testimony of
an hitherto unsuspected witness. The earlier scribe, I repeat,
unmistakably comes forward at this stage of the inquiry, to explain that
_he_ at least is prepared to answer for the genuineness of these Twelve
concluding Verses with which the later scribe, his copyist, from his
omission of them, might unhappily be thought to have been unacquainted.

It will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting that the scribe
of Cod. B. _may_ have copied from a MS. which exhibited the same
phenomenon which he has himself reproduced. This, by shifting the question
a little further back, does but make the case against Cod. א the stronger.

But in truth, after the revelation which has been already elicited from
Cod. B, the evidence of Cod. א may be very summarily disposed of. I have
already, on independent grounds, ventured to assign to that Codex a
somewhat later date than is claimed for the Codex Vaticanus.(151) My
opinion is confirmed by observing that the Sinaitic contains no such blank
space at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel as is conspicuous in the Vatican
Codex. I infer that the Sinaitic was copied from a Codex which had been
already mutilated, and reduced to the condition of Cod. B; and that the
scribe, only because he knew not what it meant, exhibited S. Mark’s Gospel
in consequence as if it really had no claim to those twelve concluding
verses which, nevertheless, _every_ authority we have hitherto met with
has affirmed to belong to it of right.

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion, it is at least
undeniable that Cod. B and Cod. א are at variance on the main point. They
_contradict_ one another concerning the twelve concluding verses of S.
Mark’s Gospel. For while Cod. א refuses to know anything at all about
those verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by volunteering
the statement that they were found in the older codex, of which it is in
every other respect a faithful representative. The older and the better
manuscript (B), therefore, refutes its junior (א). And it will be seen
that logically this brings the inquiry to a close, as far as the evidence
of the manuscripts is concerned. We have referred to the oldest extant
copy of the Gospels in order to obtain its testimony: and,—“Though without
the Twelve Verses concerning which you are so solicitous,” (it seems to
say,) “I yet hesitate not to confess to you that an older copy than
myself,—the ancient Codex from which I was copied,—actually did contain
them.”

The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of the four oldest
Codices of the Gospels extant,—B, א, A, C,—two (B and א) are _without_
these twelve verses: two (A and C) are _with_ them. Are these twelve
verses then an unauthorized _addition_ to A and C? or are they an
unwarrantable _omission_ from B and א? B itself declares plainly that from
itself they are an omission. And B is the oldest Codex of the Gospel in
existence. What candid mind will persist in clinging to the solitary fact
that from the single Codex א these verses are away, in proof that “S.
Mark’s Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude
it?”

Let others decide, therefore, whether the present discussion has not
already reached a stage at which an unprejudiced Arbiter might be expected
to address the prosecuting parties somewhat to the following effect:—

“This case must now be dismissed. The charge brought by yourselves against
these Verses was, that they are an unauthorized addition to the second
Gospel; a spurious appendix, of which the Evangelist S. Mark can have
known nothing. But so far from substantiating this charge, you have not
adduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable.

“The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to MSS. It has been
accepted. And with what result?

(_a_) “Those many Fathers whom you represented as hostile, prove on
investigation to be reducible to _one_, viz. Eusebius: and Eusebius, as we
have seen, _does not say_ that the verses are spurious, but on the
contrary labours hard to prove that they may very well be genuine. On the
other hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote them without
any signs of misgiving. In this way, the positive evidence in their favour
is carried back to the iind century.

(_b_) “Declining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted on an appeal
to MSS. On the MSS., in fact, you still make your stand,—or rather you
rely on _the oldest_ of them; for, (as you are aware,) _every MS. in the
world except the two oldest_ are against you.

“I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.; and it has
volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than itself—_the Codex from which
it was copied_—was furnished with those very Verses which you wish me to
believe that some older MS. still must needs have been without. What else
can be said, then, of your method but that it is frivolous? and of your
charge, but that it is contradicted by the evidence to which you
yourselves appeal?

“But it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides.

“For it is high time to point out that even if it so happened that the
oldest known MS. was observed to be without these twelve concluding
verses, it would still remain a thing unproved (not to say highly
improbable) that from the autograph of the Evangelist himself they were
also away. Supposing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the iind
or iiird century could be found who quoted them: even so, it would not
follow that there existed no such verses for a primitive Father to quote.
The earliest of the Versions might in addition yield faltering testimony;
but even so, _who_ would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis
the monstrous hypothesis, that S. Mark’s Gospel when it left the hands of
its inspired Author was without the verses which at present conclude it?
How, then, would you have proposed to account for the consistent testimony
of an opposite kind yielded by every other known document in the world?

“But, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case? (1) The earliest
of the Fathers,—(2) the most venerable of the Versions,—(3) the oldest MS.
of which we can obtain any tidings,—_all_ are observed to _recognize these
Verses_. ‘Cadit quaestio’ therefore. The last shadow of pretext has
vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that ‘Mark the Evangelist knew
nothing of’ these verses:—with Tregelles that ‘The book of Mark himself
extends no further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ:’—with Griesbach that ‘the _last
leaf of the original Gospel was probably torn away_.’... It is high time,
I say, that this case were dismissed. But there are also costs to be paid.
Cod. B and Cod. א are convicted of being ‘two false witnesses,’ and must
be held to go forth from this inquiry with an injured reputation.”

This entire subject is of so much importance that I must needs yet awhile
crave the reader’s patience and attention.

CHAPTER VII.

MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE
VERSES.—PART II.

The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and א (viz. the omission
of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1) considered.—Antiquity
unfavourable to the omission of those words (p. 93).—The Moderns
infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission (p.
100).—Marcion probably the author of this corruption of the Text
of Scripture (p. 106).—Other peculiarities of Codex א disposed of
(p. 109).

The subject which exclusively occupied our attention throughout the
foregoing chapter admits of apt and powerful illustration. Its vast
importance will be a sufficient apology for the particular disquisition
which follows, and might have been spared, but for the plain challenge of
the famous Critic to be named immediately.

“There are two remarkable readings,” (says Tischendorf, addressing English
readers on this subject in 1868,) “which are very instructive towards
determining the age of the manuscripts [א and B], and _their authority_.”
He proceeds to adduce,—

1. The absence from both, of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s
Gospel,—concerning which, the reader probably thinks that by this time he
has heard enough. Next,—

2. He appeals to their omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from the first verse
of S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians,—_another peculiarity, in which
Codd._ א _and B stand quite alone among MSS._

I. Here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the New
Testament indeed. Altogether unique is it: and that it powerfully
corroborates the general opinion of their high antiquity, no one will
deny. But how about “their _authority_”? Does the coincidence also raise
our opinion of _the trustworthiness of the Text_, which these two MSS.
concur in exhibiting? for _that_ is the question which has to be
considered,—the _only_ question. The ancientness of a reading is one
thing: its genuineness, (as I have explained elsewhere,) quite another.
The questions are entirely distinct. It may even be added that while the
one is really of little moment, the latter is of all the importance in the
world. I am saying that it matters very little whether Codd. א and B were
written in the beginning of the ivth century, or in the beginning of the
vth: whereas it matters much, or rather it matters _everything_, whether
they exhibit the Word of GOD faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous
license. How far the reading which results from the suppression of the
last two words in the phrase τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, is
_critically allowable_ or not, I forbear to inquire. That is not the point
which we have to determine. The one question to be considered is,—May it
_possibly_ be the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way
_credible_ that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as
follows:—Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις
τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ?... If it be eagerly declared in
reply that the thing is simply incredible: that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are
required for the sense; and that the commonly received reading is no doubt
the correct one: then,—there is an end of the discussion. Two
extraordinary notes of sympathy between two Manuscripts will have been
appealed to as crucial proofs of the _trustworthiness of the Text_ of
those Manuscripts: (for of their high _Antiquity_, let me say it once
more, there can be no question whatever:) and it will have been proved in
one case,—admitted in the other,—that _the omission is unwarrantable_.—If,
however, on the contrary, it be maintained that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
probably had no place in the original copy of this Epistle, but are to be
regarded as an unauthorized addition to it,—then, (as in the case of the
Twelve Verses omitted from the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, and which it was
_also_ pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand to be shewn
the evidence on the strength of which this opinion is maintained, in order
that we may ascertain what it is precisely worth.

Tischendorf,—the illustrious discoverer and champion of Codex א, and who
is accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
as _the other_ conclusive proof of the trustworthiness of its text,—may be
presumed to be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as well
as the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its support. From
him, we learn that the evidence for the omission of the words in question
is as follows:—“In the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read,
‘to the saints which are at Ephesus;’ but Marcion (A.D. 130-140), did not
find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy. The same is true of Origen (A.D.
185-254); and Basil the Great (who died A.D. 379), affirmed that those
words were wanting in _old_ copies. And this omission accords very well
with the encyclical or general character of the Epistle. At the present
day, our ancient Greek MSS., and all ancient Versions, contain the words
‘at Ephesus;’ yea (_sic_), even Jerome knew no copy with a different
reading. Now, only the Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the _old_
copies of Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion.”(152)—This then is the
sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat in detail.

(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned writer is
absolutely without authority for his assertion that “Marcion _did not
find_ the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy” of S. Paul’s Epistle to the
Ephesians. Tischendorf’s one pretence for saying so is Tertullian’s
statement that certain heretics, (Marcion he specifies by name,) had given
to S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians” the unauthorized title of “Epistle
_to the Laodiceans_.”(153) This, (argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not
have done had he found ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the first verse.(154) But the proposed
inference is clearly invalid. For, with what show of reason can
Marcion,—whom Tertullian taxes with having dared “_titulum interpolare_”
in the case of S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians,”—be _therefore_,
assumed to have read the first verse differently from ourselves? Rather is
the directly opposite inference suggested by the very language in which
Tertullian (who was all but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the
circumstance.(155)

Those, however, who would really understand the work of the heretic,
should turn from the African Father,—(who after all does but say that
Marcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul’s Epistle to the
_Ephesians_, that it was addressed to the _Laodiceans_,)—and betake
themselves to the pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a
half later. This Father had for many years made Marcion’s work his special
study,(156) and has elaborately described it, as well as presented us with
copious extracts from it.(157) And the account in Epiphanius proves that
Tischendorf is mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the English
reader, (quoted above;) and that he would have better consulted for his
reputation if he had kept to the “ut videtur” with which (in his edition
of 1859) he originally broached his opinion. It proves in fact to be no
matter of opinion at all. Epiphanius states distinctly that the _Epistle
to the Ephesians_ was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which Marcion
_retained_. In his “Apostolicon,” or collection of the (mutilated)
Apostolical Epistles, the “Epistle to the Ephesians,” (identified by the
considerable quotations which Epiphanius makes from it,(158)) stood (he
says) _seventh_ in order; while the (so called) “Epistle to the
Laodiceans,”—a distinct composition therefore,—had the _eleventh_, that
is, the last place assigned to it.(159) That this latter Epistle contained
a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius records
the fact in two places.(160) But then it is to be borne in mind that he
charges Marcion with having derived that quotation _from the Apocryphal
Epistle to the Laodiceans_;(161) instead of taking it, as he ought to have
done, from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage, when
faithfully exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by its very form refutes
the heretical tenet which the context of Marcion’s spurious epistle to the
Laodiceans was intended to establish; and which the verse in question, in
its interpolated form, might seem to favour.(162)—I have entered into this
whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: but I was
determined to prove that Tischendorf’s statement that “Marcion (A.D.
130-140) did not find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy,”—is absolutely
without foundation. It is even _contradicted_ by the known facts of the
case. I shall have something more to say about Marcion by-and-by; who, it
is quite certain, read the text of Ephes. i. 1 exactly as we do.

(2.) The _only_ Father who so expresses himself as to warrant the
inference that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were absent from his copy, is Origen, in
the beginning of the third century. “Only in the case of the Ephesians,”
(he writes), “do we meet with the expression ‘the Saints which are:’ and
we inquire,—Unless that additional phrase be simply redundant, what can it
possibly signify? Consider, then, whether those who have been partakers of
_His_ nature who revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I AM, may not,
in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as ‘those _which
are_:’ persons, called out, of a state of _not_-being, so to speak, into a
state of _being_.”(163)—If Origen had read τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
in his copy, it is to me incredible that he would have gone so very far
out of his way to miss the sense of such a plain, and in fact,
unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis before
him,—_reasoning however only from the place in Basil,_ (to be quoted
immediately,)—are unwilling to allow that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were ever
away from the text. It must be admitted as the obvious inference from what
Jerome has delivered on this subject (_infrà_, p. 98 _note_) that he, too,
seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be called) of
Codd. B and א.

(3) The influence which Origen’s writings exercised over his own and the
immediately succeeding ages of the Church, was prodigious. Basil, bishop
of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150
years later,—although he read ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his own copy of S. Paul’s
Epistles,—thought fit to avail himself of Origen’s suggestion. It suited
his purpose. He was proving the eternal existence of the SON of GOD. Even
_not to know_ GOD (he remarks) is _not to be_: in proof of which, he
quotes S. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. i. 28:—“Things _which are not_, hath GOD
chosen.” “Nay,” (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, “in his Epistle to the
Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge
were truly joined to Him who ‘IS,’ designates them specially as ‘those
_which are_:’ saying,—‘To the Saints _which are_, and faithful in CHRIST
JESUS.’ ” That this fancy was not original, Basil makes no secret. He
derived it, (he says,) from “those who were before us;” a plain allusion
to the writings of Origen. But neither was _the reading_ his own, either.
This is evident. He had _found_ it, he says,—(an asseveration
indispensable to the validity of his argument,)—but only after he had made
search,(164)—“_in the old copies_.”(165) No doubt, Origen’s strange fancy
must have been even _unintelligible_ to Basil when first he met with it.
In plain terms, it sounds to this day incredibly foolish,—when read apart
from the mutilated text which alone suggested it to Origen’s fervid
imagination.—But what there is in all this to induce us to suspect that
Origen’s reading was after all the _right_ one, and _ours_ the _wrong_, I
profess myself wholly at a loss to discover. Origen himself complains
bitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time; and attributes
it (1) to the carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of
correctors of the text: (3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopting
some of these corrections and rejecting others, according to their own
private caprice.(166)

(4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters than either Origen
or Basil, after rehearsing the preceding gloss, (but only to reject it,)
remarks that “certain persons” had been “over-fanciful” in putting it
forth. He alludes probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians,
in three books, he expressly relates that he employed:(167) but he does
not seem to have apprehended that Origen’s text _was without the words_ ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ. If he was acquainted with Origen’s text, (of which, however, his
writings afford no indication,) it is plain that he disapproved of it.
Others, he says, understand S. Paul to say not “the Saints _which are_:”
but,—“the Saints and faithful _which are at Ephesus_.”(168)

(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit that there has
been elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to
shake our confidence in the universally received reading of Ephesians i.
1. The facts of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully
stated in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the ivth century, (exhibiting in
other respects several striking notes of vicious sympathy,) are found to
conspire in omitting a clause in Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it
is to the sense,) may be inferred to have been absent from Origen’s copy:
and Basil testifies that it was absent from “the old copies” to which he
himself obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter: in which
it is much to be noted that Origen does not say that he _approved_ of this
reading. Still less does Basil. They both witness to _the fact_ that the
words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were omitted from _some_ copies of the iiird century, just
as Codd. B and א witness to the same fact in the ivth. But what then?
Origen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings
confessedly worthless; and, why not here? For not only is the text all but
_unintelligible_ if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ be omitted: but (what is far more
to the purpose) the direct evidence of _all_ the copies, whether uncial or
cursive,(169)—and of _all_ the Versions,—is _against_ the omission. In the
face of this overwhelming mass of unfaltering evidence to insist that
Codd. B and א must yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity
wrong, is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of this
nonsensical reading, of _two_ MSS. confessedly untrustworthy in countless
other places,—against _all_ the MSS.—_all_ the Versions,—is nothing else
but an act of vulgar prejudice. I venture to declare,—(and with this I
shall close the discussion and dismiss the subject,)—that _there does not
exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament_ of a reading
even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin
concur,—which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings
which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz.

1. The adverse testimony of _all the uncial MSS. except two_.

2. The adverse testimony of all, or _very nearly all_, the cursive MSS.

3. The adverse testimony of _all the Versions_, without exception.

4. The adverse testimony of _the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers_.

To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,—

5. _The highest inherent improbability_,—it is only because I desire to
treat this question purely as one of _Evidence_.

II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity _to account for_ the
phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is
commendable; but I take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set
about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every
corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first
three centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough
to do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod.
B shews marvellous sympathy(170),) and explain if he can why there is a
grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and
how it comes to pass that Cod. D “reproduces the ‘textus receptus’ of the
Acts much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the
Hebrew of the Old Testament; so wide are the variations in the diction, so
constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means
of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a
semblance of internal probability.”(171) Our business as Critics is not
_to invent theories_ to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to
ascertain where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable
depravations of early Heretics,—the preposterous emendations of ancient
Critics,—the injudicious assiduity of Harmonizers,—the licentious caprice
of individuals;—what with errors resulting from the inopportune
recollection of similar or parallel places,—or from the familiar
phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections,—or from the inattention of
Scribes,—or from marginal glosses;—however arising, endless are the
corrupt readings of the oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means
safe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory
to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories
are seldom satisfactory. _Guesses_ only they are at best.

Thus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of
Ussher,—(which, however, found favour with Garnier (Basil’s editor),
Bengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and has since been not only eagerly
advocated by Conybeare and Howson following a host of German Critics, but
has even enjoyed Mr. Scrivener’s distinct approval;)—that the Epistle to
the Ephesians “was _a Circular_ addressed to other Asiatic Cities besides
the capital Ephesus,—to Laodicea perhaps among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and
that while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephesus in the
first verse, _others may have had another city substituted, or the space
after_ τοῖς οὔσιν _left utterly void_.”(172) At first sight, this
conjecture has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it to
our favour. On closer inspection,—(i) It is found to be not only
gratuitous; but (ii) altogether unsupported and unsanctioned by the known
facts of the case; and (what is most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I
humbly think, demonstrably erroneous. I demur to it,—

(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (_a_) when S. Paul sent
his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tychicus, the bearer of it,(173)
was charged with _a distinct Epistle_ to the Colossians:(174) an Epistle
nevertheless so singularly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is
scarcely credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epistles to
two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of
them, (_that_ to the Ephesians,) furnished with a different address, to so
large and important a place as Laodicea, for example, (_b_) Then further,
the provision which S. Paul made at this very time for communicating with
the Churches of Asia which he did not separately address is found to have
been different. The Laodiceans were to read in their public assembly S.
Paul’s “_Epistle to the Colossians_,” which the Colossians were ordered to
send them. The Colossians in like manner were to read the Epistle,—(to
whom addressed, we know not),—which S. Paul describes as τὴν ἐκ
Λαοδικείας.(175) If then it had been S. Paul’s desire that the Laodiceans
(suppose) should read publicly in their Churches his Epistle to the
Ephesians, surely, he would have charged the Ephesians to procure that
_his Epistle to them should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans_. Why
should the Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously adopted
one method with the Churches of _Colosse_ and Laodicea,—another with the
Churches of _Ephesus_ and Laodicea,—in respect of his epistolary
communications?

(2) (_a_) But even supposing, for argument’s sake, that S. Paul _did_ send
duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the
principal Churches of Asia Minor,—why should he have left the salutation
_blank_, (“carta bianca,” as Bengel phrases it,(176)) for Tychicus to fill
up when he got into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short
of _this_ would account for the reading of Codd. B and א.

(_b_) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature
be clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A
copy of what we call S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians” sent into Asia
Minor by S. Paul with a blank address; i.e. “with the space after τοῖς
οὔσιν left utterly void:” (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that
blank: and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up
for him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy
seen by Origen, and (5) Of the “old copies” seen by Basil; as well as (6)
Of Codd. B and א. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains
us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) _One other_ copy of this same
“Encyclical Epistle,” filled up with the Ephesian address, became the
archetype of _every other copy of this Epistle in the world_.... But of
what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such
a marvellous structure of hypothesis,—of which the top story overhangs and
overbalances all the rest of the edifice? The thing which puzzles us in
Codd. B and א is not that we find the name of _another City_ in the
salutation of S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians,” but that we find the
name of _no_ city at all; nor meet with any vacant space there.

(_c_) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to
different Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as
of course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious
documents left his hands,—then, doubtless, each several Church would have
received, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if _this_ had
been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the
Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a
word about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there
should nowhere exist traces of _conflicting testimony_ as to the Church to
which S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas _all_ the
most ancient writers, without exception,—(Marcion himself [A.D. 140(177)],
the “Muratorian” fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Irenæus [A.D. 175],
Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian,
Eusebius,)—and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying,
unfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. א, (and this is much to be
noted,) the _superscription_ of the Epistle attests that it was addressed
“to the Ephesians.” Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in
inventing facts in the history of an Apostle’s practice, in order to
account for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his
text?(178)

(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such “_a Circular_” as
was described above, (each copy furnished with a blank, to be filled up
with the name of a different City,) would be a document without parallel
in the annals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware,
essentially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the suggestion
before us is only another instance of the fatal misapprehension which
results from the incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some
familiar word in a living language to its supposed equivalent in an
ancient tongue. Thus, because κύκλιος or ἐγκύκλιος confessedly signifies
“circularis,” it seems to be imagined that ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολή may mean “a
Circular Letter.” Whereas it really means nothing of the sort; but—“_a
Catholic Epistle_.”(179)

An “_Encyclical_” (and _that_ is the word which has been imported into the
present discussion), was quite a different document from what _we_ call “a
Circular.” Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was
Catholic or General,—the common property of all to whom it came. The
General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, S. John are
“Encyclical.”(180) So is the well-known Canonical Epistle which Gregory,
Bp. of Neocæsaræa in Pontus, in the middle of the third century, sent to
the Bishops of his province.(181) As for “_a blank circular_” to be filled
up with the words “in Ephesus,” “in Laodicea,” &c.,—its like (I repeat) is
wholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. The two notions
are at all events inconsistent and incompatible. If S. Paul’s Epistle to
the Ephesians was “a Circular,” then it was not “Encyclical:” if it was
“Encyclical” then it was not “a Circular.”

Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are
logically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies the fifth place among
S. Paul’s writings, and which from the beginning of the second
century,—that is, from the very dawn of Historical evidence,—has been
known as “the Epistle to the Ephesians,” was an “Encyclical,” “Catholic”
or “General Epistle,”—addressed τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ? There does not live the man who will accept so irrational a
supposition. The suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to
account for the absence of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in Ephes. i. 1 is not only
in itself in the highest degree improbable, and contradicted by all the
evidence to which we have access; but it is even inadmissible on critical
grounds, and must be unconditionally surrendered.(182) It is observed to
collapse before every test which can be applied to it.

III. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me,—if men must needs
account for the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from this place,—that they
should have recourse to wild, improbable, and wholly unsupported theories,
like those which go before; while an easy,—I was going to say the
obvious,—solution of the problem is close at hand, and even solicits
acceptance.

Marcion the heretic, (A.D. 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (A.D.
200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly
mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul’s Epistles in particular.
Epiphanius compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to a
moth-eaten coat.(183) “Instead of a stylus,” (says Tertullian,) “Marcion
employed a knife.” “What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he
omits whole pages?”(184) S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian
even singles out by name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a
new title. All this has been fully explained above, from page 93 to page
96.

Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul’s Epistle “_to the Ephesians_”
that Apostolical writing which stands fifth in our Canon, (but which stood
seventh in his,) is just as certain as that he recognised as such S.
Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians,
Colossians, Philippians. All this has been fully explained in a preceding
page.(185)

But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul’s _another_
Epistle,—of which all we know for certain is, that it contained portions
of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and purported to be addressed by S. Paul
“to the Laodiceans.” To ascertain with greater precision the truth of this
matter at the end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible.
Nor is it necessary. Obvious is it to suspect that not only did this
heretical teacher at some period of his career prefix a new heading to
certain copies of the Epistle to the Ephesians, but also that some of his
followers industriously erased from certain other copies the words ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ in ver. 1,—as being _the only two words in the entire Epistle_ which
effectually refuted their Master. It was not needful, (be it observed,) to
multiply copies of the Epistle for the propagation of Marcion’s deceit.
Only two words had to be erased,—_the very two words whose omission we are
trying to account for_,—in order to give some colour to his proposed
attribution of the Epistle, (“quasi in isto diligentissimus
explorator,”)—to the Laodiceans. One of these mutilated copies will have
fallen into the hands of Origen,—who often complains of the corrupt state
of his text: while the critical personages for whom Cod. B and Cod. א were
transcribed will probably have been acquainted with other such mutilated
copies. Are we not led, as it were by the hand, to take some such view of
the case? In this way we account satisfactorily, and on grounds of
historic evidence, for the omission which has exercised the Critics so
severely.

I do not lose sight of the fact that the Epistle to the Ephesians ends
without salutations, without personal notices of any kind. But in this
respect it is not peculiar.(186) _That_,—joined to a singular absence of
identifying allusion,—sufficiently explains why Marcion selected this
particular Epistle for the subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this
circumstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Universal, and in
defiance of its very Title, that the Epistle is “Encyclical,” in the
technical sense of that word; and to go on to urge this characteristic as
an argument in support of the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ,—is clearly
the device of an eager Advocate; not the method of a calm and unprejudiced
Judge. True it is that S. Paul,—who, writing to the Corinthians from
Ephesus, says “_the Churches of Asia_ salute you,” (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)—may
have known very well that an Epistle of his “to the Ephesians,” would, as
a matter of course, be instantly communicated to others besides the
members of that particular Church: and in fact this may explain why there
is nothing specially “Ephesian” in the contents of the Epistle. The
Apostle,—(as when he addressed “the Churches of Galatia,”)—may have had
certain of the other neighbouring Churches in his mind while he wrote. But
all this is wholly foreign to the question before us: the one _only_
question being _this_,—Which of the three following addresses represents
what S. Paul must be considered to have actually written in the first
verse of his “Epistle to the Ephesians”?—

(1) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

(2) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν ... καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

(3) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.

What I have been saying amounts to this: that it is absolutely
unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting
every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the
words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have
under their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the iind
century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, “presumed to prefix an
unauthorized title to that very Epistle,” (“Marcion ei titulum aliquando
interpolare gestiit,”)—which title obviously _could not stand unless those
two words were first erased from the text_. To interpolate that new title,
and to erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it, were
obviously correlative acts which must always have been performed together.

But however all this may be, (as already pointed out,) the only question
to be determined by us is,—whether it be credible that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
are an unauthorized addition; foisted into the text of Ephes. i. 1 as far
back as the Apostolic age: an interpolation which, instead of dying out,
and at last all but disappearing, has spread and established itself, until
the words are found in every copy,—are represented in every
translation,—have been recognised in every country,—witnessed to by every
Father,—received in every age of the Church? I repeat that the one
question which has to be decided is, not _how_ the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ came to
be put in, or came to be left out; but simply whether, on an impartial
review of the evidence, it be reasonable (with Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Conybeare and Howson, and so many more,) to suspect their genuineness and
enclose them in brackets? Is it _credible_ that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are a
spurious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph of the
Apostle?... We have already, as I think, obtained a satisfactory answer to
this question. It has been shewn, as conclusively as in inquiries of this
nature is possible, that in respect of the reading of Ephesians i. 1,
Codd. B and א are even _most_ conspicuously at fault.

IV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted of error in respect of the
one remaining text which their chief upholders have selected, and to which
they still make their most confident appeal,—what remains, but to point
out that it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their
minds of the extravagant opinion which they have been so industriously
taught to entertain of the value of the two Codices in question? It has
already degenerated into an unreasoning prejudice, and threatens at last
to add one more to the already overgrown catalogue of “vulgar errors.”

V. I cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by Tischendorf than by
transcribing in conclusion his remarks on the four remaining readings of
Codex א to which he triumphantly appeals: promising to dismiss them all
with a single remark. He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his
“Introduction” to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament(187):—

“To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen says on
John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, ‘in Him _is_ life’
for ‘in Him _was_ life.’ This is a reading which we find in sundry
quotations before the time of Origen;(188) but now, among all
known Greek MSS. it is _only in the Sinaitic, and the famous old
Codex Bezae_, a copy of the Gospels at Cambridge; yet it is also
found in most of the early Latin versions, in the most ancient
Syriac, and in the oldest Coptic.—Again, in Matth. xiii. 35,
Jerome observes that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist
of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew for
having said, ‘which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.’ A writing
of the second century had already witnessed to the same reading;
but Jerome adds further that well-informed men had long ago
removed the name of Esaias. Among all our MSS. of a thousand years
old and upwards, _there is not a solitary example containing the
name of Esaias in the text referred to,—except the Sinaitic_, to
which a few of less than a thousand years old may be added.—Once
more, Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but _only the
Sinaitic and several ancient Latin MSS._ read it the same as
Origen: ‘He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every
whit.’—In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difficult
to settle, the _Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies_
indubitably correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second
century, confirms the Sinaitic reading: ‘If any man eat of my
bread, he shall live for ever. The bread that I will give for the
life of the world is my flesh.’ We omit to indicate further
illustrations of this kind, although there are many others like
them.”(189)

Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to exist in the
mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless confusion between the
_antiquity_ of a Codex and the _value_ of its readings. I venture to
assert that a reading is valuable or the contrary, exactly in proportion
to the probability of its being true or false. Interesting it is sure to
be, be it what it may, if it be found in a very ancient codex,—interesting
and often instructive: but the editor of Scripture must needs bring every
reading, wherever found, to this test at last:—Is it to be thought that
what I am here presented with is what the Evangelist or the Apostle
actually wrote? If an answer in the negative be obtained to this question,
then, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early Fathers appear to
have so read the place, will not avail to impart to the rejected reading
one particle of _value_. And yet Tischendorf thinks it enough in _all_ the
preceding passages to assure his reader that a given reading in Cod. א was
recognised by Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have established this
one point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in all this an
utterly false major premiss: viz. That Scriptural quotations found in the
writings of Origen, of Tertullian, of Jerome, must needs be the _ipsissima
verba_ of the SPIRIT. Whereas it is notorious “that the worst corruptions
to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a
hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus and the whole Western,
with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to
those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries
later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”(190) And one is astonished that
a Critic of so much sagacity, (who of course knows better,) should
deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy,—not only without a word of
explanation, a word of caution, but in such a manner as inevitably to
mislead an unsuspecting reader. Without offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must
be allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been considering, he
shews himself far more bent on glorifying the “Codex Sinaiticus” than in
establishing the Truth of the pure Word of GOD. He convinces me that to
have found an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have “taken
a gift.” Verily, “_it doth blind the eyes of the wise_.”(191)

And with this, I shall conclude my remarks on these two famous Codices. I
humbly record my deliberate conviction that when the Science of Textual
Criticism, which is at present only in its infancy, comes to be better
understood; (and a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New
Testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a
trustworthy basis;) a very different estimate will be formed of the
importance of not a few of those readings which at present are received
with unquestioning submission, chiefly on the authority of Codex B and
Codex א. On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that no future
collations, no future discoveries, will ever make it credible that the
last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are a spurious supplement to the
Evangelical Narrative; or that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are an unauthorized
interpolation of the inspired Text.

And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex א.

I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the “Internal
Evidence,” but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet
fully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient “Scholia”
and “Notes,” and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection
of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this may reasonably
claim one entire Chapter to itself.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE SUBJECT OF THESE
VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED.

Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their
predecessors’ inaccuracies.—Birch’s unfortunate mistake (p.
117).—Scholz’ serious blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).—Griesbach’s
sweeping misstatement (pp. 121-2).—The grave misapprehension which
has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3); Codex
L (p. 123).—Ammonius not the author of the so-called “Ammonian”
Sections (p. 125).—Epiphanius (p. 132).—“Caesarius,” a
misnomer.—“The Catenae,” misrepresented (p. 133).

In the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review whatever manuscript
testimony still remains unconsidered; our attention having been hitherto
exclusively devoted to Codices B and א. True, that the rest of the
evidence may be disposed of in a single short sentence:—_The Twelve Verses
under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence with
the exception of Codices B and א_. But then,

I. We are assured,—(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)—that “a Note or a
Scholion stating the absence of these verses from _many_, from _most_, or
from the _most correct_ copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in
twenty-five other cursive Codices.”(192) Tischendorf has nearly the same
words: “Scholia” (he says) “in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of
Mark in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the ninth
verse.” That distinguished Critic supports his assertion by appealing to
seven MSS. in particular,—and referring generally to “about twenty-five
others.” Dr. Davidson adopts every word of this blindfold.

1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department of the
Evidence would become deserving of serious attention. But I simply _deny
the fact_. I entirely deny that the “Note or Scholion” which these learned
persons affirm to be of such frequent occurrence has any existence
whatever,—except in their own imaginations. On the other hand, I assert
that notes or scholia which state the exact reverse, (viz. that “in the
older” or “the more accurate copies” the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s
Gospel _are contained_,) recur even perpetually. The plain truth is
this:—These eminent persons have taken their information at
second-hand,—partly from Griesbach, partly from Scholz,—without suspicion
and without inquiry. But then they have slightly misrepresented Scholz;
and Scholz (1830) slightly misunderstood Griesbach; and Griesbach (1796)
took liberties with Wetstein; and Wetstein (1751) made a few serious
mistakes. The consequence might have been anticipated. The Truth, once
thrust out of sight, certain erroneous statements have usurped its
place,—which every succeeding Critic now reproduces, evidently to his own
entire satisfaction; though not, it must be declared, altogether to his
own credit. Let me be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred.

2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German plan of setting
down _all_ the twenty-five MSS.(193) and _all_ the five Patristic
authorities which up to his time had been cited as bearing on the
genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: giving the former _in numerical order_,
and stating generally concerning them that in one or other of those
authorities it would be found recorded “that the verses in question were
anciently _wanting_ in some, or in most, or in almost all the Greek
copies, or in the most accurate ones:—or else that they were _found_ in a
few, or in the more accurate copies, or in many, or in most of them,
specially in the Palestinian Gospel.” The learned writer (who had made up
his mind long before that the verses in question are to be rejected) no
doubt perceived that this would be the most convenient way of disposing of
the evidence for and against: but one is at a loss to understand how
English scholars can have acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well
nigh a hundred years. A very little study of the subject would have shewn
them that Griesbach derived the first eleven of his references from
Wetstein,(194) the last fourteen from Birch.(195) As for Scholz, he
unsuspiciously adopted Griesbach’s fatal enumeration of Codices; adding
five to the number; and only interrupting the series here and there, in
order to insert the quotations which Wetstein had already supplied from
certain of them. With Scholz, therefore, rests the blame of everything
which has been written since 1830 concerning the MS. evidence for this
part of S. Mark’s Gospel; subsequent critics having been content to adopt
his statements without acknowledgment and without examination.
Unfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such a slovenly style,
that besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones; which, of
course, have been reproduced by those who have simply translated or
transcribed him. And now I shall examine his note “(z)”,(196) with which
practically all that has since been delivered on this subject by
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is identical.

(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two MSS. in the
Vatican Library(197) the verses in question “are marked with an asterisk.”
The original author of this statement was Birch, who followed it up by
explaining the fatal signification of this mark.(198) From that day to
this, the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been religiously
reproduced by every Critic in turn; and it is universally taken for
granted that they represent two ancient witnesses against the genuineness
of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

And yet, (let me say it without offence,) a very little attention ought to
be enough to convince any one familiar with this subject that the proposed
inference is absolutely inadmissible. For, in the first place, a
_solitary_ asterisk (not at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.(199))
has of necessity no such signification. And even if it does sometimes
indicate that all the verses which follow are suspicious, (of which,
however, I have never seen an example,) it clearly _could_ not have that
signification here,—for a reason which I should have thought an
intelligent boy might discover.

Well aware, however, that I should never be listened to, with Birch and
Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and indeed every one else against me,—I
got a learned friend at Rome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and
inspect the two Codices in question.(200) That he would find Birch right
_in his facts_, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more than doubted the
correctness of his proposed inference from them. I even felt convinced
that the meaning and purpose of the asterisks in question would be
demonstrably different from what Birch had imagined.

Altogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found that the learned
Dane has here made one of those (venial, but) unfortunate blunders to
which every one is liable who registers phenomena of this class in haste,
and does not methodize his memoranda until he gets home. To be
brief,—_there proves to be no asterisk at all,—either in Cod. 756, or in
Cod. 757_.

On the contrary. After ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, the former Codex has, in the text of
S. Mark xvi. 9 (_fol. 150 b_), a plain cross,—(_not_ an asterisk, thus
[symbol: x with dots in corners] or [symbol: broken x with corner dots] or
[symbol: inverse or open x], but a cross, thus +),—the intention of which
is to refer the reader to an annotation on _fol. 151 b_, (marked, of
course, with a cross also,) _to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is
undoubtedly __ genuine_.(201) The evidence, therefore, not only breaks
hopelessly down; but it is discovered that this witness has been by
accident put into the wrong box. This is, in fact, a witness _not_ for the
plaintiff, but _for the defendant!_—As for the other Codex, it exhibits
neither asterisk nor cross; but contains the same note or scholion
attesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.

I suppose I may now pass on: but I venture to point out that unless the
Witnesses which remain to be examined are able to produce very different
testimony from that borne by the last two, the present inquiry cannot be
brought to a close too soon. (“I took thee to curse mine enemies, and,
behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.”)

(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as follows:—“From here
to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. _In the
ancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text_.”(202) Scholz (who
was the first to adduce this important testimony to the genuineness of the
verses now under consideration) takes no notice of the singular
circumstance that the two MSS. he mentions have been _exactly_ assimilated
in ancient times to a common model; and that they correspond one with the
other so entirely(203) that the foregoing rubrical annotation appears _in
the wrong place_ in both of them, viz. _at the close of ver._ 15, where it
interrupts the text. This was, therefore, once a scholion written in the
margin of some very ancient Codex, which has lost its way in the process
of transcription; (for there can be no doubt that it was originally
written against ver. 8.) And let it be noted that its testimony is
express; and that it avouches for the fact that “_in the ancient copies_,”
S. Mark xvi. 9-20 “_formed part of the text_.”

(3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the same two MSS., (of
which also Scholz says nothing,) viz. that they exhibit a text which had
been “collated with the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem.”(204)
What need to point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in
conjunction with the express voucher that “although some copies of the
Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that _in the ancient
copies_ all the verses are found,” is a _critical attestation to the
genuineness_ of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20, far outweighing the bare statement
(next to be noticed) of the undeniable historical fact that, “_in some
copies_,” S. Mark _ends at ver._ 8,—but “in many _does not_”?

(4.) Scholz proceeds:—“In Cod. 22, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τελος is read the
following rubric:”—

ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγγελιστής: ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ
ταῦτα φέρεται.(205)

And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by _all_ subsequent
Critics and Editors,—cross, and “τέλος,” and all,—as an additional ancient
attestation to the fact that “_The End_” (τέλος) _of S. Mark’s Gospel_ is
indeed at ch. xvi. 8. Strange,—incredible rather,—that among so many
learned persons, not one should have perceived that “τέλος” in this place
merely denotes that here _a well-known Ecclesiastical section comes to an
end_!... As far, therefore, as the present discussion is concerned, the
circumstance is purely irrelevant;(206) and, (as I propose to shew in
Chapter XI,) the less said about it by the opposite party, the better.

(5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,) other Codices
very nearly the same colophon as the preceding recurs, with an important
additional clause. In Codd. 1, 199, 206, 209, (he says) is read,—

“In certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here; _up to which
place Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized_. In other copies,
however, is found as follows.”(207) And then comes the rest of S. Mark’s
Gospel.

I shall have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, and what he
“canonized,” by-and-by. But what is there in all this, (let me in the
meantime ask), to recommend the opinion that the Gospel of S. Mark was
published by its Author in an incomplete state; or that the last twelve
verses of it are of spurious origin?

(6.) The reader’s attention is specially invited to the imposing statement
which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says Scholz,) “contain these words
of Severus of Antioch:—

“In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its
end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, however, this also
is added,—‘Now when He was risen,’ &c. This, however, seems to
contradict to some extent what was before delivered,” &c.

It may sound fabulous, but it is strictly true, that every word of this,
(unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by _every Critic_ who has since
gone over the same ground,) is a mere tissue of mistakes. For first,—Cod.
23 contains _nothing whatever pertinent to the present inquiry_. (Scholz,
evidently through haste and inadvertence, has confounded _his own_ “23”
with “_Coisl._ 23,” but “Coisl. 23” is his “39,”—of which by-and-by. This
reference therefore has to be cancelled.)—Cod. 41 contains a scholion of
_precisely the opposite tendency_: I mean, a scholion which avers that
_the accurate copies of S. Mark’s Gospel contain these last twelve
verses_. (Scholz borrowed this wrong reference from Wetstein,—who, by an
oversight, quotes Cod. 41 three times instead of twice.)—There remain but
Codd. 34 and 39; and in neither of those two manuscripts, from the first
page of S. Mark’s Gospel to the last, does there exist _any _“scholion of
Severus of Antioch”_ whatever_. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently made
a gross misstatement;(208) and every Critic who has since written on this
subject has adopted his words,—without acknowledgment and without
examination.... Such is the evidence on which it is proposed to prove that
S. Mark did not write the last twelve verses of his Gospel!

(7.) Scholz proceeds to enumerate the following twenty-two Codices:—24,
34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 199,
206, 209, 210, 221, 222. And this imposing catalogue is what has misled
Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest. They have not perceived that it is _a
mere transcript of Griesbach’s list_; which Scholz interrupts only to give
from Cod. 24, (imperfectly and at second-hand,) the weighty scholion,
(Wetstein had given it from Cod. 41,) which relates, on the authority of
an eye-witness, that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 existed in the ancient Palestinian
Copy. (About that Scholion enough has been offered already.(209)) Scholz
adds that very nearly the same words are found in 374.—What he says
concerning 206 and 209 (and he might have added 199,) has been explained
above.

But when the twenty MSS. which remain(210) undisposed of have been
scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite different from what is
commonly supposed. One of them (No. 38) has been cited in error: while the
remaining nineteen are nothing else but copies of _Victor of Antioch’s
commentary on S. Mark_,—no less than _sixteen_ of which contain the famous
attestation that in _most of the accurate copies, and in particular the
authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel_
WERE FOUND. (See above, pp. 64 and 65.).... And this exhausts the
evidence.

(8.) So far, therefore, as “Notes” and “Scholia” in MSS. are concerned,
the sum of the matter proves to be simply this:—(_a_) Nine Codices(211)
are observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark’s
Gospel, though wanting “in some,” was yet found “in others,”—“in
many,”—“_in the ancient copies_.”

(_b_) Next, four Codices(212) contain subscriptions vouching for the
genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring that those four
Codices had been _collated with approved copies preserved at Jerusalem_.

(_c_) Lastly, sixteen Codices,—(to which, besides that already mentioned
by Scholz,(213) I am able to add at least five others, making twenty-two
in all,(214))—contain a weighty critical scholion asserting categorically
that in “very many” and “accurate copies,” specially in the “true
Palestinian exemplar,” _these verses had been found by one who seems to
have verified the fact of their existence there for himself_.

(9.) And now, shall I be thought unfair if, on a review of the premisses,
I assert that I do not see a shadow of reason for the imposing statement
which has been adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that
“there exist about thirty Codices which state that from the more ancient
and more accurate copies of the Gospel, the last twelve verses of S. Mark
were absent?” I repeat, there is not so much as _one single Codex_ which
contains such a scholion; while twenty-four(215) of those commonly
enumerated state _the exact reverse_.—We may now advance a step: but the
candid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the supposed hostile
evidence is on the contrary entirely _in favour_ of the verses under
discussion. (“I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast
altogether blessed them these three times.”)

II. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.(216) This is the
designation of an uncial MS. of the viiith or ixth century, in the Library
at Paris, chiefly remarkable for the correspondence of its readings with
those of Cod. B and with certain of the citations in Origen; a peculiarity
which recommends Cod. L, (as it recommends three cursive Codices of the
Gospels, 1, 33, 69,) to the especial favour of a school with which
whatever is found in Cod. B is necessarily right. It is described as the
work of an ignorant foreign copyist, who probably wrote with several MSS.
before him; but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to determine
which reading to adopt and which to reject. Certain it is that he
interrupts himself, at the end of ver. 8, to write as follows:—

“_SOMETHING TO THIS EFFECT IS ALSO MET WITH_:

“All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed unto Peter
and the rest. And after these things, from East even unto West,
did JESUS Himself send forth by their means the holy and
incorruptible message of eternal Salvation.

“_BUT THIS ALSO IS MET WITH AFTER THE WORDS, _‘FOR THEY WERE
AFRAID:’

“Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the week,”(217)
&c.

It cannot be needful that I should delay the reader with any remarks on
such a termination of the Gospel as the foregoing. It was evidently the
production of some one who desired to remedy the conspicuous
incompleteness of his own copy of S. Mark’s Gospel, but who had imbibed so
little of the spirit of the Evangelical narrative that he could not in the
least imitate the Evangelist’s manner. As for the scribe who executed
Codex L, he was evidently incapable of distinguishing the grossest
fabrication from the genuine text. The same worthless supplement is found
in the margin of the Hharklensian Syriac (A.D. 616), and in a few other
quarters of less importance.(218)—I pass on, with the single remark that I
am utterly at a loss to understand on what principle Cod. L,—a solitary
MS. of the viiith or ixth century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious
text,—is to be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the
present occasion, rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence it bears
concerning the last twelve verses of the second Gospel by all the
seventeen remaining Uncials, (three of which are from 300 to 400 years
more ancient than itself;) and by _every cursive copy of the Gospels in
existence_. Quite certain at least is it that not the faintest additional
probability is established by Cod. L that S. Mark’s Gospel when it left
the hands of its inspired Author was in a mutilated condition. The copyist
shews that he was as well acquainted as his neighbours with our actual
concluding Verses: while he betrays his own incapacity, by seeming to view
with equal favour the worthless alternative which he deliberately
transcribes as well, and to which he gives the foremost place. _Not_ S.
Mark’s Gospel, _but Codex L_ is the sufferer by this appeal.

III. I go back now to the statements found in certain Codices of the xth
century, (derived probably from one of older date,) to the effect that
“the marginal references to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than
ver. 8:”—for so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. 120,)
ἕως οὖ Εὐσέβιους ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν, which are found at the end of ver.
8 in Codd. 1, 206, 209.

(1.) Now this statement need not have delayed us for many minutes. But
then, therewith, recent Critics have seen fit to connect another and an
entirely distinct proposition: viz. that

AMMONIUS

also, a contemporary of Origen, conspires with Eusebius in disallowing the
genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. This is in fact a piece
of evidence to which recently special prominence has been given: every
Editor of the Gospels in turn, since Wetstein, having reproduced it; but
no one more emphatically than Tischendorf. “Neither by _the sections of
Ammonius_ nor yet by the canons of Eusebius are these last verses
recognised”(219) “Thus it is seen,” proceeds Dr. Tregelles, “that just as
Eusebius found these verses absent in his day from the best and most
numerous copies (_sic_), _so was also the case with Ammonius_ when he
formed his Harmony in the preceding century.”(220)

(The opposite page exhibits an _exact Fac-simile_, obtained by
Photography, of fol. 113 of EVAN. COD. L, (“Codex Regius,” No. 62,) at
Paris; containing S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;—as explained at pp. 123-4. The Text
of that MS. has been published by Dr. Tischendorf in his “Monumenta Sacra
Inedita,” (1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. 206.)

[[Illustration: Codex Regius facsimile page.]]

(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the obliging
permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the Manuscript Department of
the “Bibliothèque.” He has my best thanks for the kindness with which he
promoted my wishes and facilitated my researches.)

(It should perhaps be stated that _the margin_ of “Codex L” is somewhat
ampler than can be represented in an octavo volume; each folio measuring
very nearly nine inches, by very nearly six inches and a half.)

A new and independent authority therefore is appealed to,—one of high
antiquity and evidently very great importance,—Ammonius of Alexandria,
A.D. 220. But Ammonius has left behind him _no known writings whatsoever_.
What then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident way to the
testimony of “Ammonius?”

To make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English reader, I must
needs introduce in this place some account of what are popularly called
the “Ammonian Sections” and the “Eusebian Canons:” concerning both of
which, however, it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing whatever
is known beyond what is discoverable from a careful study of the
“Sections” and “Canons” themselves; added to what Eusebius has told us in
that short Epistle of his “to Carpianus,”—which I suppose has been
transcribed and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle in
the world.

Eusebius there explains that Ammonius of Alexandria constructed with great
industry and labour a kind of Evangelical Harmony; the peculiarity of
which was, that, retaining S. Matthew’s Gospel in its integrity, it
exhibited the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists by the
side of S. Matthew’s text. There resulted this inevitable inconvenience;
that the sequence of the narrative, in the case of the three last Gospels,
was interrupted throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed.(221)

The “Diatessaron” of Ammonius, (so Eusebius styles it), has long since
disappeared; but it is plain from the foregoing account of it by a
competent witness that it must have been a most unsatisfactory
performance. It is not easy to see how room can have been found in such a
scheme for entire chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel; as well as for the larger
part of the Gospel according to S. John: in short, for anything which was
not capable of being brought into some kind of agreement, harmony, or
correspondence with something in S. Matthew’s Gospel.

How it may have fared with the other Gospels in the work of Ammonius is
not in fact known, and it is profitless to conjecture. What we know for
certain is that Eusebius, availing himself of the hint supplied by the
very imperfect labours of his predecessor, devised an entirely different
expedient, whereby he extended to the Gospels of S. Mark, S. Luke and S.
John all the advantages, (and more than all,) which Ammonius had made the
distinctive property of the first Gospel.(222) His plan was to retain the
Four Gospels in their integrity; and, besides enabling a reader to
ascertain at a glance the places which S. Matthew has in common with the
other three Evangelists, or with any two, or with any one of them, (which,
I suppose, was the sum of what had been exhibited by the work of
Ammonius,)—to shew which places S. Luke has in common with S. Mark,—which
with S. John only; as well as which places are peculiar to each of the
four Evangelists in turn. It is abundantly clear therefore what Eusebius
means by saying that the labours of Ammonius had “_suggested to him_” his
own.(223) The sight of that Harmony of the other three Evangelists with S.
Matthew’s Gospel had suggested to him the advantage of establishing a
series of parallels throughout _all the Four Gospels._ But then, whereas
Ammonius had placed alongside of S. Matthew _the dislocated sections
themselves_ of the other three Evangelists which are of corresponding
purport, Eusebius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same object by
means of a system of double numerical _references_. He invented X Canons,
or Tables: he subdivided each of the Four Gospels into a multitude of
short Sections. These he numbered; (a fresh series of numbers appearing in
each Gospel, and extending from the beginning right on to the end;) and
immediately under every number, he inserted, in vermillion, another
numeral (I to X); whose office it was to indicate in which of his X
Canons, or Tables, the reader would find the corresponding places in any
of the other Gospels.(224) (If the section was unique, it belonged to his
last or Xth Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew’s account of the Title on the
Cross, is written 335/I: but in the Ist Canon (which contains the places
common to all four Evangelists) parallel with 335, is found,—214, 324,
199: and the Sections of S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John thereby designated,
(which are discoverable by merely casting one’s eye down the margin of
each of those several Gospels in turn, until the required number has been
reached,) will be found to contain the parallel record in the other three
Gospels.

All this is so purely elementary, that its very introduction in this place
calls for apology. The extraordinary method of the opposite party
constrains me however to establish thus clearly the true relation in which
the familiar labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of Ammonius.

For if that earlier production be lost indeed,(225)—if its precise
contents, if the very details of its construction, can at this distance of
time be only conjecturally ascertained,—what right has any one to appeal
to “_the Sections of Ammonius_,” as to a known document? Why above all do
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim “Ammonius” for
their ally on an occasion like the present; seeing that they must needs be
perfectly well aware that they have no means whatever of knowing (except
from the precarious evidence of Catenæ) what Ammonius thought about any
single verse in any of the four Gospels? At every stage of this
discussion, I am constrained to ask myself,—Do then the recent Editors of
the Text of the New Testament really suppose that their statements will
_never_ be examined? their references _never_ verified? or is it thought
that they enjoy a monopoly of the learning (such as it is) which enables a
man to form an opinion in this department of sacred Science? For,

(1st.) _Where_ then and _what_ are those “Sections of Ammonius” to which
Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently appeal? It is even notorious that
when they _say_ the “Sections of Ammonius,” what they _mean_ are the
“Sections of _Eusebius_.”—But, (2dly.) Where is the proof,—where is even
the probability,—that these two are identical? The Critics cannot require
to be reminded by me that we are absolutely without proof that so much as
_one_ of the Sections of Ammonius corresponded with _one_ of those of
Eusebius; and yet, (3dly.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of
Ammonius and those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded
throughout, the name of Ammonius has no business whatever to be introduced
into such a discussion as the present? They must at least be told that in
the entire absence of proof of any kind,—(and certainly nothing that
Eusebius says warrants any such inference,(226))—to reason from the one to
the other as if they were identical, is what no sincere inquirer after
Truth is permitted to do.

It is time, however, that I should plainly declare that it happens to be
no matter of opinion at all whether the lost Sections of Ammonius were
identical with those of Eusebius or not. It is demonstrable that they
_cannot_ have been so; and the proof is supplied by the Sections
themselves. It is discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they
_imply_ and _presuppose the Ten Canons_; being in many places even
meaningless,—nugatory, in fact, (I do not of course say that they are
_practically_ without _use_,)—except on the theory that those Canons were
already in existence.(227) Now the Canons are confessedly the invention of
Eusebius. He distinctly claims them.(228) Thus much then concerning the
supposed testimony of Ammonius. It is _nil_.—And now for what is alleged
concerning the evidence of Eusebius.

The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking), is the
following memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.:—“Thus far did Eusebius
canonize;”(229) which means either: (1) That his Canons recognise no
section of S. Mark’s Gospel subsequent to § 233, (which number is commonly
set over against ver. 8:) or else, (which comes to the same thing,)—(2)
That no sections of the same Gospel, after § 233, are referred to any of
his X Canons.

On this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious
superstructure. It is assumed,

(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark’s Gospel which Eusebius numbers “233,”
and which begins at our ver. 8, _cannot have extended beyond_ ver.
8;—whereas it may have extended, and probably did extend, down to the end
of ver. 11.

(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian Canons of any
sectional _number_ in S. Mark’s Gospel subsequent to § 233, no _Section_
(with, or without, such a subsequent number) can have existed:—whereas
there may have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly
numbered.(230) This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the
memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have _canonized_ no further
than § 233.

I am not disposed, however, to contest the point as far as Eusebius is
concerned. I have only said so much in order to shew how unsatisfactory is
the argumentation on the other side. Let it be assumed, for argument sake,
that the statement “Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8” is
equivalent to this,—“_Eusebius numbered no Sections after ver._ 8;” (and
more it cannot mean:)—What _then_? I am at a loss to see what it is that
the Critics propose to themselves by insisting on the circumstance. For we
knew before,—it was in fact Eusebius himself who told us,—that Copies of
the Gospel ending abruptly at ver. 8, were anciently of frequent
occurrence. Nay, we heard the same Eusebius remark that one way of
shelving a certain awkward problem would be, to plead that the subsequent
portion of S. Mark’s Gospel is frequently wanting. What _more_ have we
learned when we have ascertained that the same Eusebius allowed no place
to that subsequent portion in his Canons? The new fact, (supposing it to
be a fact,) is but the correlative of the old one; and since it was
Eusebius who was the voucher for _that_, what additional probability do we
establish that the inspired autograph of S. Mark ended abruptly at ver. 8,
by discovering that Eusebius is consistent with himself, and omits to
“canonize” (or even to “sectionize”) what he had already hypothetically
hinted might as well be left out altogether? (See above, pp. 44-6.)

So that really I am at a loss to see that one atom of progress is made in
this discussion by the further discovery that, (in a work written about
A.D. 373,)

EPIPHANIUS

states casually that “the four Gospels contain 1162 sections.”(231) From
this it is argued(232) that since 355 of these are commonly assigned to S.
Matthew, 342 to S. Luke, and 232 to S. John, there do but remain for S.
Mark 233; and the 233rd section of S. Mark’s Gospel confessedly begins at
ch. xvi. 8.—The probability may be thought to be thereby slightly
increased that the sectional numbers of Eusebius extended no further than
ver. 8: but—Has it been rendered one atom more probable that the inspired
Evangelist himself ended his Gospel abruptly at the 8th verse? _That_
fact—(the _only_ thing which our opponents have to establish)—remains
exactly where it was; entirely unproved, and in the highest degree
improbable.

To conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the pages of
Tischendorf:—“These verses are not recognised by the Sections of Ammonius,
nor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and Cæsarius bear witness to the
fact;”—I am constrained to remark that the illustrious Critic has drawn
upon his imagination for three of his statements, and that the fourth is
of no manner of importance.

(1.) About the “Sections of Ammonius,” he really knows no more than about
the lost Books of Livy. He is, therefore, without excuse for adducing them
in the way of evidence.

(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either as to the “Sections
of Ammonius” or to “Canons of Eusebius,” Tischendorf is perfectly well
aware. So is my reader.

(3.) His appeal to

CÆSARIUS

is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate the younger
brother of Gregory of Nazianzus; an eminent physician of Constantinople,
who died A.D. 368; and who, (as far as is known,) _never wrote anything_.
A work called Πεύσεις, (which in the xth century was attributed to
Cæsarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that
Cæsarius was certainly _not_ its author,) is the composition to which
Tischendorf refers. Even the approximate date of this performance,
however, has never been ascertained. And yet, if Tischendorf had
condescended to refer to it, (instead of taking his reference at
second-hand,) he would have seen at a glance that the entire context in
which the supposed testimony is found, _is nothing else but a condensed
paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius_, in which the original statement
occurs.(233)

Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of AMMONIUS, of EPIPHANIUS, and
of CÆSARIUS on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel.
It is exactly _nil_. In fact Pseudo-Cæsarius, so far from “bearing witness
to the fact” that the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are spurious,
_actually quotes the 16_th_ verse as genuine_.(234)

(4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added to what we knew
before concerning his probable estimate of these verses.

IV. We are now at liberty to proceed to the only head of external
testimony which remains undiscussed. I allude to the evidence of

THE CATENÆ.

“In the Catenæ on Mark,” (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) “there is no
explanation of this section.”(235) “The Catenæ on Mark:” as if they were
quite common things,—“plenty, as blackberries!” But,—_Which_ of “the
Catenæ” may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined?

1. Not the Catena which Possinus found in the library of Charles de
Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse, and which forms the basis of his Catena
published at Rome in 1673; because _that_ Codex is expressly declared by
the learned Editor to be defective from ver. 8 to the end.(236)

2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the Vatican Library and
communicated to Possinus; because in _that_ Catena the 9th and 12th verses
are distinctly commented on.(237)

3. Still less can Dr. Davidson be thought to have inspected the Catena
commonly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,—which Peltanus published in Latin
in 1580, but which Possinus was the first to publish in Greek (1673). Dr.
Davidson, I say, cannot certainly have examined _that_ Catena; inasmuch as
it contains, (as I have already largely shewn, and, in fact, as every one
may see,) a long and elaborate dissertation on the best way of reconciling
the language of S. Mark in ver. 9 with the language of the other
Evangelists.(238)

4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic has inspected
either of the last two editions of the same Catena: viz. that of Matthaei,
(Moscow 1775,) or that of Cramer, (Oxford 1844,) from MSS. in the Royal
Library at Paris and in the Bodleian. This is simply impossible, because
(as we have seen), in _these_ is contained the famous passage _which_
categorically asserts the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S.
Mark’s Gospel.(239)

Now this exhausts the subject.

To _which_, then, of “the Catenæ on Mark,” I must again inquire, does this
learned writer allude?—I will venture to answer the question myself; and
to assert that this is only one more instance of the careless, second-hand
(and third-rate) criticism which is to be met with in every part of Dr.
Davidson’s book: one proof more of the alacrity with which worn-out
objections and worthless arguments are furbished up afresh, and paraded
before an impatient generation and an unlearned age, whenever (_tanquam
vile corpus_) the writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed,
or the Faith of the Church of CHRIST is to be unsettled and undermined.

V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to p. 39, he will
perceive that I have now disposed of every witness whom I originally
undertook to examine. He will also, in fairness, admit that there has not
been elicited one particle of evidence, from first to last, which renders
it in the slightest degree probable that the Gospel of S. Mark, as it
originally came from the hands of its inspired Author, was either an
imperfect or an unfinished work. Whether there have not emerged certain
considerations which render such a supposition in the highest degree
_un_likely,—I am quite content that my Reader shall decide.

Dismissing the external testimony, therefore, proceed we now to review
those internal evidences, which are confidently appealed to as proving
that the concluding Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel cannot be regarded as
really the work of the Evangelist.

CHAPTER IX.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO
THESE VERSES.

The “Style” and “Phraseology” of these Verses declared by Critics
to be not S. Mark’s.—Insecurity of such Criticism (p. 140).—The
“Style” of chap. xvi. 9-20 shewn to be the same as the style of
chap. i. 9-20 (p. 142).—The “Phraseology” examined in twenty-seven
particulars, and shewn to be suspicious in none (p. 145),—but in
twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reverse (p. 170).—Such
Remarks fallacious (p. 173).—Judged of by a truer, a more delicate
and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most probably
genuine (p. 175).

A distinct class of objections remains to be considered. An argument much
relied on by those who deny or doubt the genuineness of this portion of S.
Mark’s Gospel, is derived from considerations of internal evidence. In the
judgment of a recent Editor of the New Testament,—These twelve verses
“bear traces of _another hand_ from that which has shaped the _diction_
and _construction_ of the rest of the Gospel.”(240) They are therefore “an
addition to the narrative,”—of which “the internal evidence will be found
to preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark.”—“A difference,”
(says Dr. Tregelles,) “has been remarked, and truly remarked, between _the
phraseology_ of this section and the rest of this Gospel.”—According to
Dr. Davidson,—“The _phraseology and style_ of the section are unfavourable
to its authenticity.” “The characteristic peculiarities which pervade
Mark’s Gospel do not appear in it; but, on the contrary, terms and
expressions,” “phrases and words, are introduced which Mark never uses; or
terms for which he employs others.”(241)—So Meyer,—“With ver. 9, we
suddenly come upon an excerpting process totally different from the
previous mode of narration. The passage contains none of Mark’s
peculiarities (no εὐθέως, no πάλιν, &c, but the baldness and lack of
clearness which mark a compiler;) while in single expressions, it is
altogether contrary to Mark’s manner.”—“There is” (says Professor Norton)
“a difference so great between the use of language in this passage, and
its use in the undisputed portion of Mark’s Gospel, as to furnish strong
reasons for believing the passage not genuine.”—No one, however, has
expressed himself more strongly on this subject than Tischendorf.
“Singula” (he says) “multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.”(242)... Here,
then, is something very like a consensus of hostile opinion: although the
terms of the indictment are somewhat vague. Difference of “Diction and
Construction,”—difference of “Phraseology and Style,”—difference of “Terms
and Expressions,”—difference of “Words and Phrases;”—the absence of S.
Mark’s “characteristic peculiarities.” I suppose, however, that all may be
brought under two heads,—(I.) STYLE, and (II.) PHRASEOLOGY: meaning by
“Style” whatever belongs to the Evangelist’s manner; and by “Phraseology”
whatever relates to the words and expressions he has employed. It remains,
therefore, that we now examine the proofs by which it is proposed to
substantiate these confident assertions, and ascertain exactly what they
are worth by constant appeals to the Gospel. Throughout this inquiry, we
have to do not with Opinion but with Fact. The unsupported dicta of
Critics, however distinguished, are entitled to no manner of attention.

1. In the meantime, as might have been expected, these confident and
often-repeated asseverations have been by no means unproductive of
mischievous results:

Like ceaseless droppings, which at last are known
To leave their dint upon the solid stone.

I observe that Scholars and Divines of the best type (as the Rev. T. S.
Green(243)) at last put up with them. The wisest however reproduce them
under protest, and with apology. The names of Tischendorf and Tregelles,
Meyer and Davidson, command attention. It seems to be thought incredible
that they can _all_ be _entirely_ in the wrong. They impose upon learned
and unlearned readers alike. “Even Barnabas has been carried away with
their dissimulation.” He has (to my surprise and regret) two suggestions:—

(_a_) The one,—That this entire section of the second Gospel may possibly
have been written long after the rest; and that therefore its verbal
peculiarities need not perplex or trouble us. It was, I suppose,
(according to this learned and pious writer,) a kind of after-thought, or
supplement, or Appendix to S. Mark’s Gospel. In this way I have seen the
last Chapter of S. John once and again accounted for.—To which, it ought
to be a sufficient answer to point out that there is _no appearance
whatever_ of any such interval having been interposed between S. Mark xvi.
8 and 9: that it is highly improbable that any such interval occurred: and
that until the “verbal peculiarities” have been ascertained to exist, it
is, to say the least, a gratuitous exercise of the inventive faculty to
discover reasons for their existence. Whether there be not something
radically unsound and wrong in all such conjectures about
“after-thoughts,” “supplements,” “appendices,” and “second editions” when
the everlasting Gospel of JESUS CHRIST is the thing spoken of,—a confusing
of things heavenly with things earthly which must make the Angels weep,—I
forbear to press on the present occasion. It had better perhaps be
discussed at another opportunity. But φίλοι ἄνδρες(244) will forgive my
freedom in having already made my personal sentiment on the subject
sufficiently plain.

(_b_) His other suggestion is,—That this portion may not have been penned
by S. Mark himself after all. By which he clearly means no more than
this,—that as we are content not to know _who_ wrote the conclusion of the
Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, so, if needful, we may well be content
not to know who wrote the end of the Gospel of S. Mark.—In reply to which,
I have but to say, that after cause has been shewn why we should indeed
believe that not S. Mark but some one else wrote the end of S. Mark’s
Gospel, we shall be perfectly willing to acquiesce in the new fact:—but
_not till then_.

2. True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been lifted up in the
way of protest(245) against the proposed inference from the familiar
premisses; (for the self-same statements have now been so often
reproduced, that the eye grows weary at last of the ever-recurring string
of offending vocables:)—but, with _one_ honorable exception,(246) men do
not seem to have ever thought of calling the premisses themselves in
question: examining the statements one by one: contesting the ground inch
by inch: refusing absolutely to submit to any dictation whatever in this
behalf: insisting on bringing the whole matter to the test of severe
inquiry, and making every detail the subject of strict judicial
investigation. This is what I propose to do in the course of the present
Chapter. I altogether deny the validity of the inference which has been
drawn from “the style,” “the phraseology,” “the diction” of the present
section of the Gospel. But I do more. I entirely deny the accuracy of
almost _every individual statement_ from which the unfavourable induction
is made, and the hostile inference drawn. Even _this_ will not nearly
satisfy me. I insist that one only result can attend the exact analysis of
this portion of the Gospel into its elements; namely, a profound
conviction that S. Mark is most certainly its Author.

3. Let me however distinctly declare beforehand that remarks on “the
style” of an Evangelist are singularly apt to be fallacious, especially
when (as here) it is proposed to apply them to a very limited portion of
the sacred narrative. Altogether to be mistrusted moreover are they, when
(as on the present occasion) it is proposed to make them the ground for
possibly rejecting such a portion of Scripture as spurious. It becomes a
fatal objection to such reasoning that _the style_ may indeed be
exceedingly diverse, and yet _the Author_ be confessedly one and the same.
How exceedingly dissimilar in style are the Revelation of S. John and the
Gospel of S. John! Moreover, practically, the promised remarks on “style,”
when the Authorship of some portion of Scripture is to be discussed, are
commonly observed to degenerate at once into what is really quite a
different thing. Single words, perhaps some short phrase, is appealed to,
which (it is said) does not recur in any part of the same book; and thence
it is argued that the Author can no longer be the same. “According to this
argument, _the recurrence of the same words_ constitutes identity of
style; the want of such recurrence implies difference of style;—difference
of style in such a sense as compels us to infer diversity of authorship.
Each writer is supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of
‘formulæ’ within the range of which he must work. He must in each chapter
employ these formulæ, and these only. He must be content with one small
portion of his mother-tongue, and not dare to venture across the limits of
that portion,—on pain of losing his identity.”(247)

4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation to such a method of
judging about the Authorship of any twelve verses of Scripture which can
be named, scarcely requires illustration. The attentive reader of S.
Matthew’s Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is _six times
repeated_ in his viiith and ixth chapters is perhaps only once met with
besides in his Gospel,—viz. in his xxist chapter.(248) The “style” of the
17th verse of his ist chapter may be thought unlike anything else in S.
Matthew. S. Luke’s five opening verses are unique, both in respect of
manner and of matter. S. John also in his five opening verses seems to me
to have adopted a method which is not recognisable anywhere else in his
writings; “rising strangely by degrees,” (as Bp. Pearson expresses
it,(249)) “making the last word of the former sentence the first of that
which followeth.”—“_He_ knoweth that he saith true,” is the language of
the same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35. But, “_we_ know
that his testimony is true,” is his phrase in chap. xxi. 24. Twice, and
twice only throughout his Gospel, (viz. in chap. xix. 35: xx. 31), is he
observed to address his readers, and on both occasions in the same words:
(“that _ye_ may believe.”) But what of all this? Is it to be supposed that
S. Matthew, S. Luke, S. John are not the authors of those several places?
From facts like these no inference whatever is to be drawn as to the
genuineness or the spuriousness of a writing. It is quite to mistake the
Critic’s vocation to imagine that he is qualified, or called upon, to pass
any judgment of the sort.

5. I have not said all this, of course, as declining the proposed
investigation. I approach it on the contrary right willingly, being
confident that it can be attended by only one result. With what is true,
endless are the harmonies which evolve themselves: from what is false, the
true is equally certain to stand out divergent.(250) And we all desire
nothing but the Truth.

I. To begin then with the “STYLE AND MANNER” of S. Mark in this place.

1. We are assured that “instead of the _graphic, detailed_ description by
which this Evangelist is distinguished, we meet with an abrupt,
sententious manner, resembling that of brief notices extracted from larger
accounts and loosely linked together.”(251) Surely if this be so, the only
lawful inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, _has_ “extracted
brief notices from larger accounts, and loosely linked them together:” and
unless such a proceeding on the part of the Evangelist be judged
incredible, it is hard to see what is the force of the adverse criticism,
as directed against the _genuineness_ of the passage now under
consideration.

2. But in truth, (when divested of what is merely a gratuitous
assumption,) the preceding account of the matter is probably not far from
the correct one. Of S. Mark’s practice of making “_extracts_,” I know
nothing: nor Dr. Davidson either. That there existed _any_ “larger
accounts” which would have been available for such a purpose, (except the
Gospel according to S. Matthew,) there is neither a particle of evidence,
nor a shadow of probability. On the other hand, that, notwithstanding the
abundant oral information to which confessedly he had access, S. Mark has
been divinely guided in this place to handle, in the briefest manner, some
of the chiefest things which took place after our LORD’S Resurrection,—is
simply undeniable. And without at all admitting that the style of the
Evangelist is in consequence either “abrupt” or “sententious,”(252) I yet
recognise the inevitable consequence of relating many dissimilar things
within very narrow limits; namely, that the transition from one to the
other forces itself on the attention. What wonder that the same phenomenon
should _not_ be discoverable in other parts of the Gospel where the
Evangelist is _not_ observed to be doing the same thing?

3. But wherever in his Gospel S. Mark _is_ doing the same thing, he is
observed to adopt the style and manner which Dr. Davidson is pleased to
call “sententious” and “abrupt.” Take twelve verses in his first chapter,
as an example. Between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark i. 9-20, I profess
myself unable to discern any real difference of style. I proceed to
transcribe the passage which I deliberately propose for comparison; _the
twelve corresponding verses_, namely, in S. Mark’s _first_ chapter, which
are to be compared with the twelve verses already under discussion, from
his _last_; and they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as
in Greek:—

(_S. MARK_ i. 9-20.)

(ver. 9.) “And it came to pass in those days, that JESUS came from
Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (10.) And
straightway coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the
SPIRIT like a dove descending upon Him: (11.) and there came a voice from
heaven saying, Thou art My beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased. (12.)
And immediately the SPIRIT driveth Him into the wilderness. (13.) And He
was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the
wild beasts; and the Angels ministered unto Him. (14.) Now after that John
was put in prison, JESUS came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the
kingdom of GOD, (15.) and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom
of GOD is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel. (16.) Now, as He
walked by the sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting
a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (17.) And JESUS said unto them,
Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. (18.) And
straightway they forsook their net’s, and followed Him. (19.) And when He
had gone a little farther thence, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and
John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. (20.) And
straightway He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the ship
with the hired servants, and went after Him.”

4. The candid reader must needs admit that precisely the self-same manner
is recognisable in this first chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel which is
asserted to be peculiar to the last. Note, that from our SAVIOUR’S Baptism
(which occupies the first three verses) the Evangelist passes to His
Temptation, which is dismissed in two. Six months elapse. The commencement
of the Ministry is dismissed in the next two verses. The last five
describe the call of four of the Apostles,—without any distinct allusion
to the miracle which was the occasion of it.... How was it _possible_ that
when incidents considerable as these had to be condensed within the narrow
compass of twelve verses, the same “graphic, detailed description” could
reappear which renders S. Mark’s description of the miracle performed in
the country of the Gadarenes (for example) so very interesting; where a
single incident is spread over twenty verses, although the action did not
perhaps occupy an hour? I rejoice to observe that “the _abrupt
transitions_ of this section” (ver. 1-13) have also been noticed by Dean
Alford: who very justly accounts for the phenomenon by pointing out that
here “Mark appears as _an abridger of previously well-known facts_.”(253)
But then, I want to know what there is in this to induce us to suspect
_the genuineness_ of either the beginning or the end of S. Mark’s Gospel?

5. For it is a mistake to speak as if “graphic, detailed description”
_invariably_ characterise the second Gospel. S. Mark is quite as
remarkable for his practice of occasionally exhibiting a considerable
transaction in a highly abridged form. The opening of his Gospel is
singularly concise, and altogether _sudden_. His account of John’s
preaching (i. 1-8) is the shortest of all. Very concise is his account of
our SAVIOUR’S Baptism (ver. 9-11). The brevity of his description of our
LORD’S Temptation is even extraordinary (ver. 12, 13.)—I pass on;
premising that I shall have occasion to remind the reader by-and-by of
certain peculiarities in these same Twelve Verses, which seem to have been
hitherto generally overlooked.

II. Nothing more true, therefore, than Dr. Tregelles’ admission “that
arguments on _style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_
they prove very little. But” (he proceeds) “when there does exist external
evidence; and when internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression,
and connection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming
a judgment; then, these internal considerations possess very great
weight.”

I have already shewn that there exists _no_ such external evidence as Dr.
Tregelles supposes. And in the absence of it, I am bold to assert that
since nothing in the “Style” or the “Phraseology” of these verses ever
aroused suspicion in times past, we have rather to be _on our guard_
against suffering our judgment to be warped by arguments drawn from such
precarious considerations now. As for determining from such data the
authorship of an isolated passage; asserting or denying its genuineness
for no other reason but because it contains certain words and expressions
which do or do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel of which it forms
part;—let me again declare plainly that the proceeding is in the highest
degree uncritical. We are not competent judges of what words an Evangelist
was likely on any given occasion to employ. We have no positive knowledge
of the circumstances under which any part of any one of the four Gospels
was written; nor the influences which determined an Evangelist’s choice of
certain expressions in preference to others. We are learners,—we _can_ be
only learners here. But having said all this, I proceed (as already
declared) without reluctance or misgiving to investigate the several
charges which have been brought against this section of the Gospel;
charges derived from its PHRASEOLOGY; and which will be found to be
nothing else but repeated assertions that a certain Word or Phrase,—(there
are about twenty-four such words and phrases in all,(254))—“occurs nowhere
in the Gospel of Mark;” with probably the alarming asseveration that it is
“abhorrent to Mark’s manner.” ... The result of the inquiry which follows
will perhaps be not exactly what is commonly imagined.

The first difficulty of this class is very fairly stated by one whose name
I cannot write without a pang,—the late Dean Alford:—

(I.) The expression πρώτη σαββάτου, for the “first day of the week” (in
ver. 9) “is remarkable” (he says) “as occurring so soon after” μία
σαββάτων (a precisely equivalent expression) in ver. 2.—Yes, it is
remarkable.

Scarcely more remarkable, perhaps, than that S. Luke _in the course of one
and the same chapter_ should four times designate the Sabbath τὸ σάββατον,
and twice τὰ σάββατα: again, twice, τὸ σάββατον,—twice, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ
σαββάτου,—and once, τὰ σάββατα.(255) Or again, that S. Matthew should _in
one and the same chapter_ five times call the Sabbath, τὰ σάβββτα, and
three times, τό σάββατον.(256) Attentive readers will have observed that
the Evangelists seem to have been fond in this way of varying their
phrase; suddenly introducing a new expression for something which they had
designated differently just before. Often, I doubt not, this is done with
the profoundest purpose, and sometimes even with manifest design; but the
phenomenon, however we may explain it, still remains. Thus, S. Matthew,
(in his account of our LORD’S Temptation,—chap. iv.,) has ὁ διάβολος in
ver. 1, and ὁ πειράζων in ver. 3, for him whom our SAVIOUR calls Σατανᾶς
in ver. 10.—S. Mark, in chap. v. 2, has τὰ μνημεῖα,—but in ver. 5, τὰ
μνήματα.—S. Luke, in xxiv. 1, has τὸ μνῆμα; but in the next verse, τὸ
μνημεῗον.—Ἐπί with an accusative twice in S. Matth. xxv. 21, 23, is twice
exchanged for ἐπί with a genitive in the same two verses: and ἔριφοϋ (in
ver. 32) is exchanged for ἐρίφια in ver. 33.—Instead of ἄρχων τς συναγωγῆς
(in S. Luke viii. 41) we read, in ver. 49, ἀρχισυνάγωγος: and for οἱ
ἀπόστολοι (in ix. 10) we find οἱ δώδεκα in ver. 12.—Οὖς in S. Luke xxii.
50 is exchanged for ὠτίον in the next verse.—In like manner, those whom S.
Luke calls οἱ νεώτεροι in Acts v. 6, he calls νεανίσκοι in ver. 10.... All
such matters strike me as highly interesting, but not in the least as
suspicious. It surprises me a little, of course, that S. Mark should
present me with πρώτη σαββάτου (in ver. 9) instead of the phrase μία
σαββάτων, which he had employed just above (in ver. 2.) But it does not
surprise me much,—when I observe that μία σαββάτων _occurs only once in
each of the Four Gospels_.(257) Whether surprised much or little,
however,—Am I constrained in consequence, (with Tischendorf and the rest,)
to regard this expression (πρώτη σαββάτου) as a note of _spuriousness_?
That is the only thing I have to consider. Am I, with Dr. Davidson, to
reason as follows:—“πρώτη, Mark would scarcely have used. It should have
been μία, &c. as is proved by Mark xvi. 2, &c. The expression could
scarcely have proceeded from a Jew. It betrays a Gentile author.”(258) Am
I to reason thus?... I propose to answer this question somewhat in detail.

(1.) That among the Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine, in the days of the
Gospel, ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων was the established method of indicating “the
first day of the week,” is plain, not only from the fact that the day of
the Resurrection is so designated by each of the Four Evangelists in
turn;(259) (S. John has the expression twice;) but also from S. Paul’s use
of the phrase in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. It proves, indeed, to have been the
ordinary Hellenistic way of exhibiting the vernacular idiom of
Palestine.(260) The cardinal (μία) for the ordinal (πρώτη) in this phrase
was a known Talmudic expression, which obtained also in Syriac.(261)
Σάββατον and σάββατα,—designations in strictness of the _Sabbath-day_,—had
come to be _also_ used as designations of the _week_. A reference to S.
Mark xvi. 9 and S. Luke xviii. 12 establishes this concerning σάββατον: a
reference to the six places cited just now in earlier note establishes it
concerning σαββάτα. To see how indifferently the two forms (σάββατον and
σαββάτα) were employed, one has but to notice that S. Matthew, _in the
course of one and the same chapter_, five times designates the Sabbath as
τὰ σαββάτα, and three times as τὸ σάββατον.(262) The origin and history of
both words will be found explained in a note at the foot of the page.(263)

(2.) Confessedly, then, a double Hebraism is before us, which must have
been simply unintelligible to Gentile readers. Μία τῶν σαββάτων sounded as
enigmatical to an ordinary Greek ear, as “_una sabbatorum_” to a Roman. A
convincing proof, (if proof were needed,) how abhorrent to a Latin reader
was the last-named expression, is afforded by the old Latin versions of S.
Matthew xxviii. 1; where ὄψε σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούση εἰς μίαν σαββάτων is
invariably rendered, “Vespere _sabbati_, quæ lucescit in _prima sabbati_.”

(3.) The reader will now be prepared for the suggestion, that when S.
Mark, (who is traditionally related to have written his Gospel _at
Rome_,(264)) varies, in ver. 9, the phrase he had employed in ver. 2, he
does so for an excellent and indeed for an obvious reason. In ver. 2, he
had conformed to the prevailing usage of Palestine, and followed the
example set him by S. Matthew (xxviii. 1) in adopting the enigmatical
expression, ἡ μία σαββάτων. That this would be idiomatically represented
_in Latin_ by the phrase “prima sabbati,” we have already seen. In ver. 9,
therefore, he is solicitous to record the fact of the Resurrection afresh;
and _this_ time, his phrase is observed to be _the Greek equivalent for
the Latin _“prima sabbati;” viz. πρώτη σαββάτου. How strictly equivalent
the two modes of expression were felt to be by those who were best
qualified to judge, is singularly illustrated by the fact that the
_Syriac_ rendering of both places is _identical_.

(4.) But I take leave to point out that this substituted phrase, instead
of being a suspicious circumstance, is on the contrary a striking note of
genuineness. For do we not recognise here, in the last chapter of the
Gospel, the very same hand which, in the first chapter of it, was careful
to inform us, just for once, that “Judæa,” is “a _country_,” (ἡ Ἰουδαία
χώρα,)—and “Jordan,” “a _river_,” (ὁ Ἰορδάνης ποταμός)?—Is not this the
very man who explained to his readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar
Jewish designation for “Friday,” ἡ παρασκευή, denotes “_the day before the
Sabbath_?”(265)—and who was so minute in informing us (in chap. vii. 3, 4)
about certain ceremonial practices of “the Pharisees and all the Jews?”
Yet more,—Is not the self-same writer clearly recognisable in this xvith
chapter, who in chap. vi. 37 presented us with σπεκουλάτωρ (the Latin
_spiculator_) for “an executioner?” and who, in chap. xv. 39, for “a
_centurion_,” wrote—not ἑκατόνταρχος, but—κεντυρίων?—and, in chap. xii.
42, explained that the two λεπτά which the poor widow cast into the
Treasury were equivalent to κοδράντης, the Latin _quadrans_?—and in chap.
vii. 4, 8, introduced the Roman measure _sextarius_, (ξέστης)?—and who
volunteered the information (in chap. xv. 16) that αὐλή is only another
designation of πραιτώριον (_Prætorium_)?—Yes. S. Mark,—who, alone of the
four Evangelists, (in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the
Cyrenian was “_the father of Alexander and Rufus_,” evidently for the sake
of his _Latin_ readers:(266) S. Mark,—who alone ventures to write in Greek
letters (οὐά,—chap. xv. 29,) the Latin interjection “_Vah!_”—obviously
because he was writing where that exclamation was most familiar, and the
force of it best understood:(267) S. Mark,—who attends to the Roman
division of the day, in relating our LORD’S prophecy to S. Peter:(268)—S.
Mark, I say, no doubt it was who,—having conformed himself to the
precedent set him by S. Matthew and the familiar usage of Palestine; and
having written τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων, (which he knew would sound like “_una
sabbatorum_,”(269)) in ver. 2;—introduced, also for the benefit of his
Latin readers, the Greek equivalent for “_prima sabbati_,” (viz. πρώτη
σαββάτου,) in ver. 9.—This, therefore, I repeat, so far from being a
circumstance “_unfavourable_ to its authenticity,” (by which, I presume,
the learned writer means its _genuineness_), is rather corroborative of
the Church’s constant belief that the present section of S. Mark’s Gospel
is, equally with the rest of it, the production of S. Mark. “Not only was
the document intended for Gentile converts:” (remarks Dr. Davidson, p.
149,) “but there are also appearances of its adaptation to the use of
Roman Christians in particular.” Just so. And I venture to say that in the
whole of “the document” Dr. Davidson will not find a more striking
“appearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians,”—_and
therefore of its genuineness_,—than this. I shall have to request my
reader by-and-by to accept it as one of the most striking notes of Divine
origin which these verses contain.—For the moment, I pass on.

(II.) Less excusable is the coarseness of critical perception betrayed by
the next remark. It has been pointed out as a suspicious circumstance that
in ver. 9, “the phrase ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα δαιμόνια is attached to the
name of Mary Magdalene, although she had been mentioned three times before
without such appendix. It seems to have been taken from Luke viii.
2.”(270)—Strange perversity, and yet stranger blindness!

(1.) The phrase _cannot_ have been taken from S. Luke; because S. Luke’s
Gospel was written after S. Mark’s. It _was_ not taken from S. Luke;
because _there_ ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτα ἐξεληλύθει,—here, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει
ἑπτα δαιμόνια is read.

(2.) More important is it to expose the shallowness and futility of the
entire objection.—Mary Magdalene “had been mentioned three times before,
_without such appendix_.” Well but,—What _then_? After twice (ch. xiv. 54,
66) using the word αὐλή without any “appendix,” in the very next chapter
(xv. 16) S. Mark adds, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον.—The beloved Disciple having
mentioned himself without any “appendix” in S. John xx. 7, mentions
himself with a very elaborate “appendix” in ver. 20. But what of it?—The
sister of the Blessed Virgin, having been designated in chap. xv. 40, as
Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆ μήτηρ; is mentioned with one half of
that “appendix,” (Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆ) in ver. 47, and _in the very next verse_,
with the other half (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου.)—I see no reason why the
Traitor, who, in S. Luke vi. 16, is called Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης, should be
designated as Ἰούδαν τὸν ἐπικαλούμενον Ἰσκαριώτην in S. Luke xxii. 3.—I am
not saying that such “appendices” are either uninteresting or unimportant.
That I attend to them habitually, these pages will best evince. I am only
insisting that to infer from such varieties of expression that a different
author is recognisable, is abhorrent to the spirit of intelligent
Criticism.

(3.) But in the case before us, the hostile suggestion is peculiarly
infelicitous. There is even inexpressible tenderness and beauty, the
deepest Gospel significancy, in the reservation of the clause “out of whom
He had cast seven devils,” for this place. The reason, I say, is even
obvious why an “appendix,” which would have been meaningless before, is
introduced in connexion with Mary Magdalene’s august privilege of being
the first of the human race to behold the risen SAVIOUR. Jerome (I rejoice
to find) has been beforehand with me in suggesting that it was done, in
order to convey by an example the tacit assurance that “where Sin had
abounded, there did Grace much more abound.”(271) Are we to be cheated of
our birthright by Critics(272) who, entirely overlooking a solution of the
difficulty (_if_ difficulty it be) Divine as this, can see in the
circumstance grounds only for suspicion and cavil? Απαγε.

(III.) Take the next example.—The very form of the “appendix” which we
have been considering (ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια) breeds offence.
“Instead of ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό,” (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) “Mark has
ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ.”(273)

Nothing of the sort, I answer. S. Mark _once_ has ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ,(274) and
_once_ ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό. So has S. Matthew, (viz. in chap. vii. 4 and 5): and
so has S. Luke, (viz. in chap. vi. 42, and in Acts xiii. 50.)—But what of
all this? _Who_ sees not that such Criticism is simply nugatory?

(IV.) We are next favoured with the notable piece of information that the
word πορεύεσθαι, “never used by S. Mark, is three times contained in this
passage;” (viz. in verses 10, 12 and 15.)

(1.) Yes. The uncompounded verb, never used _elsewhere_ by S. Mark, is
found here three times. But what then? The _compounds_ of πορεύεσθαι are
common enough in his Gospel. Thus, short as his Gospel is, he alone has
εἰσ-πορεύεσθαι, ἐκ-πορεύεσθαι, συμ-πορεύεσθαι, παρα-πορεύεσθαι, _oftener
than all the other three Evangelists put together_,—viz. twenty-four times
against their nineteen: while the compound προσπορεύεσθαι is _peculiar to
his Gospel_.—I am therefore inclined to suggest that the presence of the
verb πορεύεσθαι in these Twelve suspected Verses, instead of being an
additional element of suspicion, is rather a circumstance slightly
corroborative of their genuineness.

(2.) But suppose that the facts had been different. The phenomenon
appealed to is of even perpetual recurrence, and may on no account be
represented as _suspicious_. Thus, παρουσία, a word used only by S.
Matthew among the Evangelists, is by him used four times; yet are all
those four instances found _in one and the same chapter_. S. Luke alone
has χαρίζεσθαι, and he has it three times: but all three cases are met
with _in one and the same chapter_. S. John alone has λύπη, and he has it
four times: but all the four instances occur _in one and the same
chapter_.

(3.) Such instances might be multiplied to almost any extent. Out of the
fifteen occasions when S. Matthew uses the word τάλαντον, no less than
fourteen occur in one chapter. The nine occasions when S. Luke uses the
word μνᾶ all occur in one chapter. S. John uses the verb ἀνιστάναι
transitively only four times: but all four instances of it are found in
one chapter.—Now, these three words (be it observed) are _peculiar to the
Gospels_ in which they severally occur.

(4.) I shall of course be reminded that τάλαντον and μνᾶ are unusual
words,—admitting of no substitute in the places where they respectively
occur. But I reply,—Unless the Critics are able to shew me _which_ of the
ordinary compounds of πορεύεσθαι S. Mark could _possibly_ have employed
for the uncompounded verb, in the three places which have suggested the
present inquiry, viz.:—

ver. 10:—ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽ αυτοῦ γενομένοις.

ver. 12:—δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν ... πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν.

ver. 13:—πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον;—

their objection is simply frivolous, and the proposed adverse reasoning,
worthless. Such, in fact, it most certainly is; for it will be found that
πορευθεῖσα in ver. 10,—πορευομένοις in ver. 12,—πορευθέντες in ver.
15,—_also_ “admit of no substitute in the places where they severally
occur;” and therefore, since the verb itself is one of S. Mark’s favourite
verbs, not only are these three places above suspicion, but they may be
fairly adduced as indications that _the same_ hand was at work here which
wrote all the rest of his Gospel.(275)

(V.) Then further,—the phrase τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις (in ver. 10) is
noted as suspicious. “Though found in the Acts (xx. 18) it _never occurs
in the Gospels_: nor does the word μαθηταί in this passage.”

(1.) The phrase οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι occurs nowhere in the Acts or in
the Gospels, _except here_. But,—Why _should_ it appear elsewhere? or
rather,—How _could_ it? Now, if the expression be (as it is) an ordinary,
easy, and obvious one,—_wanted_ in this place, where it _is_ met with; but
_not_ met with elsewhere, simply because elsewhere it is _not_
wanted;—surely it is unworthy of any one calling himself a Critic to
pretend that there attaches to it the faintest shadow of suspicion!

(2.) The essence of the phrase is clearly the expression οἱ μετ᾽ αυτοῦ.
(The aorist participle of γίνομαι, is added of necessity to mark the
persons spoken of. In no other, (certainly in no simpler, more obvious, or
more precise) way could the followers of the risen SAVIOUR have been
designated at such a time. For had He not just now “overcome the sharpness
of Death”?) But this expression, which occurs four times in S. Matthew and
four times in S. Luke, occurs also four times in S. Mark: viz. in chap. i.
36; ii. 25; v. 40, _and here_. This, therefore, is a slightly
corroborative circumstance,—not at all a ground of suspicion.

(3.) But it seems to be implied that S. Mark, because he mentions τοὺς
μαθητάς often elsewhere in his Gospel, ought to have mentioned them here.

(a) I answer:—He does not mention τοὺς μαθητάς nearly so often as S.
Matthew; while S. John notices them twice as often as he does.

(b) Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them five hundred times,
because he had occasion five hundred times to speak of them;—what reason
would _that_ be for his mentioning them here, where he is _not_ speaking
of them?

(_c_) It must be evident to any one reading the Gospel with attention that
besides οἱ μαθηταί,—(by which expression S. Mark always designates _the
Twelve Apostles_,)—there was a considerable company of believers assembled
together throughout the first Easter Day.(276) S. Luke notices this
circumstance when he relates how the Women, on their return from the
Sepulchre, “told all these things unto the Eleven, and _to all the rest_,”
(xxiv. 9): and again when he describes how Cleopas and his companion (δύο
ἐξ αὐτῶν as S. Luke and S. Mark call them) on their return to Jerusalem,
“found the Eleven gathered together, _and them that were with them_”
(xxiv. 33.) But this was at least as well known to S. Mark as it was to S.
Luke. Instead, therefore, of regarding the designation “_them that had
been with Him_” with suspicion,—are we not rather to recognise in it one
token more that the narrative in which it occurs is unmistakably genuine?
What else is this but one of those delicate discriminating touches which
indicate the hand of a great Master; one of those evidences of minute
accuracy which stamp on a narrative the impress of unquestionable Truth?

(VI.) We are next assured by our Critic that θεᾶσθαι “is unknown to Mark;”
but it occurs twice in this section, (viz. in ver. 11 and ver. 14.)
_Another_ suspicious circumstance!

(1.) A strange way (as before) of stating an ordinary fact, certainly!
What else is it but to assume the thing which has to be proved? If the
learned writer had said instead, that the verb θεᾶσθαι, here twice
employed by S. Mark, occurs _nowhere else_ in his Gospel,—he would have
acted more loyally, not to say more fairly by the record: but then he
would have been stating a strictly ordinary phenomenon,—of no
significancy, or relevancy to the matter in hand. He is probably aware
that παραβαίνειν in like manner is to be found in two consecutive verses
of S. Matthew’s Gospel; παρακούειν, twice in the course of one verse:
neither word being used on any other occasion _either by S. Matthew, or by
any other Evangelist_. The same thing precisely is to be said of ἀναζητεῖν
and ἀνταποδιδόναι, of ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι, and διατίθεσθαι, in S. Luke: of
ἀνιστάναι and ζωννύναι in S. John. But who ever dreamed of insinuating
that the circumstance is suspicious?

(2.) As for θεᾶσθαι, we should have reminded our Critic that this verb,
which is used seven times by S. John, and four times by S. Matthew, is
used only three times by S. Luke, and only twice by S. Mark. And we should
have respectfully inquired,—What possible suspicion does θεᾶσθαι throw
upon the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel?

(3.) None whatever, would have been the reply. But in the meantime Dr.
Davidson hints that the verb _ought_ to have been employed by S. Mark in
chap. ii. 14.(277)—It is, I presume, sufficient to point out that S.
Matthew, at all events, was not of Dr. Davidson’s opinion:(278) and I
respectfully submit that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here
_writing about himself_, must be allowed, just for once, to be the better
judge.

(4.) In the meantime,—Is it not perceived that θεᾶσθαι is the very word
specially required in these two places,—though _nowhere else in S. Mark’s
Gospel_?(279) The occasion is one,—viz. the “beholding” of the person of
the risen SAVIOUR. Does not even natural piety suggest that the uniqueness
of such a “spectacle” as _that_ might well set an Evangelist on casting
about for a word of somewhat less ordinary occurrence? The occasion cries
aloud for this very verb θεᾶσθαι; and I can hardly conceive a more apt
illustration of a darkened eye,—a spiritual faculty perverted from its
lawful purpose,—than that which only discovers “a stumbling-block and
occasion of falling” in expressions like the present which “should have
been only for their wealth,” being so manifestly designed for their
edification.

(VII.) But,—(it is urged by a Critic of a very different stamp,)—ἐθεάθη
ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (ver. 11) “is a construction only found here in the New
Testament.”

(1.) Very likely; but what then? The learned writer has evidently
overlooked the fact that the passive θεᾶσθαι occurs but _three times_ in
the New Testament _in all_.(280) S. Matthew, on the _two_ occasions when
he employs the word, connects it with a dative.(281) What is there
_suspicious_ in the circumstance that θεᾶσθαι ὑπό should be the
construction preferred by S. Mark? The phenomenon is not nearly so
remarkable as that S. Luke, on one solitary occasion, exhibits the phrase
μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπό,(282)—instead of making the verb govern the accusative, as
he does three times _in the very next verse_; and, indeed, eleven times in
the course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in this instance is but
copying S. Matthew, who _also_ has μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπό once;(283) and seven
times makes the verb govern an accusative. This, nevertheless, constitutes
no reason whatever for suspecting the genuineness either of S. Matth. x.
28 or of S. Luke xii. 4.

(2.) In like manner, the phrase ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν will be found to
occur once, and once _only_, in S. Mark,—once, and once only, in S.
Luke;(284) although S. Mark and S. Luke use the verb φοβεῖσθαι upwards of
forty times. Such facts are interesting. They may prove important. But no
one who is ever so little conversant with such inquiries will pretend that
they are in the least degree _suspicious_.—I pass on.

(VIII.) It is next noted as a suspicious circumstance that ἀπιστεῖν occurs
in ver. 11 and in ver. 16; but nowhere else in the Gospels,—except in S.
Luke xxiv. 11, 14.

But really, such a remark is wholly without force, as an argument against
the genuineness of the passage in which the word is found: for,

(1.) Where else in the course of this Gospel _could_ ἀπιστεῖν have
occurred? Now, unless some reason can be shewn why the word _should_, or
at least _might_ have been employed elsewhere, to remark upon its
introduction in this place, _where it __ could scarcely be dispensed
with_, as a ground of suspicion, is simply irrational. It might just as
well be held to be a suspicious circumstance, in respect of verses 3 and
4, that the verb ἀποκυλίζειν occurs there, _and there only_, in this
Gospel. Nothing whatever follows from the circumstance. It is, in fact, a
point scarcely deserving of attention.

(2.) To be sure, if the case of a verb exclusively used by the two
Evangelists, S. Mark and S. Luke, were an unique, or even an exceedingly
rare phenomenon, it might have been held to be a somewhat suspicious
circumstance that the phenomenon presented itself in the present section.
But nothing of the sort is the fact. There are no fewer than forty-five
verbs _exclusively used by S. Mark and S. Luke_. And why should not
ἀπιστεῖν be, (as it is,) one of them?

(3.) Note, next, that this word _is used twice_, and in the course of his
last chapter too, also _by S. Luke_. Nowhere else does it occur in the
Gospels. It is at least as strange that the word ἀπιστεῖν should be found
twice in the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Luke, as in the
last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark. And if no shadow of
suspicion is supposed to result from this circumstance in the case of the
third Evangelist, why should it in the case of the second?

(4.) But, lastly, _the noun_ ἀπιστία (which occurs in S. Mark xvi. 14)
occurs in two other places of the same Gospel. And this word (which S.
Matthew uses twice,) is employed by none of the other Evangelists.—What
need to add another word? Do not many of these supposed suspicious
circumstances,—_this_ one for example,—prove rather, on closer inspection,
to be confirmatory facts?

(IX.) We are next assured that μετὰ ταῦτα (ver. 12) “_is not found in
Mark_, though many opportunities occurred for using it.”

(1.) I suppose that what this learned writer means, is this; that if S.
Mark had coveted an opportunity for introducing the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα
earlier in his Gospel, he might have found one. (More than this cannot be
meant: for _nowhere_ before does S. Mark employ _any other phrase_ to
express “after these things,” or “after this,” or “afterwards.”)

But what is the obvious inference from the facts of the case, as stated by
the learned Critic, except that the blessed Evangelist _must be presumed
to have been unconscious of any desire to introduce the expression under
consideration on any other occasion except the present_?

(2.) Then, further, it is worth observing that while the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα
occurs five times in S. Luke’s Gospel, it is found only twice in the Acts;
while S. Matthew _never employs it at all_. Why, then,—I would
respectfully inquire—_why_ need S. Mark introduce the phrase _more than
once_? Why, especially, is his solitary use of the expression to be
represented as a suspicious circumstance; and even perverted into an
article of indictment against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of
his Gospel? “Would any one argue that S. Luke was not the author of the
Acts, because the author of the Acts has employed this phrase only
twice,—‘often as he _could_ have used it?’ (Meyer’s phrase here.(285))”

(X.) Another objection awaits us,—“Ἓτερος also is unknown to Mark,” says
Dr. Davidson;—which only means that the word occurs in chap. xvi. 12, but
not elsewhere in his Gospel.

It so happens, however, that ἕτερος also occurs once only in the Gospel of
S. John. Does it therefore throw suspicion on S. John xix. 37?

(XI.) The same thing is said of ὕστερον (in ver. 14) viz. that it “occurs
nowhere” in the second Gospel.

But why not state the case thus?—Ὕστερον, a word which is twice employed
by S. Luke, occurs only _once_ in S. Mark and _once_ in S. John.—_That_
would be the true way of stating the facts of the case. But it would be
attended with this inconvenient result,—that it would make it plain that
the word in question has no kind of bearing on the matter in hand.

(XII.) The same thing he says of βλάπτειν (in ver. 18).

But what is the fact? The word occurs _only twice in the Gospels_,—viz. in
S. Mark xvi. 18 and S. Luke iv. 35. It is one of the eighty-four words
which are peculiar to S. Mark and S. Luke. What possible significancy
would Dr. Davidson attach to the circumstance?

(XIII.) Once more.—“πανταχοῦ” (proceeds Dr. Davidson) “is unknown to
Mark;” which (as we begin to be aware) is the learned gentleman’s way of
stating that it is only found in chap. xvi. 20.

Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that it _also_ occurs in S. Mark
i. 28. I respectfully differ from them in opinion: but when it has been
pointed out that the word _is only used besides in S. Luke_ ix. 6, what
_can_ be said of such Criticism but that it is simply frivolous?

(XIV. and XV.) Yet again:—συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν are also said by the same
learned Critic to be “unknown to Mark.”

S. Mark certainly uses these two words only once,—viz. in the last verse
of the present Chapter: but what there is suspicious in this circumstance,
I am at a loss even to divine. He _could_ not have used them oftener; and
since one hundred and fifty-six words are peculiar to his Gospel, why
should not συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν be two of them?

(XVI.) “Πᾶσα κτίσις is Pauline,” proceeds Dr. Davidson, (referring to a
famous expression which is found in ver. 15.)

(1.) All very oracular,—to be sure: but _why_ πᾶσα κτίσις should be
thought “Pauline” rather than “Petrine,” I really, once more, cannot
discover; seeing that S. Peter has the expression as well as S. Paul.(286)

(2.) In this place, however, the phrase is πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις. But even this
expression is no more to be called “Pauline” than “Marcine;” seeing that
as S. Mark uses it once and once only, so does S. Paul use it once and
once only, viz. in Rom. viii. 22.

(3.) In the meantime, how does it come to pass that the learned Critic has
overlooked the significant fact that the word κτίσις occurs besides in S.
Mark x. 6 and xiii. 19; and that it is a word which _S. Mark alone of the
Evangelists uses_? Its occurrence, therefore, in this place is a
circumstance the very reverse of suspicious.

(4.) But lastly, inasmuch as the opening words of our LORD’S Ministerial
Commission to the Apostles are these,—κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάση τῇ
κτίσει (ver. 15): inasmuch, too, as S. Paul in his Epistle to the
Colossians (i. 23) almost reproduces those very words; speaking of the
Hope τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάση [τῇ] κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν
οὐρανόν:—Is it not an allowable conjecture that _a direct reference_ to
_that_ place in S. Mark’s Gospel is contained in _this_ place of S. Paul’s
Epistle? that the inspired Apostle “beholding the universal tendency of
Christianity already realized,” announces (and from imperial Rome!) the
fulfilment of his LORD’S commands in his LORD’S own words as recorded by
the Evangelist S. Mark?

I desire to be understood to deliver this only as a conjecture. But seeing
that S. Mark’s Gospel is commonly thought to have been written at Rome,
and under the eye of S. Peter; and that S. Peter (and therefore S. Mark)
must have been at Rome before S. Paul visited that city in A.D.
61;—seeing, too, that it was in A.D. 61-2 (as Wordsworth and Alford are
agreed) that S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, and wrote it
from _Rome_;—I really can discover nothing unreasonable in the
speculation. If, however, it be well founded,—(and it is impossible to
deny that the coincidence of expression _may_ be such as I have
suggested,)—then, what an august corroboration would _this_ be of “the
last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark!” ... If, indeed,
the great Apostle on reaching Rome inspected S. Mark’s Gospel for the
first time, with what awe will he have recognised in his own recent
experience the fulfilment of his SAVIOUR’S great announcement concerning
the “signs which should follow them that believe!” Had he not himself
“cast out devils?”—“spoken with tongues more than they all?”—and at
Melita, not only “shaken off the serpent into the fire and felt no harm,”
but also “laid hands on the sick” father of Publius, “and he had
recovered?” ... To return, however, to matters of fact; with an apology
(if it be thought necessary) for what immediately goes before.

(XVII.) Next,—ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι μου (ver. 17) is noticed as another suspicious
peculiarity. The phrase is supposed to occur only in this place of S.
Mark’s Gospel; the Evangelist elsewhere employing the preposition
ἐπί:—(viz. in ix. 37: ix. 39: xiii. 6.)

(1.) Now really, if it were so, the reasoning would be nugatory. _S. Luke_
also once, and once only, has ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου: his usage elsewhere
being, (like S. Mark’s) to use ἐπί. Nay, in two consecutive verses of ch.
ix, ἐπί τῷ ὀνόματί μου—σου is read: and yet, in the very next chapter, his
Gospel exhibits an unique instance of the usage of ἐν. Was it ever thought
that suspicion is thereby cast on S. Luke x. 17?

(2.) But, in fact, the objection is an oversight of the learned (and
generally accurate) objector. The phrase recurs in S. Mark ix. 38,—as the
text of that place has been revised by Tischendorf, by Tregelles and by
himself. This is therefore a slightly _corroborative_, not a suspicious
circumstance.

(XVIII. and XIX.) We are further assured that παρακολουθεῖν (in ver. 17)
and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in ver. 20) “are both _foreign to the diction of Mark_.”

(1.) But what can the learned author of this statement possibly mean? He
is not speaking of the uncompounded verb ἀκολουθεῖν, of course; for S.
Mark employs it at least twenty times. He cannot be speaking of the
compounded verb; for συνακολουθεῖν occurs in S. Mark v. 37. He cannot mean
that παρακολουθεῖν, because the Evangelist uses it only once, is
suspicious; for that would be to cast a slur on S. Luke i. 3. He cannot
mean generally that verbs compounded with prepositions are “foreign to the
diction of Mark;” for there are no less than _forty-two_ such verbs which
are even _peculiar to S. Mark’s short Gospel_,—against thirty which are
peculiar to S. Matthew, and seventeen which are peculiar to S. John. He
cannot mean that verbs compounded with παρά and ἐπί have a suspicious
look; for at least _thirty-three_ such compounds, (besides the two before
us,) occur in his sixteen chapters.(287) What, then, I must really ask,
can the learned Critic possibly mean?—I respectfully pause for an answer.

(2.) In the meantime, I claim that as far as such evidence goes,—(and it
certainly goes a very little way, yet, _as far as it goes_,)—it is a note
of S. Mark’s authorship, that within the compass of the last twelve verses
of his Gospel these two compounded verbs should be met with.

(XX.) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious circumstance, that
(in ver. 18) the phrase χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι ἐπί τινα occurs; “instead of
χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι τινι.”

(1.) But on the contrary, the phrase “_is in Mark’s manner_,” says Dean
Alford: the plain fact being that it occurs no less than three times in
his Gospel,—viz. in chap. viii. 25: x. 16: xvi. 18. (The other idiom, he
has four times.(288)) Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to
as a note of genuineness _and_ as an indication of spurious origin. What
_can_ be the value of such Criticism as this?

(2.) Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt illustration of the
precariousness of the style of remark which is just now engaging our
attention. Within the space of three verses, S. Mark has _both_
expressions,—viz. ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ (viii. 23) and also ἐπέθηκε τὰς
χεῖρας ἐπί (ver. 25.) S. Matthew has the latter phrase once; the former,
twice.(289) _Who_ will not admit that all this (so-called) Criticism is
the veriest trifling; and that to pretend to argue about the genuineness
of a passage of Scripture from such evidence as the present is an act of
rashness bordering on folly?... The reader is referred to what was offered
above on Art. VII.

(XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver. 19 and ver. 20)
are also declared to be “_foreign to the diction of Mark_.” I ask leave to
examine these two charges separately.

(1.) μὲν οὖν occurs only once in S. Mark’s Gospel, truly: but then _it
occurs only once in S. Luke_ (iii. 18);—only twice in S. John (xix. 24:
xx. 30):—in S. Matthew, never at all. What imaginable plea can be made out
of such evidence as this, for or against the genuineness of the last
Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel?—Once more, I pause for an answer.

(2.) As for ὁ Κύριος being “_foreign to the diction of Mark_ in speaking
of the LORD,”—I really do not know what the learned Critic can possibly
mean; except that he finds our LORD _nowhere called_ ὁ Κύριος _by S. Mark,
except in this place._

But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does he find our LORD
anywhere called by S. Mark “JESUS CHRIST,” except in chap. i. 1. Are we,
therefore, to suspect the beginning of S. Mark’s Gospel as well as the end
of it? By no means, (I shall perhaps be told:) a reason is assignable for
the use of _that_ expression in chap. i. 1. And so, I venture to reply,
there is a fully sufficient reason assignable for the use of _this_
expression in chap. xvi. 19.(290)

(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our LORD is called Ἰησοῦς
Χριστός,—but _only in the first Chapter_ of their respective Gospels. By
S. Luke nowhere. The appellation may,—or may not,—be thought “foreign to
the diction” of those Evangelists. But surely it constitutes no reason
whatever why we should suspect the genuineness of the beginning of the
first, or the second, or the fourth Gospel.

(4.) S. John _three times in the first verse of his first Chapter_
designates the Eternal SON by the extraordinary title ὁ Λόγος; but
_nowhere else in his Gospel_, (except once in ver. 14,) does that Name
recur. Would it be reasonable to represent _this_ as a suspicious
circumstance? Is not the Divine fitness of that sublime appellation
generally recognised and admitted?(291)—Surely, we come to Scripture to be
learners only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to have
spoken about GOD! When will men learn that “the Scripture-phrase, or
_language of the Holy Ghost_”(292) is as much above them as Heaven is
above Earth?

(XXIII.) Another complaint:—ἀναληφθῆναι, which is found in ver. 19, occurs
nowhere else in the Gospels.

(1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs which “occur
nowhere else in the Gospels:” and this happens to be one of them? What
possible inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circumstance?

(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. Ἀναληφθῆναι and ἀνάληψις are words
_proper to the Ascension of our _LORD_ into Heaven_. The two Evangelists
who do _not_ describe that event, are _without_ these words: the two
Evangelists who _do_ describe it, _have_ them.(293) Surely, these are
marks of genuineness, not grounds for suspicion!

It is high time to conclude this discussion.—Much has been said about two
other minute points:—

(XXIV.) It is declared that ἐκεῖνος “is nowhere found absolutely used by
S. Mark:” (the same thing may be said of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:)
“but always emphatically: whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely
used.”(294) Another writer says,—“The use of ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11, and
13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with ὁ δέ, is peculiar.”(295)

(1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not very, that an Evangelist
who employs an ordinary word in the ordinary way about thirty times in
all, should use it “absolutely” in two consecutive verses.

(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves as to
_which_ are precisely the offending instances,—(for it is evidently a moot
point whether ἐκεῖνος be emphatic in ver. 13, or not,)—we may be excused
from a prolonged discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the
subject in the consideration of the next Article (XXV.)

(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that “in the 10th and 14th
verses there are sentences without a copulative: whereas Mark always has
the copulative in such cases, particularly καί.” But then,—

(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other sections of S.
Mark’s Gospel _resembling the present_,—(I mean, passages in which S. Mark
summarizes many disconnected incidents, as he does here,)—is it not plain
that such an objection is wholly without point?

(2.) Two instances are cited. In the latter, (ver. 14), Lachmann and
Tregelles read ὔστερον δέ: and the reading is not impossible. So that the
complaint is really reduced to this,—That in ver. 10 the Evangelist begins
Ἐκεὶνη πορευθεῖσα, instead of saying Καὶ ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα. And (it is
implied) there is something so abhorrent to probability in this, as
slightly to strengthen the suspicion that the entire context is not the
work of the Evangelist.

(3.) Now, suppose we had S. Mark back among us: and suppose that he, on
being shewn this objection, were to be heard delivering himself somewhat
to the following effect:—“Aye. But men may not find fault with _that_ turn
of phrase. I derived it from Simon Peter’s lips. I have always suspected
that it was a kind of echo, so to say, of what he and ‘the other Disciple’
had many a time rehearsed in the hearing of the wondering Church
concerning the Magdalene on the morning of the Resurrection.” And then we
should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth Gospel:—

γύναι τί κλαίεις; τίνα ζητεῖς; ἘΚΕΊΝΗ δοκοῦσα κ.τ.λ.

After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all strange, even
though it be “without a copulative:”—

ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. ἘΚΕΊΝΗ πορευθεῖσα κ.τ.λ.

(4.) For after all, the _only_ question to be asked is,—Will any one
pretend that such a circumstance as this is _suspicious_? Unless _that_ be
asserted, I see not what is gained by raking together,—(_as one easily
might do in any section of any of the Gospels_,)—every minute peculiarity
of form or expression which can possibly be found within the space of
these twelve verses. It is an evidence of nothing so much as an
incorrigible coarseness of critical fibre, that every slight variety of
manner or language should be thus pounced upon and represented as a note
of spuriousness,—in the face of (_a_) the unfaltering tradition of the
Church universal that the document has _never_ been hitherto suspected:
and (_b_) the known proclivity of all writers, as free moral and
intellectual agents, sometimes to deviate from their else invariable
practice.—May I not here close the discussion?

There will perhaps be some to remark, that however successfully the
foregoing objections may seem to have been severally disposed of, yet that
the combined force of such a multitude of slightly suspicious
circumstances must be not only appreciable, but even remain an
inconvenient, not to say a formidable fact. Let me point out that the
supposed remark is nothing else but a fallacy; which is detected the
instant it is steadily looked at.

For if there really had remained after the discussion of each of the
foregoing XXV Articles, a slight residuum of suspiciousness, _then_ of
course the aggregate of so many fractions would have amounted to something
in the end.

But since it has been proved that there is absolutely _nothing at all_
suspicious in _any_ of the alleged circumstances which have been hitherto
examined, the case becomes altogether different. The sum of ten thousand
nothings is still nothing.(296) This may be conveniently illustrated by an
appeal to the only charge which remains to be examined.

(XXVI. and XXVII.) The absence from these twelve verses of the adverbs
εὐθέως and πάλιν,—(both of them favourite words with the second
Evangelist,)—has been pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance. Let
us take the words singly:—

(_a_) The adverb εὐθέως (or εὐθύς) is indeed of _very_ frequent occurrence
in S. Mark’s Gospel. And yet its absence from chap. xvi is _proved_ to be
in no degree a suspicious circumstance, from the discovery that though it
occurs as many as

12 times in chap. i;
and 6 times in chap. v;
and 5 times in chap. iv, vi;
and 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv;
and 2 times in chap. vii, xi;
it yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv;
while it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi.

(b) In like manner, πάλιν, which occurs as often as

6 times in chap. xiv;
and 5 times in chap. x;
and 3 times in chap. viii, xv;
and 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii;
and 1 times in chap. iv, v;
occurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.(297)

(1.) Now,—How can it possibly be more suspicious that πάλιν should be
absent from _the last twelve_ verses of S. Mark, than that it should be
away from _the first forty-five_?

(2.) Again. Since εὐθέως is not found in the xiith or the xiiith chapters
of this same Gospel,—nor πάλιν in the ist, vith, ixth, or xiiith
chapter,—(for the sufficient reason that _neither word is wanted in any of
those places_,)—what possible “suspiciousness” can be supposed to result
from the absence of both words from the xvith chapter also, where _also_
neither of them is wanted? _Why_ is the xvith chapter of S. Mark’s
Gospel,—or rather, why are “the last twelve verses” of it,—to labour under
such special disfavor and discredit?

(3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,—“I am well aware that arguments on
_style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_ they prove
very little: but when there does exist external evidence, and when
internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and connection,
are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment;
then these internal considerations possess very great weight.”(298)—For
all rejoinder, the respected writer is asked,—(_a_) But when there _does
not_ exist any such external evidence: what then? Next, he is reminded
(_b_) That whether there does, or does not, it is at least certain that
_not one_ of those “proofs as to style,” &c., of which he speaks, has been
able to stand the test of strict examination. Not only is the
precariousness of all such Criticism as has been brought to bear against
the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 excessive, but the supposed facts
adduced in evidence have been found out to be every one of them
_mistakes_;—being either, (1) demonstrably without argumentative cogency
of any kind;—or else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory
circumstances: indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by S.
Mark,—_not_ that it is probably the work of another hand.

And thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven grounds of suspicion
vanishes out of sight: fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and
nugatory; and _thirteen_, more or less clearly witnessing _in favour_ of
the section.(299)

III. Of these thirteen expressions, some are even eloquent in their
witness. I am saying that it is impossible not to be exceedingly struck by
the discovery that this portion of the Gospel contains (as I have
explained already) so many indications of S. Mark’s undoubted manner. Such
is the reference to ἡ κτίσις (in ver. 15):—the mention of ἀπιστία (in ver.
14):—the occurrence of the verb πορεύεσθαι (in ver. 10 and 12),—of the
phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (in ver. 17),—and of the phrase χεῖρας ἐτιτιθέναι
ἐπί τινα (in ver. 18):—of the Evangelical term for our LORD’S Ascension,
viz. ἀνελήφθη (in ver. 19):—and lastly, of the compounds παρακολουθεῖν and
ἐπακολουθεῖν (in verses 17 and 20.)

To these Thirteen, will have to be added all those other notes of identity
of authorship,—such as they are,—which result from recurring identity of
phrase, and of which the assailants of this portion of the Gospel have
prudently said nothing. Such are the following:—

(xiv.) Ἀνίσταναι, for rising _from the dead_; which is one of S. Mark’s
words. Taking into account the shortness of his Gospel, he has it thrice
as often as S. Luke; _twelve times_ as often as S. Matthew or S. John.

(xv.) The idiomatic expression πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν, of which S. Matthew
does not present a single specimen; but which occurs three times in the
short Gospel of S. Mark,(300)—of which ver. 12 is one.

(xvi.) The expression προί (in ver. 9,)—of which S. Mark avails himself
six times: i.e. (if the length of the present Gospel be taken into
account) almost five times as often as either S. Matthew or S. John,—S.
Luke never using the word at all. In his first chapter (ver. 35), and here
in his last (ver. 2), S. Mark uses λίαν in connexion with προί.

(xvii.) The phrase κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (in ver. 15) is another of S.
Mark’s phrases. Like S. Matthew, he employs it four times (i. 14: xiii.
10: xiv. 9: xvi. 15): but it occurs neither in S. Luke’s nor in S. John’s
Gospel.

(xviii.) The same _words_ singly are characteristic of his Gospel. Taking
the length of their several narratives into account, S. Mark has the word
κηρύσσειν more than twice as often as S. Matthew: three times as often as
S. Luke.

(xix.) εὐαγγέλιον,—a word which occurs only in the first two Gospels,—is
found twice as often in S. Mark’s as in S. Matthew’s Gospel: and if the
respective length of their Gospels be considered, the proportion will be
as three to one. It occurs, as above stated, in ver. 15.

(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned to vindicate _the
genuineness_ of this section of the Gospel, we should have been assured
that φανερουσθαι is another of S. Mark’s words: by which they would have
meant no more than this,—that though employed neither by S. Matthew nor by
S. Luke it is used thrice by S. Mark,—being found twice in this section
(verses 12, 14), as well as in ch. iv. 22.

(xxi.) They would have also pointed out that σκληροκαρδία is another of S.
Mark’s words: being employed neither by S. Luke nor by S. John,—by S.
Matthew only once,—but by S. Mark on _two_ occasions; of which ch. xvi. 14
is one.

(xxii.) In the same spirit, they would have bade us observe that πανταχοῦ
(ver. 20)—unknown to S. Matthew and S. John, and employed only once by S.
Luke,—is _twice_ used by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present
section.

Nor would it have been altogether unfair if they had added that the
precisely similar word πανταχόθεν (or πάντοθεν) is only found in this same
Gospel,—viz. in ch. i. 45.

(xxiii.) They would further have insisted (and this time with a greater
show of reason) that the adverb καλῶς (which is found in ver. 18) is
another favorite word with S. Mark: occurring as it does, (when the length
of these several narratives is taken into account,) more than twice as
often in S. Mark’s as in S. John’s Gospel,—just three times as often as in
the Gospel of S. Matthew and S. Luke.

(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observation would have
been that ἔχειν, in the sense of “to be,” (as in the phrase καλῶς ἔχειν,
ver. 18,) is characteristic of S. Mark. He has it oftener than any of the
Evangelists, viz. six times in all (ch. i. 32, 34: ii. 17: v. 23: vi. 55:
xvi. 18.) Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account, he employs this
idiom twice as often as S. Matthew;—three times as often as S. John;—four
times as often as S. Luke.

(xxv.) They would have told us further that ἄῤῥωστος is another of S.
Mark’s favorite words: for that he has it _three_ times,—viz. in ch. vi.
5, 13, and here in ver. 18. S. Matthew has it only once. S. Luke and S.
John not at all.

(xxvi.) And we should have been certainly reminded by them that the
conjunction of πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι (in ver. 10) is characteristic of S.
Mark,—who has κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας in ch. v. 38: θορυβεῖσθε και
κλαίετε in the very next verse. As for πενθεῖν, it is one of the 123 words
common to S. Matthew and S. Mark, and peculiar to their two Gospels.

(xxvii.) Lastly, “κατακρίνω (in ver. 16), instead of κρίνω, is Mark’s
word, (comp. x. 33: xiv. 64).” The simple verb which is used four times by
S. Matthew, five times by S. Luke, nineteen times by S. John, is never at
all employed by S. Mark: whereas the compound verb he has oftener in
proportion than S. Matthew,—more than twice as often as either S. Luke or
S. John.

Strange,—that there should be exactly “xxvii” notes of genuineness
discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of “XXVII” grounds of
suspicion!

But enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage review the progress
hitherto made in this inquiry.

I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing assertions
respecting the “Style” and “Phraseology” of this section of the Gospel
which were rehearsed at the outset,(301)—are destitute of foundation. But
from this discovery alone there results a settled conviction which it will
be found difficult henceforth to disturb. A page of Scripture which has
been able to endure so severe an ordeal of hostile inquiry, has been
_proved_ to be above suspicion. _That_ character is rightly accounted
_blameless_ which comes out unsullied after Calumny has done her worst;
done it systematically; done it with a will; done it for a hundred years.

But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the case in respect
of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. Something _more_ is certain than
that the charges which have been so industriously brought against this
portion of the Gospel are without foundation. It has been also proved that
instead of there being discovered twenty-seven suspicious words and
phrases scattered up and down these twelve verses of the Gospel, there
actually exist exactly as many words and phrases which attest with more or
less certainty that those verses are nothing else but the work of the
Evangelist.

IV. And now it is high time to explain that though I have hitherto
condescended to adopt the method of my opponents, I have only done so in
order to shew that it proves fatal to _themselves_. I am, to say the
truth, ashamed of what has last been written,—so untrustworthy do I deem
the method which, (following the example of those who have preceded me in
this inquiry,) I have hitherto pursued. The “Concordance test,”—(for
_that_ is probably as apt and intelligible a designation as can be devised
for the purely _mechanical_ process whereby it is proposed by a certain
school of Critics to judge of the authorship of Scripture,)—is about the
coarsest as well as about the most delusive that could be devised. By
means of this clumsy and vulgar instrument, especially when applied, (as
in the case before us,) without skill and discrimination, it would be just
as easy to prove that _the first_ twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are of
a suspicious character as _the last_.(302) In truth, except in very
skilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead.

Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that “Mark nowhere uses the
appellation JESUS CHRIST:” and (ii.) that “εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” is
“_Pauline_”—We should be reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere
introduces any of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of
“Isaiah”(303) (in ver. 2) is a suspicious circumstance:—(iv.) that a
quotation from the Old Testament is “foreign to his manner,”—(for writers
of this class would not hesitate to assume that S. Mark xv. 28 is no part
of the Gospel;)—and (v.) that the fact that here are quotations from _two_
different prophets, betrays an unskilful hand.—(vi.) Because S. Mark three
times calls Judæa by its usual name (Ιουδαια, viz. in iii. 7: x. 1: xiii.
14), the _unique_ designation, ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα (in ver. 5) would be
pronounced decisive against “the authorship of Mark.”—(vii.) The same
thing would be said of the _unique_ expression, ἐν Ἰορδάνη ποταμῷ, which
is found in ver. 5,—seeing that this Evangelist three times designates
Jordan simply as Ἰορδάνης (i. 9: iii. 8: x. 1).—(viii.) _That_ entire
expression in ver. 7 (_unique_, it must be confessed, in the Gospel,) οὖ
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανος—ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ, would be pronounced “abhorrent to the
style of Mark.”—(ix.) τὸ Πνεῦμα _twice_, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we
should be told is never used by the Evangelist absolutely for the HOLY
GHOST: but always τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον (as in ch. iii. 29: xii. 36: xiii.
11).—(x.) The same would be said of οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται (in ver. 5) for “the
inhabitants of Jerusalem:” we should be assured that S. Mark’s phrase
would rather be οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων,—as in ch. iii. 8 and 22.—And (xi.) the
expression πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῷ (ver. 15), we should be informed
“cannot be Mark’s;”—who either employs εἰς and the accusative (as in ch.
ix. 92), or else makes the verb take a dative (as in ch. xi. 31: xvi. 13,
14.)—We should also probably be told that the ten following words are all
“unknown to Mark:”—(xii.) τρίχες,—(xiii.) δερματίνη,—(xiv.) ὀσφύς,—(xv.)
ἀκρίδες,—(xvi.) μέλι,—(xvii.) ἄγριος,(six instances in a single verse
(ver. 6): a highly suspicious circumstance!),—(xviii.) κύπτειν,—(xix.)
ἱμάς,—(xx.) ὑποδήματα, (all three instances in ver. 7!)—(xxi.)
εὐδοκεῖν,—(xxii.) καὶ ἐγένετο ... ἦλθεν (ver. 9),—unique in S.
Mark!—(xxiii.) βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς (ver 9), another unique phrase!—(xxiv.) οἱ
οὐρανοί _twice_, (viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when _S. Mark_
speaks of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41: vii. 34: viii. 11: xvi. 19) he always uses
the singular.—Lastly, (xxv.) the same sorry objection which was brought
against the “last twelve verses,” (that πάλιν, a favourite adverb with S.
Mark, is not found there,) is here even more conspicuous.

Turning away from all this,—(not, however, without an apology for having
lingered over such frivolous details so long,)—I desire to point out that
we have reverently to look below the surface, if we would ascertain how
far it is to be presumed from internal considerations whether S. Mark was
indeed the author of this portion of his Gospel, or not.

V. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philosophical, more
_real_ test than the coarse, uncritical expedient which has been hitherto
considered of ascertaining by reference to the pages of a Greek
Concordance whether a certain word which is found in this section of the
Gospel is, or is not, used elsewhere by S. Mark. And I suppose it will be
generally allowed to be deserving of attention,—in fact, to be a
singularly corroborative circumstance,—that within the narrow compass of
these Twelve Verses we meet with _every principal characteristic of S.
Mark’s manner_:—Thus,

(i.) Though he is the Author of the shortest of the Gospels, and though to
all appearance he often merely reproduces what S. Matthew has said before
him, or else anticipates something, which is afterwards delivered by S.
Luke,—it is surprising how often we are indebted to S. Mark for precious
pieces of information which we look for in vain elsewhere. Now, this is a
feature of the Evangelist’s manner which is susceptible of memorable
illustration from the section before us.

How many and how considerable are the _new circumstances_ which S. Mark
here delivers!—(1) That Mary Magdalene was _the first_ to behold the risen
SAVIOUR: (2) That it was _He_ who had cast out from her the “seven
devils:” (3) _How the men were engaged_ to whom she brought her joyful
message,—(4) who not only did not believe _her_ story, but when Cleopas
and his companion declared what had happened to themselves, “_neither
believed they them_.” (5) The terms of the Ministerial Commission, as set
down in verses 15 and 16, are unique. (6) The announcement of the “signs
which should follow them that believe” is even extraordinary. Lastly, (7)
this is the only place in the Gospel where _The Session at the right Hand
of _GOD is recorded.... So many, and such precious incidents, showered
into the Gospel Treasury at the last moment, and with such a lavish hand,
must needs have proceeded if not from an Apostle at least from a companion
of Apostles. O, if we had no other token to go by, there could not be a
reasonable doubt that this entire section is by no other than S. Mark
himself!

(ii.) A second striking characteristic of the second Evangelist is his
love of picturesque, or at least of striking details,—his proneness to
introduce exceedingly minute particulars, often of the profoundest
significancy, and always of considerable interest. Not to look beyond the
Twelve Verses (chap. i. 9-20) which were originally proposed for
comparison,—We are reminded (_a_) that in describing our SAVIOUR’S
Baptism, it is only S. Mark who relates that “He came _from Nazareth_” to
be baptized.—(_b_) In his highly elliptical account of our LORD’S
Temptation, it is only he who relates that “He was _with the wild
beasts_.”—(_c_) In his description of the Call of the four Disciples, S.
Mark alone it is who, (notwithstanding the close resemblance of his
account to what is found in S. Matthew,) records that the father of S.
James and S. John was left “in the ship _with the hired
servants_.”(304)—Now, of this characteristic, we have also within these
twelve verses, at least four illustrations:—

(_a_) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently proceeded from
an eye-witness,—“πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι.” S. Mark relates that when Mary
conveyed to the Disciples the joyous tidings of the LORD’S Resurrection,
_she found them overwhelmed with sorrow_,—“mourning and weeping.”

(_b_) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is _recorded only
there._

(_c_) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciples were “going
into the country,” (πορευόμενοι εἰς ἀγρόν,(305) ver. 12,) JESUS also “went
with them”—(συν-επορεύετο, as S. Luke relates;)—but that it was _as they
actually _“walked”_ along_ (περιπατοῦσιν) that this manifestation took
place.

(_d_) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning “them that
believe;” what can be imagined more striking than the promise that they
should “_take up serpents_;” and suffer no harm even if they should
“_drink any deadly thing_”?

(iii) Next,—all have been struck, I suppose, with S. Mark’s proneness to
substitute some expression of his own for what he found in the Gospel of
his predecessor S. Matthew: or, when he anticipates something which is
afterwards met with in the Gospel of S. Luke, his aptness to deliver it in
language entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude, for
instance; to his substitution of ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (xiv. 72) for S.
Matthew’s ἔκλαυσε μικρῶς (xxvi. 75);—and of ὁ τέκτων (vi. 3) for ὁ τοῧ
τέκτονος υιος (S. Matth. xiii. 55).—The “woman of Canaan” in S. Matthew’s
Gospel (γυνὴ Χαναναία, ch. xv. 22), is called “a Greek, a Syrophenician by
nation” in S. Mark’s (Ἑλληνὶς, Συροφοίνισσα τῷ γένει, ch. vii. 26).—At the
Baptism, instead of the “_opened_” heavens of S. Matthew (ἀνεῷχθησαν, ch.
iii. 16) and S. Luke (ἀνεῳχθῆναι, ch. iii. 22), we are presented by S.
Mark with the striking image of the heavens “_cleaving_” or “_being rent
asunder_” (σχιζομένους,(306) ch. i. 10).—What S. Matthew calls τὰ ὅρια
Μαγδαλά (ch. xv. 39), S. Mark designates as τὰ μέρθ Δαλμανουθά (ch. viii.
10.)—In place of S. Matthew’s ζύμη Σαδδουκαίων (ch. xvi. 6), S. Mark has
ζύμη Ἡρώδου (ch. viii. 15.)—In describing the visit to Jericho, for the
δύο τυφλοί of S. Matthew (ch. xx. 29), S. Mark gives υἱὸς Τιμαίου
Βαρτίμαιος ὁ τυφλὸς ... προσαιτῶν (ch. ch. 46.)—For the κλάδους of S.
Matth. xxi. 8, S. Mark (ch. xi. 8) has στοιβάδας; and for the other’s πρὶν
ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (xxvi. 34), he has πρὶν ἢ δίς (xiv. 30.)—It is so
throughout.

Accordingly,—(as we have already more than once had occasion to
remark,)—whereas the rest say only ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων, S. Mark says πρώτη
σαββάτου (in ver. 9).—Whereas S. Luke (viii. 2) says ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ
ἐξεληλύθει,—S. Mark records that from her ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.—Very
different is the great ministerial Commission as set down by S. Mark in
ver. 15, 16, from what is found in S. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20.—And whereas
S. Luke says “_their eyes were holden_ that they should not know Him,” S.
Mark says that “He appeared to them _in another form_.” ... Is it credible
that any one fabricating a conclusion to S. Mark’s narrative after S.
Luke’s Gospel had appeared, would have ventured so to paraphrase S. Luke’s
statement? And yet, let the consistent truthfulness of either expression
be carefully noted. _Both_ are historically accurate, but they proceed
from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly side, (God’s side),
the Disciples’ “eyes” (of course) “_were __ holden_:”—viewed on the
earthly side, (Man’s side), the risen SAVIOUR (no doubt) “_appeared in
another form_.”

(iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many expressions into
his Gospel which confirm the prevalent tradition that it was _at Rome_ he
wrote it; and that it was with an immediate view to _Latin_ readers that
it was published. Twelve such expressions were enumerated above (at p.
150-1); and such, it was also there shewn, most unmistakably is the phrase
πρώτη σαββάτου in ver. 9.—It is simply incredible that any one but an
Evangelist writing under the peculiar conditions traditionally assigned to
S. Mark, would have hit upon such an expression as this,—the strict
equivalent, to Latin ears, for ἡ μία σαββάτων, which has occurred just
above, in ver. 2. Now this, it will be remembered, is one of the hacknied
objections to the genuineness of this entire portion of the Gospel;—quite
proof enough, if proof were needed, of the exceeding _improbability_ which
attaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who have considered this
question the most.

(v.) The last peculiarity of S. Mark to which I propose to invite
attention is supplied by those expressions which connect his Gospel with
S. Peter, and remind us of the constant traditional belief of the ancient
Church that S. Mark was the companion of the chief of the Apostles.

That the second Gospel contains many such hints has often been pointed
out; never more interestingly or more convincingly than by Townson(307) in
a work which deserves to be in the hands of every student of Sacred
Science. Instead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to
illustrate my meaning, I will mention one which has perhaps never been
mentioned in this connexion before.

(_a_) Reference is made to our LORD’S sayings in S. Mark vii, and
specially to what is found in ver. 19. _That_ expression, “purging all
meats” (καθαρίζων(308) πάντα τὰ βρώματα), does really seem to be no part
of the Divine discourse; but the Evangelist’s inspired comment on the
SAVIOUR’S words.(309)

Our SAVIOUR (he explains) by that discourse of His—ipso, facto—“_made all
meats clean_.” How doubly striking a statement, when it is remembered that
probably Simon Peter himself was the actual author of it;—the same who, on
the house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that “GOD _had made
clean_” (ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε(310)) _all_ His creatures!

(_b_) Now, let a few words spoken by the same S. Peter on a memorable
occasion be considered:—“Wherefore of these men which have companied with
us all the time that the LORD JESUS went in and out among us, _beginning
from the Baptism of John_, unto that same day that _He was taken up_
(ἀνελήφθη) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His
Resurrection.”(311) Does not S. Peter thereby define the precise limits of
our SAVIOUR’S Ministry,—shewing it to have “begun” (ἀρξάμενος) “from the
Baptism of John,”—and closed with the Day of our LORD’S Ascension? And
what else are those but the exact bounds of S. Mark’s Gospel,—of which the
ἀρχή (ch. i. 1) is signally declared to have been _the Baptism of
John_,—and the utmost limit, the day when (as S. Mark says) “_He was taken
up_ (ἀνελήφθη) into Heaven,”—(ch. xvi. 19)?

(_c_) I will only further remind the reader, in connexion with the phrase,
πᾶσῃ τῇ κτίσει, in ver. 15,—(concerning which, the reader is referred back
to page 162-3,)—that both S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred
writers) conspire to use the expression ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.(312) S. Mark
has besides κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισε ὁ Θεός (ch. xiii. 19); while S. Peter alone
styles the ALMIGHTY, from His work of Creation, ὁ κτίστης (1 S. Pet. iv.
19).

VI. But besides, and over and above such considerations as those which
precede,—(some of which, I am aware, might be considerably evacuated of
their cogency; while others, I am just as firmly convinced, will remain
forcible witnesses of GOD’S Truth to the end of Time,)—I hesitate not to
avow my personal conviction that abundant and striking evidence is
garnered up within the brief compass of these Twelve Verses that they are
identical in respect of fabric with the rest of the Gospel; were clearly
manufactured out of the same Divine materials,—wrought in the same
heavenly loom.

It was even to have been expected, from what is found to have been
universally the method in other parts of Scripture,—(for it was of course
foreseen by ALMIGHTY GOD from the beginning that this portion of His Word
would be, like its Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, reviled,
hated, rejected, denied,)—that the SPIRIT would not leave Himself without
witness in this place. It was to have been anticipated, I say, that
Eternal Wisdom would carefully—(I trust there is no irreverence in so
speaking of GOD and His ways!)—would carefully make provision: meet the
coming unbelief (as His Angel met Balaam) with a drawn sword: plant up and
down throughout these Twelve Verses of the Gospel, sure indications of
their Divine Original,—unmistakable notes of purpose and
design,—mysterious traces and tokens of Himself; not visible indeed to the
scornful and arrogant, the impatient and irreverent; yet clear as if
written with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student, the man who
“trembleth at GOD’S Word.”(313) Or, (if the Reader prefers the image,) the
indications of a Divine Original to be met with in these verses shall be
likened rather to those cryptic characters, invisible so long as they
remain unsuspected, but which shine forth clear and strong when exposed to
the Light or to the Heat; (Light and Heat, both emblems of Himself!) so
that even he that gropeth in darkness must now see them, and admit that of
a truth “the LORD is in this place” although he “knew it not!”

(i.) I propose then that in the first instance we compare the conclusion
of S. Mark’s Gospel with the beginning of it. We did this before, when our
object was to ascertain whether the _Style_ of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 be indeed
as utterly discordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as is commonly
represented. We found, instead, the most striking resemblance.(314) We
also instituted a brief comparison between the two in order to discover
whether the _Diction_ of the one might not possibly be found as suggestive
of _verbal_ doubts as the diction of the other: and so we found
it.(315)—Let us for the third time draw the two extremities of this
precious fabric into close proximity in order again to compare them.
Nothing I presume can be fairer than to elect that, once more, our
attention be chiefly directed to what is contained within the twelve
verses (ver. 9-20) of S. Mark’s _first_ chapter which exactly correspond
with the twelve verses of his _last_ chapter (ver. 9-20) which are the
subject of the present volume.

Now between these two sections of the Gospel, besides (1) the obvious
_verbal_ resemblance, I detect (2) a singular parallelism of _essential
structure_. And this does not strike me the less forcibly because nothing
of the kind was to have been _expected_.

(1.) On the verbal coincidences I do not propose to lay much stress. Yet
are they certainly not without argumentative weight and significancy. I
allude to the following:—

(a) [βαπτίζων, βάπτισμα (a) βαπτισθείς (xvi. 16)
(i. 4)—καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο
(i. 5)—ἐβάπτισα, βαπτίσει
(i. 8)]—καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη (i.
9)
(b) [κηρύσσων, ἐκήρυσσδ (b) ἐκήρυξαν (xvi. 20)
(i. 7)]
(b and c) κηρύσσων τὸ (c) κηρύξατε τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον (i. 14)—[ἀρχὴ εὐαγγέλιον (xvi. 15)
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (i. 1)]
(c and d) πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ (d) ἠπίστησαν (xvi.
εὐαγγελίῳ (i. 15) 11)—οὐδὲ ἐπίστευσαν (xvi.
13)—τὴν ἀπιστίαν, οὐκ
ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 14)—ὁ
πιστεύσας, ὁ ἀπιστήσας
(xvi. 16)—τοῖς πιστεύσασι
(xvi. 17.)

Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an unmistakable
relation of sympathy between the first page of S. Mark’s Gospel and the
last. The same doctrinal phraseology,(316)—the same indications of Divine
purpose,—the same prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both.
(i.) _A Gospel_ to be everywhere _preached_;—(ii.) _Faith_, to be of all
required;—(iii.) _Baptism_ to be universally administered; “one LORD, one
Faith, one Baptism:”—Is not _this_ the theme of the beginning of S. Mark’s
Gospel as well as of the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the
two extremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether the fabric
be identical or not, it were discovered that those extremities are even
meant _to clasp_!

(2.) But the _essential_ parallelism between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark
i. 9-20 is a profounder phenomenon and deserves even more attention. I
proceed to set down side by side, as before, what ought to require neither
comment nor explanation of mine. Thus we find,—

(A) _in ch._ i. 9 _to_ (A) _in ch._ xvi. 9 _to_
11:—Our LORD’S 11:—Our LORD’S appearance
Manifestation to the to Mary Magdalene (ἐφάνη)
World (ἐπιφανεία) on HIS after HIS Resurrection
“coming up (ἀναβαίνων) (ἀναστάς) from death:
out of the water” of “Thou art My SON, this
Jordan: (having been day have I begotten
“buried by Baptism,” as Thee.”
the Apostle speaks:) when
the Voice from Heaven
proclaimed,—“Thou art My
beloved SON in whom I am
well pleased.”
—12 _to_ 14:—Two other
Manifestations
(ἐφανερώθη) to Disciples.
(B) —12, 13:—CHRIST’S (B) —17, 18:—CHRIST’S
victory over Satan; promise that “they that
(whereby is fulfilled the believe” “shall cast out
promise “Thou shalt tread devils” and “shall take
upon the lion and adder: up serpents:” (as [in S.
the young lion and the Luke x. 19] He had given
dragon shalt Thou trample the Seventy “power to
under feet.”) tread on serpents and
scorpions, and over all
the power of the Enemy.”)
(C) —8:—The Pentecostal (C) —17:—The chief
Gift foretold: “He shall Pentecostal Gift
baptize you with the HOLY specified: “They shall
GHOST.” speak with new tongues.”

(D) _in ch._ i. 14, (D) _in ch._ xvi. 15,
15:—CHRIST “comes into 16:—He commands His
Galilee, preaching the Apostles to “go into all
Gospel ... and saying ... the world and preach the
Repent ye, and believe Gospel to every creature.
the Gospel.” He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved.”
(E) —15: His (E) —19:—S. Mark’s record
announcement, that “The concerning Him, that “He
time is fulfilled, and was received up into
the Kingdom of God is at Heaven, and sat on the
hand.” right hand of GOD” (where
He must reign till He
hath put all enemies
under His feet.)
(F) —16 _to_ 20:—The four (F) —20:—The Apostles’
Apostles’ Call to the Ministry, which is
Ministry: (which [S. Luke everywhere miraculously
v. 8, 9] is miraculously attested,—“The LORD
attested.) working with them, and
confirming the word by
the signs that followed.”

It is surely not an unmeaning circumstance, a mere accident, that the
Evangelist should at the very outset and at the very conclusion of his
Gospel, so express himself! If, however, it should seem to the Reader a
mere matter of course, a phenomenon without interest or
significancy,—nothing which I could add would probably bring him to a
different mind.

(3.) Then, further: when I scrutinize attentively the two portions of
Scripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am not a little struck by
the discovery that the VIth Article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem
(A.D. 348) is found in the one: the Xth Article, in the other.(317) If it
be a purely fortuitous circumstance, that two cardinal verities like
these,—(viz. “_He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right Hand of
_GOD”—and “_One Baptism for the Remission of sins_,”) should be found at
either extremity of one short Gospel,—I will but point out that it is
certainly one of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circumstances.—But
in the thing to be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be, any talk
of fortuitousness at all.

(4.) Allusion is made to the diversity of Name whereby the Son of Man is
indicated in these two several places of the Gospel; which constitutes a
most Divine circumstance, and is profoundly significant. He who in _the
first_ verse (S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title “Ἰησοῦς” and
“Χριστός,”—here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 19, 20) is styled
for the first and for the last time, “Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ”—the LORD.(318)

And why? Because He who at His Circumcision was named “JESUS,” (a Name
which was given Him from _His Birth_, yea, and before His Birth); He who
at His Baptism became “the CHRIST,” (a Title which belonged to _His
Office_, and which betokens His sacred _Unction_);—the same, on the
occasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the Right Hand of
GOD,—when (as we know) “all power had been given unto Him in Heaven and in
Earth” (S. Matth. xxviii. 18),—is designated by His Name of _Dominion_;
“the LORD” JEHOVAH ... “Magnifica et opportuna appellatio!”—as Bengel well
remarks.

But I take leave to point out that all this is what never either would or
could have entered into the mind of a fabricator of a conclusion to S.
Mark’s unfinished Gospel. No inventor of a supplement, I say, _could_ have
planted his foot in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my
assertion is twofold:—

(_a_) First, because the present indication that the HOLY GHOST was indeed
the Author of these last Twelve Verses is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson
and his School, _as a proof of a spurious original_. Verily, such Critics
do not recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they _see_ it!

(_b_) Next, as a matter of fact, we _have_ a spurious Supplement to the
Gospel,—the same which was exhibited above at p. 123-4; and which may here
be with advantage reproduced in its Latin form:—“Omnia autem quaecumque
praecepta erant illis qui cum Petro erant, breviter exposuerunt. Post haec
et ipse Iesus adparuit, et ab oriente usque in occidentem misit per illos
sanctam et incorruptam praedicationem salutis aeternae.
Amen.”(319)—Another apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of
the Thebaic version. It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as
follows:—“Exeuntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evangelium
in mundo toto, CHRISTO operante cum iis in verbo confirmationem cum signis
sequentibus eos et miraculis. Atque hoc modo cognitum est regnum Dei in
terra tota et in mundo toto Israelis in testimonium gentium omnium harum
quae exsistunt ab oriente ad occasum.” It will be seen that the Title of
_Dominion_ (ὁ Κύριος—the LORD) is found in neither of these fabricated
passages; but the Names of _Nativity_ and of _Baptism_ (Ἰησοῦς and
Χριστός—JESUS and CHRIST) occur instead.

(ii.) Then further:—It is an extraordinary note of genuineness that such a
vast number of minute but important facts should be found accumulated
within the narrow compass of these twelve verses; and should be met with
_nowhere else_. The writer,—supposing that he had only S. Matthew’s Gospel
before him,—traverses (except in one single instance) _wholly new ground_;
moves forward with unmistakable boldness and a rare sense of security; and
wherever he plants his foot, it is to enrich the soil with fertility and
beauty. But on the supposition that he wrote after S. Luke’s and S. John’s
Gospel had appeared,—the marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold: for how
then does it come to pass that he evidently draws his information from
quite independent sources? is not bound by any of their statements? even
seems _purposely_ to break away from their guidance, and to adventure some
extraordinary statement of his own,—which nevertheless carries the true
Gospel savour with it; and is felt to be authentic from the very
circumstance that no one would have ever dared to invent such a detail and
put it forth on his own responsibility?

(iii.) Second to no indication that this entire section of the Gospel has
a Divine original, I hold to be a famous expression which (like πρώτη
σαββάτου) has occasioned general offence: I mean, the designation of Mary
Magdalene as one “out of whom” the LORD “had cast seven devils;” and
_that_, in immediate connexion with the record of her august privilege of
being the first of the Human Race to behold His risen form. There is such
profound Gospel significancy;—such sublime improbability,—such exquisite
pathos in this record,—that I would defy any fabricator, be he who he
might, to have achieved it. This has been to some extent pointed out
already.(320)

(iv.) It has also been pointed out, (but the circumstance must be by all
means here insisted upon afresh,) that the designation (found in ver. 10)
of the little company of our LORD’S followers,—“τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ
γενομένοις,”—is another rare note of veracious origin. No one but S.
Mark,—or just such an one as he,—would or could have so accurately
designated the little band of Christian men and women who, unconscious of
their bliss, were “mourning and weeping” till after sunrise on the first
Easter Day. The reader is reminded of what has been already offered on
this subject, at p. 155-6.

(v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but S. Mark, (or such
an one as he(321)), would have familiarly designated the Apostolic body as
“αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἔνδεκα,” in ver. 14. The phrase οἱ δώδεκα, he uses in
proportion _far_ oftener than any other two of the Evangelists.(322) And
it is evident that the phrase οἱ ἕνδεκα soon became an equally recognised
designation of the Apostolic body,—“from which Judas by transgression
fell.” Its familiar introduction into this place by the second Evangelist
is exactly what one might have looked for, or at least what one is fully
prepared to meet with, _in him_.

(vi.) I will close this enumeration by calling attention to an unobtrusive
and unobserved verb in the last of these verses which (I venture to say)
it would never have entered into the mind of any ordinary writer to employ
in that particular place. I allude to the familiar word ἐξελθόντες.

The precise meaning of the expression,—depending on the known force of the
preposition with which the verb is compounded,—can scarcely be missed by
any one who, on the one hand, is familiar with the Evangelical method; on
the other, is sufficiently acquainted with the Gospel History. Reference
is certainly made to the final departure of the Apostolic body _out of the
city of Jerusalem_.(323) And tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein
contained a recollection of our SAVIOUR’S command to His Apostles, twice
expressly recorded by S. Luke, “that they should _not depart from
Jerusalem_, but wait for the promise of the FATHER.” “Behold,” (said He,)
“I send the promise of My FATHER upon you: but _tarry ye in the city of
Jerusalem_, until ye be endued with power from on high.”(324)... After
many days “_they went forth_” or “_out_.” S. Mark, (or perhaps it is
rather S. Peter,) expressly says so,—ἐξελθόντες. Aye, and _that_ was a
memorable “outgoing,” truly! What else was its purpose but the
evangelization of the World?

VII. Let this suffice, then, concerning the evidence derived from Internal
considerations. But lest it should hereafter be reckoned as an omission,
and imputed to me as a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged
_Inconsistency_ of certain statements contained in these “Twelve Verses”
with the larger notices contained in the parallel narratives of S. Luke
and S. John,—I proceed briefly to explain _why_ I am silent on this head.

1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other words,—what I
should propose to myself as the end to be attained by what I wrote. For,

2. What would be gained by demonstrating,—(as I am of course prepared to
do,)—that there is really _no inconsistency whatever_ between anything
which S. Mark here says, and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should
have proved that,—(assuming the _other_ Evangelical narratives to be
authentic, i.e. historically true,)—the narrative before us cannot be
objected to on the score of its not being authentic also. But _by whom_ is
such proof required?

(_a_) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally to be met
with in the Evangelical narratives. In _their_ estimation, _the
genuineness of an inspired writing_ is a thing not in the least degree
rendered suspicious by the erroneousness of its statements. According to
them, the narrative may exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may
yet be the work of S. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but “trifling,” and
the inaccuracies “minute,”—these “sound Theologians,” (for so they style
themselves,(325)) “have no dread whatever of acknowledging” their
existence. Be it so. Then would it be a gratuitous task to set about
convincing _them_ that no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable
within the compass of these Twelve concluding Verses.

(_b_) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers; who, for
want of the requisite Scientific knowledge, are unable to discern the
perfect Harmony of the Evangelical narratives in this place. It is only
one of many places where a primâ facie discrepancy, though it does not
fail to strike,—yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them.
Consciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with themselves somewhat
as follows:—"GOD’S Word, like all GOD’S other Works, (and I am taught to
regard GOD’S Word as a very masterpiece of creative skill;)—the blessed
Gospel, I say, is _full_ of difficulties. And yet those difficulties are
observed invariably to disappear under competent investigation. Can I
seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill were brought to bear on
the highly elliptical portion of narrative contained in these Twelve
Verses, it would present no exception to a rule which is observed to be
else universal; and that any apparent inconsistency between S. Mark’s
statements in this place, and those of S. Luke and S. John, would also be
found to be imaginary only?"

This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon a prolonged
Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion of _the Principles
of Gospel Harmony_,—for which the present would clearly not be the proper
place.

VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,—

1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from “Style,” (in itself a
highly fallacious test,) disappears under investigation.

It has been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the style of S. Mark
xvi. 9-20 is exceedingly like the style of S. Mark i. 9-20; and therefore,
that _it is rendered probable by the Style_ that the Author of the
beginning of this Gospel was also the Author of the end of it.

2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument from “Phraseology,”—(in
itself, a most unsatisfactory test; and as it has been applied to the
matter in hand, a very coarse and clumsy one;)—breaks down hopelessly
under severe analysis.

Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circumstances in the
Phraseology of these Twelve Verses, it has been proved (pp. 170-3) that in
twenty-seven particulars there emerge _corroborative considerations_.

3. Lastly, I have shewn that a loftier method of Criticism is at hand; and
that, tested by this truer, more judicious, and more philosophical
standard; _a presumption_ of the highest order is created _that these
Verses must needs be the work of S. Mark_.

CHAPTER X.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO
THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.

The Lectionary of the East shewn to be a work of extraordinary
antiquity (p. 195).—Proved to be older than any extant MS. of the
Gospels, by an appeal to the Fathers (p. 198).—In this Lectionary,
(and also in the Lectionary of the West,) the last Twelve Verses
of S. Mark’s Gospel have, from the first, occupied a most
conspicuous, as well as most honourable place, (p. 204.)—Now, this
becomes the testimony of ante-Nicene Christendom in their favour
(p. 209.)

I have reserved for the last the testimony of THE LECTIONARIES, which has
been hitherto all but entirely overlooked;(326)—passed by without so much
as a word of comment, by those who have preceded me in this inquiry. Yet
is it, when rightly understood, altogether decisive of the question at
issue. And why? Because it is not the testimony rendered by a solitary
father or by a solitary MS.; no, nor even the testimony yielded by a
single Church, or by a single family of MSS. But it is _the united
testimony of all the Churches_. It is therefore the evidence borne by a
“goodly fellowship of Prophets,” a “noble array of Martyrs” indeed; as
well as by _MSS. innumerable which have long since perished_, but which
must of necessity once have been. And so, it comes to us like the voice of
many waters: dates, (as I shall shew by-and-by,) from a period of
altogether immemorial antiquity: is endorsed by the sanction of all the
succeeding ages: admits of neither doubt nor evasion. This subject, in
order that it may be intelligibly handled, will be most conveniently
approached by some remarks which shall rehearse the matter from the
beginning.

The Christian Church succeeded to the Jewish. The younger society
inherited the traditions of the elder, not less as a measure of necessity
than as a matter of right; and by a kind of sacred instinct conformed
itself from the very beginning in countless particulars to its
divinely-appointed model. The same general Order of Service went on
unbroken,—conducted by a Priesthood whose spiritual succession was at
least as jealously guarded as had been the natural descent from Aaron in
the Church of the Circumcision.(327) It was found that “the Sacraments of
the Jews are [but] types of ours.”(328) Still were David’s Psalms
antiphonally recited, and the voices of “Moses and the Prophets” were
heard in the sacred assemblies of God’s people “every Sabbath day.”
Canticle succeeded to Canticle; while many a Versicle simply held its
ground. The congenial utterances of the chosen race passed readily into
the service of the family of the redeemed. Unconsciously perhaps, the very
method of the one became adopted by the other: as, for example, the method
of beginning a festival from the “Eve” of the preceding Day. The
Synagogue-worship became transfigured; but it did not part with one of its
characteristic features. Above all, the same three great Festivals were
still retained which declare “the rock whence we are hewn and the hole of
the pit whence we are digged:” only was it made a question, a controversy
rather, whether Easter should or should not be celebrated _with the
Jews_.(329)

But it is the faithful handing on to the Christian community of _the
Lectionary practice_ of the Synagogue to which the reader’s attention is
now exclusively invited. That the Christian Church inherited from the
Jewish the practice of reading a first and a second Lesson in its public
assemblies, is demonstrable. What the Synagogue practice was in the time
of the Apostles is known from Acts xiii. 15, 27. Justin Martyr, (A.D. 150)
describes the Christian practice in his time as precisely similar:(330)
only that for “the Law,” there is found to have been at once substituted
“the Gospel.” He speaks of the writings of “_the Apostles_” and of “the
Prophets.” Chrysostom has the same expression (for the two Lessons) in one
of his Homilies.(331) Cassian (A.D. 400) says that in Egypt, after the
Twelve Prayers at Vespers and at Matins, two Lessons were read, one out of
the Old Testament and the other out of the New. But _on Saturdays_ and
_Sundays_, and the fifty days of Pentecost, both Lessons were from the New
Testament,—one from the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles; the other,
from the Gospels.(332) Our own actual practice seems to bear a striking
resemblance to that of the Christian Church at the earliest period: for we
hear of (1) “Moses and the Prophets,” (which will have been the carrying
on of the old synagogue-method, represented by our first and second
Lesson,)—(2) a lesson out of the “Epistles or Acts,” together with a
lesson out of the “Gospels.”(333) It is, in fact, universally received
that the Eastern Church has, from a period of even Apostolic antiquity,
enjoyed a Lectionary,—or established system of Scripture lessons,—of her
own. In its conception, this Lectionary is discovered to have been
fashioned (as was natural) upon the model of the Lectionary of God’s
ancient people, the Jews: for it commences, as theirs did, _in the
autumn_, (in September(334)); and prescribes two immovable “Lections” for
every _Saturday_ (as well as for every Sunday) in the year: differing
chiefly in this,—that the prominent place which had been hitherto assigned
to “the Law and the Prophets,”(335) was henceforth enjoyed by the Gospels
and the Apostolic writings. “Saturday-Sunday” lections—(σαββατοκυριακαί,
for so these Lections were called,)—retain their place in the “Synaxarium”
of the East to the present hour. It seems also a singular note of
antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday succeeding it do as it were
cohere, and bear one appellation; so that the week takes its name—_not_
from the Sunday with which it commences,(336) but—from the
Sabbath-and-Sunday with which _it concludes_. To mention only one out of a
hundred minute traits of identity which the public Service of the
sanctuary retained:—Easter Eve, which from the earliest period to this day
has been called “μέγα σάββατον,”(337) is discovered to have borne the
self-same appellation in the Church of the Circumcision.(338)—If I do not
enter more minutely into the structure of the Oriental Lectionary,—(some
will perhaps think I have said too much, but the interest of the subject
ought to be a sufficient apology,)—it is because further details would be
irrelevant to my present purpose; which is only to call attention to the
three following facts:

(I.) That the practice in the Christian Church of reading publicly before
the congregation certain fixed portions of Holy Writ, according to an
established and generally received rule, must have existed from a period
long anterior to the date of any known Greek copy of the New Testament
Scriptures.

(II.) That although there happens to be extant neither “Synaxarium,” (i.e.
Table of Proper Lessons of the Greek Church), nor “Evangelistarium,” (i.e.
Book containing the Ecclesiastical Lections _in extenso_), of higher
antiquity than the viiith century,—yet that the scheme itself, as
exhibited by those monuments,—certainly in every essential particular,—is
older than any known Greek MS. which contains it, by _at least_ four, in
fact by full _five_ hundred years.

(III.) Lastly,—That in the said Lectionaries of the Greek and of the
Syrian Churches, the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark which are the
subject of discussion throughout the present pages are observed
_invariably_ to occupy the same singularly conspicuous, as well as most
honourable place.

I. The first of the foregoing propositions is an established fact. It is
at least quite certain that in the ivth century (if not long before) there
existed a known Lectionary system, alike in the Church of the East and of
the West. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 348,) having to speak about our LORD’s
Ascension, remarks that by a providential coincidence, on the previous
day, which was Sunday, the event had formed the subject of the appointed
lessons;(339) and that he had availed himself of the occasion to discourse
largely on the subject.—Chrysostom, preaching at Antioch, makes it plain
that, in the latter part of the ivth century, the order of the lessons
which were publicly read in the Church _on Saturdays and Sundays_(340) was
familiarly known to the congregation: for he invites them to sit down, and
study attentively beforehand, at home, the Sections (περικοπάς) of the
Gospel which they were about to hear in Church.(341)—Augustine is express
in recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for Festival
days;(342) and that an innovation which he had attempted on Good Friday
had given general offence.(343)—Now by these few notices, to look no
further, it is rendered certain that a Lectionary system of _some_ sort
must have been in existence at a period long anterior to the date of any
copy of the New Testament Scriptures extant. I shall shew by-and-by that
the fact is established by the Codices (B, א, A, C, D) themselves.

But we may go back further yet; for not only Eusebius, but Origen and
Clemens Alexandrinus, by their habitual use of the technical term for an
Ecclesiastical Lection (περικοπή, ἀνάγνωσις, ἀνάγνωσμα,) remind us that
the Lectionary practice of the East was already established in their
days.(344)

II. The Oriental Lectionary consists of “Synaxarion” and “Eclogadion,” (or
Tables of Proper Lessons from the Gospels and Apostolic writings daily
throughout the year;) together with “Menologion,” (or Calendar of
immovable Festivals and Saints’ Days.) That we are thoroughly acquainted
with all of these, as exhibited in Codices of the viiith, ixth and xth
centuries,—is a familiar fact; in illustration of which it is enough to
refer the reader to the works cited at the foot of the page.(345) But it
is no less certain that the scheme of Proper Lessons itself is of much
higher antiquity.

1. The proof of this, if it could only be established by an induction of
particular instances, would not only be very tedious, but also very
difficult indeed. It will be perceived, on reflection, that even when the
occasion of a Homily (suppose) is actually recorded, the Scripture
references which it contains, apart from the Author’s statement that what
he quotes _had_ formed part of that day’s Service, creates scarcely so
much as a presumption of the fact: while the correspondence, however
striking, between such references to Scripture and the Lectionary as we
have it, is of course no proof whatever that we are so far in possession
of the Lectionary of the Patristic age. Nay, on famous Festivals, the
employment of certain passages of Scripture is, in a manner,
inevitable,(346) and may on no account be pressed.

2. Thus, when Chrysostom(347) and when Epiphanius,(348) preaching on
Ascension Day, refer to Acts i. 10, 11,—we do not feel ourselves warranted
to press the coincidence of such a quotation with the Liturgical section
of the day.—So, again, when Chrysostom preaches on Christmas Day, and
quotes from S. Matthew ii. 1, 2;(349) or on Whitsunday, and quotes from S.
John vii. 38 and Acts ii. 3 and 13;—though both places form part of the
Liturgical sections for the day, no _proof_ results therefrom that either
chapter was actually used.

3. But we are not reduced to this method. It is discovered that nearly
three-fourths of Chrysostom’s Homilies on S. Matthew either begin at the
first verse of _a known Ecclesiastical Lection_; or else at the first
ensuing verse after the close of one. Thirteen of those Homilies in
succession (the 63rd to the 75th inclusive) begin with _the first words of
as many known Lections_. “Let us attend to this delightful section
(περικοπή) which we never cease turning to,”—are the opening words of
Chrysostom’s 79th Homily, of which “the text” is S. Matth. xxv. 31, i.e.
the beginning of the Gospel for Sexagesima Sunday.—Cyril of Alexandria’s
(so called) “Commentary on S. Luke” is nothing else but a series of short
Sermons, for the most part delivered on _known Ecclesiastical Lections_;
which does not seem to have been as yet observed.—Augustine (A.D. 416)
says expressly that he had handled S. John’s Gospel in precisely the same
way.(350)—All this is significant in a high degree.

4. I proceed, however, to adduce a few distinct proofs that the existing
Lectionary of the great Eastern Church,—as it is exhibited by Matthaei, by
Scholz, and by Scrivener from MSS. of the viiith century,—and which is
contained in Syriac MSS. of the vith and viith—must needs be in the main a
work of extraordinary antiquity. And if I do not begin by insisting that
at least one century more may be claimed for it by a mere appeal to the
Hierosolymitan Version, it is only because I will never knowingly admit
what may prove to be untrustworthy materials(351) into my foundations.

(_a_) “Every one is aware,” (says Chrysostom in a sermon on our SAVIOUR’S
Baptism, preached at Antioch, A.D. 387,) “that this is called the Festival
of the Epiphany. Two manifestations are thereby intended: concerning both
of which _you have heard this day S. Paul discourse in his Epistle to
Titus_.”(352) Then follows a quotation from ch. ii. 11 to 13,—which proves
to be the beginning of the lection for the day in the Greek Menology. In
the time of Chrysostom, therefore, Titus ii. 11, 12, 13 formed part of one
of the Epiphany lessons,—as it does to this hour in the Eastern Church.
What is scarcely less interesting, it is also found to have been part of
the Epistle for the Epiphany in the old Gallican Liturgy,(353) the
affinities of which with the East are well known.

(_b_) Epiphanius (speaking of the Feasts of the Church) says, that at the
Nativity, a Star shewed that the WORD had become incarnate: at the
“Theophania” (_our_ “Epiphany”) John cried, “Behold the Lamb of GOD,” &c.,
and a Voice from Heaven proclaimed Him at His Baptism. Accordingly, S.
Matth. ii. 1-12 is found to be the ancient lection for Christmas Day: S.
Mark i. 9-11 and S. Matth. iii. 13-17 the lections for Epiphany. On the
morrow, was read S. John i. 29-34.

(_c_) In another of his Homilies, Chrysostom explains with considerable
emphasis the reason why the Book of the Acts was read publicly in Church
during the interval between Easter and Pentecost; remarking, that it had
been the liturgical arrangement of a yet earlier age.(354)—After such an
announcement, it becomes a very striking circumstance that Augustine also
(A.D. 412) should be found to bear witness to the prevalence of the same
liturgical arrangement in the African Church.(355) In the old Gallican
Lectionary, as might have been expected, the same rule is recognisable. It
ought to be needless to add that the same arrangement is observed
universally to prevail in the Lectionaries both of the East and of the
West to the present hour; although the fact must have been lost sight of
by the individuals who recently, under pretence of “_making some
advantageous alterations_” in our Lectionary, have constructed an entirely
new one,—vicious in principle and liable to the gravest objections
throughout,—whereby _this_ link also which bound the Church of England to
the practice of Primitive Christendom, has been unhappily broken; _this_
note of Catholicity also has been effaced.(356)

(_d_) The purely arbitrary arrangement, (as Mr. Scrivener phrases it), by
which the Book of Genesis, instead of the Gospel, is appointed to be
read(357) on the _week_ days of Lent, is discovered to have been fully
recognised in the time of Chrysostom. Accordingly, the two series of
Homilies on the Book of Genesis which that Father preached, he preached in
Lent.(358)

(_e_) It will be seen in the next chapter that it was from a very remote
period the practice of the Eastern Church to introduce into the lesson for
Thursday in Holy-week, S. Luke’s account (ch. xxii. 43, 44) of our LORD’S
“Agony and bloody Sweat,” _immediately after S. Matth._ xxvi. 39. _That_
is, no doubt, the reason why Chrysostom,—who has been suspected, (I think
unreasonably,) of employing an Evangelistarium instead of a copy of the
Gospels in the preparation of his Homilies, is observed to quote those
same two verses in that very place in his Homily on S. Matthew;(359) which
shews that the Lectionary system of the Eastern Church in this respect is
at least as old as the ivth century.

(_f_) The same two verses used to be _left out_ on the Tuesday after
Sexagesima (τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου) for which day S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1,
is the appointed lection. And _this_ explains why Cyril (A.D. 425) in his
Homilies on S. Luke, passes them by in silence.(360)

But we can carry back the witness to the Lectionary practice of omitting
these verses, at least a hundred years; for Cod. B, (evidently for that
same reason,) _also_ omits them, as was stated above, in p. 79. They are
wanting also in the Thebaic version, which is of the iiird century.

(_g_) It will be found suggested in the next chapter (page 218) that the
piercing of our LORD’S side, (S. John xix. 34),—thrust into Codd. B and א
immediately after S. Matth. xxvii. 49,—is probably indebted for its place
in those two MSS. to the Eastern Lectionary practice. If this suggestion
be well founded, a fresh proof is obtained that the Lectionary of the East
was fully established in the beginning of the ivth century. But see
Appendix (H).

(_h_) It is a remarkable note of the antiquity of that Oriental Lectionary
system with which we are acquainted, that S. Matthew’s account of the
Passion (ch. xxvii. 1-61,) should be there appointed to be read _alone_ on
the evening of Good Friday. Chrysostom clearly alludes to this
practice;(361) which Augustine expressly states was also the practice in
his own day.(362) Traces of the same method are discoverable in the old
Gallican Lectionary.(363)

(_i_) Epiphanius, (or the namesake of his who was the author of a
well-known Homily on Palm Sunday,) remarks that “yesterday” had been read
the history of the rising of Lazarus.(364) Now S. John xi. 1-45 is the
lection for the antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries.

(_k_) In conclusion, I may be allowed so far to anticipate what will be
found fully established in the next chapter, as to point out here that
since in countless places the text of our oldest Evangelia as well as the
readings of the primitive Fathers exhibit unmistakable traces of the
corrupting influence of the Lectionary practice, _that_ very fact becomes
irrefragable evidence of the antiquity of the Lectionary which is the
occasion of it. Not only must it be more ancient than Cod. B or Cod. א,
(which are referred to the beginning of the ivth century), but it must be
older than Origen in the iiird century, or the Vetus Itala and the Syriac
in the iind. And thus it is demonstrated, (1st) That fixed Lessons were
read in the Churches of the East in the immediately post-Apostolic age;
and (2ndly) That, wherever we are able to test it, the Lectionary of that
remote period corresponded with the Lectionary which has come down to us
in documents of the vith and viith century, and was in fact constructed in
precisely the same way.

I am content in fact to dismiss the preceding instances with this general
remark:—that a System which is found to have been fully recognised
throughout the East and throughout the West in the beginning of the fourth
century, _must of necessity have been established very long before_. It is
as when we read of three British Bishops attending the Council at Arles,
A.D. 314. The Church (we say) which could send out those three Bishops
must have been _fully organized_ at a greatly antecedent period.

4. Let us attend, however, to the great Festivals of the Church. These are
declared by Chrysostom (in a Homily delivered at Antioch 20 Dec. A.D. 386)
to be the five following:—(1) Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3) Pascha:
(4) Ascension: (5) Pentecost.(365) Epiphanius, his contemporary, (Bishop
of Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the same enumeration,(366)
in a Homily on the Ascension.(367) In the Apostolical Constitutions, the
same five Festivals are enumerated.(368) Let me state a few Liturgical
facts in connexion with each of these.

It is plain that the preceding enumeration could not have been made at any
earlier period: for the Epiphany of our SAVIOUR and His Nativity were
originally but one Festival.(369) Moreover, the circumstances are well
known under which Chrysostom (A.D. 386) announced to his Eastern auditory
that in conformity with what had been correctly ascertained at Rome, the
ancient Festival was henceforth to be disintegrated.(370) But this is not
material to the present inquiry. We know that, as a matter of fact, “the
Epiphanies” (for τὰ ἐπιφανία is the name of the Festival) became in
consequence distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5: our LORD’S _Baptism_
being the event chiefly commemorated on the latter anniversary,(371)—which
used to be chiefly observed in honour of His _Birth_(372)—Concerning the
Lessons for Passion-tide and Easter, as well as concerning those for the
Nativity and Epiphany, something has been offered already; to which may be
added that Hesychius, in the opening sentences of that “Homily” which has
already engaged so much of our attention,(373) testifies that the
conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel was in his days, as it has been ever since,
one of the lections for Easter. He begins by saying that the Evangelical
narratives of the Resurrection were read on the Sunday night; and proceeds
to reconcile _S. Mark’s_ with the rest.—Chrysostom once and again adverts
to the practice of discontinuing the reading of the Acts after
Pentecost,(374)—which is observed to be also the method of the
Lectionaries.

III. I speak separately of the Festival of the Ascension, for an obvious
reason. It ranked, as we have seen, in the estimation of Primitive
Christendom, with the greatest Festivals of the Church. Augustine, in a
well-known passage, hints that it may have been of Apostolical
origin;(375) so exceedingly remote was its institution accounted in the
days of the great African Father, as well as so entirely forgotten by that
time was its first beginning. I have to shew that in the Great Oriental
Lectionary (whether of the Greek or of the Syrian Church) the last Twelve
Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel occupy a conspicuous as well as a most
honourable place. And this is easily done: for,

(_a_) The Lesson for Matins _on Ascension-Day_ in the East, in the oldest
documents to which we have access, consisted (as now it does) of _the last
Twelve Verses_,—neither more nor less,—of S. Mark’s Gospel. At the Liturgy
on Ascension was read S. Luke xxiv. 36-53: but at Matins, S. Mark xvi.
9-20. The witness of the “Synaxaria” is constant to this effect.

(_b_) The same lection precisely was adopted among the Syrians by the
Melchite Churches,(376)—(the party, viz. which maintained the decrees of
the Council of Chalcedon): and it is found appointed also in the
“Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.”(377) In the Evangelistarium used in the
Jacobite, (i.e. the Monophysite) Churches of Syria, a striking difference
of arrangement is discoverable. While S. Luke xxiv. 36-53 was read at
Vespers and at Matins on Ascension Day, _the last seven_ verses of S.
Mark’s Gospel (ch. xvi. 14-20) were read _at the Liturgy_.(378) Strange,
that the self-same Gospel should have been adopted at a remote age by some
of the Churches of the West,(379) and should survive in our own Book of
Common Prayer to this hour!

(_c_) But S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was not only appointed by the Greek Church to
be read upon Ascension Day. Those same twelve verses constitute the third
of the xi “_Matin Gospels of the Resurrection_” which were universally
held in high esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian(380)), and
were read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the year; as well
as daily throughout Easter week.

(_d_) A rubricated copy of S. Mark’s Gospel in Syriac,(381) _certainly
older than _A.D. 583, attests that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was the “Lection for
the great First Day of the week,” (μεγάλη κυριακή, i.e. Easter Day). Other
copies almost as ancient(382) add that it was used “at the end of the
Service at the dawn.”

(_e_) Further, these same “Twelve Verses” constituted the Lesson at Matins
for _the 2nd Sunday after Easter_,—a Sunday which by the Greeks is called
κυριακή τῶν μυροφόρων, but with the Syrians bore the names of “Joseph and
Nicodemus.”(383) So also in the “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.”

(_f_) Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark xvi. 9-18 (or
9-20(384)) was also read at Matins on _Easter-Tuesday_.(385) In the
Gallican Church, the third lection for _Easter-Monday_ extended from S.
Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 11: for _Easter-Tuesday_, from xvi. 12 to the end of
the Gospel.(386) Augustine says that in Africa also these concluding
verses of S. Mark’s Gospel used to be publicly read _at Easter tide_.(387)
The same verses (beginning with ver. 9) are indicated in the oldest extant
Lectionary of the Roman Church.(388)

(_g_) Lastly, it may be stated that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was with the Greeks
the Gospel for the Festival of S. Mary Magdalene (ἡ μυροφόρος), July
22.(389)

_He_ knows wondrous little about this department of Sacred Science who can
require to be informed that such a weight of _public_ testimony as this to
the last Twelve Verses of a Gospel is simply overwhelming. The single
discovery that in the age of Augustine [385-430] this portion of S. Mark’s
Gospel was unquestionably read at Easter in the Churches of Africa, added
to the express testimony of the Author of the 2nd Homily on the
Resurrection, and of the oldest Syriac MSS., that they were also read by
the Orientals at Easter in the public services of the Church, must be held
to be in a manner decisive of the question.

Let the evidence, then, which is borne by Ecclesiastical usage to the
genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, be summed up, and the entire case caused
again to pass under review.

(1.) That Lessons from the New Testament were publicly read in the
assemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an
established system, _at least_ as early as the fourth century,—has been
shewn to be a plain historical fact. Cyril, at Jerusalem,—(and by
implication, his namesake at Alexandria,)—Chrysostom, at Antioch and at
Constantinople,—Augustine, in Africa,—all four expressly witness to the
circumstance. In other words, there is found to have been _at least at
that time_ fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom a
Lectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and the same in the
West(390) and in the East. That it must have been of even Apostolic
antiquity may be inferred from several considerations. But that it dates
its beginning from a period _anterior to the age of __ Eusebius,—which is
the age of Codices B and_ א,—at least admits of _no_ controversy.

(2.) Next,—Documents of the vith century put us in possession of the great
Oriental Lectionary as it is found at that time to have universally
prevailed throughout the vast unchanging East. In other words, several of
the actual Service Books, in Greek and in Syriac,(391) have survived the
accidents of full a thousand years: and rubricated copies of the Gospels
carry us back three centuries further. The entire agreement which is
observed to prevail among these several documents,—added to the fact that
when tested by the allusions incidentally made by Greek Fathers of the
ivth century to what was the Ecclesiastical practice of their own time,
there are found to emerge countless as well as highly significant notes of
correspondence,—warrants us in believing, (in the absence of testimony of
any sort to the contrary,) that the Lectionary we speak of differs in no
essential respect from that system of Lections with which the Church of
the ivth century was universally acquainted.

Nothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in the course of the
present inquiry than the fact, that documents alone are wanting to make
_that_ altogether demonstrable which, in default of such evidence, must
remain a matter of inevitable inference only. The forms we are pursuing at
last disappear from our sight: but it is only the mist of the early
morning which shrouds them. We still hear their voices: still track their
footsteps: know that others still see them, although we ourselves see them
no longer. We are sure that _there they still are_. Moreover they may yet
reappear at any moment. Thus, there exist Syriac MSS. of the Gospels of
the viith and even of the vith century, in which the Lessons are
rubricated in the text or on the margin. A Syriac MS. (of part of the Old
T.) is actually _dated_ A.D. 464.(392) Should an Evangelium of similar
date ever come to light of which the rubrication was evidently by the
original Scribe, the evidence of the Lectionaries would at once be carried
back full three hundred years.

But in fact we stand in need of no such testimony. Acceptable as it would
be, it is plain that it would add no strength to the argument whatever. We
are already able to plant our footsteps securely in the ivth and even in
the iiird century. It is not enough to insist that inasmuch as the
Liturgical method of Christendom was at least fully established in the
East and in the West at the close of the ivth century, it therefore must
have had its beginning at a far remoter period. Our two oldest Codices (B
and א) bear witness throughout to the corrupting influence of a system
which was evidently in full operation before the time of Eusebius. And
even this is not all. The readings in Origen, and of the earliest versions
of the Gospel, (the old Latin, the Syriac, the Egyptian versions,) carry
back our evidence on this subject unmistakably to _the age immediately
succeeding that of the Apostles_. This will be found established in the
course of the ensuing Chapter.

Beginning our survey of the problem at the opposite end, we arrive at the
same result; with even a deepened conviction that in its essential
structure, the Lectionary of the Eastern Church must be of truly primitive
antiquity: indeed that many of its leading provisions must date back
almost,—nay _quite_,—to the Apostolic age. From whichever side we approach
this question,—whatever test we are able to apply to our premisses,—our
conclusion remains still the very same.

(3.) Into this Lectionary then,—so universal in its extent, so consistent
in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,—“_the_ LAST TWELVE VERSES
_of the Gospel according to S. Mark_” from the very first are found to
have won for themselves not only an entrance, a lodgment, an established
place; but, _the place of highest honour_,—an audience on two of the
Church’s chiefest Festivals.

The circumstance is far too important, far too significant to be passed by
without a few words of comment.

For it is not here, (be it carefully observed,) as when we appeal to some
Patristic citation, that the recognition of a phrase, or a verse, or a
couple of verses, must be accepted as a proof that the same ancient Father
recognised the context also in which those words are found. Not so. _All
the Twelve Verses in dispute are found in every known copy_ of the
venerable Lectionary of the East. _Those same Twelve Verses_,—neither more
nor less,—_are observed to constitute one integral Lection_.

But even this is not all. The most important fact seems to be that to
these Verses has been assigned a place of the highest possible
distinction. It is found that, from the very first, S. Mark xvi. 9-20 has
been everywhere, and by all branches of the Church Catholic, claimed for
_two_ of the Church’s greatest Festivals,—Easter and Ascension. A more
weighty or a more significant circumstance can scarcely be imagined. To
suppose that a portion of Scripture singled out for such extraordinary
honour by the Church universal is a spurious addition to the Gospel, is
purely irrational; is simply monstrous. No unauthorized “fragment,”
however “remarkable,” could by possibility have so established itself in
the regards of the East and of the West, from the very first. No suspected
“addition, placed here in very early times,” would have been tolerated in
the Church’s solemn public Service six or seven times a-year. No. _It is
impossible._ Had it been one short clause which we were invited to
surrender: a verse: two verses: even three or four:—the plea being that
(as in the case of the celebrated _pericopa de adulterâ_) the Lectionaries
knew nothing of them:—the case would have been entirely different. But for
any one to seek to persuade us that these Twelve Verses, which exactly
constitute one of the Church’s most famous Lections, are every one of them
spurious:—that the fatal taint begins with the first verse, and only ends
with the last:—_this_ is a demand on our simplicity which, in a less
solemn subject, would only provoke a smile. We are constrained to testify
astonishment and even some measure of concern. Have the Critics then,
(supposing them to be familiar with the evidence which has now been set
forth so much in detail;)—Have the Critics then, (we ask) utterly taken
leave of their senses? or do they really suppose that we have taken leave
of ours?

It is time to close this discussion. It was declared at the outset that
the witness of the Lectionaries to the genuineness of these Verses, though
it has been generally overlooked, is the most important of any: admitting,
as it does, of no evasion: being simply, as it is, decisive. I have now
fully explained the grounds of that assertion. I have set the Verses,
which I undertook to vindicate and establish, on a basis from which it
will be found impossible any more to dislodge them. Whatever Griesbach,
and Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and the rest, may think about the
matter,—the Holy Eastern Church in her corporate capacity, has never been
of their opinion. _They_ may doubt. _The ante-Nicene Fathers_ at least
never doubted. If “the last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark were _deservedly_
omitted from certain Copies of his Gospel in the ivth century, utterly
incredible is it that these same TWELVE VERSES should have been
disseminated, by their authority, throughout Christendom;—read, by their
command, in all the Churches;—selected, by their collective judgment, from
the whole body of Scripture for the special honour of being listened to
once and again at EASTER time, as well as on ASCENSION-DAY.

CHAPTER XI.

THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES OF THE
GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.

The Text of our five oldest Uncials proved, by an induction of
instances, to have suffered depravation throughout by the
operation of the ancient Lectionary system of the Church (p.
217).—The omission of S. Mark’s “last Twelve Verses,”
(constituting an integral Ecclesiastical Lection,) shewn to be
probably only one more example of the same depraving influence (p.
224). This solution of the problem corroborated by the language of
Eusebius and of Hesychius (p. 232); as well as favoured by the
“Western” order of the Gospels (p. 239).

I am much mistaken if the suggestion which I am about to offer has not
already presented itself to every reader of ordinary intelligence who has
taken the trouble to follow the course of my argument thus far with
attention. It requires no acuteness whatever,—it is, as it seems to me,
the merest instinct of mother-wit,—on reaching the present stage of the
discussion, to debate with oneself somewhat as follows:—

1. So then, the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel were anciently
often observed to be missing from the copies. Eusebius expressly says so.
I observe that he nowhere says that _their genuineness_ was anciently
_suspected_. As for himself, his elaborate discussion of their contents
convinces me that individually, he regarded them with favour. The mere
fact,—(it is best to keep to his actual statement,)—that “the entire
passage”(393) was “not met with in all the copies,” is the sum of his
evidence: and two Greek manuscripts, yet extant, supposed to be of the
ivth century (Codd. B and א), mutilated in this precise way, testify to
the truth of his statement.

2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Verses,—neither more
nor less,—anciently constituted _an integral __ Ecclesiastical Lection_;
which lection,—inasmuch as it is found to have established itself in every
part of Christendom at the earliest period to which liturgical evidence
reaches back, and to have been assigned from the very first to two of the
chiefest Church Festivals,—must needs be a lection of almost Apostolic
antiquity. Eusebius, I observe, (see p. 45), designates the portion of
Scripture in dispute by its technical name,—κεφάλαιον or περικοπή; (for so
an Ecclesiastical lection was anciently called). Here then is a rare
coincidence indeed. It is in fact simply unique. Surely, I may add that it
is in the highest degree suggestive also. It inevitably provokes the
inquiry,—Must not these two facts be not only connected, but even
_interdependent_? Will not the omission of the Twelve concluding Verses of
S. Mark from certain ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way
_occasioned by the fact_ that those same twelve verses constituted an
integral Church Lection? How is it possible to avoid suspecting that the
phenomenon to which Eusebius invites attention, (viz. that certain copies
of S. Mark’s Gospel in very ancient times had been mutilated from the end
of the 8th verse onwards,) ought to be capable of illustration,—will have
in fact _to be explained_, and in a word _accounted for_,—by the
circumstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark’s xvith chapter, one ancient
Lection _came to an end_, and another ancient Lection _began_?

Somewhat thus, (I venture to think,) must every unprejudiced Reader of
intelligence hold parley with himself on reaching the close of the
preceding chapter. I need hardly add that I am thoroughly convinced he
would be reasoning rightly. I am going to shew that the Lectionary
practice of the ancient Church does indeed furnish a sufficient clue for
the unravelment of this now famous problem: in other words, enables us
satisfactorily to account for the omission of these Twelve Verses from
ancient copies of the collected Gospels. But I mean to do more. I propose
to make my appeal to documents which shall be observed to bear no
faltering witness in my favour. More yet. I propose that Eusebius himself,
the chief author of all this trouble, shall be brought back into Court and
invited to resyllable his Evidence; and I am much mistaken if even _he_
will not be observed to let fall a hint that we have at last got on the
right scent;—have accurately divined how this mistake took its first
beginning;—and, (what is not least to the purpose,) have correctly
apprehended what was his own real meaning in what he himself has said.

The proposed solution of the difficulty,—if not the evidence on which it
immediately rests,—might no doubt be exhibited within exceedingly narrow
limits. Set down abruptly, however, its weight and value would inevitably
fail to be recognised, even by those who already enjoy some familiarity
with these studies. Very few of the considerations which I shall have to
rehearse are in fact unknown to Critics: yet is it evident that their
bearing on the problem before us has hitherto altogether escaped their
notice. On the other hand, by one entirely a novice to this department of
sacred Science, I could scarcely hope to be so much as understood. Let me
be allowed, therefore, to preface what I have to say with a few
explanatory details which I promise shall not be tedious, and which I
trust will not be found altogether without interest either. If they are
anywhere else to be met with, it is my misfortune, not my fault, that I
have been hitherto unsuccessful in discovering the place.

I. From the earliest ages of the Church, (as I shewed at page 192-5,) it
has been customary to read certain definite portions of Holy Scripture,
determined by Ecclesiastical authority, publicly before the Congregation.
In process of time, as was natural, the sections so required for public
use were collected into separate volumes: Lections from the Gospels being
written out in a Book which was called “_Evangelistarium_,”
(εὐαγγελιστάριον,)—from the Acts and Epistles, in a book called
“_Praxapostolus_,” (πραξαπόστολος). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and
Syriac, are yet extant in great numbers,(394) and (I may remark in
passing) deserve a far greater amount of attention than has hitherto been
bestowed upon them.(395)

_When_ the Lectionary first took the form of a separate book, has not been
ascertained. That no copy is known to exist (whether in Greek or in
Syriac) older than the viiith century, proves nothing. Codices in daily
use, (like the Bibles used in our Churches,) must of necessity have been
of exceptionally brief duration; and Lectionaries, more even than Biblical
MSS. were liable to injury and decay.

II. But it is to be observed,—(and to explain this, is much more to my
present purpose,)—that besides transcribing the Ecclesiastical lections
into separate books, it became the practice at a very early period _to
adapt copies of the Gospel to lectionary purposes_. I suspect that this
practice began in the Churches of Syria; for Syriac copies of the Gospels
(_at least_ of the viith century) abound, which have the Lections more or
less systematically rubricated in the Text.(396) There is in the British
Museum a copy of S. Mark’s Gospel according to the Peshito version,
_certainly written previous to _A.D. 583, which has at least five or six
rubrics so inserted by the original scribe.(397) As a rule, in all later
cursive Greek MSS., (I mean those of the xiith to the xvth century,) the
Ecclesiastical lections are indicated throughout: while either at the
summit, or else at the foot of the page, the formula with which the
Lection was to be introduced is elaborately inserted; prefaced probably by
a rubricated statement (not always very easy to decipher) of the occasion
_when_ the ensuing portion of Scripture was to be read. The ancients, to a
far greater extent than ourselves,(398) were accustomed,—(in fact, they
made it _a rule_,)—to prefix unauthorized formulæ to their public
Lections; and these are sometimes found to have established themselves so
firmly, that at last they became as it were ineradicable; and later
copyists of the fourfold Gospel are observed to introduce them
unsuspiciously into the inspired text.(399) All that belongs to this
subject deserves particular attention; because it is _this_ which explains
not a few of the perturbations (so to express oneself) which the text of
the New Testament has experienced. We are made to understand how, what was
originally intended only as a _liturgical note_, became mistaken, through
the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a _critical
suggestion_; and thus, besides transpositions without number, there has
arisen, at one time, the insertion of something unauthorized into the text
of Scripture,—at another, the omission of certain inspired words, to the
manifest detriment of the sacred deposit. For although the _systematic_
rubrication of the Gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively
recent invention,—(I question if it be older in Greek MSS. than the xth
century,)—yet will persons engaged in the public Services of GOD’S House
have been prone, from the very earliest age, to insert memoranda of the
kind referred to, into the margin of their copies. In this way, in fact,
it may be regarded as certain that in countless minute particulars the
text of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail to add, that by a
judicious, and above all by an _unprejudiced_ use of the materials at our
disposal, it may, even at this distance of time, in every such particular,
be successfully restored.(400)

III. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances, that _even in
the oldest copies in existence_, I mean in Codd. B, א, A, C, and D, the
Lectionary system of the early Church has left abiding traces of its
operation. When a few such undeniable cases have been adduced, all
objections grounded on _primâ facie_ improbability will have been
satisfactorily disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such
a disturbing force and depraving influence, _at least_ as far back as the
beginning of the ivth century, (but it is in fact more ancient by full two
hundred years,) will have been established: of which I shall only have to
shew, in conclusion, that the omission of “the last Twelve Verses” of S.
Mark’s Gospel is probably but one more instance,—though confessedly by far
the most extraordinary of any.

(1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, the two grand verses which
describe our LORD’S “Agony and Bloody Sweat,” (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44,) are
missing. The same two verses are absent also from a few other important
MSS., as well as from both the Egyptian versions; but I desire to fasten
attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place of Codex B.
“Confessedly erring,” I say; for the genuineness of those two verses is no
longer disputed. Now, in every known Evangelistarium, the two verses here
omitted by Cod. B follow, (the Church so willed it,) S. Matth. xxvi. 39,
and are read as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy
Week.(401) Of course they are also _omitted_ in the same Evangelistaria
from the lesson for the Tuesday after Sexagesima, (τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου, as
the Easterns call that day,) when S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1 used to be
read. Moreover, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have been
accommodated to ecclesiastical use, _the reader of S. Luke xxii. is
invariably directed by a marginal note to leave out those two verses_, and
to proceed per saltum from ver. 42 to ver. 45.(402) What more obvious
therefore than that the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in
S. Luke’s Gospel is to be attributed to nothing else but the Lectionary
practice of the primitive Church? Quite unreasonable is it to impute
heretical motives, or to invent any other unsupported theory, while this
plain solution of the difficulty is at hand.

(2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. א, C, L, U and Γ are observed
here to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the SAVIOUR’S side (S. John
xix. 34) at the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. Now, I only do not insist that
this must needs be the result of the singular Lectionary practice already
described at p. 202, because a scholion in Cod. 72 records the singular
fact that in the Diatessaron of Tatian, after S. Matth. xxvii. 48, was
read ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ
αἷμα. (Chrysostom’s codex was evidently vitiated in _precisely_ the same
way.) This interpolation therefore may have resulted from the corrupting
influence of Tatian’s (so-called) “Harmony.” See Appendix (H).

(3.) To keep on safe ground. Codd. B and D concur in what Alford justly
calls the “grave error” of simply omitting from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our
LORD’S supplication on behalf of His murderers, (ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγε, Πάτερ,
ἄφες αὐτοῖς: οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσι). They are not quite singular in so
doing; being, as usual, kept in countenance by certain copies of the old
Latin, as well as by both the Egyptian versions. How is this “grave error”
in so many ancient MSS. to be accounted for? (for a “grave error” or
rather “a fatal omission” it certainly is). Simply by the fact that in the
Eastern Church the Lection for the Thursday after Sexagesima _breaks off
abruptly, immediately before these very words_,—to recommence at ver.
44.(403)

(4.) Note, that at ver. 32, _the eighth _“Gospel of the Passion”_
begins_,—which is the reason why Codd. B and א (with the Egyptian
versions) exhibit a singular irregularity in that place; and why the
Jerusalem Syriac introduces the established formula of the Lectionaries
(σὺν τῷ Ἰησοῦ) at the same juncture.

(If I do not here insist that the absence of the famous _pericopa de
adulterâ_ (S. John vii. 53-viii. 11,) from so many MSS., is to be
explained in precisely the same way, it is only because the genuineness of
that portion of the Gospel is generally denied; and I propose, in this
enumeration of instances, not to set foot on disputed ground. I am
convinced, nevertheless, that the first occasion of the omission of those
memorable verses was the lectionary practice of the primitive Church,
which, on Whitsunday, read from S. John vii. 37 to viii. 12, _leaving out
the twelve verses_ in question. Those verses, from the nature of their
contents, (as Augustine declares,) easily came to be viewed with dislike
or suspicion. The passage, however, is as old as the second century, for
it is found in certain copies of the old Latin. Moreover Jerome
deliberately gave it a place in the Vulgate. I pass on.)

(5.) The two oldest Codices in existence,—B and א,—stand all but alone in
omitting from S. Luke vi. 1 the unique and indubitably genuine word
δευτεροπρώτῳ; which is also omitted by the Peshito, Italic and Coptic
versions. And yet, when it is observed that an _Ecclesiastical lection
begins here_, and that the Evangelistaria (which _invariably_ leave out
such notes of time) simply drop the word,—only substituting for ἐν σαββάτῳ
the more familiar τοῖς σάββασι,—every one will be ready to admit that if
the omission of this word be not due to the inattention of the copyist,
(which, however, seems to me not at all unlikely,(404)) it is sufficiently
explained by the Lectionary practice of the Church,—which may well date
back even to the immediately post-Apostolic age.

(6.) In S. Luke xvi. 19, Cod. D introduces the Parable of Lazarus with the
formula,—εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἑτέραν παραβολήν; which is nothing else but a
marginal note which has found its way into the text from the margin; being
_the liturgical introduction of a Church-lesson_(405) which afterwards
began εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην.(406)

(7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv. begin with _the
liturgical formula_,—(it survives in our Book of Common Prayer(407) to
this very hour!)—καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθήταις αὐτοῦ: in which it is
countenanced by certain MSS. of the Vulgate and of the old Latin Version.
Indeed, it may be stated generally concerning the text of Cod. D, that it
bears marks _throughout_ of the depraving influence of the ancient
Lectionary practice. Instances of this, (in addition to those elsewhere
cited in these pages,) will be discovered in S. Luke iii. 23: iv. 16 (and
xix. 45): v. 1 and 17: vi. 37 (and xviii. 15): vii. 1: x. 1 and 25: xx. 1:
in all but three of which, Cod. D is kept in countenance by the old Latin,
often by the Syriac, and by other versions of the greatest antiquity. But
to proceed.

(8.) Cod. A, (supported by Athanasius, the Vulgate, Gothic, and
Philoxenian versions,) for καί, in S. Luke ix. 57, reads ἐγένετο δὲ,—which
is the reading of the Textus Receptus. Cod. D, (with some copies of the
old Latin,) exhibits καὶ ἐγένετο. All the diversity which is observable in
this place, (and it is considerable,) is owing to the fact that _an
Ecclesiastical lection begins here_.(408) In different Churches, the
formula with which the lection was introduced slightly differed.

(9.) Cod. C is supported by Chrysostom and Jerome, as well as by the
Peshito, Cureton’s and the Philoxenian Syriac, and some MSS. of the old
Latin, in reading ὁ Ἰησοῦς at the beginning of S. Matth. xi. 20. That the
words have no business there, is universally admitted. So also is the
cause of their interpolation generally recognized. _The Ecclesiastical
lection_ for Wednesday in the ivth week after Pentecost _begins at that
place_; and begins with the formula,—ἐν τῷ καίρῳ ἐκεινῳ, ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς
ὀνειδίζειν.

(10.) Similarly, in S. Matth. xii. 9, xiii. 36, and xiv. 14, Cod. C
inserts ὁ Ἰησοῦς; a reading which on all three occasions is countenanced
by the Syriac and some copies of the old Latin, and on the last of the
three, by Origen also. And yet there can be no doubt that it is only
because _Ecclesiastical lections begin at those places_,(409) that the
Holy Name is introduced there.

(11.) Let me add that the Sacred Name is confessedly an interpolation in
the six places indicated at foot,—its presence being accounted for by the
fact that, in each, an _Ecclesiastical lection begins_.(410) Cod. D in one
of these places, Cod. A in four, is kept in countenance by the old Latin,
the Syriac, the Coptic and other early versions;—convincing indications of
the extent to which the Lectionary practice of the Church had established
itself so early as the second century of our æra.

Cod. D, and copies of the old Latin and Egyptian versions also read τοῦ
Ἰησοῦ, (instead of αὐτοῦ,) in S. Mark xiv. 3; which is only because _a
Church lesson begins there_.

(12.) The same Cod. D is all but unique in leaving out that memorable
verse in S. Luke’s Gospel (xxiv. 12), in which S. Peter’s visit to the
Sepulchre of our risen LORD finds particular mention. It is only because
that verse was claimed both as the _conclusion_ of the ivth and also as
the _beginning_ of the vth Gospel of the Resurrection: so that the
liturgical note ἀρχή stands at the beginning,—τέλος at the end of it.
Accordingly, D is kept in countenance here only by the Jerusalem
Lectionary and some copies of the old Latin. But what is to be thought of
the editorial judgment which (with Tregelles) encloses this verse within
brackets; and (with Tischendorf) _rejects it from the text altogether_?

(13.) Codices B, א, and D are _alone_ among MSS. in omitting the clause
διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν: καὶ παρῆγεν οὔτως, at the end of the 59th verse
of S. John viii. The omission is to be accounted for by the fact that just
_there_ the Church-lesson for Tuesday in the vth week after Easter _came
to an end_.

(14.) Again. It is not at all an unusual thing to find in cursive MSS., at
the end of S. Matth. viii. 13, (with several varieties), the spurious and
tasteless appendix,—καὶ ὑποστρέψας ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐν
αὐτῇ τῇ ὤρᾳ εὗρεν τὸν παῖδα ὑγιαίνοντα: a clause which owes its existence
solely to the practice of ending the lection for the ivth Sunday after
Pentecost in that unauthorized manner.(411) But it is not only in cursive
MSS. that these words are found. _They are met with also in the Codex
Sinaiticus_ (א): a witness at once to the inveteracy of Liturgical usage
in the ivth century of our æra, and to the corruptions which the “Codex
omnium antiquissimus” will no doubt have inherited from a yet older copy
than itself.

(15.) In conclusion, I may remark generally that there occur instances,
again and again, of perturbations of the Text in our oldest MSS.,
(corresponding sometimes with readings vouched for by the most ancient of
the Fathers,) which admit of no more intelligible or inoffensive solution
than by referring them to the Lectionary practice of the primitive
Church.(412)

Thus when instead of καὶ ἀναβαίνω ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (S. Matth. xx.
17), Cod. B reads, (and, is almost unique in reading,) Μέλλων δὲ
ἀναβαίνειν ὁ Ἰησοῦς; and when Origen sometimes quotes the place in the
same way, but sometimes is observed to transpose the position of the Holy
Name in the sentence; when again six of Matthaei’s MSS., (and Origen
once,) are observed to put the same Name _after_ Ἱεροσόλυμα: when, lastly,
two of Field’s MSS.,(413) and one of Matthaei’s, (and I dare say a great
many more, if the truth were known,) omit the words ὁ Ἰησοῦς
entirely:—_who_ sees not that the true disturbing force in this place,
from the iind century of our æra downwards, has been _the Lectionary
practice of the primitive Church_?—the fact that _there_ the lection for
the Thursday after the viiith Sunday after Pentecost began?—And this may
suffice.

IV. It has been proved then, in what goes before, more effectually even
than in a preceding page,(414) not only that Ecclesiastical Lections
corresponding with those indicated in the “Synaxaria” were fully
established in the immediately post-Apostolic age, but also that at that
early period the Lectionary system of primitive Christendom had already
exercised a depraving influence of a peculiar kind on the text of
Scripture. Further yet, (and _this_ is the only point I am now concerned
to establish), that _our five oldest Copies of the Gospels_,—B and א as
well as A, C and D,—exhibit not a few traces of the mischievous agency
alluded to; errors, and especially _omissions_, which sometimes seriously
affect the character of those Codices as witnesses to the Truth of
Scripture.—I proceed now to consider the case of S. Mark xvi. 9-20; only
prefacing my remarks with a few necessary words of explanation.

V. He who takes into his hands an ordinary cursive MS. of the Gospels, is
prepared to find the Church-lessons regularly indicated throughout, in the
text or in the margin.

A familiar contraction, executed probably in vermillion [χ over αρ], ἀρ,
indicates the “beginning” (ἀρχή) of each lection: a corresponding
contraction (ε over τ, τε, τελ), indicates its “end” (τέλοσ.) Generally,
these rubrical directions, (for they are nothing else,) are inserted for
convenience into the body of the text,—from which the red pigment with
which they are almost invariably executed, effectually distinguishes them.
But all these particulars gradually disappear as recourse is had to older
and yet older MSS. The studious in such matters have noticed that even the
memorandums as to the “beginning” and the “end” of a lection are rare,
almost in proportion to the antiquity of a Codex. When they do occur in
the later uncials, they do not by any means always seem to have been the
work of the original scribe; neither has care been always taken to
indicate them in ink of a different colour. It will further be observed in
such MSS. that whereas the sign where the reader is to begin is
generally—(in order the better to attract his attention,)—inserted in _the
margin_ of the Codex, the note where he is to leave off, (in order the
more effectually to arrest his progress,) is as a rule introduced _into
the body of the text_.(415) In uncial MSS., however, all such symbols are
not only rare, but (what is much to be noted) they are exceedingly
irregular in their occurrence. Thus in Codex Γ, in the Bodleian Library,
(a recently acquired uncial MS. of the Gospels, written A.D. 844), there
occurs no indication of the “end” of a single lection in S. Luke’s Gospel,
until chap. xvi. 31 is reached; after which, the sign abounds. In Codex L,
the original notes of Ecclesiastical Lections occur at the following rare
and irregular intervals:—S. Mark ix. 2: x. 46: xii. 40 (where the sign has
lost its way; it should have stood against ver. 44): xv. 42 and xvi.
1.(416) In the _oldest_ uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even
in the Codex Bezæ, (vith century,) not a single liturgical direction
_coeval with the MS._ is anywhere to be found.

VI. And yet, although the practice of thus indicating the beginning and
the end of a liturgical section, does not seem to have come into general
use until about the xiith century; and although, previous to the ixth
century, systematic liturgical directions are probably unknown;(417) the
_need_ of them must have been experienced by one standing up to read
before the congregation, long before. The want of some reminder where he
was to begin,—above all, of some hint where he was to leave off,—will have
infallibly made itself felt from the first. Accordingly, there are not
wanting indications that, occasionally, ΤΕΛΟΣ (or ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) was written in
the margin of Copies of the Gospels at an exceedingly remote epoch. One
memorable example of this practice is supplied by the Codex Bezæ (D):
where in S. Mark xiv. 41, instead of ἀπέχει ἦλθεν ἡ ὤρα,—we meet with the
unintelligible ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ Η ΩΡΑ. Now, nothing else has here
happened but that a marginal note, designed originally to indicate the end
(ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of the lesson for the third day of the iind week of the
Carnival, has lost its way from the end of ver. 42, and got thrust into
the text of ver. 41,—to the manifest destruction of the sense.(418) I find
D’s error here is shared (_a_) by the Peshito Syriac, (_b_) by the old
Latin, and (_c_) by the Philoxenian: venerable partners in error, truly!
for the first two probably carry back this false reading to _the second
century of our æra_; and so, furnish one more remarkable proof, to be
added to the fifteen (or rather the forty) already enumerated (pp.
217-23), that the lessons of the Eastern Church were settled at a period
long anterior to the date of the oldest MS. of the Gospels extant.

VII. Returning then to the problem before us, I venture to suggest as
follows:—What if, at a very remote period, this same isolated liturgical
note (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) occurring at S. Mark xvi. 8, (which _is_ “the end” of _the
Church-lection_ for the iind Sunday after Easter,) should have unhappily
suggested to some copyist,—καλλιγραφίας _quam vel Criticæ Sacræ vel rerum
Liturgicarum peritior_,—the notion that the entire “_Gospel according to
S. Mark_,” came to an end at verse 8?... I see no more probable account of
the matter, I say, than this:—That the mutilation of the last chapter of
S. Mark has resulted from the fact, that some very ancient scribe
_misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note_ ΤΕΛΟΣ (or ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ) which he found at the close of verse 8. True, that he will have
probably beheld, further on, several additional στίχοι. But if he did, how
could he acknowledge the fact more loyally than by leaving (as the author
of Cod. B is observed to have done) one entire column blank, before
proceeding with S. Luke? He hesitated, all the same, _to transcribe_ any
further, having before him, (as he thought,) an assurance that “THE END”
had been reached at ver. 8.

VIII. That some were found in very early times eagerly to acquiesce in
this omission: to sanction it: even to multiply copies of the Gospel so
mutilated; (critics or commentators intent on nothing so much as
reconciling the apparent discrepancies in the Evangelical
narratives:)—appears to me not at all unlikely.(419) Eusebius almost says
as much, when he puts into the mouth of one who is for getting rid of
these verses altogether, the remark that “they would be in a manner
superfluous _if it should appear that their testimony is at variance with
that of the other Evangelists_.”(420) (The ancients were giants in
Divinity but children in Criticism.) On the other hand, I altogether agree
with Dean Alford in thinking it highly improbable that the difficulty of
harmonizing one Gospel with another in this place, (such as it is,) was
the cause why these Twelve Verses were originally suppressed.(421) (1)
First, because there really was no need to withhold more than three,—at
the utmost, five of them,—if _this_ had been the reason of the omission.
(2) Next, because it would have been easier far to introduce some critical
correction of any supposed discrepancy, than to sweep away the whole of
the unoffending context. (3) Lastly, because nothing clearly was gained by
causing the Gospel to end so abruptly that every one must see at a glance
that it had been mutilated. No. The omission having originated in a
mistake, was perpetuated for a brief period (let us suppose) only through
infirmity of judgment: or, (as I prefer to believe), only in consequence
of the religious fidelity of copyists, who were evidently always
instructed to transcribe exactly what they found in the copy set before
them. The Church meanwhile in her corporate capacity, has never known
anything at all of the matter,—as was fully shewn above in Chap. X.

IX. When this solution of the problem first occurred to me, (and it
occurred to me long before I was aware of the memorable reading ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
in the Codex Bezæ, already adverted to,) I reasoned with myself as
follows:—But if the mutilation of the second Gospel came about in this
particular way, the MSS. are bound to remember _something_ of the
circumstance; and in ancient MSS., if I am right, I ought certainly to
meet with _some_ confirmation of my opinion. According to my view, at the
root of this whole matter lies the fact that at S. Mark xvi. 8 a
well-known Ecclesiastical lesson comes to an end. Is there not perhaps
something exceptional in the way that the close of that liturgical section
was anciently signified?

X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every copy of the
Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris;(422) and devoted seventy hours
exactly, with unflagging delight, to the task. The success of the
experiment astonished me.

1. I began with _our_ Cod. 24 ( = Reg. 178) of the Gospels: turned to the
last page of S. Mark: and beheld, in a Codex of the xith Century wholly
devoid of the Lectionary apparatus which is sometimes found in MSS. of a
similar date,(423) at fol. 104, the word + ΤΕΛΟΣ + conspicuously written
by the original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as well as at the
close of the Gospel. _It occurred besides only at ch._ ix. 9, (the end of
the lesson for the Transfiguration.) And yet there are _at least seventy_
occasions in the course of S. Mark’s Gospel where, in MSS. which have been
accommodated to Church use, it is usual to indicate the close of a
Lection. This discovery, which surprised me not a little, convinced me
that I was on the right scent; and every hour I met with some fresh
confirmation of the fact.

2. For the intelligent reader will readily understand that three such
deliberate liturgical memoranda, occurring solitary in a MS. of this date,
are to be accounted for only in one way. They infallibly represent a
corresponding peculiarity in some far more ancient document. The fact that
the word ΤΕΛΟΣ is here (_a_) set down unabbreviated, (_b_) in black ink,
and (_c_) as part of the text,—points unmistakably in the same direction.
But that Cod. 24 is derived from a Codex of much older date is rendered
certain by a circumstance which shall be specified at foot.(424)

3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. 36.(425) The sign + ΤΕΛΟΣ +,
(which occurs punctually at S. Mark xvi. 8 and again at v. 20,) is found
besides in S. Mark’s Gospel only at chap. i. 8;(426) at chap. xiv. 31; and
(+ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΕΦΑΛ) at chap. xv. 24;—being on every occasion incorporated
with the Text. Now, when it is perceived that in the second and third of
these places, ΤΕΛΟΣ has clearly lost its way,—appearing where _no_
Ecclesiastical lection came to an end,—it will be felt that the MS. before
us (of the xith century) if it was not actually transcribed from,—must at
least exhibit at second hand,—a far more ancient Codex.(427)

4. Only once more.—Codex 22 ( = Reg. 72) was never prepared for Church
purposes. A rough hand has indeed scrawled indications of the beginnings
and endings of a few of the Lessons, here and there; but these liturgical
notes are no part of the original MS. At S. Mark xvi. 8, however, we are
presented (as before) with the solitary note + ΤΕΛΟΣ +—, incorporated with
the text. Immediately after which, (in writing of the same size,) comes a
memorable statement(428) in red letters. The whole stands thus:—

ΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ + ΤΕΛΟΣ +—
[cross] ΕΝ ΤΙΣΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΩΝ.
ΕΩΣ ΩΔΕ ΠΛΗΡΟΥΤΑΙ Ο ΕΥ
ΑΓΓΕΛΙΣΤΗΣ: ΕΝ ΠΟΛΛΟΙΣ
ΔΕ. ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΕΤΑΙ +—
ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ. ΠΡΟΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩΝ.

And then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of which, the sign +
ΤΕΛΟΣ + is again repeated,—which sign, however, occurs _nowhere else_ in
the MS. _nor at the end of any of the other three Gospels_. A more
opportune piece of evidence could hardly have been invented. A statement
so apt and so significant was surely a thing rather to be wished than to
be hoped for. For here is the liturgical sign ΤΕΛΟΣ not only occurring in
the wholly exceptional way of which we have already seen examples, but
actually followed by the admission that “In certain copies, _the
Evangelist proceeds no further_.” The two circumstances so brought
together seem exactly to bridge over the chasm between Codd. B and א on
the one hand,—and Codd. 24 and 36 on the other; and to supply us with
precisely the link of evidence which we require. For observe:—During the
first six centuries of our æra, no single instance is known of a codex in
which ΤΕΛΟΣ is written at the end of a Gospel. The subscription of S. Mark
for instance is _invariably_ either ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as in B and א): or else
ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as in A and C, and the other older uncials):
_never_ ΤΕΛΟΣ. But here is a Scribe who first copies the _liturgical_ note
ΤΕΛΟΣ,—and then volunteers the _critical_ observation that “in some copies
of S. Mark’s Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no further!” A more
extraordinary corroboration of the view which I am endeavouring to
recommend to the reader’s acceptance, I really cannot imagine. Why, the
ancient Copyist actually comes back, in order to assure me that the
suggestion which I have been already offering in explanation of the
difficulty, is the true one!

5. I am not about to abuse the reader’s patience with a prolonged
enumeration of the many additional conspiring circumstances,—insignificant
in themselves and confessedly unimportant when considered singly, but of
which the cumulative force is unquestionably great,—which an examination
of 99 MSS. of the Gospels brought to light.(429) Enough has been said
already to shew,

(1st.) That it must have been a customary thing, at a very remote age, to
write the word ΤΕΛΟΣ against S. Mark xvi. 8, even when the same note was
withheld from the close of almost every other ecclesiastical lection in
the Gospel.

(2ndly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt was originally
written as a liturgical memorandum in the margin, became at a very early
period incorporated with the text; where, retaining neither its use nor
its significancy, it was liable to misconception, and may have easily come
to be fatally misunderstood.

And although these two facts certainly prove nothing in and by themselves,
yet, when brought close alongside of the problem which has to be solved,
their significancy becomes immediately apparent: for,

(3rdly.) As a matter of fact, there are found to have existed before the
time of Eusebius, copies of S. Mark’s Gospel which _did_ come to an end at
this very place. Now, that _the Evangelist_ left off there, no one can
believe.(430) _Why_, then, did _the Scribe_ leave off? But the Reader is
already in possession of the reason why. A sufficient explanation of the
difficulty has been elicited from the very MSS. themselves. And surely
when, suspended to an old chest which has been locked up for ages, a key
is still hanging which fits the lock exactly and enables men to open the
chest with ease, they are at liberty to assume that the key _belongs_ to
the lock; is, in fact, the only instrument by which the chest may lawfully
be opened.

XI. And now, in conclusion, I propose that we summon back our original
Witness, and invite him to syllable his evidence afresh, in order that we
may ascertain if perchance it affords any countenance whatever to the view
which I have been advocating. Possible at least it is that in the
Patristic record that copies of S. Mark’s Gospel were anciently defective
from the 8th verse onwards _some_ vestige may be discoverable of the
forgotten truth. Now, it has been already fully shewn that it is a mistake
to introduce into this discussion any other name but that of
Eusebius.(431) Do, then, the terms in which _Eusebius_ alludes to this
matter lend us any assistance? Let us have the original indictment read
over to us once more: and _this_ time we are bound to listen to every word
of it with the utmost possible attention.

1. A problem is proposed for solution. “There are two ways of solving it,”
(Eusebius begins):—ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν
περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, εἔποι ἀν μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτην φέρεσθαι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις
τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου: τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. οἶς
ἐπιλέγει, “καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” Ἐν τούτῳ σχεδὸν ἐν
ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατά Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ(432) ... Let us halt here for one moment.

2. Surely, a new and unexpected light already begins to dawn upon this
subject! How is it that we paid so little attention before to the terms in
which this ancient Father delivers his evidence, that we overlooked the
import of an expression of his which from the first must have struck us as
peculiar, but which _now_ we perceive to be of paramount significancy?
Eusebius is pointing out that _one_ way for a man (so minded) to get rid
of the apparent inconsistency between S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Matth. xxviii.
1, would be for him to reject the entire “Ecclesiastical Lection”(433) in
which S. Mark xvi. 9 occurs. Any one adopting this course, (he proceeds;
and it is much to be noted that Eusebius is throughout delivering the
imaginary sentiments of another,—not his own:) Such an one (he says) “will
say that it is _not met with in all_ the copies of S. Mark’s Gospel. The
accurate copies, at all events,”—and then follows an expression in which
this ancient Critic is observed ingeniously to accommodate his language to
the phenomenon which he has to describe, so as covertly to insinuate
something else. Eusebius employs an idiom (it is found elsewhere in his
writings) sufficiently colourless to have hitherto failed to arouse
attention; but of which it is impossible to overlook the actual design and
import, after all that has gone before. He clearly _recognises the very
phenomenon to which I have been calling __ attention_ within the last two
pages, and which I need not further insist upon or explain: viz. that _the
words_ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ _were_ in some very ancient (“_the accurate_”) copies
_found written after_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ: although to an unsuspicious reader
the expression which he uses may well seem to denote nothing more than
that the second Gospel _generally came to an end_ there.

3. And now it is time to direct attention to the important bearing of the
foregoing remark on the main point at issue. The true import of what
Eusebius has delivered, and which has at last been ascertained, will be
observed really to set his evidence in a novel and unsuspected light. From
the days of Jerome, it has been customary to assume that Eusebius roundly
states that, in his time _almost all the Greek copies_ were without our
“last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel:(434) whereas Eusebius really
_does nowhere say so_. He expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a
somewhat unusual phrase(435) which perhaps admits of no exact English
counterpart: but what he says clearly amounts to no more than this,—that
“_the accurate_ copies, at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, circumscribe THE END
(ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of Mark’s narrative:” that _there_, “in almost all the Copies
of the Gospel according to Mark, is circumscribed THE END.” He says no
more. He does not say that _there_ “is circumscribed _the Gospel_.” As for
the twelve verses which follow, he merely declares that they were “_not
met with in all_ the copies;” i.e. that some copies did not contain them.
But this, so far from being a startling statement, is no more than what
Codd. B and א in themselves are sufficient to establish. In other words,
Eusebius, (whose testimony on this subject as it is commonly understood is
so extravagant [see above, p. 48-9,] as to carry with it its own
sufficient refutation,) is found to bear consistent testimony to the two
following modest propositions; which, however, are not adduced by him as
reasons for rejecting S. Mark xvi. 9-20, but only as samples of _what
might be urged_ by one desirous of shelving a difficulty suggested by
their contents;—

(1st.) That from _some_ ancient copies of S. Mark’s Gospel these last
Twelve Verses were away.

(2nd.) That in _almost_ all the copies,—(whether mutilated or not, he does
not state,)—the words ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ were found immediately after ver. 8; which,
(he seems to hint,) let those who please accept as evidence that there
also is _the end of the Gospel_.

4. But I cannot dismiss the testimony of Eusebius until I have recorded my
own entire conviction that this Father is no more an original authority
here than Jerome, or Hesychius, or Victor.(436) He is evidently adopting
the language of some more ancient writer than himself. I observe that he
introduces the problem with the remark that what follows is one of tho
questions “for ever mooted by every body.”(437) I suspect (with Matthaei,
[_suprà_, p. 66,]) that _Origen_ is the _true_ author of all this
confusion. He certainly relates of himself that among his voluminous
exegetical writings was a _treatise on S. Mark’s Gospel_.(438) To Origen’s
works, Eusebius, (his apologist and admirer,) is known to have habitually
resorted; and, like many others, to have derived not a few of his notions
from that fervid and acute, but most erratic intellect. Origen’s writings
in short, seem to have been the source of much, if not most of the
mistaken Criticism of Antiquity. (The reader is reminded of what has been
offered above at p. 96-7). And this would not be the first occasion on
which it would appear that when an ancient Writer speaks of “_the accurate
copies_”, what he actually _means is the text of Scripture which was
employed or approved by Origen_.(439) The more attentively the language of
Eusebius in this place is considered, the more firmly (it is thought) will
the suspicion be entertained that he is here only reproducing the
sentiments of another person. But, however this may be, it is at least
certain that the precise meaning of what he says, has been hitherto
generally overlooked. He certainly does _not_ say, as Jerome, from his
loose translation of the passage,(440) evidently imagined,—“_omnibus __
Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus_:” but
only,—“_non in omnibus Evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum inveniri_;”
which is an entirely different thing. Eusebius adds,—“Accuratiora saltem
exemplaria FINEM narrationis secundum Marcum circumscribunt in verbis
ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ;”—and, “In hoc, fere in omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii
secundum Marcum, FINEM circumscribi.”—The point, however, of greatest
interest is, that Eusebius here calls attention to the prevalence in MSS.
of his time of the very _liturgical peculiarity_ which plainly supplies
the one true solution of the problem under discussion. His testimony is a
marvellous corroboration of what we learn from Cod. 22, (see above, p.
230,) and, rightly understood, does not go a whit beyond it.

5. What wonder that Hesychius, because he adopted blindly what he found in
Eusebius, should at once betray his author and exactly miss the point of
what his author says? Τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον (so he writes) μέχρι τοῦ
“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,” ἔχει ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.(441)

6. This may suffice concerning the testimony of Eusebius.—It will be
understood that I suppose Origen to have fallen in with one or more copies
of S. Mark’s Gospel which exhibited _the Liturgical hint_, (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ,)
conspicuously written against S. Mark xvi. 9. Such a copy may, or may not,
have there terminated abruptly. I suspect however that it _did_. Origen at
all events, (_more suo_,) will have remarked on the phenomenon before him;
and Eusebius will have adopted his remarks,—as the heralds say, “with _a
difference_”—simply because they suited his purpose, and seemed to him
ingenious and interesting.

7. For the copy in question,—(_like_ that other copy of S. Mark from which
the Peshito translation was made, and in which ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ most inopportunely
occurs at chap. xiv. 41,(442))—will have become the progenitor of several
other copies (as Codd. B and א); and some of these, it is pretty evident,
were familiarly known to Eusebius.

8. Let it however be clearly borne in mind that nothing of all this is in
the least degree essential to my argument. Eusebius, (for aught that I
know or care,) may be _solely_ responsible for every word that he has
delivered concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Every link in my argument will
remain undisturbed, and the conclusion will be still precisely the same,
whether the mistaken Criticism before us originated with another or with
himself.

XII. But _why_, (it may reasonably be asked,)—_Why_ should there have been
anything exceptional in the way of indicating the end of this particular
Lection? _Why_ should τέλος be so constantly found written after S. Mark
xvi. 8?

I answer,—I suppose it was because the Lections which respectively ended
and began at that place were so many, and were Lections of such unusual
importance. Thus,—(1) On the 2nd Sunday after Easter, (κυριακή γ᾽ τῶν
μυροφόρων, as it was called,) at the Liturgy, was read S. Mark xv. 43 to
xvi. 8; and (2) on the same day at Matins, (by the Melchite Syrian
Christians as well as by the Greeks,(443)) S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The
severance, therefore, was at ver. 8. (3) In certain of the Syrian Churches
the liturgical section for Easter Day was S. Mark xvi 2-8:(444) in the
Churches of the Jacobite, or Monophysite Christians, the Eucharistic
lesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1-8.(445) (4) The second matin lesson of
the Resurrection (xvi. 1-8) also ends,—and (5) the third (xvi. 9-20)
begins, at the same place: and these two Gospels (both in the Greek and in
the Syrian Churches) were in constant use not only at Easter, but
throughout the year.(446) (6) _That_ same third matin lesson of the
Resurrection was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; as well in
the Syrian(447) as in the Greek(448) Churches. (7) With the Monophysite
Christians, the lection “feriae tertiae in albis, ad primam vesperam,”
(i.e. for the Tuesday in Easter-Week) was S. Mark xv. 37-xvi. 8: and (8)
on the same day, at Matins, ch. xvi. 9-18.(449)—During eighteen weeks
after Easter therefore, _the only parts_ of S. Mark’s Gospel publicly read
were (_a_) the last thirteen [ch. xv. 43-xvi. 8], and (_b_) “_the last
twelve_” [ch. xvi. 9-20] verses. Can it be deemed a strange thing that it
should have been found _indispensable_ to mark, with altogether
exceptional emphasis,—to make it unmistakably plain,—where the former
Lection came to an end, and where the latter Lection began?(450)

XIII. One more circumstance, and but one, remains to be adverted to in the
way of evidence; and one more suggestion to be offered. The circumstance
is familiar indeed to all, but its bearing on the present discussion has
never been pointed out. I allude to the fact that anciently, in copies of
the fourfold Gospel, _the Gospel according to S. Mark frequently stood
last_.

This is memorably the case in respect of the Codex Bezae [vi]: more
memorably yet, in respect of the Gothic version of Ulphilas (A.D. 360): in
both of which MSS., the order of the Gospels is (1) S. Matthew, (2) S.
John, (3) S. Luke, (4) S. Mark. This is in fact _the usual Western order_.
Accordingly it is thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. Vercellensis
(_a_), Veronensis (_b_), Palatinus (_e_), Brixianus (_f_) of the old Latin
version. But this order is not _exclusively_ Western. It is found in Cod.
309. It is also observed in Matthaei’s Codd. 13, 14, (which last is _our_
Evan. 256), at Moscow. And in the same order Eusebius and others of the
ancients(451) are occasionally observed to refer to the four
Gospels,—which induces a suspicion that they were not unfamiliar with it.
Nor is this all. In Codd. 19 and 90 the Gospel according to S. Mark stands
last; though in the former of these the order of the three antecedent
Gospels is (1) S. John, (2) S. Matthew, (3) S. Luke;(452) in the latter,
(1) S. John, (2) S. Luke, (3) S. Matthew. What need of many words to
explain the bearing of these facts on the present discussion? Of course it
will have _sometimes_ happened that S. Mark xvi. 8 came to be written _at
the bottom of the left hand page_ of a MS.(453) And we have but to suppose
that in the case of one such Codex the next leaf, which would have been
_the last_, was missing,—(_the very thing which has happened in respect of
one of the Codices at Moscow_(454))—and what else _could_ result when a
copyist reached the words,

ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ. ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ

but the very phenomenon which has exercised critics so sorely and which
gives rise to the whole of the present discussion? The copyist will have
brought S. Mark’s Gospel to an end there, _of course_. What else could he
possibly do?... Somewhat less excusably was our learned countryman Mill
betrayed into the statement, (inadvertently adopted by Wetstein,
Griesbach, and Tischendorf,) that “the last verse of S. John’s Gospel _is
omitted_ in Cod. 63:” the truth of the matter being (as Mr. Scrivener has
lately proved) that _the __ last leaf_ of Cod. 63,—on which the last verse
of S. John’s Gospel was demonstrably once written,—_has been lost_.(455)

XIV. To sum up.

1. It will be perceived that I suppose the omission of “the last Twelve
Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel to have originated in a sheer error and
misconception on the part of some very ancient Copyist. He _saw_ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
written after ver. 8: he _assumed_ that it was the Subscription, or at
least that it denoted “the End,” _of the Gospel_.

2. Whether certain ancient Critics, because it was acceptable to them,
were not found to promote this mistake,—it is useless to inquire. That
there may have arisen some old harmonizer of the Gospels, who, (in the
words of Eusebius,) was disposed to “regard what followed as superfluous
from its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of the other
Evangelists;”(456)—and that in this way the error became propagated;—is
likely enough. But an error it most certainly was: and to that _error_,
the _accident_ described in the last preceding paragraph _would have_ very
materially conduced, and it may have very easily done so.

3. I request however that it may be observed that the “accident” is not
_needed_ in order to account for the “error.” The mere presence of ΤΟ
ΤΕΛΟΣ at ver. 8, so near the end of the Gospel, would be quite enough to
occasion it. And we have seen that in very ancient times the word ΤΕΛΟΣ
frequently _did_ occur in an altogether exceptional manner in that very
place. Moreover, we have ascertained that its meaning was _not understood_
by the transcribers of ancient MSS.

4. And will any one venture to maintain that it is to him a thing
incredible that an intelligent copyist of the iiird century, because he
read the words ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ at S. Mark xvi. 8, can have been beguiled thereby
into the supposition that those words indicated “the End” of _S. Mark’s
Gospel_?—Shall I be told that, even if _one_ can have so entirely
overlooked the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer it to insinuate
itself into his text,(457) it is nevertheless so improbable as to pass all
credence that _another_ can have supposed that it designated _the
termination of the Gospel_ of the second Evangelist?—For all reply, I take
leave to point out that Scholz, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Mai
and the rest of the Critics have, _one and all, without exception,
misunderstood the same word occurring in the same place, and in precisely
the same way_.

Yes. The forgotten inadvertence of a solitary Scribe in the _second_ or
_third_ century has been, _in the nineteenth_, deliberately reproduced,
adopted, and stereotyped by every Critic and every Editor of the New
Testament in turn.

What wonder,—(I propose the question deliberately,)—What wonder that an
ancient Copyist should have been misled by a phenomenon which in our own
days is observed to have imposed upon two generations of professed
Biblical Critics discussing this very textual problem, and therefore fully
on their guard against delusion?(458) To this hour, the illustrious
Editors of the text of the Gospels are clearly, one and all, labouring
under the grave error of supposing that “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τέλος,”—(for
which they are so careful to refer us to “Cod. 22,”)—is an indication that
_there_, by rights, comes _the _“END”_ of the Gospel according to S.
Mark_. They have failed to perceive that ΤΕΛΟΣ in that place is only _a
liturgical sign_,—the same with which (in its contracted form) they are
sufficiently familiar; and that it serves no other purpose whatever, but
to mark that _there_ a famous _Ecclesiastical Lection_ comes to an end.

With a few pages of summary, we may now bring this long disquisition to an
end.

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 iii_rd_
century_; in _nine of the iv_th; in _three of the v_th;—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 iv_th_ 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 4__to__._

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 _GOD_head_ 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:—

[[Illustration: Apparatus Table From Cod. 262.]]

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:—

[[Illustration: Syriac Reference Table.]]

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 [here] 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_, [1857], 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, [viii]: K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch. _ed._ 8va.)
[ix]: 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 [3] ( = 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.

[31 words here omitted.]

(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.”

[EUSEBIUS, _apud Mai_, iv. p. 256.]

[VICTOR ANTIOCH, _ed. Cramer_, i. p. 444-5: (_with a few slight
emendations of the text from_ Evan. Cod. Reg. 178.)]

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 [v]; D [vi]; E, L [viii]; F, K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π
[ix]; 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.
Part II. page ii.

132 See Chap. IV. p. 37.

133 Scrivener’s _Introduction to Con. Bezae_, p. liv.

134 e.g. in S. John i. 42 (meaning only א, B, L): iv. 42 (א, B, C): v.
12 (א, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, B, L), &c.

135 e.g. S. Matth. x. 25; xii. 24, 27: S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19
(βεεζεβουλ).—1 Cor. xiii. 3 (καυχησωμαι).—S. James i. 17
(αποσκιασματος).—Acts i. 5 (εν πν. βαπ. αγ.).—S. Mark vi. 20
(ηπορει).—S. Matth. xiv. 30 (ισχυρον).—S. Luke iii. 32 (ἰωβηλ).—Acts
i. 19 (ἰδίᾳ omitted).—S. Matth. xxv. 27 (τα αργυρια).—S. Matth.
xvii. 22 (συστρεφομενων).—S. Luke vi. 1 (δευτεροπρῶτῳ omitted).—See
more in Tischendorf’s _Prolegomena_ to his 4to. reprint of the _Cod.
Sin._ p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to
Scrivener’s very interesting _Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus_,
Introduction, p. xliii. _seq._

136 See Tischendorf’s note in his reprint of the Cod. Sin., _Prolegg._
p. lix.

137 Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος—καταβαίνοντα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44.

138 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς—τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 34):—γράμμασιν Ἐλληνικοῖς καὶ
Ῥωμαῖκοῖς καὶ Ἐβραῖκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.)

139 αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και
αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!

_ 140 Coll. of the Cod. Sin._, p. xlvii.

141 So, in the margin of the Hharklensian revision.

142 Note, that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to
claim the _Latin_ versions as allies. Ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ἄνθρωπος
λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κ.τ.λ. is not “Respondit, Ille homo qui dicitur
Jesus,” (as both Tischendorf and Tregelles assume;) but “_Respondit
ille_, Homo,” &c.,—as in verses 25 and 36.

143 This reading will be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the end of
Chap. VII.,—p. 110.

144 The following may be added from Cod. א:—μεγάλοι αὐτῶν (in S. Mark x.
42) changed into βασιλεις: ειπεν (in S. Mark xiv. 58) substituted
for ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτου λέγοντος: εβδομηκοντα τεσσαρων (in S. Lu.
ii. 37) for ὀγδοηκ: and εωρακεν σε (in S. Jo. viii. 57) for
ἑώρακας:—in all which four readings Cod. א is without support.
[Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. li.] The epithet μεγαν, introduced
(in the same codex) before λίθον in S. Mark xv. 46; and και πατριας
inserted into the phrase ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ in S. Lu. i. 27,—are two
more specimens of mistaken officiousness. In the same infelicitous
spirit, Cod. B and Cod. א concur in omitting ἰσχυρόν (S. Matt. xiv.
30), and in substituting πυκνα for πυγμῇ, and ραντισωνται for
βαπτίσωνται in S. Mark vii. 3 and 4:—while the interpolation of
τασσομενος after ἐξουσίαν in S. Matth. viii. 9, because of the
parallel place in S. Luke’s Gospel; and the substitution of ανθρωπος
αυστηρος ει (from S. Luke xix. 21) for σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος in S.
Matth. xxv. 24, are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting
influence has been here at work besides those which have been
already specified.

145 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xlvii.

146 Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for ἐξελθ. Chrys.^834
(twice,) (also quoted in Cramer’s _Cat._ 241). The mistake adverted
to in the text is at least as old as the time of Eusebius, (Mai, iv.
p. 264 = 287), who asks,—Πῶς παρά τῷ Ματθάιῳ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία μετὰ
τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἔξω τοῦ μνήματος ἑώρακεν τὸν ἕνα ἄγγελον
ἐπικαθήμενον τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ μνήματος, κ.τ.λ.

147 Tischendorf accordingly _is forced_, for once, to reject the reading
of his oracle א,—witnessed to though it be by Origen and Eusebius.
His discussion of the text in this place is instructive and even
diverting. How is it that such an instance as the present does not
open the eyes of Prejudice itself to the danger of pinning its faith
to the consentient testimony even of Origen, of Eusebius, and of
Cod. א?... The reader is reminded of what was offered above, in the
lower part of p. 49.

148 A similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S. Luke
iv. 44, (cf. the parallel place, S. Matth. iv. 23: S. Mark i. 89).
It does not mend the matter to find א supported this time by Codd.
B, C, L, Q, R.

149 S. Lu. xxiii. 45:—ὅπερ οὐδέποτε πρότερον συνέβη, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν Αἰγύπτω
μόνον, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα τελεῖσθαι ἔμελλε; καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα τούτων τύπος
ἦν. (Chrys. vii. 824 c.)

150 ὅπως δὲ μὴ εἰπωσί τινες ἔκλειψιν εἶναι τὸ γεγενημένον, ἐν τῇ
τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη ἡμέρᾳ τῆς σελήνης γἐγονε τὸ σκότος:—ὅτε ἔκλειψιν
συμβῆναι ἀμήχανον. So Victor of Antioch, in his Catena on S. Mark
(ed. Possin.) He makes the remark twice: first (p. 351) in the midst
of an abridgment of the beginning of Chrysostom’s 88th Homily on S.
Matthew: next (p. 352) more fully, after quoting “the great
Dionysius” of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on the
same subject in Cramer’s _Catena in Matth._ i. p. 237,—from whom
derived, I know not; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note,
that the 10 lines ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου, beginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys.
vii. 824, D, E.) The very next words in Chrysostom’s published
Homily (p. 825 A.) are as follows:—Ὅτε γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ἔκλειψις, αλλ᾽
ὀργή τε καὶ ἀγανάκτησις, οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ
τοῦ καιροῦ; τρεῖς γἀρ ὥρας παρέμεινεν, ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ γίνεται
καιροῦ ῥοπῇ.—Anyone who would investigate this matter further should
by all means read Matthaei’s long note on S. Luke xxiii. 45.

151 See above, p. 70, and the Appendix (F).

152 Tischendorf’s “_Introduction_” to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the
English N.T., 1869,—p. xiii.

153 “Epistola quam nos ‘ad Ephesios’ præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero
’ad Laodicenos.” _Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.)

154 “ ‘Titulum’ enim ‘_ad Laodicenos_’ ut addidisse accusatur a
Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba ἐν Ἐφέσῳ omnino non legisse
censendus est.” (N. T. _in loc._)

155 “Ecclesiæ quidem veritate Epistolam istam ‘ad Ephesios’ habemus
emissam, non ‘ad Laodicenos;’ sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando
interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.”
_Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)

156 ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἰκανῶν. (Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 310 c.)

157 He describes its structure minutely at vol. i. pp. 309-310, and from
pp. 312-7; 318-321. [Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has
crept into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321 D: pointed out
long since by Jones, _On the Canon_, ii. 38.] His plan is excellent.
Marcion had rejected every Gospel except S. Luke’s, and of S. Paul’s
Epistles had retained only ten,—viz. (1st) Galatians, (2nd and 3rd)
I and II Corinthians, (4th) Romans, (5th and 6th) I and II
Thessalonians, (7th) _Ephesians_, (8th) Colossians, (9th) Philemon,
(10th) Philippians. Even these he had mutilated and depraved. And
yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78
passages, (pp. 312-7), and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40
passages more (pp. 318-21); by means of which 118 texts he
undertakes to refute the heresy of Marcion. (pp. 322-50: 350-74.)
[It will be perceived that Tertullian goes over Marcion’s work in
much the same way.] Very beautiful, and well worthy of the student’s
attention, (though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form,)
is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy of GOD’S
Word, even when dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape.
“Ὅλου γὰρ τοῦ σώματος ζῶντος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τῆς θείας γραφῆς, ποῖον
ηὕρισκε (sc. Marcion) μέλος νεκρὸν κατὰ τῆν αὐτοῦ γνώμην, ἵνα
παρεισαγάγη ψεῦδος κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας; ... παρέκοψε πολλὰ τῶν μελῶν,
κατέσχε δὲ ἔνιά τινα παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ; καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ κατασχεθέντα ἔτι
ζῶντα οὐ δύναται νεκροῦσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ ζωτικὸν τῆς ἐμφάσεως,
κᾴν τε μυρίως παρ᾽ αὐτῷ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἀποτμηθείν.” (p. 375 B.) He
seems to say of Marcion,—

Fool! to suppose thy shallow wits
Could quench a fire like that. Go, learn
That cut into ten thousand bits
Yet every bit would breathe and burn!

158 He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius,
_Opp._ i. p. 318 and 371-2.)

_ 159 Ibid._ p. 318 C ( = 371 B), and 319 A ( = 374 A.)

_ 160 Ibid._ p. 319 and 374. But note, that through error in the copies,
or else through inadvertence in the Editor, the depravation
commented on at p. 374 B, C, is lost sight of at p. 319 B.

161 See below, at the end of the next note.

162 Προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Ἀποστολικῷ καλουμένῳ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πρὸς
Λαοδικέας:—“Εῖς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα, εἶς Χριστὸς, εἶς
Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.”
(Epiphan. _Opp._ vol i. p. 374.) Here is obviously a hint of τριῶν
ἀνάρχων ἀρχῶν διαφορὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἐξουσῶν: [Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ
ματαιόφρονος δίδαγμα, εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς μοναρχίας τομὴν καὶ
διαίρεσιν. Athanas. i. 231 E.] but, (says Epiphanius), οὐχ οὕτως
ἔχει ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀποστόλου ὑπόθεσις καὶ ἠσφαλισμένον κήρυγμα. ἀλλὰ
ἄλλως παρὰ τὸ σὸν ποιήτευμα. Then he contrasts with the
“fabrication” of Marcion, the inspired verity,—Eph. iv. 5: declaring
ἕνα Θεὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων,—τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ ἐν
πᾶσι, κ.τ.λ.—p. 374 C.

Epiphanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained materials ἐκτὸς
τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου; οὐ γὰρ ἔδοξε τῷ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ
Μαρκίωνι ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν λέγειν, (sc. the
words quoted above,) ἀλλὰ τῆς πρὸς Λαοδικέας, τῆς μὴ οὔσης ἐν τῷ
Ἀποστόλῳ (p. 375 A.) (Epiphanius here uses Ἀπόστολος in its
technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with S. Paul’s Epistles.)

163 “Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—”Ἐπὶ μόνων Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ “τοῖς
ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;” καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ
“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,” τί δύναται σημαίνειν; ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ
ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδω ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεί τὸ ὬΝ οὕτως οἱ
μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται “ὄντες.” καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ
εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι. “ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,” φησὶν ὁ
αὐτὸς Παῦλος, “ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση.”—Cramer’s _Catena in Ephes._
i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.

164 Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: xii. 14, &c.

165 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽
ἐπιγνώσεως, “ὄντας” αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών: “τοῖς ἀγίοις
τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.” οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν
παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν.
Note also what immediately follows. (Basil _Opp._ i. p. 254 E, 255
A.)

166 See the places quoted by Scrivener, _Introd._ pp. 381-91;
particularly p. 385.

167 Hieron. _Opp._ vol. vii. p. 543:—“Illud quoque in Præfatione
commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam
conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.”

168 “Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum
est ‘Haec dices filiis Israel, QUI EST misit me,’ etiam eos qui
Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf. ‘qui sunt Ephesi,’ _Vulg._] sancti et
fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... ab EO ‘qui est,’ hi
‘qui sunt’ appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, non ad eos ‘qui
sint,’ sed ‘qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint’ scriptum
arbitrantur.” Hieron. _Opp._ vii. p. 545 A, B.

169 The cursive “Cod. No. 67” (or “672”) is improperly quoted as
“omitting” (Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the
Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our
Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who
says of it (p. 496),—“_cod. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat_.” ... The MS.
must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in his
_Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece_, &c. Havn. 1773, pp.
62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in his _Libellus Criticus de indole Cod.
MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv._ &c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have
been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. B itself.

170 So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener’s _Collation_, p.
xlix.

171 Scrivener’s _Introduction to Codex Bezae_, p. liv.

172 Scrivener, _Coll. of Cod. Sin._ p. xlv.

173 Eph. vi. 21, 22.

174 Coloss. iv. 7, 16.

_ 175 Ubi suprà_.

_ 176 Gnomon_, in Ephes. i. 1, _ad init._

177 See above, pp. 93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (_ad
Ephes._ c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner,
vol. ii.

178 Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for
accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and א, that nothing
whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their
ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in
question remain, by their own admission, _defective_.

Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses
alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1) _To leave
a blank space_ after τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2) _To let the words_ ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ _stand_,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they
can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (_Life and Letters of S.
Paul_, ii. 491), to eject the words “at Ephesus” from the text of
Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words “in
Laodicea,”—is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational
criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff)
have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford
(vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp. 13-8); who infers, “in accordance with the
prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle was
_veritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus_, and _to no other
Church_.”] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity;
viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (“carta
bianca”) copy of the Epistle looked with “the space after τοῖς οὔσι
left utterly void:” in the latter, they will be representing the
archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus.
But by printing the text thus,—τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσω] καὶ
πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., they are acting on an entirely different theory.
They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS.
in the world except Codd. B and א. This is clearly to forsake the
“Encyclical” hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the
same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be
named.

179 Ἐγκύκλιον ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii
interpretantur _literas circulares_: ego cum viris doctis malim
_Epistolas_ vel _literas publicas_, ad omnes fideles pertinentes,
quas Græci aliàs vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicer _in voce_.

180 Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicer _in voce_,
Ἐγκύκλιος.

181 Routh’s _Reliquiæ_, vol. iii. p. 266.—“Tum ex Conciliis, tum ex
aliis Patrum scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiao Patres
acta et decreta Conciliorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere
per epistolas, quas non uni privatim dicârunt, sed publice describi
ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulgari, atque cum omnibus populis
communicari voluerunt. Hac igitur epistolae ἐγκύκλιοι vocatae sunt,
quia κυκλόσε, quoquò versum et in omnem partem mittebantur.”—Suicer
_in voc._

182 “On the whole,” says Bishop Middleton, (_Doctrine of the Greek Art._
p. 355) “I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on
Col. iv. 16,)—‘that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus,
who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans;
with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.’ ”—This
suggestion is intended to meet _another_ difficulty, and leaves the
question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only
to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is
found in Col. iv. 16.

Macknight’s suggestion, though it has found favour with many
subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S.
Paul is found not to have sent _the Colossians_ “word by Tychicus,
who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.”
He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the
Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of
achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this
roundabout method of communication, were not _the Ephesians_
ordered,—if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a
copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the
Colossians charged to read publicly τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, which (by the
hypothesis) would have been only a copy,—instead of τὴν ἐξ Ἐφέσου,
which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay,
why is it not designated by S. Paul, τὴν πρὸς Ἐφεσίους,—(if indeed
it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of
τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; which would hardly be an intelligible way of
indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered
to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of
the _Ephesians_ also, which had been originally addressed by S.
Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their
own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the
Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the
Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the
Colossians!

183 Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 311 D.

184 “Marcion exerte et palam machæra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad
materiam suam cædem Scripturarum confecit.” (Tertullian _Præscript.
Hær._ c. 38, p. 50.) “Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas
totas plerumque subducat.” (_Adv. Marcion._ lib. v, c. xvii, p.
455.)

185 See above p. 95, and see note (f) p. 94.

186 See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp.
13-15.

187 p. xiv.—See above, pp. 8, 9, note (f).

188 One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly
represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the
largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of
statement. The facts are these:—

(1) Valentt. (_apud_ Irenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus
(_apud_ Clem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens
Alex., and (3) Theodotus (_apud_ Clem.) _also_ read ἦν. These
testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also
has _both_ readings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but
Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is “perhaps not an improbable
reading,”) reads ἦν _ten or eleven times_. Ἦν is also the reading of
Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the
Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian
Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact of _all the MSS. in the
world_, except of א and D.

All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and
Cureton’s Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin.

And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that
it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings
must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a
question of authority, and reason from _the evidence_,—declining to
import into the argument what may be called _logical_
considerations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I
suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age
of reading the place after the following strange fashion,—ὁ γέγονεν
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril
in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3,
4. And to substitute ἐστί (for ἦν) in such a sentence as _that_, was
obvious.... Chrysostom’s opinion is well known, “Let us beware of
putting the full stop” (he says) “at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as do the
heretics.” [He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig. _Opp._ i.
130), and to Theodotus (_apud_ Clem. Alex.). But it must be
confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (_Routh, Opusc._ i. 68), Clemens
Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D. 269, _Routh_ iii. 293),
Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the
Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (_Routh_ iii. 459), and
Augustine,—point the place in the same way. “It is worth our
observation,” (says Pearson,) “that Eusebius citing the place of S.
John to prove that the HOLY GHOST was made by the SON, leaves out
those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute
that heresy of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.”]

Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out that THE SPIRIT is a
creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the
Evangelist’s language is made unintelligible.” (_Opp._ viii.
40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not
by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson’s note,
referred to _infrà_), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the
sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson’s _note_
(_z_), ART. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh’s _Opusc._ i.
88-9.

189 It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous
Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself
chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of
the Codex Sinaiticus:—

(1.) S. JOHN i. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.) S. MATTH. xiii. 35: το
ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.) S. JOHN xiii. 10: ο λελουμενος
ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.) S. JOHN vi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του
εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του
κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to
be “indubitably correct.”)

On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might
have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the
private property of the single Codex א. The last three are
absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to
reject them: the second (of which Jerome says something _very_
different from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more
of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired
Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the
third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness
of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) he has
_dropped a line_: thus:—

ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙ
ΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙ
ΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ

The first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p.
110.

190 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves
careful study.

191 Deut. xvi. 19.

_ 192 Printed Text_, p. 254.

193 Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137,
138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222.

194 Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his
reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan.
15, 19, 299 (?) respectively.

_ 195 Variae Lectiones_, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358,
756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181):
Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89,
Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (_leg._ 5 ?) S. Mariæ Bened.
Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)

_ 196 Nov. Test._ vol. i. p. 199.

197 Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.

198 Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua
Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam
dubias notarent.—_Variae Lectiones_, &c. p. 225.

199 In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, +
occurs at xi. 12, xii. 38, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such
sign occurs at the _pericope de adulterá_.

200 Further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in the
Appendix (D).

201 Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our
36,) against S. Mark xvi. 9, is this sign [symbol: inverse or open
x]. It is intended (like an asterisk in a modern book) to refer the
reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as
occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occur in the
margin of the Paris MS. also.

202 ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς
ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188,
186.)

203 See more concerning this matter in the Appendix (D), _ad fin._

204 At the end of S. Matthew’s Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is
found,—

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις
παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδ

and at the end of S. Mark’s, (at fol. 147 _b_)—

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν
ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξ

This second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20.
_Both_ reappear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an interesting
variety in the former of the two) in [what I suppose is the first
half of] the uncial Codex Λ. See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 125.

205 = Paris 72, _fol._ 107 _b_. He might have added, (for Wetstein had
pointed it out 79 years before,) that _the same note precisely_ is
found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,) _fol._ 98
_b_.

206 See more at the very end of Chap. XI.

207 Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10)
contain as follows:—

ἔν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς, ἕως οἱ
καὶ Ἐυσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν; ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ ταῦτα φέρεται;
ἀναστὰς, κ.τ.λ.

But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [_lege_
5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has
only this:—

ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα.

208 It originated in this way. At the end of S. Matthew’s Gospel, in
both Codices, are found those large extracts from the “2nd Hom. on
the Resurrection” which Montfaucon published in the _Bibl. Coisl._
(pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since reprinted at the end of his
_Catena in S. Matth._ (i. 243-251.) In Codd. 34 and 39 they are
ascribed to “Severus of Antioch.” See above (p. 40.) See also pp. 39
and 57.

209 See above, pp. 64, 65.

210 22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20.

211 viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 208, 209:—20, 300:—15, 22.

212 Cod. Λ, 20, 262, 300.

213 Evan. 374.

214 viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137,
138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (Birch _Varr. Lectt_. p.
225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the
Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by Matthaei.

215 2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding
note) = 24.

216 Paris 62, _olim,_ 2861 and 1558.

217 See the facsimile.—The original, (which knows nothing of
Tischendorf’s crosses,) reads as follows:—

ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥ
ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ

ΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗ
ΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣ
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝ

ΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗ
ΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑ
ΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡ
Ο ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ
ΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣ
ἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙ
ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ
ΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗ
ΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩ
ΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣ

ΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ
ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟ
ΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟ
ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ

ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙ
ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩ

_i.e._—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα

Πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τον Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήλλειλαν:
μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως
ἐξαπέστειλεν δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου
σωτηρίας.

Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου.

218 As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two
Æthiopic MSS.—I am unable to understand what Scholz and his copyists
have said concerning Cod. 274. I was assured again and again at
Paris that they knew of no such codex as “Reg, 79a,” which is
Scholz’ designation (_Prolegg._ p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which,
after him, we number “274.”

219 Nec AMMONII Sectionibus, nec EUSEBII Canonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi
versus.—Tisch. _Nov. Test._ (_ed. 8va_), p. 406.

_ 220 Printed Text_, p. 248.

221 The reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for
himself:—Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν
καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν
εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν
περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὥς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν
τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὅφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.

222 Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ,
εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τό πους, ἐν οἷς
κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν φιλαληθῶς εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ
προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμὰς, καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας
δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους.

223 This seems to represent _exactly_ what Eusebius means in this place.
The nearest English equivalent to ἀφορμή is “a hint.” Consider
Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ v. 27. Also the following:—πολλὰς λαβόντες
ἀφορμάς. (Andreas, _Proleg. in Apocalyps._).—λαβόντες τὰς ἀφρμάς.
(Anastasius Sin., _Routh’s Rell._ i. 15.)

224 κανόνας ... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This at least is
decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome
says of Ammonius,—“_Evangelicos canones excogitavit_ quos postea
secutus est Eusebius Cæsariensis,” (_De Viris Illust._ c. lv. vol.
ii. p. 881,) we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand
gain statements of this Father are entitled.

What else can be inferred from the account which Eusebius gives of
the present sectional division of the Gospels but that it was also
his own?—Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τὼν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις: ἡ δὲ
σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων
ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα
δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προιὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους
τοῦ βιβλίου. He proceeds to explain how the sections thus numbered
are to be referred to his X Canons:—καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν
ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρόκειται, δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα
κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.

225 “Frustra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Quæ
supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.”
(Tischendorf _on S. Mark_ xvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he
assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to
light in the vith century, and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was
the lost work of Ammonius, (_Proleg._ p. 63, § 660,)—was of course
warranted in appealing to the authority of Ammonius _in support_ of
the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But in truth Mill’s
assumption cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has
convincingly shewn. (_Proleg._ p. 68.) Any one may easily satisfy
himself of the fact who will be at the pains to examine a few of the
chapters with attention, bearing in mind what Eusebius has said
concerning the work of Ammonius. Cap. lxxiv, for instance, contains
as follows:—Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. 33. Mtt. xiii. 34, 35: 10,
11. Mk. iv. 34. Mtt. xiii. 13 to 17. But here it is _S. Matthew’s
Gospel_ which is dislocated,—for verses 10, 11, and 13 to 17 of ch.
xiii. come _after_ verses 33-35; while ver. 12 has altogether
disappeared.

The most convenient edition for reference is Schmeller’s,—_Ammonii
Alexandrini quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum_. (Vienna,
1841.)

226 Only by the merest license of interpretation can εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς be
assumed to mean that Eusebius had found the four Gospels ready
divided to his hand by Ammonius into exactly 1165 sections,—every
one of which he had simply adopted for his own. Mill, (who
nevertheless held this strange opinion,) was obliged to invent the
wild hypothesis that Eusebius, _besides_ the work of Ammonius which
he describes, must have found in the library at Cæsarea the private
copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ammonius,—an unique volume, in
which the last-named Father (as he assumes) will have numbered the
Sections and made them exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss
such a notion. We are dealing with facts,—not with fictions.

227 For proofs of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks
on the (so-called) “Ammonian” Sections, the reader is referred to
the Appendix (G).

228 See above, p. 128, note (f).

229 See above, p. 125.

230 As a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are noted
_without_ the Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in the
Appendix (G).

231 τέσσαρα εἰσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξηκονταδύο. The
words are most unexpectedly, (may I not say _suspiciously_?), found
in Epiphanius, _Ancor._ 50, (_Opp._ ii. 54 B.)

232 By Tischendorf, copying Mill’s _Proleg._ p. 63, § 662:—the fontal
source, by the way, of the twin references to “Epiphanius and
Cæsarius.”

233 Comp. Epiph. (_Ancor._ 50,) _Opp._ ii. 53 C to 55 A, with Galland.
_Bibl._ vi. 26 C to 27 A.

234 Galland. _Bibl._ vi. 147 A.

235 Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112).—It it only fair to add that Davidson is not
alone in this statement. In substance, it has become one of the
common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of S.
Mark’s Gospel is spurious.

236 See Possini _Cat._ p. 363.

237 Ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. [= ver. 9] ταύτην Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς
πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἑτέραν λέγει Μαρίαν παρὰ τὴν θεασαμένην τὸν νεανίσκον.
ἥ καὶ ἀμφότεραι ἐκ τῆς Μαγδαληνῆς ἢσαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν
περιπατοῦσι. καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς [= ver. 12.] τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Κλέοπαν, καθὼς ὁ
Λουκᾶς ἱστορεῖ, (Possini sini _Cat._ p. 364):—Where it will be seen
that _Text_ (κείμενον) and _Interpretation_ (ἑρμηνεία) are
confusedly thrown together. “Anonymus [Vaticanus]” also quotes S.
Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109, _ad fin._—Matthaei (N.T. ii.
269),—overlooking the fact that “_Anonymus Vaticanus_” (or simply
“_Anonymus_”) and “_Anonymus Tolosanus_” (or simply “_Tolosanus_”)
denote two distinct Codices,—falls into a mistake himself while
contradicting our learned countryman Mill, who says,—“Certe Victor
Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. ver. 8] nec ultra
commentantur.”—Scholz’ dictum is,—“Commentatorum qui in catenis SS.
Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ
exhibetur.”

238 See above pp. 62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such
Collections as the _Magna Bibliotheca Vett. PP._ (1618,) vol. iv. p.
330, col. 2 E, F.—For the Greek, see Possini _Catena_, pp. 359-61.

239 See above, pp. 64-5, and Appendix (E).

240 Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20.

_ 241 Introduction_, &c. ii. p. 113.

_ 242 Nov. Test._ Ed. 8va i. p. 406.

_ 243 Developed Crit._ pp. 51-2.

244 ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist. _Eth.
Nic._ I. iii.

245 To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener be it said, that _he_ at
least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all “to the
argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged
difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.” See by all means
his remarks on this subject. (_Introduction_, pp. 431-2.)—One would
have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English
Poem,—which some able men were confident _might_ have been written
by Milton, while others were just as confident that it could not
possibly be his,—ought to have opened the eyes of all to the
precarious nature of such Criticism.

246 Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—“Professor of
Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,”—the author of an able and
convincing paper entitled “Exegetical Studies” in “_The Baptist
Quarterly_” for July, 1869 (Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which “the
words and phrases” contained in S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively
examined.

If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor’s
hands, he will perceive that I must have written the present Chapter
_before_ I knew of his labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr.
Scrivener’s kindness:) my treatment of the subject and his own being
so entirely different. But it is only due to Professor Broadus to
acknowledge the interest and advantage with which I have compared my
lucubrations with his, and the sincere satisfaction with which I
have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at
precisely the same result.

247 Dr. Kay’s _Crisis Hupfeldiana_, p. 34,—the most masterly and
instructive exposure of Bp. Colenso’s incompetence and presumption
which has ever appeared. Intended specially of _his_ handling of the
writings of Moses, the remarks in the text are equally applicable to
much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end
of S. Mark’s Gospel.

248 S. Matth. viii. 1 (καταβάντι αὐτῷ):—5 (εἰσελθόντι τω Ἰ.):—23
(ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ):—28 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ):—ix. 27 (παράγοντι τῷ Ἰ.):—28
(ἐλθόντι):—xxi. 23 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ).

_ 249 On the Creed_, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.)

250 τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ
διαφωνεῖ τὰληθές. Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ I. c. vi.

251 Davidson’s _Introduction_, &c. i. 170.

252 And yet, if it were ever so “sententious,” ever so “abrupt;” and if
his “brief notices” were over so “loosely linked together;”—these,
_according to Dr. Davidson_, would only be indications that S. Mark
actually _was_ their Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark’s
“characteristics,” at p. 151:—“In the consecution of his narrations,
Mark _puts them together very loosely_.” “Mark is also characterised
by a _conciseness_ and apparent incompleteness of delineation which
are allied to the obscure.” “The _abrupt_ introduction” of many of
his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, and
illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common
sense, is the value of such criticism as this? What is to be thought
of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath: denying at
p. 170 the genuineness of a certain portion of Scripture _because_
it exhibits the very peculiarities which at p. 151 he had
volunteered the information are _characteristic_ of its reputed
Author?

253 N.T. vol. i. _Prolegg._ p. 38.

254 It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words
and expressions about to be considered:—

(i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (_ver._ 9.)—See above.

(ii.) ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνθα (_ver._ 9.)—See p. 152.

(iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (_ver._ 9.)—See p. 153.

(iv.) πορεύεσθαι (_vers._ 10, 12, 15.)—_Ibid._

(v.) οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι (_ver._ 10.)—See p. 155.

(vi.) θεᾶσθαι (_ver._ 11 and 14.)—See p. 156.

(vii.) θεαθῆναι (_ver._ 11.)—See p. 158.

(viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (_ver._ 11 and 16.)—_Ibid._

(ix.) μετὰ ταῦτα (_ver._ 12.)—See p. 159.

(x.) ἕτερος (_ver._ 12.)—See p. 160.

(xi) ὅστερον (_ver._ 14.)—_Ibid._

(xii.) βλάπτειν (_ver._ 18.)—_Ibid._

(xiii.) πανταχοῦ (_ver._ 20.)—See p. 161.

(xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν—βεβαιοῦν (_ver._ 20.)—_Ibid._

(xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (_ver._ 15.)—_Ibid._

(xvii.) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (_ver._ 17.)—See p. 162.

(xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (_ver._ 17 and 19.)—See
p. 163.

(xx.) χεῖρας ἐπιθεῖναι ἐρί τινα (_ver._ 18.)—See p. 164.

(xxi. and xxii.) μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (_ver._ 19 and 20.)—_Ibid._

(xxiii.) ἀναληφθῆναι (_ver._ 19.)—See p. 166.

(xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (_verses_ 10, 11 [and
13?].)—_Ibid._

(xxv.) “Verses without a copulative,” (_verses_ 10 and 14.)—_Ibid._

(xxvi. and xxvii.) Absence of εὐθέως and πάλιν.—See p. 168.

255 S. Luke vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9: xiii. 10, 14, 15, 16. S. Luke has, in
fact, all the four different designations for the Sabbath which are
found in the Septuagint version of the O. T. Scriptures: for, in the
Acts (xiii. 14: xvi. 13), he twice calls it ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων.

256 S. Matth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.

257 It occurs in S. Matth. xxviii. 1. S. Mark xvi. 2. S. Luke xxiv. 1.
S. John xx. i. 19. Besides, only in Acts xx. 7.

_ 258 Introduction_, &c. i. 169.

259 See the foregoing note.

260 See Buxtorf’s _Lexicon Talmudicum_, p. 2323.

261 Lightfoot (on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul’s phrase
κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων,—“תבשב דהב [_b’had b’shabbath_,] ‘_In the first_
[lit. _one_] _of the Sabbath_,’ would the Talmudists say.”—Professor
Gandell writes,—“in Syriac, the days of the week are similarly
named. See Bernstein [lit. _one in the Sabbath_, _two in the
Sabbath_, _three in the Sabbath._]”

262 S. Mark xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.

263 The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably תבש
(_shabbath_): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more nearly
than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש
(_shabbatha:_) the final א (_a_) being added for emphasis, as in
Abb_a_, Aceldam_a_, Bethesd_a_, Ceph_a_, Pasch_a_, _&c_.: and this
form,—(I owe the information to my friend Professor
Gandell,)—because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine,
(who spoke Aramaic,) _gave rise to another form of the Greek name
for the Sabbath_,—viz. σάββατα: which, naturally enough, attracted
the article (τό) into agreement with its own (apparently) plural
form. By the Greek-speaking population of Judæa, the Sabbath day was
therefore indifferently called το σαββατον and τα σαββατα: sometimes
again, η ημερα του σαββατου, and sometimes η ημερα των σαββατων.

Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense.
(Accordingly, it is _invariably_ rendered “_Sabbatum_” in the
Vulgate.) Thus, in Exod. xvi. 23,—σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις ἁγία τῷ Κυρίῳ:
and 25,—ἔστι γὰρ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις τῷ Κυρίῳ. Again,—τῇ δὲ ἡμέρα τῇ
ἑβδόμη σάββατα. (Exod. xvi. 26: xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in
the Gospel, what took place on _one definite Sabbath-day_, is said
to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10. S. Mark xii. 1.)

It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form ἐν τοῖς
σάββασι is strictly equivalent to ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ; and was adopted for
convenience in contradistinction to ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις (1 Chron.
xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where Sabbath _days_ are spoken of.

It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for
“weeks;” though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough)
there rendered the word ἑβδομάδας. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same
word occurs twice,) it is once rendered ἀναπαύσεις; once, ἑβδομάδες.
Quite distinct is עובש (_shavooa_) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any
substitution of the one word for the other. But inasmuch as the
recurrence of the _Sabbath-day_ was what constituted _a week_; in
other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish
division of time, was the recurrence of the Jewish day of rest;—τὸ
σάββατον or τὰ σάββατα, the Hebrew name for _the day of rest_,
became transferred to _the week_. The former designation, (as
explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark, once by S. Luke;
while the phrase μία τῶν σαββάτων occurs in the N.T., in all, six
times.

264 So Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._ ii. 15), and Jerome (_De Viris Illust._
ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also
Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ vi. 14.—The colophon in the Syriac Version
shews that the same traditional belief prevailed in the Eastern
Church. It also finds record in the _Synopsis Scripturæ_ (wrongly)
ascribed to Athanasius.

265 παρασκευὴ, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον.—Our E. V. “preparation” is from
Augustine,—“Parasceue Latine præparatio est.”—See Pearson’s
interesting note on the word.

266 Consider Rom. xvi. 13.

267 Townson’s _Discourses_, i. 172.

_ 268 Ibid._

269 See the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark xvi. 2 and of S. John xx. 19. In
the same version, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered
“_una sabbati_.”

270 Davidson’s _Introduction_, &c. i. 169, _ed._ 1848: (ii. 113, _ed._
1868.)

271 “Maria Magdalene ipsa est ‘a quâ septem dæmonia expulerat’: _ut ubi
abundaverat peccatum, superabundant gratiæ_.” (Hieron. _Opp._ i.
327.)

272 So Tischendorf,—“Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽
ἦσ ἐκβεβλήκει ε. δ.” (p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same
remark reiterated by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p.
52.

_ 273 Introduction_, &c. vol. i. p. 169.

274 viz. in chap. vii. 26.

275 Professor Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject.

276 Consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion
alluded to, in Acts i. 13, 14. Note also what is clearly implied by
ver. 21-6, as to the persons who were _habitually_ present at such
gatherings.

277 S. Luke (v. 27) has ἐθεασατο τελώνην. S. Matthew (ix. 9) and S. Mark
(ii. 14) have preferred εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον (Λευίν τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου)
καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον.

278 See S. Matth. ix. 9.

279 One is reminded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefully
_reserves_ the verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the
contemplation of the SAVIOUR’S Cross and of the SAVIOUR’S Sepulchre.

280 S. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 5. S. Mark xvi. 11.

281 Πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, (vi. 1); and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, (xxiii. 5).

282 S. Luke xii. 4.

283 S. Matth. x. 28.

284 S. Mark iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9.

285 Professor Broadus, _ubi suprà_.

286 Col i. 15, 23. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.

287 παραβάλλειν [I quote from the Textus Receptus of S. Mark iv.
30,—confirmed as it is by the Peshito and the Philoxenian, the Vetus
and the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Armenian versions,—besides Codd.
A and D, and all the other uncials (except B, L, Δ, א,) and almost
every cursive Codex. The evidence of Cod. C and of Origen is
doubtful. _Who_ would subscribe to the different reading adopted on
countless similar occasions by the most recent Editors of the
N.T.?]: παραγγέλλειν: παράγειν: παραγίνεσθαι: παραδιδόναι:
παραλαμβάνειν: παρατηρεῖν: παρατιθέναι: παραφέρειν: παρέρχεσθαι:
παρέχειν: παριστάνει.—ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι: ἐπαισχύνεσθαι: ἐπανίστασθαι:
ἐπερωτᾷν: ἐπιβάλλειν: ἐπιγινώσκειν: ἐπιγράφειν: ἐπιζητεῖν:
ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι: ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι: ἐπιλύειν: ἐπιπίπτειν: ἐπιρράπτειν:
ἐπισκιάζειν: ἐπιστρέφειν: ἐπισυνάγειν: ἐπισυντρέχειν: ἐπιτάσσειν:
ἐπιτιθέναι: ἐπιτιμᾷν: ἐπιτρέπειν.

288 S. Mark v. 23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23.

289 S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix. 13, 15.

290 See below, pp. 184-6.

291 See Pearson _on the Creed_, (ed. Burton), vol. i. p. 151.

_ 292 Ibid._ p. 183,—at the beginning of the exposition of “_Our _LORD.”

293 S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2.

294 Alford.

295 Davidson.

296 Exactly so Professor Broadus:—“Now it will not do to say that while
no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be
foreign to Mark, the whole of them combined will do so. It is very
true that the multiplication of _littles_ may amount to much; but
not so the multiplication of _nothings_. And how many of the
expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our
examination, to retain the slightest real force as proving
difference of authorship? Is it not true that most of them, and
those the most important, are reduced to absolutely nothing, while
the remainder possess scarcely any appreciable significance?”—p.
360, (see above, p. 139, note g.)

297 S. John has πάλιν (47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times).
And yet, πάλιν is not met with in the iind, or the iiird, or the
vth, or the viith, or the xvth, or the xviith chapter of S. John’s
Gospel.

_ 298 Printed Text_, p. 256.

299 It will be found that of the former class (1) are the
following:—Article iii: vii: ix: x: xi: xii: xiii: xiv: xv: xxi:
xxiv: xxv: xxvi: xxvii. Of the latter (2):—Art. i: ii: iv: v: vi:
viii: xvi: xvii: xviii: xix: xx: xxii: xxiii.

300 Ch. xiii. 16,—ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ὤν: and ch. xv. 21,—ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽
ἀγροῦ,—an expression which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the
corresponding place of his Gospel, viz. in ch. xxiii. 26.

301 See above, p. 146.

302 The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in
the pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded
to:—“It occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses,
(xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by a curious coincidence, the words and
expressions not elsewhere employed by Mark, footed up precisely the
same number, seventeen. Those noticed are the following (text of
Tregelles):—ver. 44, τέθηκεν (elsewhere ἀποθνήσκο):—ver. 45, γνοὺς
ἀπό, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament: also
ἐδωρήσατο and πτῶμα: ver. 46, ἐνείλησεν, λελατομημένον, πέτρας,
προσεκύλισεν:—chap. xvi. ver. 1, διαγενομένου, and ἀρώματα: ver. 2,
μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων:—ver. 3, ἀποκυλίσει:—ver. 4, ἀνεκεκύλισται. Also,
σφόδρα, (Mark’s word is λίαν.) Ver. 5, ἀν τοῖς δεξιοῖς is a
construction not found in Mark, or the other Gospels, though the
word δεξιός occurs frequently:—ver. 8, εἶχεν, in this particular
sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament: τρόμος.

“This list is perhaps not complete, for it was prepared in a few
hours—about as much time, it may be said, without disrespect, as
Fritsche and Meyer appear to have given to their collections of
examples from the other passage. It is not proposed to discuss the
list, though some of the instances are curious. It is not claimed
that they are all important, but that they are all real. And as
regards the single question of the _number_ of peculiarities, they
certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford
has laid stress.”—p. 361.

303 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.

304 S. Mark i. 9: 14: 20.

305 The same word is found also in S. Luke’s narrative of the same
event, ch. xxiv. 13.

306 On which, Victor of Antioch (if indeed it be he) finely
remarks,—Σχίζονται δὲ οἱ οὐρονοὶ, ἢ κατὰ Ματθαον ἀνοίγονται, ἵνα
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀποδοθῇ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἁγιασμὸς, καὶ συναφθῇ τος
ἐπιγείοις τὰ οὐράνια.—(Cramer i. p. 271.)

307 Disc. v. Sect. ii.

308 This appears to be the true reading.

309 So Chrysostom:—ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι “καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα,” ταῦτα
ἔλεγεν. [vii. 526 a].—He seems to have derived that remark from
Origen [_in Matth._ ed. Huet. i. 249 D]:—κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα
ὁ Σωτὴρ “καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.”—From the same source, I
suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen’s disciple), Bp. of Neocæsarea
in Pontus, A.D. 261, [_Routh_, iii. 257] derived the following:—καὶ
ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁ “πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα” οὐ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ,
κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον.—See, by all means,
Field’s most interesting _Adnotationes in Chrys._, vol. iii. p.
112.... Εντευθεν (finely says Victor of Antioch) ὁ καινὸς ἄρχεται
νόμος ὁ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα. (_Cramer_ i. 335.)

310 Acts x. 15.

311 Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. 2,—ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ... ἀνελήφθη.

312 S. Mark x. 6: xiii. 19.—2 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.)

313 Is. lxvi. 2.

314 See above, p. 143-5.

315 See above, p. 174-5.

316 My attention was first drawn to this by my friend, the Rev. W. Kay,
D.D.

317 The Creed itself, (“ex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis
collectum,”) may be seen at p. 84 of De Touttée’s ed. of Cyril. Let
the following be compared:—

ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi.
19.)

ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ
(ART. VI.) This may be seen _in situ_ at p. 224 C of Cyril.

βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ch. i. 4.)

ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (ART. X.) This may be seen at
p. 295 C of Cyril.

The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in
Professor Heurtley’s little work _De Fide et Symbolo_, 1869, p. 9.

318 See above,—p. 165-6.

_ 319 Cod. Bobbiensis_ (k): which however for “illis” has “et:” for
“Petro,” “puero:” and for “occidentem,” “orientem.” It also repeats
“usque.” I have ventured to alter “ab orientem” into “ab
oriente.”—Compare what is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given
by White and Adler.

320 See above (Art. II.) p. 152-3.

321 Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14.

322 S. Matth. xxvi. 14, 29, 47.—S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 35: x. 32:
xi. 11: xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.—S. Luke viii. 1: ix. 1, 12: xviii. 31:
xxii. 8, 47.—S. John vi. 37, 70, 71: xx. 24.

323 Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. John xviii. 1,—where the
moment of departure _from the city_ is marked: (for observe, they
had left the house and the upper chamber at ch. xiv. 31). See also
ch. xix. 17,—where the going _without the gate_ is indicated: (for
ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider
S. Luke xxi. 37.

324 S. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 4.

325 See above, p. 2.

326 The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is
supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate
Matthaei, made in a place where it was almost safe to escape
attention; viz. in a footnote at the very end of his _Nov. Test._
(ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.—“Haec lectio in Evangeliariis et
Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus.
Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur κυριακῇ
τῶν μυροφόρων, εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον. Secundo, τῷ ὄρθρῳ τῆς ἀναλήψεως.
Tertio, ut ἑωθινὸν ἀναστάσιμον γ᾽. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis
temporibus nullo modo dubitavit Ecclesia.”—Matthaei had slightly
anticipated this in his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.

327 Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων διαδοχάς,—are _the first words_ of the
Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius.

328 See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorised Version.

329 See Bingham’s _Origines_, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4.

330 Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἥ ἀγροὺς μενόντων
ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν
ἀποστόλων, ἤ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται, μέχρις
ἐγχωρεῖ. Then came the Sermon,—then, all stood and prayed,—then
followed Holy Communion.—_Apol._ i. c. 67, (_ed_. Otto, i. 158.)

331 ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ, τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν
σήμερον διέλχθη, καὶ περὶ τίνων;—(_Opp._ ix. p. 697 E. Field’s
text.)

332 Cassian writes,—“Venerabilis Patrum senatus ... decrevit hunc
numerum [sc. duodecim Orationum] tam in Vespertinis quam in
Nocturnis conventiculis custodiri; quibus lectiones geminas
adjungentes, id est, unam Veteris et aliam Novi Testamenti.... In
die vero Sabbati vel Dominico utrasque de Novo recitant Testamento;
id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apostolorum, et aliam de
Evangeliis. Quod etiam totis Quinquagesimae diebus faciunt hi,
quibus lectio curae est, seu memoria Scripturarum.”—_Instit._ lib.
ii. c. 6. (_ed_.1733, p. 18.)

_ 333 Constitutiones Apostolicae_, lib. ii. c. 57, 59: v. 19: viii. 5.

334 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 74, and the reff. in note (k)
overleaf.

335 English readers may be referred to Horne’s _Introduction_, &c.
(_ed._ 1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps
aware of the importance of the preface to Van der Hooght’s _Hebrew
Bible_, (_ed._ 1705) § 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p.
352 _b._

336 Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγου is “Quinquagesima Sunday;” but _the
week_ of “the cheese-eater” is the week _previous_.

337 See Suicer’s _Thesaurus_, vol. ii. 920.

338 “Apud Rabbinos, לודגח תבש _Sabbathum Magnum_. Sic vocatur Sabbathum
proximum ante Pascha.”—Buxtorf, _Lexicon Talmud._ p. 2323.

339 Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀκολουθία τῆς διδασκαλίας [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7]
τῆς πίστεως προέτρεπεν εἰπεῖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως: ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ
Θεοῦ χάρις ᾠκονόμησε πληρέστατά σε ἀκοῦσαι, κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν
ἀσθένειαν, τῇ χθὲς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τῆν Κυριακήν: κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν τῆς
θείας χάριτος, ἐν τῇ Συνάξει τῆς τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ἀκολουθίας τὰ περὶ
τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν περιεχούσης: ἐλέγετο δὲ τὰ
λεγόμενα, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ πάντας, καὶ διὰ τὸ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμοῦ πλῆθος:
ἐξαιρέτως δὲ διά σε: ζητεῖται δὲ εἰ προσέσχες τοῖς λεγομένοις. Οἶδας
γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀκολουθία τῆς Πίστεως διδάσκει σε πιστεύειν εἰς ΤΟΝ
ἈΝΑΣΤΑΝΤΑ ΤΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ: ΚΑΙ ἈΝΕΛΘΟΝΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣ, ΚΑΙ
ΚΑΘΙΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ—μάλιστα μὲν οὖν μνημονεύειν σε νομίζω
τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. πλὴν ἐν παραδρομῇ καὶ νῦν ὑπομιμνήσκω σε τῶν
εἰρημένων. (Cyril. Hier. _Cat._ xiv. c. 24. _Opp._ p. 217 C, D.)—Of
that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again reminds his auditory.
Μέμνησο δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων μοι πολλάκις περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ
πατρος καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν,—he says, _ibid._ p. 219 B. A little
lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων
περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱόν.—_Ibid._ D.

From this it becomes plain _why Cyril nowhere quotes S. Mark_ xvi.
19,—_or S. Luke_ xxiv. 51,—_or Acts_ i. 9. He must needs have
enlarged upon those three _inevitable_ places of Scripture, the day
before.

340 See above, p. 193 and p. 194.

341 Ὥστε δὲ εὐμαθέστερον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, δεόμεθα καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν,
ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων γραφῶν πεποιήκαμεν, προλαμβάνειν, τὴν
περικοπὴν τῆς γραφῆς ἦν ἆν μέλλωμεν ἐξηνεῖσθαι.—In Matth. _Hom._ i.
(_Opp._ vii. 13 B.)—Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, ἥ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον, τὴν
μέλλουσαν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀναγνωσθήσεσθαι τῶν εὐαγγελίων περικοπὴν, ταύτην
πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν μετὰ χεῖρας λαμβάνων ἕκαστος οἴκοι καθήμενος
ἀναγινωσκέτω.—In Joann. _Hom._ ix, (_Opp._ viii. 62 B.)

342 It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching. “Sed quia nunc
interposita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex
Evangelio lectiones oportet in Ecclesiâ recitari, quae ita sunt
annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo ille quem susceperamus
necessitate pauliulum intermissus est, non amissus.”—(_Opp._ vol.
iii. P. ii. p. 825, _Prol._)

343 The place will be found quoted below, p. 202, note (o).

344 See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more full and
satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve
attention, (_Nov. Test._ vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above,
p. 45, notes (r) and (s).

345 At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of his _Nov.
Test._ (Riga, 1788) Matthaei has laboriously _edited_ the “Lectiones
Ecclesiasticæ” of the Greek Church. See also his Appendices,—viz.
vol. ii. pp. 272-318 and 322-363. His 2nd ed. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is
distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the
Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of an ancient MS.;
and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His Συναχάρια (i.
723-68 and iii. 1-24) though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary
readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he
designates “B” and “H,” but which are _our_ “Evstt. 47 and
50,”—uncial Evangelistaria of the viiith century (See Scrivener’s
_Introd._ p. 214.)

Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full
the “Synaxarium” and “Menologium” of Codd. K and M, (viiith or ixth
century.) See also his vol. ii. pp. 456-69. Unfortunately, (as
Scrivener recognises, p. 110,) all here is carelessly done,—as usual
with this Editor; and therefore to a great extent useless. His
slovenliness is extraordinary. The “Gospels of the Passion” (τῶν
ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472); and so
throughout.

Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the most
intelligible account of this matter, by exhibiting _in English_ the
Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (“gathered chiefly from
Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and
Christ’s Coll. Camb.”); and supplying the references to Scripture in
the ordinary way. See, by all means, his _Introduction_, pp. 62-65:
also, pp. 211-225.

346 Consider the following:—Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ
πάντα ἀναγινώσκομεν. ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πάλιν, ὅτι παρεδόθη
ἡμῶν ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη, ὅτι ἀπέθανε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅτι ἐτάφη:
τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν καὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐ μετὰ τὴν
πεντηκοστὴν ἀναγινώσκομεν, ὅτε καὶ ἐγένοντο, καὶ ἀρχὴν
ἔλαβον;—Chrys. _Opp._ iii. 88.

Again:—εἰ γὰρ τότε ἥρξαντο ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἤγουν μετὰ
τὴν κυρίου ἀνάστασιν, τότε ἔδει καὶ τὸ βιβλίον ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῦτο.
ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σταυροῦ ἀναγινώσκομεν, καὶ
τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει ὁμοίως, καὶ τὰ ἐν ἐκάστῃ ἑορτῇ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῇ
πάλιν ἀναγινώσκομεν, οὕτως ἔδει καὶ τὰ θαύματα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ ἐν ταῖς
ἡμέραις τῶν ἀποστολικῶν σημείων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι.—_Ibid._ p. 89 D.

_ 347 Opp._ ii. 454 B, D.

_ 348 Opp._ ii. 290 B.

_ 349 Opp._ ii. 357 E.

350 “Meminit sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine
lectionum nos solere tractare.” (_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 825 _Prol._)

351 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 246.

352 Chrysostom _Opp._ ii. 369 b, c.—Compare Scrivener, _ubi supra_, p.
75.

_ 353 Ed._ Mabillon, p. 116.

_ 354 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 85 B: 88 A:—τίνος ἕνεκεν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ
πεντηκοστῇ τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν.—τίνος
ἕνεκεν τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς
πεντηκοστῆς ἀναγινώσκεται.

355 “Anniversariâ sollemnitate post passionem Domini nostis illum librum
recitari.” _Opp._ iii. (P. ii.) p. 337 G.

356 I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my
deliberate conviction that the Lectionary which, last year, was
hurried with such indecent haste through Convocation,—passed in a
half-empty House by the casting vote of the Prolocutor,—and rudely
pressed upon the Church’s acceptance by the Legislature in the
course of its present session,—is the gravest calamity which has
befallen the Church of England for a long time past.

Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.

Appointed (in 1867) for an _entirely_ different purpose, (viz. the
Ornaments and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and
15 Lay) found themselves further instructed “to suggest and report
_whether any and what alterations and amendments may be
advantageously made_ in the selection of Lessons to be read at the
time of Divine Service.”

Thereupon, these individuals,—(the Liturgical attainments of
nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself
to characterise truthfully,)—at once imposed upon themselves the
duty of inventing _an entirely new Lectionary for the Church of
England_.

So to mutilate the Word of GOD that it shall henceforth be quite
impossible to understand a single Bible story, or discover the
sequence of a single connected portion of narrative,—seems to have
been the guiding principle of their deliberations. With reckless
eclecticism,—entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor
brother,—strange disregard for Catholic Tradition and the claims of
immemorial antiquity;—these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious of
their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have given us a
Lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of
novelty,—the impatient,—and the enemies of Divine Truth.

That the blame, _the guilt_ lies at the door of _our Bishops_, is
certain; but the Church has no one but herself to thank for the
injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her. She has
suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without
resistance; without remonstrance; without (in her corporate
capacity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction. _Can_ it be
right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their
lawful inheritance?... I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at
what is taking place. At least, (as on other occasions,) _liberavi
animam meam_.

357 A trace of this remains in the old Gallican Liturgy,—pp. 137-8.

358 Bingham, xiv. iii. 3.

_ 359 Opp._ vol. vii. p. 791 B.

360 See Dean Payne Smith’s Translation, p. 863.

361 κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα ἀναγινώσκεται.—Chrys.
_Opp._ vii. 818 C.

362 “Passio autem, quia uno die legitur, non solet legi nisi secundum
Matthæum. Voluerain aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes
Evangelistas etiam Passio legeretur. Factum est. Non audierunt
homines quod consueverant, et perturbati sunt.”—_Opp._ vol. v. p.
980 E.

_ 363 Ed._ Mabillon, pp. 130-5.

364 Epiph. _Opp._ ii. 152-3.

365 Chrys. _Opp._ i. 497 C.

366 Epiph. _Opp._ ii. 285-6.

367 The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the
perusal of both passages. Chrysostom declares that Christmas-Day is
the greatest of Festivals; since all the others are but consequences
of the Incarnation.

Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning
solemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to
the human body.

_ 368 Constt. Apostt._ lib. viii. c. 33. After the week of the Passion
and the week of (1) the Resurrection,—(2) Ascension-Day is
mentioned;—(3) Pentecost;—(4) Nativity;—(5) Epiphany. [Note this
clear indication that this viiith Book of the Constitutions was
written or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly
assigned to the work.]

369 Bingham’s _Origines_, B. xx. c. iv. § 2.

370 Chrys. _Opp._ ii. 355. (See the _Monitum_, p. 352.)

371 Chrys. _Opp._ ii. 369 D.

372 Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. LI, c. xvi. (_Opp._ i. 439 A.)

373 See above, pp. 58-9 and 67.

_ 374 Opp._ iii. 102 B. See Bingham on this entire subject,—B. xiv, c.
iii.

375 “Illa quae non scriptu, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto
terrarum orbe observantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis,
vel plenariis Conciliis quorum in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas,
commendata atque statuta retineri. Sicut quod Domini Passio, et
Resurrectio, et Ascensio in cœlis, ut Adventus de cœlo Spiritus
Sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur.”—_Ep._ ad Januarium,
(_Opp._ ii. 124 B, C).

376 “Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos,
ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in Euchar. lect. sext.
Resurrect.”—But “Lect. γ Resurrectionis” is “Marc. xvi. 9-20:”
“Lect. σ,” “Luc. xxiv. 36-53.”—See Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogus
Codd. Syrr._ (1864) pp. 116, 127.

377 See above, p. 34, note (e).

378 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 148.

_ 379 Hieronymi Comes_, (_ed_. Pamel. ii. 31.)—But it is not the
Gallican. (ed. Mabillon, p. 155.) ... It strikes me as just possible
that a clue may be in this way supplied to the singular phenomenon
noted above at p. 118, line 22-8.

380 Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά. See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 72,
and R. P. Smith’s Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer’s _Thes.
Eccl._ i. 1229.

381 Dr. Wright’s _Catal._ p. 70, No. cx. (Addit. 14,464: _fol._ 61_ b._)

_ 382 Ibid._ No. lxx (_fol._ 92 _b_), and lxxii (_fol._ 87 _b_).

383 “Quae titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.” (R. Payne Smith’s
_Catal._ p. 116.)—In the “Synaxarium” of Matthaei (_Nov. Test._
1803, i. p. 731) it is styled Κ. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου.

384 Adler’s _N. T. Verss. Syrr._ p. 71.

385 Dean Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146.

_ 386 Ed._ Mabillon, pp. 144-5.

387 “Resurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis diebus
[Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.” (_Opp._ v. 977
C)—“Quoniam hoc moris est ... _Marci Evangelium_ est quod modo, cum
legeretur, audivimus.” “Quid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?” And he
subjoins a quotation from S. Mark xvi. 12.—_Ibid._ 997 F, 998 B.

_ 388 Hieron. Comes_ (_ed._ Pamel. ii. 27.)

389 So Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 75.—Little stress, however, is to
be laid on Saint’s Day lessons. In Matthaei’s “Menologium” (_Nov.
Test._ 1803, i. p. 765), I find that S. Luke viii. 1-4, or else S.
John xx. 11-18 was the appointed Lection. See his note (5) at p.
750.

390 Note, (in addition to all that has gone before,) that the Festivals
are actually designated by their _Greek_ names in the earliest Latin
Service Books: not only “Theophania,” “Epiphania,” “Pascha,”
“Pentecostes,” (the second, third and fourth of which appellations
survive in the Church of the West, _in memoriam_, to the present
hour;) but “Hypapante,” which was the title bestowed by the
Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of
the Purification, or Presentation of CHRIST in the Temple,) from the
“Meeting” of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκευή, was
called “_Parasceve_” in the West. (Mab. _Lit. Gall._ p. 129.) So
entire was the sympathy of the East with the West in such matters in
very early times, that when Rome decided to celebrate the Nativity
on the 25th December, Chrysostom (as we have been reminded) publicly
announced the fact at Constantinople; and it was determined that in
this matter East and West would walk by the same rule.

391 From Professor Wright’s _Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British
Museum_ (1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is
dated A.D. 824; the oldest Nestorian, A.D. 862; the oldest Malkite,
A.D. 1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; 14,492;
and 14,488.—See his _Catalogue_, Part I. pp. 146, 178, 194.

392 It is exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus
(A.)

393 The reader is requested to refer back to p. 45, and the note
there.—The actual words of Eusebius are given in Appendix (B).

394 See the enumeration of Greek Service-Books in Scrivener’s
_Introduction_, &c. pp. 211-25. For the Syriac Lectionaries, see
Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogue_, (1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also
Professor Wright’s _Catalogue_, (1870) pp. 146 to 203.—I avail
myself of this opportunity to thank both those learned Scholars for
their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered.

395 “Evangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut
decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.” Tischendorf, quoted by
Scrivener, [_Introduction to Cod. Augiensis_,—80 pages which have
been separately published and are _well_ deserving of study,—p. 48,]
who adds,—“I cannot even conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be
thought of less value than another MS. of the same age.”—See also
Scrivener’s _Introduction_, &c. p. 211.

396 e.g. _Addit. MSS._ 12,141: 14,449: 14,450-2-4-5-6-7-8: 14,461-3:
17,113-4-5-6:--(= 15 Codd. in all:) from p. 45 to p. 66 of Professor
Wright’s _Catalogue_.

_ 397 Addit._ MS. 14,464. (See Dr. Wright’s _Catalogue_, p. 70.)

398 Add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of
C. P., (_Introduction_, p. 11), the following:—Gospels for
Quinquagesima, 2nd S. after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity,
Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p. 220),
All Saints.

399 Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke vii. 31) _which introduce
an Ecclesiastical Lection_ (Friday in the iiird week of S. Luke,)
inasmuch as the words are found in _no_ uncial MS., and are omitted
besides by the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must
needs be regarded as a liturgical interpolation.—The same is to be
said of ὁ Ἰησοῦς in S. Matth. xiv. 22,—words which Origen and
Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly
owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in
the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the
Gospel for the ixth Sunday after Pentecost _begins at that
place_.—It will be kindred to the present inquiry that I should
point out that in S. Mark xvi. 9, Ἀναστάς ὁ Ἰησοῦς is constantly met
with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the Vulgate; and yet
there can be _no_ doubt that here also the Holy Name is an
interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the
preceding. The fact is singularly illustrated by the insertion of “Ο
ΙΣ” in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,) _rubro_ above _the same contraction_
(for ὁ Ἰησους) in the text.

400 Not, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of
regarding Codex B, (to which, if Cod. L. and Codd. 1, 33 and 69 are
added, it is _only because they agree with B_), as an all but
infallible guide in settling the text of Scripture; and quietly
taking it for granted that _all the other MSS. in existence_ have
entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind. Until this most
uncritical method, this most unphilosophical theory, is
unconditionally abandoned, progress in this department of sacred
Science is simply impossible.

401 See Matthaei’s note on S. Luke xxii. 43, (_Nov. Test. ed._ 1803.)

402 This will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In
Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions
are given as follows. After τὸ σὸν γενέσθω (i.e. the last words of
ver. 42), is written ὑπέρβα εἰς τὸ τῆς γ᾽. Then, at the end of ver.
44, is written—ἄρχου τῆς γ᾽, after which follows the text καὶ
ἀναστὰς, &c.

In S. Matthew’s Gospel, at chap, xxvi, which contains the Liturgical
section for Thursday in Holy Week (τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλη έ), my Codex
has been only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to
quote from Harl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84,
at the end of S. Matth. xxvi. 39, reads as follows, immediately
after the words,—αλλ᾽ ὡς συ:—Π/Υ, [Cross] (i.e. ὑπάντα.) But in
order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated word and sign
are repeated at foot, as follows:—[Cross] ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκὰν
ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ΡΘ. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῳ ἄγγελος: εἶτα στραφεὶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν,
λέγε: καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς—which are the first words of S.
Matth. xxvi. 40.

Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after
S. Luke xxii. 42, _besides_ the rubric already quoted, has the
following: ἄρξου τῆς μεγάλης έ. Then come the two famous verses
(ver. 43, 44); and, after the words ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς, the
following rubric occurs: ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ τῆς μεγάλης έ Ματθ. ἔρχεται
πρὸς τοῦς μαθητάς.

[With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. F. Rose, Curate of Holy
Trinity, Windsor,) I have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its
text most nearly resembles the Rev. F. H. Scrivener’s l, m, n.]

403 See by all means Matthaei’s _Nov. Test._ (ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and
492.

404 See above, p. 75, note (h).

405 For the 5th Sunday of S. Luke.

406 Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual accuracy,
points out several: e.g. _Nov. Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 19 (_note_
26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10 (_note_ 12), p. 14 (_notes_ 14 and 15),
&c.

407 SS. Philip and James.

408 viz. σαββάτῳ θ: i.e. the ixth Saturday in S. Luke.—Note that Cod. A
also reads ἐγένετο δέ in S. Lu. xi. 1.

409 viz. Monday in the vth, Thursday in the vith week after Pentecost,
and the viiith Sunday after Pentecost.

410 viz. S. Luke xiii. 2: xxiv. 36. S. John i. 29 (ὁ Ἰωάννης): 44: vi.
14: xiii. 3,—to which should perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, א, A,
C (not D) read Ἰησοῦς.

411 See by all means Matthaei’s interesting note on the place,—_Nov.
Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 113-4. It should be mentioned that Cod. C
(and four other uncials), together with the Philoxenian and
Hierosolymitan versions, concur in exhibiting the same spurious
clause. Matthaei remarks,—“Origenes (iv. 171 D) hanc pericopam haud
adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in γενηθήτω σοι.” Will not
the disturbing _Lectionary-practice_ of his day sufficiently explain
Origen’s omission?

412 I recall S. John x. 29: xix. 13: xxi. 1;—but the attentive student
will be able to multiply such references almost indefinitely. In
these and similar places, while the phraseology is exceedingly
simple, the variations which the text exhibits are so exceeding
numerous,—that when it is discovered that _a Church Lesson begins in
those places_, we may be sure that we have been put in possession of
the name of the disturbing force.

413 Viz. K and M. (Field’s _Chrys._ p. 251.)—How is it that the readings
of Chrysostom are made so little account of? By Tregelles, for
example, why are they overlooked entirely?

414 See above, p. 197 to 204.

415 e.g. in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270.

416 In some cursive MSS. also, (which have been probably transcribed
from ancient originals), the same phenomenon is observed. Thus, in
Evan. 265 ( = Reg. 66), ΤΕΛ only occurs, in S. Mark, at ix. 9 and
41: xv. 32 and 41: xvi. 8. ΑΡΧ at xvi. 1. It is striking to observe
that so little were these ecclesiastical notes (embedded in the
text) understood by the possessor of the MS., that in the margin,
over against ch. xv. 41, (where “ΤΕΛ:” stands _in the text_,) a
somewhat later hand has written,—ΤΕ[λος] Τ[ης] ΩΡ[ας]. A similar
liturgical note may be seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere.
Cod. 25 (= Reg. 191), at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, has _only two_
notes of liturgical endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.

417 Among the _Syriac_ Evangelia, as explained above (p. 215), instances
occur of far more ancient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by
the original scribe. Even here, however, (as may be learned from Dr.
Wright’s _Catalogue_, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been only
_irregularly_ inserted in the oldest copies.

418 Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have
exhibited the text thus,—ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΗΛΘΕΝ Η ΩΡΑ.—which is the
reading of Cod. 13 ( = Reg. 50.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order
to improve the sense, substituted for ἦλθεν the word καί. Note the
scholion [_Anon. Vat._] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι,
πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ.

Besides the said Cod. 13, the same reading is found in 47 and 54 (in
the Bodl.): 56 (at Linc. Coll.): 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.): 69 (i.e.
Cod. Leicestr.): 124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): csecr (i.e.
Lambeth, 1177): 2pe (i.e. the 2nd of Muralt’s S. Petersburg Codd.);
and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107). All these eleven MSS.
read ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος at S. Mark xiv. 41.

419 So Scholz (i. 200):—“Pericopa hæc _casu quodam_ forsan exciderat a
codice quodam Alexandrino; unde defectus iste in alios libros
transiit. Nec mirum hunc defectum multis, immo in certis regionibus
plerisque scribis arrisisse: confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione
Marcum Matthæo repugnare. Cf. maxima Eusebium ad Marinum,” &c.

420 περιττὰ ὰν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν
εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai, _Bibl. P.P. Nova_, vol. iv. p. 256.)

421 Alford’s N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (_ed_. 1868.)—And so Tischendorf, (ed.
8va. pp. 406-7.) “Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere
mutilandum adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus
incredibile est, nec ullo probari potest exemplo.”—Tregelles is of
the same opinion. (_Printed Text_, pp. 255-6.)—Matthaei, a competent
judge, seems to have thought differently. “Una autem causa cur hic
locus omitteretur fuit quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur
Evangelistis.” The general observation which follows is true
enough:—“Quæ ergo vel obscura, vel repugnantia, vel parum decora
quorundam opinione habebantur, ca olim ab Criticis et interpretibus
nonnullis vel sublata, vel in dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis
sanctorum Evangeliorum intelligitur.” (_Nov. Test._ 1788, vol. ii.
p. 266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)—“In summâ. Videtur unus et item
alter ex interpretibus, qui hæc cæteris evangeliis repugnare
opinebatur, in dubium vocasse. Hunc deinde plures temere secuti
sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus.” Dr. Davidson says
the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,)
Mr. Scrivener also. (_Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xliv.)

422 I have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M.
de Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.

423 See above, p. 224.

424 Whereas in the course of S. Matthew’s Gospel, only two examples of +
ΤΕΛΟΣ + occur, (viz. at ch. xxvi. 35 and xxvii. 2,)—in the former
case the note has entirely lost its way in the process of
transcription; standing where it has no business to appear. _No_
Liturgical section ends thereabouts. I suspect that the transition
(ὑπέρβασις) anciently made at ver. 39, was the thing to which the
scribe desired to call attention.

425 = Coisl. 20. This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for
Church purposes, appears to me to be the work of the same scribe who
produced Reg. 178, (the codex described above); but it exhibits a
different text. Bound up with it are some leaves of the LXX of about
the viiith century.

426 End of the Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany.

427 In S. Matthew’s Gospel, I could find ΤΕΛΟΣ so written only
twice,—viz. at ch. ii. 23 and xxvi. 75: in S. Luke only once,—viz.
at ch. viii. 39. These, in all three instances, are the concluding
verses of famous Lessons,—viz. the Sunday after Christmas Day, the
iiird Gospel of the Passion, the vith Sunday of S. Luke.

428 This has already come before us in a different connection: (see p.
119): but it must needs be reproduced here; and _this_ time, it
shall be exhibited as faithfully as my notes permit.

429 (1) In Evan. 282 (written A.D. 1176),—a codex which _has been
adapted_ to Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to
say, _is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Mark_ xv. 47
_and_ xvi. 8.

(2) Evan. 268, (a truly superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the
pictures of the Evangelists only sketched in ink,) was never
prepared for Lectionary purposes; which makes it the more remarkable
that, between ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and ἀναστάς, should be found inserted
into the body of the text, τὲ. in gold.

(3) I have often met with copies of S. Matthew’s, or of S. Luke’s,
or of S. John’s Gospel, unfurnished with a subscription in which
ΤΕΛΟΣ occurs: but scarcely ever have I seen an instance of a Codex
where the Gospel _according to S. Mark_ was one of two, or of three
from which it was wanting; much less where it stood alone in that
respect. On the other hand, in the following Codices,—Evan. 10: 22:
30: 293,—S. Mark’s is _the only Gospel of the Four_ which is
furnished with the subscription, + τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου
[cross] or simply + τέλος + .... In Evan. 282, S. Matthew’s Gospel
shares this peculiarity with S. Mark’s.

430 “Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae filum
ineptissime abrupisse verbis—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”—Griesbach _Comment.
Crit._ (ii. 197.) So, in fact, _uno ore_ all the Critics.

431 Chap. V. See above, pp. 66-7.

432 The English reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness if
he will refer back, and read from the last line of p. 44 to the
ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in two places, for “the
end,”—“THE END”.... The entire context of the Greek is given in the
Appendix (B).

433 τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον
αὐτό,) I suspect must be an explanatory gloss.

434 “This then is clear,” (is Dr. Tregelles’ comment,) “that the greater
part of the Greek copies had not the verses in question.”—_Printed
Text_, p. 247.

435 Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in this place of Eusebius
consists entirely in his introduction of the words τὸ τέλος. Had he
merely said τὰ ἀκριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον
περιγράφει ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. ... Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι
τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις περιγέγραπται τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον,—there
would have been nothing extraordinary in the mode of expression. We
should have been reminded of such places as the following in the
writings of Eusebius himself:—Ὁ Κλήμης ... εἰς τὴν Κομόδου τελευτὴν
περιγράφει τοὺς χρόνους, (_Hist. Eccl._ lib. vi. c. 6.)—Ἱππόλυτος
ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτοπος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει,
(_Ibid._ c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)—Or this,
referred to by Stephanus (_in voce_),—Ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἔτι μνησθεὶς περιγράψω
τὸν λόγον, (_Praep. Evang._ lib. vi. c. 10, [p. 280 c, _ed._ 1628].)
But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον wants explaining;
and can be only satisfactorily explained in one way.

436 See above, p. 66 and p. 67.

437 Πάρειμι νῦν ... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα
[_sic_].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.

438 “Consentit autem nobis ad _tractatum quem fecimus de scripturâ_
Marci.”—Origen. (_Opp._ iii. 929 B.) _Tractat._ xxxv. in _Matth._ [I
owe the reference to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the
vigilance of Huet.]—This serves to explain why Victor of Antioch’s
Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origen: as
in Paris Cod. 703, [_olim_ 2330, 958, and 1048: also 18.] where is
read (at fol. 247), Ὠριγένους πρόλογος εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ κατὰ
Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvith cent.)
counterpart of the preceding; which has been transcribed [xviiith
cent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.

Possevinus [_Apparat. Sac._ ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet, _Origeniana_,
p. 274) states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a
Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel by Origen. The source of this
misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the Rev. W. R.
Churton. James, in his “Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,” (1600, lib. i. p.
49,) mentions “_Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae_, Stabat ad
monumentum.”—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe, “Cat. Codd. MSS.
C.C.C.;” [No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—“Origenis presb. Hom. in istud
Johannis, _Maria stabat ad monumentum_,” &c. But what actually led
Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James’s consummation of his own
blunder in lib. ii. p. 49,—which Possevinus has simply appropriated.

439 So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά.

Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις,
but also that _apud Heracleonem_, (who wrote within 50 years of S.
John’s death,) he found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved by
_geographical_ considerations, however, (as he explains,) for
Βηθανία, Origen proposes to read Βηθαβαρά.—Chrysostom (viii. 96 d),
after noticing the former reading, declares,—ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων
ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει ἐν Βηθαβαρά φησιν: but he goes on _to reproduce
Origen’s reasoning_;—thereby betraying himself.—The author of the
_Catena in Matth._ (Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces
Chrysostom:—χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν
Βηθαβαρὰ περιέχει. And so, other Scholia; until at last what was
only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, became generally
received as the reading of the “more accurate copies.”

A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the
true reading of that place is not “60” but “160,”—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ
ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις.
Accordingly, _Eusebius_ also reads the place in the same erroneous
way.

440 Jerome says of himself (_Opp._ vii. 537,)—“Non digne Græca in
Latinum transfero: aut Græcos lege (si ejusdem linguae habes
scientiam) aut si tantum Latinus es, noli de gratuito munere
judicare, et, ut vulgare proverbium est: _equi dentes inspicere
donati_.”

441 See above, pp. 57-9: also Appendix (C), § 2.

442 See above, pp. 225-6.

443 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 116.

444 See Adler’s N. T. _Verss. Syrr._, p. 70.

445 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146.

446 See p. 206, also note (k).

447 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 117.

448 Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark
xvi. 8 (_fol_. 125), as follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then, _rubro_,]
τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then
the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver. 20, (at _fol_. 126 of the
same Codex) is found the following concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽
ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου.

In the same place, (viz. at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel,) is found
in another Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following
rubric:—τέλος τοῦ τρίτου τοῦ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τοῦ ὄρθρου τῆς ἀναλήψεως.

449 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146.

450 Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is
written continuously throughout: and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh
paragraph is observed to commence.

Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies
of the Armenian version. “The Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab,
separates the concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel....
Many of the oldest MSS., after the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, put the
final Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, and then give the additional verses
with a new superscription.” (Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 253)....
We are now in a position to _understand_ the Armenian evidence,
which has been described above, at p. 36, as well as to estimate its
exact value.

451 Euseb. apud Mai, iv. p. 264 = p. 287. Again at p. 289-90.—So also
the author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurr. (Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii.
411-2.)—And see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp.
_Patres Apostol._, (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515.

452 I believe this will be found to be the _invariable_ order of the
Gospels _in the Lectionaries_.

453 This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). See _fol._ 98
_b_.

454 I allude of course to Matthaei’s Cod. g. (See the note in his _N.
T._ vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the learned critic was right in
his conjecture “aliquot folia excidisse,” matters nothing. _The left
hand page ends at the words_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Now, if τελος had
followed, how obvious would have been the inference that the Gospel
itself of S. Mark had come to an end there!

Note, that in the Codex Bezæ (D), S. Mark’s Gospel ends at ver. 15:
in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (_a_)
proves to be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (_b_) from xiii.
24; Cod. Brix. (_f_) from xiv. 70.

455 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. lix.

456 See p. 227.

457 See above, p. 226.

458 So Scholz:—“hic [sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,”
&c.—Tischendorf,—“Testantur scholia ... _Marci Evangelium_ ... versu
9 _finem habuisse_. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22
habet: ἐφοβουντο γαρ + τελος. εν τισι,” &c.—Tregelles appeals to
copies, “sometimes with τέλος interposed after ver. 8,” (p.
254.)—Mai (iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,—“Codex
Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum
versum _habet quidem_ vocem τέλος, ut alibi interdum observatum
fuit; _sed tamen_ ibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum
progredientibus sectionum notis.”

459 Chap. I. and II.

460 Chap. IV, VI-X.

461 Chap. III, V, and VIII.

462 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.

463 Tregelles, Alford.

464 Alford.

465 “Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.”—See the
rest of Tischendorf’s verdict, _suprà_, p. 10; and opposite, p. 245.

466 Tregelles’ _Account of the Printed Text_, p. 259.

467 Alford’s _New Test._ vol. i. _Proleg._ [p. 38] and p. 437.

468 So Norton, Tregelles, and others.

469 This suggestion, which was originally Griesbach’s, is found in
Alford’s _New Test._ vol. i. p. 433, (_ed._ 1868.)—See above, p. 12.
The italics are not mine.

470 Vide _suprà_, p. 10.

_ 471 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 671.

472 Eusebius _Eccl. Hist._ iv. 28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

473 Note the remarkable adjuration of Irenæus, _Opp._ i. 821, preserved
by Eusebius, _lib._ v. 20.—See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 383-4.
Consider the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp’s
martyrdom, _PP. App._ ii. 614-6.

474 Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus;
especially to the work of Marcion.

475 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 381-391.

476 See Chap. VI.

477 Chap. IX.

478 “Ad defendendum hunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus Codicum
consensus in vocabulis et loquendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis
παρεγγράπτοις, etiam multo brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, eo
plures quoque sunt varietates. Comparetur modo Act. xv. 18, Matth.
viii. 13, et loca similia.”—C. F. Matthaei’s _Nov. Test._ (1788)
vol. ii. p. 271.

479 Speaking of the abrupt termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8,
Dr. Tregelles asks,—“Would this have been transmitted as a fact by
good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds for regarding it
to be true?”—(_Printed Text_, p. 257.) Certainly not, we answer. But
_where_ are the “good witnesses” of the “transmitted fact?” _There
is not so much as one._

480 See above, pp. 86-90.

481 See Chap. III.

482 See above, Chap. III. and IV.

483 “Habent periocham hanc Codices Græci, si unum b excipias, omnes.”
(Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p. 70.

484 See above, Chap. X.

485 See above, pp. 66-68.

486 See above, pp. 41 to 51: also Appendix (B).

487 The reader is referred to Mai’s _Nov. PP. Bibl._ vol. iv. p. 262,
line 12: p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8.

488 See above, p. 64-5: also Appendix (E).

489 P. 68 and note (d); p. 119 and note (m).

490 P. 51-7.

491 P. 57-9.

492 P. 59-66.

493 P. 114-125.

494 P. 68-9.

495 Chap. VI.

496 See above, pp. 86 to 88.

497 Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejects _that_
verse also as spurious; and brings the fourth Gospel to an end at
ver. 24, as he brings the second Gospel to an end at ver. 8? For my
own part,—having (through the kindness and liberality of the Keeper
of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, aided by the good offices of
my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at S. Petersburg,)
obtained a photograph of the last page of S. John’s Gospel,—I must
be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr.
Tischendorf’s judgment in this particular. The utmost which can be
allowed is that the Scribe may have possibly changed his pen, or
been called away from his task, just before bringing the fourth
Gospel to a close.

498 See Chap. IX.

499 Chapter X.

500 Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, and Marius
Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.

501 Codex A,—ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of the Psalms.

502 The old Latin Interpreter of Origen’s Commentary on S. Matthew seems
to have found in Origen’s text a quotation from S. Luke ii. 14 which
is _not represented in the extant Greek text of Origen_. Here also
we are presented with “hominibus _bonae voluntatis_.” (_Opp._ iii.
537 C). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.

503 Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. (_Suprà_,
pp. 96-99.)

504 From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.

_ 505 Vid. suprà_, p. 233.

506 P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage from
THEOPHYLACT (A.D. 1077) which should have obtained notice in a much
earlier page:—Ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς; ἐνταῦθα στίξον, εἶτα εἱπέ; πρωί
πρώτῇ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. οὐ γὰρ ἀνέστη πρωί (τίς γὰρ
οἴδε πότε ἀνέστη;) ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάνη πρωί κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (αὔτη γὰρ ἡ πρώτη
τοῦ σαββάτου, τουτέστι, τῆς ἑβδομάδος,) ἥν ἄνω ἐκάλεσε μίαν
σαββάτων; [_Opp._ vol. i. p. 263 C.

It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like
Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing Eusebius.
See above, p. 66, note (c).

507 Kollar, (editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same
opinion.—Huet (_Origeniana_, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) has a brief
and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject; but he arrives
at a far shrewder conclusion.

508 The copies which I have seen, are headed,—ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ (sometimes
ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ) ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ
ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no
Author’s name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril,
Origen, &c.—_Vide infrà_, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, No.
xlvii (comp, xxviii.)

_ 509 Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in
Evangelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem
editi, nunc vero studio et operâ Theodori Peltani luce simul et
Latinitate donati._ Ingolstadt. 1580, 8vo. pp. 510.

510 “Ex hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde
annulos formavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis
aptatos, inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem
producerem, quo, si possem consequi, sancto Evangelistae Marco decus
et ornamentum adderetur.”—_Præfatio_: from which the particulars in
the text are obtained.

511 ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων
ἐξήσησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit
C. F. Matthæi, Mosquae, 1775.

512 P. xxvii-xxviii.

513 To understand what is alluded to, the reader should compare the
upper and the lower half of p. 442 in Cramer: noting that he has one
and the same annotation before him; but diversely exhibited. (The
lower part of the page is taken from Cod. 178.) Besides transposing
the sentences, the author of Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference
to Chrysostom, and omitted the name of Apolinarius in line 10.
(Compare Field’s ed. of _Chrys._ iii. 529, top of the page.)

514 Thus the two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to agree with
the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. 527. See also _infrà_, p. 289.

515 Let any one, with Mai’s edition of the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of
Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged,
mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p.
257 with Cramer’s “Catenae,” i. p. 251-2; and this again with the
“Catena in Joannem” of Corderius, p. 448-9.

516 With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.

517 p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p. 4.

518 Eusebius is again quoted at p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line
23-5). See especially p. 446.

519 What is found at p. 314 (on S. Mark v. 1,) is a famous place. (Cf.
Huet’s ed. ii. 131.) Compare also Victor’s first note on i. 7 with
the same edit. of Origen, ii. 125 C, D,—which Victor is found to
have abridged. Compare the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284 A.
Note, that ἄλλος δέ φησι, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf.
Possinus, p. 324.

520 See pp. 408, 418, 442.

521 e.g. the first note on p. 311; (comp. Possinus, p. 95): and the last
note on p. 323; (comp. Poss. p. 123.) Compare also Cramer, p. 395
(line 16-22) with Poss. p. 249.—I observe that part of a note on p.
315 is ascribed by Possinus (p. 102) to Athanasius: while a scholium
at p. 321 and p. 359, has no owner.

522 e.g. p. 408, 411 (twice).

523 In p. 418,—ὁ τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος Ἰωάννης. For instances
of quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 with Chrys. pp.
398-9: p. 376 with Chrys. pp. 227-8: p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c.

524 Take for example Victor’s Commentary on the stilling of the storm
(pp. 312-3), which is merely an abridged version of the first part
of Chrysostom’s 28th Homily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8); about 45
lines being left out. Observe Victor’s method however. Chrysostom
begins as follows:—Ὁ μὲν οὖν Λουκᾶς, ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ
ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν. (Then follows S. Luke
viii. 22.) καὶ ὁ Μάρκος ὁμοίως. Οὗτος δὲ οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ. Victor, because he had S. Mark (not S.
Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus:—Ὁ μὲν Μάρκος ἀπαλλάττων
ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ὁμοίως δὲ
καὶ ὁ Λοῦκας; ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα
διατηρεῖ.

525 e.g. V. A. p. 422 (from ὁ μέν φησιν to ἄλλος δέ φησιν) = Chrys. p.
460. Observe the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, ἄλλος
φησιν.—So again, V. A. pp. 426-7 = Chrys. pp. 473-6: where ἄλλος δέ
φησι, at the foot of p. 427 introduces a quotation from Origen, as
appears from Possinus, p. 324—See also p. 209, line 1,—which is from
Chrys. p. 130,—ἤ ὡς ὁ ἄλλος being the next words.—The first three
lines in p. 316 = Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, ἄλλος δέ φησιν. See
also pp. 392: 407 (φασί τινες—ἕτερος δέ φησιν): pp. 415 and 433.
After quoting Eusebius by name (p. 446-7), Victor says (line 3)
ἅλλος δέ φησιν.

526 e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which = Chrys. p. 447.

527 e.g. Theod. Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Reg.
201:—Basil, (p. 370) whose name Possinus does not seem to have
read:—Cyril’s name, which Possinus found in a certain place (p.
311), is not mentioned in _Laud._ Gr. 33 _fol._ 100 _b_, at top, &c.

528 So in the _Catena_ of Corderius, in _S. Joannem_, p. 302.

529 I believe it will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 corresponds _exactly_
with Cod. Reg. 188: also that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201
correspond with those of Cod. Reg. 206; to which last two, I believe
is to be added Cod. Reg. 187.

530 Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384
in the _Syr. Cat._

_ 531 Catalogue Librorum MSS._ Lips. 1830, 4to. p. 656 _b_.

_ 532 Reg._ 177 = A: 178 = B: 230 = C.—_Coisl._ 19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F:
22 = G: 24 = H.—_Matthaei’s_ d _or_ D = I: _his_ e _or_ E = J: _his_
12 = K: _his_ a _or_ A = L.—_Vat._ 358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O: 1229 =
P: 1446 = Q.—_Vind. Koll._ 4 _Forlos._ 5 = R.—_Xav. de Zelada_ =
S.—_Laur._ 18 = T: 34 = U.—_Venet._ 27 = V.—_Vind. Lamb._ 38 = W :
39 = X.

533 So B-E (which I chiefly follow) begins,—Το δε αναστας.

534 B begins thus,—Ει δε και το αναστας δε πρωι μετα τα επιφερομενα
παρα. It is at this word (παρα) that most copies of the present
scholion (A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U,
V, W, X) begin.

535 So far (except in its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L,
M, N, O, P, T, begin,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ου κεινται [I, ου
κειται: J, ουκ ην δε] ταυτα τα [M, O, T om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [D,
F, H om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον [B, εν τω παροντι] ευαγγελιῳ.

536 So I, J, K, L, and H. P proceeds,—ως νοθα νομισθεντα τισιν ειναι.
But B, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, O, T exhibit,—ως νοθα νομισαντες αυτα
τινες [B om. τινες] ειναι. On the other hand, A and Q begin and
proceed as follows,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ταυτα τα [Q om. τα]
επιφερομενα εν [A om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιῳ ως νοθα
νομισαντες τινες [Q, τινας (a clerical error): A om. τινες] ουκ
εθηκαν.

537 So B, except that it omits ως. So also, A, D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N,
O, P, Q, T, except that they begin the sentence, ημεις δε.

538 So D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, T: also B and Q, except that they
prefix και to κατα το Π. B is peculiar in reading,—ως εχει η αληθεια
Μαρκου (transposing Μαρκου): while C and P read,—ομως ημεις εξ
ακριβων αντιγραφων και πλειστων ου μην αλλα και εν τῳ Παλαιστιναιῳ
ευαγγελιῳ Μαρκου ευροντες αυτα ως εχει η αληθεια συντεθεικαμεν.

539 So all, apparently: except that P reads εμφερομενην for
επιφερομενην; and M, after αναστασιν inserts εδηλωσαμεν, with a
point (.) before μετα: while C and P (after ανασταςιν,) proceed,—και
την [C, ειτα] αναληψιν και καθεδραν εκ δεξιων του Πατρος ῳ πρεπει η
δοξα και η τιμη νυν και εις τους αιωνας. αμην. But J [and I think,
H] (after γαρ) proceeds,—διο δοξαν αναπεμψωμεν τῳ ανασταντι εκ
νεκρων Χριστῳ τῳ Θεῳ ημων αμα τῳ αναρχῳ Πατρι και ζωοποιῳ Πνευματι
νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων. αμην.

540 So B. All, except B, C, H, J, P seem to end at εφοβουντο γαρ.

541 e.g. οὐκ ἦν δέ for οὐ κεῖνται.

542 Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author of _the
Canons_ as well:—“Canones quos _Eusebius_ Caesariensis Episcopus
_Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium_ in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in
Graeco habentur expressimus.” (_Ad Papam Damasum. Epist._) And
again: “_Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavit_ quos postea
secutus est Eusebius Caesariensis.” (_De Viris Illustr._ c. 55
[_Opp._ ii. 881.])—See above, p. 128.

543 There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome
quarto volume (pp. 216) entitled _Harmonia quatuor Evangeliorum
juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones_. It is merely the
contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printed _in extenso_,—and of
course is no “Harmony” at all. It would have been a really useful
book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has
omitted to number the sections.

544 This last § according to _Tischendorf’s_ ed. of the Eusebian Canons.

545 Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have
been recognised at least _by Eusebius_. Our LORD’S Agony in the
Garden for instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by
him numbered § 283: and that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28,
he certainly numbered § 216,—whatever Tischendorf may say to the
contrary. (See p. 203.)

546 It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References
follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in
the order of their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the
matter in hand:—and that, (2) actual Quotations, and even Allusions
to other parts of Scripture when they are undeniable, should be
referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also certain that, (3)
to a far greater extent than at present, _sets_ of References might
be kept _together_; not scattered about in small parcels over the
whole Book.—Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present
occasion,) (4) it is to be wished that _strictly parallel places_ in
the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative
only, or are merely recalled by their similarity of subject or
expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful
illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,—Why is it no longer
possible to purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha? _Who_
does not miss the reference to “Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12” at Gen. ix.
14? _Who_ can afford to do without the reference to “1 Macc. iv. 59”
at S. John x. 22?

547 Mai, vol. iv. p. 287. See also p. 293.

548 Tischendorf says 19 only.

549 Tischendorf says 96 only.

550 Tischendorf says 13 only.

551 Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I, P, Q, R, W6, Y,
Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, iscr, sscr. Also D and K. (_Cod. Bezæ_, p.
xx, and _Introd._ pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I think _not_
263.)

552 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 51 and 52: _Cod. Bezæ_, p. xx. note
[2.]

553 Evan. 263, for instance, has certainly _blank_ Eusebian Tables at
the beginning: the _frame_ only.

554 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 51 (note 2),—where Tregelles (in
Horne’s _Introd._ iv. 200) is quoted.

555 e.g. Codd. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one other at Paris, but I
have not preserved a record of the number.) To these, Tregelles adds
E; (Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W,
and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener’s _Cod. Bezae_, p. xx.)

556 The _order_ of these monograms requires explanation.

557 Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450, and 1, and 2, and 4, and 6, and 7, and
8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright’s _Catalogue,_ 4to. 1870.)
Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler,
p. 52-3: also p. 63.

558 “Dawkins 3.” See Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogue_, p. 72.

559 It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, _every
verse_ of S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes
an independent section (§§ 281-288): ver. 16-18 another (§ 289); and
verr. 19-20, another (§ 290), which is the last. The Greek scheme,
as a rule, makes independent sections of verr. 8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but
throws together ver. 10-11: 12-13: 15-16: 17-18. (_Vide infrà_, p.
311.)

560 Note that § 392/9 = S. Luke xxiv. 12: § 394/10 = ver. 18-34: § 395/8
= ver. 35: § 396/9 is incomplete. [Dr. Wright supplies the lacune
for me, thus: § 396/9 = ver. 36-41 (down to θαυμαζόντων): § 397/9 =
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς down to the end of ver. 41: § 398/9 = ver. 42: § 399/9
= ver. 43: § 400/10 = ver. 44-50: § 401/8 = 51: § 402/10 = ver. 52,
3.

Critical readers will be interested in comparing, or rather
contrasting, the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which
prevails in all Greek Codices. S. John’s § 248/1 = xx. 18: his §
249/9 = ver. 19 to εἰρήνη ὑμῖν in ver. 21: his $ 250/7 = ver. 21
(καθώς to the end of the verse): his § 251/10 = ver. 22: his § 252/7
= ver. 23: his § 253/[10] = ver. 24-5: his § 254/[9] = ver. 26-7:
his § 255/10 = ver. 28 to the end of xxi. 4: his § 256/9 = xxi. 5:
his § 257/9 = xxi. 6 (to εὑρήσετε): his § 258/9 = ver. 6, (ἔβαλον to
the end): his § 259/[10] = ver. 7, 8: his § 260/[9] = ver. 9: his §
261/[10] = ver. 10: his § 262/9 = ver. 11: his § 263/9 = first half
of ver. 12: his § 264/10 is incomplete.

[But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently
the correcter ones, 263/10 stands opposite the middle of ver. 12
[οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα], and 264/9 opposite ver. 13 [ἔρχεται οὖν],) proceeds
to supply the lacune for me, thus: § 264/9 = ver. 13: § 265/10 =
ver. 14-5 (down to φιλῶ σε; λέγει αυτῷ): § 266/9 = βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία
μου, (end of ver. 15): § 267/10 = ver. 16 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 268/9
= λέγει αὐτῷ, Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατα μου (end of ver. 16): § 269/10 =
ver. 17 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 270/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ., β. τὰ π. μου
(end of ver. 17): § 271/10 = ver. 18 to 25.

561 “I have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and
7,157. The first three are Nos. lxix, lxx, and lxxi, in my own
Catalogue: the last, a Nestorian MS., is No. xiii in the old
Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen (London, 1838). All four agree in
their numeration.”

562 See the preceding note.—Availing myself of the reference given me by
my learned correspondent, I read as follows in the Catalogue:—“Inter
ipsa textus verba, numeris viridi colore pictis, notatur Canon
harmoniae Eusebianae, ad quem quaevis sectio referenda est. Sic,
[glyph] [i.e. 1] indicat canonem in quo omnes Evangelistae
concurrunt,” &c. &c.

563 Suidas [A.D. 980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke,
makes the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171.

564 This sheet was all but out of the printer’s hands when the place in
vol. i. of Assemani’s Bibliotheca Medicea, (fol. 1742,) was shewn me
by my learned friend, P. E. Pusey, Esq., of Ch. Ch.—Dr. Wright had
already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from
the mutilated fragments of the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to
Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and 14,450.

565 Dr. Tregelles. (_Vide suprà_, pp. 125-6.) And so, Tischendorf.

566 The others are 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 32, 37, 40, 45, 52, 98, 113, 115,
127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 169, 186, 188, 193, 195, 265, 269,
276, 371. Add. 18,211, Cromwell 15, Wake 12 _and_ 27.

567 The others are 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 54 [more §§ ?], 65, 68,
111, 112, 114, 118, 157, 183, 190, 202, 263, 268, 270, 273, 277,
278, 284, 287, 294, 414, 438, 439. Rich 7,141. Add. 17,741 _and_
17,982. Cromw. 16. Canonici 36 _and_ 112. Wake 21.

568 Viz. 184, 192, 264, hscr, Add. 11,836. Ti. Wake 29.

569 The others are 10, 20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl.
141.

_ 570 Vide suprà_, p. 33. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p. 53.)
The others are 8, 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36.

571 The others are 7, 27, 34, 38, 39, 46, 74, 89, 105, 116, 117, 135,
179, 185, 194, 198, 207, 212, 260, 261, 267, 275, 279, 293, 301,
445, kscr. Add. 22,740. Wake 22, 24, 30; _and_ 31 in which, ver. 20
is numbered CMB.

572 But Cod. U inserts ευθεως before εξηλθεν; and (at least two of the
other Codices, viz.) 48, 67 read αιμα και υσωρ.

573 Σημείωσις is what we call an “Annotation.” [On the sign in the text,
see the Catalogue of MSS. in the Turin Library, P. i. p. 93.] On the
word, and on σημειοῦσθαι, (consider 2 Thess. iii. 14,) see the
interesting remarks of Huet, _Origeniana_, iii. § i. 4. (at the end
of vol. iv. of Origen’s _Opp._ p. 292-3.)—Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ v.
20) uses σημείωσις in this sense. (See the note of Valesius.) But it
is plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinus (_subscriptio_),
that it often denoted a “signature,” or signing of the name.
Eusebius so employs the word in _lib._ v. 19 _ad fin._

574 He was Patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 512-9.—The extract (made by Petrus
junior, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 578,) purports to be
derived from the 26th Epistle, (Book 9,) which Severus addressed to
Thomas Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani, _Bibl.
Orient._ vol. ii. pp. 81-2.

575 I cannot find the place in Cyril. I suppose it occurs in a lost
Commentary of this Father,—whose Works by the way are miserably
indexed.

576 Ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν [viz. the sect of the Severiani] ἀρχηγὸς
ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων
συνθεὶς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν. Ὁ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι
νῦν φέρεται. The next words are every way suggestive. Τοῦ δὲ
ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς, ὡς
ἐπιδιωρθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν.—Eusebius, _Hist.
Eccl._ iv. 29, § 4.

577 See, for example, the readings of B or א, or both, specified from p.
80 to p. 86.

_ 578 Vid. suprà_, p. 129, note (g.)

_ 579 Opp._ vol. i. p. 391 D.

_ 580 Haeret. Fab._ lib. i. c. xx. (_Opp._ iv. 208.)

581 Clinton, F. R. ii. _Appendix_, p. 473, quoting Theodoret’s “Ep. 113,
p. 1190. [_al._ vol. iii. p. 986-7].”

_ 582 Quoted by Matthaei, N. T._ (1788) vol. ix. p. 228, _from_ g, a, d.

_ 583 Ibid_., ii. 69, and ix. 228.

_ 584 Nov. Test._ (1869), p. 404.

585 Let the reader examine his “Quaestio ix,” (Mai, vol. iv. p. 293-5):
his “Quaestio x,” (p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296, line
29-32.

586 See Chrys. _Opp._ vol. viii. p. 522 _c_:—ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς
ἐπεχωρίαζεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε
ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark" ***

Home