initial commit of ebook 26134HEAD main

author: Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> 2025-10-15 02:20:14 -0700
committer: Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> 2025-10-15 02:20:14 -0700
commit: 8aa747b0d6af52293faf27299f6241c2aa429091 (patch)
tree: 5bcfda48c4957748aa29b5c4ec23b8f390a72f81 /26134-h
6 files changed, 19684 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/26134-h/26134-h.html b/26134-h/26134-h.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ad6e96c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/26134-h/26134-h.html
@@ -0,0 +1,19684 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /><meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /><link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" /><meta name="DC.Creator" content="John Burgon" /><meta name="DC.Title" content="The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark" /><meta name="DC.Date" content="July 27, 2008" /><meta name="DC.Language" content="English" /><meta name="DC.Publisher" content="Project Gutenberg" /><meta name="DC.Identifier" content="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/26134" /><meta name="DC.Rights" content="This text is in the public domain." /><title>The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark by John Burgon</title><style type="text/css">/* 
+The Gnutenberg Press - default CSS2 stylesheet
+
+Any generated element will have a class "tei" and a class "tei-elem"
+where elem is the element name in TEI. 
+The order of statements is important !!! 
+*/
+
+.tei                            { margin: 0; padding: 0; 
+                                  font-size: 100%; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }
+
+.block                          { display: block; }
+.inline                         { display: inline; }
+.floatleft                      { float: left;  margin: 1em 2em 1em 0; }
+.floatright                     { float: right; margin: 1em 0 1em 2em; }
+.shaded                         { margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; 
+                                  padding: 1em; background-color: #eee; }
+.boxed                          { margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; 
+                                  padding: 1em; border: 1px solid black; }
+
+body.tei		        { margin: 4ex 10%; text-align: justify }
+div.tei              	        { margin: 2em 0em }
+p.tei              	        { margin: 0em 0em 1em 0em; text-indent: 0em; }
+blockquote.tei	     	        { margin: 2em 4em }
+
+div.tei-lg                      { margin: 1em 0em; }
+div.tei-l		        { margin: 0em; text-align: left; }
+div.tei-tb                      { text-align: center; }
+div.tei-epigraph     	        { margin: 0em 0em 1em 10em; }
+div.tei-dateline	        { margin: 1ex 0em; text-align: right }
+div.tei-salute                  { margin: 1ex 0em; }
+div.tei-signed                  { margin: 1ex 0em; text-align: right }
+div.tei-byline                  { margin: 1ex 0em; }
+
+                                /* calculate from size of body = 80% */
+div.tei-marginnote		{ margin: 0em 0em 0em -12%; width: 11%; float: left; }
+
+div.tei-sp                      { margin: 1em 0em 1em  2em }
+div.tei-speaker	                { margin: 0em 0em 1em -2em;
+                        	  font-weight: bold; text-indent: 0em }
+div.tei-stage                   { margin: 1em 0em; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic }
+span.tei-stage	     	        { font-weight: normal; font-style: italic }
+
+div.tei-eg             	        { padding: 1em; 
+                     	          color: black; background-color: #eee }
+
+hr.doublepage	     	        { margin: 4em 0em; height: 5px; }
+hr.page            	        { margin: 4em 0em; height: 2px; }
+
+ul.tei-index                    { list-style-type: none }
+
+dl.tei                          { margin: 1em 0em }
+
+dt.tei-notelabel                { font-weight: normal; text-align: right; 
+                     	          float: left; width: 3em }
+dd.tei-notetext                 { margin: 0em 0em 1ex 4em }
+
+span.tei-pb                     { position: absolute; left: 1%; width: 8%;
+                                  font-style: normal; }
+
+span.code          	        { font-family: monospace; font-size: 110%; }
+
+ul.tei-castlist 		{ margin: 0em; list-style-type: none }
+li.tei-castitem		        { margin: 0em; }
+table.tei-castgroup     	{ margin: 0em; }
+ul.tei-castgroup		{ margin: 0em; list-style-type: none; 
+				  padding-right: 2em; border-right: solid black 2px; }
+caption.tei-castgroup-head	{ caption-side: right; width: 50%; text-align: left; 
+				  vertical-align: middle; padding-left: 2em; }
+*.tei-roledesc  		{ font-style: italic }
+*.tei-set			{ font-style: italic }
+
+table.rules                     { border-collapse: collapse; }
+table.rules caption,
+table.rules th,
+table.rules td                  { border: 1px solid black; }
+
+table.tei                       { border-collapse: collapse; }
+table.tei-list                  { width: 100% }
+
+th.tei-head-table	        { padding: 0.5ex 1em }
+
+th.tei-cell		        { padding: 0em 1em }
+td.tei-cell		        { padding: 0em 1em }
+
+td.tei-item		        { padding: 0; font-weight: normal; 
+                                  vertical-align: top; text-align: left; }
+th.tei-label,
+td.tei-label                    { width: 3em; padding: 0; font-weight: normal; 
+                                  vertical-align: top; text-align: right; }
+
+th.tei-label-gloss,
+td.tei-label-gloss              { text-align: left }
+
+td.tei-item-gloss,
+th.tei-headItem-gloss           { padding-left: 4em; }       
+
+img.tei-formula                 { vertical-align: middle; }
+
+</style></head><body class="tei">
+
+
+
+  
+
+  
+
+
+<div lang="en" class="tei tei-text" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em" xml:lang="en">
+  <div class="tei tei-front" style="margin-bottom: 6.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">
+    <div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+      <div id="pgheader" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em">The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark by John Burgon</p></div><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost
+          and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
+          give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
+          Gutenberg License <a href="#pglicense" class="tei tei-ref">included with this
+          eBook</a> or online at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/license" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/license</a></p></div><pre class="pre tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em">Title: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark
+
+Author: John Burgon
+
+Release Date: July 27, 2008 [Ebook #26134]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: UTF-8
+
+
+***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK***
+</pre></div>
+    </div>
+    <div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+      
+    </div>
+
+    <hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">THE</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.73em"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE LAST TWELVE VERSES</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 120%">OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.73em"><span style="font-size: 173%">S. MARK</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Vindicated Against Recent Critical
+        Objectors</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">And Established</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 120%">by</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">John W. Burgon B.D.</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">Vicar of S. Mary-The-Virgin's, Fellow of Oriel
+         College,</p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">and Gresham Lecturer in Divinity.</p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-style: italic">With Facsimiles of Codex א And
+            Codex L</span></span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">"'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
+          <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-style: italic">verifying your references</span></span>, sir!"</p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-style: italic">Conversation of the late</span></span>
+               <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">President Routh</span></span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 120%">Oxford and London:</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">James Parker and Co.</span></p>
+      <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1871.</span></p>
+    </div>
+    <hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+      <h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Contents</span></h1>
+      <ul class="tei tei-index tei-index-toc"><li><a href="#toc1">The Codex</a></li><li><a href="#toc3">Dedication: To Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., M.P.</a></li><li><a href="#toc5">Preface.</a></li><li><a href="#toc7">The Last Twelve Verses.</a></li><li><a href="#toc9">Chapter I. THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL, STATED.</a></li><li><a href="#toc11">Chapter II. THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.</a></li><li><a href="#toc13">Chapter III. THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.</a></li><li><a href="#toc15">Chapter IV. THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.</a></li><li><a href="#toc17">Chapter V. THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS.</a></li><li><a href="#toc19">Chapter VI. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART I.</a></li><li><a href="#toc21">Chapter VII. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART II.</a></li><li><a href="#toc23">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.</a></li><li><a href="#toc25">Chapter IX. INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.</a></li><li><a href="#toc27">Chapter X. THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.</a></li><li><a href="#toc29">Chapter XI. THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.</a></li><li><a href="#toc31">Chapter XII. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT.</a></li><li><a href="#toc33">APPENDIX (A).</a></li><li><a href="#toc35">APPENDIX (B).</a></li><li><a href="#toc37">APPENDIX (C).</a></li><li><a href="#toc39">APPENDIX (D).</a></li><li><a href="#toc41">APPENDIX (E).</a></li><li><a href="#toc43">APPENDIX (F).</a></li><li><a href="#toc45">APPENDIX (G).</a></li><li><a href="#toc47">APPENDIX (H).</a></li><li><a href="#toc49">POSTSCRIPT.</a></li><li><a href="#toc51">L'ENVOY</a></li><li><a href="#toc53">GENERAL INDEX.</a></li><li><a href="#toc55">Footnotes</a></li></ul>
+    </div>
+  </div>
+<div class="tei tei-body" style="margin-bottom: 6.00em; margin-top: 6.00em">
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagei">[pg i]</span><a name="Pgi" id="Pgi" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc1" id="toc1"></a>
+<a name="pdf2" id="pdf2"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">The Codex</span></h1>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+[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.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+On the next page is exhibited an <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">exact Fac-simile</span></span>, obtained
+by Photography, of fol. 28 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span> of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Codex
+Sinaiticus</span></span> 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. <a href="#Pg070" class="tei tei-ref">70</a>, and pp.
+<a href="#Pg086" class="tei tei-ref">86-8</a>. 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It will be perceived that the text begins at S. Mark xvi. 2,
+and ends with the first words of S. Luke i. 18.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Up to this hour, every endeavour to obtain a Photograph
+of the corresponding page of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Codex Vaticanus</span></span>, 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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Pope Pius IX.</span></span>, 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Codex B</span></span> (it is numbered
+fol. 1303,) which exhibits the abrupt termination of the
+Gospel according to S. Mark.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+J. W. B.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Oriel College, Oxford</span></span>,<br />
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">June 14, 1871</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+  </p><div class="tei tei-figure" style="width: 100%; text-align: center"><img src="images/facsimile-1.png" width="378" height="700" alt="[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]" /></div>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+  </p><div class="tei tei-figure" style="width: 100%; text-align: center"><img src="images/facsimile-2.png" width="340" height="700" alt="[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]" /></div>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pageiv">[pg iv]</span><a name="Pgiv" id="Pgiv" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">"My Word Will Not Pass Away"</span></h1>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστι</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: center">καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.</div>
+</div>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagev">[pg v]</span><a name="Pgv" id="Pgv" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc3" id="toc3"></a>
+<a name="pdf4" id="pdf4"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Dedication: To Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., M.P.</span></h1>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Dear Sir Roundell</span></span>,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I do myself the honour of inscribing this volume to you. Permit
+me to explain the reason why.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“last Twelve Verses”</span> 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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagevi">[pg vi]</span><a name="Pgvi" id="Pgvi" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,—untrustworthy
+in every particular.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Mark's
+last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a
+subject of dispute among men.</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I am, with sincere regard and respect,<br />
+Dear Sir Roundell,<br />
+Very faithfully yours,<br />
+JOHN W. BURGON.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Oriel</span></span>,<br />
+July, 1871.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagevii">[pg vii]</span><a name="Pgvii" id="Pgvii" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc5" id="toc5"></a>
+<a name="pdf6" id="pdf6"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Preface.</span></h1>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pageviii">[pg viii]</span><a name="Pgviii" id="Pgviii" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unremunerative</span></em>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Texts</span></em> are wholly inadmissible, yet is it
+equally certain that by the conscientious diligence
+with which those distinguished Scholars have respectively
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pageix">[pg ix]</span><a name="Pgix" id="Pgix" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">him</span></em>, I will very humbly beg
+their pardon also.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,—<span class="tei tei-q">“I
+see the learned son of a learned Father, sir!”</span>—Let
+me be permitted to add that my friend inherits
+the Bishop's fine taste and accurate judgment also.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagex">[pg x]</span><a name="Pgx" id="Pgx" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+more than half a thousand years old,) as <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Collegium
+Scholarium in Sacrâ Theologiâ studentium,—perpetuis
+temporibus duraturum</span></span>. Indebted, under <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“employed my advantages,”</span>—(the expression
+occurs in a prayer used by this Society on its
+three solemn anniversaries,)—as our Founder and
+Benefactors <span class="tei tei-q">“would approve if they were now upon
+earth to witness what we do.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+J. W. B.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Oriel</span></span>,<br />
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">July, 1871</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagexvi">[pg xvi]</span><a name="Pgxvi" id="Pgxvi" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc7" id="toc7"></a>
+<a name="pdf8" id="pdf8"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">The Last Twelve Verses.</span></h1>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Subjoined, for convenience, are</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“the Last Twelve Verses.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="2"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτου
+    ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ,
+    ἀφ᾽ ῆς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα δαιμόμια.
+    ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽
+    αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι.
+    κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ζῇ καὶ
+    ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἠπίστησαν.
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (9) Now when Jesus was risen
+    early the first day of the week,
+    He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
+    out of whom He had cast
+    seven devils. (10) And she went
+    and told them that had been with
+    Him, as they mourned and wept.
+    (11) And they, when they had
+    heard that He was alive, and had
+    been seen of her, believed not.
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν
+    περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ
+    μορφῇ, πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν. κἀκεῖνοι
+    ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς
+    λοιποῖς; οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν.
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (12) After that He appeared
+    in another form unto two of
+    them, as they walked, and went
+    into the country. (13) And they
+    went and told it unto the residue:
+    neither believed they them.
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς
+    ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισε τὴν
+    ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν,
+    ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον
+
+    οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν. Καὶ εἶπεν
+    αὐτοῖς, <span class="tei tei-q">“Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον
+    ἄπαντα, κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ
+    τῇ κτίσει. ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς
+
+    σωθήσεται; ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται.
+    σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεύσασι
+    ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει; ἐν τῷ
+    ὀνόματι μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσι;
+
+    γλώσσαις λαλήσουσι καιναῖς; ὄφεις
+    ἀροῦσι; κὰν θανὰσιμόν τι πίωσιν, οὐ
+    μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψει; ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους
+    χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσι, καὶ καλῶς ἕξουσιν.”</span>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (14) Afterward He appeared
+    unto the eleven as they sat at
+    meat, and upbraided them with
+    their unbelief and hardness of
+    heart, because they believed not
+    them which had seen Him after
+    He was risen. (15) And He said
+    unto them, <span class="tei tei-q">“Go ye into all the
+    world, and preach the Gospel to
+    every creature. (16) He that
+    believeth and is baptized shall
+    be saved; but he that believeth
+    not shall be damned. (17) And
+    these signs shall follow them that
+    believe; In My Name shall they
+    cast out devils; they shall speak
+    with new tongues; (18) they
+    shall take up serpents; and if
+    they drink any deadly thing, it
+    shall not hurt them; they shall
+    lay hands on the sick, and they
+    shall recover.”</span>
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    Ὀ μὲν οὄν Κύριος, μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι
+    αὐτοῖς, ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν,
+    καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ;
+    ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ,
+    τοῦ Κυρίου συνεργοῦντος, καὶ
+    τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων
+    σημείων. Ἀμήν.
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (19) So then after the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>
+    had spoken unto them, He was
+    received up into Heaven, and
+    sat on the Right hand of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>.
+    (20) And they went forth, and
+    preached every where, the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>
+    working with them, and confirming
+    the word with signs following. Amen.
+  </td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page001">[pg 001]</span><a name="Pg001" id="Pg001" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc9" id="toc9"></a>
+<a name="pdf10" id="pdf10"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Chapter I.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES
+OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL, STATED.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+These Verses generally suspected at the present time. The popularity
+of this opinion accounted for.
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the early Fathers”</span> witness plainly against their
+genuineness; (3) That, from considerations of <span class="tei tei-q">“internal
+evidence”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page002">[pg 002]</span><a name="Pg002" id="Pg002" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief
+of Christendom that the Word of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span> must needs be consistent
+with itself in every part, and prove in every part
+(like its Divine Author) perfectly <span class="tei tei-q">“faithful and true,”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“In
+fact,”</span> (says Mr. Scrivener,) <span class="tei tei-q">“it brought suspicion upon these
+verses, and caused their omission in some copies seen by
+Eusebius.”</span> 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">occasion</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em>, <span class="tei tei-q">“most sound
+theologians have no dread whatever of acknowledging minute
+points of disagreement”</span> (i.e. minute <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">errors</span></em>) <span class="tei tei-q">“in the fourfold
+narrative even of the life of the Redeemer.”</span><a id="noteref_1" name="noteref_1" href="#note_1"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">1</span></span></a>
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page003">[pg 003]</span><a name="Pg003" id="Pg003" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of the ancients; and which, at all events for 1300 years and
+upwards, have deservedly sunk into oblivion.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Whilst I write, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“most divine explication of the
+chiefest articles of our Christian belief,”</span> the Athanasian
+Creed,<a id="noteref_2" name="noteref_2" href="#note_2"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">2</span></span></a>
+is made the object of incessant assaults.<a id="noteref_3" name="noteref_3" href="#note_3"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">3</span></span></a>
+But then it is remembered that statements quite as <span class="tei tei-q">“uncharitable”</span>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">warning
+clause</span></em>, I say, (miscalled <span class="tei tei-q">“damnatory,”</span><a id="noteref_4" name="noteref_4" href="#note_4"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">4</span></span></a>) 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? <span class="tei tei-q">“If it be acknowledged that the passage
+has a harsh sound,”</span> (remarks Dean Stanley,) <span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not a part of S. Mark's Gospel, but
+an addition by another hand</span></em>; of which the weakness in the
+external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in
+proving its later origin.”</span><a id="noteref_5" name="noteref_5" href="#note_5"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">5</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Modern prejudice, then,—added to a singularly exaggerated
+estimate of the critical importance of the testimony
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page004">[pg 004]</span><a name="Pg004" id="Pg004" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of our two oldest Codices, (another of the <span class="tei tei-q">“discoveries of
+later times,”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Not that Biblical Critics would have us believe that the
+Evangelist left off at verse 8, intending that the words,—<span class="tei tei-q">“neither
+said they anything to any man, for they were
+afraid,”</span> should be the conclusion of his Gospel. <span class="tei tei-q">“No one
+can imagine,”</span> (writes Griesbach,) <span class="tei tei-q">“that Mark cut short the
+thread of his narrative at that
+place.”</span><a id="noteref_6" name="noteref_6" href="#note_6"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">6</span></span></a>
+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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+To explain this, shall be the object of the next ensuing
+chapters.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page005">[pg 005]</span><a name="Pg005" id="Pg005" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc11" id="toc11"></a>
+<a name="pdf12" id="pdf12"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER II.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN
+TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses
+(p. </span><a href="#Pg006" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">6</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Lachmann's fatal principle (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg008" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">8</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">) the clue to the unfavourable
+verdict of Tischendorf (p. </span><a href="#Pg009" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">9</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">), of Tregelles (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg010" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">10</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">), of Alford (p. </span><a href="#Pg012" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">12</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">);
+which has been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and Divines (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg013" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">13</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The nature of the present inquiry explained
+(p. </span><a href="#Pg015" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">15</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">.)
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <span class="tei tei-q">“There
+is no reason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of
+Scripture,”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in extenso</span></span>,
+left the passage in undisputed possession of its place. Alter
+in 1786-7, and Birch in 1788,<a id="noteref_7" name="noteref_7" href="#note_7"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">7</span></span></a> (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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page006">[pg 006]</span><a name="Pg006" id="Pg006" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+that with no ordinary warmth, no common acuteness, he
+insisted on their genuineness.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“With Griesbach,”</span> (remarks Dr.
+Tregelles,)<a id="noteref_8" name="noteref_8" href="#note_8"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">8</span></span></a> <span class="tei tei-q">“Texts which may be called really critical begin;”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_9" name="noteref_9" href="#note_9"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">9</span></span></a> He was of opinion,
+however, that <span class="tei tei-q">“at some very remote period, the original
+ending of the Gospel perished,—disappeared perhaps <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from
+the Evangelist's own copy</span></em>,—and that the present ending was
+by some one substituted in its place.”</span> Griesbach further invented
+the following elaborate and extraordinary hypothesis
+to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“The Gospel,”</span>—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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Alexandrine.”</span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the Western recension.”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Let this conjecture be accepted,”</span>
+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,)—<span class="tei tei-q">“and every difficulty disappears; and
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page007">[pg 007]</span><a name="Pg007" id="Pg007" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.”</span>—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It should perhaps be stated in passing, that Griesbach
+was driven into this curious maze of unsupported conjecture
+by the exigencies of his <span class="tei tei-q">“Recension Theory;”</span> 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">omitting</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Alexandrine Recension.”</span>
+But then, on the Critic's own hypothesis, (as we have seen
+already,) Codex B. ought, on the contrary, to have <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">contained</span></em>
+it. How was that inconvenient fact to be got over?
+Griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note that Codex B.
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">has affinity</span></em> with the Eastern family of MSS.”</span>—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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ignis fatuus</span></span> through half the night, beholds it at
+last vanish; but not until it has conducted him up to his
+chin in the mire.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page008">[pg 008]</span><a name="Pg008" id="Pg008" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+eagerly vindicated its genuineness.<a id="noteref_10" name="noteref_10" href="#note_10"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">10</span></span></a>
+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,<a id="noteref_11" name="noteref_11" href="#note_11"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">11</span></span></a>—the
+three latest critics who have formally undertaken to
+reconstruct the sacred Text.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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; <span class="tei tei-q">“a
+fragment,”</span>—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;<a id="noteref_12" name="noteref_12" href="#note_12"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">12</span></span></a> and
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page009">[pg 009]</span><a name="Pg009" id="Pg009" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+may be said to be at present in all but undisputed possession
+of the field.<a id="noteref_13" name="noteref_13" href="#note_13"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">13</span></span></a> The first-named Editor enjoys a vast reputation,
+and has been generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+first Biblical Critic in Europe.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> instance shall prove to be mistaken.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. Tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single
+sentence. <span class="tei tei-q">“That these verses were not written by Mark,”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page010">[pg 010]</span><a name="Pg010" id="Pg010" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+(he says,) <span class="tei tei-q">“admits of satisfactory proof.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“abhorrent”</span>
+to S. Mark's manner. <span class="tei tei-q">“The facts of the case being
+such,”</span> (and with this he dismisses the subject,) <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_14" name="noteref_14" href="#note_14"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">14</span></span></a>
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in favour</span></em> 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,) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">against</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Pseudo Marcus</span></span>.”</span><a id="noteref_15" name="noteref_15" href="#note_15"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">15</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this
+subject in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Account of the Printed Text of the Greek
+New Testament”</span> (1854). The respected author undertakes
+to shew <span class="tei tei-q">“that the early testimony that S. Mark did not
+write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments.”</span>
+Accordingly, he announces as the result of the propositions
+which he thinks he has established, <span class="tei tei-q">“that the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">book of Mark
+himself</span></em> extends no further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”</span> He is the
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page011">[pg 011]</span><a name="Pg011" id="Pg011" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> In this modest suggestion at least Dr.
+Tregelles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing
+whatever about <span class="tei tei-q">“the circumstances of S. Mark,”</span> (or of any
+other Evangelist,) <span class="tei tei-q">“when he wrote his Gospel:”</span> neither
+indeed are we quite sure <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">who</span></em> S. Mark <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was</span></em>. But when he
+goes on to declare, notwithstanding, <span class="tei tei-q">“that the remaining
+twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim
+to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel;”</span>
+and complains that <span class="tei tei-q">“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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>, and that it
+is as much His as were the Commandments of the Law
+written by His own finger on the tables of stone;”</span><a id="noteref_16" name="noteref_16" href="#note_16"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">16</span></span></a>—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">authorship</span></em>, but only one of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">genuineness</span></em>. Have the
+codices been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">mutilated</span></em> which do <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> contain these verses?
+If they have, then must these verses be held to be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">genuine</span></em>.
+But on the contrary, Have the codices been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">supplemented</span></em>
+which contain them? Then are these verses certainly <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">spurious</span></em>.
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“authentic anonymous addition to what
+Mark himself wrote down”</span> is as much the work of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“as were the Ten Commandments written by His own
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page012">[pg 012]</span><a name="Pg012" id="Pg012" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+finger on the tables of stone.”</span> On the other hand, if they
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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,”</span>—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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_17" name="noteref_17" href="#note_17"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">17</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. Dean Alford went a little further than any of his predecessors.
+He says that this passage <span class="tei tei-q">“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”</span> (he adds)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“is, that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away</span></em>.”</span>
+The italics in this conjecture (which was originally Griesbach's)
+are not mine. The internal evidence (declares the
+same learned writer) <span class="tei tei-q">“preponderates vastly against the authorship
+of Mark;”</span> or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against
+<span class="tei tei-q">“its genuineness as a work of the Evangelist.”</span> Accordingly,
+in his Prolegomena, (p. 38) he describes it as <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the
+remarkable fragment</span></em> at the end of the Gospel.”</span> After this,
+we are the less astonished to find that he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">closes the second
+Gospel at ver.</span></em> 8; introduces the Subscription there; and encloses
+the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets.
+Thus, whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page013">[pg 013]</span><a name="Pg013" id="Pg013" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <span class="tei tei-q">“It is
+probable,”</span> (says Abp. Thomson in the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bible Dictionary</span></span>,)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“that this section is from a different hand, and was annexed
+to the Gospels soon after the times of the Apostles.”</span><a id="noteref_18" name="noteref_18" href="#note_18"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">18</span></span></a>—The Rev. T. S. Green,<a id="noteref_19" name="noteref_19" href="#note_19"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">19</span></span></a> (an able scholar, never to be mentioned
+without respect,) considers that <span class="tei tei-q">“the hypothesis of very
+early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in evidence,”</span>—which
+<span class="tei tei-q">“point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious
+origin.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“In respect of Mark's Gospel,”</span> (writes Professor
+Norton in a recent work on the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Genuineness of the Gospels</span></span>,)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_20" name="noteref_20" href="#note_20"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">20</span></span></a>—Professor
+Westcott—who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A. Hort,
+announces a revised Text—assures us that <span class="tei tei-q">“the original
+text, from whatever cause it may have happened, terminated
+abruptly after the account of the Angelic vision.”</span> The rest
+<span class="tei tei-q">“was added at another time, and probably by another hand.”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“It is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt
+close.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“The remaining verses cannot be regarded as part
+of the original narrative of S. Mark”</span><a id="noteref_21" name="noteref_21" href="#note_21"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">21</span></span></a>—Meyer insists that this is an <span class="tei tei-q">“apocryphal fragment,”</span> and
+reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which have ever been
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page014">[pg 014]</span><a name="Pg014" id="Pg014" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving. The
+<span class="tei tei-q">“note”</span> with which he takes leave of the subject is even
+insolent.<a id="noteref_22" name="noteref_22" href="#note_22"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">22</span></span></a> A comparison (he says) of these <span class="tei tei-q">“fragments”</span>
+(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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> after His Resurrection, and concerning His
+Ascension. (<span class="tei tei-q">“Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?”</span>)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“that the more
+ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver. 8.”</span>
+(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, <span class="tei tei-q">“the phraseology and style of
+the section”</span> are declared to be <span class="tei tei-q">“unfavourable to its authenticity;”</span>
+not a few of the words and expressions being
+<span class="tei tei-q">“foreign to the diction of Mark.”</span>—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page015">[pg 015]</span><a name="Pg015" id="Pg015" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the burthen of proof lies on
+the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue</span></em>.<a id="noteref_23" name="noteref_23" href="#note_23"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">23</span></span></a> We have
+therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the supposed
+proof is exactly worth; remembering always that in
+this subject-matter a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">high degree of probability</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. When it is contended that our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>'s reply to the
+young ruler (S. Matt. xix. 17) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was not</span></em> Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;
+οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εῖς, ὁ Θεός,—it is at the same time insisted
+that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it was</span></em> Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εῖς ἐστὶν
+ὁ ἀγαθός. It is proposed to omit the former words <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> because
+an alternative clause is at hand, which it is proposed
+to substitute in its room.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every
+other charge of interpolation which can be named</span></em>. If the
+celebrated <span class="tei tei-q">“pericopa de adulterâ,”</span> for instance, be indeed
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page016">[pg 016]</span><a name="Pg016" id="Pg016" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> cohere; (there
+is no internal improbability, I mean, in the supposition;)
+neither does there exist any <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">à priori</span></span> reason why a considerable
+portion of narrative should be looked for in that particular
+part of the Gospel.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) And first, it does <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> mean that S. Mark
+himself, with design, brought his Gospel to a close at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">interrupted</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the last leaf was torn
+away</span></em>”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page017">[pg 017]</span><a name="Pg017" id="Pg017" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+logically reduced;)—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> we are not certainly told. The
+critics are only agreed in assuming that S. Mark's Gospel
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was at first without the verses which at present conclude it</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">proof</span></em>. The
+foregoing improbable theories, based on a gratuitous assumption,
+are confronted <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in limine</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_24" name="noteref_24" href="#note_24"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">24</span></span></a> In default, therefore, of distinct
+historical evidence or definite documentary proof that
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at some earlier period than that</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">general</span></em> consent of MSS., Fathers, and
+Versions in leaving these verses out. Else, it is evident
+that we are logically <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">forced</span></em> to adopt the far easier supposition
+that (<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> S. Mark, but) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some copyist of the third century</span></em>
+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.<a id="noteref_25" name="noteref_25" href="#note_25"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">25</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page018">[pg 018]</span><a name="Pg018" id="Pg018" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully
+at the outset; not in order to prejudge the question, (for
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> could answer no good purpose,) but only in order that
+the reader may have clearly set before him the real nature
+of the issue. <span class="tei tei-q">“Is it reasonable to suspect that the concluding
+verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized
+supplement to his Gospel, or not?”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em> is the question
+which we have to consider,—the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">possibly</span></em> genuine, or else
+as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">certainly</span></em> spurious. If they entertain (as they say they
+do) a decided opinion that they are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> genuine, they ought
+(if they would be consistent) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to banish them from the text</span></em>.<a id="noteref_26" name="noteref_26" href="#note_26"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">26</span></span></a> Conversely, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">since they do not banish them from the
+text</span></em>, they have no right to pass a fatal sentence upon them; to designate
+their author as <span class="tei tei-q">“pseudo-Marcus;”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">feel</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page019">[pg 019]</span><a name="Pg019" id="Pg019" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc13" id="toc13"></a>
+<a name="pdf14" id="pdf14"></a>
+<a name="Chapter_III" id="Chapter_III" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER III.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED
+TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg020" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">20</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The importance of such evidence explained
+(p. </span><a href="#Pg021" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">21</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Nineteen Patristic witnesses to these Verses,
+produced (p. </span><a href="#Pg023" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">23</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Summary (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">30</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:<a id="noteref_27" name="noteref_27" href="#note_27"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">27</span></span></a> for a discussion of the latter, one seventh of that space will
+suffice.<a id="noteref_28" name="noteref_28" href="#note_28"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">28</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Manuscripts</span></span>,—(2.) on
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Versions</span></span>,—(3.) on <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Fathers</span></span>.
+And it is even self-evident that the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">most ancient</span></em> MSS.,—the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">earliest</span></em> Versions,—the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">oldest</span></em> of the Fathers,
+will probably be in every instance the most trustworthy
+witnesses.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not
+licentiously; and sometimes <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">allude</span></em> only when they seem to
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">quote</span></em>. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) They appear to have too often depended
+on their memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inaccurate
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page020">[pg 020]</span><a name="Pg020" id="Pg020" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+in their citations; the same Father being observed
+to quote the same place in different ways. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed
+out that when,—instead of certifying ourselves of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">actual
+words employed</span></em> by an Evangelist, their precise <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">form</span></em> and
+exact <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sequence</span></em>,—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“monstra potius quam variae lectiones”</span> 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 viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,—7 of
+the ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>,—4 of the
+ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> or
+x<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>,<a id="noteref_29" name="noteref_29" href="#note_29"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">29</span></span></a>
+while cursives of the xi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+and xii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page021">[pg 021]</span><a name="Pg021" id="Pg021" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">five</span></em>
+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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,
+while it is thought by competent judges that the last named may very possibly
+have been written quite late in the vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century of our æra? Certainly not. Here, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Fathers</span></span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 300 and <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">frequently</span></em> 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: <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not one</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page022">[pg 022]</span><a name="Pg022" id="Pg022" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+attention), I shall refer him to the Appendix.<a id="noteref_30" name="noteref_30" href="#note_30"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">30</span></span></a> What is at least beyond the limits of controversy, whenever <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the
+genuineness of a considerable passage of Scripture</span></em> is the point in dispute,
+the testimony of Fathers who undoubtedly recognise
+that passage, is beyond comparison the most valuable testimony
+we can enjoy.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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;
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the uncial codex</span></em>, (it has long since perished) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which belonged to
+himself</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">substance</span></em>. 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“ipsissima verba”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">form</span></em> of the quoted verse, I repeat, may
+have suffered almost to any extent. The <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">substance</span></em>, on the
+contrary, inasmuch as it lay wholly beyond their province,
+may be looked upon as an indisputable <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fact</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">allude</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Spirit</span></span>. It is evidently not so much
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page023">[pg 023]</span><a name="Pg023" id="Pg023" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+that their <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">memory</span></em> is in fault, as their <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">judgment</span></em>,—in that
+they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to
+recast, to reconstruct.<a id="noteref_31" name="noteref_31" href="#note_31"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">31</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Papias</span></span>
+refers to S. Mark xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous
+tradition concerning <span class="tei tei-q">“Justus surnamed Barsabas,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“how
+that after drinking noxious poison, through the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>'s grace
+he experienced no evil consequence.”</span><a id="noteref_32" name="noteref_32" href="#note_32"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">32</span></span></a> He does not give <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the words</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 100.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Justin Martyr</span></span>, the date of whose first Apology is
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 151, is observed to say concerning the Apostles that,
+after our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>'s Ascension,—ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ
+ἐκήρυξαν:<a id="noteref_33" name="noteref_33" href="#note_33"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">33</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+III. When <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Irenæus</span></span>, in his third Book against Heresies,
+deliberately quotes and remarks upon the 19th verse of the
+last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel,<a id="noteref_34" name="noteref_34" href="#note_34"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">34</span></span></a>
+we are put in possession of
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page024">[pg 024]</span><a name="Pg024" id="Pg024" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 180, and which therefore cannot possibly have
+been written much more than a hundred years after the
+date of the Evangelist himself: while it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">may</span></em> have been
+written by a contemporary of S. Mark, and probably <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was</span></em>
+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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Manuscript”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“Patristic”</span> 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a fragment from a dated manuscript</span></em>; and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+IV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of
+S. Mark were in the second century accounted an integral
+part of his Gospel. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Hippolytus</span></span>, Bishop of Portus near
+Borne (190-227), a contemporary of Irenæus, quotes the
+17th and 18th verses in his fragment Περὶ Χαρισμάτων.<a id="noteref_35" name="noteref_35" href="#note_35"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">35</span></span></a>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page025">[pg 025]</span><a name="Pg025" id="Pg025" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Also in his Homily on the heresy of Noetus,<a id="noteref_36" name="noteref_36" href="#note_36"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">36</span></span></a>
+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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ</span></span> is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invariably</span></em> spoken
+of as ανελθόντα: in the Scriptures, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invariably</span></em> as ἀναληθέντα.<a id="noteref_37" name="noteref_37" href="#note_37"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">37</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+V. At the Seventh <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Council of Carthage</span></span> held under
+Cyprian, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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;<a id="noteref_38" name="noteref_38" href="#note_38"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">38</span></span></a> and Augustine, about a century and a half later, in his reply,
+recited the words afresh.<a id="noteref_39" name="noteref_39" href="#note_39"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">39</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VI. The Apocryphal <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Acta Pilati</span></span> (sometimes called the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Gospel of Nicodemus”</span>) Tischendorf assigns without hesitation
+to the iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_40" name="noteref_40" href="#note_40"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">40</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver.
+15 is clearly alluded to in two places of the (so-called)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Apostolical Constitutions</span></span>;”</span><a id="noteref_41" name="noteref_41" href="#note_41"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">41</span></span></a>
+and that verse 16 is quoted (with
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page026">[pg 026]</span><a name="Pg026" id="Pg026" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+no variety of reading from the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Textus Receptus</span></span><a id="noteref_42" name="noteref_42" href="#note_42"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">42</span></span></a>)
+in an earlier
+part of the same ancient work. The <span class="tei tei-q">“Constitutions”</span> are
+assigned to the iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> or the
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century.<a id="noteref_43" name="noteref_43" href="#note_43"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">43</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VIII and IX. It will be shewn in <a href="#Chapter_V" class="tei tei-ref">Chapter V.</a>
+that <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>,
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 325.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Marinus</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+X. Tischendorf and his followers state that Jacobus Nisibenus
+quotes these verses. For <span class="tei tei-q">“Jacobus Nisibenus”</span> read
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Aphraates</span></span> the Persian Sage,”</span> and the statement will be
+correct. The history of the mistake is curious.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_44" name="noteref_44" href="#note_44"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">44</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Jacobus Nisibenus”</span>
+is quoted.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page027">[pg 027]</span><a name="Pg027" id="Pg027" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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, <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+Persian Sage,”</span>—a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of
+the Syrian Church. In the first Homily, (which bears date
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 337), verses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are
+quoted,<a id="noteref_45" name="noteref_45" href="#note_45"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">45</span></span></a>—yet not from the version known as the Curetonian Syriac,
+nor yet from the Peshito exactly.<a id="noteref_46" name="noteref_46" href="#note_46"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">46</span></span></a>—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+XI. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ambrose</span></span>, Archbishop of Milan
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_47" name="noteref_47" href="#note_47"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">47</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+XII. The testimony of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Chrysostom</span></span>
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“This”</span>
+(he adds) <span class="tei tei-q">“is the end of the Gospel. Mark makes no extended
+mention of the Ascension.”</span><a id="noteref_48" name="noteref_48" href="#note_48"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">48</span></span></a> Elsewhere he has an
+unmistakable reference to S. Mark xvi. 9.<a id="noteref_49" name="noteref_49" href="#note_49"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">49</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+XIII. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jerome</span></span>, 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page028">[pg 028]</span><a name="Pg028" id="Pg028" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <a href="#Chapter_V" class="tei tei-ref">Chapter V</a>.
+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.<a id="noteref_50" name="noteref_50" href="#note_50"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">50</span></span></a>  He familiarly quotes
+the 9th verse in one place of his writings;<a id="noteref_51" name="noteref_51" href="#note_51"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">51</span></span></a> in another place
+he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the
+copies, (especially the Greek,) was found after ver. 14 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the
+reply of the eleven Apostles</span></em>, when our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because
+they believed not them which had seen Him after He was
+risen.”</span><a id="noteref_52" name="noteref_52" href="#note_52"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">52</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+XIV. It was to have been expected that <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Augustine</span></span> would
+quote these verses: but he more than quotes them. He
+brings them forward again and again,<a id="noteref_53" name="noteref_53" href="#note_53"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">53</span></span></a>—discusses them as
+the work of S. Mark,—remarks that <span class="tei tei-q">“in diebus Paschalibus,”</span>
+S. Mark's narrative of the Resurrection was publicly
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page029">[pg 029]</span><a name="Pg029" id="Pg029" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+read in the Church.<a id="noteref_54" name="noteref_54" href="#note_54"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">54</span></span></a>
+All this is noteworthy. Augustine
+flourished <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 395-430.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Nestorius</span></span>,
+the heresiarch, quotes ver. 20; and <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cyril</span></span> of
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Alexandria</span></span> accepts his quotation, adding a few words of his
+own.<a id="noteref_55" name="noteref_55" href="#note_55"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">55</span></span></a> Let
+it be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the discovery
+of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> dated codices containing the last twelve verses of
+S. Mark,—and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> date <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">anterior</span></em> (it is impossible to
+say by how many years) to <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 430.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+XVII. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor of Antioch</span></span>, (concerning whom I shall
+have to speak very largely in <a href="#Chapter_V" class="tei tei-ref">Chapter V</a>.,) flourished
+about <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+XVIII. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Hesychius</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Homily on the Resurrection,”</span> (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.<a id="noteref_56" name="noteref_56" href="#note_56"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">56</span></span></a>
+The date of Hesychius is uncertain;
+but he may, I suppose, be considered to belong to
+the vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century. His evidence is discussed
+in <a href="#Chapter_V" class="tei tei-ref">Chapter V</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+XIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a reference
+to the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae</span></span>,—an ancient work
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page030">[pg 030]</span><a name="Pg030" id="Pg030" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+ascribed to Athanasius,<a id="noteref_57" name="noteref_57" href="#note_57"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">57</span></span></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_58" name="noteref_58" href="#note_58"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">58</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic
+authorities; as, by appealing to Gregentius in the
+vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century, and to Gregory the Great, and
+Modestus, patriarch of Constantinople
+in the vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>;—to Ven. Bede and John Damascene
+in the viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>;—to Theophylact in the
+xi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>;—to Euthymius in the
+xii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span><a id="noteref_59" name="noteref_59" href="#note_59"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">59</span></span></a>: 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 X<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> chapter.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It will be observed then that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> competent Patristic
+witnesses of the ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span>
+century,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">four</span></em> of the
+iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span>,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">six</span></em> of the
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">four</span></em> of the
+v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>,—and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> (of uncertain date,
+but probably) of the vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>,—have admitted
+their familiarity with these <span class="tei tei-q">“last Twelve Verses.”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page031">[pg 031]</span><a name="Pg031" id="Pg031" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seven</span></em> of them at least of more ancient date than
+the oldest copy of the Gospels extant.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page032">[pg 032]</span><a name="Pg032" id="Pg032" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc15" id="toc15"></a>
+<a name="pdf16" id="pdf16"></a>
+<a name="Chapter_IV" id="Chapter_IV" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER IV.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD
+UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF
+THESE VERSES.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+The Peshito,—the Curetonian Syriac,—and the Recension of Thomas
+of Hharkel (p. </span><a href="#Pg033" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">33</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">.)—The Vulgate (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg034" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">34</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">)—and the Vetus Itala (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">35</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">)—the Gothic (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">35</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">)—and the Egyptian Versions (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">35</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Review
+of the Evidence up to this point, (p. </span><a href="#Pg036" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">36</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to
+establish in detail <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Text</span></em> 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, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) We know for the most part the approximate
+date of the principal ancient Versions of the New
+Testament:—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) Each Version is represented by at least one
+very ancient Codex:—and (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. <span class="tei tei-q">“Literary history,”</span> (says Mr. Scrivener,) <span class="tei tei-q">“can hardly
+afford a more powerful case than has been established for
+the identity of the Version of the Syriac now called the
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Peshito</span></span>’</span> with that used by the Eastern Church long before
+the great schism had its beginning, in the native land
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page033">[pg 033]</span><a name="Pg033" id="Pg033" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of the blessed Gospel.”</span> The Peshito is referred by common
+consent to the ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span> century of our æra; and is
+found to contain the verses in question.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. This, however, is not all. Within the last thirty years,
+fragments of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">another</span></em> very ancient Syriac translation of the
+Gospels, (called from the name of its discoverer <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">The Curetonian
+Syriac</span></span>,”</span>) have come to light:<a id="noteref_60" name="noteref_60" href="#note_60"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">60</span></span></a> and in this translation
+also the verses in question are found.<a id="noteref_61" name="noteref_61" href="#note_61"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">61</span></span></a> This fragmentary
+codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the
+v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span>
+century.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span>
+508; and by the aid of three<a id="noteref_62" name="noteref_62" href="#note_62"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">62</span></span></a>
+approved and accurate Greek manuscripts, this revised version of Polycarp was again
+revised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the monastery of Antonia
+at Alexandria, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 616. The Hharklensian Revision, (commonly
+called the <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Philoxenian</span></span>,”</span>) 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 v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,
+it exhibits
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page034">[pg 034]</span><a name="Pg034" id="Pg034" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_63" name="noteref_63" href="#note_63"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">63</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+To these, if I do not add the <span class="tei tei-q">“Jerusalem version,”</span>—(as
+an independent Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sections,
+perhaps of the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century, is
+called,<a id="noteref_64" name="noteref_64" href="#note_64"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">64</span></span></a>)—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+IV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span>
+382), was the author of that famous Latin version of the
+Scriptures called <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">The Vulgate</span></span>, 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page035">[pg 035]</span><a name="Pg035" id="Pg035" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much
+older translation, generally known as the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Vetus Itala</span></span>.
+This Old Latin, which is of African origin and of almost
+Apostolic antiquity, (supposed of the ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span>
+century,) conspires with the Vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the
+genuineness of the end of S. Mark's Gospel:<a id="noteref_65" name="noteref_65" href="#note_65"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">65</span></span></a>—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VI. The next place may well be given to the venerable
+version of the Gothic Bishop Ulphilas,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_66" name="noteref_66" href="#note_66"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">66</span></span></a> The oldest extant copy of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Gothic</span></span>
+of Ulphilas is assigned to the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> or early in the
+vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century: and the verses in question are there
+also met with.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VII. and VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next
+for notice: their testimony being so exceedingly ancient
+and respectable. The <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Memphitic</span></span>, or dialect of Lower
+Egypt, (less properly called the <span class="tei tei-q">“Coptic”</span> version), which
+is assigned to the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> or
+v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century, contains S. Mark xvi.
+9-20.—Fragments of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Thebaic</span></span>, or dialect of Upper
+Egypt, (a distinct version and of considerably earlier date,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page036">[pg 036]</span><a name="Pg036" id="Pg036" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+less properly called the <span class="tei tei-q">“Sahidic,”</span>) 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
+iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> century.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Carthaginian Council is
+sufficiently inexact to make it unsafe to build upon it. The <span class="tei tei-q">“Acta Pilati”</span>
+and the <span class="tei tei-q">“Apostolical Constitutions,”</span> since their date
+is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century only, and not for the iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span>. And now,
+how will the evidence stand for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel?
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page037">[pg 037]</span><a name="Pg037" id="Pg037" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) In the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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,—(<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">four</span></em>
+authorities in all,)—are observed to recognise these
+verses.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) In the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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,—(<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">eleven</span></em> authorities in all,)—testify to familiar
+acquaintance with this portion of S. Mark's Gospel.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) In the iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> distinct provinces
+of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever attached
+to these verses. Lastly,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">d</span></span>) In the ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+4. Thus, we are in possession of the testimony of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at least
+six</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The grounds for assuming that his <span class="tei tei-q">“last Twelve Verses”</span>
+are spurious, shall be exhibited in the ensuing chapter.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page038">[pg 038]</span><a name="Pg038" id="Pg038" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc17" id="toc17"></a>
+<a name="pdf18" id="pdf18"></a>
+<a name="Chapter_V" id="Chapter_V" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER V.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE
+EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF
+THE CRITICS.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p. </span><a href="#Pg039" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">39</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The
+misconception concerning Eusebius (p. </span><a href="#Pg041" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">41</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The oversight
+concerning Jerome (p. </span><a href="#Pg051" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">51</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">);—also concerning Hesychius of
+Jerusalem, (or else Severus of Antioch) (p. </span><a href="#Pg057" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">57</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">);—and
+concerning Victor of Antioch (p. </span><a href="#Pg059" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">59</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <span class="tei tei-q">“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,”</span> (says Dr. Tregelles,) <span class="tei tei-q">“is attested
+by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch,
+Severus of Antioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especially
+Greeks.”</span><a id="noteref_67" name="noteref_67" href="#note_67"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">67</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“many ancient Scholia.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“These verses”</span>
+(says Tischendorf) <span class="tei tei-q">“are not recognised by the sections of
+Ammonius nor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and
+Cæsarius bear witness to the fact.”</span><a id="noteref_68" name="noteref_68" href="#note_68"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">68</span></span></a> <span class="tei tei-q">“In the Catenæ on Mark”</span> (proceeds Davidson) <span class="tei tei-q">“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;”</span>—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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Matthew's</span></span> Gospel, should
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page039">[pg 039]</span><a name="Pg039" id="Pg039" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+be also without any reference to the last chapter of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Mark's</span></span>:
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at all</span></em>.... 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in favour of</span></em>
+the present portion of Scripture.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“it is attested”</span> by
+these seven Fathers that the concluding section of S. Mark's
+Gospel <span class="tei tei-q">“was not written by S. Mark himself?”</span> Why, there
+is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not one</span></em> 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) <span class="tei tei-q">“later writers, especially
+Greeks.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Gregory of Nyssa.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself
+as follows in his second <span class="tei tei-q">“Homily on the Resurrection;”</span><a id="noteref_69" name="noteref_69" href="#note_69"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">69</span></span></a>—<span class="tei tei-q">“In
+the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark
+has its end at <span class="tei tei-q">‘for they were afraid.’</span> In some copies, however,
+this also is added,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘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.’</span> ”</span>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page040">[pg 040]</span><a name="Pg040" id="Pg040" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+That this testimony should have been so often appealed
+to as proceeding from Gregory of Nyssa,<a id="noteref_70" name="noteref_70" href="#note_70"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">70</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) For, in the first place, the second <span class="tei tei-q">“Homily on the
+Resurrection”</span> printed in the iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">word for word the same Homily</span></em>
+which Combefis in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Novum Auctarium,”</span> and Gallandius
+in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Bibliotheca Patrum”</span> printed as the work of Hesychius,
+and vindicated to that Father, respectively in 1648
+and 1776.<a id="noteref_71" name="noteref_71" href="#note_71"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">71</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same
+Homily is observed to reappear, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">word for word</span></em>, under the
+name of <span class="tei tei-q">“Severus of Antioch,”</span> and to be unsuspiciously
+printed as his by Montfaucon in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Bibliotheca Coisliniana”</span>
+(1715), and by Cramer in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Catena”</span><a id="noteref_72" name="noteref_72" href="#note_72"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">72</span></span></a>
+(1844),—although
+it may very reasonably become a question among
+critics whether Hesychius of Jerusalem or Severus of Antioch
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page041">[pg 041]</span><a name="Pg041" id="Pg041" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+was the actual author of the Homily in question,<a id="noteref_73" name="noteref_73" href="#note_73"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">73</span></span></a> yet
+it is plain that critics must make their election between the
+two names; and not bring them <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">both</span></em> forward. No one,
+I say, has any right to go on quoting <span class="tei tei-q">“Severus”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Hesychius,”</span>—as Tischendorf and Dr. Davidson are observed to
+do:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Gregory of Nyssa”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“Severus of Antioch,”</span>—as
+Dr. Tregelles is found to prefer.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no one</span></em> is found to suppose that
+Gregory of Nyssa was its author,)—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">who</span></em> will not admit that
+no further mention must be made of the other two?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth
+the name of <span class="tei tei-q">“Gregory of Nyssa”</span> must be banished from
+this discussion. So must the name of <span class="tei tei-q">“Severus of Antioch.”</span>
+The memorable passage which begins,—<span class="tei tei-q">“In the more accurate
+copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end
+at <span class="tei tei-q">‘for they were afraid,’</span> ”</span>—is found in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a Homily which
+was probably written by Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem,—a
+writer of the vi</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span><span style="font-style: italic"> century</span></em>. I shall have
+to recur to his work by-and-by. The next name is
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“stated that it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wanted in many
+MSS.</span></em>,”</span><a id="noteref_74" name="noteref_74" href="#note_74"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">74</span></span></a>—he is mistaken. Eusebius nowhere says so. The reader's
+attention is invited to a plain tale.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page042">[pg 042]</span><a name="Pg042" id="Pg042" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Cardinal Angelo Mai<a id="noteref_75" name="noteref_75" href="#note_75"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">75</span></span></a> 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.<a id="noteref_76" name="noteref_76" href="#note_76"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">76</span></span></a> These, the
+learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in
+his <span class="tei tei-q">“Nova Patrum Bibliotheca;”</span><a id="noteref_77" name="noteref_77" href="#note_77"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">77</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“to Stephanus”</span>) being discussions of difficulties
+at the beginning of the Gospel,—the last (<span class="tei tei-q">“to Marinus”</span>)
+relating to difficulties in its concluding chapters.<a id="noteref_78" name="noteref_78" href="#note_78"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">78</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Inquiries and Resolutions”</span> exactly as it came
+from the pen of Eusebius, may reasonably be doubted. That
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page043">[pg 043]</span><a name="Pg043" id="Pg043" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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,—<span class="tei tei-q">“An abridged selection
+from the <span class="tei tei-q">‘Inquiries and Resolutions [of difficulties] in the
+Gospels’</span> by Eusebius.”</span><a id="noteref_79" name="noteref_79" href="#note_79"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">79</span></span></a>
+Only <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">amputation</span></em> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Inquiries,”</span> &amp;c, addressed
+<span class="tei tei-q">“to Stephanus;”</span> while the concluding Book or Part is represented
+by IV. more, <span class="tei tei-q">“to Marinus,”</span>—of which, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the first</span></em>
+relates to our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> appearing to Mary Magdalene after
+His Resurrection. Now, since the work which Eusebius addressed
+to Marinus is found to have contained <span class="tei tei-q">“Inquiries,
+with their Resolutions, concerning our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Death</span></span> and Resurrection,”</span><a id="noteref_80" name="noteref_80" href="#note_80"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">80</span></span></a>—while a quotation professing to be derived
+from <span class="tei tei-q">“the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">thirteenth</span></em> chapter”</span> relates to Simon the
+Cyrenian bearing our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> Cross;<a id="noteref_81" name="noteref_81" href="#note_81"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">81</span></span></a>—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.<a id="noteref_82" name="noteref_82" href="#note_82"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">82</span></span></a>
+It is absolutely necessary
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page044">[pg 044]</span><a name="Pg044" id="Pg044" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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<a id="noteref_83" name="noteref_83" href="#note_83"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">83</span></span></a>,) 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Marinus,”</span> who is represented as asking, first, the following
+question:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“How is it, that, according to Matthew [xxviii. 1], the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> appears to have risen <span class="tei tei-q">‘in the end of the Sabbath;’</span>
+but, according to Mark [xvi. 9], <span class="tei tei-q">‘early the first day of the
+week’</span>?”</span>—Eusebius answers,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“This difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page045">[pg 045]</span><a name="Pg045" id="Pg045" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+getting rid of the entire passage,<a id="noteref_84" name="noteref_84" href="#note_84"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">84</span></span></a> will say that it is
+not met with in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">‘Fear not ye! Ye seek <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span> of Nazareth,’</span> &amp;c.:
+to which the Evangelist adds,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘And when they heard it,
+they fled, and said nothing to any man, for they were
+afraid.’</span> 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.</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">both</span></em> are to
+be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em>
+reading is not held to be genuine rather than <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em>; nor <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em>
+than <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em>.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our
+business is to interpret the sense of the passage.<a id="noteref_85" name="noteref_85" href="#note_85"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">85</span></span></a> And certainly,
+if I divide the meaning into two, we shall find that
+it is not opposed to what Matthew says of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span>'s
+having risen <span class="tei tei-q">‘in the end of the Sabbath.’</span> For Mark's expression,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page046">[pg 046]</span><a name="Pg046" id="Pg046" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+(<span class="tei tei-q">‘Now when He was risen early the first day of the
+week,’</span>) we shall read with a pause, putting a comma after
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘Now when He was risen,’</span>—the sense of the words which
+follow being kept separate. Thereby, we shall refer [Mark's]
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘when He was risen’</span> to Matthew's <span class="tei tei-q">‘in the end of the Sabbath,’</span>
+(for it was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">then</span></em> that He <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">rose</span></em>); and all that comes
+after, expressive as it is of a distinct notion, we shall connect
+with what follows; (for it was <span class="tei tei-q">‘<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">early</span></em>, the first day of the
+week,’</span> that <span class="tei tei-q">‘He <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">appeared to Mary Magdalene</span></em>.’</span>) This is in
+fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘early,’</span> <span class="tei tei-q">‘the first day of the week,’</span> [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>]
+appeared to the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also says that He appeared
+to her early: not that He <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">rose</span></em> early, but long before,
+(according to that of Matthew, <span class="tei tei-q">‘in the end of the Sabbath:’</span>
+for though He <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">rose</span></em> then, He did not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">appear to Mary</span></em> then,
+but <span class="tei tei-q">‘early.’</span>) In a word, two distinct seasons are set before
+us by these words: first, the season of the Resurrection,—which
+was <span class="tei tei-q">‘in the end of the Sabbath;’</span> secondly, the season of our
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span>'s Appearing,—which was <span class="tei tei-q">‘early.’</span> The
+former,<a id="noteref_86" name="noteref_86" href="#note_86"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">86</span></span></a>
+Mark writes of when he says, (it requires to be read
+with a pause,)—<span class="tei tei-q">‘Now, when He was risen,’</span> Then, after
+a comma, what follows is to be spoken,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘Early, the first
+day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of
+whom He had cast seven devils.’</span> ”</span><a id="noteref_87" name="noteref_87" href="#note_87"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">87</span></span></a>—Such is the entire passage.
+Little did the learned writer anticipate what bitter
+fruit his words were destined to bear!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no problem
+to solve</span></em>. The discrepancy suggested by <span class="tei tei-q">“Marinus”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“These places of the Gospels would never have
+occasioned any difficulty,”</span> he writes in the very next page,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page047">[pg 047]</span><a name="Pg047" id="Pg047" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+(but it is the commencement of his reply to the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">second</span></em> question
+of Marinus,)—<span class="tei tei-q">“if people would but abstain from assuming
+that Matthew's phrase (ὀψὲ σαββάτων) refers to
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the evening of the Sabbath-day</span></em>: whereas, (in conformity with
+the established idiom of the language,) it obviously refers
+to an advanced period of the ensuing night.”</span><a id="noteref_88" name="noteref_88" href="#note_88"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">88</span></span></a>  He proceeds:—<span class="tei tei-q">“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,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘in the end of the Sabbath, as it began
+to dawn toward the first day of the week,’</span> and John's—<span class="tei tei-q">‘The
+first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalen early,
+when it was yet dark.’</span> The Evangelists indicate by different
+expressions one and the same moment of time, but
+in a broad and general way.”</span> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not an original
+production</span></em>: 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invariably</span></em><a id="noteref_89" name="noteref_89" href="#note_89"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">89</span></span></a> substituted
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page048">[pg 048]</span><a name="Pg048" id="Pg048" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+what Eusebius wrote in reply to the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">second</span></em> question of
+Marinus for what he wrote in reply to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the first</span></em>; in other
+words, for the dissertation which is occasioning us all this
+difficulty.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em>
+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:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Whatever
+in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely consistent
+with something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded
+as genuine.”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page049">[pg 049]</span><a name="Pg049" id="Pg049" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+(S. Mark xvi. 9-20,) <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is not met with in all</span></em> the copies:”</span> at
+all events <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the accurate</span></em>”</span> ones. Nay, it is
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">met with seldom</span></em>.”</span> In fact, it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">absent from</span></em>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">almost all</span></em>”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">are</span></em> they trustworthy?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">many</span></em> of the copies,—even had it been insisted that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the best
+copies</span></em> were without them,—well and good: but to assert that,
+in the beginning of the fourth century, from <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">almost all</span></em>”</span>
+copies of the Gospels they were away,—is palpably untrue.
+What had become then of the MSS. from which the Syriac,
+the Latin, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the ancient Versions were made? How is the
+contradictory evidence of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every copy of the Gospels in existence
+but two</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“three-score”</span> but <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">an
+hundred</span></em> and three-score;”</span> for that so <span class="tei tei-q">“the accurate copies”</span>
+used to read the place, besides Origen and Eusebius. And
+yet (as I have elsewhere explained) the reading ἑκατὸν καὶ
+ἑξήκοντα is altogether impossible. <span class="tei tei-q">“Apud nos mixta sunt
+omnia,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> be correct.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page050">[pg 050]</span><a name="Pg050" id="Pg050" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+And yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be it
+observed, is clearly <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not Eusebius</span></em>. It is evident that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“This then is what a person will
+say,”</span>—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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Here are two
+readings,”</span> he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“(as is so often the case elsewhere:)
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">both</span></em> of which are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful
+and pious, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> reading is not held to be genuine rather
+than <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em>; nor <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> than <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em>.”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“according to Mark,”</span> our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“is not recorded to
+have appeared to His Disciples after His Resurrection:”</span> whereas
+in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is plainly recorded that <span class="tei tei-q">“Afterwards
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page051">[pg 051]</span><a name="Pg051" id="Pg051" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat at meat.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Postscript”</span> which shall form the last page of the
+Appendix to the present volume.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">many</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the
+evidence of Eusebius</span></em>,—to induce us to believe that they are
+a spurious addition to S. Mark's Gospel.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+III. We have next to consider what
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jerome</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page052">[pg 052]</span><a name="Pg052" id="Pg052" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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:<a id="noteref_90" name="noteref_90" href="#note_90"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">90</span></span></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_91" name="noteref_91" href="#note_91"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">91</span></span></a>
+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:—<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>
+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. <span class="tei tei-q">“This has been hastily
+dictated,”</span> he says in conclusion,—(alluding to his constant
+practice, which was to dictate, rather than to write,)—<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>.”</span> Then, after
+special commendation of the learning of Origen and Eusebius,
+and the valuable Scriptural expositions of many more,—<span class="tei tei-q">“My
+plan,”</span> (he says,) <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_92" name="noteref_92" href="#note_92"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">92</span></span></a>
+We are not surprised, after this straightforward avowal of what was the method
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page053">[pg 053]</span><a name="Pg053" id="Pg053" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover that,
+instead of hearing <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Jerome</span></em> addressing <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Hedibia</span></em>,—(who had
+interrogated him concerning the very problem which is at
+present engaging our attention,)—we find ourselves only
+listening to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eusebius</span></em> over again, addressing <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Marinus</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“This difficulty admits of a two-fold solution,”</span> 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,)—<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> rose <span class="tei tei-q">‘late in the
+week:’</span> Mark,—when he says that Mary Magdalene saw Him
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘early, the first day of the week.’</span> For the passage must be
+thus pointed,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘When He was risen:’</span> and presently, after
+a pause, must be added,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘Early, the first day of the week,
+He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’</span> 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.”</span>—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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">translating his words</span></em>.<a id="noteref_93" name="noteref_93" href="#note_93"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">93</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page054">[pg 054]</span><a name="Pg054" id="Pg054" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Hedibia's question to Jerome</span></em> proves on
+inspection to be nothing more than a translation of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the very
+question which Marinus had long before addressed to Eusebius</span></em>?
+We read on, perplexed at the coincidence; and speedily
+make the notable discovery that her next question, and her
+next, are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></em> translations <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">word for word</span></em> of the next two of
+Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is again
+referred to the foot of the page.<a id="noteref_94" name="noteref_94" href="#note_94"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">94</span></span></a>
+It is at least decisive:
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page055">[pg 055]</span><a name="Pg055" id="Pg055" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is not the testimony of
+Jerome at all</span></em>. 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Hedibia”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Marinus.”</span>) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">translator</span></em>, not
+an original author: in other words, that it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eusebius</span></em> who
+here speaks, and not Jerome. For a critic to pretend that it
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page056">[pg 056]</span><a name="Pg056" id="Pg056" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+is in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any</span></em> sense the testimony of Jerome which we are here
+presented with; that Jerome is one of those Fathers <span class="tei tei-q">“who,
+even though they copied from their predecessors, were yet
+competent to transmit the record of a fact,”</span><a id="noteref_95" name="noteref_95" href="#note_95"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">95</span></span></a>—is entirely to
+misunderstand the case. The man who translates,—not
+adopts, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">translates</span></em>,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the problem</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">verbatim as he found them written
+in the pages of Eusebius</span></em>; and then resolves them one by one
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the very language of the same Father</span></em>:—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">almost all the Greek codices</span></em>,”</span>
+does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to
+stand in the Vulgate? If he had met with them in <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">scarcely
+any copies of the Gospel</span></em>”</span>—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 <span class="tei tei-q">“without a cause”</span>
+(εἰκή,—S. Matth. v. 22,) only <span class="tei tei-q">“in certain of his codices,”</span> but
+not <span class="tei tei-q">“in the true ones,”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">omitted</span></em> it from the Vulgate. Because,
+however, he read <span class="tei tei-q">“righteousness”</span> (where we read <span class="tei tei-q">“alms”</span>)
+in S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">justitiam</span></span>”</span> in his revision
+of the old Latin version. On the other hand, though he knew
+of MSS. (as he expressly relates) which read <span class="tei tei-q">“works”</span> for
+<span class="tei tei-q">“children”</span> (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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page057">[pg 057]</span><a name="Pg057" id="Pg057" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_96" name="noteref_96" href="#note_96"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">96</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Homily on the Resurrection,”</span>
+contained in the works of Gregory of Nyssa (above,
+p. <a href="#Pg039" class="tei tei-ref">39</a>), has delivered on the same subject. It will be
+remembered that we saw reason for suspecting that not
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Severus of Antioch</span></span>, but<br />
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Hesychius of Jerusalem</span></span>,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(both of them writers of the vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,) has
+the better claim to the authorship of the Homily in question,<a id="noteref_97" name="noteref_97" href="#note_97"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">97</span></span></a>—which,
+however, cannot at all events be assigned to the illustrious
+Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of Basil the Great. <span class="tei tei-q">“In the
+more accurate copies,”</span> (says this writer,) <span class="tei tei-q">“the Gospel according
+to Mark has its end at <span class="tei tei-q">‘for they were afraid.’</span> In
+some copies, however, this also is added,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘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.’</span>
+This, however, seems to contradict to some extent what we
+before delivered; for since it happens that the hour of the
+night when our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> rose is not known, how does it come
+to be here written that He rose <span class="tei tei-q">‘early?’</span> 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,
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘Now when He was risen:’</span> and then to proceed,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘Early in
+the Sabbath He appeared first to Mary Magdalene:’</span> in order
+that <span class="tei tei-q">‘when He was risen’</span> may refer (in conformity with
+what Matthew says) to the foregoing season; while <span class="tei tei-q">‘early’</span>
+is connected with the appearance to Mary.”</span><a id="noteref_98" name="noteref_98" href="#note_98"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">98</span></span></a>—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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page058">[pg 058]</span><a name="Pg058" id="Pg058" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">words</span></em> 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;<a id="noteref_99" name="noteref_99" href="#note_99"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">99</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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<a id="noteref_100" name="noteref_100" href="#note_100"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">100</span></span></a>,) 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;<a id="noteref_101" name="noteref_101" href="#note_101"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">101</span></span></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> rose from the dead. I need not enter more particularly
+into an examination of this (so-called) <span class="tei tei-q">“Homily”</span>:
+but I must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page059">[pg 059]</span><a name="Pg059" id="Pg059" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_102" name="noteref_102" href="#note_102"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">102</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a passing allusion of his to
+what Eusebius had long before delivered on the same subject</span></em>, as
+if it exhibited his own individual teaching. It is
+demonstrable<a id="noteref_103" name="noteref_103" href="#note_103"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">103</span></span></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at all</span></em>. 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 vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence
+borne by
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor of Antioch.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 401,”</span> it might be supposed that <span class="tei tei-q">“Victor of
+Antioch”</span> is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely a Commentator
+of antiquity about whom less is certainly known.
+Clinton (who enumerates cccxxii <span class="tei tei-q">“Ecclesiastical Authors”</span>
+from <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 70 to <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span>
+685<a id="noteref_104" name="noteref_104" href="#note_104"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">104</span></span></a>) does not even record his name.
+The recent <span class="tei tei-q">“Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography”</span>
+is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest editor)
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page060">[pg 060]</span><a name="Pg060" id="Pg060" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute
+his Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria.<a id="noteref_105" name="noteref_105" href="#note_105"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">105</span></span></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 444, and yet seems
+to have written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which
+took place <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 407), may be assigned to the first half of the
+v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,—suppose
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Catenae.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“his <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">testimony</span></em> to the
+absence of these twelve verses from some or many copies,
+stands in contrast to his own <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">opinion</span></em> on the subject.”</span> But
+Victor delivers <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“opinion:”</span> and his <span class="tei tei-q">“testimony”</span> is the
+direct reverse of what Dr. Tregelles asserts it to be. This
+learned and respected critic has strangely misapprehended
+the evidence.<a id="noteref_106" name="noteref_106" href="#note_106"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">106</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore
+confine myself to those facts concerning <span class="tei tei-q">“Victor of Antioch,”</span>
+or rather concerning his work, which are necessary for the
+purpose in hand.<a id="noteref_107" name="noteref_107" href="#note_107"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">107</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page061">[pg 061]</span><a name="Pg061" id="Pg061" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">word for word</span></em>,) from Chrysostom's
+88th Homily on S. Matthew's Gospel.<a id="noteref_108" name="noteref_108" href="#note_108"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">108</span></span></a>
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eusebius</span></em> had written on the same subject. It is in fact an
+extract from those very <span class="tei tei-q">“Quaestiones ad Marinum”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Catena”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not Victor's at all</span></em>. For one half of them,
+no one but Chrysostom is responsible: for the other half, no
+one but Eusebius.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But it is Victor's familiar use of the writings of Eusebius,—especially
+of those Resolutions of hard Questions <span class="tei tei-q">“concerning
+the seeming Inconsistencies in the Evangelical accounts
+of the Resurrection,”</span> which Eusebius addressed to Marinus,—on
+which the reader's attention is now to be concentrated.
+Victor cites that work of Eusebius <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by name</span></em> in the very
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">first</span></em> page of his Commentary. That his <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">last</span></em> page also contains
+a quotation from it, (also <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by name</span></em>), has been already pointed
+out.<a id="noteref_109" name="noteref_109" href="#note_109"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">109</span></span></a>
+Attention is now invited to what is found concerning
+S. Mark xvi. 9-20 in the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">last page but one</span></em> (p. 444) of
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page062">[pg 062]</span><a name="Pg062" id="Pg062" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 89<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Homily of
+Chrysostom<a id="noteref_110" name="noteref_110" href="#note_110"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">110</span></span></a>), reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to
+do<a id="noteref_111" name="noteref_111" href="#note_111"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">111</span></span></a>) 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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“In certain copies of Mark's Gospel, next comes,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘Now
+when [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>] was risen early the first day of the week, He
+appeared to Mary Magdalene;’</span>—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:—<span class="tei tei-q">‘Now when [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>] was
+risen:’</span> then, after a comma, to go on,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘early the first day
+of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’</span> In this
+way we refer [Mark's] <span class="tei tei-q">‘Now when [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>] was risen’</span> to
+Matthew's <span class="tei tei-q">‘in the end of the sabbath,’</span> (for <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">then</span></em> we believe
+Him to have <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">risen</span></em>;) and all that comes after, expressive as
+it is of a different notion, we connect with what follows.
+Mark relates that He who <span class="tei tei-q">‘<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">arose</span></em> (according to Matthew) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in
+the end of the Sabbath</span></em>,’</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was seen</span></em> by Mary Magdalene
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">early</span></em>.’</span>
+This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded
+that <span class="tei tei-q">‘early,’</span> <span class="tei tei-q">‘the first day of the week,’</span> [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>]
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘in the end of the Sabbath;’</span>
+secondly, the season of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> Appearing,—which
+was <span class="tei tei-q">‘early.’</span> ”</span><a id="noteref_112" name="noteref_112" href="#note_112"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">112</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate
+to admit that he is here listening to Eusebius <span class="tei tei-q">“ad Marinum”</span>
+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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page063">[pg 063]</span><a name="Pg063" id="Pg063" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+surveying the originals with attention, may easily convince
+himself that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Victor is here nothing else but a
+copyist</span></em>.<a id="noteref_113" name="noteref_113" href="#note_113"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">113</span></span></a>
+That the work in which Eusebius reconciles <span class="tei tei-q">“seeming discrepancies
+in the Evangelical narratives,”</span> 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:—<span class="tei tei-q">“I
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page064">[pg 064]</span><a name="Pg064" id="Pg064" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+know very well,”</span> he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“what has been suggested <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by
+those who are at the pains to remove the apparent inconsistencies
+in this place</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_114" name="noteref_114" href="#note_114"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">114</span></span></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not the testimony of Victor at all</span></em>:
+but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the testimony of Eusebius</span></em>. 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+What then <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> 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.<a id="noteref_115" name="noteref_115" href="#note_115"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">115</span></span></a>
+But nowhere throughout his work
+does he deliver such remarkable testimony as in this place.
+Hear him!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present
+Gospel, the passage beginning, <span class="tei tei-q">‘Now when [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>] was risen
+early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,’</span>
+be not found,—(certain individuals having supposed it to
+be spurious,)—yet <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">we</span></span>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘for they were afraid,’</span>)
+in conformity with the Palestinian exemplar of Mark
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page065">[pg 065]</span><a name="Pg065" id="Pg065" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+which exhibits the Gospel verity: that is to say, from
+the words, <span class="tei tei-q">‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the
+first day of the week,’</span> &amp;c., down to <span class="tei tei-q">‘with signs following.
+Amen.’</span><a id="noteref_116" name="noteref_116" href="#note_116"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">116</span></span></a>—And with
+these words Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on S. Mark to an end.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent
+Father, writing in the first half of the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark
+are absent from some ancient copies of his Gospel is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">because
+they have been deliberately omitted by Copyists</span></em>:
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) That the ground for such omission was the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">subjective
+judgment</span></em> of individuals,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> the result of any appeal to
+documentary evidence. Victor, therefore, clearly held that
+the Verses in question had been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">expunged</span></em> in consequence of
+their (seeming) inconsistency with what is met with in the
+other Gospels:
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself
+by reference to <span class="tei tei-q">“very many”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“accurate”</span> copies, that
+the verses in question are genuine:
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which enjoyed
+the reputation of <span class="tei tei-q">“exhibiting the genuine text of
+S. Mark,”</span> contained the Verses in dispute.—To <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Opinion</span></em>,
+therefore, Victor opposes <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Authority</span></em>. 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:
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(5.) That in consequence of all this, following the Palestinian
+Exemplar, he had from accurate copies <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">furnished his
+own work with the Twelve Verses in dispute</span></em>;—which is a categorical
+refutation of the statement frequently met with that
+the work of Victor of Antioch is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">without</span></em> them.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+We are now at liberty to sum up; and to review the progress
+which has been hitherto made in this Inquiry.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page066">[pg 066]</span><a name="Pg066" id="Pg066" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+easily reduced to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">names</span></em>: <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Gregory of Nyssa</span></span> having
+really no more to do with this discussion than Philip of Macedon;
+and <span class="tei tei-q">“Severus”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“Hesychius”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_117" name="noteref_117" href="#note_117"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">117</span></span></a> But,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>, (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<a id="noteref_118" name="noteref_118" href="#note_118"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">118</span></span></a>....
+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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page067">[pg 067]</span><a name="Pg067" id="Pg067" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been
+adopted, and in part transcribed, by an unknown writer of
+the vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,—whether
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Hesychius</span></span> or <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Severus</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no doubt whatever</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">quotes the verses as genuine</span></em>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Hesychius
+of Jerusalem”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“Severus of Antioch,”</span>)—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+III. As for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jerome</span></span>, since that illustrious Father comes
+before us in this place as a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">translator</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+IV. Lastly, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor of Antioch</span></span>, 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the last Twelve Verses</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page068">[pg 068]</span><a name="Pg068" id="Pg068" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+can anything be imagined more emphatic than his testimony,
+or more conclusive.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+For the reader is requested to observe that here is an
+Ecclesiastic, writing in the first half of the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century, who <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">expressly witnesses to the genuineness</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“accurate”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was there</span></em>. 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;<a id="noteref_119" name="noteref_119" href="#note_119"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">119</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove somewhat
+less unaccommodating.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of
+the discussion, to appeal to
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Euthymius Zigabenus</span></span>,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+the Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compilation
+on the Gospels, assigned to <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page069">[pg 069]</span><a name="Pg069" id="Pg069" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+not unfavourable. He says,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Some of the Commentators
+state that here,”</span> (viz. at ver. 8,) <span class="tei tei-q">“the Gospel according to
+Mark finishes; and that what follows is a spurious addition.”</span>
+(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.) <span class="tei tei-q">“This portion we
+must also interpret, however,”</span> (Euthymius proceeds,) <span class="tei tei-q">“since
+there is nothing in it prejudicial to the truth.”</span><a id="noteref_120" name="noteref_120" href="#note_120"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">120</span></span></a>—But it is
+idle to linger over such a writer. One might almost as well
+quote <span class="tei tei-q">“Poli <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Synopsis</span></span>”</span> 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 xii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">them</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page070">[pg 070]</span><a name="Pg070" id="Pg070" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc19" id="toc19"></a>
+<a name="pdf20" id="pdf20"></a>
+<a name="Chapter_VI" id="Chapter_VI" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER VI.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY
+IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART I.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+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. </span><a href="#Pg073" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">73</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">)
+and Cod. א (p. </span><a href="#Pg075" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">75</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—These two Codices shewn to be full
+of gross Omissions (p. </span><a href="#Pg078" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">78</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">),—Interpolations (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">80</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">),—Corruptions of the Text (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg081" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">81</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">),—and Perversions of the Truth (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg083" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">83</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9-20,
+shewn to be favorable, notwithstanding (p. </span><a href="#Pg086" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">86</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the
+famous Codex in the Vatican Library at Rome, known as
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Codex B;”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_121" name="noteref_121" href="#note_121"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">121</span></span></a>
+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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century. But the two
+Manuscripts agree in this,—that
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">they are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel</span></em>.
+In both, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (ver. 8), comes the subscription:
+in Cod. B,—ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ; in Cod. א,—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ
+ΜΑΡΚΟΝ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Let it not be supposed that we have any <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">more</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only not unanimous</span></em>
+in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page071">[pg 071]</span><a name="Pg071" id="Pg071" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of the MSS. is even extraordinary. With the exception of
+the two uncial MSS. which have just been named, there is
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not one</span></em> Codex in existence, uncial or cursive,—(and we are
+acquainted with, at least, eighteen other uncials,<a id="noteref_122" name="noteref_122" href="#note_122"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">122</span></span></a> and about
+six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)—which leaves out
+the last twelve verses of S. Mark.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">derived from different originals</span></em>;—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 x<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,) and
+requests to have it explained to him <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em> 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?
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em> single peculiarity (he tells himself) of bringing the
+second Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse of the
+xvi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century,—unless men are prepared to add the assurance that a Codex of the
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of necessity</span></em>
+a more trustworthy witness to the text of the
+Gospels than a Codex of the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>. The omission of
+these twelve verses, I repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page072">[pg 072]</span><a name="Pg072" id="Pg072" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">because</span></em>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">after demonstration that those two Codices exhibit
+a mutilated text</span></em> 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed
+we to examine the evidence borne by these two witnesses
+on certain <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">other</span></em> occasions which admit of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> difference of
+opinion; or next to none. Let us endeavour, I say, to ascertain
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the character of the Witnesses</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one more occasion</span></em> on which
+these <span class="tei tei-q">“two false witnesses”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page073">[pg 073]</span><a name="Pg073" id="Pg073" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_123" name="noteref_123" href="#note_123"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">123</span></span></a> In the Gospels alone,
+Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than
+1,491 times:<a id="noteref_124" name="noteref_124" href="#note_124"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">124</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“like
+ending.”</span><a id="noteref_125" name="noteref_125" href="#note_125"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">125</span></span></a>
+The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic<a id="noteref_126" name="noteref_126" href="#note_126"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">126</span></span></a>) was originally derived
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page074">[pg 074]</span><a name="Pg074" id="Pg074" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+from an older Codex which contained about twelve
+or thirteen letters in a line.<a id="noteref_127" name="noteref_127" href="#note_127"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">127</span></span></a> And it will be found that
+some of its omissions which have given rise to prolonged
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page075">[pg 075]</span><a name="Pg075" id="Pg075" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+discussion are probably to be referred to nothing else but the
+oscitancy of a transcriber with such a codex before him:<a id="noteref_128" name="noteref_128" href="#note_128"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">128</span></span></a>
+without having recourse to any more abstruse hypothesis;
+without any imputation of bad faith;—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">certainly without
+supposing that the words omitted did not exist in the inspired
+autograph of the Evangelist</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">repetitions</span></em>. 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_129" name="noteref_129" href="#note_129"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">129</span></span></a> And yet the Codex in question abounds
+with <span class="tei tei-q">“errors of the the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled,
+but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate
+importance.”</span> On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words
+are dropped through very carelessness.<a id="noteref_130" name="noteref_130" href="#note_130"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">130</span></span></a>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page076">[pg 076]</span><a name="Pg076" id="Pg076" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘the state of the text, as proceeding from
+the first scribe, may be regarded as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">very
+rough</span></em>.’</span> ”</span><a id="noteref_131" name="noteref_131" href="#note_131"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">131</span></span></a> But
+when <span class="tei tei-q">“the first scribe”</span> and his <span class="tei tei-q">“very rough”</span> performance
+have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would
+like to be informed what remains to command respect in
+Codex א? Is, then, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">manuscript authority</span></em> to be confounded
+with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">editorial caprice</span></em>,—exercising itself upon the corrections
+of <span class="tei tei-q">“at least ten different revisers,”</span> who, from the
+vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> to the
+xii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century, have been endeavouring to lick into
+shape a text which its original author left <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">very rough</span></em>?”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Id verius quod prius,”</span> 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;<a id="noteref_132" name="noteref_132" href="#note_132"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">132</span></span></a> and by consequence, the credit of Codd. B
+and א sustains a severe shock. Again, <span class="tei tei-q">“Id verius quod
+prius;”</span> but it does not of course follow that a Codex of
+the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century shall
+exhibit a more correct text of Scripture than one written in the
+v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>, or even than one written
+in the x<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>. 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
+vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century.
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page077">[pg 077]</span><a name="Pg077" id="Pg077" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> 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,)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it reproduces
+the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">textus receptus</span></em> 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.”</span><a id="noteref_133" name="noteref_133" href="#note_133"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">133</span></span></a> Where, then, is the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">à priori</span></span>
+probability that two MSS. of the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">New Testament</span></em>”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“with various readings from the three
+most celebrated manuscripts of the Greek Text”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span> in its integrity. Dean Alford's constant appeal
+in his revision of the Authorized Version (1870) to <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+oldest MSS.”</span> (meaning thereby generally Codd. א and B
+with one or two others<a id="noteref_134" name="noteref_134" href="#note_134"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">134</span></span></a>), 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) And first,—Ought it not sensibly to detract from our
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page078">[pg 078]</span><a name="Pg078" id="Pg078" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">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</span></em>? 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">perpetual</span></em> inconsistencies between Codd. B
+and א,—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross
+ones,—altogether destroy my confidence in either?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) 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.<a id="noteref_135" name="noteref_135" href="#note_135"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">135</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page079">[pg 079]</span><a name="Pg079" id="Pg079" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+scribe of Cod. א had <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></em> omitted the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">end of the Gospel according
+to S. John</span></em>.<a id="noteref_136" name="noteref_136" href="#note_136"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">136</span></span></a>
+In this suppression of ver. 25, Cod. א stands
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">alone</span></em> among MSS. A cloud of primitive witnesses vouch
+for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is nothing else
+but the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">reductio ad absurdum</span></span> 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!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two
+solemn verses wherein S. Luke describes our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>'s <span class="tei tei-q">“Agony
+and bloody Sweat,”</span> together with the act of the ministering
+Angel.<a id="noteref_137" name="noteref_137" href="#note_137"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">137</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> 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.
+<span class="tei tei-q">“The admitted error of Cod. B in this place,”</span> (to quote the
+words of Scrivener,) <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Cod. B (not Cod. א) is further guilty of the <span class="tei tei-q">“grave error”</span>
+(as Dean Alford justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn
+record of the Evangelist:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Then said <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>,
+Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”</span> It also withholds
+the statement that the inscription on the Cross was
+<span class="tei tei-q">“in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.”</span><a id="noteref_138" name="noteref_138" href="#note_138"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">138</span></span></a> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page080">[pg 080]</span><a name="Pg080" id="Pg080" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the design</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from the
+inspired autograph of the Evangelist</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where
+the text of B or of א, or of both, has clearly been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">interpolated</span></em>.
+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.<a id="noteref_139" name="noteref_139" href="#note_139"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">139</span></span></a>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“This interpolation”</span> (remarks Mr. Scrivener) <span class="tei tei-q">“which would
+represent the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> 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.”</span><a id="noteref_140" name="noteref_140" href="#note_140"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">140</span></span></a> 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,<a id="noteref_141" name="noteref_141" href="#note_141"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">141</span></span></a> which is found <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> in
+Cod. א:—οινον ουκ ειχον, οτι συνετελεσθε ο οινος του γαμου.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page081">[pg 081]</span><a name="Pg081" id="Pg081" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Isaiah”</span> (ησαιου) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance
+of authority and of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-weight: 700">fact</span></span>.—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,<a id="noteref_142" name="noteref_142" href="#note_142"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">142</span></span></a> 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<a id="noteref_143" name="noteref_143" href="#note_143"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">143</span></span></a> (for ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν) in S.
+John i. 4?—Certain at least it is that no one will <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ever</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Infallibility</span></em>, (as well as the plea of
+Primacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of MSS. licentiously
+corrupt as these have already been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">proved</span></em> to be? For the
+readings above enumerated, be it observed, are either critical
+depravations of the inspired Text, or else unwarrantable
+interpolations. They <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> have resulted from careless
+transcription.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page082">[pg 082]</span><a name="Pg082" id="Pg082" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">revision</span></em>. 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.<a id="noteref_144" name="noteref_144" href="#note_144"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">144</span></span></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Holy One</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page083">[pg 083]</span><a name="Pg083" id="Pg083" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“how
+that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by works</span></em> a man is justified,”</span> the author of the text of
+Codices B and א has ventured to alter our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>'s assertion
+(in S. Matth. xi. 19,) <span class="tei tei-q">“Wisdom is justified of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">her children</span></em>,”</span>
+into <span class="tei tei-q">“Wisdom is justified by <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">her works</span></em>;”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">afterwards</span></em> repented and went,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only in Cod.</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">transposed the order of the
+two sons</span></em>: and in that queer condition the parable comes
+down to us in the famous Vatican Codex B.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page084">[pg 084]</span><a name="Pg084" id="Pg084" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of certain perversions of the truth of Scripture which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">must</span></em>
+have been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in
+S. Mark xiv, they exhibit a set of passages—(verses 30, 68,
+72)—<span class="tei tei-q">“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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">twice</span></em>. (In Cod. א, δίς is omitted in ver. 30,<span class="tei tei-q">‘—ἐκ δευτέρου
+and δίς in ver. 72,—’</span>and καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε in ver. 68:
+the last change being countenanced by B.)”</span><a id="noteref_145" name="noteref_145" href="#note_145"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">145</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">inside the sepulchre</span></em>; but who accepted the belief
+(it is found to have been as common in ancient as in
+modern times) that they beheld him <span class="tei tei-q">“sitting on the
+stone.”</span><a id="noteref_146" name="noteref_146" href="#note_146"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">146</span></span></a>—In
+consequence of a similar misconception, both Codices
+are observed to present us with the word <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wine</span></em>”</span> instead of
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">vinegar</span></em>”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page085">[pg 085]</span><a name="Pg085" id="Pg085" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+harmony with S. Mark xv. 23. The man did not perceive
+that the cruel insult of the <span class="tei tei-q">“vinegar and gall”</span> (which the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct
+thing from the proffered mercy of the <span class="tei tei-q">“myrrhed wine”</span>
+which the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> put away from Himself altogether.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">an hundred</span></em> and sixty”</span> stadia
+distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is
+known. It is because some ancient critic (Origen probably)
+erroneously assumed that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Nicopolis</span></em> was the place intended.
+The conjecture met with favour, and there are not wanting
+scholia to declare that this was the reading of <span class="tei tei-q">“the accurate”</span>
+copies,—notwithstanding the physical impossibility
+which is involved by the statement.<a id="noteref_147" name="noteref_147" href="#note_147"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">147</span></span></a>—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in Judæa</span></em>. Accordingly he has
+altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his
+private notion.<a id="noteref_148" name="noteref_148" href="#note_148"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">148</span></span></a>—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,<a id="noteref_149" name="noteref_149" href="#note_149"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">149</span></span></a> has been substituted
+both in B and א, του ηλιου εκλιποντος,—a statement
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page086">[pg 086]</span><a name="Pg086" id="Pg086" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+which (as the ancients were perfectly well aware<a id="noteref_150" name="noteref_150" href="#note_150"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">150</span></span></a>)
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">their omission of the last
+twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel</span></em>,—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 xvi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+chapter, and that the
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page087">[pg 087]</span><a name="Pg087" id="Pg087" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+customary subscription (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ) follows,—is true; but
+it is far from being <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the whole</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the next
+ensuing column</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the only vacant
+column</span></em> in the whole manuscript;—a blank space <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">abundantly
+sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld.
+Why</span></em> did he leave that column vacant? <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">What</span></em> 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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The
+older MS.</span></em> from which Cod. B was copied must have infallibly
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">contained</span></em> the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed
+to leave them out,—and he obeyed: but he prudently
+left a blank space <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in memoriam rei</span></span>. Never was blank
+more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By
+this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex
+is made to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">refute itself</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">leaving room</span></em> for the
+verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of
+fifteen centuries and a half, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a more ancient witness than itself</span></em>.
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page088">[pg 088]</span><a name="Pg088" id="Pg088" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+that the scribe of Cod. B. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">may</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_151" name="noteref_151" href="#note_151"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">151</span></span></a> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every</span></em> authority
+we have hitherto met with has affirmed to belong to it
+of right.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">contradict</span></em> 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,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Though without the Twelve Verses concerning
+which you are so solicitous,”</span> (it seems to say,) <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page089">[pg 089]</span><a name="Pg089" id="Pg089" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+the four oldest Codices of the Gospels extant,—B, א, A, C,—two
+(B and א) are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">without</span></em> these twelve verses: two (A and C)
+are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">with</span></em> them. Are these twelve verses then an unauthorized
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">addition</span></em> to A and C? or are they an unwarrantable
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">omission</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“S. Mark's Gospel was
+at first without the verses which at present conclude it?”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to
+MSS. It has been accepted. And with what result?</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-q">“Those many Fathers whom you represented as
+hostile, prove on investigation to be reducible to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em>, viz. Eusebius:
+and Eusebius, as we have seen, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does not say</span></em> 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
+ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span>
+century.</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the oldest</span></em> of them; for,
+(as you are aware,) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every MS. in the world except the two
+oldest</span></em> are against you.</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.;
+and it has volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page090">[pg 090]</span><a name="Pg090" id="Pg090" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+itself—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Codex from which it was copied</span></em>—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?</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“But it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides.</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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 ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span>
+or iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">who</span></em> 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?</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> are observed to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">recognize these Verses</span></em>.
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘Cadit quaestio’</span> therefore. The last shadow of pretext has
+vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that <span class="tei tei-q">‘Mark the
+Evangelist knew nothing of’</span> these verses:—with Tregelles
+that <span class="tei tei-q">‘The book of Mark himself extends no further than
+ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ:’</span>—with Griesbach that <span class="tei tei-q">‘the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">last leaf of the
+original Gospel was probably torn away</span></em>.’</span>... 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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘two
+false witnesses,’</span> and must be held to go forth from this inquiry
+with an injured reputation.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+This entire subject is of so much importance that I must
+needs yet awhile crave the reader's patience and attention.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page091">[pg 091]</span><a name="Pg091" id="Pg091" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc21" id="toc21"></a>
+<a name="pdf22" id="pdf22"></a>
+<a name="Chapter_VII" id="Chapter_VII" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER VII.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY
+IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART II.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+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. </span><a href="#Pg093" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">93</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The Moderns
+infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg100" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">100</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Marcion probably the author of this corruption of
+the Text of Scripture (p. </span><a href="#Pg106" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">106</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Other peculiarities of
+Codex א disposed of (p. </span><a href="#Pg109" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">109</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“There are two remarkable readings,”</span> (says Tischendorf,
+addressing English readers on this subject in 1868,) <span class="tei tei-q">“which
+are very instructive towards determining the age of the
+manuscripts [א and B], and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">their authority</span></em>.”</span> He proceeds
+to adduce,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. He appeals to their omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
+from the first verse of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">another
+peculiarity, in which Codd.</span></em> א <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and B stand quite alone
+among MSS.</span></em>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page092">[pg 092]</span><a name="Pg092" id="Pg092" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of their high antiquity, no one will deny. But how about
+<span class="tei tei-q">“their <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">authority</span></em>”</span>? Does the coincidence also raise our
+opinion of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the trustworthiness of the Text</span></em>, which these two
+MSS. concur in exhibiting? for <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> is the question which
+has to be considered,—the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> 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
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century, or in the beginning of the
+v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>: whereas it matters
+much, or rather it matters <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">everything</span></em>, whether they exhibit
+the Word of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">critically allowable</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">possibly</span></em> be
+the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">credible</span></em> 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">trustworthiness of the Text</span></em> of those Manuscripts: (for of their
+high <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Antiquity</span></em>, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the omission is
+unwarrantable</span></em>.—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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></em> pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page093">[pg 093]</span><a name="Pg093" id="Pg093" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the other</span></em> 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:—<span class="tei tei-q">“In the
+beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read, <span class="tei tei-q">‘to the
+saints which are at Ephesus;’</span> but Marcion (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 130-140),
+did not find the words <span class="tei tei-q">‘at Ephesus’</span> in his copy. The same
+is true of Origen (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 185-254); and Basil the Great
+(who died <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 379), affirmed that those words were wanting
+in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">old</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘at Ephesus;’</span> yea (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">sic</span></span>), even Jerome
+knew no copy with a different reading. Now, only the
+Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">old</span></em> copies of
+Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion.”</span><a id="noteref_152" name="noteref_152" href="#note_152"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">152</span></span></a>—This then is
+the sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat
+in detail.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned
+writer is absolutely without authority for his assertion that
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Marcion <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">did not find</span></em> the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Epistle to the Ephesians”</span> the unauthorized title
+of <span class="tei tei-q">“Epistle <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to the Laodiceans</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_153" name="noteref_153" href="#note_153"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">153</span></span></a> This,
+(argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not have done had he found ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the
+first verse.<a id="noteref_154" name="noteref_154" href="#note_154"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">154</span></span></a>
+But the proposed inference is clearly invalid.
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page094">[pg 094]</span><a name="Pg094" id="Pg094" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+For, with what show of reason can Marcion,—whom Tertullian
+taxes with having dared <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">titulum interpolare</span></span>”</span> in the
+case of S. Paul's <span class="tei tei-q">“Epistle to the Ephesians,”</span>—be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">therefore</span></em>,
+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.<a id="noteref_155" name="noteref_155" href="#note_155"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">155</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ephesians</span></em>, that it was
+addressed to the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Laodiceans</span></em>,)—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,<a id="noteref_156" name="noteref_156" href="#note_156"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">156</span></span></a> and has elaborately described it,
+as well as presented us with copious extracts from it.<a id="noteref_157" name="noteref_157" href="#note_157"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">157</span></span></a> And
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page095">[pg 095]</span><a name="Pg095" id="Pg095" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“ut videtur”</span>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Epistle to the
+Ephesians</span></em> was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which
+Marcion <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">retained</span></em>. In his <span class="tei tei-q">“Apostolicon,”</span> or collection of
+the (mutilated) Apostolical Epistles, the <span class="tei tei-q">“Epistle to the
+Ephesians,”</span> (identified by the considerable quotations which
+Epiphanius makes from it,<a id="noteref_158" name="noteref_158" href="#note_158"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">158</span></span></a>) stood (he says) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seventh</span></em> in
+order; while the (so called) <span class="tei tei-q">“Epistle to the Laodiceans,”</span>—a
+distinct composition therefore,—had the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">eleventh</span></em>, that is, the
+last place assigned to it.<a id="noteref_159" name="noteref_159" href="#note_159"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">159</span></span></a> That this latter Epistle contained
+a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius
+records the fact in two places.<a id="noteref_160" name="noteref_160" href="#note_160"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">160</span></span></a> But then it is to
+be borne in mind that he charges Marcion with having
+derived that quotation <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from the Apocryphal Epistle to the
+Laodiceans</span></em>;<a id="noteref_161" name="noteref_161" href="#note_161"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">161</span></span></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_162" name="noteref_162" href="#note_162"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">162</span></span></a>—I have entered into
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page096">[pg 096]</span><a name="Pg096" id="Pg096" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+this whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary:
+but I was determined to prove that Tischendorf's
+statement that <span class="tei tei-q">“Marcion (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 130-140) did not find the
+words <span class="tei tei-q">‘at Ephesus’</span> in his copy,”</span>—is absolutely without
+foundation. It is even <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">contradicted</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) The <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> 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.
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Only in the case of the Ephesians,”</span> (he writes),
+<span class="tei tei-q">“do we meet with the expression <span class="tei tei-q">‘the Saints which are:’</span>
+and we inquire,—Unless that additional phrase be simply
+redundant, what can it possibly signify? Consider, then,
+whether those who have been partakers of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">His</span></em> nature who
+revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">am</span></span>, may not,
+in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘those <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which are</span></em>:’</span> persons, called out, of a state of
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em>-being, so to speak, into a state of
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">being</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_163" name="noteref_163" href="#note_163"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">163</span></span></a>—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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page097">[pg 097]</span><a name="Pg097" id="Pg097" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis
+before him,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">reasoning however only from the place in
+Basil,</span></em> (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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infrà</span></span>, p.
+<a href="#Pg098" class="tei tei-ref">98</a> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">note</span></span>) that he, too,
+seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be
+called) of Codd. B and א.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Son</span></span> of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>.
+Even <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not to know</span></em> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>
+(he remarks) is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not to be</span></em>: in proof of which, he quotes
+S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. i. 28:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Things <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which are not</span></em>,
+hath <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span> chosen.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Nay,”</span> (he proceeds,) the same S.
+Paul, <span class="tei tei-q">“in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addressing
+persons who by intimate knowledge were truly joined
+to Him who <span class="tei tei-q">‘<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">is</span></span>,’</span> designates them specially as <span class="tei tei-q">‘those
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which are</span></em>:’</span> saying,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘To the Saints <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which are</span></em>,
+and faithful in <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ Jesus</span></span>.’</span> ”</span> That this fancy was not
+original, Basil makes no secret. He derived it, (he says,) from <span class="tei tei-q">“those
+who were before us;”</span> a plain allusion to the writings of
+Origen. But neither was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the reading</span></em> his own, either. This
+is evident. He had <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">found</span></em> it, he says,—(an asseveration indispensable
+to the validity of his argument,)—but only after
+he had made search,<a id="noteref_164" name="noteref_164" href="#note_164"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">164</span></span></a>—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the old
+copies</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_165" name="noteref_165" href="#note_165"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">165</span></span></a> No doubt,
+Origen's strange fancy must have been even <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unintelligible</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page098">[pg 098]</span><a name="Pg098" id="Pg098" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+what there is in all this to induce us to
+suspect that Origen's reading was after all the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">right</span></em> one,
+and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ours</span></em> the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wrong</span></em>, 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.<a id="noteref_166" name="noteref_166" href="#note_166"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">166</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“certain persons”</span>
+had been <span class="tei tei-q">“over-fanciful”</span> in putting it forth. He alludes
+probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians,
+in three books, he expressly relates that he employed:<a id="noteref_167" name="noteref_167" href="#note_167"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">167</span></span></a> but
+he does not seem to have apprehended that Origen's text
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was without the words</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the Saints <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which are</span></em>:”</span> but,—<span class="tei tei-q">“the
+Saints and faithful <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which are at Ephesus</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_168" name="noteref_168" href="#note_168"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">168</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page099">[pg 099]</span><a name="Pg099" id="Pg099" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Basil testifies that it was absent from <span class="tei tei-q">“the old copies”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">approved</span></em> of this reading. Still less does
+Basil. They both witness to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the fact</span></em> that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
+were omitted from <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> copies of the
+iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> century,
+just as Codd. B and א witness to the same fact in the
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>.
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unintelligible</span></em>
+if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ be omitted: but (what is
+far more to the purpose) the direct evidence of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the copies,
+whether uncial or cursive,<a id="noteref_169" name="noteref_169" href="#note_169"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">169</span></span></a>—and of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the Versions,—is
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">against</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> MSS. confessedly untrustworthy
+in countless other places,—against <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the MSS.—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there does not
+exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. The adverse testimony of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all the uncial MSS. except
+two</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. The adverse testimony of all, or <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">very nearly all</span></em>, the
+cursive MSS.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page100">[pg 100]</span><a name="Pg100" id="Pg100" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. The adverse testimony of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all the Versions</span></em>, without exception.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+4. The adverse testimony of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+5. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The highest inherent improbability</span></em>,—it
+is only because I desire to treat this question purely as
+one of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Evidence</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to account
+for</span></em> 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<a id="noteref_170" name="noteref_170" href="#note_170"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">170</span></span></a>,) 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“reproduces
+the <span class="tei tei-q">‘textus receptus’</span> 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.”</span><a id="noteref_171" name="noteref_171" href="#note_171"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">171</span></span></a> Our business as Critics is not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to
+invent theories</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page101">[pg 101]</span><a name="Pg101" id="Pg101" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Guesses</span></em> only
+they are at best.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a Circular</span></em> 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,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">others may have had another city substituted, or the space after</span></em>
+τοῖς οὔσιν <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">left utterly void</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_172" name="noteref_172" href="#note_172"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">172</span></span></a> 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,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) when
+S. Paul sent his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that
+Tychicus, the bearer of it,<a id="noteref_173" name="noteref_173" href="#note_173"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">173</span></span></a>
+was charged with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a distinct Epistle</span></em> to the
+Colossians:<a id="noteref_174" name="noteref_174" href="#note_174"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">174</span></span></a> 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, (<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> to the Ephesians,) furnished
+with a different address, to so large and important a place
+as Laodicea, for example, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Epistle to the
+Colossians</span></span>,”</span> which the Colossians were ordered to send them. The Colossians
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page102">[pg 102]</span><a name="Pg102" id="Pg102" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+in like manner were to read the Epistle,—(to whom
+addressed, we know not),—which S. Paul describes as τὴν ἐκ
+Λαοδικείας.<a id="noteref_175" name="noteref_175" href="#note_175"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">175</span></span></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his Epistle to them should be
+read in the Church of the Laodiceans</span></em>. Why should the
+Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously
+adopted one method with the Churches of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Colosse</span></em> and Laodicea,—another
+with the Churches of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ephesus</span></em> and Laodicea,—in
+respect of his epistolary communications?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2) (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) But even supposing, for argument's sake, that
+S. Paul <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">did</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">blank</span></em>, (<span class="tei tei-q">“carta bianca,”</span>
+as Bengel phrases it,<a id="noteref_176" name="noteref_176" href="#note_176"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">176</span></span></a>) for Tychicus to fill up when he got
+into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short
+of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> would account for the reading of Codd. B and א.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) 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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Epistle to the Ephesians”</span> sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul
+with a blank address; i.e. <span class="tei tei-q">“with the space after τοῖς οὔσιν
+left utterly void:”</span> (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 <span class="tei tei-q">“old copies”</span> 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) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">One
+other</span></em> copy of this same <span class="tei tei-q">“Encyclical Epistle,”</span> filled up with
+the Ephesian address, became the archetype of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every other
+copy of this Epistle in the world</span></em>.... 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">another City</span></em> in the salutation of S. Paul's <span class="tei tei-q">“Epistle
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page103">[pg 103]</span><a name="Pg103" id="Pg103" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+to the Ephesians,”</span> but that we find the name of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> city
+at all; nor meet with any vacant space there.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">conflicting testimony</span></em> as to the Church to which S. Paul's
+Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the
+most ancient writers, without exception,—(Marcion himself
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 140<a id="noteref_177" name="noteref_177" href="#note_177"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">177</span></span></a>], the <span class="tei tei-q">“Muratorian”</span> fragment
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 170 or earlier],
+Irenæus [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">superscription</span></em> of the Epistle attests that it was addressed
+<span class="tei tei-q">“to the Ephesians.”</span> 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?<a id="noteref_178" name="noteref_178" href="#note_178"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">178</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page104">[pg 104]</span><a name="Pg104" id="Pg104" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a Circular</span></em>”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“circularis,”</span>
+it seems to be imagined that ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολή may mean
+<span class="tei tei-q">“a Circular Letter.”</span> Whereas it really means nothing of
+the sort; but—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a Catholic Epistle</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_179" name="noteref_179" href="#note_179"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">179</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+An <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Encyclical</span></em>”</span> (and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> is the word which has been
+imported into the present discussion), was quite a different
+document from what <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">we</span></em> call <span class="tei tei-q">“a Circular.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Encyclical.”</span><a id="noteref_180" name="noteref_180" href="#note_180"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">180</span></span></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_181" name="noteref_181" href="#note_181"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">181</span></span></a>
+As for <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a blank circular</span></em>”</span> to be filled up with
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page105">[pg 105]</span><a name="Pg105" id="Pg105" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+the words <span class="tei tei-q">“in Ephesus,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“in Laodicea,”</span> &amp;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 <span class="tei tei-q">“a Circular,”</span> then it was not <span class="tei tei-q">“Encyclical:”</span> if it was
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Encyclical”</span> then it was not <span class="tei tei-q">“a Circular.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“the Epistle to the Ephesians,”</span> was an <span class="tei tei-q">“Encyclical,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Catholic”</span>
+or <span class="tei tei-q">“General Epistle,”</span>—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.<a id="noteref_182" name="noteref_182" href="#note_182"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">182</span></span></a> It is observed to collapse
+before every test which can be applied to it.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page106">[pg 106]</span><a name="Pg106" id="Pg106" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Marcion the heretic, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 140) is distinctly charged by
+Tertullian (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_183" name="noteref_183" href="#note_183"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">183</span></span></a>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Instead of a stylus,”</span> (says Tertullian,)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Marcion employed a knife.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“What wonder if he
+omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages?”</span><a id="noteref_184" name="noteref_184" href="#note_184"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">184</span></span></a> 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 <a href="#Pg093" class="tei tei-ref">93</a>
+to page 96.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul's Epistle <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to
+the Ephesians</span></em>”</span> 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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page107">[pg 107]</span><a name="Pg107" id="Pg107" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Philippians. All this has been fully explained in
+a preceding page.<a id="noteref_185" name="noteref_185" href="#note_185"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">185</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul's
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">another</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“to the Laodiceans.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the only two words in the entire Epistle</span></em> 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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the
+very two words whose omission we are trying to account for</span></em>,—in
+order to give some colour to his proposed attribution of
+the Epistle, (<span class="tei tei-q">“quasi in isto diligentissimus explorator,”</span>)—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_186" name="noteref_186" href="#note_186"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">186</span></span></a> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em>,—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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page108">[pg 108]</span><a name="Pg108" id="Pg108" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Encyclical,”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Churches of Asia</span></em>
+salute you,”</span> (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)—may have known very well
+that an Epistle of his <span class="tei tei-q">“to the Ephesians,”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Ephesian”</span> in
+the contents of the Epistle. The Apostle,—(as when he
+addressed <span class="tei tei-q">“the Churches of Galatia,”</span>)—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> question being <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em>,—Which of the
+three following addresses represents what S. Paul must be
+considered to have actually written in the first verse of his
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Epistle to the Ephesians”</span>?—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν ... καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span> century that a certain heretic,
+named Marcion, <span class="tei tei-q">“presumed to prefix an unauthorized title to that very Epistle,”</span>
+(<span class="tei tei-q">“Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit,”</span>)—which
+title obviously <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">could not stand unless those two words were first
+erased from the text</span></em>. 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page109">[pg 109]</span><a name="Pg109" id="Pg109" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">credible</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">most</span></em> conspicuously at fault.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“vulgar errors.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Introduction”</span>
+to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament<a id="noteref_187" name="noteref_187" href="#note_187"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">187</span></span></a>:—
+</p>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em">
+<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen
+says on John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">in
+Him </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">is</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> life</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> for </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">in Him </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">was</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> life.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> This is a reading
+which
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page110">[pg 110]</span><a name="Pg110" id="Pg110" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%">
+we find in sundry quotations before the time of Origen;</span><a id="noteref_188" name="noteref_188" href="#note_188"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">188</span></span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">
+but now, among all known Greek MSS. it is </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">only in the
+Sinaitic, and the famous old Codex Bezae</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, 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
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page111">[pg 111]</span><a name="Pg111" id="Pg111" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%">
+that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist
+of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew
+for having said, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">
+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,
+</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">there is not a solitary example containing the name of Esaias in
+the text referred to,—except the Sinaitic</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, to which a few of
+less than a thousand years old may be added.—Once more,
+Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">only the Sinaitic
+and several ancient Latin MSS.</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> read it the same as Origen:
+</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every
+whit.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">—In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difficult
+to settle, the </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> indubitably
+correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second
+century, confirms the Sinaitic reading: </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> We omit to indicate
+further illustrations of this kind, although there are many
+others like them.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><a id="noteref_189" name="noteref_189" href="#note_189"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">189</span></span></a>
+</div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page112">[pg 112]</span><a name="Pg112" id="Pg112" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+exist in the mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless confusion
+between the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">antiquity</span></em> of a Codex and the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">value</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">value</span></em>. And yet Tischendorf
+thinks it enough in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ipsissima verba</span></span> of the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Spirit</span></span>. Whereas it is notorious <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_190" name="noteref_190" href="#note_190"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">190</span></span></a> 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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Codex Sinaiticus”</span> than in establishing the Truth of the
+pure Word of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>. He convinces me that to have found
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page113">[pg 113]</span><a name="Pg113" id="Pg113" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have <span class="tei tei-q">“taken
+a gift.”</span> Verily, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it doth blind the eyes of the
+wise</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_191" name="noteref_191" href="#note_191"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">191</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex א.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion
+of the <span class="tei tei-q">“Internal Evidence,”</span> but that the external testimony
+commonly appealed to is not yet fully disposed of. There remain
+to be considered certain ancient <span class="tei tei-q">“Scholia”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“Notes,”</span>
+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.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page114">[pg 114]</span><a name="Pg114" id="Pg114" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc23" id="toc23"></a>
+<a name="pdf24" id="pdf24"></a>
+<a name="Chapter_VIII" id="Chapter_VIII" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER VIII.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">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.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their predecessors'
+inaccuracies.—Birch's unfortunate mistake (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg117" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">117</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Scholz' serious
+blunders (p. </span><a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">119</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> and pp.
+</span><a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">120-1</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Griesbach's sweeping misstatement
+(pp. </span><a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">121-2</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The grave misapprehension which has resulted
+from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. </span><a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">122-3</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">);
+Codex L (p. </span><a href="#Pg123" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">123</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Ammonius not the author of the
+so-called </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Ammonian</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> Sections (p. </span><a href="#Pg125" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">125</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Epiphanius
+(p. </span><a href="#Pg132" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">132</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Caesarius,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> a misnomer.—</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">The
+Catenae,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> misrepresented (p. </span><a href="#Pg133" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">133</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The Twelve Verses
+under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence
+with the exception of Codices B and א</span></em>. But then,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. We are assured,—(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)—that
+<span class="tei tei-q">“a Note or a Scholion stating the absence of these verses
+from <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">many</span></em>, from <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">most</span></em>, or from the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">most correct</span></em>
+copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in twenty-five other cursive
+Codices.”</span><a id="noteref_192" name="noteref_192" href="#note_192"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">192</span></span></a>
+Tischendorf has nearly the same words: <span class="tei tei-q">“Scholia”</span>
+(he says) <span class="tei tei-q">“in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of Mark
+in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the
+ninth verse.”</span> That distinguished Critic supports his assertion
+by appealing to seven MSS. in particular,—and referring
+generally to <span class="tei tei-q">“about twenty-five others.”</span> Dr. Davidson
+adopts every word of this blindfold.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department
+of the Evidence would become deserving of serious
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page115">[pg 115]</span><a name="Pg115" id="Pg115" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+attention. But I simply <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">deny the fact</span></em>. I entirely deny that
+the <span class="tei tei-q">“Note or Scholion”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“in the older”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“the more accurate copies”</span> the
+last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">are contained</span></em>,) 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German
+plan of setting down <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the twenty-five MSS.<a id="noteref_193" name="noteref_193" href="#note_193"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">193</span></span></a> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in numerical order</span></em>, and stating generally
+concerning them that in one or other of those authorities
+it would be found recorded <span class="tei tei-q">“that the verses in question
+were anciently <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wanting</span></em> in some, or in most, or in almost
+all the Greek copies, or in the most accurate ones:—or else
+that they were <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">found</span></em> in a few, or in the more accurate
+copies, or in many, or in most of them, specially in the
+Palestinian Gospel.”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page116">[pg 116]</span><a name="Pg116" id="Pg116" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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,<a id="noteref_194" name="noteref_194" href="#note_194"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">194</span></span></a> the last fourteen
+from Birch.<a id="noteref_195" name="noteref_195" href="#note_195"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">195</span></span></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“(z)”</span>,<a id="noteref_196" name="noteref_196" href="#note_196"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">196</span></span></a> with which practically
+all that has since been delivered on this subject
+by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is identical.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two
+MSS. in the Vatican Library<a id="noteref_197" name="noteref_197" href="#note_197"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">197</span></span></a>
+the verses in question <span class="tei tei-q">“are
+marked with an asterisk.”</span> The original author of this
+statement was Birch, who followed it up by explaining the
+fatal signification of this mark.<a id="noteref_198" name="noteref_198" href="#note_198"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">198</span></span></a> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page117">[pg 117]</span><a name="Pg117" id="Pg117" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+witnesses against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of
+the Gospel according to S. Mark.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">solitary</span></em> asterisk (not
+at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.<a id="noteref_199" name="noteref_199" href="#note_199"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">199</span></span></a>) 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">could</span></em> not have that signification here,—for a reason which
+I should have thought an intelligent boy might discover.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_200" name="noteref_200" href="#note_200"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">200</span></span></a>
+That he would find Birch right
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in his facts</span></em>, 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there
+proves to be no asterisk at all,—either in Cod. 756,
+or in Cod. 757</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+On the contrary. After ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, the former Codex
+has, in the text of S. Mark xvi. 9 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol. 150 b</span></span>), a plain
+cross,—(<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol. 151 b</span></span>, (marked, of course, with a cross
+also,) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is undoubtedly
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page118">[pg 118]</span><a name="Pg118" id="Pg118" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-style: italic">
+genuine</span></em>.<a id="noteref_201" name="noteref_201" href="#note_201"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">201</span></span></a>
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> for the plaintiff, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">for the defendant!</span></em>—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. (<span class="tei tei-q">“I took thee to curse mine enemies, and,
+behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.”</span>)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as
+follows:—<span class="tei tei-q">“From here to the end forms no part of the text
+in some of the copies. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">In the ancient copies, however, it all
+forms part of the text</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_202" name="noteref_202" href="#note_202"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">202</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span></em>
+assimilated in ancient times to a common model; and that
+they correspond one with the other so entirely<a id="noteref_203" name="noteref_203" href="#note_203"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">203</span></span></a> that the
+foregoing rubrical annotation appears <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the wrong place</span></em> in
+both of them, viz. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at the close of ver.</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the ancient copies</span></em>,”</span> S. Mark
+xvi. 9-20 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">formed part of the text</span></em>.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page119">[pg 119]</span><a name="Pg119" id="Pg119" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“collated with the
+ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem.”</span><a id="noteref_204" name="noteref_204" href="#note_204"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">204</span></span></a> What need to
+point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in conjunction
+with the express voucher that <span class="tei tei-q">“although some copies of
+the Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the ancient copies</span></em> all the verses are found,”</span> is a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">critical
+attestation to the genuineness</span></em> of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20, far outweighing
+the bare statement (next to be noticed) of the undeniable
+historical fact that, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in some copies</span></em>,”</span> S. Mark <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ends
+at ver.</span></em> 8,—but <span class="tei tei-q">“in many <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does not</span></em>”</span>?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) Scholz proceeds:—<span class="tei tei-q">“In Cod. 22, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ
++ τελος is read the following rubric:”</span>—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγγελιστής:
+ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται.<a id="noteref_205" name="noteref_205" href="#note_205"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">205</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> subsequent Critics and Editors,—cross, and <span class="tei tei-q">“τέλος,”</span> and
+all,—as an additional ancient attestation to the fact that
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The End</span></em>”</span> (τέλος) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of S. Mark's Gospel</span></em> is indeed at
+ch. xvi. 8. Strange,—incredible rather,—that among so many learned
+persons, not one should have perceived that <span class="tei tei-q">“τέλος”</span> in this
+place merely denotes that here <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a well-known Ecclesiastical section
+comes to an end</span></em>!... As far, therefore, as the present discussion
+is concerned, the circumstance is purely irrelevant;<a id="noteref_206" name="noteref_206" href="#note_206"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">206</span></span></a>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page120">[pg 120]</span><a name="Pg120" id="Pg120" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+and, (as I propose to shew in <a href="#Chapter_XI" class="tei tei-ref">Chapter XI</a>,) the less said
+about it by the opposite party, the better.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“In certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here;
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">up to which place Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized</span></em>.
+In other copies, however, is found as follows.”</span><a id="noteref_207" name="noteref_207" href="#note_207"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">207</span></span></a> And then
+comes the rest of S. Mark's Gospel.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I shall have more to say about this reference to Eusebius,
+and what he <span class="tei tei-q">“canonized,”</span> 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(6.) The reader's attention is specially invited to the imposing
+statement which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says
+Scholz,) <span class="tei tei-q">“contain these words of Severus of Antioch:—</span>
+</p>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em">
+<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to
+Mark has its end at </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">for they were afraid.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> In some copies,
+however, this also is added,—</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Now when He was risen,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">
+&amp;c. This, however, seems to contradict to some extent
+what was before delivered,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> &amp;c.
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It may sound fabulous, but it is strictly true, that every
+word of this, (unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every
+Critic</span></em> who has since gone over the same ground,) is a mere
+tissue of mistakes. For first,—Cod. 23 contains <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nothing
+whatever pertinent to the present inquiry</span></em>. (Scholz, evidently
+through haste and inadvertence, has confounded <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his own</span></em>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page121">[pg 121]</span><a name="Pg121" id="Pg121" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“23”</span> with <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Coisl.</span></span> 23,”</span> but <span class="tei tei-q">“Coisl. 23”</span> is his
+<span class="tei tei-q">“39,”</span>—of which by-and-by. This reference therefore has to be
+cancelled.)—Cod. 41 contains a scholion of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">precisely the opposite
+tendency</span></em>: I mean, a scholion which avers that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the accurate
+copies of S. Mark's Gospel contain these last twelve verses</span></em>.
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any </span><span class="tei tei-q">“scholion of Severus
+of Antioch”</span><span style="font-style: italic"> whatever</span></em>. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently
+made a gross misstatement;<a id="noteref_208" name="noteref_208" href="#note_208"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">208</span></span></a> 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!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a mere transcript of Griesbach's list</span></em>; 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.<a id="noteref_209" name="noteref_209" href="#note_209"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">209</span></span></a>)
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But when the twenty MSS. which remain<a id="noteref_210" name="noteref_210" href="#note_210"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">210</span></span></a> undisposed of
+have been scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page122">[pg 122]</span><a name="Pg122" id="Pg122" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Victor of Antioch's commentary
+on S. Mark</span></em>,—no less than <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sixteen</span></em> of which contain
+the famous attestation that in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">most of the accurate copies, and
+in particular the authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelve
+verses of S. Mark's Gospel</span></em> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">were found</span></span>. (See above, pp.
+<a href="#Pg064" class="tei tei-ref">64</a> and <a href="#Pg065" class="tei tei-ref">65</a>.).... And this exhausts
+the evidence.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(8.) So far, therefore, as <span class="tei tei-q">“Notes”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“Scholia”</span> in MSS.
+are concerned, the sum of the matter proves to be simply
+this:—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) Nine Codices<a id="noteref_211" name="noteref_211" href="#note_211"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">211</span></span></a> are
+observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark's
+Gospel, though wanting <span class="tei tei-q">“in some,”</span> was yet found <span class="tei tei-q">“in others,”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“in
+many,”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the ancient copies</span></em>.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) Next, four Codices<a id="noteref_212" name="noteref_212" href="#note_212"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">212</span></span></a> contain subscriptions vouching
+for the genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring
+that those four Codices had been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">collated with approved
+copies preserved at Jerusalem</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) Lastly, sixteen Codices,—(to which, besides that
+already mentioned by Scholz,<a id="noteref_213" name="noteref_213" href="#note_213"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">213</span></span></a> I am able to add
+at least five others, making twenty-two in all,<a id="noteref_214" name="noteref_214" href="#note_214"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">214</span></span></a>)—contain a weighty
+critical scholion asserting categorically that in <span class="tei tei-q">“very many”</span>
+and <span class="tei tei-q">“accurate copies,”</span> specially in the <span class="tei tei-q">“true Palestinian
+exemplar,”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">these verses had been found by one who seems to
+have verified the fact of their existence there for himself</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“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?”</span> I repeat, there is not so
+much as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one single Codex</span></em> which contains such a scholion;
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page123">[pg 123]</span><a name="Pg123" id="Pg123" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+while twenty-four<a id="noteref_215" name="noteref_215" href="#note_215"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">215</span></span></a> of those commonly enumerated state
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the exact reverse</span></em>.—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in favour</span></em>
+of the verses under discussion. (<span class="tei tei-q">“I called thee to curse
+mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed them
+these three times.”</span>)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.<a id="noteref_216" name="noteref_216" href="#note_216"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">216</span></span></a> This
+is the designation of an uncial MS. of the viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+or ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+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:—
+</p>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em">
+<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic; font-variant: small-caps">Something to this effect
+is also met with</span></span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">:</span></span>
+</div>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em">
+<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed
+unto Peter and the rest. And after these things, from East
+even unto West, did </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> Himself send forth by their means
+the holy and incorruptible message of eternal Salvation.</span></span>
+</div>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em">
+<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic; font-variant: small-caps">But this also is met with after
+the words, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">for they were afraid:</span><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">’</span></span></em></span></span>
+</div>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em">
+<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the
+week,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><a id="noteref_217" name="noteref_217" href="#note_217"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">217</span></span></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> &amp;c.
+</span></div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page124">[pg 124]</span><a name="Pg124" id="Pg124" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 616), and in a few other
+quarters of less importance.<a id="noteref_218" name="noteref_218" href="#note_218"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">218</span></span></a>—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
+viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> or
+ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious text,—is to
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page125">[pg 125]</span><a name="Pg125" id="Pg125" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every cursive copy of the Gospels in existence</span></em>. 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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Not</span></em> S. Mark's Gospel, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">but Codex L</span></em> is the sufferer
+by this appeal.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+III. I go back now to the statements found in certain
+Codices of the x<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,
+(derived probably from one of
+older date,) to the effect that <span class="tei tei-q">“the marginal references
+to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than ver. 8:”</span>—for
+so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref">120</a>,)
+ἕως οὖ Εὐσέβιους ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν, which are found
+at the end of ver. 8 in Codd. 1, 206, 209.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Neither by
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the sections of Ammonius</span></em> nor yet by the canons of Eusebius
+are these last verses recognised”</span><a id="noteref_219" name="noteref_219" href="#note_219"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">219</span></span></a> <span class="tei tei-q">“Thus it is seen,”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page126">[pg 126]</span><a name="Pg126" id="Pg126" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+proceeds Dr. Tregelles, <span class="tei tei-q">“that just as Eusebius found these
+verses absent in his day from the best and most numerous
+copies (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">sic</span></span>), <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">so was also the case with Ammonius</span></em> when
+he formed his Harmony in the preceding
+century.”</span><a id="noteref_220" name="noteref_220" href="#note_220"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">220</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(The opposite page exhibits an <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">exact Fac-simile</span></span>, obtained by
+Photography, of fol. 113 of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan. Cod. L</span></span>, (<span class="tei tei-q">“Codex Regius,”</span>
+No. 62,) at Paris; containing S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;—as explained
+at pp. <a href="#Pg123" class="tei tei-ref">123-4</a>. The Text of that MS. has been published
+by Dr. Tischendorf in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Monumenta Sacra Inedita,”</span>
+(1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. <a href="#Pg206" class="tei tei-ref">206</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+  </p><div class="tei tei-figure" style="width: 100%; text-align: center"><img src="images/facsimile-3.png" width="503" height="700" alt="[Illustration: Codex Regius facsimile page.]" /></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the
+obliging permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the
+Manuscript Department of the <span class="tei tei-q">“Bibliothèque.”</span> He has my
+best thanks for the kindness with which he promoted my
+wishes and facilitated my researches.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(It should perhaps be stated that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the margin</span></em> of <span class="tei tei-q">“Codex L”</span>
+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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+A new and independent authority therefore is appealed
+to,—one of high antiquity and evidently very great importance,—Ammonius
+of Alexandria, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 220. But Ammonius
+has left behind him <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no known writings whatsoever</span></em>. What
+then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident
+way to the testimony of <span class="tei tei-q">“Ammonius?”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Ammonian Sections”</span> and
+the <span class="tei tei-q">“Eusebian Canons:”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Sections”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“Canons”</span> themselves; added
+to what Eusebius has told us in that short Epistle of his
+<span class="tei tei-q">“to Carpianus,”</span>—which I suppose has been transcribed
+and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle
+in the world.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_221" name="noteref_221" href="#note_221"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">221</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The <span class="tei tei-q">“Diatessaron”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page127">[pg 127]</span><a name="Pg127" id="Pg127" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_222" name="noteref_222" href="#note_222"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">222</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suggested to him</span></em>”</span> his own.<a id="noteref_223" name="noteref_223" href="#note_223"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">223</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all the Four
+Gospels.</span></em> But then, whereas Ammonius had placed alongside
+of S. Matthew <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the dislocated sections themselves</span></em> of the
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page128">[pg 128]</span><a name="Pg128" id="Pg128" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">references</span></em>.
+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.<a id="noteref_224" name="noteref_224" href="#note_224"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">224</span></span></a> (If the section was unique, it belonged to his last
+or X<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew's account
+of the Title on the Cross, is written 335/I: but in the
+I<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">st</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page129">[pg 129]</span><a name="Pg129" id="Pg129" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+For if that earlier production be lost indeed,<a id="noteref_225" name="noteref_225" href="#note_225"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">225</span></span></a>—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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Sections of Ammonius</span></em>,”</span>
+as to a known document? Why above all do
+Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim <span class="tei tei-q">“Ammonius”</span>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">never</span></em> be examined?
+their references <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">never</span></em> 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,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1st.) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Where</span></em> then and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">what</span></em> are those <span class="tei tei-q">“Sections of
+Ammonius”</span> to which Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently
+appeal? It is even notorious that when they <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">say</span></em> the <span class="tei tei-q">“Sections
+of Ammonius,”</span> what they <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">mean</span></em> are the <span class="tei tei-q">“Sections of
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eusebius</span></em>.”</span>—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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page130">[pg 130]</span><a name="Pg130" id="Pg130" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+without proof that so much as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> of the Sections of Ammonius
+corresponded with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> 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,<a id="noteref_226" name="noteref_226" href="#note_226"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">226</span></span></a>)—to reason from the
+one to the other as if they were identical, is what no sincere
+inquirer after Truth is permitted to do.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> have been so;
+and the proof is supplied by the Sections themselves. It is
+discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">imply</span></em>
+and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">presuppose the Ten Canons</span></em>; being in many places even
+meaningless,—nugatory, in fact, (I do not of course say
+that they are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">practically</span></em> without <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">use</span></em>,)—except
+on the theory that those Canons were already in existence.<a id="noteref_227" name="noteref_227" href="#note_227"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">227</span></span></a> Now the
+Canons are confessedly the invention of Eusebius. He distinctly
+claims them.<a id="noteref_228" name="noteref_228" href="#note_228"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">228</span></span></a> Thus much then concerning the supposed
+testimony of Ammonius. It is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nil</span></em>.—And now for
+what is alleged concerning the evidence of Eusebius.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking),
+is the following memorandum found in certain
+ancient MSS.:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Thus far did Eusebius canonize;”</span><a id="noteref_229" name="noteref_229" href="#note_229"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">229</span></span></a> which
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page131">[pg 131]</span><a name="Pg131" id="Pg131" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+On this slender foundation has been raised the following
+precarious superstructure. It is assumed,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark's Gospel which Eusebius
+numbers <span class="tei tei-q">“233,”</span> and which begins at our ver. 8, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot have
+extended beyond</span></em> ver. 8;—whereas it may have extended, and
+probably did extend, down to the end of ver. 11.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian
+Canons of any sectional <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">number</span></em> in S. Mark's Gospel subsequent
+to § 233, no <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Section</span></em> (with, or without, such a subsequent
+number) can have existed:—whereas there may
+have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly numbered.<a id="noteref_230" name="noteref_230" href="#note_230"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">230</span></span></a>
+This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the
+memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">canonized</span></em> no further than § 233.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8”</span> is
+equivalent to this,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eusebius numbered no Sections after
+ver.</span></em> 8;”</span> (and more it cannot mean:)—What <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">then</span></em>? 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">more</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page132">[pg 132]</span><a name="Pg132" id="Pg132" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of the old one; and since it was Eusebius who was the
+voucher for <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“canonize”</span> (or even to <span class="tei tei-q">“sectionize”</span>)
+what he had already hypothetically hinted might as well be
+left out altogether? (See above, pp. <a href="#Pg044" class="tei tei-ref">44-6</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 373,)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Epiphanius</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+states casually that <span class="tei tei-q">“the four Gospels contain 1162
+sections.”</span><a id="noteref_231" name="noteref_231" href="#note_231"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">231</span></span></a>
+From this it is argued<a id="noteref_232" name="noteref_232" href="#note_232"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">232</span></span></a>
+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? <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em> fact—(the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> thing which our opponents have to establish)—remains
+exactly where it was; entirely unproved, and in the
+highest degree improbable.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+To conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the
+pages of Tischendorf:—<span class="tei tei-q">“These verses are not recognised by
+the Sections of Ammonius, nor by the Canons of Eusebius:
+Epiphanius and Cæsarius bear witness to the fact;”</span>—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) About the <span class="tei tei-q">“Sections of Ammonius,”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page133">[pg 133]</span><a name="Pg133" id="Pg133" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either
+as to the <span class="tei tei-q">“Sections of Ammonius”</span> or to <span class="tei tei-q">“Canons of Eusebius,”</span>
+Tischendorf is perfectly well aware. So is my reader.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) His appeal to
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cæsarius</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate
+the younger brother of Gregory of Nazianzus; an eminent
+physician of Constantinople, who died <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 368; and who,
+(as far as is known,) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">never wrote anything</span></em>. A work called
+Πεύσεις, (which in the x<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century
+was attributed to Cæsarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except
+that Cæsarius was certainly <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is nothing else but
+a condensed paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius</span></em>, in which
+the original statement occurs.<a id="noteref_233" name="noteref_233" href="#note_233"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">233</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span>,
+of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Epiphanius</span></span>, and of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cæsarius</span></span> on
+the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel. It is exactly
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nil</span></em>. In fact Pseudo-Cæsarius, so far from <span class="tei tei-q">“bearing witness to the
+fact”</span> that the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel are
+spurious, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">actually quotes the 16</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span><span style="font-style: italic">
+verse as genuine</span></em>.<a id="noteref_234" name="noteref_234" href="#note_234"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">234</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added
+to what we knew before concerning his probable estimate
+of these verses.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+IV. We are now at liberty to proceed to the only head
+of external testimony which remains undiscussed. I allude
+to the evidence of
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">The Catenæ</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“In the Catenæ on Mark,”</span> (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“there is no explanation of this section.”</span><a id="noteref_235" name="noteref_235" href="#note_235"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">235</span></span></a>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page134">[pg 134]</span><a name="Pg134" id="Pg134" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“The Catenæ on Mark:”</span> as if they were quite common
+things,—<span class="tei tei-q">“plenty, as blackberries!”</span> But,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Which</span></em> of <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+Catenæ”</span> may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> Codex is expressly declared by the learned Editor to be
+defective from ver. 8 to the end.<a id="noteref_236" name="noteref_236" href="#note_236"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">236</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the
+Vatican Library and communicated to Possinus; because
+in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> Catena the 9th and 12th verses are distinctly commented
+on.<a id="noteref_237" name="noteref_237" href="#note_237"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">237</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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.<a id="noteref_238" name="noteref_238" href="#note_238"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">238</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic
+has inspected either of the last two editions of the same
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page135">[pg 135]</span><a name="Pg135" id="Pg135" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">these</span></em> is contained the famous
+passage <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which</span></em> categorically asserts the genuineness of the
+last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel.<a id="noteref_239" name="noteref_239" href="#note_239"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">239</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Now this exhausts the subject.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+To <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which</span></em>, then, of <span class="tei tei-q">“the Catenæ on Mark,”</span> 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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">tanquam vile corpus</span></span>) the
+writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed, or the
+Faith of the Church of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ</span></span> is to be unsettled and
+undermined.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to
+p. <a href="#Pg039" class="tei tei-ref">39</a>, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">un</span></em>likely,—I am
+quite content that my Reader shall decide.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page136">[pg 136]</span><a name="Pg136" id="Pg136" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc25" id="toc25"></a>
+<a name="pdf26" id="pdf26"></a>
+<a name="Chapter_IX" id="Chapter_IX" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER IX.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY
+REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+The </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Style</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> and </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Phraseology</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> of these Verses declared by Critics
+to be not S. Mark's.—Insecurity of such Criticism (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg140" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">140</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Style</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> of chap. xvi. 9-20
+shewn to be the same as the style of chap. i. 9-20 (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg142" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">142</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Phraseology</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> examined in twenty-seven
+particulars, and shewn to be suspicious in none (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg145" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">145</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">),—but in twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the
+reverse (p. </span><a href="#Pg170" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">170</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Such Remarks fallacious (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg173" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">173</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Judged of by a truer, a more
+delicate and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most probably
+genuine (p. </span><a href="#Pg175" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">175</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“bear traces of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">another hand</span></em> from that which
+has shaped the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">diction</span></em> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">construction</span></em> of the rest of the
+Gospel.”</span><a id="noteref_240" name="noteref_240" href="#note_240"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">240</span></span></a> They are therefore
+<span class="tei tei-q">“an addition to the narrative,”</span>—of which <span class="tei tei-q">“the internal evidence will be
+found to preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“A
+difference,”</span> (says Dr. Tregelles,) <span class="tei tei-q">“has been remarked, and
+truly remarked, between <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the phraseology</span></em> of this section and
+the rest of this Gospel.”</span>—According to Dr. Davidson,—<span class="tei tei-q">“The
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">phraseology and style</span></em> of the section are unfavourable
+to its authenticity.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“The characteristic peculiarities which
+pervade Mark's Gospel do not appear in it; but, on the contrary,
+terms and expressions,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“phrases and words, are introduced
+which Mark never uses; or terms for which he
+employs others.”</span><a id="noteref_241" name="noteref_241" href="#note_241"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">241</span></span></a>—So Meyer,—<span class="tei tei-q">“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, &amp;c, but the baldness
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page137">[pg 137]</span><a name="Pg137" id="Pg137" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+and lack of clearness which mark a compiler;) while in
+single expressions, it is altogether contrary to Mark's manner.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“There
+is”</span> (says Professor Norton) <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—No
+one, however, has expressed himself more strongly on this subject
+than Tischendorf. <span class="tei tei-q">“Singula”</span> (he says) <span class="tei tei-q">“multifariam a
+Marci ratione abhorrent.”</span><a id="noteref_242" name="noteref_242" href="#note_242"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">242</span></span></a>... Here, then, is something
+very like a consensus of hostile opinion: although the terms of the
+indictment are somewhat vague. Difference of <span class="tei tei-q">“Diction and
+Construction,”</span>—difference of <span class="tei tei-q">“Phraseology and Style,”</span>—difference
+of <span class="tei tei-q">“Terms and Expressions,”</span>—difference of <span class="tei tei-q">“Words
+and Phrases;”</span>—the absence of S. Mark's <span class="tei tei-q">“characteristic
+peculiarities.”</span> I suppose, however, that all may be brought
+under two heads,—(I.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Style</span></span>, and (II.)
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Phraseology</span></span>: meaning
+by <span class="tei tei-q">“Style”</span> whatever belongs to the Evangelist's manner;
+and by <span class="tei tei-q">“Phraseology”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. In the meantime, as might have been expected, these
+confident and often-repeated asseverations have been by no
+means unproductive of mischievous results:
+</p>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Like ceaseless droppings, which at last are known</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">To leave their dint upon the solid stone.</div>
+</div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I observe that Scholars and Divines of the best type (as
+the Rev. T. S. Green<a id="noteref_243" name="noteref_243" href="#note_243"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">243</span></span></a>) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">entirely</span></em> in the wrong. They impose
+upon learned and unlearned readers alike. <span class="tei tei-q">“Even Barnabas
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page138">[pg 138]</span><a name="Pg138" id="Pg138" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+has been carried away with their dissimulation.”</span> He has
+(to my surprise and regret) two suggestions:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no appearance whatever</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“verbal peculiarities”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“after-thoughts,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“supplements,”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“appendices,”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“second editions”</span> when the
+everlasting Gospel of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus Christ</span></span> 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<a id="noteref_244" name="noteref_244" href="#note_244"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">244</span></span></a> will forgive my freedom in
+having already made my personal sentiment on the subject
+sufficiently plain.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">who</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not till then</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page139">[pg 139]</span><a name="Pg139" id="Pg139" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been
+lifted up in the way of protest<a id="noteref_245" name="noteref_245" href="#note_245"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">245</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> honorable exception,<a id="noteref_246" name="noteref_246" href="#note_246"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">246</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the style,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“the phraseology,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“the diction”</span>
+of the present section of the Gospel. But I do more.
+I entirely deny the accuracy of almost <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every individual statement</span></em>
+from which the unfavourable induction is made, and the
+hostile inference drawn. Even <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> will not nearly satisfy
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page140">[pg 140]</span><a name="Pg140" id="Pg140" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. Let me however distinctly declare beforehand that
+remarks on <span class="tei tei-q">“the style”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the style</span></em> may indeed be exceedingly diverse, and yet
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Author</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“style,”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“According to this argument, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the recurrence
+of the same words</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘formulæ’</span> 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.”</span><a id="noteref_247" name="noteref_247" href="#note_247"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">247</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation to
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page141">[pg 141]</span><a name="Pg141" id="Pg141" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">six times
+repeated</span></em> in his viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> and
+ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> chapters is perhaps only once
+met with besides in his Gospel,—viz. in his
+xxi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">st</span></span> chapter.<a id="noteref_248" name="noteref_248" href="#note_248"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">248</span></span></a> The <span class="tei tei-q">“style”</span> of the 17th verse of his
+i<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">st</span></span> 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; <span class="tei tei-q">“rising strangely by degrees,”</span>
+(as Bp. Pearson expresses it,<a id="noteref_249" name="noteref_249" href="#note_249"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">249</span></span></a>) <span class="tei tei-q">“making the last
+word of the former sentence the first of that which
+followeth.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">He</span></em> knoweth that he saith true,”</span> is the language
+of the same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35.
+But, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">we</span></em> know that his testimony is true,”</span> 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: (<span class="tei tei-q">“that
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ye</span></em> may believe.”</span>) 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_250" name="noteref_250" href="#note_250"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">250</span></span></a> And we all desire
+nothing but the Truth.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page142">[pg 142]</span><a name="Pg142" id="Pg142" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. To begin then with the <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Style and manner</span></span>”</span> of
+S. Mark in this place.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. We are assured that <span class="tei tei-q">“instead of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">graphic, detailed</span></em>
+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.”</span><a id="noteref_251" name="noteref_251" href="#note_251"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">251</span></span></a> Surely if this be so, the only lawful
+inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">has</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“extracted
+brief notices from larger accounts, and loosely linked
+them together:”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">genuineness</span></em> of the passage now under consideration.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">extracts</span></em>,”</span> I know nothing: nor Dr.
+Davidson either. That there existed <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“larger accounts”</span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span>
+Resurrection,—is simply undeniable. And without at all
+admitting that the style of the Evangelist is in consequence
+either <span class="tei tei-q">“abrupt”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“sententious,”</span><a id="noteref_252" name="noteref_252" href="#note_252"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">252</span></span></a> I yet recognise the
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page143">[pg 143]</span><a name="Pg143" id="Pg143" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> be discoverable in
+other parts of the Gospel where the Evangelist is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> observed
+to be doing the same thing?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. But wherever in his Gospel S. Mark <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> doing the same
+thing, he is observed to adopt the style and manner which
+Dr. Davidson is pleased to call <span class="tei tei-q">“sententious”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“abrupt.”</span>
+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; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the twelve corresponding verses</span></em>, namely, in
+S. Mark's <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">first</span></em> chapter, which are to be compared with the
+twelve verses already under discussion, from his <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">last</span></em>; and
+they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as
+in Greek:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant: small-caps">S. Mark</span></span></span> i. 9-20.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(ver. 9.) <span class="tei tei-q">“And it came to pass in those days, that <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Spirit</span></span> like
+a dove descending upon Him: (11.) and there came a
+voice from heaven saying, Thou art My beloved <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Son</span></span>, in
+whom I am well pleased. (12.) And immediately the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Spirit</span></span> 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,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span> came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the
+kingdom of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>, (15.) and saying, The time is fulfilled,
+and the Kingdom of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page144">[pg 144]</span><a name="Pg144" id="Pg144" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">possible</span></em> that when
+incidents considerable as these had to be condensed within
+the narrow compass of twelve verses, the same <span class="tei tei-q">“graphic,
+detailed description”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">abrupt transitions</span></em> of this section”</span> (ver. 1-13) have
+also been noticed by Dean Alford: who very justly accounts
+for the phenomenon by pointing out that here <span class="tei tei-q">“Mark
+appears as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">an abridger of previously well-known
+facts</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_253" name="noteref_253" href="#note_253"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">253</span></span></a> But then, I want to know what there is in this to induce us to
+suspect <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the genuineness</span></em> of either the beginning or the end of
+S. Mark's Gospel?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+5. For it is a mistake to speak as if <span class="tei tei-q">“graphic, detailed
+description”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invariably</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sudden</span></em>. His account of John's preaching
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page145">[pg 145]</span><a name="Pg145" id="Pg145" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+(i. 1-8) is the shortest of all. Very concise is his account
+of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> Baptism (ver. 9-11). The brevity
+of his description of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. Nothing more true, therefore, than Dr. Tregelles' admission
+<span class="tei tei-q">“that arguments on <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">style</span></em> are often very fallacious, and
+that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by themselves</span></em> they prove very little. But”</span> (he proceeds)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I have already shewn that there exists <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> such external
+evidence as Dr. Tregelles supposes. And in the absence of
+it, I am bold to assert that since nothing in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Style”</span> or
+the <span class="tei tei-q">“Phraseology”</span> of these verses ever aroused suspicion in
+times past, we have rather to be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">on our guard</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">can</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Phraseology</span></span>; and which
+will be found to be nothing else but repeated assertions that
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page146">[pg 146]</span><a name="Pg146" id="Pg146" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+a certain Word or Phrase,—(there are about twenty-four
+such words and phrases in all,<a id="noteref_254" name="noteref_254" href="#note_254"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">254</span></span></a>)—<span class="tei tei-q">“occurs nowhere in the
+Gospel of Mark;”</span> with probably the alarming asseveration
+that it is <span class="tei tei-q">“abhorrent to Mark's manner.”</span> ... The result of
+the inquiry which follows will perhaps be not exactly what
+is commonly imagined.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The first difficulty of this class is very fairly stated by
+one whose name I cannot write without a pang,—the late
+Dean Alford:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(I.) The expression πρώτη σαββάτου, for the <span class="tei tei-q">“first day of
+the week”</span> (in ver. 9) <span class="tei tei-q">“is remarkable”</span> (he says) <span class="tei tei-q">“as occurring
+so soon after”</span> μία σαββάτων (a precisely equivalent
+expression) in ver. 2.—Yes, it is remarkable.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Scarcely more remarkable, perhaps, than that S. Luke
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the course of one and the same chapter</span></em> should four times
+designate the Sabbath τὸ σάββατον, and twice τὰ σάββατα:
+again, twice, τὸ σάββατον,—twice, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ σαββάτου,—and
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page147">[pg 147]</span><a name="Pg147" id="Pg147" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+once, τὰ σάββατα.<a id="noteref_255" name="noteref_255" href="#note_255"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">255</span></span></a>
+Or again, that S. Matthew should <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in one and the same chapter</span></em> five
+times call the Sabbath, τὰ σάβββτα, and three times, τό σάββατον.<a id="noteref_256" name="noteref_256" href="#note_256"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">256</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> Temptation,—chap. iv.,) has ὁ διάβολος in
+ver. 1, and ὁ πειράζων in ver. 3, for him whom our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">occurs only once
+in each of the Four Gospels</span></em>.<a id="noteref_257" name="noteref_257" href="#note_257"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">257</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">spuriousness</span></em>? That is the only thing
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page148">[pg 148]</span><a name="Pg148" id="Pg148" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+I have to consider. Am I, with Dr. Davidson, to reason as
+follows:—<span class="tei tei-q">“πρώτη, Mark would scarcely have used. It should
+have been μία, &amp;c. as is proved by Mark xvi. 2, &amp;c. The
+expression could scarcely have proceeded from a Jew. It
+betrays a Gentile author.”</span><a id="noteref_258" name="noteref_258" href="#note_258"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">258</span></span></a> Am I to reason thus?... I propose
+to answer this question somewhat in detail.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the first day of the week,”</span> is
+plain, not only from the fact that the day of the Resurrection
+is so designated by each of the Four Evangelists in
+turn;<a id="noteref_259" name="noteref_259" href="#note_259"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">259</span></span></a>
+(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.<a id="noteref_260" name="noteref_260" href="#note_260"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">260</span></span></a> The cardinal
+(μία) for the ordinal (πρώτη) in this phrase was a known
+Talmudic expression, which obtained also in Syriac.<a id="noteref_261" name="noteref_261" href="#note_261"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">261</span></span></a> Σάββατον
+and σάββατα,—designations in strictness of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Sabbath-day</span></em>,—had
+come to be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></em> used as designations of the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">week</span></em>. 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the course of one and the same chapter</span></em>, five
+times designates the Sabbath as τὰ σαββάτα, and three
+times as τὸ σάββατον.<a id="noteref_262" name="noteref_262" href="#note_262"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">262</span></span></a>
+The origin and history of both words will be found explained in a note at the foot of
+the page.<a id="noteref_263" name="noteref_263" href="#note_263"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">263</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page149">[pg 149]</span><a name="Pg149" id="Pg149" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">una sabbatorum</span></em>”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Vespere <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sabbati</span></em>, quæ lucescit in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">prima
+sabbati</span></em>.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) The reader will now be prepared for the suggestion,
+that when S. Mark, (who is traditionally related to have
+written his Gospel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at Rome</span></em>,<a id="noteref_264" name="noteref_264" href="#note_264"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">264</span></span></a>) varies, in ver. 9, the phrase
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page150">[pg 150]</span><a name="Pg150" id="Pg150" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in Latin</span></em> by the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“prima
+sabbati,”</span> we have already seen. In ver. 9, therefore, he is
+solicitous to record the fact of the Resurrection afresh; and
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> time, his phrase is observed to be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Greek equivalent
+for the Latin </span><span class="tei tei-q">“prima sabbati;”</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Syriac</span></em> rendering of both
+places is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">identical</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Judæa,”</span> is <span class="tei tei-q">“a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">country</span></em>,”</span>
+(ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα,)—and <span class="tei tei-q">“Jordan,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">river</span></em>,”</span> (ὁ Ἰορδάνης
+ποταμός)?—Is not this the very man who explained to his
+readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar Jewish designation
+for <span class="tei tei-q">“Friday,”</span> ἡ παρασκευή, denotes <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the day before
+the Sabbath</span></em>?”</span><a id="noteref_265" name="noteref_265" href="#note_265"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">265</span></span></a>—and who was so minute in informing us (in
+chap. vii. 3, 4) about certain ceremonial practices of <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+Pharisees and all the Jews?”</span> Yet more,—Is not the self-same
+writer clearly recognisable in this xvi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+chapter, who in chap. vi. 37 presented us with σπεκουλάτωρ (the Latin
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">spiculator</span></span>) for <span class="tei tei-q">“an executioner?”</span> and who, in chap. xv. 39,
+for <span class="tei tei-q">“a <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">centurion</span></span>,”</span> wrote—not ἑκατόνταρχος,
+but—κεντυρίων?—and, in chap. xii. 42, explained that the two λεπτά
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page151">[pg 151]</span><a name="Pg151" id="Pg151" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+which the poor widow cast into the Treasury were equivalent
+to κοδράντης, the Latin <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">quadrans</span></span>?—and in chap. vii.
+4, 8, introduced the Roman measure <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">sextarius</span></span>, (ξέστης)?—and
+who volunteered the information (in chap. xv. 16) that αὐλή is only another
+designation of πραιτώριον (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prætorium</span></span>)?—Yes.
+S. Mark,—who, alone of the four Evangelists,
+(in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the Cyrenian
+was <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the father of Alexander and Rufus</span></em>,”</span> evidently for the
+sake of his <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Latin</span></em> readers:<a id="noteref_266" name="noteref_266" href="#note_266"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">266</span></span></a>
+S. Mark,—who alone ventures
+to write in Greek letters (οὐά,—chap. xv. 29,) the Latin interjection
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vah!</span></span>”</span>—obviously because he was writing where
+that exclamation was most familiar, and the force of it best
+understood:<a id="noteref_267" name="noteref_267" href="#note_267"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">267</span></span></a>
+S. Mark,—who attends to the Roman division of the day, in relating our
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> prophecy to S.
+Peter:<a id="noteref_268" name="noteref_268" href="#note_268"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">268</span></span></a>—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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">una
+sabbatorum</span></span>,”</span><a id="noteref_269" name="noteref_269" href="#note_269"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">269</span></span></a>)
+in ver. 2;—introduced, also for the benefit of his
+Latin readers, the Greek equivalent for <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">prima sabbati</span></span>,”</span>
+(viz. πρώτη σαββάτου,) in ver. 9.—This, therefore, I repeat,
+so far from being a circumstance <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unfavourable</span></em> to its authenticity,”</span>
+(by which, I presume, the learned writer means
+its <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">genuineness</span></em>), 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Not
+only was the document intended for Gentile converts:”</span>
+(remarks Dr. Davidson, p. 149,) <span class="tei tei-q">“but there are also appearances
+of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians in
+particular.”</span> Just so. And I venture to say that in the
+whole of <span class="tei tei-q">“the document”</span> Dr. Davidson will not find a more
+striking <span class="tei tei-q">“appearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman
+Christians,”</span>—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and therefore of its genuineness</span></em>,—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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page152">[pg 152]</span><a name="Pg152" id="Pg152" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_270" name="noteref_270" href="#note_270"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">270</span></span></a>—Strange perversity, and yet
+stranger blindness!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) The phrase <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> have been taken from S. Luke;
+because S. Luke's Gospel was written after S. Mark's. It
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was</span></em> not taken from S. Luke; because <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there</span></em> ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια
+ἑπτα ἐξεληλύθει,—here, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα δαιμόνια
+is read.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) More important is it to expose the shallowness and
+futility of the entire objection.—Mary Magdalene <span class="tei tei-q">“had
+been mentioned three times before, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">without such appendix</span></em>.”</span>
+Well but,—What <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">then</span></em>? After twice (ch. xiv. 54, 66) using
+the word αὐλή without any <span class="tei tei-q">“appendix,”</span> in the very next
+chapter (xv. 16) S. Mark adds, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον.—The
+beloved Disciple having mentioned himself without any
+<span class="tei tei-q">“appendix”</span> in S. John xx. 7, mentions himself with a very
+elaborate <span class="tei tei-q">“appendix”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“appendix,”</span> (Μαρία ἡ
+Ἰωσῆ) in ver. 47, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the very next verse</span></em>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“appendices”</span>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page153">[pg 153]</span><a name="Pg153" id="Pg153" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of the clause <span class="tei tei-q">“out of whom He had cast seven devils,”</span>
+for this place. The reason, I say, is even obvious why an
+<span class="tei tei-q">“appendix,”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span>. 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“where
+Sin had abounded, there did Grace much more abound.”</span><a id="noteref_271" name="noteref_271" href="#note_271"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">271</span></span></a>
+Are we to be cheated of our birthright by Critics<a id="noteref_272" name="noteref_272" href="#note_272"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">272</span></span></a> who,
+entirely overlooking a solution of the difficulty (<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">if</span></em> difficulty
+it be) Divine as this, can see in the circumstance grounds
+only for suspicion and cavil? Απαγε.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(III.) Take the next example.—The very form of the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“appendix”</span> which we have been considering (ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει
+ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια) breeds offence. <span class="tei tei-q">“Instead of ἐκβάλλειν
+ἀπό,”</span> (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) <span class="tei tei-q">“Mark has ἐκβάλλειν
+ἐκ.”</span><a id="noteref_273" name="noteref_273" href="#note_273"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">273</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Nothing of the sort, I answer. S. Mark <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">once</span></em> has ἐκβάλλειν
+ἐκ,<a id="noteref_274" name="noteref_274" href="#note_274"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">274</span></span></a> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">once</span></em>
+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?
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Who</span></em> sees not that such Criticism is simply nugatory?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(IV.) We are next favoured with the notable piece of
+information that the word πορεύεσθαι, <span class="tei tei-q">“never used by
+S. Mark, is three times contained in this passage;”</span> (viz. in
+verses 10, 12 and 15.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) Yes. The uncompounded verb, never used <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">elsewhere</span></em>
+by S. Mark, is found here three times. But what then?
+The <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">compounds</span></em> 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,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">oftener than all the other three Evangelists put together</span></em>,—viz.
+twenty-four times against their nineteen: while the compound
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page154">[pg 154]</span><a name="Pg154" id="Pg154" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+προσπορεύεσθαι is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">peculiar to his Gospel</span></em>.—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suspicious</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in one and the same chapter</span></em>. S. Luke alone
+has χαρίζεσθαι, and he has it three times: but all three
+cases are met with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in one and the same chapter</span></em>. S. John
+alone has λύπη, and he has it four times: but all the four
+instances occur <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in one and the same chapter</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">peculiar to the Gospels</span></em> in which they
+severally occur.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which</span></em> of the ordinary compounds
+of πορεύεσθαι S. Mark could <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">possibly</span></em> have employed for the
+uncompounded verb, in the three places which have suggested
+the present inquiry, viz.:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ver. 10:—ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽ αυτοῦ
+γενομένοις.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ver. 12:—δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν ... πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ver. 13:—πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, κηρύξατε
+τὸ εὐαγγέλιον;—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page155">[pg 155]</span><a name="Pg155" id="Pg155" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+ver. 12,—πορευθέντες in ver. 15,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“admit of no substitute
+in the places where they severally occur;”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the same</span></em> hand was
+at work here which wrote all the rest of his Gospel.<a id="noteref_275" name="noteref_275" href="#note_275"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">275</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(V.) Then further,—the phrase τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις
+(in ver. 10) is noted as suspicious. <span class="tei tei-q">“Though found in
+the Acts (xx. 18) it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">never occurs in the Gospels</span></em>: nor does the
+word μαθηταί in this passage.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) The phrase οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι occurs nowhere
+in the Acts or in the Gospels, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">except here</span></em>. But,—Why
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">should</span></em> it appear elsewhere? or rather,—How <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">could</span></em> it? Now,
+if the expression be (as it is) an ordinary, easy, and obvious
+one,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wanted</span></em> in this place, where it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> met with;
+but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> met with elsewhere, simply because elsewhere it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em>
+wanted;—surely it is unworthy of any one calling himself
+a Critic to pretend that there attaches to it the faintest
+shadow of suspicion!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> have been designated
+at such a time. For had He not just now <span class="tei tei-q">“overcome
+the sharpness of Death”</span>?) 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,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and here</span></em>. This, therefore, is a slightly corroborative
+circumstance,—not at all a ground of suspicion.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(b) Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them
+five hundred times, because he had occasion five hundred
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page156">[pg 156]</span><a name="Pg156" id="Pg156" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+times to speak of them;—what reason would <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> be for his
+mentioning them here, where he is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> speaking of them?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) It must be evident to any one reading the Gospel
+with attention that besides οἱ μαθηταί,—(by which expression
+S. Mark always designates <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Twelve Apostles</span></em>,)—there
+was a considerable company of believers assembled together
+throughout the first Easter Day.<a id="noteref_276" name="noteref_276" href="#note_276"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">276</span></span></a> S. Luke notices this
+circumstance when he relates how the Women, on their
+return from the Sepulchre, <span class="tei tei-q">“told all these things unto the
+Eleven, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to all the rest</span></em>,”</span> (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,
+<span class="tei tei-q">“found the Eleven gathered together, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and them that
+were with them</span></em>”</span> (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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">them that had been with Him</span></em>”</span>
+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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(VI.) We are next assured by our Critic that θεᾶσθαι <span class="tei tei-q">“is
+unknown to Mark;”</span> but it occurs twice in this section, (viz.
+in ver. 11 and ver. 14.) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Another</span></em> suspicious circumstance!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nowhere else</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page157">[pg 157]</span><a name="Pg157" id="Pg157" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+verse: neither word being used on any other occasion <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">either
+by S. Matthew, or by any other Evangelist</span></em>. 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) None whatever, would have been the reply. But in
+the meantime Dr. Davidson hints that the verb <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ought</span></em> to have
+been employed by S. Mark in chap. ii. 14.<a id="noteref_277" name="noteref_277" href="#note_277"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">277</span></span></a>—It is,
+I presume, sufficient to point out that S. Matthew, at all events, was
+not of Dr. Davidson's opinion:<a id="noteref_278" name="noteref_278" href="#note_278"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">278</span></span></a> and
+I respectfully submit that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">writing about himself</span></em>, must be allowed, just for once, to be
+the better judge.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) In the meantime,—Is it not perceived that θεᾶσθαι
+is the very word specially required in these two places,—though
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nowhere else in S. Mark's Gospel</span></em>?<a id="noteref_279" name="noteref_279" href="#note_279"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">279</span></span></a> The occasion is
+one,—viz. the <span class="tei tei-q">“beholding”</span> of the person of the risen
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span>. Does not even natural piety suggest that the
+uniqueness of such a <span class="tei tei-q">“spectacle”</span> as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“a stumbling-block
+and occasion of falling”</span> in expressions like the present which
+<span class="tei tei-q">“should have been only for their wealth,”</span> being so manifestly
+designed for their edification.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page158">[pg 158]</span><a name="Pg158" id="Pg158" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(VII.) But,—(it is urged by a Critic of a very different
+stamp,)—ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (ver. 11) <span class="tei tei-q">“is a construction only
+found here in the New Testament.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) Very likely; but what then? The learned writer has
+evidently overlooked the fact that the passive θεᾶσθαι occurs
+but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three times</span></em> in the New Testament <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in
+all</span></em>.<a id="noteref_280" name="noteref_280" href="#note_280"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">280</span></span></a> S.
+Matthew, on the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> occasions when he employs the word, connects it with
+a dative.<a id="noteref_281" name="noteref_281" href="#note_281"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">281</span></span></a> What is there <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suspicious</span></em> 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,<a id="noteref_282" name="noteref_282" href="#note_282"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">282</span></span></a>—instead of making the verb govern
+the accusative, as he does three times <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the very next verse</span></em>; and,
+indeed, eleven times in the course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in
+this instance is but copying S. Matthew, who <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></em> has μὴ
+φοβεῖσθε ἀπό once;<a id="noteref_283" name="noteref_283" href="#note_283"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">283</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) In like manner, the phrase ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν
+will be found to occur once, and once <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em>, in S. Mark,—once,
+and once only, in S. Luke;<a id="noteref_284" name="noteref_284" href="#note_284"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">284</span></span></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suspicious</span></em>.—I pass on.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) Where else in the course of this Gospel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">could</span></em> ἀπιστεῖν
+have occurred? Now, unless some reason can be shewn why
+the word <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">should</span></em>, or at least <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">might</span></em> have been employed
+elsewhere, to remark upon its introduction in this place, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">where it
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page159">[pg 159]</span><a name="Pg159" id="Pg159" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-style: italic">
+could scarcely be dispensed with</span></em>, 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and there only</span></em>, in this Gospel.
+Nothing whatever follows from the circumstance. It is, in
+fact, a point scarcely deserving of attention.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">exclusively used by S. Mark and S. Luke</span></em>. And why
+should not ἀπιστεῖν be, (as it is,) one of them?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) Note, next, that this word <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is used twice</span></em>, and in the
+course of his last chapter too, also <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by S. Luke</span></em>. 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) But, lastly, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the noun</span></em> 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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em>
+one for example,—prove rather, on closer inspection,
+to be confirmatory facts?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(IX.) We are next assured that μετὰ ταῦτα (ver. 12) <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is
+not found in Mark</span></em>, though many opportunities occurred for
+using it.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nowhere</span></em>
+before does S. Mark employ <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any other phrase</span></em> to express
+<span class="tei tei-q">“after these things,”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“after this,”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“afterwards.”</span>)
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page160">[pg 160]</span><a name="Pg160" id="Pg160" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But what is the obvious inference from the facts of the case,
+as stated by the learned Critic, except that the blessed Evangelist
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">must be presumed to have been unconscious of any desire
+to introduce the expression under consideration on any other occasion
+except the present</span></em>?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">never employs
+it at all</span></em>. Why, then,—I would respectfully inquire—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em>
+need S. Mark introduce the phrase <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">more than once</span></em>? 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? <span class="tei tei-q">“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,—<span class="tei tei-q">‘often as
+he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">could</span></em> have used it?’</span> (Meyer's phrase here.<a id="noteref_285" name="noteref_285" href="#note_285"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">285</span></span></a>)”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(X.) Another objection awaits us,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Ἓτερος also is unknown
+to Mark,”</span> says Dr. Davidson;—which only means
+that the word occurs in chap. xvi. 12, but not elsewhere in
+his Gospel.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XI.) The same thing is said of ὕστερον (in ver. 14) viz.
+that it <span class="tei tei-q">“occurs nowhere”</span> in the second Gospel.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But why not state the case thus?—Ὕστερον, a word which
+is twice employed by S. Luke, occurs only <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">once</span></em> in S. Mark
+and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">once</span></em> in S. John.—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XII.) The same thing he says of βλάπτειν (in ver. 18).
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But what is the fact? The word occurs <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only twice in the
+Gospels</span></em>,—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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page161">[pg 161]</span><a name="Pg161" id="Pg161" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+and S. Luke. What possible significancy would Dr. Davidson
+attach to the circumstance?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XIII.) Once more.—<span class="tei tei-q">“πανταχοῦ”</span> (proceeds Dr. Davidson)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“is unknown to Mark;”</span> which (as we begin to be
+aware) is the learned gentleman's way of stating that it is
+only found in chap. xvi. 20.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></em> occurs
+in S. Mark i. 28. I respectfully differ from them in opinion:
+but when it has been pointed out that the word <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is only used
+besides in S. Luke</span></em> ix. 6, what <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">can</span></em> be said of such Criticism but
+that it is simply frivolous?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XIV. and XV.) Yet again:—συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν are
+also said by the same learned Critic to be <span class="tei tei-q">“unknown to
+Mark.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">could</span></em> 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XVI.) <span class="tei tei-q">“Πᾶσα κτίσις is Pauline,”</span> proceeds Dr. Davidson,
+(referring to a famous expression which is found in ver. 15.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) All very oracular,—to be sure: but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em> πᾶσα κτίσις
+should be thought <span class="tei tei-q">“Pauline”</span> rather than <span class="tei tei-q">“Petrine,”</span> I really,
+once more, cannot discover; seeing that S. Peter has the expression
+as well as S. Paul.<a id="noteref_286" name="noteref_286" href="#note_286"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">286</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) In this place, however, the phrase is πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις.
+But even this expression is no more to be called <span class="tei tei-q">“Pauline”</span>
+than <span class="tei tei-q">“Marcine;”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Mark alone of the Evangelists uses</span></em>?
+Its occurrence, therefore, in this place is a circumstance the
+very reverse of suspicious.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) But lastly, inasmuch as the opening words of our
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page162">[pg 162]</span><a name="Pg162" id="Pg162" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a direct reference</span></em> to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> place in S. Mark's
+Gospel is contained in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> place of S. Paul's Epistle? that
+the inspired Apostle <span class="tei tei-q">“beholding the universal tendency of
+Christianity already realized,”</span> announces (and from imperial
+Rome!) the fulfilment of his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> commands in his
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span>
+own words as recorded by the Evangelist S. Mark?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 61;—seeing,
+too, that it was in <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 61-2 (as Wordsworth and Alford are
+agreed) that S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, and
+wrote it from <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Rome</span></em>;—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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">may</span></em> be such as I have suggested,)—then, what an
+august corroboration would <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> be of <span class="tei tei-q">“the last Twelve
+Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark!”</span> ... 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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> great announcement concerning the <span class="tei tei-q">“signs which
+should follow them that believe!”</span> Had he not himself <span class="tei tei-q">“cast
+out devils?”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“spoken with tongues more than they all?”</span>—and
+at Melita, not only <span class="tei tei-q">“shaken off the serpent into the fire
+and felt no harm,”</span> but also <span class="tei tei-q">“laid hands on the sick”</span> father
+of Publius, <span class="tei tei-q">“and he had recovered?”</span> ... To return, however,
+to matters of fact; with an apology (if it be thought necessary)
+for what immediately goes before.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page163">[pg 163]</span><a name="Pg163" id="Pg163" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+employing the preposition ἐπί:—(viz. in ix. 37: ix. 39:
+xiii. 6.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) Now really, if it were so, the reasoning would be nugatory.
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Luke</span></em> 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">corroborative</span></em>, not a suspicious circumstance.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XVIII. and XIX.) We are further assured that παρακολουθεῖν
+(in ver. 17) and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in ver. 20) <span class="tei tei-q">“are both
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">foreign to the diction of Mark</span></em>.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“foreign to the diction of
+Mark;”</span> for there are no less than <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">forty-two</span></em> such verbs
+which are even <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">peculiar to S. Mark's short Gospel</span></em>,—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">thirty-three</span></em> such compounds, (besides the two before
+us,) occur in his sixteen chapters.<a id="noteref_287" name="noteref_287" href="#note_287"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">287</span></span></a> What, then, I must
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page164">[pg 164]</span><a name="Pg164" id="Pg164" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+really ask, can the learned Critic possibly mean?—I respectfully
+pause for an answer.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) In the meantime, I claim that as far as such evidence
+goes,—(and it certainly goes a very little way, yet, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">as far as
+it goes</span></em>,)—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XX.) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious circumstance,
+that (in ver. 18) the phrase χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι
+ἐπί τινα occurs; <span class="tei tei-q">“instead of χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι τινι.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) But on the contrary, the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is in Mark's manner</span></em>,”</span>
+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.<a id="noteref_288" name="noteref_288" href="#note_288"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">288</span></span></a>)
+Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to as
+a note of genuineness <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em> as an indication of spurious origin.
+What <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">can</span></em> be the value of such Criticism as this?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">both</span></em> 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.<a id="noteref_289" name="noteref_289" href="#note_289"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">289</span></span></a> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Who</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος
+(ver. 19 and ver. 20) are also declared to be <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">foreign to the
+diction of Mark</span></em>.”</span> I ask leave to examine these two charges
+separately.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page165">[pg 165]</span><a name="Pg165" id="Pg165" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) μὲν οὖν occurs only once in S. Mark's Gospel, truly:
+but then <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it occurs only once in S. Luke</span></em> (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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) As for ὁ Κύριος being <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">foreign to the diction of Mark</span></em>
+in speaking of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>,”</span>—I really do not know what
+the learned Critic can possibly mean; except that he finds
+our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nowhere called</span></em> ὁ Κύριος
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by S. Mark, except in this place.</span></em>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does
+he find our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> anywhere called by S. Mark
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus Christ</span></span>,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> expression in chap. i. 1. And so,
+I venture to reply, there is a fully sufficient reason assignable
+for the use of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> expression in chap. xvi. 19.<a id="noteref_290" name="noteref_290" href="#note_290"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">290</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>
+is called Ἰησοῦς Χριστός,—but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only in the first Chapter</span></em> of
+their respective Gospels. By S. Luke nowhere. The appellation
+may,—or may not,—be thought <span class="tei tei-q">“foreign to the
+diction”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) S. John <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three times in the first verse of his first Chapter</span></em>
+designates the Eternal <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Son</span></span> by the extraordinary title ὁ
+Λόγος; but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nowhere else in his Gospel</span></em>, (except once in ver.
+14,) does that Name recur. Would it be reasonable to represent
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> as a suspicious circumstance? Is not the Divine
+fitness of that sublime appellation generally recognised and
+admitted?<a id="noteref_291" name="noteref_291" href="#note_291"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">291</span></span></a>—Surely, we come to Scripture to be learners
+only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to
+have spoken about <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>! When will men learn that <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page166">[pg 166]</span><a name="Pg166" id="Pg166" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Scripture-phrase, or <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">language of the Holy
+Ghost</span></em>”</span><a id="noteref_292" name="noteref_292" href="#note_292"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">292</span></span></a> is as
+much above them as Heaven is above Earth?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XXIII.) Another complaint:—ἀναληφθῆναι, which is
+found in ver. 19, occurs nowhere else in the Gospels.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs
+which <span class="tei tei-q">“occur nowhere else in the Gospels:”</span> and this happens
+to be one of them? What possible inconvenience can
+be supposed to follow from that circumstance?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. Ἀναληφθῆναι and
+ἀνάληψις are words <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">proper to the Ascension of our </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span><span style="font-style: italic">
+into Heaven</span></em>. The two Evangelists who do <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> describe that
+event, are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">without</span></em> these words: the two Evangelists who <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">do</span></em>
+describe it, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">have</span></em> them.<a id="noteref_293" name="noteref_293" href="#note_293"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">293</span></span></a> Surely, these are marks of genuineness,
+not grounds for suspicion!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It is high time to conclude this discussion.—Much has
+been said about two other minute points:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XXIV.) It is declared that ἐκεῖνος <span class="tei tei-q">“is nowhere found
+absolutely used by S. Mark:”</span> (the same thing may be said
+of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:) <span class="tei tei-q">“but always emphatically:
+whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely used.”</span><a id="noteref_294" name="noteref_294" href="#note_294"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">294</span></span></a>
+Another writer says,—<span class="tei tei-q">“The use of ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11,
+and 13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with ὁ δέ, is
+peculiar.”</span><a id="noteref_295" name="noteref_295" href="#note_295"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">295</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“absolutely”</span>
+in two consecutive verses.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves
+as to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which</span></em> 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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that <span class="tei tei-q">“in the
+10th and 14th verses there are sentences without a copulative:
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page167">[pg 167]</span><a name="Pg167" id="Pg167" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+whereas Mark always has the copulative in such cases,
+particularly καί.”</span> But then,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other
+sections of S. Mark's Gospel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">resembling the present</span></em>,—(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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Aye.
+But men may not find fault with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘the other Disciple’</span> had many a time rehearsed in the
+hearing of the wondering Church concerning the Magdalene
+on the morning of the Resurrection.”</span> And then we
+should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth
+Gospel:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+γύναι τί κλαίεις; τίνα ζητεῖς; ἘΚΕΊΝΗ δοκοῦσα κ.τ.λ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all
+strange, even though it be <span class="tei tei-q">“without a copulative:”</span>—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. ἘΚΕΊΝΗ πορευθεῖσα κ.τ.λ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) For after all, the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> question to be asked is,—Will
+any one pretend that such a circumstance as this is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suspicious</span></em>?
+Unless <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> be asserted, I see not what is gained by
+raking together,—(<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">as one easily might do in any section of any
+of the Gospels</span></em>,)—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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page168">[pg 168]</span><a name="Pg168" id="Pg168" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+and represented as a note of spuriousness,—in the face of
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) the unfaltering tradition of the Church universal that
+the document has <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">never</span></em> been hitherto suspected: and
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+For if there really had remained after the discussion of
+each of the foregoing XXV Articles, a slight residuum of
+suspiciousness, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">then</span></em> of course the aggregate of so many fractions
+would have amounted to something in the end.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But since it has been proved that there is absolutely
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nothing at all</span></em> suspicious in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any</span></em> of the alleged circumstances
+which have been hitherto examined, the case becomes altogether
+different. The sum of ten thousand nothings is still
+nothing.<a id="noteref_296" name="noteref_296" href="#note_296"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">296</span></span></a> This may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal
+to the only charge which remains to be examined.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) The adverb εὐθέως (or εὐθύς) is indeed of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">very</span></em>
+frequent occurrence in S. Mark's Gospel. And yet its absence from
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page169">[pg 169]</span><a name="Pg169" id="Pg169" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+chap. xvi is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">proved</span></em> to be in no degree a suspicious circumstance,
+from the discovery that though it occurs as many as
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+12 times in chap. i;<br />
+and 6 times in chap. v;<br />
+and 5 times in chap. iv, vi;<br />
+and 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv;<br />
+and 2 times in chap. vii, xi;<br />
+it yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv;<br />
+while it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(b) In like manner, πάλιν, which occurs as often as
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+6 times in chap. xiv;<br />
+and 5 times in chap. x;<br />
+and 3 times in chap. viii, xv;<br />
+and 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii;<br />
+and 1 times in chap. iv, v;<br />
+occurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.<a id="noteref_297" name="noteref_297" href="#note_297"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">297</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) Now,—How can it possibly be more suspicious that
+πάλιν should be absent from <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the last twelve</span></em> verses of S. Mark,
+than that it should be away from <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the first forty-five</span></em>?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) Again. Since εὐθέως is not found in the xii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+or the xiii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> chapters of this same
+Gospel,—nor πάλιν in the i<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">st</span></span>,
+vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>,
+ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>, or
+xiii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> chapter,—(for the sufficient reason
+that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">neither word is wanted in any of those places</span></em>,)—what
+possible <span class="tei tei-q">“suspiciousness”</span> can be supposed to result from the absence of
+both words from the xvi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> chapter also, where
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></em> neither of them is wanted? <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Why</span></em> is the
+xvi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> chapter of S. Mark's
+Gospel,—or rather, why are <span class="tei tei-q">“the last twelve verses”</span> of it,—to
+labour under such special disfavor and discredit?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,—<span class="tei tei-q">“I am well aware that
+arguments on <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">style</span></em> are often very fallacious, and that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by
+themselves</span></em> 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.”</span><a id="noteref_298" name="noteref_298" href="#note_298"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">298</span></span></a>—For all
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page170">[pg 170]</span><a name="Pg170" id="Pg170" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+rejoinder, the respected writer is asked,—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) But when
+there <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does not</span></em> exist any such external evidence: what then?
+Next, he is reminded (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) That whether there does, or does
+not, it is at least certain that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not one</span></em> of those <span class="tei tei-q">“proofs as to
+style,”</span> &amp;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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">mistakes</span></em>;—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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> that it is probably the work of another hand.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">thirteen</span></em>, more or
+less clearly witnessing <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in favour</span></em> of the section.<a id="noteref_299" name="noteref_299" href="#note_299"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">299</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> Ascension, viz. ἀνελήφθη
+(in ver. 19):—and lastly, of the compounds παρακολουθεῖν
+and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in verses 17 and 20.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xiv.) Ἀνίσταναι, for rising <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from the dead</span></em>; which is one
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page171">[pg 171]</span><a name="Pg171" id="Pg171" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of S. Mark's words. Taking into account the shortness of
+his Gospel, he has it thrice as often as S. Luke; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">twelve times</span></em>
+as often as S. Matthew or S. John.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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,<a id="noteref_300" name="noteref_300" href="#note_300"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">300</span></span></a>—of
+which ver. 12 is one.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xviii.) The same <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">words</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned
+to vindicate <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the genuineness</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> occasions; of which ch. xvi. 14 is one.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page172">[pg 172]</span><a name="Pg172" id="Pg172" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">twice</span></em> used
+by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present section.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observation
+would have been that ἔχειν, in the sense of <span class="tei tei-q">“to be,”</span> (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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxv.) They would have told us further that ἄῤῥωστος is
+another of S. Mark's favorite words: for that he has it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxvii.) Lastly, <span class="tei tei-q">“κατακρίνω (in ver. 16), instead of κρίνω,
+is Mark's word, (comp. x. 33: xiv. 64).”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page173">[pg 173]</span><a name="Pg173" id="Pg173" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Strange,—that there should be exactly <span class="tei tei-q">“xxvii”</span> notes of
+genuineness discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of
+<span class="tei tei-q">“XXVII”</span> grounds of suspicion!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage
+review the progress hitherto made in this inquiry.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing
+assertions respecting the <span class="tei tei-q">“Style”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“Phraseology”</span>
+of this section of the Gospel which were rehearsed at the
+outset,<a id="noteref_301" name="noteref_301" href="#note_301"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">301</span></span></a>—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">proved</span></em> to be above suspicion. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em>
+character is rightly accounted <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">blameless</span></em> which comes out
+unsullied after Calumny has done her worst; done it systematically;
+done it with a will; done it for a hundred years.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the
+case in respect of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel. Something
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">more</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">themselves</span></em>. 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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Concordance test,”</span>—(for <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> is probably as apt and intelligible
+a designation as can be devised for the purely <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">mechanical</span></em>
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page174">[pg 174]</span><a name="Pg174" id="Pg174" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the first</span></em> twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are of a suspicious
+character as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the last</span></em>.<a id="noteref_302" name="noteref_302" href="#note_302"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">302</span></span></a> In truth, except in very
+skilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that <span class="tei tei-q">“Mark
+nowhere uses the appellation <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus Christ</span></span>:”</span> and (ii.) that
+<span class="tei tei-q">“εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”</span> is <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Pauline</span></em>”</span>—We should be
+reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere introduces any
+of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Isaiah”</span><a id="noteref_303" name="noteref_303" href="#note_303"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">303</span></span></a> (in ver. 2) is a
+suspicious circumstance:—(iv.) that
+a quotation from the Old Testament is <span class="tei tei-q">“foreign to his manner,”</span>—(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unique</span></em> designation, ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα (in ver. 5)
+would be pronounced decisive against <span class="tei tei-q">“the authorship of
+Mark.”</span>—(vii.) The same thing would be said of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unique</span></em>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page175">[pg 175]</span><a name="Pg175" id="Pg175" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em> entire
+expression in ver. 7 (<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unique</span></em>, it must be confessed, in the Gospel,)
+οὖ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανος—ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ, would be pronounced
+<span class="tei tei-q">“abhorrent to the style of Mark.”</span>—(ix.) τὸ Πνεῦμα
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">twice</span></em>, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we should be told is never
+used by the Evangelist absolutely for the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Holy Ghost</span></span>: 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the inhabitants of Jerusalem:”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“cannot be Mark's;”</span>—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 <span class="tei tei-q">“unknown
+to Mark:”</span>—(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">twice</span></em>,
+(viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Mark</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“last twelve verses,”</span> (that
+πάλιν, a favourite adverb with S. Mark, is not found there,)
+is here even more conspicuous.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+V. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philosophical,
+more <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">real</span></em> test than the coarse, uncritical expedient
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page176">[pg 176]</span><a name="Pg176" id="Pg176" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every
+principal characteristic of S. Mark's manner</span></em>:—Thus,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+How many and how considerable are the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">new circumstances</span></em>
+which S. Mark here delivers!—(1) That Mary Magdalene
+was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the first</span></em> to behold the risen <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span>: (2)
+That it was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">He</span></em> who had cast out from her the <span class="tei tei-q">“seven devils:”</span> (3)
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">How the men were engaged</span></em> to whom she brought her joyful message,—(4)
+who not only did not believe <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">her</span></em> story, but when
+Cleopas and his companion declared what had happened to
+themselves, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">neither believed they them</span></em>.”</span> (5) The terms of
+the Ministerial Commission, as set down in verses 15 and 16,
+are unique. (6) The announcement of the <span class="tei tei-q">“signs which
+should follow them that believe”</span> is even extraordinary.
+Lastly, (7) this is the only place in the Gospel where <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The
+Session at the right Hand of </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span></em> 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!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page177">[pg 177]</span><a name="Pg177" id="Pg177" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) that in describing our
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> Baptism, it is only S. Mark who relates that <span class="tei tei-q">“He
+came <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from Nazareth</span></em>”</span> to be baptized.—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>)
+In his highly elliptical account of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> Temptation,
+it is only he who relates that <span class="tei tei-q">“He was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">with the wild
+beasts</span></em>.”</span>—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“in the ship <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">with
+the hired servants</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_304" name="noteref_304" href="#note_304"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">304</span></span></a>—Now,
+of this characteristic, we have
+also within these twelve verses, at least four illustrations:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently
+proceeded from an eye-witness,—<span class="tei tei-q">“πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι.”</span>
+S. Mark relates that when Mary conveyed to the Disciples
+the joyous tidings of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> Resurrection,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">she found them overwhelmed with sorrow</span></em>,—<span class="tei tei-q">“mourning and weeping.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">recorded only there.</span></em>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciples
+were <span class="tei tei-q">“going into the country,”</span> (πορευόμενοι εἰς ἀγρόν,<a id="noteref_305" name="noteref_305" href="#note_305"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">305</span></span></a>
+ver. 12,) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span> also <span class="tei tei-q">“went with
+them”</span>—(συν-επορεύετο, as
+S. Luke relates;)—but that it was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">as they actually </span><span class="tei tei-q">“walked”</span><span style="font-style: italic">
+along</span></em> (περιπατοῦσιν) that this manifestation took place.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">d</span></span>) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning
+<span class="tei tei-q">“them that believe;”</span> what can be imagined more striking
+than the promise that they should <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">take up serpents</span></em>;”</span> and
+suffer no harm even if they should <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">drink any deadly thing</span></em>”</span>?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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)
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page178">[pg 178]</span><a name="Pg178" id="Pg178" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+for S. Matthew's ἔκλαυσε μικρῶς (xxvi. 75);—and of ὁ τέκτων
+(vi. 3) for ὁ τοῧ τέκτονος υιος (S. Matth. xiii. 55).—The
+<span class="tei tei-q">“woman of Canaan”</span> in S. Matthew's Gospel (γυνὴ Χαναναία,
+ch. xv. 22), is called <span class="tei tei-q">“a Greek, a Syrophenician by
+nation”</span> in S. Mark's (Ἑλληνὶς, Συροφοίνισσα τῷ γένει,
+ch. vii. 26).—At the Baptism, instead of the <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">opened</span></em>”</span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cleaving</span></em>”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">being rent
+asunder</span></em>”</span> (σχιζομένους,<a id="noteref_306" name="noteref_306" href="#note_306"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">306</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">their
+eyes were holden</span></em> that they should not know Him,”</span> S. Mark
+says that <span class="tei tei-q">“He appeared to them <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in another form</span></em>.”</span> ... 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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Both</span></em> are historically accurate, but they proceed
+from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly
+side, (God's side), the Disciples' <span class="tei tei-q">“eyes”</span> (of course) <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">were
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page179">[pg 179]</span><a name="Pg179" id="Pg179" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-style: italic">
+holden</span></em>:”</span>—viewed on the earthly side, (Man's side), the risen
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> (no doubt) <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">appeared in another
+form</span></em>.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many
+expressions into his Gospel which confirm the prevalent
+tradition that it was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at Rome</span></em> he wrote it; and that it was
+with an immediate view to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Latin</span></em> readers that it was published.
+Twelve such expressions were enumerated above
+(at p. <a href="#Pg150" class="tei tei-ref">150-1</a>); 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">improbability</span></em>
+which attaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who
+have considered this question the most.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+That the second Gospel contains many such hints has
+often been pointed out; never more interestingly or more
+convincingly than by Townson<a id="noteref_307" name="noteref_307" href="#note_307"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">307</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) Reference is made to our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span>
+sayings in S. Mark vii, and specially to what is found in ver. 19. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em>
+expression, <span class="tei tei-q">“purging all meats”</span> (καθαρίζων<a id="noteref_308" name="noteref_308" href="#note_308"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">308</span></span></a> πάντα τὰ βρώματα), does
+really seem to be no part of the Divine discourse; but the
+Evangelist's inspired comment on the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span>
+words.<a id="noteref_309" name="noteref_309" href="#note_309"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">309</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page180">[pg 180]</span><a name="Pg180" id="Pg180" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> (he explains) by that discourse of His—ipso,
+facto—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">made all meats clean</span></em>.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">had made clean</span></em>”</span> (ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε<a id="noteref_310" name="noteref_310" href="#note_310"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">310</span></span></a>)
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> His creatures!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) Now, let a few words spoken by the same S. Peter on
+a memorable occasion be considered:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Wherefore of these
+men which have companied with us all the time that the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord Jesus</span></span> went in and out among us, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">beginning from the
+Baptism of John</span></em>, unto that same day that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">He was taken up</span></em>
+(ἀνελήφθη) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness
+with us of His Resurrection.”</span><a id="noteref_311" name="noteref_311" href="#note_311"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">311</span></span></a> Does not S. Peter thereby
+define the precise limits of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span>
+Ministry,—shewing it to have <span class="tei tei-q">“begun”</span> (ἀρξάμενος) <span class="tei tei-q">“from the Baptism of
+John,”</span>—and closed with the Day of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Baptism of John</span></em>,—and the utmost limit,
+the day when (as S. Mark says) <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">He was taken up</span></em> (ἀνελήφθη)
+into Heaven,”</span>—(ch. xvi. 19)?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) 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 <a href="#Pg162" class="tei tei-ref">162-3</a>,)—that
+both S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred writers)
+conspire to use the expression ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.<a id="noteref_312" name="noteref_312" href="#note_312"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">312</span></span></a> S. Mark
+has besides κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισε ὁ Θεός (ch. xiii. 19); while
+S. Peter alone styles the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Almighty</span></span>, from His work of Creation,
+ὁ κτίστης (1 S. Pet. iv. 19).
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VI. But besides, and over and above such considerations
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page181">[pg 181]</span><a name="Pg181" id="Pg181" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Almighty God</span></span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Spirit</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“trembleth at <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span>
+Word.”</span><a id="noteref_313" name="noteref_313" href="#note_313"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">313</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> is in this place”</span> although he <span class="tei tei-q">“knew it not!”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page182">[pg 182]</span><a name="Pg182" id="Pg182" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Style</span></em> 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.<a id="noteref_314" name="noteref_314" href="#note_314"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">314</span></span></a>
+We also instituted a brief comparison between
+the two in order to discover whether the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Diction</span></em> of the one
+might not possibly be found as suggestive of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">verbal</span></em> doubts
+as the diction of the other: and so we found it.<a id="noteref_315" name="noteref_315" href="#note_315"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">315</span></span></a>—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">first</span></em> chapter
+which exactly correspond with the twelve verses of his <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">last</span></em>
+chapter (ver. 9-20) which are the subject of the present volume.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Now between these two sections of the Gospel, besides
+(1) the obvious <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">verbal</span></em> resemblance, I detect (2) a singular
+parallelism of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">essential structure</span></em>. And this does not strike
+me the less forcibly because nothing of the kind was to have
+been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">expected</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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:—
+</p>
+
+<table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="2"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (a) [βαπτίζων, βάπτισμα (i. 4)—καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο (i. 5)—ἐβάπτισα,
+        βαπτίσει (i. 8)]—καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη (i. 9)
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (a) βαπτισθείς (xvi. 16)
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (b) [κηρύσσων, ἐκήρυσσδ (i. 7)]
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (b) ἐκήρυξαν (xvi. 20)
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (b and c) κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (i. 14)—[ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (i. 1)]
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (c) κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (xvi. 15)
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (c and d) πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (i. 15)
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (d) ἠπίστησαν (xvi. 11)—οὐδὲ ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 13)—τὴν ἀπιστίαν,
+    οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 14)—ὁ πιστεύσας, ὁ ἀπιστήσας (xvi. 16)—τοῖς
+    πιστεύσασι (xvi. 17.)
+  </td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an
+unmistakable relation of sympathy between the first page of
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page183">[pg 183]</span><a name="Pg183" id="Pg183" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+S. Mark's Gospel and the last. The same doctrinal phraseology,<a id="noteref_316" name="noteref_316" href="#note_316"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">316</span></span></a>—the
+same indications of Divine purpose,—the same
+prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both.
+(i.) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">A Gospel</span></em> to be everywhere <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">preached</span></em>;—(ii.)
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Faith</span></em>, to be of all required;—(iii.) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Baptism</span></em> to be
+universally administered; <span class="tei tei-q">“one <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>, one Faith, one
+Baptism:”</span>—Is not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to clasp</span></em>!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) But the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">essential</span></em> 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,—
+</p>
+
+<table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="2"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (A) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in ch.</span></span> i. 9 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">to</span></span> 11:—Our
+    <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> Manifestation to the World (ἐπιφανεία) on
+    <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">His</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“coming up (ἀναβαίνων) out of the water”</span> of
+    Jordan: (having been <span class="tei tei-q">“buried by Baptism,”</span> as the Apostle speaks:) when
+    the Voice from Heaven proclaimed,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Thou art My beloved
+    <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Son</span></span> in whom I am well pleased.”</span>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (A) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in ch.</span></span> xvi. 9 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">to</span></span> 11:—Our
+    <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> appearance to Mary Magdalene (ἐφάνη) after
+    <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">His</span></span> Resurrection (ἀναστάς) from death: <span class="tei tei-q">“Thou art My
+    <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Son</span></span>, this day have I begotten Thee.”</span>
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"> </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    —12 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">to</span></span> 14:—Two other Manifestations (ἐφανερώθη)
+    to Disciples.
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (B) —12, 13:—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ's</span></span> victory over Satan;
+    (whereby is fulfilled the promise <span class="tei tei-q">“Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the
+    young lion and the dragon shalt Thou trample under feet.”</span>)
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (B) —17, 18:—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ's</span></span> promise that <span class="tei tei-q">“they
+    that believe”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“shall cast out devils”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“shall take up serpents:”</span> (as
+    [in S. Luke x. 19] He had given the Seventy <span class="tei tei-q">“power to tread on serpents and
+    scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy.”</span>)
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (C) —8:—The Pentecostal Gift foretold: <span class="tei tei-q">“He shall baptize you with
+    the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Holy Ghost</span></span>.”</span>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (C) —17:—The chief Pentecostal Gift specified: <span class="tei tei-q">“They shall speak with
+    new tongues.”</span>
+  </td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page184">[pg 184]</span><a name="Pg184" id="Pg184" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="2"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (D) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in ch.</span></span> i. 14, 15:—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ</span></span>
+    <span class="tei tei-q">“comes into Galilee, preaching the Gospel ... and saying ... Repent ye, and
+    believe the Gospel.”</span>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (D) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in ch.</span></span> xvi. 15, 16:—He commands His Apostles to
+    <span class="tei tei-q">“go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth
+    and is baptized shall be saved.”</span>
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (E) —15: His announcement, that <span class="tei tei-q">“The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of
+    God is at hand.”</span>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (E) —19:—S. Mark's record concerning Him, that <span class="tei tei-q">“He was received up into
+    Heaven, and sat on the right hand of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>”</span> (where He
+    must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet.)
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (F) —16 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">to</span></span> 20:—The four Apostles' Call to the
+    Ministry: (which [S. Luke v. 8, 9] is miraculously attested.)
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (F) —20:—The Apostles' Ministry, which is everywhere miraculously
+    attested,—<span class="tei tei-q">“The <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> working with them, and
+    confirming the word by the signs that followed.”</span>
+  </td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 348) is found in the
+one: the Xth Article, in the other.<a id="noteref_317" name="noteref_317" href="#note_317"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">317</span></span></a> If it be a purely fortuitous
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page185">[pg 185]</span><a name="Pg185" id="Pg185" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+circumstance, that two cardinal verities like these,—(viz.
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right
+Hand of </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span></em>”</span>—and <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">One Baptism for the
+Remission of sins</span></em>,”</span>)
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the first</span></em> verse
+(S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title <span class="tei tei-q">“Ἰησοῦς”</span>
+and <span class="tei tei-q">“Χριστός,”</span>—here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi.
+19, 20) is styled for the first and for the last time, <span class="tei tei-q">“Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ”</span>—the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>.<a id="noteref_318" name="noteref_318" href="#note_318"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">318</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+And why? Because He who at His Circumcision was
+named <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span>,”</span> (a Name which was given Him from
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">His Birth</span></em>, yea, and before His Birth); He who at His Baptism
+became <span class="tei tei-q">“the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ</span></span>,”</span> (a Title which belonged to
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">His Office</span></em>, and which betokens His sacred <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Unction</span></em>);—the
+same, on the occasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the
+Right Hand of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>,—when (as we know) <span class="tei tei-q">“all power had
+been given unto Him in Heaven and in Earth”</span> (S. Matth.
+xxviii. 18),—is designated by His Name of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Dominion</span></em>; <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>”</span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jehovah</span></span> ... <span class="tei tei-q">“Magnifica
+et opportuna appellatio!”</span>—as Bengel well remarks.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">could</span></em> have planted his foot
+in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my
+assertion is twofold:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) First, because the present indication that the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Holy Ghost</span></span> was indeed the Author of these last Twelve Verses
+is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson and his School, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">as
+a proof of a spurious original</span></em>. Verily, such Critics do not
+recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></em> it!
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page186">[pg 186]</span><a name="Pg186" id="Pg186" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) Next, as a matter of fact, we <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">have</span></em>
+a spurious Supplement to the Gospel,—the same which was exhibited above
+at p. <a href="#Pg123" class="tei tei-ref">123-4</a>; and which may here be with advantage reproduced
+in its Latin form:—<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_319" name="noteref_319" href="#note_319"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">319</span></span></a>—Another
+apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of the Thebaic version.
+It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as follows:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Exeuntes
+terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evangelium
+in mundo toto, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christo</span></span> 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.”</span> It will be seen
+that the Title of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Dominion</span></em> (ὁ Κύριος—the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>) is found
+in neither of these fabricated passages; but the Names of
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Nativity</span></em> and of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Baptism</span></em>
+(Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Jesus</span></span> and
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ</span></span>) occur instead.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nowhere else</span></em>. The writer,—supposing that he had only
+S. Matthew's Gospel before him,—traverses (except in one
+single instance) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wholly new ground</span></em>; 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">purposely</span></em> to break away from
+their guidance, and to adventure some extraordinary statement
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page187">[pg 187]</span><a name="Pg187" id="Pg187" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“out of whom”</span> the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“had cast seven
+devils;”</span> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em>, 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.<a id="noteref_320" name="noteref_320" href="#note_320"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">320</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span>
+followers,—<span class="tei tei-q">“τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις,”</span>—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 <span class="tei tei-q">“mourning and weeping”</span> till after
+sunrise on the first Easter Day. The reader is reminded of
+what has been already offered on this subject, at p. <a href="#Pg155" class="tei tei-ref">155-6</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but
+S. Mark, (or such an one as he<a id="noteref_321" name="noteref_321" href="#note_321"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">321</span></span></a>), would have familiarly designated
+the Apostolic body as <span class="tei tei-q">“αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἔνδεκα,”</span> in ver. 14.
+The phrase οἱ δώδεκα, he uses in proportion <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">far</span></em> oftener than
+any other two of the Evangelists.<a id="noteref_322" name="noteref_322" href="#note_322"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">322</span></span></a> And it is evident that
+the phrase οἱ ἕνδεκα soon became an equally recognised designation
+of the Apostolic body,—<span class="tei tei-q">“from which Judas by
+transgression fell.”</span> Its familiar introduction into this place
+by the second Evangelist is exactly what one might have
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page188">[pg 188]</span><a name="Pg188" id="Pg188" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+looked for, or at least what one is fully prepared to meet
+with, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in him</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">out of the city of
+Jerusalem</span></em>.<a id="noteref_323" name="noteref_323" href="#note_323"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">323</span></span></a> And tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein contained a recollection
+of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> command to His Apostles, twice
+expressly recorded by S. Luke, <span class="tei tei-q">“that they should <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not depart from
+Jerusalem</span></em>, but wait for the promise of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Father</span></span>.”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Behold,”</span> (said He,) <span class="tei tei-q">“I send the promise of My <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Father</span></span>
+upon you: but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem</span></em>, until ye be
+endued with power from on high.”</span><a id="noteref_324" name="noteref_324" href="#note_324"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">324</span></span></a>... After many days <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">they went forth</span></em>”</span> or
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">out</span></em>.”</span> S. Mark, (or perhaps it is
+rather S. Peter,) expressly says so,—ἐξελθόντες. Aye, and
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> was a memorable <span class="tei tei-q">“outgoing,”</span> truly! What else was
+its purpose but the evangelization of the World?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Inconsistency</span></em>
+of certain statements contained in these <span class="tei tei-q">“Twelve
+Verses”</span> with the larger notices contained in the parallel
+narratives of S. Luke and S. John,—I proceed briefly to
+explain <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em> I am silent on this head.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page189">[pg 189]</span><a name="Pg189" id="Pg189" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+words,—what I should propose to myself as the end to be
+attained by what I wrote. For,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. What would be gained by demonstrating,—(as I am
+of course prepared to do,)—that there is really <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no inconsistency
+whatever</span></em> between anything which S. Mark here says,
+and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should have
+proved that,—(assuming the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">other</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by whom</span></em> is such proof required?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally
+to be met with in the Evangelical narratives. In <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">their</span></em> estimation,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the genuineness of an inspired writing</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“trifling,”</span>
+and the inaccuracies <span class="tei tei-q">“minute,”</span>—these <span class="tei tei-q">“sound Theologians,”</span>
+(for so they style themselves,<a id="noteref_325" name="noteref_325" href="#note_325"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">325</span></span></a>) <span class="tei tei-q">“have no dread whatever
+of acknowledging”</span> their existence. Be it so. Then would
+it be a gratuitous task to set about convincing <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">them</span></em> that
+no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable within the
+compass of these Twelve concluding Verses.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) 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:—"<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span> Word,
+like all <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span>
+other Works, (and I am taught to regard <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span> Word as
+a very masterpiece of creative skill;)—the blessed Gospel,
+I say, is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">full</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page190">[pg 190]</span><a name="Pg190" id="Pg190" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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?"
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon
+a prolonged Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion
+of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Principles of Gospel Harmony</span></em>,—for which the
+present would clearly not be the proper place.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from <span class="tei tei-q">“Style,”</span>
+(in itself a highly fallacious test,) disappears under investigation.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It has been proved (pp. <a href="#Pg142" class="tei tei-ref">142-5</a>) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it is rendered probable
+by the Style</span></em> that the Author of the beginning of this Gospel
+was also the Author of the end of it.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument
+from <span class="tei tei-q">“Phraseology,”</span>—(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circumstances
+in the Phraseology of these Twelve Verses, it has
+been proved (pp. <a href="#Pg170" class="tei tei-ref">170-3</a>) that in twenty-seven particulars there
+emerge <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">corroborative considerations</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a presumption</span></em> of the highest
+order is created <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that these Verses must needs be the work
+of S. Mark</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page191">[pg 191]</span><a name="Pg191" id="Pg191" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc27" id="toc27"></a>
+<a name="pdf28" id="pdf28"></a>
+<a name="Chapter_X" id="Chapter_X" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER X.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE
+ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF
+THESE VERSES.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+The Lectionary of the East shewn to be a work of extraordinary antiquity
+(p. </span><a href="#Pg195" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">195</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Proved to be older than any extant MS. of the
+Gospels, by an appeal to the Fathers (p. </span><a href="#Pg198" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">198</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—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. </span><a href="#Pg204" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">204</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">.)—Now, this
+becomes the testimony of ante-Nicene Christendom in their favour (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg209" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">209</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">.)
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I have reserved for the last the testimony of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the Lectionaries</span></span>,
+which has been hitherto all but entirely overlooked;<a id="noteref_326" name="noteref_326" href="#note_326"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">326</span></span></a>—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the united testimony of all
+the Churches</span></em>. It is therefore the evidence borne by a <span class="tei tei-q">“goodly
+fellowship of Prophets,”</span> a <span class="tei tei-q">“noble array of Martyrs”</span> indeed;
+as well as by <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">MSS. innumerable which have long since
+perished</span></em>, 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page192">[pg 192]</span><a name="Pg192" id="Pg192" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+most conveniently approached by some remarks which shall
+rehearse the matter from the beginning.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_327" name="noteref_327" href="#note_327"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">327</span></span></a> It
+was found that <span class="tei tei-q">“the Sacraments of the Jews are [but] types
+of ours.”</span><a id="noteref_328" name="noteref_328" href="#note_328"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">328</span></span></a> Still were David's Psalms antiphonally recited,
+and the voices of <span class="tei tei-q">“Moses and the Prophets”</span> were heard in
+the sacred assemblies of God's people <span class="tei tei-q">“every Sabbath day.”</span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Eve”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the rock whence we are hewn and the hole
+of the pit whence we are digged:”</span> only was it made a question,
+a controversy rather, whether Easter should or should
+not be celebrated <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">with the Jews</span></em>.<a id="noteref_329" name="noteref_329" href="#note_329"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">329</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But it is the faithful handing on to the Christian community
+of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Lectionary practice</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page193">[pg 193]</span><a name="Pg193" id="Pg193" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Martyr, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 150) describes the Christian practice in his
+time as precisely similar:<a id="noteref_330" name="noteref_330" href="#note_330"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">330</span></span></a> only that for <span class="tei tei-q">“the Law,”</span> there
+is found to have been at once substituted <span class="tei tei-q">“the Gospel.”</span> He
+speaks of the writings of <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Apostles</span></em>”</span> and of <span class="tei tei-q">“the Prophets.”</span>
+Chrysostom has the same expression (for the two
+Lessons) in one of his Homilies.<a id="noteref_331" name="noteref_331" href="#note_331"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">331</span></span></a> Cassian (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">on Saturdays</span></em> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Sundays</span></em>,
+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.<a id="noteref_332" name="noteref_332" href="#note_332"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">332</span></span></a> 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)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Moses and the Prophets,”</span> (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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Epistles
+or Acts,”</span> together with a lesson out of the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Gospels.”</span><a id="noteref_333" name="noteref_333" href="#note_333"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">333</span></span></a>
+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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the autumn</span></em>, (in September<a id="noteref_334" name="noteref_334" href="#note_334"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">334</span></span></a>); and
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page194">[pg 194]</span><a name="Pg194" id="Pg194" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+prescribes two immovable <span class="tei tei-q">“Lections”</span> for every <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Saturday</span></em> (as
+well as for every Sunday) in the year: differing chiefly in
+this,—that the prominent place which had been hitherto assigned
+to <span class="tei tei-q">“the Law and the Prophets,”</span><a id="noteref_335" name="noteref_335" href="#note_335"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">335</span></span></a> was henceforth
+enjoyed by the Gospels and the Apostolic writings. <span class="tei tei-q">“Saturday-Sunday”</span>
+lections—(σαββατοκυριακαί, for so these Lections
+were called,)—retain their place in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Synaxarium”</span>
+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—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> from the Sunday with which it
+commences,<a id="noteref_336" name="noteref_336" href="#note_336"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">336</span></span></a> but—from the Sabbath-and-Sunday with which
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it concludes</span></em>. 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“μέγα σάββατον,”</span><a id="noteref_337" name="noteref_337" href="#note_337"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">337</span></span></a> is discovered
+to have borne the self-same appellation in the Church of the
+Circumcision.<a id="noteref_338" name="noteref_338" href="#note_338"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">338</span></span></a>—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:
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(II.) That although there happens to be extant neither
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Synaxarium,”</span> (i.e. Table of Proper Lessons of the Greek
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page195">[pg 195]</span><a name="Pg195" id="Pg195" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Church), nor <span class="tei tei-q">“Evangelistarium,”</span> (i.e. Book containing the
+Ecclesiastical Lections <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in extenso</span></span>), of higher antiquity than
+the viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at least</span></em> four, in fact by full <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">five</span></em> hundred years.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invariably</span></em> to occupy the
+same singularly conspicuous, as well as most honourable
+place.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. The first of the foregoing propositions is an established
+fact. It is at least quite certain that in the
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 348,) having to speak about our
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>'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;<a id="noteref_339" name="noteref_339" href="#note_339"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">339</span></span></a> and that he had availed
+himself of the occasion to discourse largely on the subject.—Chrysostom,
+preaching at Antioch, makes it plain that, in
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page196">[pg 196]</span><a name="Pg196" id="Pg196" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+the latter part of the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century, the
+order of the lessons which were publicly read in the Church <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">on Saturdays and
+Sundays</span></em><a id="noteref_340" name="noteref_340" href="#note_340"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">340</span></span></a> 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.<a id="noteref_341" name="noteref_341" href="#note_341"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">341</span></span></a>—Augustine is express in
+recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for
+Festival days;<a id="noteref_342" name="noteref_342" href="#note_342"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">342</span></span></a> and that an innovation which he had attempted
+on Good Friday had given general offence.<a id="noteref_343" name="noteref_343" href="#note_343"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">343</span></span></a>—Now
+by these few notices, to look no further, it is rendered certain
+that a Lectionary system of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_344" name="noteref_344" href="#note_344"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">344</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. The Oriental Lectionary consists of <span class="tei tei-q">“Synaxarion”</span>
+and <span class="tei tei-q">“Eclogadion,”</span> (or Tables of Proper Lessons from the
+Gospels and Apostolic writings daily throughout the year;)
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page197">[pg 197]</span><a name="Pg197" id="Pg197" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+together with <span class="tei tei-q">“Menologion,”</span> (or Calendar of immovable
+Festivals and Saints' Days.) That we are thoroughly acquainted
+with all of these, as exhibited in Codices of the
+viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>,
+ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> and
+x<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_345" name="noteref_345" href="#note_345"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">345</span></span></a> But it is no less certain
+that the scheme of Proper Lessons itself is of much
+higher antiquity.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">had</span></em> 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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page198">[pg 198]</span><a name="Pg198" id="Pg198" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+the employment of certain passages of Scripture is, in
+a manner, inevitable,<a id="noteref_346" name="noteref_346" href="#note_346"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">346</span></span></a> and may on no account be pressed.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. Thus, when Chrysostom<a id="noteref_347" name="noteref_347" href="#note_347"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">347</span></span></a> and when
+Epiphanius,<a id="noteref_348" name="noteref_348" href="#note_348"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">348</span></span></a> 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;<a id="noteref_349" name="noteref_349" href="#note_349"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">349</span></span></a> 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">proof</span></em> results therefrom that either chapter was actually used.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a known
+Ecclesiastical Lection</span></em>; 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the first words of
+as many known Lections</span></em>. <span class="tei tei-q">“Let us attend to this delightful
+section (περικοπή) which we never cease turning to,”</span>—are
+the opening words of Chrysostom's 79th Homily, of which
+<span class="tei tei-q">“the text”</span> is S. Matth. xxv. 31, i.e. the beginning of the
+Gospel for Sexagesima Sunday.—Cyril of Alexandria's (so
+called) <span class="tei tei-q">“Commentary on S. Luke”</span> is nothing else but a
+series of short Sermons, for the most part delivered on <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">known
+Ecclesiastical Lections</span></em>; which does not seem to have been as
+yet observed.—Augustine (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 416) says expressly that he
+had handled S. John's Gospel in precisely the same way.<a id="noteref_350" name="noteref_350" href="#note_350"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">350</span></span></a>—All this is significant in a high degree.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page199">[pg 199]</span><a name="Pg199" id="Pg199" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,—and
+which is contained in Syriac MSS. of the vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+and vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>—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<a id="noteref_351" name="noteref_351" href="#note_351"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">351</span></span></a> into my foundations.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-q">“Every one is aware,”</span> (says Chrysostom in a sermon
+on our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> Baptism, preached at Antioch,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 387,)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“that this is called the Festival of the Epiphany. Two
+manifestations are thereby intended: concerning both of
+which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">you have heard this day S. Paul discourse in his Epistle
+to Titus</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_352" name="noteref_352" href="#note_352"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">352</span></span></a>
+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,<a id="noteref_353" name="noteref_353" href="#note_353"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">353</span></span></a> the affinities of which with the
+East are well known.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) Epiphanius (speaking of the Feasts of the Church)
+says, that at the Nativity, a Star shewed that the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Word</span></span>
+had become incarnate: at the <span class="tei tei-q">“Theophania”</span> (<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“Epiphany”</span>)
+John cried, <span class="tei tei-q">“Behold the Lamb of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>,”</span> &amp;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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page200">[pg 200]</span><a name="Pg200" id="Pg200" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+liturgical arrangement of a yet earlier
+age.<a id="noteref_354" name="noteref_354" href="#note_354"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">354</span></span></a>—After such an
+announcement, it becomes a very striking circumstance that
+Augustine also (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 412) should be found to bear witness to
+the prevalence of the same liturgical arrangement in the
+African Church.<a id="noteref_355" name="noteref_355" href="#note_355"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">355</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">making some advantageous alterations</span></em>”</span>
+in our Lectionary, have constructed an entirely new one,—vicious
+in principle and liable to the gravest objections
+throughout,—whereby <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> link also which bound the Church
+of England to the practice of Primitive Christendom, has
+been unhappily broken; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> note of Catholicity also has
+been effaced.<a id="noteref_356" name="noteref_356" href="#note_356"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">356</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page201">[pg 201]</span><a name="Pg201" id="Pg201" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">d</span></span>) The purely arbitrary arrangement, (as Mr. Scrivener
+phrases it), by which the Book of Genesis, instead of the
+Gospel, is appointed to be read<a id="noteref_357" name="noteref_357" href="#note_357"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">357</span></span></a> on the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">week</span></em> 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.<a id="noteref_358" name="noteref_358" href="#note_358"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">358</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">e</span></span>) 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Agony
+and bloody Sweat,”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">immediately after S. Matth.</span></em> xxvi. 39.
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em> 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;<a id="noteref_359" name="noteref_359" href="#note_359"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">359</span></span></a>
+which shews that the Lectionary system of the Eastern
+Church in this respect is at least as old as the
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">f</span></span>) The same two verses used to be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">left out</span></em>
+on the Tuesday after Sexagesima (τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου) for which day S. Luke
+xxii. 39-xxiii. 1, is the appointed lection. And <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> explains
+why Cyril (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 425) in his Homilies on S. Luke,
+passes them by in silence.<a id="noteref_360" name="noteref_360" href="#note_360"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">360</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But we can carry back the witness to the Lectionary practice
+of omitting these verses, at least a hundred years; for
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page202">[pg 202]</span><a name="Pg202" id="Pg202" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Cod. B, (evidently for that same reason,) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></em> omits them,
+as was stated above, in p. <a href="#Pg079" class="tei tei-ref">79</a>. They are wanting also in the
+Thebaic version, which is of the iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> century.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">g</span></span>) It will be found suggested in the next chapter (page
+<a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref">218</a>) that the piercing of our
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> 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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century. But see
+<a href="#Appendix_H" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (H)</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">h</span></span>) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">alone</span></em> on the evening
+of Good Friday. Chrysostom clearly alludes to this practice;<a id="noteref_361" name="noteref_361" href="#note_361"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">361</span></span></a>
+which Augustine expressly states was also the practice
+in his own day.<a id="noteref_362" name="noteref_362" href="#note_362"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">362</span></span></a> Traces of the same method are
+discoverable in the old Gallican
+Lectionary.<a id="noteref_363" name="noteref_363" href="#note_363"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">363</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">i</span></span>) Epiphanius, (or the namesake of his who was the
+author of a well-known Homily on Palm Sunday,) remarks
+that <span class="tei tei-q">“yesterday”</span> had been read the history of the rising
+of Lazarus.<a id="noteref_364" name="noteref_364" href="#note_364"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">364</span></span></a>
+Now S. John xi. 1-45 is the lection for the
+antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">k</span></span>) 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> very fact becomes
+irrefragable evidence of the antiquity of the Lectionary
+which is the occasion of it. Not only must it be more
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page203">[pg 203]</span><a name="Pg203" id="Pg203" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+ancient than Cod. B or Cod. א, (which are referred to the
+beginning of the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century), but it must
+be older than Origen in the iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> century, or
+the Vetus Itala and the Syriac in the ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span>.
+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 vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> and
+vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: syper">th</span></span> century, and was in
+fact constructed in precisely the same way.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">must of necessity have been established very long before</span></em>. It is
+as when we read of three British Bishops attending the
+Council at Arles, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 314. The Church (we say) which
+could send out those three Bishops must have been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fully
+organized</span></em> at a greatly antecedent period.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 386) to be the five
+following:—(1) Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3) Pascha: (4)
+Ascension: (5) Pentecost.<a id="noteref_365" name="noteref_365" href="#note_365"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">365</span></span></a> Epiphanius, his contemporary,
+(Bishop of Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the
+same enumeration,<a id="noteref_366" name="noteref_366" href="#note_366"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">366</span></span></a>
+in a Homily on the Ascension.<a id="noteref_367" name="noteref_367" href="#note_367"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">367</span></span></a> In the Apostolical Constitutions, the same five Festivals are
+enumerated.<a id="noteref_368" name="noteref_368" href="#note_368"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">368</span></span></a> Let
+me state a few Liturgical facts in connexion with each of these.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page204">[pg 204]</span><a name="Pg204" id="Pg204" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It is plain that the preceding enumeration could not have
+been made at any earlier period: for the Epiphany of our
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> and His Nativity were originally but one
+Festival.<a id="noteref_369" name="noteref_369" href="#note_369"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">369</span></span></a> Moreover, the circumstances are well known under which
+Chrysostom (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_370" name="noteref_370" href="#note_370"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">370</span></span></a>
+But this is not material to the present inquiry.
+We know that, as a matter of fact, <span class="tei tei-q">“the Epiphanies”</span> (for
+τὰ ἐπιφανία is the name of the Festival) became in consequence
+distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5: our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span>
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Baptism</span></em> being the event chiefly commemorated on the latter
+anniversary,<a id="noteref_371" name="noteref_371" href="#note_371"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">371</span></span></a>—which used to be chiefly observed in honour
+of His <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Birth</span></em><a id="noteref_372" name="noteref_372" href="#note_372"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">372</span></span></a>—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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Homily”</span> which has already engaged so much of our attention,<a id="noteref_373" name="noteref_373" href="#note_373"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">373</span></span></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Mark's</span></em> with the rest.—Chrysostom
+once and again adverts to the practice of discontinuing the
+reading of the Acts after Pentecost,<a id="noteref_374" name="noteref_374" href="#note_374"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">374</span></span></a>—which
+is observed to be also the method of the Lectionaries.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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;<a id="noteref_375" name="noteref_375" href="#note_375"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">375</span></span></a> so
+exceedingly
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page205">[pg 205]</span><a name="Pg205" id="Pg205" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) The Lesson for Matins <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">on Ascension-Day</span></em> in the
+East, in the oldest documents to which we have access, consisted
+(as now it does) of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the last Twelve Verses</span></em>,—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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Synaxaria”</span> is constant to this effect.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) The same lection precisely was adopted among the
+Syrians by the Melchite Churches,<a id="noteref_376" name="noteref_376" href="#note_376"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">376</span></span></a>—(the
+party, viz. which maintained the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon): and it
+is found appointed also in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Evangeliarium
+Hierosolymitanum.”</span><a id="noteref_377" name="noteref_377" href="#note_377"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">377</span></span></a> 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,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the last seven</span></em> verses of S. Mark's Gospel (ch. xvi. 14-20)
+were read <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at the Liturgy</span></em>.<a id="noteref_378" name="noteref_378" href="#note_378"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">378</span></span></a> Strange, that the self-same Gospel
+should have been adopted at a remote age by some of
+the Churches of the West,<a id="noteref_379" name="noteref_379" href="#note_379"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">379</span></span></a> and should survive in our own
+Book of Common Prayer to this hour!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Matin Gospels
+of the Resurrection</span></em>”</span> which were universally held in high
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page206">[pg 206]</span><a name="Pg206" id="Pg206" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian<a id="noteref_380" name="noteref_380" href="#note_380"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">380</span></span></a>), and
+were read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the
+year; as well as daily throughout Easter week.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">d</span></span>) A rubricated copy of S. Mark's Gospel in
+Syriac,<a id="noteref_381" name="noteref_381" href="#note_381"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">381</span></span></a>
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">certainly older than </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span></em> 583, attests that
+S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was the <span class="tei tei-q">“Lection for the great First Day of the week,”</span> (μεγάλη
+κυριακή, i.e. Easter Day). Other copies almost as
+ancient<a id="noteref_382" name="noteref_382" href="#note_382"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">382</span></span></a>
+add that it was used <span class="tei tei-q">“at the end of the Service at the dawn.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">e</span></span>) Further, these same <span class="tei tei-q">“Twelve Verses”</span> constituted the
+Lesson at Matins for <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the 2nd Sunday after Easter</span></em>,—a Sunday
+which by the Greeks is called κυριακή τῶν μυροφόρων, but
+with the Syrians bore the names of <span class="tei tei-q">“Joseph and Nicodemus.”</span><a id="noteref_383" name="noteref_383" href="#note_383"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">383</span></span></a>
+So also in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">f</span></span>) Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark
+xvi. 9-18 (or 9-20<a id="noteref_384" name="noteref_384" href="#note_384"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">384</span></span></a>) was also read at Matins on
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Easter-Tuesday</span></em>.<a id="noteref_385" name="noteref_385" href="#note_385"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">385</span></span></a>
+In the Gallican Church, the third lection for
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Easter-Monday</span></em> extended from S. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 11: for
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Easter-Tuesday</span></em>, from xvi. 12 to the end of the
+Gospel.<a id="noteref_386" name="noteref_386" href="#note_386"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">386</span></span></a>
+Augustine says that in Africa also these concluding verses
+of S. Mark's Gospel used to be publicly read <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at Easter
+tide</span></em>.<a id="noteref_387" name="noteref_387" href="#note_387"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">387</span></span></a>
+The same verses (beginning with ver. 9) are indicated in the
+oldest extant Lectionary of the Roman
+Church.<a id="noteref_388" name="noteref_388" href="#note_388"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">388</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">g</span></span>) 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.<a id="noteref_389" name="noteref_389" href="#note_389"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">389</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page207">[pg 207]</span><a name="Pg207" id="Pg207" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">He</span></em> knows wondrous little about this department of Sacred
+Science who can require to be informed that such a weight
+of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">public</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at least</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at least at that time</span></em> fully established throughout the
+Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, which seems to have
+been essentially one and the same in the West<a id="noteref_390" name="noteref_390" href="#note_390"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">390</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">anterior to the age of
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page208">[pg 208]</span><a name="Pg208" id="Pg208" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-style: italic">
+Eusebius,—which is the age of Codices B and</span></em> א,—at least
+admits of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> controversy.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) Next,—Documents of the vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+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,<a id="noteref_391" name="noteref_391" href="#note_391"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">391</span></span></a> 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
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century was universally acquainted.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there they still are</span></em>. Moreover they
+may yet reappear at any moment. Thus, there exist Syriac
+MSS. of the Gospels of the vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> and even of
+the vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">dated</span></em> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 464.<a id="noteref_392" name="noteref_392" href="#note_392"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">392</span></span></a> Should an
+Evangelium of similar date
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page209">[pg 209]</span><a name="Pg209" id="Pg209" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+and even in the iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> 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
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the age immediately
+succeeding that of the Apostles</span></em>. This will be found established
+in the course of the ensuing Chapter.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">quite</span></em>,—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) Into this Lectionary then,—so universal in its extent,
+so consistent in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the</span></em>
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Last Twelve Verses</span></span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of the Gospel according to
+S. Mark</span></em>”</span> from the very first are found to have won for
+themselves not only an entrance, a lodgment, an established
+place; but, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the place of highest honour</span></em>,—an audience on two
+of the Church's chiefest Festivals.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The circumstance is far too important, far too significant
+to be passed by without a few words of comment.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+For it is not here, (be it carefully observed,) as when
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page210">[pg 210]</span><a name="Pg210" id="Pg210" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">All
+the Twelve Verses in dispute are found in every known copy</span></em>
+of the venerable Lectionary of the East. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Those same Twelve
+Verses</span></em>,—neither more nor less,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">are observed to constitute
+one integral Lection</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“fragment,”</span> however
+<span class="tei tei-q">“remarkable,”</span> could by possibility have so established itself
+in the regards of the East and of the West, from the very
+first. No suspected <span class="tei tei-q">“addition, placed here in very early
+times,”</span> would have been tolerated in the Church's solemn
+public Service six or seven times a-year. No. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">It is impossible.</span></em>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">pericopa
+de adulterâ</span></span>) 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:—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page211">[pg 211]</span><a name="Pg211" id="Pg211" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+senses? or do they really suppose that we have taken leave
+of ours?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">They</span></em> may doubt. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The ante-Nicene
+Fathers</span></em> at least never doubted. If <span class="tei tei-q">“the last Twelve
+Verses”</span> of S. Mark were <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">deservedly</span></em> omitted from certain
+Copies of his Gospel in the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,
+utterly incredible is it that these same <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Twelve Verses</span></span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Easter</span></span> time, as well as on
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ascension-Day</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page212">[pg 212]</span><a name="Pg212" id="Pg212" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc29" id="toc29"></a>
+<a name="pdf30" id="pdf30"></a>
+<a name="Chapter_XI" id="Chapter_XI" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER XI.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN
+ANCIENT COPIES OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND
+ACCOUNTED FOR.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+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.
+</span><a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">217</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—The omission of S. Mark's </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">last Twelve
+Verses,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> (constituting an integral Ecclesiastical Lection,) shewn to be probably
+only one more example of the same depraving influence (p. </span><a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">224</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).
+This solution of the problem corroborated by the language of Eusebius
+and of Hesychius (p. </span><a href="#Pg232" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">232</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">); as well as favoured by the
+</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Western</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> order of the Gospels (p. </span><a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">239</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">their genuineness</span></em> was anciently <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suspected</span></em>. 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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“the entire passage”</span><a id="noteref_393" name="noteref_393" href="#note_393"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">393</span></span></a> was <span class="tei tei-q">“not met with
+in all the copies,”</span> is the sum of his evidence: and two Greek manuscripts, yet
+extant, supposed to be of the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century
+(Codd. B and א), mutilated in this precise way, testify to the truth of his
+statement.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Verses,—neither
+more nor less,—anciently constituted <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">an integral
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page213">[pg 213]</span><a name="Pg213" id="Pg213" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-style: italic">
+Ecclesiastical Lection</span></em>; 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. <a href="#Pg045" class="tei tei-ref">45</a>),
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">interdependent</span></em>? Will not the omission
+of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark from certain
+ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">occasioned
+by the fact</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to be explained</span></em>, and in a word <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">accounted
+for</span></em>,—by the circumstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark's
+xvi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> chapter, one ancient Lection <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">came
+to an end</span></em>, and another ancient Lection <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">began</span></em>?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page214">[pg 214]</span><a name="Pg214" id="Pg214" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Evidence; and I am much mistaken if even <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. From the earliest ages of the Church, (as I shewed
+at page <a href="#Pg192" class="tei tei-ref">192-5</a>,) 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Evangelistarium</span></span>,”</span> (εὐαγγελιστάριον,)—from
+the Acts and Epistles, in a book called <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Praxapostolus</span></span>,”</span>
+(πραξαπόστολος). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and Syriac,
+are yet extant in great numbers,<a id="noteref_394" name="noteref_394" href="#note_394"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">394</span></span></a>
+and (I may remark in
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page215">[pg 215]</span><a name="Pg215" id="Pg215" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+passing) deserve a far greater amount of attention than has
+hitherto been bestowed upon them.<a id="noteref_395" name="noteref_395" href="#note_395"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">395</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">When</span></em> 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
+viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to adapt copies of the Gospel
+to lectionary purposes</span></em>. I suspect that this practice began in
+the Churches of Syria; for Syriac copies of the Gospels (<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at
+least</span></em> of the vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century) abound,
+which have the Lections more or less systematically rubricated in the
+Text.<a id="noteref_396" name="noteref_396" href="#note_396"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">396</span></span></a> There
+is in the British Museum a copy of S. Mark's Gospel according
+to the Peshito version, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">certainly written previous to
+</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span></em> 583, which has at least five or six rubrics so
+inserted by the original scribe.<a id="noteref_397" name="noteref_397" href="#note_397"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">397</span></span></a> As a rule,
+in all later cursive Greek MSS., (I mean those of the
+xii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> to the
+xv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">when</span></em> the ensuing
+portion of Scripture was to be read. The ancients, to
+a far greater extent than ourselves,<a id="noteref_398" name="noteref_398" href="#note_398"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">398</span></span></a> were accustomed,—(in
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page216">[pg 216]</span><a name="Pg216" id="Pg216" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+fact, they made it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a rule</span></em>,)—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.<a id="noteref_399" name="noteref_399" href="#note_399"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">399</span></span></a> All that belongs to this
+subject deserves particular attention; because it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">liturgical note</span></em>, became mistaken, through
+the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">critical
+suggestion</span></em>; 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">systematic</span></em> rubrication of
+the Gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively recent
+invention,—(I question if it be older in Greek MSS. than
+the x<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,)—yet
+will persons engaged in the public Services of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span>
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page217">[pg 217]</span><a name="Pg217" id="Pg217" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+the text of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail to
+add, that by a judicious, and above all by an <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unprejudiced</span></em>
+use of the materials at our disposal, it may, even at this
+distance of time, in every such particular, be successfully
+restored.<a id="noteref_400" name="noteref_400" href="#note_400"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">400</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+III. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances,
+that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">even in the oldest copies in existence</span></em>, 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">primâ facie</span></span> improbability will have been satisfactorily
+disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such
+a disturbing force and depraving influence, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at least</span></em> as far
+back as the beginning of the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the last Twelve Verses”</span> of
+S. Mark's Gospel is probably but one more instance,—though
+confessedly by far the most extraordinary of any.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, the two
+grand verses which describe our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Agony and Bloody
+Sweat,”</span> (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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Confessedly erring,”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_401" name="noteref_401" href="#note_401"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">401</span></span></a> Of course they are also
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">omitted</span></em> in the same Evangelistaria from the lesson for the Tuesday
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page218">[pg 218]</span><a name="Pg218" id="Pg218" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the reader of S. Luke
+xxii. is invariably directed by a marginal note to leave out those
+two verses</span></em>, and to proceed per saltum from ver. 42 to ver.
+45.<a id="noteref_402" name="noteref_402" href="#note_402"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">402</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. א, C, L, U and Γ
+are observed here to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page219">[pg 219]</span><a name="Pg219" id="Pg219" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+πλευρὰν: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα. (Chrysostom's codex was
+evidently vitiated in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">precisely</span></em> the same way.) This interpolation
+therefore may have resulted from the corrupting influence
+of Tatian's (so-called) <span class="tei tei-q">“Harmony.”</span> See <a href="#Appendix_H" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (H)</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) To keep on safe ground. Codd. B and D concur in what
+Alford justly calls the <span class="tei tei-q">“grave error”</span> of simply omitting
+from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“grave error”</span> in so many ancient
+MSS. to be accounted for? (for a <span class="tei tei-q">“grave error”</span> or rather
+<span class="tei tei-q">“a fatal omission”</span> it certainly is). Simply by the fact that
+in the Eastern Church the Lection for the Thursday after
+Sexagesima <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">breaks off abruptly, immediately before these very
+words</span></em>,—to recommence at ver. 44.<a id="noteref_403" name="noteref_403" href="#note_403"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">403</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) Note, that at ver. 32, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the eighth </span><span class="tei tei-q">“Gospel of the Passion”</span><span style="font-style: italic">
+begins</span></em>,—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(If I do not here insist that the absence of the famous
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">pericopa de adulterâ</span></span> (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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">leaving out the twelve verses</span></em> 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.)
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page220">[pg 220]</span><a name="Pg220" id="Pg220" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ecclesiastical lection begins
+here</span></em>, and that the Evangelistaria (which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invariably</span></em> 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,<a id="noteref_404" name="noteref_404" href="#note_404"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">404</span></span></a>) it is sufficiently explained
+by the Lectionary practice of the Church,—which may well
+date back even to the immediately post-Apostolic age.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the liturgical
+introduction of a Church-lesson</span></em><a id="noteref_405" name="noteref_405" href="#note_405"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">405</span></span></a> which afterwards began εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν
+ταύτην.<a id="noteref_406" name="noteref_406" href="#note_406"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">406</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv.
+begin with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the liturgical formula</span></em>,—(it survives in our Book of
+Common Prayer<a id="noteref_407" name="noteref_407" href="#note_407"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">407</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">throughout</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(8.) Cod. A, (supported by Athanasius, the Vulgate,
+Gothic, and Philoxenian versions,) for καί, in S. Luke ix. 57,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page221">[pg 221]</span><a name="Pg221" id="Pg221" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">an Ecclesiastical lection begins here</span></em>.<a id="noteref_408" name="noteref_408" href="#note_408"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">408</span></span></a> In different Churches,
+the formula with which the lection was introduced slightly
+differed.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The Ecclesiastical
+lection</span></em> for Wednesday in the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+week after Pentecost <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">begins at that place</span></em>; and begins with the
+formula,—ἐν τῷ καίρῳ ἐκεινῳ, ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὀνειδίζειν.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ecclesiastical
+lections begin at those places</span></em>,<a id="noteref_409" name="noteref_409" href="#note_409"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">409</span></span></a>
+that the Holy Name is introduced there.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ecclesiastical
+lection begins</span></em>.<a id="noteref_410" name="noteref_410" href="#note_410"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">410</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a Church lesson begins there</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page222">[pg 222]</span><a name="Pg222" id="Pg222" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>
+finds particular mention. It is only because that verse was
+claimed both as the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">conclusion</span></em> of the
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> and also as the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">beginning</span></em> of the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+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) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">rejects it from the text altogether</span></em>?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(13.) Codices B, א, and D are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">alone</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there</span></em> the Church-lesson
+for Tuesday in the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> week after Easter
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">came to an end</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Sunday after Pentecost in
+that unauthorized manner.<a id="noteref_411" name="noteref_411" href="#note_411"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">411</span></span></a>
+But it is not only in cursive MSS. that these words are
+found. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">They are met with also in the Codex Sinaiticus</span></em> (א):
+a witness at once to the inveteracy of Liturgical usage in
+the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century of our æra,
+and to the corruptions which the <span class="tei tei-q">“Codex omnium antiquissimus”</span>
+will no doubt have inherited from a yet older copy than itself.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page223">[pg 223]</span><a name="Pg223" id="Pg223" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.<a id="noteref_412" name="noteref_412" href="#note_412"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">412</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">after</span></em> Ἱεροσόλυμα: when, lastly, two of Field's
+MSS.,<a id="noteref_413" name="noteref_413" href="#note_413"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">413</span></span></a> and one of
+Matthaei's, (and I dare say a great many more, if the truth were known,) omit the words
+ὁ Ἰησοῦς entirely:—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">who</span></em> sees not that the true disturbing force in
+this place, from the ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span> century of our æra
+downwards, has been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Lectionary practice of the primitive
+Church</span></em>?—the fact that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there</span></em> the lection for the Thursday
+after the viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+Sunday after Pentecost began?—And this may suffice.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+IV. It has been proved then, in what goes before, more
+effectually even than in a preceding page,<a id="noteref_414" name="noteref_414" href="#note_414"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">414</span></span></a> not only that
+Ecclesiastical Lections corresponding with those indicated
+in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Synaxaria”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> is the only point
+I am now concerned to establish), that <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">our five oldest Copies
+of the Gospels</span></span>,—B and א as well as A, C and D,—exhibit
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page224">[pg 224]</span><a name="Pg224" id="Pg224" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+not a few traces of the mischievous agency alluded to;
+errors, and especially <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">omissions</span></em>, 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+A familiar contraction, executed probably in vermillion [χ over αρ],
+ἀρ, indicates the <span class="tei tei-q">“beginning”</span> (ἀρχή) of each lection: a corresponding
+contraction (ε over τ, τε, τελ), indicates its <span class="tei tei-q">“end”</span>
+(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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“beginning”</span> and the <span class="tei tei-q">“end”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the margin</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">into the body of the text</span></em>.<a id="noteref_415" name="noteref_415" href="#note_415"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">415</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 844), there occurs no indication of the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“end”</span> of a single lection in S. Luke's Gospel, until chap.
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page225">[pg 225]</span><a name="Pg225" id="Pg225" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_416" name="noteref_416" href="#note_416"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">416</span></span></a> In the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">oldest</span></em> uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even in
+the Codex Bezæ, (vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,) not
+a single liturgical direction <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">coeval with the MS.</span></em> is anywhere to be found.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+xii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century;
+and although, previous to the ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century, systematic liturgical directions are probably unknown;<a id="noteref_417" name="noteref_417" href="#note_417"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">417</span></span></a> the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">need</span></em>
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page226">[pg 226]</span><a name="Pg226" id="Pg226" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+the third day of the ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_418" name="noteref_418" href="#note_418"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">418</span></span></a> I find D's error here is shared (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) by
+the Peshito Syriac, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) by the old Latin,
+and (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) by the Philoxenian: venerable partners
+in error, truly! for the first two probably carry back
+this false reading to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the second century of our æra</span></em>; and so,
+furnish one more remarkable proof, to be added to the fifteen
+(or rather the forty) already enumerated (pp. <a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref">217-23</a>), 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“the end”</span> of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Church-lection</span></em>
+for the ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span> Sunday after Easter,) should have
+unhappily suggested to some copyist,—καλλιγραφίας <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">quam vel
+Criticæ Sacræ vel rerum Liturgicarum peritior</span></span>,—the notion that the
+entire <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Gospel according to S. Mark</span></em>,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note</span></em>
+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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page227">[pg 227]</span><a name="Pg227" id="Pg227" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to transcribe</span></em> any further, having before him, (as he thought,)
+an assurance that <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the end</span></span>”</span> had been reached at ver. 8.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_419" name="noteref_419" href="#note_419"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">419</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“they would be in
+a manner superfluous <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">if it should appear that their testimony
+is at variance with that of the other Evangelists</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_420" name="noteref_420" href="#note_420"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">420</span></span></a> (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.<a id="noteref_421" name="noteref_421" href="#note_421"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">421</span></span></a>
+(1) First, because there really was no need to withhold more
+than three,—at the utmost, five of them,—if <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> had been
+the reason of the omission. (2) Next, because it would have
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page228">[pg 228]</span><a name="Pg228" id="Pg228" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <a href="#Chapter_X" class="tei tei-ref">Chap. X.</a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">something</span></em> of the
+circumstance; and in ancient MSS., if I am right, I ought
+certainly to meet with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every
+copy of the Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris;<a id="noteref_422" name="noteref_422" href="#note_422"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">422</span></span></a> and
+devoted seventy hours exactly, with unflagging delight, to
+the task. The success of the experiment astonished me.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. I began with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our</span></em> Cod. 24 ( = Reg. 178) of the Gospels:
+turned to the last page of S. Mark: and beheld, in a Codex
+of the xi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Century wholly
+devoid of the Lectionary apparatus
+which is sometimes found in MSS. of a similar
+date,<a id="noteref_423" name="noteref_423" href="#note_423"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">423</span></span></a>
+at fol. 104, the word + ΤΕΛΟΣ + conspicuously written
+by the original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page229">[pg 229]</span><a name="Pg229" id="Pg229" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+well as at the close of the Gospel. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">It occurred besides only
+at ch.</span></em> ix. 9, (the end of the lesson for the Transfiguration.)
+And yet there are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at least seventy</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) set down unabbreviated,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) in black ink, and (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>)
+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.<a id="noteref_424" name="noteref_424" href="#note_424"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">424</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. 36.<a id="noteref_425" name="noteref_425" href="#note_425"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">425</span></span></a> 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;<a id="noteref_426" name="noteref_426" href="#note_426"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">426</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> Ecclesiastical lection came to
+an end,—it will be felt that the MS. before us (of the
+xi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century) if it was not actually
+transcribed from,—must at least exhibit at second hand,—a far
+more ancient Codex.<a id="noteref_427" name="noteref_427" href="#note_427"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">427</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page230">[pg 230]</span><a name="Pg230" id="Pg230" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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<a id="noteref_428" name="noteref_428" href="#note_428"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">428</span></span></a> in red letters. The whole stands thus:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ + ΤΕΛΟΣ +—<br />
+[cross] ΕΝ ΤΙΣΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΩΝ.<br />
+ΕΩΣ ΩΔΕ ΠΛΗΡΟΥΤΑΙ Ο ΕΥ<br />
+ΑΓΓΕΛΙΣΤΗΣ: ΕΝ ΠΟΛΛΟΙΣ<br />
+ΔΕ. ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΕΤΑΙ +—<br />
+ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ. ΠΡΟΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩΝ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+And then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of
+which, the sign + ΤΕΛΟΣ + is again repeated,—which sign,
+however, occurs <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nowhere else</span></em> in the MS. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nor at the end of any of
+the other three Gospels</span></em>. 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“In certain copies, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Evangelist proceeds no
+further</span></em>.”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page231">[pg 231]</span><a name="Pg231" id="Pg231" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+S. Mark for instance is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invariably</span></em> either ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as
+in B and א): or else ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as
+in A and C, and the other older uncials): <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">never</span></em> ΤΕΛΟΣ.
+But here is a Scribe who first copies the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">liturgical</span></em> note ΤΕΛΟΣ,—and
+then volunteers the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">critical</span></em> observation that <span class="tei tei-q">“in some
+copies of S. Mark's Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no further!”</span>
+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!
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_429" name="noteref_429" href="#note_429"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">429</span></span></a> Enough
+has been said already to shew,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2ndly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page232">[pg 232]</span><a name="Pg232" id="Pg232" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3rdly.) As a matter of fact, there are found to have
+existed before the time of Eusebius, copies of S. Mark's
+Gospel which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">did</span></em> come to an end at this very place. Now,
+that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Evangelist</span></em> left off there, no one can
+believe.<a id="noteref_430" name="noteref_430" href="#note_430"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">430</span></span></a> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Why</span></em>,
+then, did <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Scribe</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">belongs</span></em> to
+the lock; is, in fact, the only instrument by which the chest
+may lawfully be opened.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> 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.<a id="noteref_431" name="noteref_431" href="#note_431"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">431</span></span></a> Do, then, the
+terms in which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eusebius</span></em> alludes to this matter lend us any
+assistance? Let us have the original indictment read over
+to us once more: and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> time we are bound to listen to
+every word of it with the utmost possible attention.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page233">[pg 233]</span><a name="Pg233" id="Pg233" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. A problem is proposed for solution. <span class="tei tei-q">“There are two
+ways of solving it,”</span> (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, <span class="tei tei-q">“καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”</span>
+Ἐν τούτῳ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατά Μάρκον
+εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ<a id="noteref_432" name="noteref_432" href="#note_432"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">432</span></span></a> ... Let us halt here for one moment.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em> we perceive to be of paramount significancy?
+Eusebius is pointing out that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Ecclesiastical Lection”</span><a id="noteref_433" name="noteref_433" href="#note_433"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">433</span></span></a> 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) <span class="tei tei-q">“will say that it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not met with in all</span></em>
+the copies of S. Mark's Gospel. The accurate copies, at all
+events,”</span>—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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">recognises the very phenomenon to which I have been calling
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page234">[pg 234]</span><a name="Pg234" id="Pg234" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-style: italic">
+attention</span></em> within the last two pages, and which I need not
+further insist upon or explain: viz. that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the words</span></em> ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">were</span></em> in some very ancient (<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the accurate</span></em>”</span>) copies
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">found written after</span></em> ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ: although to an unsuspicious reader
+the expression which he uses may well seem to denote
+nothing more than that the second Gospel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">generally came
+to an end</span></em> there.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">almost all the Greek
+copies</span></em> were without our <span class="tei tei-q">“last Twelve Verses”</span> of S. Mark's
+Gospel:<a id="noteref_434" name="noteref_434" href="#note_434"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">434</span></span></a>
+whereas Eusebius really <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does nowhere say so</span></em>. He
+expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a somewhat unusual
+phrase<a id="noteref_435" name="noteref_435" href="#note_435"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">435</span></span></a> which perhaps admits of no exact English counterpart:
+but what he says clearly amounts to no more than
+this,—that <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the accurate</span></em> copies, at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,
+circumscribe <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the end</span></span> (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of Mark's narrative:”</span> that
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there</span></em>, <span class="tei tei-q">“in almost all the Copies of the Gospel according to
+Mark, is circumscribed <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the end</span></span>.”</span> He says no more. He
+does not say that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“is circumscribed <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Gospel</span></em>.”</span> As
+for the twelve verses which follow, he merely declares that
+they were <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not met with in all</span></em> the copies;”</span> i.e. that some
+copies did not contain them. But this, so far from being
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page235">[pg 235]</span><a name="Pg235" id="Pg235" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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. <a href="#Pg048" class="tei tei-ref">48-9</a>,] 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">what
+might be urged</span></em> by one desirous of shelving a difficulty suggested
+by their contents;—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1st.) That from <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> ancient copies of S. Mark's Gospel
+these last Twelve Verses were away.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2nd.) That in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">almost</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the end
+of the Gospel</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_436" name="noteref_436" href="#note_436"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">436</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“for ever mooted by every body.”</span><a id="noteref_437" name="noteref_437" href="#note_437"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">437</span></span></a>
+I suspect (with Matthaei, [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">suprà</span></span>, p.
+<a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref">66</a>,]) that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Origen</span></em> is the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">true</span></em> author of all this confusion. He certainly relates of himself
+that among his voluminous exegetical writings was a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">treatise
+on S. Mark's Gospel</span></em>.<a id="noteref_438" name="noteref_438" href="#note_438"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">438</span></span></a> To Origen's works, Eusebius, (his
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page236">[pg 236]</span><a name="Pg236" id="Pg236" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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. <a href="#Pg096" class="tei tei-ref">96-7</a>). And this would not be the first
+occasion on which it would appear that when an ancient
+Writer speaks of <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the accurate copies</span></em>”</span>, what he actually
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">means is the text of Scripture which was employed or approved
+by Origen</span></em>.<a id="noteref_439" name="noteref_439" href="#note_439"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">439</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> say, as Jerome, from his
+loose translation of the passage,<a id="noteref_440" name="noteref_440" href="#note_440"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">440</span></span></a> evidently
+imagined,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">omnibus
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page237">[pg 237]</span><a name="Pg237" id="Pg237" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-style: italic">
+Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus</span></span>:”</span>
+but only,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">non in omnibus Evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum
+inveniri</span></span>;”</span> which is an entirely different thing. Eusebius
+adds,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Accuratiora saltem exemplaria <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">finem</span></span> narrationis
+secundum Marcum circumscribunt in verbis ἐφοβοῦντο
+γάρ;”</span>—and, <span class="tei tei-q">“In hoc, fere in omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii
+secundum Marcum, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">finem</span></span> circumscribi.”</span>—The point,
+however, of greatest interest is, that Eusebius here calls attention
+to the prevalence in MSS. of his time of the very <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">liturgical
+peculiarity</span></em> 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. <a href="#Pg230" class="tei tei-ref">230</a>,) and, rightly understood, does not go a whit
+beyond it.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,”</span> ἔχει ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.<a id="noteref_441" name="noteref_441" href="#note_441"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">441</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Liturgical hint</span></em>, (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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">did</span></em>. Origen at all events, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">more suo</span></span>,) will have
+remarked on the phenomenon before him; and Eusebius will have
+adopted his remarks,—as the heralds say, <span class="tei tei-q">“with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a
+difference</span></em>”</span>—simply because they suited his purpose, and seemed
+to him ingenious and interesting.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+7. For the copy in question,—(<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">like</span></em> 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,<a id="noteref_442" name="noteref_442" href="#note_442"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">442</span></span></a>)—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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page238">[pg 238]</span><a name="Pg238" id="Pg238" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">solely</span></em>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+XII. But <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em>, (it may reasonably be asked,)—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Why</span></em> should
+there have been anything exceptional in the way of indicating
+the end of this particular Lection? <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Why</span></em> should
+τέλος be so constantly found written after S. Mark xvi. 8?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,<a id="noteref_443" name="noteref_443" href="#note_443"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">443</span></span></a>)
+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:<a id="noteref_444" name="noteref_444" href="#note_444"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">444</span></span></a> in the Churches of
+the Jacobite, or Monophysite Christians, the Eucharistic
+lesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1-8.<a id="noteref_445" name="noteref_445" href="#note_445"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">445</span></span></a> (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.<a id="noteref_446" name="noteref_446" href="#note_446"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">446</span></span></a>
+(6) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em> same third matin lesson of the Resurrection
+was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; as
+well in the Syrian<a id="noteref_447" name="noteref_447" href="#note_447"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">447</span></span></a> as in the Greek<a id="noteref_448" name="noteref_448" href="#note_448"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">448</span></span></a> Churches. (7) With
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page239">[pg 239]</span><a name="Pg239" id="Pg239" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+the Monophysite Christians, the lection <span class="tei tei-q">“feriae tertiae in
+albis, ad primam vesperam,”</span> (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.<a id="noteref_449" name="noteref_449" href="#note_449"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">449</span></span></a>—During eighteen weeks
+after Easter therefore, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the only parts</span></em> of S. Mark's Gospel
+publicly read were (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) the last thirteen [ch. xv. 43-xvi. 8],
+and (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the last twelve</span></em>”</span> [ch. xvi. 9-20]
+verses. Can it be deemed a strange thing that it should have been found
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">indispensable</span></em> 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?<a id="noteref_450" name="noteref_450" href="#note_450"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">450</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Gospel according to S. Mark
+frequently stood last</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+This is memorably the case in respect of the Codex Bezae
+[vi]: more memorably yet, in respect of the Gothic version
+of Ulphilas (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the usual Western order</span></em>. Accordingly
+it is thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. Vercellensis
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>), Veronensis (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>), Palatinus
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">e</span></span>), Brixianus (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">f</span></span>) of the
+old Latin version. But this order is not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">exclusively</span></em> Western.
+It is found in Cod. 309. It is also observed in Matthaei's
+Codd. 13, 14, (which last is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our</span></em> Evan. 256), at Moscow. And
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page240">[pg 240]</span><a name="Pg240" id="Pg240" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+in the same order Eusebius and others of the ancients<a id="noteref_451" name="noteref_451" href="#note_451"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">451</span></span></a> 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;<a id="noteref_452" name="noteref_452" href="#note_452"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">452</span></span></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sometimes</span></em> happened that S. Mark xvi. 8 came to
+be written <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at the bottom of the left hand page</span></em> of a
+MS.<a id="noteref_453" name="noteref_453" href="#note_453"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">453</span></span></a> And
+we have but to suppose that in the case of one such Codex
+the next leaf, which would have been <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the last</span></em>, was
+missing,—(<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the very thing which has happened in respect of one of the
+Codices at Moscow</span></em><a id="noteref_454" name="noteref_454" href="#note_454"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">454</span></span></a>)—and what else
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">could</span></em> result when a copyist reached the words,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ. ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of course</span></em>. 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the last verse of
+S. John's Gospel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is omitted</span></em> in Cod. 63:”</span> the truth of the
+matter being (as Mr. Scrivener has lately proved) that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the
+</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page241">[pg 241]</span><a name="Pg241" id="Pg241" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-style: italic">
+last leaf</span></em> of Cod. 63,—on which the last verse of S. John's
+Gospel was demonstrably once written,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">has been
+lost</span></em>.<a id="noteref_455" name="noteref_455" href="#note_455"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">455</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+XIV. To sum up.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. It will be perceived that I suppose the omission of
+<span class="tei tei-q">“the last Twelve Verses”</span> of S. Mark's Gospel to have
+originated in a sheer error and misconception on the part
+of some very ancient Copyist. He <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">saw</span></em> ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ written after
+ver. 8: he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">assumed</span></em> that it was the Subscription, or at least
+that it denoted <span class="tei tei-q">“the End,”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of the Gospel</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“regard what followed as superfluous
+from its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of
+the other Evangelists;”</span><a id="noteref_456" name="noteref_456" href="#note_456"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">456</span></span></a>—and that in this way the error
+became propagated;—is likely enough. But an error it
+most certainly was: and to that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">error</span></em>, the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">accident</span></em> described
+in the last preceding paragraph <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">would have</span></em> very materially
+conduced, and it may have very easily done so.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. I request however that it may be observed that the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“accident”</span> is not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">needed</span></em> in order to account for the <span class="tei tei-q">“error.”</span>
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">did</span></em> occur in an altogether exceptional manner in
+that very place. Moreover, we have ascertained that its
+meaning was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not understood</span></em> by the transcribers of ancient
+MSS.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+4. And will any one venture to maintain that it is to him
+a thing incredible that an intelligent copyist of the
+iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the End”</span> of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Mark's Gospel</span></em>?—Shall
+I be told that, even if <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> can have so entirely overlooked
+the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer it
+to insinuate itself into his text,<a id="noteref_457" name="noteref_457" href="#note_457"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">457</span></span></a> it is nevertheless so improbable
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page242">[pg 242]</span><a name="Pg242" id="Pg242" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+as to pass all credence that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">another</span></em> can have supposed
+that it designated <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the termination of the Gospel</span></em> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one and all, without exception, misunderstood
+the same word occurring in the same place, and in
+precisely the same way</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Yes. The forgotten inadvertence of a solitary Scribe in
+the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">second</span></em> or <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">third</span></em> century has been, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the
+nineteenth</span></em>, deliberately
+reproduced, adopted, and stereotyped by every Critic
+and every Editor of the New Testament in turn.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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?<a id="noteref_458" name="noteref_458" href="#note_458"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">458</span></span></a> 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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τέλος,”</span>—(for which they are so careful
+to refer us to <span class="tei tei-q">“Cod. 22,”</span>)—is an indication that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there</span></em>, by
+rights, comes <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the </span><span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">End</span></span>”</span><span style="font-style: italic"> of the Gospel according to
+S. Mark</span></em>. They have failed to perceive that ΤΕΛΟΣ in that place is only
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a liturgical sign</span></em>,—the same with which (in its contracted
+form) they are sufficiently familiar; and that it serves no
+other purpose whatever, but to mark that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there</span></em> a famous
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ecclesiastical Lection</span></em> comes to an end.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+With a few pages of summary, we may now bring this
+long disquisition to an end.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page243">[pg 243]</span><a name="Pg243" id="Pg243" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc31" id="toc31"></a>
+<a name="pdf32" id="pdf32"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">CHAPTER XII.</span></h1>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF
+THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE
+SUBJECT.</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+This discussion narrowed to a single issue (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg244" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">244</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—That S. Mark's Gospel was imperfect from the
+very first, a thing altogether incredible (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg246" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">246</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">):—But that at some very remote period Copies have
+suffered mutilation, a supposition probable in the highest degree
+(p. </span><a href="#Pg248" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">248</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Consequences of this admission (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg252" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">252</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">).—Parting words (p.
+</span><a href="#Pg254" class="tei tei-ref"><span style="font-size: 90%">254</span></a><span style="font-size: 90%">.)
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+This Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem
+was fully explained at the outset.<a id="noteref_459" name="noteref_459" href="#note_459"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">459</span></span></a>
+All the known evidence has since been produced,<a id="noteref_460" name="noteref_460" href="#note_460"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">460</span></span></a>
+every Witness examined.<a id="noteref_461" name="noteref_461" href="#note_461"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">461</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">single issue</span></em> 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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It being freely admitted that, in the beginning of the
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">How is this phenomenon
+to be accounted for?</span></em>... 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But the most recent Editors of the text of the New Testament,
+declining to entertain so much as the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">possibility</span></em> that
+certain copies of the second Gospel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">had experienced mutilation
+in very early times</span></em> in respect of these Twelve concluding
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page244">[pg 244]</span><a name="Pg244" id="Pg244" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Verses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather with conjectures
+as to how it may have happened that S. Mark's
+Gospel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was without a conclusion from the very first</span></em>. Persuaded
+that no more probable account is to be given of the phenomenon
+than that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Evangelist himself put forth a Gospel
+which</span></em> (for some unexplained reason) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">terminated abruptly at
+the words</span></em> 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:
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">First</span></span>,—That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the
+hands of its inspired Author, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was in this imperfect or unfinished
+state</span></em>; 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,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Secondly</span></span>,—That certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">having suffered mutilation</span></em> 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. Editors who adopt the former hypothesis, are observed
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) to sever the Verses in question from their
+context:<a id="noteref_462" name="noteref_462" href="#note_462"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">462</span></span></a>—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) to introduce after ver. 8,
+the subscription <span class="tei tei-q">“ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ:”</span><a id="noteref_463" name="noteref_463" href="#note_463"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">463</span></span></a>—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) to shut up verses 9-20 within
+brackets.<a id="noteref_464" name="noteref_464" href="#note_464"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">464</span></span></a> Regarding
+them as <span class="tei tei-q">“no integral part of the Gospel”</span><a id="noteref_465" name="noteref_465" href="#note_465"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">465</span></span></a>—<span class="tei tei-q">“as an authentic
+anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote
+down,”</span><a id="noteref_466" name="noteref_466" href="#note_466"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">466</span></span></a>—a <span class="tei tei-q">“remarkable Fragment,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“placed as a completion
+of the Gospel in very early times;”</span><a id="noteref_467" name="noteref_467" href="#note_467"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">467</span></span></a>—they
+consider themselves at liberty to go on to suggest that <span class="tei tei-q">“the Evangelist
+may have been interrupted in his work:”</span> at any rate,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page245">[pg 245]</span><a name="Pg245" id="Pg245" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+that <span class="tei tei-q">“something may have occurred, (as the death of
+S. Peter,) to cause him to leave it unfinished.”</span><a id="noteref_468" name="noteref_468" href="#note_468"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">468</span></span></a> But <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+most probable supposition”</span> (we are assured) <span class="tei tei-q">“is, that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the
+last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_469" name="noteref_469" href="#note_469"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">469</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+We listen with astonishment; contenting ourselves with
+modestly suggesting that surely it will be time to conjecture
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em> S. Mark's Gospel was left by its Divinely inspired
+Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has been established
+that it probably <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was</span></em> so left. In the meantime, we
+request to be furnished with some evidence of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that fact</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But not a particle of Evidence is forthcoming. It is not
+even pretended that any such evidence exists. Instead, we
+are magisterially informed by <span class="tei tei-q">“the first Biblical Critic in
+Europe,”</span>—(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a healthy piety
+reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming
+off as Mark's what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn</span></em> [where?]
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to have known nothing at all about</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_470" name="noteref_470" href="#note_470"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">470</span></span></a> 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
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century existed in considerable numbers.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 185-254)
+complains of the licentious tampering with the Scriptures
+which prevailed in his day. <span class="tei tei-q">“Men add to them,”</span> (he says)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“or <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">leave out</span></em>,—as seems good to
+themselves.”</span><a id="noteref_471" name="noteref_471" href="#note_471"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">471</span></span></a>
+Dionysius of Corinth, yet earlier, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 168-176) remarks that
+it was no wonder his own writings were added to and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">taken from</span></em>,
+seeing that men presumed to deprave the Word of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page246">[pg 246]</span><a name="Pg246" id="Pg246" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+in the same manner.<a id="noteref_472" name="noteref_472" href="#note_472"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">472</span></span></a> Irenæus, his contemporary, (living
+within seventy years of S. John's death,) complains of a corrupted
+Text.<a id="noteref_473" name="noteref_473" href="#note_473"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">473</span></span></a> We are able to go back yet half a
+century, and the depravations of Holy Writ become avowed and
+flagrant.<a id="noteref_474" name="noteref_474" href="#note_474"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">474</span></span></a> A competent authority has declared it <span class="tei tei-q">“no
+less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the worst
+corruptions to which the New Testament has been ever subjected</span></em>
+originated within a hundred years after it was
+composed.”</span><a id="noteref_475" name="noteref_475" href="#note_475"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">475</span></span></a> Above all, it is demonstrable that Cod. B and
+Cod. א abound in unwarrantable omissions very like the present;<a id="noteref_476" name="noteref_476" href="#note_476"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">476</span></span></a>
+omissions which only do not provoke the same amount
+of attention because they are of less moment. One such
+extraordinary depravation of the Text, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in which they also
+stand alone among MSS.</span></em> 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
+VII<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Now, in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any Evidence whatever</span></em> 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,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the
+improbability of the hypothesis is excessive; <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> No fabricator of a supplement
+to S. Mark's Gospel would have ventured on introducing
+so many minute <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seeming</span></em> discrepancies: and certainly
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page247">[pg 247]</span><a name="Pg247" id="Pg247" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“his contemporaries would not have accepted and
+transmitted such an addition,”</span> if he had. It has also been
+shewn at great length that the Internal Evidence for the
+genuineness of these Verses is overwhelmingly
+strong.<a id="noteref_477" name="noteref_477" href="#note_477"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">477</span></span></a> But,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.<a id="noteref_478" name="noteref_478" href="#note_478"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">478</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">considerably
+fewer</span></em> than those which attach to the last twelve verses of
+any of the other three Gospels.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.<a id="noteref_479" name="noteref_479" href="#note_479"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">479</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">quite</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Seniores
+apud Irenæum,”</span>—Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian,
+or Hippolytus,—if not Origen, yet at least Eusebius,—if not
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page248">[pg 248]</span><a name="Pg248" id="Pg248" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Eusebius, yet certainly Jerome,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> early Writer, I say,
+must <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">certainly</span></em> 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,—(<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em>
+silence so profound, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> improbability so gross!)—is
+enough, I submit, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the entire absence of Evidence on the
+other side</span></em>, to establish <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the very contradictory</span></em> of the alternative
+which recent Critics are so strenuous in recommending to
+our acceptance.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4th.) But on the contrary. We have indirect yet convincing
+testimony that the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">oldest</span></em> copies of all <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">did contain</span></em> the
+Verses in question:<a id="noteref_480" name="noteref_480" href="#note_480"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">480</span></span></a> 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.<a id="noteref_481" name="noteref_481" href="#note_481"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">481</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. That, at some period <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">subsequent</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no trace whatever, no record of any sort, until
+the beginning of the fourth century</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(i.) And the facts which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em> meet us on the very threshold,
+are in a manner conclusive: for if Papias and Justin
+Martyr [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 150] do not refer to, yet certainly Irenæus
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 185] and Hippolytus [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span>
+190-227] <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">distinctly quote</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page249">[pg 249]</span><a name="Pg249" id="Pg249" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+earlier by full a hundred years than <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the earliest record</span></em> that
+the verses in question were ever absent from ancient MSS.
+At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as Cyprian relates,)
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 256] Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven
+African Bishops there assembled, quoted the 17th verse in
+the presence of the Council.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(ii.) Nor is this all.<a id="noteref_482" name="noteref_482" href="#note_482"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">482</span></span></a>
+Besides the Gothic and Egyptian versions in the
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria,
+Jerome, and Augustine in the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>, to say nothing of
+Codices A and C;—the Lectionary of the Church universal,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">probably from the second century of our æra</span></em>, is found to bestow
+its solemn and emphatic sanction on <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every one</span></em> of these Twelve
+Verses. They are met with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in every MS. of the Gospels in
+existence</span></em>, uncial and cursive,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">except
+two</span></em>;<a id="noteref_483" name="noteref_483" href="#note_483"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">483</span></span></a> they are found <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in
+every Version</span></em>; and are contained besides in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every known Lectionary</span></em>,
+where they are appointed to be read at Easter and
+on Ascension Day.<a id="noteref_484" name="noteref_484" href="#note_484"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">484</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(iii.) Early in the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century, however, we
+are encountered by a famous place in the writings of Eusebius
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 300-340], who, (as I have elsewhere
+explained,<a id="noteref_485" name="noteref_485" href="#note_485"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">485</span></span></a>)
+is the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> Father who delivers any independent testimony on this subject
+at all. What he says has been strangely misrepresented.
+It is simply as follows:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) One, <span class="tei tei-q">“Marinus,”</span> is introduced <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">quoting this part of
+S. Mark's Gospel without suspicion</span></em>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not
+found in all the copies</span></em>:”</span> (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,)—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he adopts the hypothesis that the text is genuine</span></em>.
+Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, he
+begins: and he enters at once without hesitation on an elaborate
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page250">[pg 250]</span><a name="Pg250" id="Pg250" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+discussion to shew <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how the two places may be
+reconciled</span></em>.<a id="noteref_486" name="noteref_486" href="#note_486"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">486</span></span></a>
+What there is in this to countenance the notion that
+in the opinion of Eusebius <span class="tei tei-q">“the Gospel according to S. Mark
+originally terminated at the 8th verse of the last chapter,”</span>—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.<a id="noteref_487" name="noteref_487" href="#note_487"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">487</span></span></a> On the other hand, the express
+statement of Victor of Antioch [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 450?] <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">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 </span><span class="tei tei-q">“Palestinian”</span><span style="font-style: italic"> Copy</span></em>,<a id="noteref_488" name="noteref_488" href="#note_488"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">488</span></span></a>—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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he accepted them as genuine</span></em>: for
+(what is at least certain) he argues upon their contents at
+great length, and apparently without misgiving.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) It is high time however to point out that, after all,
+the question to be decided is, not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">what Eusebius thought</span></em> 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 v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century. And even if it could be
+shewn that Eusebius deliberately <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">rejected</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page251">[pg 251]</span><a name="Pg251" id="Pg251" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Pamphilus at Cæsarea, to which the ancients habitually referred,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">recognised it as genuine</span></em>,<a id="noteref_489" name="noteref_489" href="#note_489"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">489</span></span></a>—the only sufferer from such
+a conflict of evidence would surely be Eusebius himself: (not
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Mark</span></em>, I say, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eusebius</span></em>:) 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;<a id="noteref_490" name="noteref_490" href="#note_490"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">490</span></span></a> adopted by
+Hesychius;<a id="noteref_491" name="noteref_491" href="#note_491"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">491</span></span></a> referred to by
+Victor;<a id="noteref_492" name="noteref_492" href="#note_492"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">492</span></span></a> reproduced <span class="tei tei-q">“with
+a difference”</span> in more than one ancient scholion.<a id="noteref_493" name="noteref_493" href="#note_493"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">493</span></span></a> But they are
+found to have died away into a very faint echo when Euthymius
+Zigabenus<a id="noteref_494" name="noteref_494" href="#note_494"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">494</span></span></a> rehearsed them for
+the last time in his Commentary on the Gospels, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+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.<a id="noteref_495" name="noteref_495" href="#note_495"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">495</span></span></a> Moreover, it is
+a highly significant circumstance that the Vatican Codex
+(B), which is the more ancient of the two, exhibits <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a vacant
+column</span></em> at the end of S. Mark's Gospel,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the only vacant column
+in the whole codex</span></em>: 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:<a id="noteref_496" name="noteref_496" href="#note_496"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">496</span></span></a> while the
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page252">[pg 252]</span><a name="Pg252" id="Pg252" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+original Scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus (א) is declared by
+Tischendorf to have actually <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">omitted the concluding verse of
+S. John's Gospel</span></em>,—in which unenviable peculiarity <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it stands
+alone among MSS.</span></em><a id="noteref_497" name="noteref_497" href="#note_497"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">497</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the mutilated condition of certain copies
+of S. Mark's Gospel in the beginning of the fourth century</span></em>;
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">evidence</span></em> for this
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fact</span></em>,—(namely, that within the first two centuries and a-half of
+our æra, the Gospel according to S. Mark <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suffered mutilation</span></em>;)—and the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">reasonableness</span></em> of the other <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">opinion</span></em>, namely, that S. Mark's
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">original autograph</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> be his,—(I have
+proved on the contrary that he must needs be thought to
+have written them,<a id="noteref_498" name="noteref_498" href="#note_498"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">498</span></span></a>)—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 iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century must be because they did not exist in the original autograph of
+the Evangelist. What else is this but to set unsupported
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">opinion</span></em>, or rather unreasoning <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">prejudice</span></em>, before the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">historical evidence</span></em> of a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fact</span></em>? 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
+iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century:) is rendered
+in the highest degree improbable by every internal, every
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page253">[pg 253]</span><a name="Pg253" id="Pg253" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+external consideration: is condemned by <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the deliberate judgment
+of the universal Church</span></em>,—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.<a id="noteref_499" name="noteref_499" href="#note_499"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">499</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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,
+(<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the absence of any Evidence whatever to the contrary</span></em>,) 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">No</span></em> reasons whatever are assignable, I reply; neither are
+there <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any</span></em> inconvenient consequences of any sort to be
+anticipated,—except indeed to the Critics: to whom, it must be
+confessed, the result proves damaging enough.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It will only follow,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1st) That Cod. B and Cod. א must be henceforth allowed
+to be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in one more serious particular</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Testament,
+these <span class="tei tei-q">“Twelve Verses”</span> will have to be restored to
+their rightful honours: never more appearing disfigured
+with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished from their
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page254">[pg 254]</span><a name="Pg254" id="Pg254" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“vulgar error,”</span> will have
+henceforth to be introduced <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in memoriam rei</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">perhaps</span></em> they may not be Divine, after all;
+for that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">probably</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Athanasian”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Enough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now
+done, that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not a particle of doubt</span></em>, that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not an
+atom of suspicion</span></em>, attaches to <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the
+last Twelve Verses of the
+Gospel according to
+S. Mark.</span></span>”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page257">[pg 257]</span><a name="Pg257" id="Pg257" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc33" id="toc33"></a>
+<a name="pdf34" id="pdf34"></a>
+<a name="Appendix_A" id="Appendix_A" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">APPENDIX (A).</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture.—The
+correct Text of </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">S. Luke</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> ii. 14, established.
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Referred to at p. <a href="#Pg022" class="tei tei-ref">22</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+In <a href="#Chapter_III" class="tei tei-ref">Chapter III</a>. 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. Instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, (which is the reading
+of the <span class="tei tei-q">“Textus Receptus,”</span>) Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles
+and Alford present us with ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. Their
+authority for this reading is the consentient testimony of
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the four oldest MSS. which contain</span></span> S. Luke ii. 14 (viz.
+B, א, A, D): <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the Latin Versions</span></span> generally
+(<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in hominibus bonae voluntatis</span></span>”</span>); and
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the Gothic</span></span>. Against these are
+to be set, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cod.</span></span> A (in the Hymn at the end of the Psalms);
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">all the other Uncials</span></span>; together <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">with
+every known cursive MS.</span></span>; and <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">every other ancient Version</span></span>
+in existence.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every other MS. and every other
+Version in the world</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page258">[pg 258]</span><a name="Pg258" id="Pg258" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It is found then, that whereas εὐδοκίας <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is read by none</span></em>,
+εὐδοκία is read by all the following Fathers:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Origen</span></span>, in three places of his writings, [i. 374
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">D</span></span>: ii. 714 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>: iv. 15
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 240.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2) The <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Apostolical Constitutions</span></span>, twice, [vii. 47: viii.
+12 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad fin.</span></span>,—II<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span>
+cent.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Methodius</span></span>, [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Galland.</span></span> iii. 809
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 290.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>, twice, [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dem. Ev.</span></span> 163
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span>: 342
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 320.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(5) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Aphraates the Persian</span></span>, (for whose name
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">suprà</span></span>, pp. <a href="#Pg026" class="tei tei-ref">26-7</a>] that of <span class="tei tei-q">“Jacobus
+of Nisibis”</span> has been erroneously substituted), twice, [i. 180 and
+385,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 337.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(6) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Titus of Bostra</span></span>, twice, [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in loc.</span></span>,
+but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cramer</span></span>, ii. 141,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">line</span></span> 20),—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 350.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(7) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Gregory of Nazianzus</span></span>, [i. 845
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 360.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(8) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cyril of Jerusalem</span></span>,
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 370], as will be found explained below.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(9) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Epiphanius</span></span>, [i.
+154 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">D</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 375.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(10) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Chrysostom</span></span>, four times, [vii. 311
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>: 674 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span>: viii. 85
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span>: xi. 374
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span> expressly,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 400.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(11) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cyril of Alexandria</span></span>, in three places,
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Comm. on S. Luke</span></span>, pp. 12 and 16. Also
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 593 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A</span></span>: vi. 398
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 420.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(12) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Theodoret</span></span>, [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in Coloss.</span></span> i.
+20,-<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 430.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(13) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Theodotus of Ancyra</span></span>, [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Galland.</span></span>
+x. 446 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 430.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(14) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Proclus</span></span>, Abp. of Constantinople,
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Gall.</span></span> x. 629
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 434.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+To which may be added the evidence of
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(15) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cosmas Indicopleustes</span></span>, four times repeated,
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Coll. Nov. PP.</span></span>, (Montfaucon,) ii. 152
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A</span></span>, 160 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">D</span></span>, 247
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">E</span></span>, 269
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 535.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(16) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eulogius</span></span>, Abp. of Alexandria,
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Gall.</span></span> xii. 308
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">E</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 581.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(17) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Andreas of Crete</span></span>, twice,
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Gall.</span></span> xiii. 100 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">D</span></span>, 123
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span>,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 635.]
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers
+of the Church<a id="noteref_500" name="noteref_500" href="#note_500"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">500</span></span></a> all concur
+in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">as our own Textus Receptus exhibits
+it</span></em>,—(viz. ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία,)—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">who</span></em> does not see
+that the four oldest uncial authorities
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page259">[pg 259]</span><a name="Pg259" id="Pg259" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two Codices of
+the iii</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span><span style="font-style: italic"> century</span></em>; in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nine of the
+iv</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span></em>; in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three of the
+v</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span></em>;—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form
+in which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Churches of the East</span></em> preserved the Angelic
+Hymn in their private, as well as their solemn public Devotions.
+Take it, from a document of the v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΔΟΞΑ ΕΝ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΙΣ ΘΕΩ<br />
+ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΓΗΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ<br />
+ΕΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ ΕΥΔΟΚΙΑ.<a id="noteref_501" name="noteref_501" href="#note_501"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">501</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> xi. 347
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>.] Now this incontestably
+proves that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Church's established way of reciting the
+Angelic Hymn in the iv</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span><span style="font-style: italic"> century</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 400, which have long since perished.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+To insist upon this, however, is not at all my present
+purpose. About the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14,
+(which is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1) That <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the four oldest Codices which contain S. Luke</span></em> ii. 14
+(B, א, A, D, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 320-520), and two of the oldest Versions,
+conspire in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">incorrectly</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2) That we are indebted to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fourteen of the Fathers</span></em>
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page260">[pg 260]</span><a name="Pg260" id="Pg260" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+240-434), and to the rest of the ancient Versions, for the
+true reading of that memorable place of Scripture.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Irenæus</span></span> sides with the oldest uncials.—Now, the Greek
+of the place referred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that
+survives. According to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> evidence, Irenæus, having quoted
+the place in conformity with the Vulgate reading (iii. c. x.
+§ 41,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae
+voluntatis</span></span>,”</span>) presently adds,—<span class="tei tei-q">“In eo quod dicunt,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Gloria in altissimis </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant: small-caps">Deo</span></span><span style="font-style: italic"> et in terra
+pax</span></span>, 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.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“excelsis”</span> for <span class="tei tei-q">“altissimis.”</span>)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. Next, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Origen</span></span> is claimed on the same side, on the
+strength of the following passage in (Jerome's version of)
+his lost Homilies on S. Luke:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Si scriptum esset, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Super
+terram pax</span></em>, et hucusque esset finita sententia, recte quaestio
+nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est, hoc est,
+quod post pacem dicitur, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">In hominibus bonae voluntatis</span></em>, solvit
+quaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super
+terram, non est pax bonae voluntatis.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii. p. 946.)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“From this,”</span> (says Tischendorf, who is followed by Tregelles,)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“it is plain that Origen regarded εὐδοκίας as the
+true reading; not εὐδοκία—which is now thrice found in his
+Greek writings.”</span>—But,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,<a id="noteref_502" name="noteref_502" href="#note_502"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">502</span></span></a>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page261">[pg 261]</span><a name="Pg261" id="Pg261" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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, (<span class="tei tei-q">“ut <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nunc</span></em> reperitur,”</span>) where there really is
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> 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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Since Angels on the night
+when <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ</span></span> was born proclaimed <span class="tei tei-q">‘on earth
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Peace</span></em>,’</span>—why does our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> say,
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘I am <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> come to send Peace upon
+earth, but a sword?’</span>... Consider,”</span> (he proceeds) <span class="tei tei-q">“whether
+the answer may not be this:”</span>—and then comes the
+extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with colloquial
+truthfulness,) is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at his old tricks</span></em>. 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.<a id="noteref_503" name="noteref_503" href="#note_503"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">503</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. Lastly, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cyril of Jerusalem</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the MSS. of Cyril</span></em> exhibit
+εὐδοκία, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to print</span></em>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">copying</span></em>, they ought in every instance
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to verify</span></em> their references?)
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page262">[pg 262]</span><a name="Pg262" id="Pg262" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+III. The history of this corruption of the Text is not hard
+to discover. It is interesting and instructive also.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΕΝΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Every one must see at a glance how easily the thing may
+have happened. (It is in fact precisely what <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">has</span></em> 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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">force</span></em> 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:—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Gloria in altissimis </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant: small-caps">Deo</span></span><span style="font-style: italic">, et in
+terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis....</span></span> 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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every Greek Evangelium
+extant</span></em> exhibits ἐν ἀνθρώποις: while <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all but four</span></em> (B, א, A, D)
+read εὐδοκία. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vulgate
+(e.g. the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cod. Amiatinus</span></span>,) the preposition (<span class="tei tei-q">“in”</span>) has
+found its way back; but the genitive (<span class="tei tei-q">“bonae voluntatis”</span>)
+has never been rectified in a single copy of the Latin version.—The
+Gothic represents a copy which exhibited ἐν ἀνθρώποις
+εὐδοκίας.<a id="noteref_504" name="noteref_504" href="#note_504"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">504</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page263">[pg 263]</span><a name="Pg263" id="Pg263" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“men of good
+pleasure,”</span>—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">What</span></em> is important, if not the
+utterance of Heaven, when, at the laying of the corner-stone
+of the New Creation, <span class="tei tei-q">“the Morning Stars sang together,
+and all the Sons of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span> shouted for joy?”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+IV. Only one word in conclusion.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a Translation</span></em> are competent at
+a moment's notice, as every fresh difficulty presents itself, to
+develop the skill requisite for revising <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the original Text</span></em>,—it
+is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts in
+one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in
+another.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But it so happens that, on the present occasion, that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">other</span></em>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page264">[pg 264]</span><a name="Pg264" id="Pg264" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Science is one of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">here</span></em>
+will find it necessary altogether to disabuse their minds of
+the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Theory</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Churchmen</span></em>. The
+Church may never abdicate her function of being <span class="tei tei-q">“a Witness
+and a Keeper of Holy Writ.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.,”</span> in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Times”</span> of
+July 11, 1870] denies the eternal <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>head of her
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>.
+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?
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page265">[pg 265]</span><a name="Pg265" id="Pg265" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc35" id="toc35"></a>
+<a name="pdf36" id="pdf36"></a>
+<a name="Appendix_B" id="Appendix_B" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">APPENDIX (B).</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">ad Marinum</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> concerning the reconcilement of
+S. Mark xvi. 9 with S. Matthew xxviii. 1.
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Referred to at pp. <a href="#Pg046" class="tei tei-ref">46</a>, <a href="#Pg047" class="tei tei-ref">47</a>,
+<a href="#Pg054" class="tei tei-ref">54</a>, and <a href="#Pg233" class="tei tei-ref">233</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Subjoined</span></span> is the original text of
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>, taken from
+the <span class="tei tei-q">“Quæstiones ad Marinum”</span> published by Card. Mai,
+in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Nova Patrum Bibliotheca”</span> (Romae, 1847,) vol. iv.
+pp. 255-7.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῷ ὄψε σαββάτων φαίνεται
+ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν
+σαββάτων.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Τούτου διττὴ ἄν εἴη ἡ λύσις; ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">del.</span></span>?<a id="noteref_505" name="noteref_505" href="#note_505"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">505</span></span></a>] 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“μὴ
+φοβεῖσθε, Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνόν.”</span> καὶ τοῖς ἐξῆς, οἶς
+ἐπιλέγει: <span class="tei tei-q">“καὶ ἀκούσασαι ἔφυγον, καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον,
+ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page266">[pg 266]</span><a name="Pg266" id="Pg266" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+τοῦ σαββάτου”</span> κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον, μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωσόμεθα;
+καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀναστὰς δὲ, ὑποστίξομεν;<a id="noteref_506" name="noteref_506" href="#note_506"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">506</span></span></a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page267">[pg 267]</span><a name="Pg267" id="Pg267" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc37" id="toc37"></a>
+<a name="pdf38" id="pdf38"></a>
+<a name="Appendix_C" id="Appendix_C" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">APPENDIX (C).</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+Proof that </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Hesychius</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> is a copyist only in what he says
+concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel.
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Referred to at pp. <a href="#Pg057" class="tei tei-ref">57-58</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+§ 1. It was confidently stated above (at p. <a href="#Pg058" class="tei tei-ref">58</a>) that
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Hesychius</span></span>,
+discussing the consistency of S. Matthew's ὀψὲ τῶν
+σαββάτων (chap. xxviii. 1), with the πρωί of S. Mark (chap.
+xvi. 9), is a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">copyist</span></em> only; and that he copies from the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Quaestiones ad Marinum”</span> of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>. 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:—
+</p>
+
+<table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="2"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>.)</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Hesychius</span></span>, or
+     <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Severus</span></span>.)</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων μὴ τὴν ἑσπερινὴν
+    ὥραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου
+    λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    τὸ δὲ ὀψὲ σαββάτων οὺ τὴν ἑσπέραν
+    τὴν μετὰ τὴν δύσιν τοῦ ἡλίου
+    δηλοί ...
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς νυκτὸς.
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    ἀλλὰ ... τὸ βράδιον καὶ πολὺ διεστηκὸς ...
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς ὤρας εἰώθαμεν
+    λέγειν, καὶ ὀψὲ τοῦ καιροῦ, καὶ
+    ὀψὲ τῆς χρείας; οὸ τὴν ἑσπέραν δηλοῦντες,
+    οὐδὲ τὸν μετὰ ἡλίου δυσμὰς
+    χρόνον, τὸ δὲ σφόδρα βράδιον τούτῳ
+    σημαίνοντες τῷ τρόπῳ;
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    καὶ γάρ που καὶ οὕτως ημῖν σύνηθες
+    λέγειν, ὀψὲ τοῦ καιροῦ παραγέγονας;
+    ὀψὲ τῆς ὤρας, ὀψὲ τῆς χρείας;
+    οὐχὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν, καὶ τὸν μετὰ ἡλίου
+    δυσμὰς χρόνον δηλοῦσιν; ἀλλὰ τὸ
+    βράδιον ... τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον
+    μηνύουσι.
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    ὄθεν ὥσπερ διερμηνεύων αὐτὸς
+    ἑαυτὸν ὁ Ματθαῖος μετὰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων,
+    ἐπήγαγε τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῇ εἰς
+    μίαν σαββάτων.
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    ὁ Ματθαῖος ... ὥσπερ ἑρμηνεύων
+    ἑαυτὸν, ἐπήγαγε τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς
+    μίαν σαββάτων.
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    Ἔθος δὲ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα σάββατον
+    καλεῖν.
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    σάββατον δὲ τὴν πᾶσαν ἑβδομάσα
+    καλεῖν Ἑβραίοις ἔθος.
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    λέγεται γοῦν παρὰ τοῖς Εὐαγγελισταῖς
+    τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων;
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    αὐτίκα γοῦν οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ τῇ
+    μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων φασί;
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    ἐν δὲ τῇ συνηθείᾳ, δευτέρα σαββάτων,
+    καί τρίτη σαββάτων.
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    οὔτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ κεκχρήμεθα,
+    δευτέραν σαββάτων, καὶ
+    τρίτη σαββάτων.
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> ad Marinum, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud</span></span>
+    Mai, vol. iv. p. 257-8.)
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Greg. Nyss</span></span>. [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">vid. suprà</span></span>, p.
+    <a href="#Pg039" class="tei tei-ref">39 b</a>to 41.] <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. iii. p. 402.)
+  </td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page268">[pg 268]</span><a name="Pg268" id="Pg268" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+§ 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original
+text of the passage of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Hesychius</span></span> exhibited in English at
+p. <a href="#Pg057" class="tei tei-ref">57</a>. The intention of setting down the parallel passages
+from <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>, and from <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span> of
+Antioch, is in order to shew the sources from which Hesychius obtained his
+materials,—as explained at p. <a href="#Pg058" class="tei tei-ref">58</a>:—
+</p>
+
+<table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="2"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>.)</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Hesychius</span></span>, or
+    <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Severus</span></span>.)</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων
+    τὸ τέλος περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν
+    Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ.
+    οἶς ἐπιλέγει; ... <span class="tei tei-q">“καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν,
+    εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”</span>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις
+    τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον
+    μεχρὶ τοῦ <span class="tei tei-q">“ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ,”</span> ἔχει
+    τὸ τέλος.
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> ad Marinum, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud</span></span>
+    Mai, iv. p. 255.)
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor of Antioch</span></span>.)
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι ... πρόσκειται
+    ... <span class="tei tei-q">“Ἀναστὰς”</span> κ.τ.λ. δοκεῖ δὲ
+    τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου
+    εἰρημένῳ....
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα.
+    <span class="tei tei-q">“Ἀναστὰς”</span> κ.τ.λ. τοῦτο δὲ ἐναντίωσίν
+    τινα δοκεῖ ἔχειν πρὸς τὰ
+    ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένα;
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"> </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    [τῆς γὰρ ὤρας τῆς νυκτὸς ἀγνώστου
+    τυγχανούσης καθ᾽ ἤν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνέστη,
+    πῶς ἐνταῦθα ἀναστῆναι <span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί”</span> γέγραπται;
+    ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐναντίον φανήσεται
+    τὸ ῥητὸν, εἱ]
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    οὅτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα; <span class="tei tei-q">“Ἀναστὰς
+    δὲ,”</span> καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, <span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί
+    τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ
+    τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ;”</span> ἵνα τὸ μὲν <span class="tei tei-q">“ἀναστὰς”</span>—
+  </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    μετ᾽ ἐπιστήμης ἀναγνωσόμεθα; καὶ
+    γὰρ ὑποστῖξαι δεῖ συνετῶς; <span class="tei tei-q">“Ἀναστὰς
+    δὲ,”</span> καὶ οὕτως ἐπαγάγειν, <span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί
+    πρώτῃ σαββάτων ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ
+    τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”</span> ἵνα τὸ μὲν <span class="tei tei-q">“ἀναστὰς”</span>
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor Antioch</span></span>, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed. Cramer</span></span>,
+    vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to line 27.)
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"> </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    [ἔχη τὴν ἀναφορὰν συμφώνως τῷ
+    Ματθαίῳ, πρὸς τὸν προλαβόντα καιρὸν,
+    τὸ δὲ <span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί”</span> πρὸς τὴν τῆς
+    Μαρίας γενομένην ἐπιφάνειαν ἀποδοθείη.]
+  </td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"> </td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">
+    (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Greg. Nyss.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. iii.
+    p. 411, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B, C, D</span></span>: which may be also seen in Cramer's
+    <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catenae</span></span>, [vol. i. p. 250, line 21 to line 33,]
+    ascribed to <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Severus</span></span>, Archbishop of Antioch,”</span>
+    [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>, p. 243.])
+  </td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page269">[pg 269]</span><a name="Pg269" id="Pg269" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc39" id="toc39"></a>
+<a name="pdf40" id="pdf40"></a>
+<a name="Appendix_D" id="Appendix_D" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">APPENDIX (D).</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+Some account of </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Victor of Antioch's</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> Commentary on S. Mark's
+Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain
+Victor's Work.
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Referred to at p. <a href="#Pg060" class="tei tei-ref">60</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Après avoir examiné avec soin les MSS. de la Bibliothèque
+du Roi,”</span> (says the Père Simon in his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hist. Crit.
+du N. T.</span></span> p. 79,) <span class="tei tei-q">“j'ai réconnu que cet ouvrage”</span> (he is
+speaking of the Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel popularly
+ascribed to Victor of Antioch,) <span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">chaînes</span></em>.”</span><a id="noteref_507" name="noteref_507" href="#note_507"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">507</span></span></a> It will be seen from
+the notices of the work in question already offered, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">suprà</span></span>,
+p. <a href="#Pg059" class="tei tei-ref">59</a> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor of Antioch</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Concerning <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span> himself, nothing whatever is known
+except that he was <span class="tei tei-q">“a presbyter of Antioch.”</span> 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. <a href="#Pg059" class="tei tei-ref">59</a> to 65, I propose to offer a few observations
+with which I was unwilling before to encumber the
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page270">[pg 270]</span><a name="Pg270" id="Pg270" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+1. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark's Gospel,
+which generally claims on its front <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor, Presbyter
+of Antioch</span></span>,”</span> for its Author.<a id="noteref_508" name="noteref_508" href="#note_508"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">508</span></span></a> A Latin translation of this
+work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the first instance,
+published at Ingolstadt in 1580,<a id="noteref_509" name="noteref_509" href="#note_509"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">509</span></span></a> by Theodore Peltanus.
+His Latin version found its way at once into <span class="tei tei-q">“Bibliothecæ,”</span>
+(or Collections of Writings of the Fathers,) and has been
+again and again reprinted.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_510" name="noteref_510" href="#note_510"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">510</span></span></a> Still, the dislocated
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page271">[pg 271]</span><a name="Pg271" id="Pg271" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+paragraphs of Victor of Antioch are recognisable by
+the name of their author (<span class="tei tei-q">“Victor Antiochenus”</span>) prefixed
+to each: while <span class="tei tei-q">“Tolosanus”</span> designates the Toulouse MS.:
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Vaticanus”</span> (or simply <span class="tei tei-q">“Anonymus”</span>) the Vatican.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:<a id="noteref_511" name="noteref_511" href="#note_511"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">511</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume
+of his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catenae</span></span> 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 [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infrà</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg279" class="tei tei-ref">279</a>] 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:<a id="noteref_512" name="noteref_512" href="#note_512"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">512</span></span></a>
+while his reasons for proposing to assign the work of Victor
+of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are undeserving of serious
+attention.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+On a comparison of these four Editions of the same work,
+it is discovered that the Latin version of Peltanus (1580),
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page272">[pg 272]</span><a name="Pg272" id="Pg272" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">represents the same Greek text</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">additional
+matter</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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;<a id="noteref_513" name="noteref_513" href="#note_513"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">513</span></span></a>) as resulting from the boundless
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page273">[pg 273]</span><a name="Pg273" id="Pg273" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+license which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed
+himself chiefly in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">abridging</span></em> his author.—To skip a few lines:
+to omit an explanatory paragraph, quotation, or digression:
+to pass <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">per saltum</span></span> 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.<a id="noteref_514" name="noteref_514" href="#note_514"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">514</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_515" name="noteref_515" href="#note_515"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">515</span></span></a> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Why</span></em>, for example, remodel the
+structure
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page274">[pg 274]</span><a name="Pg274" id="Pg274" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+of a sentence and needlessly vary its phraseology?
+Never I think in my life have I been more hopelessly confused
+than in the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibliothèque</span></span>, while attempting to collate
+certain copies of Victor of Antioch.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Preface”</span> (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;—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">but not the same eleven</span></em>. On the other hand,
+Matthaei<a id="noteref_516" name="noteref_516" href="#note_516"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">516</span></span></a>
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">prolongs</span></em> 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 [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cramer</span></span>, i. p. 264, line 16,] Evan. 300,
+[ = Reg. 186, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 93, line 16 from bottom] proceeds,—Κλήμης
+ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων, (thirty-one lines, ending)
+χαρακτήρ ἐγένετο.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+On referring to the work of Possinus, <span class="tei tei-q">“Anonymus Vaticanus”</span>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em>,—the production, no doubt,
+of <span class="tei tei-q">“Victor, Presbyter of Antioch,”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page275">[pg 275]</span><a name="Pg275" id="Pg275" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_517" name="noteref_517" href="#note_517"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">517</span></span></a> Accordingly, he presents us in
+the first few lines of his Commentary (p. 266) with a brief
+quotation from the work of Eusebius <span class="tei tei-q">“to Marinus, on the
+seeming inconsistency of the Evangelical accounts of the
+Resurrection;”</span> following it up with a passage from <span class="tei tei-q">“the
+vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+[vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>?]
+tome of Origen's Exegetics on S. John's Gospel.”</span>
+We are thus presented at the outset with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> of Victor's
+favorite authorities. The work of Eusebius just named he
+was evidently thoroughly familiar with.<a id="noteref_518" name="noteref_518" href="#note_518"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">518</span></span></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Of Origen also Victor was evidently very fond<a id="noteref_519" name="noteref_519" href="#note_519"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">519</span></span></a>: 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.<a id="noteref_520" name="noteref_520" href="#note_520"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">520</span></span></a> Passages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met
+with;<a id="noteref_521" name="noteref_521" href="#note_521"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">521</span></span></a> and once at least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil.
+The historian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name.<a id="noteref_522" name="noteref_522" href="#note_522"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">522</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But the Father to whom Victor is chiefly indebted is
+Chrysostom,—whom he styles <span class="tei tei-q">“the blessed John, Bishop of
+the Royal City;”</span> (meaning Constantinople<a id="noteref_523" name="noteref_523" href="#note_523"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">523</span></span></a>). Not that
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page276">[pg 276]</span><a name="Pg276" id="Pg276" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Victor, strictly speaking, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">transcribes</span></em> 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.<a id="noteref_524" name="noteref_524" href="#note_524"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">524</span></span></a> 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,<a id="noteref_525" name="noteref_525" href="#note_525"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">525</span></span></a> 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,<a id="noteref_526" name="noteref_526" href="#note_526"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">526</span></span></a> &amp;c. The result is that
+it is often impossible to know to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">whose</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I suspect that, occasionally, copyists of Victor's work,
+as they recognised a fragment here and there, prefixed to it
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page277">[pg 277]</span><a name="Pg277" id="Pg277" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.<a id="noteref_527" name="noteref_527" href="#note_527"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">527</span></span></a>
+Whether Victor's Commentary can in strictness be called a <span class="tei tei-q">“Catena,”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Yet, inasmuch as Victor never, or certainly very seldom,
+prefixes to a passage from a Father <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the name of its Author</span></em>;—above
+all, seeing that sometimes, at all events, he is original,
+or at least speaks in his own person;—I think the
+title of <span class="tei tei-q">“Catena”</span> inappropriate to his Commentary.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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):—<span class="tei tei-q">“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<a id="noteref_528" name="noteref_528" href="#note_528"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">528</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">village</span></em>; whereas Luke [viii. 37] speaks of some
+one else; for, <span class="tei tei-q">‘Behold,’</span> (saith he) <span class="tei tei-q">‘a woman <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the city</span></em>
+which was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a sinner</span></em>,’</span> ”</span> &amp;c., &amp;c.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page278">[pg 278]</span><a name="Pg278" id="Pg278" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+<a href="#Pg064" class="tei tei-ref">64-5</a>; 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. <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref">288</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 407, it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em>
+be right to quote <span class="tei tei-q">“401”</span>
+as the date of Victor's work. Rather would <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 450 be
+a more reasonable suggestion: seeing that extracts from
+Cyril, who lived on till <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 444, are found here and there
+in Victor's pages. We shall not perhaps materially err
+if we assign <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 430-450 as Victor of Antioch's approximate
+date.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor of Antioch's</span></span> Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel,
+follows:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(i.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 12 ( = Reg. 230) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a most
+beautiful MS.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span> by
+name; being a recension very like that which Matthaei has published.
+S. Mark's text is given <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in extenso</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(ii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 19 ( = Reg. 189: anciently numbered 437 and
+1880. Also 134 and 135. At back, 1603.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">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, &amp;c. and words from
+Scripture all in gold.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Here also the Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel is assigned to
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span>. 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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page279">[pg 279]</span><a name="Pg279" id="Pg279" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(iii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 20 (= Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.)
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A splendid
+folio,—the work of several hands and beautifully written.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Victor's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel is generally considered
+to be claimed for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cyril of Alexandria</span></span> by the following
+words:
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΑΓΙΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ<br />
+ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ<br />
+ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The correspondence between Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infrà</span></span>,
+No. xiv], (= Reg. 188 and 186), is extraordinary.<a id="noteref_529" name="noteref_529" href="#note_529"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">529</span></span></a>
+In S. Mark's Gospel, (which alone I examined,) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every page begins with the same
+syllable, both of Text and Commentary</span></em>: (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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">after</span></em> 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. <a href="#Pg118" class="tei tei-ref">118-9</a>,—where see the notes.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—
+</p>
+
+<a name="Pg280" id="Pg280" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="2"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cod. Reg.</span></span> 186.)</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cod. Reg.</span></span> 188.)</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(1) Matth. xxvi. 70. αὐτῶν λέγων</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">αυτων παντων λεγων</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(2) Mk. i. 2. ώς</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">κάθως</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(3) Mk. i. 11. ῷ</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">σοι</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(4) Mk. i. 16. βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(5) Mk. ii. 21. παλαιῷ: εἰ δἐ μή γε αἱρεῖ απ᾽ αυτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">παλαιῷ: εἰ δὲ μή, αἅρει τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(6) Mk. iii. 10. ἐθεράπευεν</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">ἐθεράπευσεν</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(7) Mk. iii. 17. τοῦ Ἰακώβου</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Ἰακώβου</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(8) Mk. iii. 18. καὶ Ματθαῖον καὶ Θ.</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">καί Μ. τὸν τελώνην καὶ Θ.</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(9) Mk. vi. 9. μὴ ἐνδύσησθε</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">ἐνδέδυσθαι</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(10) Mk. vi. 10. μένετε</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">μείνατε</td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(iv.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 24 (= Reg. 178.)
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A most beautifully written fol.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catenae</span></span>, vol. i. p. xxix,), as I have explained
+already at p. <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref">271</a>. Some notices of the present Codex are given
+above at p. <a href="#Pg228" class="tei tei-ref">228-9</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(v.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 25 (= Reg. 191: anciently numbered Colb. 2259):
+1880. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Folio: grandly written.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+No Author's name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of
+the Evangelist is given <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in extenso</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(vi.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 34 (= Coisl. 195.)
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A grand folio, splendidly written,
+and in splendid condition: the paintings as they came from the
+hand of the artist.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+At fol. 172, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span>.
+It will be found that Coisl. 23 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infrà</span></span>, 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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">suprà</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref">271</a>.)
+There has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the Commentary.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(vii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 36 (= Coisl. 20.)
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A truly sumptuous Codex.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page281">[pg 281]</span><a name="Pg281" id="Pg281" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(viii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 37 (= Coisl. 21.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Fol.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span> at fol. 117.
+It seems to be very much the same recension which is exhibited by
+Coisl. 19 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infrà</span></span>, No. xviii.) and Coisl. 24
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infrà</span></span>, No. xi.) The Text
+is given <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in extenso</span></span>: the Commentary, in the margin.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(ix.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 39 (= Coisl. 23.)
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A grand large fol. The writing
+singularly abbreviated.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span>: 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“P.”</span> (See his
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catenae</span></span>, vol. i. p. xxviii; and
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">vide supra</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref">271</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(x.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 40 (= Coisl. 22.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+No Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary (fol. 103);
+which is a recension resembling Matthaei's. The Text is
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in extenso</span></span>: the Commentary, in the margin.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xi.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 41 (= Coisl. 24.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Fol.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+This is a Commentary, not a Text. It is expressly claimed for
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span>. The recension seems to approximate to that published by
+Matthaei. (See on No. viii.) One leaf is missing. (See fol. 136 b.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 50 (= Bodl. Laud. Gracc. 33.) 4to. The Commentary
+here seems to be claimed for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cyril of Alexandria</span></span>, but
+in the same unsatisfactory way as No. iii and xiv. (See Coxe's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cat.</span></span> i. 516.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xiii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 299 (= Reg. 177: anciently numbered
+2242<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">3</span></span>).
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any
+Author's name. The Text of S. Mark is given <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in extenso</span></span>: Victor's
+Commentary, in the margin.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xiv.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 300 (= Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750,
+and 1882.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A noble Codex: but the work of different scribes. It is
+most beautifully written.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+At fol. 94, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Cyril of
+Alexandria</span></span>, 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.)
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page282">[pg 282]</span><a name="Pg282" id="Pg282" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+See above, the note on Evan. 20 (No. iii),—a MS. which, as
+already explained, has been elaborately assimilated to the present.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xv.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 301 (= Reg. 187: anciently numbered 504, 537
+and 1879.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A splendid fol. beautifully written throughout.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The Commentary on S. Mark is here claimed for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xvi.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 309 (= Reg. 201: anciently numbered 176 and
+2423.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A very interesting little fol.: very peculiar in its style.
+Drawings old and curious. Beautifully written.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The Commentary is here claimed for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span>. This is not properly
+a text of the Gospel; but parts of the text interwoven with
+the Commentary. Take a specimen<a id="noteref_530" name="noteref_530" href="#note_530"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">530</span></span></a>: (S. Mark xvi. 8-20.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΚΑΙ ΕΞΕΛΘΟΥΣΑΙ ΕΦΥΓΟΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΝΗΜΕΙΟΥ. ΕΙΧΕΝ ΔΕ ΑΥΤΑΣ
+ΤΡΟΜΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΚΣΤΑΣΙΣ. ΕΩΣ ΔΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΕΠΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΝΤΩΝ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΝ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Over the text is written ΚΕΙΜ (κειμένον i.e. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Text</span></span>) and over the
+Commentary ΕΡΜ (ἑρμηνεία, i.e. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Interpretation</span></span>.) See the next.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xvii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 312 (= Reg. 206: anciently numbered 968, 1058,
+2283; and behind, 1604. Also A. 67.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A beautiful little fol.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Contains only the Commentary, which is expressly assigned to
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span>. 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xviii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 329 (= Coisl. 19.)
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A very grand fol.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any
+Author's name. (See above, on No. viii.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xix.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Reg.</span></span> 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Reg.
+2330: also No. 18.)
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">A grand large 4</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic; vertical-align: super">to</span></span><span style="font-style: italic">.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The Commentary is here claimed for <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Origen</span></span>. Such at least is
+probably the intention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of
+the Prologue:—
+</p>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΠΡΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ
+ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΥ.
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+See on this subject the note at foot of p. <a href="#Pg235" class="tei tei-ref">235</a>.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page283">[pg 283]</span><a name="Pg283" id="Pg283" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xx.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Tolosanus.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxi.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambec. 29.)
+Victor's Commentary is here anonymous.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 92 (which belonged to Faesch of Basle
+[see Wetstein's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Proleg.</span></span>], and which Haenel [p. 658
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>] 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,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Continet
+Marcum et in eum <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Victoris Antiocheni Commentarios</span></span>,
+foliis 5 mutilos. Item Scholia in Epistolas Catholicas,”</span> &amp;c. And
+so Haenel.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxiii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 94 (As before, precisely; except that Haenel's
+[inaccurate] notice is at p. 657 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>.) This Codex contains
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span> of Antioch's Commentary on S. Mark, (which is evidently
+hero also assigned to him <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by name</span></em>;) and Titus of Bostra on S. Luke. Also
+several Scholia: among the rest, I suspect, (from what Haenel
+says), the Scholia spoken of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">suprà</span></span>, p.
+<a href="#Pg047" class="tei tei-ref">47</a>, note (x).
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxiv.) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning
+them, Haenel says there also exists in the Library at
+Basle,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victoris</span></span>
+Antiocheni Scholia in Evang. Marci:
+chart.”</span><a id="noteref_531" name="noteref_531" href="#note_531"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">531</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxv.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 108 (Vind. Forlos. d. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225)
+refers to it for the Scholion given in the next article.
+(<a href="#Appendix_E" class="tei tei-ref">Append. E</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxvi.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 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, &amp;c.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page284">[pg 284]</span><a name="Pg284" id="Pg284" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+<a href="#Pg274" class="tei tei-ref">274</a>, line 24 to 27.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxvii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is written as
+in Vat. 358 (No. xxvi): but no Author's name is given.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxviii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 138 (Vat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at
+the beginning are these words:—ὁ ἀντίγραφος (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">sic</span></span>) 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxix.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxx.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 181 (Xavier, Cod. Zelada.) Birch was shewn this
+Codex of the Four Gospels in the Library of Cardinal Xavier of
+Zelada (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prolegomena</span></span>, p. lviii): <span class="tei tei-q">“Cujus forma est in folio,
+pp. 596. In margine passim occurrunt scholia ex Patrum Commentariis
+exscripta.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxxi.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 186 (Laur. vi. 18.) This Codex is minutely
+described by Bandini (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cat.</span></span> i. 130), who gives the Scholion
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infra</span></span>, p. 388-9), and says that the Commentary is without any
+Author's name.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxxii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 194 (Laur. vi. 33.) Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρου
+Ἀντιοχείας ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον. (See the description of
+this Codex in Bandini's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cat.</span></span> i. 158.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxxiii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 195 (Laur. vi. 34.) This Codex seems to
+correspond in its contents with No. xxxi. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">suprà</span></span>: the Commentary
+containing the Scholion, and being anonymous. (See Bandini,
+p. 161.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxxiv.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxxv.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 210 (Venet. 27.) <span class="tei tei-q">“Conveniunt initio Commentarii
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page285">[pg 285]</span><a name="Pg285" id="Pg285" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+eum iis qui Victori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autem
+discrepant.”</span> (Theupoli <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Graeca D. Marci Bibl. Codd. MSS.</span></span> Venet.
+1740.) I infer that the work is anonymous.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxxvi.) Venet. 495. <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victoris Antiocheni</span></span> Presbyteri
+expositio in Evangelium Marci, collecta ex diversis Patribus.”</span> (I obtain
+this reference from the Catalogue of Theupolus.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxxvii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 215 (Venet. 544.) I presume, from the
+description in the Catalogue of Theupolus, that this Codex also contains
+a copy of Victor's Commentary.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxxviii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 221 (Vind. Ness. 117, Lambec. 38). Kollar has
+a long note (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>) [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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxxix.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Lambec. 39.) The
+Commentary is anonymous. Birch refers to it, as before.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Add the following six MSS. at Moscow, concerning which, see
+Matthaei's Nov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. xii.:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xl.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 237 (This is Matthaei's d or
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">D</span></span> [described in his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T.</span></span> ix. 242.
+Also <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vict. Ant.</span></span> ii. 137.] <span class="tei tei-q">“SS. Synod. 42:”</span>) 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xli.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 238 (Matthaei's e or
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">E</span></span> [described in his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T.</span></span> ix.
+200. Also <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vict. Ant.</span></span> ii. 141.] <span class="tei tei-q">“SS. Synod. 48.”</span>) This Codex
+formed the basis of Matthaei's ed. of Victor, [See the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Not. Codd.
+MSS.</span></span> at the end of vol. ii. p. 123. Also <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T.</span></span> ix. 202.] The
+Commentary on S. Mark is anonymous.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xlii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 253 (Matthaei's 10 [described in his
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T.</span></span> ix.
+234.] It was lent him by Archbishop Nicephorus.) Matthaei
+says (p. 236) that it corresponds with a (<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our</span></em> Evan. 259). No
+Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary on S. Mark.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xliii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 255 (Matthaei's 12 [described in his
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T.</span></span> ix. 222.
+Also <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vict. Ant.</span></span> ii. 133.]) <span class="tei tei-q">“SS. Synod. 139.”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">b</span></span>.”</span> [N.T. ix. 224 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">note</span></span>.] ...
+See by all means, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infrà</span></span>, the <span class="tei tei-q">“Postscript.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page286">[pg 286]</span><a name="Pg286" id="Pg286" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xliv.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 256 (Matthaei's 14 [described in his
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T.</span></span> ix. 220.]
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Bibl. Typ. Synod. 3.”</span>) The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned
+to <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span>, presbyter of Antioch; but the Scholia are said to
+be (as in <span class="tei tei-q">“12”</span> [No. xxxix]) few in number.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xlv.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 259 (Matthaei's a or
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A</span></span> [described in his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T.</span></span> ix.
+237. Also <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vict. Ant.</span></span> ii. 128.] <span class="tei tei-q">“SS. Synod. 45.”</span>) This is
+one of the MSS. employed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor. No Author's
+name is prefixed to the Commentary.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xlvi.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 332 (Taurin. xx <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>
+iv. 20.) Victor's Commentary
+is here given anonymously. (See the Catalogue of Pasinus,
+P. i. p. 91.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xlvii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 353 (Ambros. M. 93): with the same Commentary
+as Evan. 181, (i.e. No. xxx.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xlviii.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xlix.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 428 (Monacensis 381. Augsburg 11): said to be
+duplicate of Evan. 300 (i.e. of No. xiv.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 432 (Monacensis 99.) The Commentary contained
+in this Codex is evidently assigned to <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(li.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 7<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">pe</span></span>
+(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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor Ant.</span></span> (See Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 178.).
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(lii.) At Toledo, in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Biblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor,”</span> Haenel
+[p. 885] mentions:—<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor Antiochenus</span></span> Comm.
+Graec. in iv. [?] Evangelia saec. xiv. membr. fol.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+To this enumeration, (which could certainly be very extensively
+increased,) will probably have to be added the following:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 146 (Palatino Vat. 5.)<br />
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 233 (Escurial [Upsilon]. ii. 8.)<br />
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page287">[pg 287]</span><a name="Pg287" id="Pg287" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 373 (Vat. 1423.)<br />
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 379 (Vat. 1769.)<br />
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Middle Hill, No. 13,975,—a MS. in the collection of Sir Thomas
+Phillipps.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+In conclusion, it can scarcely require to be pointed out
+that <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor's</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor's</span></span><span style="font-style: italic">
+compilation on S. Mark</span></em>,—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+These last remarks are offered in the way of partial elucidation
+of the difficulty pointed out above, at pp. <a href="#Pg272" class="tei tei-ref">272-4</a>.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page288">[pg 288]</span><a name="Pg288" id="Pg288" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc41" id="toc41"></a>
+<a name="pdf42" id="pdf42"></a>
+<a name="Appendix_E" id="Appendix_E" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">APPENDIX (E).</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+Text of the concluding Scholion of </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Victor of Antioch's</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">
+Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to
+the genuineness of </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">the last Twelve Verses.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span>
+</div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Referred to at p. <a href="#Pg065" class="tei tei-ref">65</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The text chiefly followed is that of Coisl. 20, (in the Paris
+Library,—our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 36;) supplemented by several other
+MSS., which, for convenience, I have arbitrarily designated
+by the letters of the alphabet.<a id="noteref_532" name="noteref_532" href="#note_532"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">532</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ <span class="tei tei-q">“Ἀναστὰς<a id="noteref_533" name="noteref_533" href="#note_533"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">533</span></span></a> δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου ἐφάνη
+πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ,”</span> καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς ἐπιφερόμενα,
+ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ παρὰ<a id="noteref_534" name="noteref_534" href="#note_534"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">534</span></span></a> πλείστοις
+ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται,<a id="noteref_535" name="noteref_535" href="#note_535"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">535</span></span></a> (ὡς νόθα γὰρ ἐνόμισαν αὐτά τινες
+εἶναι<a id="noteref_536" name="noteref_536" href="#note_536"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">536</span></span></a>) ἀλλ᾽
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page289">[pg 289]</span><a name="Pg289" id="Pg289" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων, ὡς ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ,<a id="noteref_537" name="noteref_537" href="#note_537"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">537</span></span></a>
+κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια,
+συντεθείκαμεν<a id="noteref_538" name="noteref_538" href="#note_538"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">538</span></span></a> καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομόνην δεσποτικὴν
+ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ τὸ <span class="tei tei-q">“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ”</span><a id="noteref_539" name="noteref_539" href="#note_539"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">539</span></span></a> τούτεστιν ἀπὸ
+τοῦ <span class="tei tei-q">“ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτου,”</span> καὶ καθ᾽ ἑξῇς μέχρι
+τοῦ <span class="tei tei-q">“διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. Αμήν.”</span><a id="noteref_540" name="noteref_540" href="#note_540"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">540</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_541" name="noteref_541" href="#note_541"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">541</span></span></a>
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page290">[pg 290]</span><a name="Pg290" id="Pg290" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+him. To amputate, or otherwise to mutilated; to abridge; to
+amplify; to transpose; to remodel;—this has been the rule
+with all. The <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">types</span></em> (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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the main</span></em> 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,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) That from certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel the last
+Twelve Verses had been <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">LEFT OUT</span></span>; 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <a href="#Pg272" class="tei tei-ref">272-3</a>.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page291">[pg 291]</span><a name="Pg291" id="Pg291" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc43" id="toc43"></a>
+<a name="pdf44" id="pdf44"></a>
+<a name="Appendix_F" id="Appendix_F" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">APPENDIX (F).</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+On the Relative antiquity of the </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Codex Vaticanus</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> (B),
+and the </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Codex Sinaiticus</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> (א).
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Referred to at p. <a href="#Pg070" class="tei tei-ref">70</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. <span class="tei tei-q">“Vix differt aetate a Codice Sinaitico,”</span> says Tischendorf,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed. 8va</span></span>, 1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus
+(B). Yet does he perpetually designate his own Sinaitic
+Codex (א) as <span class="tei tei-q">“omnium antiquissimus.”</span> Now,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">thirty</span></em>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> place: but in Cod. א it is interrupted upwards
+of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fifty</span></em> times. Again: from S. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of
+the Gospel there is but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> break in Cod. B. But it is
+broken into well nigh <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">an hundred and fifty</span></em> short paragraphs
+in Cod. א.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B,
+(resembling the style of the papyrus of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hyperides</span></span> 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,
+&amp;c.), and where our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> proclaims the eight Beatitudes
+(S. Matth. v.)
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page292">[pg 292]</span><a name="Pg292" id="Pg292" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3) Again; Cod. א is prone to exhibit, on extraordinary
+occasions, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a single word</span></em> in a line, as at—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Matth. xv. 30.</span></span><br />
+ΧΩΛΟΥΣ<br />
+ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ<br />
+ΚΥΛΛΟΥΣ<br />
+ΚΩΦΟΥΣ
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Mark x. 29.</span></span><br />
+Η ΑΔΕΛΦΑΣ<br />
+Η ΠΑΤΕΡΑ<br />
+Η ΜΗΤΕΡΑ<br />
+Η ΤΕΚΝΑ<br />
+Η ΑΓΡΟΥΣ
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Luke xiv. 13</span></span><br />
+ΠΤΩΧΟΥΣ<br />
+ΑΝΑΠΗΡΟΥΣ<br />
+ΧΩΛΟΥΣ<br />
+ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+This became a prevailing fashion in the vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the
+initial letter in Cod. א <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">slightly projects into the margin</span></em>,—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(5) Further; Cod. א abounds in such contractions as ΑΝΟΣ,
+ΟΥΝΟΣ (with all their cases), for ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ, ΟΥΡΑΝΟΣ, &amp;c. Not
+only ΠΝΑ, ΠΗΡ, ΠΕΡ, ΠΡΑ, ΜΡΑ (for ΠΝΕΥΜΑ, ΠΑΤΗΡ-ΤΕΡ-ΤΕΡΑ,
+ΜΗΤΕΡΑ), but also ΣΤΡΘΗ, ΙΗΛ, ΙΗΛΗΜ, for ΣΤΑΥΡΩΘΗ, ΙΣΡΑΗΛ,
+ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But Cod. B, though familiar with ΙΣ, and a few other of
+the most ordinary abbreviations, knows nothing of these
+compendia: which certainly <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(6) The very discrepancy observable between these two
+Codices in their method of dealing with <span class="tei tei-q">“the last twelve
+verses of S. Mark's Gospel,”</span> (already adverted to at p. <a href="#Pg088" class="tei tei-ref">88</a>,)
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">familiar</span></em> with the phenomenon which
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">astonishes</span></em> Cod. B by its novelty and strangeness.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> general air of primitiveness
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page293">[pg 293]</span><a name="Pg293" id="Pg293" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+in Cod. B which makes itself at once <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">felt</span></em>. The even
+symmetry of the unbroken columns;—the work of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">prima
+manus</span></span> everywhere vanishing through sheer antiquity;—the
+small, even, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">square</span></em> writing, which partly recalls the style
+of the Herculanean rolls; partly, the papyrus fragments
+of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Oration against Demosthenes</span></span> (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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. It has been conjectured by one whose words are always
+entitled to most respectful attention, that Codex Sinaiticus
+may have been <span class="tei tei-q">“one of the fifty Codices of Holy Scripture
+which Eusebius prepared <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 331, by Constantine's
+direction, for the use of the new Capital.”</span> (Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Collation of the Cod. Sin.</span></span>, Introd. p. xxxvii-viii.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“216”</span> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which explains
+the phenomenon</span></em> in Cod. M), <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">against ver.</span></em> 29 is set the number,
+<span class="tei tei-q">“216,”</span> instead of against ver. 28. But what then? Has
+not the number <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">demonstrably</span></em> lost its place? And is there
+not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">still</span></em> one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which</span></em>
+can it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">possibly</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> 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 vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+Canon, where matters are contained which are common to S. Matthew and S.
+John,—instead of referring S. John xix. 31-37 to his
+x<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Canon, which
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page294">[pg 294]</span><a name="Pg294" id="Pg294" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+specifies things peculiar to each of the four Evangelists.
+Eusebius, moreover, in a certain place (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dem. Evan.</span></span> x. 8
+[quoted by Tisch.]) has an allusion to the same transaction,
+and expressly says that it is recorded <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by S. John</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+2. No inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can be
+drawn from the Eusebian notation of Sections in the margin:
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> notation having been confessedly added at a subsequent
+date.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century, is written (like Cod. C)
+across the page: yet was it <span class="tei tei-q">“copied from an older model
+similarly divided in respect to the lines or verses,”</span>—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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page295">[pg 295]</span><a name="Pg295" id="Pg295" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc45" id="toc45"></a>
+<a name="pdf46" id="pdf46"></a>
+<a name="Appendix_G" id="Appendix_G" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">APPENDIX (G).</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+On the so-called </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Ammonian Sections</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> and
+</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Eusebian Canons.</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span>
+</div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Referred to at p. <a href="#Pg130" class="tei tei-ref">130</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I. That the Sections (popularly miscalled <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ammonian</span></em>”</span>)
+with which <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 320]
+has made the world thoroughly familiar, and of which some account was given
+above (pp. <a href="#Pg127" class="tei tei-ref">127-8</a>), cannot be the same which
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span> of
+Alexandria [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 220] employed,—but must needs be the
+invention of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> himself,—admits of demonstration.
+On this subject, external testimony is altogether insecure.<a id="noteref_542" name="noteref_542" href="#note_542"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">542</span></span></a>
+The only safe appeal is to the Sections themselves.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> after the following extraordinary fashion: (the
+fourth column represents the Gospel according to S. John):—
+</p>
+
+<table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="4"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(1.)</td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell">§ 29, (v. 1-3)</td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(2.) § 20, (iv. 17, 18)</td><td class="tei tei-cell">§ 9, (i. 14-1/2-16)</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(3.)</td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell">§ 30, (v. 4-7)</td><td class="tei tei-cell">§ 219, (xxi. 1-6)</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(4.)</td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell">§ 30 (v. 4-7)</td><td class="tei tei-cell">§ 222, (xxi. 11)</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(5.)</td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell">§ 31, (v. 8-10-1/2)</td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(6.) § 21, (iv. 19, 20)</td><td class="tei tei-cell">§ 10, (i. 17, 18)</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">§ 32, (v. 10-1/2, 11)</td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">(7.) § 22, (iv. 21, 22)</td><td class="tei tei-cell">§ 11, (i. 19, 20)</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page296">[pg 296]</span><a name="Pg296" id="Pg296" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It will be perceived from this, that <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> subdivides
+these three portions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sections
+(<span class="tei tei-q">“§§;”</span>)—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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>
+distributed over four of his Canons: referring three
+of there to his II<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span> Canon,
+(which exhibits what S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in common); four of them to
+his VI<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Canon, (which shews what S. Matthew
+and S. Mark have in common); one, to his IX<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>,
+(which contains what is common to S. Luke and S. John); two, to his
+X<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>, (in
+which is found what is peculiar to each Evangelist.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Now, the design which <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> 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) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">with two Sections</span></em>
+(§§ 219, 222) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of S. John;</span></em>—is perfectly plain. His object
+was, (as he himself explains,) to shew—not only (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) what
+S. Matthew has in common with S. Mark and S. Luke; but also (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>)
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">what S. Luke has in common with S. John</span></em>;—as well
+as (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>) what S. Luke has <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">peculiar to himself</span></em>.
+But, in the work of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span>, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">as far as we know
+anything about that work</span></em>, all this would have been simply impossible. (I have
+already described his <span class="tei tei-q">“Diatessaron,”</span> at pp. <a href="#Pg126" class="tei tei-ref">126-7</a>.) Intent
+on exhibiting the Sections of the other Gospels which correspond
+with the Sections of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Matthew</span></em>, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span>
+Ministry, for the purpose of establishing its resemblance to
+S. John's account of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">second</span></em> miraculous draught of fishes
+which took place after the Resurrection, and is only found
+in S. John's Gospel. These Sections therefore are
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebian</span></span>,”</span>
+not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ammonian</span></em>. They are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">necessary</span></em>, according to the
+scheme of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>. They are not only unnecessary and
+even meaningless, but actually impossible, in the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonian</span></span>
+scheme.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page297">[pg 297]</span><a name="Pg297" id="Pg297" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span>
+can have split up S. John xxi. 12, 13, into <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three distinct Sections</span></em>;
+and S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17, into <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">six?</span></em> and yet, after
+so many injudicious disintegrations of the sacred Text, how
+it is credible that he can have made but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> Section of
+S. John xxi. 18 to 25,—which nevertheless, from its very
+varied contents, confessedly requires even <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">repeated</span></em> subdivision?...
+Why <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> did all this, is abundantly plain.
+His peculiar plan constrained him to refer the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">former</span></em> half
+of ver. 12,—the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">latter</span></em> half of verses 15, 16, 17—to his
+IX<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+Canon, where S. Luke and S. John are brought together;
+(ἐν ᾧ οἱ δύο τὰ παρακλήσια εἰρήκασι):—and to consign the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">latter</span></em> half of ver. 12,—the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">former</span></em>
+half of verses 15, 16, 17,—together with the whole of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">last eight
+verses</span></em> of S. John's Gospel, to his
+X<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> (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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span>, because
+he confessedly <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">recognised no such Canons</span></em>, was under no such
+constraint. He had in fact <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no such opportunity</span></em>. He therefore
+simply <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> have adopted the same extraordinary
+sectional subdivision.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+3. To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps
+to exhibit the argument in a more convincing form:—The
+Canons of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>, and the so-called
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonian </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant: small-caps">Sections</span></em></span>,”</span>—(by
+which, confessedly, nothing else whatever is
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">meant</span></em> but the Sections of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>,)—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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebian</span></span> Canons. I say—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></em>
+particular sectional subdivision,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page298">[pg 298]</span><a name="Pg298" id="Pg298" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+in other words, to which the epithet <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonian</span></span>”</span>
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">who was already in possession of the Canons of
+</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span></em>. In plain terms, they are
+demonstrably <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the work of </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span><span style="font-style: italic">
+himself</span></em>,—who expressly claims <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The Canons</span></em> 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
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Proleg.</span></span> p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Monitum”</span>
+prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand
+the matter; and Mr. Scrivener (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 51) evidently
+inclines to the same opinion.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+II. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful
+inspection of the Eusebian <span class="tei tei-q">“Sections,”</span> (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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Marginal References</span></span>.”</span> This has
+been hitherto overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Monitum”</span> already quoted, remarks of the Eusebian Canons,—<span class="tei tei-q">“quorum
+haec est utilitas, ut eorum scilicet ope quivis,
+nullo labore, Harmoniam sibi quatuor Evangeliorum possit
+conficere.”</span> The learned Prelate can never have made the
+attempt in this way <span class="tei tei-q">“Harmoniam sibi conficere,”</span> or he
+would not have so written. He evidently did not advert to
+the fact that Eusebius refers his readers (in his
+III<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> Canon)
+from S. John's account of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Healing of the Nobleman's son</span></em>
+to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Healing of the Centurion's servant</span></em>. It is perfectly plain in fact
+that to enable a reader <span class="tei tei-q">“to construct for himself <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a Harmony
+of the Gospels</span></em>,”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_543" name="noteref_543" href="#note_543"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">543</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page299">[pg 299]</span><a name="Pg299" id="Pg299" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eternal </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span><span style="font-style: italic">head</span></em>
+in chap. i. 1-5: 9, 10: 14, are represented as parallel with the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Human Genealogy</span></em> of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Tables
+of Reference only</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing
+them; which (he says) was twofold: (1<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">st</span></span>) To enable
+a reader to see at a glance, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which</span></em> of the Evangelists
+have said <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">things of the same kind</span></em>,”</span> (τίνες τὰ παραπλήσια
+εἰρήκαςι: the phrase occurs <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">four times</span></em> in the course of his
+short Epistle): and (2<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">ndly</span></span>), To
+enable him to find out <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">where</span></em>
+they have severally done so: (τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ
+τόπους, ἐν οἶς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν εἰπεῖν;
+Eusebius uses the phrase <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">twice</span></em>.) But this, (as all are aware)
+is precisely the office of (what are called) <span class="tei tei-q">“Marginal References.”</span>
+Accordingly,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) Whether referring <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from</span></em> S. Matth. x. 40 (§ 98);
+S. Mark ix. 37 (§ 96); or S. Luke x. 16 (§ 116);—we find ourselves
+referred <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to</span></em> the following <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">six</span></em> places of S. John,—v. 23:
+xii. 44, 45: xiii. 20: xiv. 21: xiv. 24, 25: xv. 23<a id="noteref_544" name="noteref_544" href="#note_544"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">544</span></span></a>
+(= §§ 40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144.) Again,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) Whether we refer <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from</span></em> S. Matth. xi. 27 (§§
+111, 112,) or S. Luke x. 22 (§ 119),—we find ourselves referred <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to</span></em>
+the following <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">eleven</span></em> 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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) 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.
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page300">[pg 300]</span><a name="Pg300" id="Pg300" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Peters Confession at Cæsarea Philippi,—we are referred
+to S. John i. 42, 43,—a singular reference; and to S. John
+vi. 68, 69.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">d.</span></span>) 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">first</span></em> Passover (ii. 13 = § 20); and of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">second</span></em> (vi. 4 =
+§ 48); as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = § 96.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">e.</span></span>) 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> 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).
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">f.</span></span>) Nothing but the spirit in which <span class="tei tei-q">“Marginal References”</span>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">g.</span></span>) 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
+IX<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Canon
+of Eusebius does) from our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> eating <span class="tei tei-q">“broiled fish and
+honeycomb,”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Eusebian
+Numbers</span></em> in the margin of a copy of the Greek Gospels <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the
+References</span></em> which these numbers severally indicate. It will
+then become plain that the system of Sections and Canons
+which Eusebius invented,—ingenious, interesting, and useful
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page301">[pg 301]</span><a name="Pg301" id="Pg301" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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,<a id="noteref_545" name="noteref_545" href="#note_545"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">545</span></span></a>—is nothing else
+but a clumsy substitute for what is achieved by an ordinary
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Reference Bible”</span>:—participating in every inconvenience
+incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which
+English readers are familiar,<a id="noteref_546" name="noteref_546" href="#note_546"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">546</span></span></a> and yet inferior in the following
+four respects:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1st.) The references of Eusebius, (except those found in
+Canon X.), require in every instance to be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">deciphered</span></em>, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">references to the Eusebian Canons</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(2ndly.) In their scope, they are of course strictly <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">confined
+to the Gospels</span></em>,—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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3rdly.) By the very nature of their constitution, reference
+even to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">another part of the same Gospel</span></em> is impossible. (Eusebius
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page302">[pg 302]</span><a name="Pg302" id="Pg302" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+is unable, for example, to refer a reader from S. John
+xix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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): <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> because
+he disallowed the verse in S. Luke's Gospel,—for in a certain
+place <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he discusses its statements</span></em>.<a id="noteref_547" name="noteref_547" href="#note_547"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">547</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+III. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before
+that the work of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> was entirely different in its
+structure and intention from the work of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span>. 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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>, S. Mark has 21
+Sections<a id="noteref_548" name="noteref_548" href="#note_548"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">548</span></span></a> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">peculiar to his
+Gospel</span></em>: S. Luke, 72: S. John, 97.<a id="noteref_549" name="noteref_549" href="#note_549"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">549</span></span></a> According to the same <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>,
+14 Sections<a id="noteref_550" name="noteref_550" href="#note_550"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">550</span></span></a> are common to S.
+Luke and S. Mark <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em>: 21, to S. Luke and S. John <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em>.
+But those 225 Sections can have found <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no place</span></em> in the work of
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span>. And if, (in some unexplained way,) room
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was</span></em> found for those parts of the Gospels, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">with what possible
+motive can </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span><span style="font-style: italic"> have subdivided
+them into exactly 225 portions</span></em>? It is nothing else but
+irrational to assume that he did so.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Not unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most
+judicious living Critic as a <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_551" name="noteref_551" href="#note_551"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">551</span></span></a> He considers it to be certainly indicated
+thereby <span class="tei tei-q">“that in the judgment of critics and transcribers,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page303">[pg 303]</span><a name="Pg303" id="Pg303" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+(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.”</span> But
+I respectfully demur to the former of the two proposed inferences.
+I also learn with surprise that <span class="tei tei-q">“those who have
+studied them most, can the least tell what use the Ammonian
+Sections can serve, unless in connection with Canons
+of Harmony.”</span><a id="noteref_552" name="noteref_552" href="#note_552"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">552</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">exactly the same office</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">supreme convenience to a Reader</span></em>, 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+A Greek copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin
+furnished with the Eusebian <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Sectional</span></em> notation, may be considered
+to correspond generally with an English copy merely
+divided into Chapters and Verses. The addition of the
+Eusebian <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Canons</span></em> at the beginning, with numerical references
+thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but
+superadd something analogous to the convenience of our
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Marginal References</span></em>,—and may just as reasonably (or just as
+unreasonably) be dispensed with.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation
+of a Codex, it will have been sometimes judged commercially
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page304">[pg 304]</span><a name="Pg304" id="Pg304" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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,<a id="noteref_553" name="noteref_553" href="#note_553"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">553</span></span></a>—without
+which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the References</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“not a few ancient MSS. contain the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Sections</span></em> but omit the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Canons</span></em>.”</span> 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,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span>,
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“vulgar error”</span> to designate the Eusebian Sections as the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Sections of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span>.”</span> The expression cannot be too
+soon banished from our critical terminology. Whether
+banished or retained, to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">reason about</span></em> the lost work of
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span> from the Sections of
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> (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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_554" name="noteref_554" href="#note_554"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">554</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the numbers</span></em> of the Sections of that Gospel contained
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in extenso</span></span>
+on the same page; and, parallel with those numbers, to
+exhibit the numbers of the corresponding Sections in the
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page305">[pg 305]</span><a name="Pg305" id="Pg305" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an apparatus
+at the foot of the page, are known to exist.<a id="noteref_555" name="noteref_555" href="#note_555"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">555</span></span></a> For
+instance, in Cod. 262 (= Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written
+in double columns, at foot of the first page (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 111) of
+S. Mark, is found as follows:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+  </p><div class="tei tei-figure" style="width: 100%; text-align: center"><img src="images/305.png" width="700" height="315" alt="[Illustration: Apparatus Table From Cod. 262.]" /></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The meaning of this, every one will see who,—(remembering
+what is signified by the monograms ΜΡ, ΛΟ, ΙΩ, ΜΘ,<a id="noteref_556" name="noteref_556" href="#note_556"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">556</span></span></a>)—will
+turn successively to the II<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span>, the
+I<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">st</span></span>, the
+VI<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>, and the
+I<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">st</span></span> of
+the Eusebian Canons. Translated into expressions more
+familiar to English readers, it evidently amounts to this:
+that we are referred,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(§ 1) From S. Mark i. 1, 2,—to S. Matth. xi. 10: S. Luke vii. 27.<br />
+(§ 2) From S. Mark i. 3,—to S. Matth. iii. 3: S. Luke iii. 3-6.<br />
+(§ 3) From S. Mark i. 4, 5, 6,—to S. Matth. iii. 4-6.<br />
+(§ 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(I venture to add that any one who will compare the
+above with the margin of S. Mark's Gospel in a common
+English <span class="tei tei-q">“reference Bible,”</span> 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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The owner of such a MS. was able to refer to parallel passages,
+(as above,) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by merely turning over the pages of his book</span></em>.
+E.g. The parallel places to S. Mark's § 1 (Α) being § 70 of
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page306">[pg 306]</span><a name="Pg306" id="Pg306" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Parallel Passages</span></em> 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;<a id="noteref_557" name="noteref_557" href="#note_557"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">557</span></span></a> of which a specimen
+is subjoined,—derived however (because it was near at hand)
+from a MS. in the Bodleian,<a id="noteref_558" name="noteref_558" href="#note_558"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">558</span></span></a> of the
+vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> or
+viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+From this MS., I select for obvious reasons the last page
+but one (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by the original scribe</span></em>, 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,<a id="noteref_559" name="noteref_559" href="#note_559"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">559</span></span></a>
+with references to the Eusebian Canons subscribed, are no
+part of the (so-called) <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ammonian</span></em>”</span> system, will be recognised
+at a glance. According to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> scheme, S. Mark
+xiv. 8 is numbered 233/2. But to proceed.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page307">[pg 307]</span><a name="Pg307" id="Pg307" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+  </p><div class="tei tei-figure" style="width: 100%; text-align: center"><img src="images/307.png" width="600" height="194" alt="[Illustration: Syriac Reference Table.]" /></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="7"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Luke</span></em></td><td class="tei tei-cell"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Matthew</span></em></td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Mark</span></em></td><td class="tei tei-cell"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">John</span></em></td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Luke</span></em></td><td class="tei tei-cell"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Matthew</span></em></td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Mark</span></em></td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">391</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">286</td><td class="tei tei-cell">247</td><td class="tei tei-cell">390</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">421</td><td class="tei tei-cell">281</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">426</td><td class="tei tei-cell">288</td><td class="tei tei-cell">247</td><td class="tei tei-cell">390</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">421</td><td class="tei tei-cell">283</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">391</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">284</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">393</td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">285</td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The general intention of this is sufficiently obvious: but
+the Reader must be told that on making reference to
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Matthew's</span></span>
+Gospel, in this Syriac Codex, it is found that § 421
+= chap, xxviii. 8; and § 426 = chap. xxviii. 19, 20:
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+That, in <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Luke's</span></span> Gospel,—§ 390 = chap. xxiv. 8-10:
+§ 391 = chap. xxiv. 11; and § 393 = chap. xxiv. 13-17:<a id="noteref_560" name="noteref_560" href="#note_560"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">560</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+That, in <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. John's</span></span> Gospel,—§ 247 = chap. xx. 17 (πορεύου
+down to Θεὸν ὑμῶν.)
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page308">[pg 308]</span><a name="Pg308" id="Pg308" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+So that, exhibited in familiar language, these Syriac
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Marginal References</span></em> are intended to guide a Reader,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(§ 281) From S. Mark xvi. 8,—to S. Matth. xxviii. 8: S. Luke<br />
+From S. Mark xxiv. 8-10: S. John xx. 17 (πορεύου
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to the end of the verse</span></em>).<br />
+(§ 283) From S. Mark xvi. 10,—to the same three places.<br />
+(§ 284) From S. Mark xvi. 11,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11.<br />
+(§ 285) From S. Mark xvi. 12,—to S. Luke xxiv. 13-17.<br />
+(§ 286) From S. Mark xvi. 13,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11.<br />
+(§ 288) From S. Mark xvi. 15,—to S. Matth. xxiv. 19, 20.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Here then, although the Ten Eusebian Canons are faithfully
+retained, it is much to be noted that we are presented
+with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a different set of Sectional subdivisions</span></em>. 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But the convincing <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">proof</span></em> 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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page309">[pg 309]</span><a name="Pg309" id="Pg309" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+more <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in number</span></em>. 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.<a id="noteref_561" name="noteref_561" href="#note_561"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">561</span></span></a>
+He quotes from <span class="tei tei-q">“the beautiful MS. Addit. 7,157, written
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 768.”</span><a id="noteref_562" name="noteref_562" href="#note_562"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">562</span></span></a> From this, it appears that the
+Sections in the Gospel according to,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Matthew</span></span>, (instead of being from 359 to 355,)
+are 426: (the last Section, § 426/6, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Mark</span></span>, (instead of being from 241 to 233,) are 290:
+(the last Section, § 290/8, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Luke</span></span>, (instead of being from 349 to 342,) are 402:
+(the last Section, § 402/10, consisting of ver. 52, 53.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. John</span></span>, (instead of being 232,) is 271: (the last
+Section, § 271/10, consisting of ver. 18-25.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The sum of the Sections therefore, in <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Syriac</span></span> MSS. instead of
+being between 1181 and 1162,<a id="noteref_563" name="noteref_563" href="#note_563"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">563</span></span></a> is found to be invariably 1389.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 586) in the Medicean Library.<a id="noteref_564" name="noteref_564" href="#note_564"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">564</span></span></a>
+The student who
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page310">[pg 310]</span><a name="Pg310" id="Pg310" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+inquires for Assemani's work will find that the numbers in
+the last line of each of the X Tables is as follows:—
+</p>
+
+<table summary="This is a table" cellspacing="0" class="tei tei-table" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><colgroup span="5"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"></td><td class="tei tei-cell"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Matthew</span></span></td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Mark</span></span></td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Luke</span></span></td>
+  <td class="tei tei-cell"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">John</span></span></td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon i</td><td class="tei tei-cell">421</td><td class="tei tei-cell">283</td><td class="tei tei-cell">390</td><td class="tei tei-cell">247</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon ii</td><td class="tei tei-cell">416</td><td class="tei tei-cell">276</td><td class="tei tei-cell">383</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon iii</td><td class="tei tei-cell">134</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">145</td><td class="tei tei-cell">178</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon iv</td><td class="tei tei-cell">394</td><td class="tei tei-cell">212</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">223</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon v</td><td class="tei tei-cell">319</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">262</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon vi</td><td class="tei tei-cell">426</td><td class="tei tei-cell">288</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon vii</td><td class="tei tei-cell">425</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">249</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon vii</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">290</td><td class="tei tei-cell">401</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon ix</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">...</td><td class="tei tei-cell">399</td><td class="tei tei-cell">262</td>
+</tr><tr class="tei tei-row">
+  <td class="tei tei-cell">Canon x</td><td class="tei tei-cell">424</td><td class="tei tei-cell">289</td><td class="tei tei-cell">402</td><td class="tei tei-cell">271</td>
+</tr></tbody></table>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">appearance</span></em> and in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the principle</span></em>
+of their arrangement with those with which Greek MSS.
+have made us familiar,—yet differ materially from these as
+to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the numerical details</span></em> of their contents.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> may be, more palpably precarious
+than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident
+assertion of the Critics that, <span class="tei tei-q">“just as <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span> found these
+Verses [S. Mark xvi. 9-20] absent in his day from the best
+and most numerous [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">sic</span></span>] copies, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">so was also the case
+with </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonius</span></span></em>
+when he formed his Harmony in the preceding century.”</span><a id="noteref_565" name="noteref_565" href="#note_565"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">565</span></span></a>To speak plainly, the statement is purely mythical.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+VI. Birch [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Varr. Lectt.</span></span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">or</span></em> ver. 9:”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page311">[pg 311]</span><a name="Pg311" id="Pg311" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+but to introduce <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> alternative is to surrender everything.
+I subjoin the result of an appeal to 151 Greek Evangelia.
+There is written opposite to,
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ver. 6, ... § 232,  in   3 Codices, (viz. A, U, 286)<br />
+ver. 8, ... § 233,  in 34 Codices, (including L, S)<a id="noteref_566" name="noteref_566" href="#note_566"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">566</span></span></a><br />
+ver. 9, (?) § 234, in 41 Codices, (including Γ, Δ, Π)<a id="noteref_567" name="noteref_567" href="#note_567"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">567</span></span></a><br />
+ver. 10, (?) § 235, in 4 Codices, (viz. 67, 282, 331, 406)<br />
+ver. 12, (?) § 236, in 7 Codices, (the number assigned by Suidas)<a id="noteref_568" name="noteref_568" href="#note_568"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">568</span></span></a><br />
+ver. 14, (?) § 237, in 12 Codices, (including Λ)<a id="noteref_569" name="noteref_569" href="#note_569"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">569</span></span></a><br />
+ver. 15, ... § 238, in 3 Codices, (viz. Add. 19,387: 27,861, Ti)<br />
+ver. 17, ... § 239, in 1 Codex, (viz. G)<br />
+ver. 19, ... § 240, in 10 Codices, (including H, M, and the Codices<br />
+from which the Hharklensian Revision,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 616, was made)<a id="noteref_570" name="noteref_570" href="#note_570"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">570</span></span></a><br />
+ver. 20, ... § 241, in 36 Codices, (including C, E, K, V)<a id="noteref_571" name="noteref_571" href="#note_571"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">571</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) That the reckoning which would
+limit the sections to precisely 233, is altogether precarious;
+and—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) That the sum of the Sections assigned to S. Mark's
+Gospel by Suidas and by Stephens (viz. 236) is arbitrary.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page312">[pg 312]</span><a name="Pg312" id="Pg312" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Jerome,—who is observed sometimes to exhibit the sense
+of his author very loosely,—renders this as follows:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page313">[pg 313]</span><a name="Pg313" id="Pg313" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc47" id="toc47"></a>
+<a name="pdf48" id="pdf48"></a>
+<a name="Appendix_H" id="Appendix_H" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">APPENDIX (H).</span></h1>
+
+<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">
+On the Interpolation of the text of </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Codex B</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> and
+</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Codex</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> א at
+</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">S. Matthew</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> xxvii. 48 or 49.
+</span></div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Referred to at pp. <a href="#Pg202" class="tei tei-ref">202</a> and <a href="#Pg219" class="tei tei-ref">219</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It is well known that our two oldest Codices, Cod. B
+and Cod. א, (see above, p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref">80</a>,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvii. 49,
+as follows. After σωσων [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cod. Sinait.</span></span> σωσαι] αυτον, they
+read:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">(Cod. B.)</span></span><br />
+αλλος δε λαβω<br />
+λογχην ενυξεν αυτου<br />
+την πνευραν και εξηλ<br />
+θεν υδωρ και αιμα
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">(Cod. א.)</span></span><br />
+αλλος<br />
+δε λαβων λογχη<br />
+ενυξεν αυτου ΤΗ<br />
+πνευραν και εξηλ<br />
+θεν υδωρ και αι<br />
+μα
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.<a id="noteref_572" name="noteref_572" href="#note_572"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">572</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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,) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to interpose S. John</span></em> xix. 31
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to</span></em> 37 between the 54th and the 55th verses of S. Matthew.
+This will be found alluded to above, at p. <a href="#Pg202" class="tei tei-ref">202</a> and again at
+pp. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref">218-9</a>.
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page314">[pg 314]</span><a name="Pg314" id="Pg314" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+After the pages just quoted were in type, while examining
+Harl. MS. 5647 in the British Museum, (<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">against ver.</span></em> 48 that there is written in the
+margin,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Η<a id="noteref_573" name="noteref_573" href="#note_573"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">573</span></span></a>
+Ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διαδώρου καὶ
+Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων: τοῦτο
+πρόσκειται:
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Η Ἄλλος δὲ λαβών: λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πνευρὰν.
+καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα: τοῦτο λέγει καὶ ὁ
+Χρυσόστομος.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+This writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In
+Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew's Gospel, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span>
+vii, 825 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">c</span></span>: [vol. ii, p. 526, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of ver.</span></em> 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.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. <a href="#Pg202" class="tei tei-ref">202</a>,) 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.
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page315">[pg 315]</span><a name="Pg315" id="Pg315" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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<a id="noteref_574" name="noteref_574" href="#note_574"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">574</span></span></a> relates that between
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 474-491); and preserved in the palace
+with superstitious veneration in consequence. It contained
+no record of the piercing of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> side: nor (adds
+Severus) does any ancient Interpreter mention the transaction
+in that place,—except Chrysostom and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Cyril of Alexandria</span></em>;
+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<a id="noteref_575" name="noteref_575" href="#note_575"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">575</span></span></a> employed; as well as evidently sundry other
+Codices extant at Constantinople about <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">originate</span></em>?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 xix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only that one verse</span></em> find place in the interpolated
+copies? And next, (2) How does it come to pass
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page316">[pg 316]</span><a name="Pg316" id="Pg316" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> one verse is exhibited in so very depraved and so
+peculiar a form?
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">ONE OF THEM</span></span> ran, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">took a sponge</span></em>,
+and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink,”</span>
+S. John is made to say, <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">And another</span></span>—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">took a
+spear</span></em>.”</span>)
+Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by Eusebius to
+have done: viz. <span class="tei tei-q">“after some fashion of his own, to have composed
+out of the four Gospels one connected narrative.”</span><a id="noteref_576" name="noteref_576" href="#note_576"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">576</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient
+Critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with
+the lost <span class="tei tei-q">“Diatessaron”</span> of Tatian, comes before us with the
+express declaration that in that famous monument of the
+primitive age (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 173), S. John's record of the piercing
+of our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> side was thrust into S. Matthew's History
+of the Passion in this precise way and in these very terms,—(for,
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Note,”</span> he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“That into the Evangelical History
+of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other holy Fathers,
+is introduced [here] the following addition: <span class="tei tei-q">‘And another
+took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water
+and Blood.’</span> This, Chrysostom also says”</span>),—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,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page317">[pg 317]</span><a name="Pg317" id="Pg317" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">monstra potius
+quam variae lectiones</span></span><a id="noteref_577" name="noteref_577" href="#note_577"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">577</span></span></a>
+which are occasionally met with in
+the earliest MSS. of all? And,—Am I not right in suggesting
+that the circumstance before us is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the only thing
+we know for certain</span></em> about the text of Tatian's (miscalled)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Harmony?”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+To conclude.—That the <span class="tei tei-q">“Diatessaron”</span> of Tatian, (for so,
+according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled
+it,) has long since disappeared, no one now
+doubts.<a id="noteref_578" name="noteref_578" href="#note_578"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">578</span></span></a> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“The Diatessaron Gospel,”</span>
+(he remarks in passing,) <span class="tei tei-q">“which some call the Gospel according
+to the Hebrews, is said to have been the production
+of this writer.”</span><a id="noteref_579" name="noteref_579" href="#note_579"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">579</span></span></a> 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 [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 150], after Justin's death
+aspired to being a heretical leader,—(statements which are
+first found in Irenæus,)—Theodoret enumerates his special
+tenets. <span class="tei tei-q">“This man”</span> (he proceeds) <span class="tei tei-q">“put together the so-called
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Diatessaron Gospel</span></em>,—from which he cut away the
+genealogies, and whatever else shews that the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span> 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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I myself found upwards of two hundred
+such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place</span></em>,”</span>
+(Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page318">[pg 318]</span><a name="Pg318" id="Pg318" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Bishop, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 423,)—<span class="tei tei-q">“all of which I
+collected together, and
+put aside; substituting the Gospels of the Four Evangelists
+in their room.”</span><a id="noteref_580" name="noteref_580" href="#note_580"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">580</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The diocese of Theodoret (he says) contained eight hundred
+Parishes.<a id="noteref_581" name="noteref_581" href="#note_581"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">581</span></span></a> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Diodorus”</span> of whom the unknown author of this scholion
+speaks: but I suppose it was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> Diodorus who was made
+Bishop of Tarsus in <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“on
+the Four Gospels.”</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Lastly,—How about the singular introduction <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">into the
+Lection for Good-Friday</span></em> of this incident of the piercing of
+the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Redeemer's</span></span> 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?
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page319">[pg 319]</span><a name="Pg319" id="Pg319" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc49" id="toc49"></a>
+<a name="pdf50" id="pdf50"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">POSTSCRIPT.</span></h1>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Promised at</span></span> p. <a href="#Pg051" class="tei tei-ref">51</a>.)
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+I proceed to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.—C.F. Matthaei
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span>, 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of
+the MSS. at Moscow occurs the following <span class="tei tei-q">“Scholion of
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>:—κατὰ
+Μάρκον μετὰ τῆν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι
+τοῖς μαθηταῖς.”</span> On this, Griesbach remarks (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Comm. Crit.</span></span> ii.
+200),—<span class="tei tei-q">“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam
+agnovisset:”</span> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Accordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the
+Rev. W. G. Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain
+for me <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the entire context</span></em> in which this <span class="tei tei-q">“Scholion of Eusebius”</span>
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“12,”</span>
+(<span class="tei tei-q">“Synod. 139,”</span>) our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Evan.</span></span> 255.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It proves to be the concluding portion of Victor's Commentary,
+and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page320">[pg 320]</span><a name="Pg320" id="Pg320" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+Possinus, and p. 446-7 of Cramer: except that after the
+words <span class="tei tei-q">“ἀποκυλίσειε τὸν λίθον,”</span> and before the words
+<span class="tei tei-q">“ἄλλος δέ φησιν”</span> [Possinus, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">line</span></em> 12 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from bottom</span></em>: Cramer,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">line</span></em> 3 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from the top</span></em>], is read as follows:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+οχολ εὐσεβίου
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+κατὰ Μάρκον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι
+τοῖς μαθηταῖς: κατὰ Ματθαῖον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῖς
+μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) In the first place, we have already [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">suprà</span></span>, p.
+<a href="#Pg044" class="tei tei-ref">44</a>] heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question.
+That he allowed it, is therefore <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">certain</span></em>.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> appearances
+after His Resurrection. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">As it stands</span></em>, it clearly is not the
+work of Eusebius.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement
+cannot be accepted on my own mere <span class="tei tei-q">“ipse dixit,”</span> 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:—
+</p>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page321">[pg 321]</span><a name="Pg321" id="Pg321" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι συνεχῶς
+αὐτοῖς συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη</span></em> ὁ Κύριος
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν;</span></em> οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ
+τοῖς ἄλλοις παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφανερώθη
+τοῖς μαθηταῖς. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">κατὰ</span></em> μὲν γὰρ τὸν <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ματθαῖον,</span></em> ὤφθη αὐτοῖς
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαιᾳ</span></em> μόνον; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">κατὰ</span></em> δὲ τὸν <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ἰωάννην, ἐν αὐτῇ
+τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων,
+μέσος</span></em> αὐτῶν <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ἔστη</span></em> ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">μὴ παρόντος</span></em> ἐκει
+Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, παρόντος καὶ
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">τοῦ Θωμᾶ,</span></em> ὤφθη αὐτοῖς, ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">μετὰ ταῦτα
+ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς,</span></em>
+ού τοῖς ΙΑ ἀλλὰ μόνοις ζ. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">κατὰ</span></em> δὲ <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">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,</span></em> ὅτε <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">καὶ διέστη</span></em> ἀναληφθεὶς
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν;</span></em> 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.<a id="noteref_582" name="noteref_582" href="#note_582"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">582</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,—is
+the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of
+Eusebius,—(<span class="tei tei-q">“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam
+agnovisset,”</span>)—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is no longer discoverable</span></em>. To say that
+<span class="tei tei-q">“it has disappeared,”</span> would be incorrect. In the original
+document <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it has no existence</span></em>. In plain terms, the famous
+<span class="tei tei-q">“σχόλιον εὐσεβίου”</span> 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) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> have been the Author.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(5.) I may as well point out <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em> the person who wrote
+the longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark's Gospel.
+It is because there was nothing for him to say.
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page322">[pg 322]</span><a name="Pg322" id="Pg322" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+He is enumerating our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">appearances to His
+Disciples</span></em> after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these
+were exactly seven in number: <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> being peculiar to S.
+Matthew,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em>, to S. John,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em>, to S.
+Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there exists <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em>
+record of an appearance to the Disciples <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">peculiar</span></em> to S. Mark's Gospel,
+the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">perforce</span></em>....
+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, <span class="tei tei-q">“conjicias ergo Eusebium
+hunc totum locum repudiasse;”</span> and, of the former, <span class="tei tei-q">“ultimam
+partem Evangelii Marci videtur
+tollere:”</span><a id="noteref_583" name="noteref_583" href="#note_583"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">583</span></span></a>
+lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write,—<span class="tei tei-q">“est enim ejusmodi ut
+ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur,
+excludat:”</span><a id="noteref_584" name="noteref_584" href="#note_584"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">584</span></span></a>—I profess myself unable to understand.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(6.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his
+Author,—besides enumerating <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the appearances of our
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour</span></span> which S. Luke anywhere records,—is further
+convicted of having injudiciously <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invented</span></em> the negative statement
+about S. Mark's Gospel which is occasioning us all
+this trouble.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to disallow the end of S. Mark's Gospel</span></em>,
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">balances</span></em> one
+against the other: thus,—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+κατὰ Μάρκον, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι,—κατὰ
+Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ὤφθη,—τοῖς μαθηταῖς
+ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Perfectly evident is it that the <span class="tei tei-q">“plena locutio”</span> so to speak,
+of the Writer would have been somewhat as follows:—
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span>
+appearance to His Disciples <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in Galilee</span></em>: but] by
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page323">[pg 323]</span><a name="Pg323" id="Pg323" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+S. Mark, He is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em>—by S. Matthew, He <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em>—related
+to have been actually <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seen</span></em> by them there.</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in
+Jerusalem</span></em>: and] according to S. John, &amp;c. &amp;c.</span>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“According to S. Luke,”</span> &amp;c. &amp;c.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(8.) And on passing the <span class="tei tei-q">“Quaestiones ad Marinum”</span>
+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.<a id="noteref_585" name="noteref_585" href="#note_585"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">585</span></span></a> Its remote parentage would fully account for its
+being designated <span class="tei tei-q">“σχόλιον εὐσεβίου”</span> all the same.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">as it stands</span></em>, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from Chrysostom's Commentary
+on that same verse</span></em> in his 87th Homily on S. John.<a id="noteref_586" name="noteref_586" href="#note_586"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">586</span></span></a>
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+So much has been offered, only because of the deliberate
+pledge I gave in p. <a href="#Pg051" class="tei tei-ref">51</a>.—Never again, I undertake to say,
+will the <span class="tei tei-q">“Scholion of Eusebius”</span> 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!
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page324">[pg 324]</span><a name="Pg324" id="Pg324" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc51" id="toc51"></a>
+<a name="pdf52" id="pdf52"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">L'ENVOY</span></h1>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">As one, escaped the bustling trafficking town,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Worn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">And thinks it Heaven to see the calm green fields</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Mapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet:</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Or walks enraptured where the fitful south</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Comes past the beans in blossom; and no sight</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Or scent or sound but fills his soul with glee:—</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">So I,—rejoicing once again to stand</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Where Siloa's brook flows softly, and the meads</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Are all enamell'd o'er with deathless flowers,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">And Angel voices fill the dewy air.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Strife is so hateful to me! most of all</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">A strife of words about the things of <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Better by far the peasant's uncouth speech</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Meant for the heart's confession of its hope.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Sweeter by far in village-school the words</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">But half remembered from the Book of Life,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Or scarce articulate lispings of the Creed.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">And yet, three times that miracle of Spring</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">The grand old tree that darkens Exeter wall</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Hath decked itself with blossoms as with stars,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Since I, like one that striveth unto death,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Find myself early and late and oft all day</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Engaged in eager conflict for <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span> Truth;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span> Truth, to be maintained against Man's lie.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">And lo, my brook which widened out long since</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Into a river, threatens now at length</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">To burst its channel and become a sea.</div>
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page325">[pg 325]</span><a name="Pg325" id="Pg325" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">O Sister, who ere yet my task is done</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Art lying (my loved Sister!) in thy shroud</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">With a calm placid smile upon thy lips</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">As thou wert only <span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“taking of rest in sleep,”</span></div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Soon to wake up to ministries of love,—</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Open those lips, kind Sister, for my sake</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">In the mysterious place of thy sojourn,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">(For thou must needs be with the bless'd,—yea, where</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">The pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span>,)</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">And tell the Evangelist of thy brother's toil;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Adding (be sure!) <span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“He found it his reward,</span></div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Yet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">The blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">Sure at the least unceasingly of mine!”</span></div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">One other landed on the eternal shore!</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">One other garnered into perfect peace!</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">One other hid from hearing and from sight!...</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">O but the days go heavily, and the toil</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Which used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">There come no tokens to us from the dead:</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Save—it may be—that now and then we reap</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Where not we sowed, and <em class="tei tei-emph" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> may be from <em class="tei tei-emph" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">them</span></em>,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Fruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray!</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Meantime there comes no message, comes no word:</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Day after day no message and no sign:</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">And the heart droops, and finds that it was Love</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Not Fame it longed for, lived for: only Love.</div>
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-ab">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Canterbury.</span></span>
+</span>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page326">[pg 326]</span><a name="Pg326" id="Pg326" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+<a name="toc53" id="toc53"></a>
+<a name="pdf54" id="pdf54"></a>
+<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">GENERAL INDEX.</span></h1>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Under</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Codices”</span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">will be found all the
+Evangelia described or quoted: under</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Texts”</span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">all the
+places of Scripture illustrated or referred to.</span></span>
+</p>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“Acta Pilati,”</span> p. <a href="#Pg025" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">25</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Acts</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg199" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">199</a>-200.
+<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Texts" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Texts</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Addit. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Adler, J. G. C, p. <a href="#Pg033" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">33-4</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Alford, Dean, p. <a href="#Pg008" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">8</a>, <a href="#Pg013" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">13</a>, <a href="#Pg038" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">38</a>, <a href="#Pg077" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">77</a>, <a href="#Pg103" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">103</a>, <a href="#Pg164" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">164</a>, <a href="#Pg227" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">227</a>, <a href="#Pg244" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">244-5</a>, <a href="#Pg259" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">259</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Algasia, p. <a href="#Pg052" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">52</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Ambrose, p. <a href="#Pg027" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">27</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Ammonian" id="Index-Ammonian" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“Ammonian”</span> Sections, p. <a href="#Pg126" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">126-32</a>, <a href="#Pg295" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">295-311</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">in the four Gospels, p. <a href="#Pg309" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">309</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">in S. Mark's Gospel, p. <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Ammonius, p. <a href="#Pg125" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">125-32</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἀνάγνωσις, p. <a href="#Pg196" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">196</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἀνάγνωσμα, p. <a href="#Pg045" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">45</a>, <a href="#Pg196" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">196</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἀναληφθῆναι, p. <a href="#Pg166" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">166</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Andreas of Crete, p. <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Angelic Hymn, p. <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257-63</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἀντεβλήθη, p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἀπέχει, p. <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">225</a>, 6.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἀφορμή, p. <a href="#Pg127" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">127</a>, <a href="#Pg137" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">137</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Aphraates" id="Index-Aphraates" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Aphraates the Persian, p. <a href="#Pg026" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">26-7</a>, <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἀπιστεῖν, p. <a href="#Pg158" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">158-9</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Apocrypha, p. <a href="#Pg301" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">301</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Apolinarius, p. <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>, <a href="#Pg277" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">277</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“Apostolical Constitutions,”</span> p. <a href="#Pg025" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">25</a>, <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἀρχή, p. <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">224-5</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Armenian" id="Index-Armenian" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Armenian Version, p. <a href="#Pg036" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">36</a>, <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Ascension, The, p. <a href="#Pg195" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">195</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Lessons, p. <a href="#Pg204" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">204-5</a>, <a href="#Pg238" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">238-9</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Assemani, p. <a href="#Pg309" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">309-10</a>, <a href="#Pg315" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">315</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Asterisks, p. <a href="#Pg116" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">116-8</a>, <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Athanasian" id="Index-Athanasian" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Athanasian Creed, p. <a href="#Pg003" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">3</a>, <a href="#Pg254" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">254</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Athanasius, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>, <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">how he read S. Jo. xvii. <a href="#Pg015" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">15</a>, <a href="#Pg016" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">16</a>, p. <a href="#Pg074" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">74</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Augustine, p. <a href="#Pg028" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">28</a>, <a href="#Pg198" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">198</a>, <a href="#Pg200" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">200</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Babington, Rev. C, p. <a href="#Pg291" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">291</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Basil, p. <a href="#Pg093" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">93-9</a>, <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">βαςιλίς, p. <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Basle, p. <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Bede, Ven., p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Bengel, J. A., p. <a href="#Pg017" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">17</a>, <a href="#Pg101" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">101-2</a>, <a href="#Pg185" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">185</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Benson, Rev. Dr., p. <a href="#Pg101" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">101</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Βηθαβαρά and Βηθανία, p. <a href="#Pg236" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">236</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibliothèque</span></span> at Paris, p. <a href="#Pg228" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">228-31</a>, <a href="#Pg278" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">278-83</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Birch's N. T., Andr., p. <a href="#Pg005" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">5</a>, <a href="#Pg116" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">116-8</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Βλάπτειν, p. <a href="#Pg160" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">160</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Bobbiensis, Codex, p. <a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">35</a>, <a href="#Pg124" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">124</a>, <a href="#Pg186" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">186</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Bodleian. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Book" id="Index-Book" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Book of Common Prayer, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Bostra, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Titus" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Titus</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Bosworth, Rev. Prof., p. <a href="#Pg262" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">262</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Broadus, Prof., p. <a href="#Pg139" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">139</a>, <a href="#Pg155" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">155</a>, <a href="#Pg168" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">168</a>, <a href="#Pg174" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">174</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Cæsarius, p. <a href="#Pg133" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">133</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Canons, p. <a href="#Pg127" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">127-31</a>, <a href="#Pg295" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">295-312</a>. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Sections" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Sections</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Carpian, Letter to, p. <a href="#Pg126" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">126-8</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311-2</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Carthage. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Council" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Council</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Cassian, p. <a href="#Pg193" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">193</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Catenaæ, p. <a href="#Pg133" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">133-5</a>. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Corderius" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Corderius</a>, <a href="#Index-Cramer" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Cramer</a>, <a href="#Index-Matthaei" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Matthaei</a>, <a href="#Index-Peltanus" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Peltanus</a>, <a href="#Index-Possinus" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Possinus</a>, <a href="#Index-Victor" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Victor</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Chrysostom, p. <a href="#Pg027" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">27</a>, <a href="#Pg085" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">85</a>, <a href="#Pg110" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">110</a>, <a href="#Pg179" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">179</a>, <a href="#Pg193" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">193</a>, <a href="#Pg198" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">198-9</a>, <a href="#Pg201" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">201-4</a>, <a href="#Pg223" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">223</a>, <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258-9</a>, <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275-7</a>, <a href="#Pg278" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">278</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314-6</a>, <a href="#Pg323" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">323</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Church, the Christian, p. <a href="#Pg192" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">192</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Festivals, p. <a href="#Pg203" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">203</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Churton, Rev. W. R., p. <a href="#Pg236" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">236</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“Circular,”</span> A, p. <a href="#Pg101" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">101-5</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Citations, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Patristic" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Patristic</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Clemens Alex., p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Codices, depraved, p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80-6</a>, <a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">217-24</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Corrupt-Readings" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Corrupt readings</a>, <a href="#Index-Dated" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Dated</a>, <a href="#Index-Syriac" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Syriac</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">151, referred to p. <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Codices" id="Index-Codices" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">CODICES.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex א, p. <a href="#Pg070" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">70-90</a>, <a href="#Pg077" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">77</a>, <a href="#Pg109" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">109-13</a>, <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218-22</a>, <a href="#Pg252" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">252</a>, <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257</a>, <a href="#Pg313" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">313</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, <a href="#Pg088" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">88-90</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">omissions, <a href="#Pg073" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">73-5</a>, <a href="#Pg079" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">79</a>, <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Ephes. i. 1, <a href="#Pg091" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">91-109</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">interpolations and depravations,
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page327">[pg 327]</span><a name="Pg327" id="Pg327" class="tei tei-anchor" style="text-align: left"></a>
+p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80-6</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">affected by the Lectionary practice, p. <a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">217</a>-24;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">sympathy with B, <a href="#Pg078" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">78</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">not so old as B, <a href="#Pg291" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">291-4</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">facsimile</span></span>, p. ii.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">A, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220-1</a>, <a href="#Pg222" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">222</a>, <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257-9</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">B, p. <a href="#Pg070" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">70-90</a>, <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257</a>, <a href="#Pg202" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">202</a>, <a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">217-20</a>, <a href="#Pg222" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">222-3</a>, <a href="#Pg313" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">313</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, <a href="#Pg086" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">86-90</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">omissions, <a href="#Pg074" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">74-5</a>, <a href="#Pg079" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">79</a>, <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Ephes. i. 1, <a href="#Pg091" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">91-109</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">interpolations and depravations, p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80-6</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">affected by the Lectionary practice, p. <a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">217-24</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">sympathy with א, <a href="#Pg078" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">78</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">older than א <a href="#Pg291" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">291-4</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">C, p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>, <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221-2</a>, <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">depraved by the Lectionary practice, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">D, p. <a href="#Pg100" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">100</a>, <a href="#Pg219" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">219-25</a>, <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257</a>, <a href="#Pg262" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">262</a>, <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">E, p. <a href="#Pg305" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">305</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">F, p. <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">G, p. <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">H, p. <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">K, p. <a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">197</a>, <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<a name="Index-Codex-L" id="Index-Codex-L" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">L, p. <a href="#Pg123" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">123-5</a>, <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>, <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">225</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">facsimile</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg124" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">124</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">M, p. <a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">197</a>, <a href="#Pg305" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">305</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">P, Q, R, Y, Z, p. <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">S, V, Δ, Π, p. <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">T<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="vertical-align: super">b</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg305" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">305</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">U, p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">W<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="vertical-align: super">b</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">W<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="vertical-align: super">d</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg305" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">305</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Γ, p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>, <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">224</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Λ, p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119</a>, <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 1, p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>, <a href="#Pg123" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">123</a>, <a href="#Pg125" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">125</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 7, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 10, p. <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">224</a>, <a href="#Pg231" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">231</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 12, p. <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg278" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">278</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 13, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 15, p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 19, p. <a href="#Pg240" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">240</a>, <a href="#Pg278" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">278</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 20, p. <a href="#Pg118" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">118-9</a> 22, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, 9, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>, 1, 2.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 22, p. <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">66</a>, <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119</a>, <a href="#Pg230" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">230</a>, 1, <a href="#Pg242" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">242</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 23, p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 24, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg228" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">228-9</a>, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, 3, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 25, p. <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">225</a>, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 27, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 30, p. <a href="#Pg231" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">231</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 33, p. <a href="#Pg123" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">123</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 34, p. <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">66</a>, <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 36, p. <a href="#Pg118" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">118</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg229" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">229</a>, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>, 8, 9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 37, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 38, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 39, p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 40, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 41, p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 47, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 50, p. <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 54, 56 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 61, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 63, p. <a href="#Pg240" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">240-1</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 69, p. <a href="#Pg123" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">123</a>, <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 72, p. <a href="#Pg023" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">23</a>, <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 77, p. <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 90, p. <a href="#Pg240" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">240</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 92 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 94, p. <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 108, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 113, p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 117, p. <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 124, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 129, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 137, p. <a href="#Pg116" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">116-8</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 138, p. <a href="#Pg116" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">116-8</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 143, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 146, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 181 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 186, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, 8-9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 194, p. <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 195, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 197, p. <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 199, 206 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 209, p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>, 1-3, 5.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 210, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 215, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 221 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 222, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>, 8-9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 233, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 237 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 238, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>, 8-9, <a href="#Pg321" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">321</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 239, p. <a href="#Pg321" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">321</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 253, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 255, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>, <a href="#Pg319" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">319-23</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 256, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>, <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 259, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>, <a href="#Pg321" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">321</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 262, p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119</a>, <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg305" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">305</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 263, p. <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>, <a href="#Pg304" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">304</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 264, p. <a href="#Pg117" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">117</a>, <a href="#Pg305" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">305-6</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 265, p. <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">225</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 266, p. <a href="#Pg238" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">238</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 267, p. <a href="#Pg216" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">216</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 268, p. <a href="#Pg231" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">231</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 270, p. <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">224</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 274, p. <a href="#Pg124" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">124</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 282 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 293, p. <a href="#Pg231" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">231</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 299, p. <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 300, p. <a href="#Pg118" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">118-9</a>, <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, 4, 9, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>, 1, 2.</div>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page328">[pg 328]</span><a name="Pg328" id="Pg328" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 301, p. <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 304, p. <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 309, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>, <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 312, p. <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 329, p. <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 332 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 353, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 373, p. <a href="#Pg287" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">287</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 374, p. <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121</a>, 2, <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 379 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 427, p. <a href="#Pg287" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">287</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 428 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 432, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 436, p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codex 439, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 7, 157, p. <a href="#Pg309" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">309</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 12,141, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,449, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>, <a href="#Pg309" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">309</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,450, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>, <a href="#Pg310" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">310</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,451, p. <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,452-4-5, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,456, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,457-8, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>, <a href="#Pg309" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">309</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,461, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,463, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,464, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,469, p. <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,485-8, p. <a href="#Pg208" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">208</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 14,492, p. <a href="#Pg208" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">208</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 17,113, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 17,114-5-6, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Addit. 17,213, p. <a href="#Pg310" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">310</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Ambros. M. 93, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Basil., p. <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>, (three Codd.)</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Bobbiensis, p. <a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">35</a>, <a href="#Pg124" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">124</a>, <a href="#Pg186" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">186</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Bodleian, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> Codd. Γ, Λ, 47, 50, 54, Dawkins.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Coisl. 19, p. <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>, 8-9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Coisl. 20, p. <a href="#Pg118" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">118</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg229" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">229</a>, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>, 8, 9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Coisl. 21, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, 8-9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Coisl. 22, p. <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Coisl. 23, p. <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Coisl. 24, p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Coisl. 195, p. <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">66</a>, <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>, 1-3, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Dawkins 3, p. <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>-9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Escurial Υ, ii. 8, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Florence, S. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv. p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>, 1-3, 5.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Harl. 1, 810, p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Harl. 5,107, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Harl. 5,647, p. <a href="#Pg023" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">23</a>, <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Laur. vi. 18, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, 8-9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Laur. vi. 33, p. <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Laur. vi. 34, p. <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Laur. viii. 14, p. <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Matthaei's a, <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>, <a href="#Pg321" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">321</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Matthaei's d, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Matthaei's e, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Matthaei's 10, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Matthaei's 12, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288</a>, <a href="#Pg319" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">319-23</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Matthaei's 14, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>, <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Meerman 117, p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Middle Hill 13, 975, p. <a href="#Pg287" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">287</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Monacen. 99 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 381, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Monacen 465, p. <a href="#Pg287" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">287</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Moscow, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Matthaei" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Matthaei</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 14, p. <a href="#Pg123" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">123</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 50, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 53, p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119</a>, <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg305" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">305</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 61 p. <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>, <a href="#Pg304" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">304</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 62, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codex-L" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codex L</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 64, p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 65, p. <a href="#Pg117" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">117</a>, <a href="#Pg305" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">305</a>-6.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 66, p. <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">225</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 67, p. <a href="#Pg238" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">238</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 69, p. <a href="#Pg216" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">216</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 71, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 72, p. <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">66</a>, <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119</a>, <a href="#Pg230" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">230</a>, 1, <a href="#Pg242" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">242</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 73, p. <a href="#Pg231" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">231</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 75, p. <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">224</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 77, p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 79, p. <a href="#Pg124" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">124</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 90, p. <a href="#Pg231" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">231</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 91, p. <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">224</a>, <a href="#Pg231" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">231</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 100, p. <a href="#Pg231" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">231</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 115, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 117, p. <a href="#Pg231" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">231</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 177, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121</a>, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, 8-9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 178, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121</a>, 3, <a href="#Pg228" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">228-9</a>, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, 3, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>, 8, 9.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 186, p. <a href="#Pg118" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">118-9</a>, <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, 4, 9, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>, 1, 2.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 187, p. <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 188, p. <a href="#Pg118" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">118-9</a>, <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, 9, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>, 1, 2.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 189, p. <a href="#Pg240" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">240</a>, <a href="#Pg278" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">278</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 191, p. <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">225</a>, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 194, p. <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 201, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>, <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 206, p. <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 230, p. <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg278" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">278</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Reg. 703, p. <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">2<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="vertical-align: super">pe</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">7<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="vertical-align: super">pe</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page329">[pg 329]</span><a name="Pg329" id="Pg329" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">c<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="vertical-align: super">scr</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="vertical-align: super">scr</span></span> <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> s<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="vertical-align: super">scr</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">T<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="vertical-align: super">b</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg305" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">305</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Taurin. xx b. iv. 20, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Toledo, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vat. 358, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vat. 756-7, p. <a href="#Pg116" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">116-8</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vat. 1,229 p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vat. 1,423, p. <a href="#Pg287" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">287</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vat. 1,445, p. <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vat. 1,769, p. <a href="#Pg287" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">287</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vat. Palat. 5, p. <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Venet. 6, 10, p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, 5.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Venet. 27, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Venet. 495, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Venet. 544, p. <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121</a>, 3, <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vind. Kell. Nep. 114, Lambec. 29, p. <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vind. Kell. 117, Vind. Kell. 38, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vind. Kill. 118, 31, p. <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Vind. Kill. 180, 39, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg285" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">285</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Xavier de Zelada, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121-3</a>, <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, 8-9.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Cod. Evstt. 47 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> 50, p. <a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">197</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"> Paul, 67, p. <a href="#Pg099" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">99</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Collation of MSS. p. vii.-viii., <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Colossians, Ep. to, p. <a href="#Pg101" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">101</a>, <a href="#Pg162" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">162</a>. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Texts" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Texts</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Commentaries, Ancient, p. <a href="#Pg287" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">287</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Common Prayer, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Book" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Book</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Concordance test, p. <a href="#Pg173" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">173</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Constantinople, p. <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Conybeare and Howson, p. <a href="#Pg103" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">103</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Coptic Version, p. <a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">35</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Copyists" id="Index-Copyists" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Copyists of MSS., p. <a href="#Pg262" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">262</a>, <a href="#Pg273" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">273-4</a>, <a href="#Pg320" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">320-3</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Corderius" id="Index-Corderius" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Corderius, B., p. <a href="#Pg044" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">44</a>, <a href="#Pg134" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">134</a>, <a href="#Pg270" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">270</a>, 4, 7.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Corrupt-Readings" id="Index-Corrupt-Readings" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Corrupt readings in MSS., p. <a href="#Pg100" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">100-1</a>, <a href="#Pg112" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">112</a>, <a href="#Pg262" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">262-3</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Cosmas Indicopleustes, p. <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Council" id="Index-Council" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Council of Carthage, p. <a href="#Pg025" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">25</a>, <a href="#Pg249" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">249</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Cramer" id="Index-Cramer" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Cramer, Dr. J. A., p. <a href="#Pg044" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">44</a>, <a href="#Pg060" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">60</a>, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271-3</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Creed" id="Index-Creed" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Creed of Jerusalem, p. <a href="#Pg184" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">184-5</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Athanasian" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Athanasian</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Curetonian Syriac Version, p. <a href="#Pg033" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">33</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Cyprian, <a href="#Pg025" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">25</a>, <a href="#Pg249" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">249</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Cyprus, p. <a href="#Pg315" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">315</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Cyril of Alex., p. <a href="#Pg029" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">29</a>, <a href="#Pg060" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">60</a>, <a href="#Pg110" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">110</a>, <a href="#Pg198" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">198</a>, <a href="#Pg201" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">201</a>, <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271</a>, 5, 7, 9, <a href="#Pg281" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">281</a>, <a href="#Pg315" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">315</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Cyril of Jer., p. <a href="#Pg184" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">184-5</a>, <a href="#Pg195" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">195</a>, <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>, <a href="#Pg261" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">261</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Cyrus in Syria, p. <a href="#Pg317" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">317</a>, 8.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Damascene, John, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Dated" id="Index-Dated" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Dated MSS., p. <a href="#Pg208" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">208</a>, <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">224</a>, <a href="#Pg309" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">309</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Davidson. Dr., p. <a href="#Pg012" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">12</a>, <a href="#Pg038" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">38</a>, <a href="#Pg114" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">114</a>, <a href="#Pg133" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">133-5</a>, 6; <a href="#Pg142" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">142</a>, 8; <a href="#Pg153" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">153</a>, <a href="#Pg160" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">160</a>, 1, 4; <a href="#Pg185" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">185</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">De Touttée, p. <a href="#Pg184" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">184</a>, <a href="#Pg261" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">261</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">δευτεροπρώτῳ, p. <a href="#Pg075" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">75</a>, <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Diatessaron, p. <a href="#Pg126" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">126</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314-8</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Diodorus, p. <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314-8</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Dionysius of Corinth, p. <a href="#Pg245" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">245</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Dionysius Syrus, p. <a href="#Pg041" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">41</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, p. <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257-63</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Easter Lessons, p. <a href="#Pg204" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">204-6</a>, <a href="#Pg238" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">238-9</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Eden, Rev. C. P., p. <a href="#Pg003" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">3</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἐγκύκλιον, p. <a href="#Pg104" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">104-5</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ and ἀπό, p. <a href="#Pg153" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">153</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἐκεῖνος, p. <a href="#Pg166" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">166-7</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἔκλειψις, p. <a href="#Pg086" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">86</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Ellicott, Bishop, p. <a href="#Pg009" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">9</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Encyclical, p. <a href="#Pg101" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">101-5</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Ephesians, Ep. to, p. <a href="#Pg091" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">91-109</a>. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Texts" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Texts</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἐπί, verbs compounded with, p. <a href="#Pg163" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">163-4</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἐπιφανία, τὰ, p. <a href="#Pg204" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">204</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Epiphanius, p. <a href="#Pg095" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">95</a>, <a href="#Pg132" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">132-3</a>, <a href="#Pg199" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">199</a>, <a href="#Pg202" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">202-3</a>, <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Epiphany, Festival of, p. <a href="#Pg204" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">204</a>, 7;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">lessons, <a href="#Pg199" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">199</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Erizzo, F. M. p. <a href="#Pg034" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">34</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Ethiopic Version, p. <a href="#Pg036" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">36</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">εὐδοκία, p. <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257-63</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Eulogius, p. <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Eusebius, p. <a href="#Pg026" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">26</a>, <a href="#Pg041" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">41-51</a>, <a href="#Pg043" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">43</a>, <a href="#Pg061" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">61-4</a>, <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">66</a>, <a href="#Pg084" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">84</a>, <a href="#Pg126" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">126-33</a>, <a href="#Pg332" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">332-8</a>, <a href="#Pg240" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">240</a>, <a href="#Pg249" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">249-52</a>, <a href="#Pg265" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">265-6</a>, <a href="#Pg267" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">267-8</a>, <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314</a>, <a href="#Pg316" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">316</a>, <a href="#Pg323" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">323</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">knew nothing of Cod. א, p. <a href="#Pg293" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">293-4</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">was the Author of the <span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“Ammonian”</span> Sections, p. <a href="#Pg295" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">295</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Eusebian Tables in Syriac MSS., p. <a href="#Pg309" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">309-10</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Scholion wrongly ascribed to, p. <a href="#Pg319" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">319-23</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">εὐθέως, p. <a href="#Pg168" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">168-9</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Euthymius Zig., p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>, <a href="#Pg068" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">68-9</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Evangelia, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Evangeliaria, p. <a href="#Pg195" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">195</a>, <a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">197</a>, <a href="#Pg214" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">214-5</a>.</div>
+
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page330">[pg 330]</span><a name="Pg330" id="Pg330" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Evangelists vary their expressions, p. <a href="#Pg147" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">147</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Evidence, Law of, p. <a href="#Pg015" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">15</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ἐξελθόντες, p. <a href="#Pg188" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">188</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Facsimile of Cod. א, p. ii.;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">of Cod. L, p. <a href="#Pg124" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">124</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Fathers badly indexed, p. vii, <a href="#Pg021" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">21</a>, <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>, <a href="#Pg315" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">315</a>: <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Patristic" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Patristic</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Festivals of the Church, p. <a href="#Pg203" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">203</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Field's ed. of Chrysostom, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Florence. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Formulæ of the Lectionaries, p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215-224</a>, 5.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Gandell, Rev. Prof., p. <a href="#Pg148" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">148</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Garnier, J., p. <a href="#Pg101" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">101</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Genesis, when read, p. <a href="#Pg201" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">201</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Gennadius, p. <a href="#Pg026" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">26</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Georgian Version, p. <a href="#Pg036" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">36</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">Gloria in Excelsis</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257-63</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Gothic Version, p. <a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">35</a>, <a href="#Pg262" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">262</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Green, Rev. T. S., p. <a href="#Pg013" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">13</a>, <a href="#Pg137" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">137</a>, <a href="#Pg153" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">153</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Gregentius, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Gregory" id="Index-Gregory" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Gregory of Nazianzus, p. <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Gregory of Nyssa, p. <a href="#Pg029" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">29</a>, <a href="#Pg039" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">39-41</a>, <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">66</a>, <a href="#Pg267" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">267-8</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Gregory the Great, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Griesbach, D. J. J., p. <a href="#Pg004" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">4-7</a>, <a href="#Pg115" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">115-6</a>, <a href="#Pg232" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">232</a>, <a href="#Pg251" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">251</a>, <a href="#Pg319" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">319</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Harleian. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">Harmonia, &amp;c.</span></span>, Oxon. 1805, p. <a href="#Pg298" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">298</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Harmony of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with the other Gospels, p. <a href="#Pg188" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">188-90</a>,</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Tables of, in Greek MSS., p. <a href="#Pg304" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">304-6</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">in Syriac MSS., p. <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306-11</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Harris, A. C, p. <a href="#Pg293" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">293</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Hedibia, p. <a href="#Pg051" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">51-6</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Hesychius of Jerusalem, p. <a href="#Pg029" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">29</a>, <a href="#Pg040" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">40-1</a>, <a href="#Pg057" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">57-9</a>, <a href="#Pg067" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">67</a>, <a href="#Pg204" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">204</a>, <a href="#Pg237" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">237</a>, <a href="#Pg267" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">267-8</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Heurtley, Rev. Prof., p. <a href="#Pg184" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">184</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Hharklensian Revision, p. <a href="#Pg033" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">33</a>, <a href="#Pg124" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">124</a>, <a href="#Pg315" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">315</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Hierosolymitan Version, p. <a href="#Pg034" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">34</a>, <a href="#Pg199" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">199</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Hippolytus, p. <a href="#Pg024" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">24-5</a>, <a href="#Pg248" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">248</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Hort, Rev. F. J. A., p. <a href="#Pg013" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">13</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Huet, P. D., p. <a href="#Pg269" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">269</a>, <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Hypapante, p. <a href="#Pg207" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">207</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, p. <a href="#Pg165" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">165</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Indices, p. vii-viii, <a href="#Pg021" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">21</a>, <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>, <a href="#Pg315" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">315</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Interpolations in B and א p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80-6</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">from the Lectionary practice, p. <a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">217-214</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Irenæus, p. <a href="#Pg023" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">23</a>, <a href="#Pg246" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">246</a>, 8, <a href="#Pg260" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">260</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Itala, Vetus, p. <a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">35</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Jacobus Bar-Salibi, p. <a href="#Pg041" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">41</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“Jacobus Nisibenus,”</span> p. <a href="#Pg026" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">26</a>, <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">James' <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">Ecloga</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg236" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">236</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Jerome, p. <a href="#Pg026" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">26</a>, <a href="#Pg027" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">27-8</a>, <a href="#Pg034" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">34</a>, <a href="#Pg042" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">42</a>, <a href="#Pg049" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">49</a>, <a href="#Pg051" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">51-7</a>, <a href="#Pg067" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">67</a>, <a href="#Pg098" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">98</a>, <a href="#Pg106" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">106</a>, <a href="#Pg128" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">128</a>, <a href="#Pg153" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">153</a>, <a href="#Pg236" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">236</a>, <a href="#Pg260" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">260</a>, <a href="#Pg295" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">295</a>, <a href="#Pg312" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">312</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Jerusalem, Version, p. <a href="#Pg034" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">34</a>, <a href="#Pg199" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">199</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Copies at, p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Creed" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Creed</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Jewish Church, p. <a href="#Pg192" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">192</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Jewish Lectionary, p. <a href="#Pg194" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">194</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">John</span></span>, S. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Texts" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Texts</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">John Damascene, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Josephus, p. <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Justin Martyr, p. <a href="#Pg023" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">23</a>, <a href="#Pg193" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">193</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">καθαρίζων, p. <a href="#Pg179" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">179-80</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">κανονίζειν, p. <a href="#Pg120" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">120-1</a>, <a href="#Pg125" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">125</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Kay, Rev. Dr. W., p. <a href="#Pg140" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">140</a>, <a href="#Pg183" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">183</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">κείμενον, p. <a href="#Pg131" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">131</a>, <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">κεφάλαιον, p. <a href="#Pg045" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">45</a>, <a href="#Pg229" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">229</a>, <a href="#Pg298" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">298</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Kollar, p. <a href="#Pg269" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">269</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">κτίσις, p. <a href="#Pg161" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">161-2</a>, <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Κύριος, p. <a href="#Pg165" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">165</a>, <a href="#Pg185" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">185</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Lachmann, C., p. <a href="#Pg008" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">8</a>, <a href="#Pg259" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">259</a>, <a href="#Pg263" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">263-4</a></div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Laodiceans, Ep. to, p. <a href="#Pg093" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">93-107</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Latinus Latinius, p. <a href="#Pg042" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">42-44</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Lectionary" id="Index-Lectionary" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Lectionary System, p. <a href="#Pg191" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">191-211</a>, <a href="#Pg214" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">214-5</a>, <a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">217-24</a>, <a href="#Pg240" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">240</a>, <a href="#Pg313" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">313-5</a>, <a href="#Pg318" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">318</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Eastern p. <a href="#Pg196" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">196-211</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Jewish, p. <a href="#Pg192" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">192-4</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Syrian, p. <a href="#Pg205" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">205-8</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">the New, p. <a href="#Pg200" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">200</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Lections" id="Index-Lections" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Lections, p. <a href="#Pg238" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">238-9</a>. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Lectionary" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Lectionary System</a>, <a href="#Index-Syrian" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Syrian Lessons</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Lessons" id="Index-Lessons" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Lessons. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Lections" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Lections</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Licentious. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Copyists" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Copyists</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Liturgical Formulæ, p. <a href="#Pg216" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">216-25</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Lloyd, Bishop C, p. <a href="#Pg298" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">298</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">λόγος, p. <a href="#Pg165" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">165</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Luke</span></span>, S. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Texts" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Texts</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Macknight, p. <a href="#Pg105" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">105</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page331">[pg 331]</span><a name="Pg331" id="Pg331" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Mai, Card. A., p. <a href="#Pg042" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">42-4</a>, <a href="#Pg242" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">242</a>, <a href="#Pg265" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">265</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Manuscripts. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Codices</span></a></span>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Marcion, p. <a href="#Pg093" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">93-6</a>, <a href="#Pg103" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">103</a>, <a href="#Pg106" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">106-8</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Marginal references, p. <a href="#Pg298" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">298-304</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Marinus, p. <a href="#Pg026" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">26</a>, <a href="#Pg053" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">53-6</a>, <a href="#Pg249" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">249-50</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Mark, S., p. <a href="#Pg161" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">161-2</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Mark</span></span>, S. (<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Texts" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Texts</a>), p. <a href="#Pg167" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">167</a>, <a href="#Pg176" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">176</a>, 7, 9;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Latinisms, <a href="#Pg149" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">149-51</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">style of ch. i. 9-20, p. <a href="#Pg143" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">143-4</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">phraseology of ch. i. 1-12, p. <a href="#Pg174" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">174-5</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">ch. xvi. 9-20, p. <a href="#Pg036" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">36-73</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">structure of ch. xvi. 9-20, p. <a href="#Pg181" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">181-4</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 9-20, a Lection in the Ancient Church, p. <a href="#Pg204" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">204-11</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Matthaei" id="Index-Matthaei" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Matthaei, C. F., p. <a href="#Pg005" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">5</a>, <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">66</a>, <a href="#Pg191" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">191</a>, <a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">197</a>, <a href="#Pg227" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">227</a>, <a href="#Pg247" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">247</a>, <a href="#Pg271" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">271-3</a>, <a href="#Pg319" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">319-23</a>. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Matthew</span></span>, S. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Texts" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Texts</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">μέγα σάββατον, p. <a href="#Pg194" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">194</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Meerman 117, Cod., p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Memphitic Version, p. <a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">35</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Menologium, p. <a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">197</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Methodius, p. <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Meyer, p. <a href="#Pg013" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">13</a>, <a href="#Pg136" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">136</a>, <a href="#Pg160" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">160</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">τῶν σαββάτων, p. <a href="#Pg146" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">146-51</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Michaelis, J. D., p. <a href="#Pg101" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">101</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Middle Hill, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Middleton, Bp., p. <a href="#Pg105" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">105</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Mill, Dr. John, p. <a href="#Pg129" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">129</a>, <a href="#Pg130" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">130</a>, 2.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Modestus, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Montfaucon, B. de, p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Moscow, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>, <a href="#Index-Penny" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Rev. W. G. Penny</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Munich, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Muratorian fragment, p. <a href="#Pg103" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">103</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Nativity, Festival of, p. <a href="#Pg199" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">199</a>, <a href="#Pg204" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">204</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Nazianzus, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Gregory" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Gregory</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Nestorius, p. <a href="#Pg029" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">29</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Neubauer, M., p. <a href="#Pg307" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">307</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Nisibenus, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Aphraates" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Aphraates</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Norton, Prof., p. <a href="#Pg013" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">13</a>, <a href="#Pg137" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">137</a>, <a href="#Pg245" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">245</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Nyssa, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Gregory" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Gregory</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Omissions in B and א, p. <a href="#Pg073" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">73-5</a>, <a href="#Pg079" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">79</a>, <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80</a>, <a href="#Pg091" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">91</a>, &amp;c.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ὁμοιοτέλευτον, p. <a href="#Pg073" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">73</a>, 4.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Order of the Gospels, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239-240</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Oriel College, p. ix, x.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Origen, p. <a href="#Pg047" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">47</a>, <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">66</a>, <a href="#Pg085" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">85</a>, <a href="#Pg093" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">93-9</a>, <a href="#Pg107" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">107</a>, <a href="#Pg179" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">179</a>, <a href="#Pg222" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">222</a>, <a href="#Pg236" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">236</a>, <a href="#Pg245" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">245</a>, <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>, <a href="#Pg260" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">260-1</a>, <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>, <a href="#Pg277" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">277</a>, <a href="#Pg282" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">282</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">on S. Mark, <a href="#Pg235" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">235</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Palestinian exemplar, p. <a href="#Pg064" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">64-5</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121</a>, <a href="#Pg289" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">289</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">πάλιν, p. <a href="#Pg168" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">168-9</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Palmer, Sir Roundell, p. v, vi.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Palmer, Rev. W. J., p. v.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Papias, p. <a href="#Pg023" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">23</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">παρά, verbs compounded with, p. <a href="#Pg163" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">163-4</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Parallel passages. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Tables" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Tables of Reference</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">παρασκευή, p. <a href="#Pg150" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">150</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Paris, MSS. at, p. <a href="#Pg228" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">228-31</a>, <a href="#Pg278" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">278-83</a>:</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>, Coisl. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> Reg.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Passion-tide Lessons, p. <a href="#Pg202" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">202</a>, <a href="#Pg204" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">204</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“Patres App.,”</span> p. <a href="#Pg240" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">240</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Patristic" id="Index-Patristic" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Patristic Citations of SS., p. <a href="#Pg020" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">20-3</a>, <a href="#Pg037" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">37</a>, <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257-63</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Paul, S., p. <a href="#Pg161" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">161-2</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Peltanus" id="Index-Peltanus" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Peltanus, p. <a href="#Pg134" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">134</a>, <a href="#Pg270" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">270-3</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Penny" id="Index-Penny" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Penny, Rev. W. G., p. <a href="#Pg319" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">319-23</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">περιγράφειν τὸ τέλος, p. <a href="#Pg233" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">233-4</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">περικοπή, p. <a href="#Pg045" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">45</a>, <a href="#Pg196" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">196</a>, 8, <a href="#Pg298" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">298</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Peshito Version, p. <a href="#Pg032" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">32</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Peter, S., p. <a href="#Pg161" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">161-2</a>, <a href="#Pg179" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">179</a>, <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180-1</a>. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Texts" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Texts</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Peter of Laodicea, p. <a href="#Pg284" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">284</a>, <a href="#Pg286" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">286</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Petersburg. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Thompson" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Rev. A. S. Thompson</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Petrus junior, p. <a href="#Pg315" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">315</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Phillipps, Sir T. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a> (Middle Hill).</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Philoxenian Version, p. <a href="#Pg033" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">33</a>, 4.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Phraseology of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. <a href="#Pg136" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">136-173</a>, <a href="#Pg146" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">146</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Pius IX., p. ii.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Polycarp, p. <a href="#Pg240" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">240</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">πορεύεσθαι, p. <a href="#Pg153" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">153</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Possevinus, p. <a href="#Pg235" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">235</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Possinus" id="Index-Possinus" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Possinus, p. <a href="#Pg044" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">44</a>, <a href="#Pg134" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">134</a>, <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>, <a href="#Pg270" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">270-4</a>, <a href="#Pg277" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">277</a>, <a href="#Pg290" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">290-2</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Prayer-Book, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Book" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Book</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Proclus, p. <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Proper, see <a href="#Index-Lessons" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Lessons</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">πρώτη σαββάτου, p. <a href="#Pg146" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">146-51</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Reference Bibles, p. <a href="#Pg300" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">300-1</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">ancient Tables of, p. <a href="#Pg304" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">304-11</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page332">[pg 332]</span><a name="Pg332" id="Pg332" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Revision of Auth. Version, p. <a href="#Pg263" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">263-4</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Greek Text, p. <a href="#Pg263" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">263</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Lectionary, p. <a href="#Pg200" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">200-1</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Rose, Ven. Archd., p. <a href="#Pg027" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">27</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Rev. W. F., p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Routh, Rev. President, p. ix.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Rufinus, p. <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">S. (G. V.) p. <a href="#Pg264" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">264</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">σαββατοκυριακαί, p. <a href="#Pg194" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">194</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">σάββατον—τα, p. <a href="#Pg146" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">146-51</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Sahidic Version, p. <a href="#Pg036" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">36</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Saturday Lessons, p. <a href="#Pg193" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">193</a>, 4.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Scholia, p. <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg236" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">236</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314</a>, <a href="#Pg319" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">319-23</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Scholz, J. M. A., p. <a href="#Pg007" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">7</a>, <a href="#Pg116" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">116-22</a>2, <a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">197</a>, <a href="#Pg227" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">227</a>, <a href="#Pg242" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">242</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Scrivener, Rev. F. H., p. vii, viii, <a href="#Pg009" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">9</a>, <a href="#Pg077" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">77</a>, <a href="#Pg139" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">139</a>, <a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">197</a>, <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">215</a>, <a href="#Pg227" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">227</a>, <a href="#Pg246" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">246</a>, <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302-4</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Sections" id="Index-Sections" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Sections without Canons in MSS., p. <a href="#Pg302" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">302</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">their use, <a href="#Pg303" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">303-10</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Ammonian" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Ammonian</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">σελίδες, p. <a href="#Pg294" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">294</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Severus of Antioch, p. <a href="#Pg040" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">40-1</a>, <a href="#Pg057" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">57-9</a>, <a href="#Pg067" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">67</a>, <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121</a>, <a href="#Pg267" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">267</a>-8, <a href="#Pg315" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">315</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">σημείωσις, p. <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Simon, Père, p. <a href="#Pg048" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">48</a>, <a href="#Pg269" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">269</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Sinaiticus, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codex</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Sirletus, Card., p. <a href="#Pg044" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">44</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Smith, Dean Payne, p. <a href="#Pg041" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">41</a>, <a href="#Pg205" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">205-6</a>, <a href="#Pg214" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">214</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Stanley, Dean A. P., p. <a href="#Pg003" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">3</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. <a href="#Pg136" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">136-45</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Subscription of Gospels, p. <a href="#Pg230" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">230-1</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Suidas, p. <a href="#Pg309" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">309</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Synagogue worship, p. <a href="#Pg192" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">192-3</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Synaxarium, p. <a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">197</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left">“Synopsis Script. S.,”</span> p. <a href="#Pg029" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">29</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Syriac" id="Index-Syriac" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Syriac MSS., p. <a href="#Pg208" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">208</a>, <a href="#Pg214" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">214-5</a>, <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">225</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306-11</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Syrian" id="Index-Syrian" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Syrian Lessons, p. <a href="#Pg205" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">205</a>, <a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">226</a>, <a href="#Pg238" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">238-9</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Tables" id="Index-Tables" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Tables of Reference in MSS, p. <a href="#Pg304" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">304-11</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Tait, Abp., p. <a href="#Pg002" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">2</a>, <a href="#Pg003" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">3</a>, <a href="#Pg189" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">189</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314-8</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Tatian, p. <a href="#Pg129" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">129</a>, <a href="#Pg314" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">314-8</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">τέλος, p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">119-20</a>, <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">224-42</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Tertullian, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>, <a href="#Pg093" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">93-4</a>, <a href="#Pg106" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">106</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Textual Criticism, p. vii-ix, <a href="#Pg113" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">113</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Texts" id="Index-Texts" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">TEXTS.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Matthew</span></span> i. 10, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 25, p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iii. 16, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iii. 17, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iv. 18-22, p. <a href="#Pg295" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">295-6</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">viii. 9, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">viii. 13, p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80</a>, <a href="#Pg222" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">222</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xi. 19, p. <a href="#Pg083" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">83</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xi. 20, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xii. 9, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiii. 35, p. <a href="#Pg081" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">81</a>, <a href="#Pg110" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">110</a>-1;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiii. 36, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiii. 39, 55, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 14, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 22, p. <a href="#Pg216" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">216</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 30, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xv. 22, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 10, p. <a href="#Pg177" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">177</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 12, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178-9</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 15, p. <a href="#Pg162" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">162</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xx. 17, p. <a href="#Pg223" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">223</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xx. 29, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxi. 8, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxi. 31, p. <a href="#Pg083" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">83</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxv. 24, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxvi. 34, 75, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxvi. 39, p. <a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">217</a>-8.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxvii. 32, p. <a href="#Pg188" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">188</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxvii. 34, p. <a href="#Pg084" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">84</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxvii. 35, p. <a href="#Pg075" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">75</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxvii. 48, 49, p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80</a>, <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>, <a href="#Pg313" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">313-8</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxvii. 54, 55, p. <a href="#Pg315" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">315</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxviii. 2, 3, p. <a href="#Pg073" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">73</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxviii. 8, p. <a href="#Pg084" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">84</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxviii. 19, 20, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Mark</span></span> i. 1, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>, <a href="#Pg185" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">185</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 9-20, p. <a href="#Pg182" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">182</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 10, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 11, 13, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 16-20, p. <a href="#Pg295" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">295-6</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 28, p. <a href="#Pg085" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">85</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vi. 3, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vii. 3, 4, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vii. 19, p. <a href="#Pg179" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">179</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vii. 26, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">viii. 10, 15, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">x. 6, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">x. 42, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">x. 46, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xi. 8, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiii. 19, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 3, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 30, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 30, 68, 72, p. <a href="#Pg084" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">84</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 41, p. <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">225</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 58, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 72, p. <a href="#Pg177" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">177</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xv. 28, p. <a href="#Pg301" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">301</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xv. 46, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 8 and 9, p. <a href="#Pg239" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">239</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 8-20, p. <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 9, p. <a href="#Pg152" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">152-3</a>, <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178-9</a>, <a href="#Pg187" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">187</a>, <a href="#Pg216" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">216</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 9-20, p. <a href="#Pg182" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">182</a>, <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">224</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 10, 14, p. <a href="#Pg187" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">187</a>, <a href="#Pg319" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">319</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 15, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 15, 16, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 19, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>, <a href="#Pg195" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">195</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Luke</span></span> i. 26, p. <a href="#Pg085" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">85</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 27, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">ii. 14, p. <a href="#Pg257" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">257-63</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">ii. 37, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iii. 22, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>, <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iii. 23, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iv. 5, p. <a href="#Pg074" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">74</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iv. 16, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iv. 44, p. <a href="#Pg085" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">85</a>.</div>
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page333">[pg 333]</span><a name="Pg333" id="Pg333" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">(<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Luke</span></span>) v. 1, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>, <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 1-11, p. <a href="#Pg295" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">295-6</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 17, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vi. 1, p. <a href="#Pg075" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">75</a>, <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vi. 37, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vi. 48, p. <a href="#Pg081" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">81</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vii. 1, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vii. 31, p. <a href="#Pg216" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">216</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">viii. 2, p. <a href="#Pg152" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">152</a>, <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">ix. 57, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">x. 1, p. <a href="#Pg081" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">81</a>, <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">x. 25, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiii. 2, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xv. 13, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 6, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 16, p. <a href="#Pg074" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">74</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvi. 19, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xviii. 15, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xix. 45, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xx. 1, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxii. 25, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxii. 43, 44, p. <a href="#Pg079" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">79</a>, <a href="#Pg201" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">201</a>, <a href="#Pg217" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">217-8</a>, <a href="#Pg301" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">301</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxii. 64, p. <a href="#Pg074" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">74</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiii. 15, p. <a href="#Pg083" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">83</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiii. 34, p. <a href="#Pg079" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">79</a>, <a href="#Pg219" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">219</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiii. 38, p. <a href="#Pg079" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">79</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiii. 45, p. <a href="#Pg085" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">85-6</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiv. 12, p. <a href="#Pg222" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">222</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiv. 13, p. <a href="#Pg085" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">85</a>, <a href="#Pg236" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">236</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiv. 16, p. <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178-9</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiv. 31, p. <a href="#Pg073" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">73</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiv. 36, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiv. 42, 52, 53, p. <a href="#Pg074" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">74</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxiv. 51, p. <a href="#Pg195" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">195</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. John</span></span> i. 3, 4, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>, <a href="#Pg110" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">110</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 3, 18, 50, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 4, p. <a href="#Pg081" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">81</a>, <a href="#Pg109" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">109-11</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 18, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>, <a href="#Pg081" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">81</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 28, p. <a href="#Pg236" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">236</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 29, 44, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 34, p. <a href="#Pg081" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">81</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 50, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">ii. 3, p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iii. 13, p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vi. 14, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vi. 17, 64, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vi. 51, p. <a href="#Pg111" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">111</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vii. 53-viii. 11, p. <a href="#Pg219" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">219</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">viii. 57, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">viii. 59, p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">80</a>, <a href="#Pg222" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">222</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">ix. 4, 11, p. <a href="#Pg081" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">81</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">ix. 35, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">ix. 38, p. <a href="#Pg079" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">79</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">x. 14, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">x. 29, p. <a href="#Pg223" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">223</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiii. 3, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiii. 10, p. <a href="#Pg111" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">111</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 1, p. <a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">220</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiv. 31, p. <a href="#Pg188" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">188</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvii. 10, p. <a href="#Pg082" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">82</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xvii. 15, 16, p. <a href="#Pg076" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">76</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xviii. 1, p. <a href="#Pg188" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">188</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xix. 13, p. <a href="#Pg223" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">223</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xix. 17, p. <a href="#Pg188" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">188</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xix. 34, p. <a href="#Pg218" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">218</a>, <a href="#Pg313" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">313-5</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxi. 1, p. <a href="#Pg221" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">221</a>, 3;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxi. 1-6, 11, p. <a href="#Pg295" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">295-6</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxi. 12, 13, 15-17, p. <a href="#Pg297" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">297</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxi. 18, p. <a href="#Pg083" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">83</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xxi. 25, p. <a href="#Pg079" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">79</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Acts</span></span> i. 2, 22, 23, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">i. 9, p. <a href="#Pg195" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">195</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iv. 12, p. <a href="#Pg262" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">262</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">viii. 5, p. <a href="#Pg085" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">85</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">x. 15, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">xiii. 15, 27, p. <a href="#Pg192" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">192</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ephes</span></span>. i. 1, p. <a href="#Pg091" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">91-109</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">vi. 21, 2, p. <a href="#Pg101" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">101</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Coloss.</span></span> i. 23, p. <a href="#Pg162" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">162</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iv. 7, 16, p. <a href="#Pg101" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">101</a>, <a href="#Pg105" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">105</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">1 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Pet.</span></span> ii. 13, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">iv. 19, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">2 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Pet.</span></span> iii. 4, p. <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ecclus.</span></span> xliii. 11, 12, p. <a href="#Pg301" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">301</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">1 <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Macc.</span></span> iv. 59, p. <a href="#Pg301" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">301</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">θεᾶσθαι, p. <a href="#Pg156" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">156-8</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Thebaic Version, p. <a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">35</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>, 7.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Theodoret, p. <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>, <a href="#Pg317" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">317-8</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Theodotus of Ancyra, p. <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Theophania, p. <a href="#Pg207" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">207</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Theophylact, p. <a href="#Pg030" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">30</a>, <a href="#Pg266" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">266</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">θεωρεῖν, p. <a href="#Pg157" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">157</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Thompson" id="Index-Thompson" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Thompson, Rev. A. S., p. ii, <a href="#Pg252" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">252</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Thomson, Abp., p. <a href="#Pg013" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">13</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Tischendorf, Dr., p. <a href="#Pg008" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">8</a>, <a href="#Pg009" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">9</a>, <a href="#Pg010" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">10</a>, <a href="#Pg038" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">38</a>, <a href="#Pg077" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">77-9</a>, <a href="#Pg085" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">85-6</a>, <a href="#Pg093" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">93</a>, <a href="#Pg109" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">109-14</a>, <a href="#Pg123" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">123</a>, <a href="#Pg125" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">125-33</a>, <a href="#Pg137" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">137</a>, <a href="#Pg153" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">153</a>, <a href="#Pg222" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">222</a>, 7, <a href="#Pg242" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">242</a>, 4, <a href="#Pg251" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">251-2</a>, 9, <a href="#Pg260" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">260-1</a>, <a href="#Pg280" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">280</a>, <a href="#Pg293" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">293</a>, <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">311</a>, <a href="#Pg322" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">322</a>, viii-ix.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Titus" id="Index-Titus" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Titus of Bostra, p. <a href="#Pg258" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">258</a>, <a href="#Pg275" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">275</a>, <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Toledo, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Townson, Rev. Dr., p. <a href="#Pg151" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">151</a>, <a href="#Pg179" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">179</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Tregelles, Dr., p. <a href="#Pg009" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">9</a>, <a href="#Pg010" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">10-12</a>, <a href="#Pg038" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">38</a>, 9, <a href="#Pg060" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">60</a>, <a href="#Pg076" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">76</a>, <a href="#Pg114" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">114</a>, <a href="#Pg126" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">126-9</a>, <a href="#Pg136" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">136</a>, <a href="#Pg145" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">145</a>, <a href="#Pg169" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">169</a>, <a href="#Pg222" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">222-3</a>, <a href="#Pg227" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">227</a>, <a href="#Pg234" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">234</a>, <a href="#Pg242" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">242</a>, 4, 5, 7, <a href="#Pg251" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">251</a>, 9, <a href="#Pg260" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">260</a>, <a href="#Pg319" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">319</a>, viii-ix.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Turin, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Ulphilas, p. <a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">35</a>, <a href="#Pg262" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">262</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Uncial MSS. p. <a href="#Pg020" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">20</a>, <a href="#Pg071" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">71</a>. <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">See</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ὑπόθεσις, p. <a href="#Pg274" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">274-5</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">ὕστερον, p. <a href="#Pg160" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">160</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Vatican, p. <a href="#Pg117" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">117</a>, <a href="#Pg283" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">283-4</a>, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-9</a>: <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Vaticanus, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codex</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Venice, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Vercellone, C., p. <a href="#Pg073" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">73</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Versions, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Armenian" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Armenian</a>, &amp;c.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Vetus Itala, p. <a href="#Pg035" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">35</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<a name="Index-Victor" id="Index-Victor" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Victor of Antioch, p. <a href="#Pg029" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">29</a>, <a href="#Pg059" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">59-65</a>, <a href="#Pg067" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">67</a>, <a href="#Pg122" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">122</a>, <a href="#Pg134" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">134</a>, <a href="#Pg178" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">178</a>, <a href="#Pg180" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">180</a>, <a href="#Pg235" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">235</a>, <a href="#Pg250" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">250</a>, <a href="#Pg268" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">268</a>, <a href="#Pg269" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">269-87</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Codices, <a href="#Pg278" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">278-87</a>;</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Scholion, <a href="#Pg288" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">288-90</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page334">[pg 334]</span><a name="Pg334" id="Pg334" class="tei tei-anchor"></a>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Victor of Capua, p. <a href="#Pg129" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">129</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Vienna, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Vincentius a Thibari, p. <a href="#Pg025" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">25</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Vulgate, p. <a href="#Pg034" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">34</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Westcott, Rev. Prof., p. <a href="#Pg013" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">13</a>, <a href="#Pg023" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">23</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Wetstein, J. J., p. <a href="#Pg121" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">121</a>, <a href="#Pg125" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">125</a>, <a href="#Pg129" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">129</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Wordsworth, Bishop, p. ix, <a href="#Pg009" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">9</a>.</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Wordsworth, Rev. John, p. ix.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Wright, Prof., p. <a href="#Pg027" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">27</a>, <a href="#Pg033" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">33</a>, <a href="#Pg206" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">206</a>, 8, <a href="#Pg214" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">214-5</a>, <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">225</a>, <a href="#Pg306" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">306</a>, 7, 8, 9, 10.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Xavier de Zelada, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></span> <a href="#Index-Codices" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">Codices</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Xiphilinus, John, p. <a href="#Pg044" class="tei tei-ref" style="text-align: left">44</a>.</div>
+</div>
+
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+<hr class="doublepage" /><div class="tei tei-back" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 6.00em">
+  <div id="footnotes" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+    <a name="toc55" id="toc55"></a>
+    <a name="pdf56" id="pdf56"></a>
+    <h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Footnotes</span></h1>
+    <dl class="tei tei-list-footnotes"><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_1" name="note_1" href="#noteref_1">1.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Abp. Tait's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Harmony of Revelation and the Sciences</span></span>, (1864,) p. 21.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_2" name="note_2" href="#noteref_2">2.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_3" name="note_3" href="#noteref_3">3.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Abp. Tait is of opinion
+that it <span class="tei tei-q">“should not retain its place in the public
+Service of the Church:”</span> and Dean Stanley gives sixteen reasons for the
+same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that <span class="tei tei-q">“many excellent laymen, including
+King George III., have declined to take part in the recitation.”</span>
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Final</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Report of the Ritual Commission</span></span>,
+1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_4" name="note_4" href="#noteref_4">4.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">In the words of a
+thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P. Eden),—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Condemnatory</span></em>
+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,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span> judgment namely on the sin of unbelief. The
+further question,—In whom the sin of unbelief is found; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em>
+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.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_5" name="note_5" href="#noteref_5">5.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“The Athanasian Creed,”</span>
+by the Dean of Westminster (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Contemporary
+Review</span></span>, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_6" name="note_6" href="#noteref_6">6.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Commentarius Criticus</span></span>, ii. 197.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_7" name="note_7" href="#noteref_7">7.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Quatuor Evangelia
+Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd.
+MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit Andreas
+Birch, Havniae</span></span>, 1788. A copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may be
+seen in the King's Library (Brit. Mus.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_8" name="note_8" href="#noteref_8">8.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Account of the Printed Text</span></span>, p.
+83.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_9" name="note_9" href="#noteref_9">9.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg003" class="tei tei-ref">3</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_10" name="note_10" href="#noteref_10">10.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Eam esse authenticam
+rationes internae et externae probant gravissimae.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_11" name="note_11" href="#noteref_11">11.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he</span></em> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_12" name="note_12" href="#noteref_12">12.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tischendorf,
+besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the
+Greek Text, has edited our English <span class="tei tei-q">“Authorized Version”</span> (Tauchnitz, 1869,)
+with an <span class="tei tei-q">“Introduction”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Account of the Printed Text,”</span> and in
+his <span class="tei tei-q">“Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.”</span> (vol. iv. of Horne's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introd.</span></span>)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek
+Testament, and an abridgment <span class="tei tei-q">“for the upper forms of Schools and for passmen at
+the Universities,”</span> put forth two editions of a <span class="tei tei-q">“N. T. for English Readers,”</span>
+and three editions of <span class="tei tei-q">“the Authorized Version newly compared with the original Greek
+and revised;”</span>—in every one of which it is stated that these twelve verses are
+<span class="tei tei-q">“probably an addition, placed here in very early times.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_13" name="note_13" href="#noteref_13">13.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp.
+Wordsworth, are honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent Divine
+reluctantly admitting that <span class="tei tei-q">“this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark
+himself;”</span> and Bishop Ellicott (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Historical Lectures</span></span>, pp. 26-7)
+asking <span class="tei tei-q">“Why may not this portion have been written by S. Mark at a later
+period?;”</span>—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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Without the slightest misgiving”</span> he has uniformly
+maintained the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>,
+pp. 7 and 429-32.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_14" name="note_14" href="#noteref_14">14.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Hæc non a Marco
+scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,”</span> (p. 320.) <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> (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:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Quæ quum ita sint, sanæ erga
+sacrum textum pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt
+qua a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.”</span> (p. 407.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_15" name="note_15" href="#noteref_15">15.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Evangelia Apocrypha</span></span>, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_16" name="note_16" href="#noteref_16">16.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Pp. 253,
+7-9.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_17" name="note_17" href="#noteref_17">17.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson
+pronounced it <span class="tei tei-q">“manifestly untenable”</span> that S. Mark's Gospel was the last written;
+and assigned <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 64 as <span class="tei tei-q">“its most probable”</span> date. In his
+second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—<span class="tei tei-q">“When we consider that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Gospel
+was not written till the second century</span></em>, internal evidence loses much of its force
+against the authenticity of these verses.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction to
+N.T.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_18" name="note_18" href="#noteref_18">18.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Vol. ii. p.
+239.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_19" name="note_19" href="#noteref_19">19.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Developed
+Criticism</span></span>, [1857], p. 53.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_20" name="note_20" href="#noteref_20">20.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Ed. 1847. i.
+p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader's acceptance
+in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_21" name="note_21" href="#noteref_21">21.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction to the Study of the Gospels</span></span>, p.
+311.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_22" name="note_22" href="#noteref_22">22.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Critical and Exegetical Commentary</span></span>,
+1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_23" name="note_23" href="#noteref_23">23.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">In the Roman
+law this principle is thus expressed,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Ei incumbit probatio
+qui dicit, non qui negat.”</span> Taylor <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">on the Law of Evidence</span></span>,
+1868, i. p. 369.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_24" name="note_24" href="#noteref_24">24.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This is freely allowed by all.
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam jam
+in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.”</span> Tregelles
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N.T.</span></span> p. 214.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_25" name="note_25" href="#noteref_25">25.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p.
+626) accounts for the phenomenon:—<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_26" name="note_26" href="#noteref_26">26.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his latest
+edition) S. John xxi. 25.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_27" name="note_27" href="#noteref_27">27.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Chap. III.-VIII.,
+also Chap. X.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_28" name="note_28" href="#noteref_28">28.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Chap. IX.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_29" name="note_29" href="#noteref_29">29.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V,
+Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_30" name="note_30" href="#noteref_30">30.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See
+<a href="#Appendix_A" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (A)</a>, on the true reading of S. Luke ii.
+14.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_31" name="note_31" href="#noteref_31">31.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Consider how Ignatius (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad
+Smyrn.</span></span>, c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39; and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his
+Ep. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad Ephes.</span></span> c. 17.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_32" name="note_32" href="#noteref_32">32.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hist. Eccl.</span></span> iii.
+39.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_33" name="note_33" href="#noteref_33">33.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Apol.</span></span> I. c. 45.—The supposed
+quotations in c. 9 from the Fragment <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">De Resurrectione</span></span> (Westcott
+and others) are clearly references to S. Luke xxiv.,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em>
+to S. Mark xvi.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_34" name="note_34" href="#noteref_34">34.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">lib. iii. c. x. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad
+fin.</span></span> (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). <span class="tei tei-q">“In fine autem Evangelii ait
+Marcus, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est sis, receptus est in
+caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.</span></em>”</span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_35" name="note_35" href="#noteref_35">35.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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) <span class="tei tei-q">“Apostolical Constitutions,”</span>
+(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Apostolical
+Constitutions;”</span> of which the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hippolyti
+Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce</span></span>, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. 74.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Octateuchus Clementinus,”</span> concerning which Lagarde
+has several remarks in the preface to his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Reliquiæ Juris Ecclesiastici
+Antiquissimæ</span></span>, 1856. The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the
+last-named publication. The exact correspondence between the <span class="tei tei-q">“Octateuchus
+Clementinus”</span> and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend
+no further than the single chapter (the iv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>)
+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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Reliquiæ</span></span>, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there headed
+Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων.</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_36" name="note_36" href="#noteref_36">36.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ad
+fin.</span></span> See Routh's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opuscula</span></span>, i. p. 80.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_37" name="note_37" href="#noteref_37">37.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf's remark (ed. 8va.
+p. 407), <span class="tei tei-q">“Quod idem [Justinus] Christum ἀνεληλυθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐράνους dicit,
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Apol.</span></span> I. c. 50?] minus valet.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_38" name="note_38" href="#noteref_38">38.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“In nomine meo manum
+imponite, daemonia expellite,”</span> (Cyprian Opp. p. 237 [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Reliqq.
+Sacr.</span></span> iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,)—<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">In
+nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus imponent</span></span> et bene
+habebunt.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_39" name="note_39" href="#noteref_39">39.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Responsa ad Episcopos</span></span>,
+c. 44, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Reliqq.</span></span> v. 248.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_40" name="note_40" href="#noteref_40">40.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Evangelia
+Apocrypha</span></span>, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: also
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Proleg.</span></span> p. lvi.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_41" name="note_41" href="#noteref_41">41.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">In
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">l.</span></span> vii. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span> 7 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad
+fin.</span></span>),—λαβόντες ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κηρύξαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον:
+and in <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">l.</span></span> viii. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span> 1,—ἡμῖν τοῖς
+ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Observe, this immediately
+follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_42" name="note_42" href="#noteref_42">42.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Lib.</span></span> vi. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span> 15.—The
+quotation (at the beginning of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">lib.</span></span> viii.) of the 17th
+and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper place.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Supra</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg024" class="tei tei-ref">24</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_43" name="note_43" href="#noteref_43">43.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 421.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_44" name="note_44" href="#noteref_44">44.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Apud</span></span> Hieron. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp. ed.</span></span> Vallars., ii.
+951-4.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_45" name="note_45" href="#noteref_45">45.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Dr. Wright's ed. of <span class="tei tei-q">“Aphraates,”</span>
+(4<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">to</span></span>. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am entirely
+indebted to the learned Editor's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Preface</span></span> for the information in
+the text.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_46" name="note_46" href="#noteref_46">46.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">From Dr. Wright, and my brother
+Archdeacon Rose.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_47" name="note_47" href="#noteref_47">47.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_48" name="note_48" href="#noteref_48">48.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii.
+765 A, B.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_49" name="note_49" href="#noteref_49">49.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Καὶ μὴν τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον
+τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρία πρώτῃ [ὤφθη].
+Chrys. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ch. 355 B.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_50" name="note_50" href="#noteref_50">50.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Cogis”</span> (he says to Pope
+Damasus) <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_51" name="note_51" href="#noteref_51">51.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Vol. i. p. 327 C
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> Vallars.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_52" name="note_52" href="#noteref_52">52.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Contra Pelagianos</span></span>, II. 15, (Opp. ii.
+744-5):—<span class="tei tei-q">“In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum
+in fine Evangelii scribitur: <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">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.</span></span>”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_53" name="note_53" href="#noteref_53">53.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_54" name="note_54" href="#noteref_54">54.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_55" name="note_55" href="#noteref_55">55.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ἐξελθόντες γάρ, φησι, διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ.
+τοῦ Κυρίοῦ συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων σημειων.
+Nestorius <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c. Orthodoxos</span></span>: (Cyril. Alexand. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">adv.
+Nestorian.</span></span> Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,—τῇ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ
+δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι, διεκηρύσσοντο καὶ εἰργάζοντο τὰς θεοσημείας οἱ θεοπέσιοι
+μαθηταὶ. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> D.) This quotation was
+first noticed by Matthaei (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Enthym. Zig.</span></span> i. 161.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_56" name="note_56" href="#noteref_56">56.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ
+γεγραμμένον; Ὁ μὲν οὄν Κύριος—ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii. 415.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_57" name="note_57" href="#noteref_57">57.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Athanasii <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. ii.
+p. 181 F, 182 A. See the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Præfat.</span></span>, pp. vii., viii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_58" name="note_58" href="#noteref_58">58.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Indices,”</span> 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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> 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.)]
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_59" name="note_59" href="#noteref_59">59.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Gregentius
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud</span></span> Galland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in
+Evang.)—Modestus <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud</span></span> Photium cod. 275.—Johannis
+Damasceni <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> (ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and
+Theophylact (who quotes <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the verses) and Euthymius <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in
+loc.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_60" name="note_60" href="#noteref_60">60.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that
+some more leaves of this Version have just been recovered.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_61" name="note_61" href="#noteref_61">61.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">By a happy providence, one of
+the fragments contains the last four verses.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_62" name="note_62" href="#noteref_62">62.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii.
+5, Thomas writes,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">In tribus codicibus Græcis</span></em>, et in uno Syriaco
+antiquæ versionis, non inventum est nomen, <span class="tei tei-q">‘Nazarenus.’</span> ”</span>—Cf. ad xxvii.
+35.—Adler's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T. Verss. Syrr.</span></span>, p. 97.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_63" name="note_63" href="#noteref_63">63.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.
+<a href="#Chapter_VIII" class="tei tei-ref">viii</a>.)—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, &amp;c. &amp;c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_64" name="note_64" href="#noteref_64">64.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona,
+1861-4, under the following title:—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum
+ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit, Prolegomenis et
+Glossario adornavit, Comes</span></span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Franciscus Miniscalchi
+Erizzo</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_65" name="note_65" href="#noteref_65">65.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">It does not sensibly
+detract from the value of this evidence that one ancient codex, the <span class="tei tei-q">“Codex
+Bobbiensis”</span> (k), which Tregelles describes as <span class="tei tei-q">“a revised text, in which the
+influence of ancient MSS. is discernible,”</span> [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed text</span></span>, &amp;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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_66" name="note_66" href="#noteref_66">66.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici
+satis agnoverint, vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.”</span> Mai, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nova Patt.
+Bibl.</span></span> iv. 256.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_67" name="note_67" href="#noteref_67">67.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Account of the Printed Text</span></span>, p.
+247.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_68" name="note_68" href="#noteref_68">68.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Gr. Test.</span></span>
+p. 322.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_69" name="note_69" href="#noteref_69">69.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> (ed. 1638) iii, 411 B.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_70" name="note_70" href="#noteref_70">70.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tregelles,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed Text</span></span>, p. 248, also in Horne's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introd.</span></span> iv. 434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the
+rest, following Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &amp;c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_71" name="note_71" href="#noteref_71">71.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Auct.</span></span> i.
+743-74.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibl. Vett. PP.</span></span> xi. 221-6.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_72" name="note_72" href="#noteref_72">72.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibl.
+Coisl.</span></span> pp. 68-75.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catena</span></span>, i. 243-51.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_73" name="note_73" href="#noteref_73">73.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Dionysius Syrus (i.e.
+the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean Payne Smith's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cat. of
+Syrr. MSS.</span></span> p. 411] who died <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 1171) in his
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Exposition of S. Mark's Gospel</span></span> (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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_74" name="note_74" href="#noteref_74">74.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Alford, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Greek Test.</span></span> i. p.
+433.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_75" name="note_75" href="#noteref_75">75.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Scriptorum Vett. Nova
+Collectio</span></span>, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_76" name="note_76" href="#noteref_76">76.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">At p. 217,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> 1847), Mai designates it as <span class="tei tei-q">“Codex Vat. Palat. cxx
+pulcherrimus, sæculi ferme x.”</span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_77" name="note_77" href="#noteref_77">77.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Vol. iv. pp. 219-309.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_78" name="note_78" href="#noteref_78">78.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nova P. P. Bibliotheca</span></span>, iv. 255.—That it was styled
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Inquiries with their Resolutions”</span> (Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσεις), Eusebius leads us to
+suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Demonstr.
+Evang. lib.</span></span> vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Mai</span></span>, iv.
+255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Mai</span></span>, 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,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">De Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ</span></span>: <span class="tei tei-q">“Edidit”</span> (he says)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ,”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">De Scriptt. Illustt.</span></span> c. 81.)
+Again, Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hieron.</span></span> in Matth. i. 16.) Consider
+also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given below, p. <a href="#Pg044" class="tei tei-ref">44</a>,
+note (q). <span class="tei tei-q">“Indicated”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hist. Crit. N. T.</span></span> p.
+89.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_79" name="note_79" href="#noteref_79">79.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Ἐκλογὴ ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ
+Εὐσεβίου πρὸς Στέφανον [and πρὸς Μαρῖνον] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ
+λύσεων. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes
+facing the title of vol. i. ed. 1825.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_80" name="note_80" href="#noteref_80">80.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Corderii Cat. in Joan.</span></span> p. 436. (See Mai, iv.
+299.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_81" name="note_81" href="#noteref_81">81.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Possini Cat. in Marcum</span></span>, p.
+343.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_82" name="note_82" href="#noteref_82">82.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenæ,
+inasmuch as their compilers are observed to have been very curious in such questions,
+are evidently full of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">disjecta membra</span></span> 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.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">seu</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catena</span></span>
+of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Corderius</span></span> at pp. 448-9—449—450—457.—He
+quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of John Xiphilinus, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cod.
+Vat.</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catenæ</span></span>, 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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Præfat.</span></span> p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found
+the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catena</span></span>
+of Possinus. In countless places he might, by
+such references, have improved his often manifestly faulty text.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_83" name="note_83" href="#noteref_83">83.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 116.) to Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis) <span class="tei tei-q">“scire
+te vult in Siciliâ inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensis <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">de
+Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ</span></span>, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.”</span> The letter
+is dated 1563.</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will be found
+that Eusebius digested his <span class="tei tei-q">“Questions”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">under heads</span></em>: e.g. περὶ το τάφου,
+καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p.
+299.)</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_84" name="note_84" href="#noteref_84">84.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-q">“capitulum”</span> by the Latins,)
+to denote <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a passage</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">section</span></em>, or <span class="tei tei-q">“lesson.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_85" name="note_85" href="#noteref_85">85.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Ἀνάγνωσμα
+(like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to be
+here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgical <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">section</span></em>,
+or <span class="tei tei-q">“lectio.”</span> See Suicer, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in voce</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_86" name="note_86" href="#noteref_86">86.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some
+disarrangement and depravation here.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_87" name="note_87" href="#noteref_87">87.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Mai, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibl.
+P.P. Nova</span></span>, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the original of this passage is
+given in the Appendix (B).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_88" name="note_88" href="#noteref_88">88.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“ὀψὲ—τάφον”</span> [xxviii. 1.] Ἰωάννου φήσαντος <span class="tei tei-q">“τῇ δὲ μιᾷ—ἔτι οὔσης
+σκοτίας.”</span> [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) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad fin.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_89" name="note_89" href="#noteref_89">89.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">I allude
+to the following places:—Combefis, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Novum Auctarium</span></span>, col.
+780.—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Anectt. Græc.</span></span>
+ii. 62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 165.—Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catt.</span></span> i. 251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 169.—Cod. Bodl. Laud. Gr. 33,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this subject
+will do well to begin by reading Simon <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hist. Crit. du
+N. T.</span></span> p. 89. See Mai's foot-note, iv. p. 257.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_90" name="note_90" href="#noteref_90">90.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Ep. cxx.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opera</span></span>, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_91" name="note_91" href="#noteref_91">91.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 844.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_92" name="note_92" href="#noteref_92">92.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_93" name="note_93" href="#noteref_93">93.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>
+[τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι
+αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+For the Latin of the above, see <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hieronymi Opera</span></span>, (ed. Vallars.)
+vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_94" name="note_94" href="#noteref_94">94.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">ἠρώτας
+τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται
+ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; [Eusebius
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad Marinum</span></span>,(Mai, iv. 255.)]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente
+in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane resurrectionem ejus
+factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymus <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad Hedibiam</span></span>, (Opp. i. 818-9.)]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ut suprà</span></span>, p. 257.]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit Dominum
+resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una sabbati
+juxta sepulcrum fiere? [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ut suprà</span></span>, p. 819.]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ut suprà</span></span>, p. 262.]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ
+Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem, audierit à
+Domino, Noli me tangere. [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ut suprà</span></span>, p. 821.]
+</p>
+</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_95" name="note_95" href="#noteref_95">95.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tregelles,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed Text</span></span>, p. 247.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_96" name="note_96" href="#noteref_96">96.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p. <a href="#Pg028" class="tei tei-ref">28</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_97" name="note_97" href="#noteref_97">97.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See
+above, p. <a href="#Pg040" class="tei tei-ref">40-1</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_98" name="note_98" href="#noteref_98">98.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See the
+<a href="#Appendix_C" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (C)</a> § 2.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_99" name="note_99" href="#noteref_99">99.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See the
+<a href="#Appendix_C" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (C)</a> § 1.—For the statement in line 5, see §
+2.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_100" name="note_100" href="#noteref_100">100.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">In the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Eccl. Grac. Monumenta</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Gospel Harmony,”</span>—of which nothing but an
+abridgment has come down to us.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_101" name="note_101" href="#noteref_101">101.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic"> Opp.</span></span> iii. 400 c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_102" name="note_102" href="#noteref_102">102.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ
+Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένομ;Ὁ μὲν οῦν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ.
+Greg. Nyss. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii. 415 D.—See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg029" class="tei tei-ref">29</a>, note (g).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_103" name="note_103" href="#noteref_103">103.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See below, <a href="#Chapter_X" class="tei tei-ref">chap. X</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_104" name="note_104" href="#noteref_104">104.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Fasti Romani</span></span>, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp.
+395-495.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_105" name="note_105" href="#noteref_105">105.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Vol. i.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Præfat.</span></span> p. xxviii. See below, note (p).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_106" name="note_106" href="#noteref_106">106.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Victor Antiochenus”</span> (writes Dr. Tregelles in his
+N. T. vol. i. p. 214,) <span class="tei tei-q">“dicit ὅτι νενόθενται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι
+φερόμενον.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_107" name="note_107" href="#noteref_107">107.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">For additional details concerning Victor of
+Antioch, and his work, the studious in such matters are referred to the
+<a href="#Appendix_D" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (D)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_108" name="note_108" href="#noteref_108">108.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol.
+vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field's edition, p. 527, line 3 to 20.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_109" name="note_109" href="#noteref_109">109.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_110" name="note_110" href="#noteref_110">110.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Compare Cramer's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vict. Ant.</span></span> i. p.
+444, line 6-9, with Field's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Chrys.</span></span> iii. p. 539, line
+7-21.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_111" name="note_111" href="#noteref_111">111.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Mai, iv. p. 257-8.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_112" name="note_112" href="#noteref_112">112.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445,
+line 4.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_113" name="note_113" href="#noteref_113">113.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The following is the original of what is given
+above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι
+τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ,
+<span class="tei tei-q">“ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ
+Μαγδαληνῇ,”</span> 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; <span class="tei tei-q">“ἀναστὰς δὲ,”</span> καὶ ὑποστίξαντες
+ἐπάγωμεν, <span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”</span>
+ἵνα [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The extract from</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor</span></span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">is continued below in the right
+hand column: the left exhibiting the
+text of</span></span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad Marinum</span></span>.”</span>]
+[Transcriber's Note: The extracts will be on alternating paragraphs.]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Eusebius.)
+    τὸ μὲν <span class="tei tei-q">“ἀναστὰς,”</span> ἀν[απέμψωμεν?]
+    ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ <span class="tei tei-q">“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”</span>
+    (τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ
+    ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν,
+    συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Victor.)
+    τὸ μὲν <span class="tei tei-q">“ἀναστὰς,”</span> ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ
+    τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ <span class="tei tei-q">“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”</span>
+    (τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.)
+    τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας
+    παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις;
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Eusebius.)
+    (<span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί”</span> γὰρ <span class="tei tei-q">“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου
+    ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”</span>)
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Victor.)
+    (τὸν γὰρ <span class="tei tei-q">“ὀψὲ σαββάτων”</span> κατὰ Ματθαῖον
+    ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ <span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί”</span> ἑωρακέναι
+    Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.)
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Eusebius.)
+    τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης
+    <span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί”</span> καί αὐτὸς <span class="tei tei-q">“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου”</span>
+    ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ
+    μαρτυρήσας.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Victor.)
+    τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες,
+    <span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί”</span> καὶ αὐτὸς <span class="tei tei-q">“τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων”</span>
+    ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ
+    μαρτυρήσας.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+    [31 words here omitted.]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Eusebius.)
+    ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς
+    δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς αναστάσεως τὸν
+    <span class="tei tei-q">“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.”</span> τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ
+    Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν <span class="tei tei-q">“πρωί.”</span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(Victor.)
+    ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς
+    δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τὸν <span class="tei tei-q">“ὀψὲ
+    τοῦ σαββάτου;”</span> τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος
+    ἐπιφανείας, τὸ <span class="tei tei-q">“προί.”</span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+    [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebius</span></span>, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud Mai</span></span>,
+    iv. p. 256.]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+    [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Victor Antioch</span></span>, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed. Cramer</span></span>, i.
+    p. 444-5: (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">with a few slight emendations of the text from</span></span>
+    Evan. Cod. Reg. 178.)]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Note, that Victor <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">twice</span></em> omits the word πρῶτον, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">twice</span></em>
+reads τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου), <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only because Eusebius had
+inadvertently</span></em> (three times) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">done the same thing</span></em> in the place from
+which Victor is copying. See Mai. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nova P. P. Bibl.</span></span> iv. p.
+256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.</p>
+</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_114" name="note_114" href="#noteref_114">114.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δἐ ὡς διαφόρους ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί
+φασιν οἱ τὴν δοκοῦσαν διαφωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες.
+Vict. Ant. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed. Cramer</span></span>, vol. i. p. 445, l. 23-5:
+referring to what Eusebius says <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud Mai</span></span>, iv. 264 and 265
+(§ iiii): 287-290 (§§ v, vi, vii.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_115" name="note_115" href="#noteref_115">115.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">e.g. in the passage last quoted.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_116" name="note_116" href="#noteref_116">116.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">For the original of this remarkable passage the reader
+is referred to the <a href="#Appendix_E" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (E)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_117" name="note_117" href="#noteref_117">117.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years
+ago,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Scholia certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omnia
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ex uno fonte promanarunt</span></em>. 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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Fortasse Origenes auctor est hujus dubitationis.</span></em>”</span>
+(N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)—The reader is invited to remember what was offered above
+in p. 47 (line 23.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_118" name="note_118" href="#noteref_118">118.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_119" name="note_119" href="#noteref_119">119.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, pp. 47, 125, 431.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_120" name="note_120" href="#noteref_120">120.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> Matthaei, 1792), <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in
+loc.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_121" name="note_121" href="#noteref_121">121.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">For some remarks on this subject the
+reader is referred to the <a href="#Appendix_F" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (F)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_122" name="note_122" href="#noteref_122">122.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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].</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_123" name="note_123" href="#noteref_123">123.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Vercellone,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Del antichissimo Codice
+Vaticano della Bibbia Greca</span></span>, Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_124" name="note_124" href="#noteref_124">124.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dublin Univ. Mag.</span></span> (Nov. 1859,)
+p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_125" name="note_125" href="#noteref_125">125.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ὁμοιοτέλευτον.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_126" name="note_126" href="#noteref_126">126.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">See Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus</span></span>.—Add to his instances,
+this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ Ε<br />
+ΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕ<br />
+Η ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣ<br />
+ΑΣΤΡΑΠΗ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The next
+is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗ<br />
+ΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙ<br />
+ΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟ<br />
+ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝ<br />
+ΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝ<br />
+ΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ<br />
+ΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥ<br />
+ΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke
+xxii. 64:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕ<br />
+ΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε<br />
+[ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟ<br />
+ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ]<br />
+ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are absent
+in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΕΥΑΓΓΕ<br />
+ΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣ<br />
+ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙ<br />
+ΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩ<br />
+ΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_127" name="note_127" href="#noteref_127">127.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> p. 1035: <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">al. ed.</span></span> p. 825)—is
+explained:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.<br />
+ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥ<br />
+ΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Thus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious clause in
+S. Luke xxiv. 42:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ<br />
+[ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙ<br />
+ΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ]<br />
+ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+And why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S. Luke
+xxiv. 53:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝ<br />
+ΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟ<br />
+ΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+And why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of the Temptation
+(S. Luke iv. 5) :—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥ<br />
+ΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗ<br />
+ΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_128" name="note_128" href="#noteref_128">128.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘ<br />
+ΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟ<br />
+ΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+and of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ<br />
+[ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ]<br />
+ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_129" name="note_129" href="#noteref_129">129.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii.
+(1 Cor. v. 7.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_130" name="note_130" href="#noteref_130">130.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_131" name="note_131" href="#noteref_131">131.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Full
+Collation</span></span>, &amp;c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles' N. T. Part II. page ii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_132" name="note_132" href="#noteref_132">132.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See <a href="#Chapter_IV" class="tei tei-ref">Chap. IV</a>.
+p. <a href="#Pg037" class="tei tei-ref">37</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_133" name="note_133" href="#noteref_133">133.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction to Con.
+Bezae</span></span>, p. liv.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_134" name="note_134" href="#noteref_134">134.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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), &amp;c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_135" name="note_135" href="#noteref_135">135.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prolegomena</span></span> to his 4to. reprint of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cod.
+Sin.</span></span> p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to Scrivener's very
+interesting <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus</span></span>, Introduction, p.
+xliii. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">seq.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_136" name="note_136" href="#noteref_136">136.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Tischendorf's note in his reprint of the
+Cod. Sin., <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prolegg.</span></span> p. lix.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_137" name="note_137" href="#noteref_137">137.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος—καταβαίνοντα
+ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_138" name="note_138" href="#noteref_138">138.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ὁ δὲ
+Ἰησοῦς—τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 34):—γράμμασιν Ἐλληνικοῖς καὶ
+Ῥωμαῖκοῖς καὶ Ἐβραῖκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.) </dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_139" name="note_139" href="#noteref_139">139.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν,
+και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_140" name="note_140" href="#noteref_140">140.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Coll. of the Cod. Sin.</span></span>, p.
+xlvii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_141" name="note_141" href="#noteref_141">141.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So, in the margin of the
+Hharklensian revision.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_142" name="note_142" href="#noteref_142">142.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Note, that it is a mistake for
+the advocates of this reading to claim the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Latin</span></em> versions as allies.
+Ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ἄνθρωπος λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κ.τ.λ.
+is not <span class="tei tei-q">“Respondit, Ille homo qui dicitur Jesus,”</span> (as both Tischendorf and
+Tregelles assume;) but <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Respondit ille</span></em>, Homo,”</span> &amp;c.,—as in
+verses 25 and 36.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_143" name="note_143" href="#noteref_143">143.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This reading will be found
+discussed in a footnote (p) at the end of <a href="#Chapter_VII" class="tei tei-ref">Chap.
+VII</a>.,—p. <a href="#Pg110" class="tei tei-ref">110</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_144" name="note_144" href="#noteref_144">144.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Coll. Cod. Sin.</span></span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_145" name="note_145" href="#noteref_145">145.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Coll. Cod. Sin.</span></span> p. xlvii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_146" name="note_146" href="#noteref_146">146.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for
+ἐξελθ. Chrys.^834 (twice,) (also quoted in Cramer's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cat.</span></span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_147" name="note_147" href="#noteref_147">147.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tischendorf accordingly
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is forced</span></em>, 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. <a href="#Pg049" class="tei tei-ref">49</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_148" name="note_148" href="#noteref_148">148.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_149" name="note_149" href="#noteref_149">149.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_150" name="note_150" href="#noteref_150">150.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“the great Dionysius”</span> of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on
+the same subject in Cramer's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catena in Matth.</span></span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_151" name="note_151" href="#noteref_151">151.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg070" class="tei tei-ref">70</a>, and the <a href="#Appendix_F" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix
+(F)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_152" name="note_152" href="#noteref_152">152.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tischendorf's
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>”</span> to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the English
+N.T., 1869,—p. xiii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_153" name="note_153" href="#noteref_153">153.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Epistola quam
+nos <span class="tei tei-q">‘ad Ephesios’</span> præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero 'ad Laodicenos.”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Adv. Marcion.</span></span> lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_154" name="note_154" href="#noteref_154">154.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“ <span class="tei tei-q">‘Titulum’</span> enim <span class="tei tei-q">‘<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ad Laodicenos</span></em>’</span>
+ut addidisse accusatur a Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
+omnino non legisse censendus est.”</span> (N. T. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in loc.</span></span>)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_155" name="note_155" href="#noteref_155">155.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Ecclesiæ quidem veritate Epistolam istam <span class="tei tei-q">‘ad
+Ephesios’</span> habemus emissam, non <span class="tei tei-q">‘ad Laodicenos;’</span> sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando
+interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Adv. Marcion.</span></span> lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_156" name="note_156" href="#noteref_156">156.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἰκανῶν. (Epiphan.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> i. 310 c.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_157" name="note_157" href="#noteref_157">157.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">d</span></span>: pointed out long since by
+Jones, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">On the Canon</span></span>, 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) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ephesians</span></em>, (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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God's</span></span> Word, even when dismembered and exhibited in a
+fragmentary shape. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> (p. 375
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">b</span></span>.) He seems to say of Marcion,—
+</p>
+<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em">
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">Fool! to suppose thy shallow wits</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Could quench a fire like that. Go, learn</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">That cut into ten thousand bits</div>
+<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 2.00em">Yet every bit would breathe and burn!</div>
+</div>
+</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_158" name="note_158" href="#noteref_158">158.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14:
+v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> i. p. 318 and 371-2.)
+</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_159" name="note_159" href="#noteref_159">159.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 318
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">c</span></span> ( = 371 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">b</span></span>), and
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps"> 319 a ( = 374 a.)</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_160" name="note_160" href="#noteref_160">160.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">b, c,</span></span> is lost sight of at p. 319
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">b</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_161" name="note_161" href="#noteref_161">161.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See below, at the end of the next note.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_162" name="note_162" href="#noteref_162">162.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Ἀποστολικῷ
+καλουμένῳ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πρὸς Λαοδικέας:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Εῖς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν
+βάπτισμα, εἶς Χριστὸς, εἶς Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ
+ἐν πᾶσιν.”</span> (Epiphan. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">e</span></span>.] 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“fabrication”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">c</span></span>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">a</span></span>.)
+(Epiphanius here uses Ἀπόστολος in its technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with S.
+Paul's Epistles.)</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_163" name="note_163" href="#noteref_163">163.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—”</span>Ἐπὶ μόνων
+Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ <span class="tei tei-q">“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;”</span> καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει
+προσκείμενον τὸ <span class="tei tei-q">“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“ὄντες.”</span> καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι.
+<span class="tei tei-q">“ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,”</span> φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος,
+<span class="tei tei-q">“ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση.”</span>—Cramer's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catena in Ephes.</span></span>
+i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_164" name="note_164" href="#noteref_164">164.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35:
+xii. 14, &amp;c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_165" name="note_165" href="#noteref_165">165.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Ἀλλὰ
+καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽ ἐπιγνώσεως,
+<span class="tei tei-q">“ὄντας”</span> αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών: <span class="tei tei-q">“τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,
+καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.”</span> οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν
+τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. Note also what immediately follows.
+(Basil <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> i. p. 254 E, 255 A.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_166" name="note_166" href="#noteref_166">166.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See the places quoted by Scrivener,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introd.</span></span> pp. 381-91; particularly p. 385.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_167" name="note_167" href="#noteref_167">167.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Hieron.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. vii. p. 543:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Illud quoque in Præfatione
+commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam conscripsisse,
+quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_168" name="note_168" href="#noteref_168">168.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Quidam
+curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum est
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘Haec dices filiis Israel, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Qui est</span></span> misit me,’</span> etiam
+eos qui Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf. <span class="tei tei-q">‘qui sunt Ephesi,’</span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vulg.</span></span>]
+sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... ab <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eo</span></span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘qui est,’</span> hi <span class="tei tei-q">‘qui sunt’</span> appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter,
+non ad eos <span class="tei tei-q">‘qui sint,’</span> sed <span class="tei tei-q">‘qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint’</span> scriptum
+arbitrantur.”</span> Hieron. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vii. p. 545
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">a, b.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_169" name="note_169" href="#noteref_169">169.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The cursive <span class="tei tei-q">“Cod. No. 67”</span> (or
+<span class="tei tei-q">“67<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">2</span></span>”</span>) is improperly quoted as <span class="tei tei-q">“omitting”</span>
+(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),—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cod.
+ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat</span></em>.”</span> ... The MS. must have a curious history. H. Treschow
+describes it in his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece</span></span>,
+&amp;c. Havn. 1773, pp. 62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Libellus
+Criticus de indole Cod. MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv.</span></span> &amp;c. Havn.
+1785.—It appears to have been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod.
+B itself.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_170" name="note_170" href="#noteref_170">170.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Collation</span></span>, p. xlix.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_171" name="note_171" href="#noteref_171">171.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction
+to Codex Bezae</span></span>, p. liv.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_172" name="note_172" href="#noteref_172">172.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Coll. of Cod. Sin.</span></span> p. xlv.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_173" name="note_173" href="#noteref_173">173.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Eph. vi. 21, 22.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_174" name="note_174" href="#noteref_174">174.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Coloss. iv. 7, 16.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_175" name="note_175" href="#noteref_175">175.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ubi suprà</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_176" name="note_176" href="#noteref_176">176.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Gnomon</span></span>, in Ephes. i.
+1, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad init.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_177" name="note_177" href="#noteref_177">177.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, pp.
+<a href="#Pg093" class="tei tei-ref">93-6</a>. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad Ephes.</span></span> c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also
+Lardner, vol. ii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_178" name="note_178" href="#noteref_178">178.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">defective</span></em>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses alone remains
+open to them in editing the text: either (1) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">To leave a blank space</span></em> after
+τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">To let the words</span></em> ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">stand</span></em>,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they can do.
+[For with Conybeare and Howson (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Life and Letters of S. Paul</span></span>, ii.
+491), to eject the words <span class="tei tei-q">“at Ephesus”</span> from the text of Ephes. i. 1, and actually
+to substitute in their room the words <span class="tei tei-q">“in Laodicea,”</span>—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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prolegg.</span></span> pp. 13-8); who infers, <span class="tei tei-q">“in accordance
+with the prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle was
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">veritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus</span></em>, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to no other
+Church</span></em>.”</span>] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity; viz. they
+will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (<span class="tei tei-q">“carta bianca”</span>) copy of the
+Epistle looked with <span class="tei tei-q">“the space after τοῖς οὔσι left utterly void:”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Encyclical”</span> hypothesis
+altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed
+text of Scripture which can be named.
+</p>
+</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_179" name="note_179" href="#noteref_179">179.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Ἐγκύκλιον
+ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii interpretantur
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">literas circulares</span></em>: ego cum viris doctis malim <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Epistolas</span></em>
+vel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">literas publicas</span></em>, ad omnes fideles pertinentes, quas Græci aliàs
+vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicer <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in voce</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_180" name="note_180" href="#noteref_180">180.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ
+ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicer <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in voce</span></span>, Ἐγκύκλιος.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_181" name="note_181" href="#noteref_181">181.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Routh's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Reliquiæ</span></span>, vol. iii. p.
+266.—<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—Suicer <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in voc.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_182" name="note_182" href="#noteref_182">182.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-q">“On the whole,”</span> says
+Bishop Middleton, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Doctrine of the Greek Art.</span></span>
+p. 355) <span class="tei tei-q">“I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on Col. iv.
+16,)—<span class="tei tei-q">‘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.’</span> ”</span>—This suggestion is intended to meet
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">another</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Colossians</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to
+send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Ephesians</span></em>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ephesians</span></em>
+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!</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_183" name="note_183" href="#noteref_183">183.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Epiphan. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> i. 311 D.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_184" name="note_184" href="#noteref_184">184.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Marcion
+exerte et palam machæra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad materiam
+suam cædem Scripturarum confecit.”</span> (Tertullian <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Præscript.
+Hær.</span></span> c. 38, p. 50.) <span class="tei tei-q">“Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque
+subducat.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Adv. Marcion.</span></span> lib. v, c. xvii, p. 455.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_185" name="note_185" href="#noteref_185">185.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above p. <a href="#Pg095" class="tei tei-ref">95</a>,
+and see note (f) p. <a href="#Pg094" class="tei tei-ref">94</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_186" name="note_186" href="#noteref_186">186.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See, by all
+means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prolegg.</span></span> pp.
+13-15.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_187" name="note_187" href="#noteref_187">187.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">p. xiv.—See above,
+pp. <a href="#Pg008" class="tei tei-ref">8</a>, <a href="#Pg009" class="tei tei-ref">9</a>, note (f).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_188" name="note_188" href="#noteref_188">188.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1) Valentt. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud</span></span> Irenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud</span></span> Clem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens
+Alex., and (3) Theodotus (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud</span></span> Clem.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">also</span></span>
+read ἦν. These testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also has
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">both</span></em> readings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but Origen,
+(though he remarks that ἔστι is <span class="tei tei-q">“perhaps not an improbable reading,”</span>) reads ἦν
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ten or eleven times</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all the
+MSS. in the world</span></em>, except of א and D.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the evidence</span></em>,—declining to import into the argument what
+may be called <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">logical</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em>, was obvious.... Chrysostom's opinion is well known,
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Let us beware of putting the full stop”</span> (he says) <span class="tei tei-q">“at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as
+do the heretics.”</span> [He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> i. 130), and to Theodotus (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">apud</span></span> Clem.
+Alex.). But it must be confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Routh,
+Opusc.</span></span> i. 68), Clemens Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch.
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 269, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Routh</span></span>
+iii. 293), Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the
+Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Routh</span></span> iii. 459), and
+Augustine,—point the place in the same way. <span class="tei tei-q">“It is worth our observation,”</span>
+(says Pearson,) <span class="tei tei-q">“that Eusebius citing the place of S. John to prove that the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Holy Ghost</span></span> was made by the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Son</span></span>,
+leaves out those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute that heresy
+of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.”</span>]
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Chrysostom proceeds,—<span class="tei tei-q">“In order to make out that <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the
+Spirit</span></span> is a creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the
+Evangelist's language is made unintelligible.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> viii.
+40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not by
+Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred to
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infrà</span></span>), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the sentence
+as we do.—See by all means
+on this subject Pearson's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">note</span></span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">z</span></span>),
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Art.</span></span> viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opusc.</span></span> i. 88-9.</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_189" name="note_189" href="#noteref_189">189.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(1.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. John</span></span> i. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.)
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. Matth.</span></span> xiii. 35: το ρηθεν δια ησαιου του
+προφετου.—(3.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. John</span></span> xiii. 10: ο λελουμενος ουχ εχι
+χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">S. John</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“indubitably
+correct.”</span>)
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">very</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">dropped a line</span></em>:
+thus:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙ<br />
+ΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙ<br />
+ΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p.
+<a href="#Pg110" class="tei tei-ref">110</a>.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_190" name="note_190" href="#noteref_190">190.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves careful
+study.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_191" name="note_191" href="#noteref_191">191.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Deut. xvi. 19.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_192" name="note_192" href="#noteref_192">192.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed Text</span></span>, p. 254.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_193" name="note_193" href="#noteref_193">193.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_194" name="note_194" href="#noteref_194">194.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_195" name="note_195" href="#noteref_195">195.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Variae Lectiones</span></span>, &amp;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. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">leg.</span></span> 5 ?) S. Mariæ
+Bened. Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_196" name="note_196" href="#noteref_196">196.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov.
+Test.</span></span> vol. i. p. 199.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_197" name="note_197" href="#noteref_197">197.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_198" name="note_198" href="#noteref_198">198.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula
+usi sunt librarii, qua Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias,
+tamquam dubias notarent.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Variae Lectiones</span></span>, &amp;c. p.
+225.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_199" name="note_199" href="#noteref_199">199.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">pericope de adulterá</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_200" name="note_200" href="#noteref_200">200.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Further obligations to the same
+friend are acknowledged in the <a href="#Appendix_D" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (D)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_201" name="note_201" href="#noteref_201">201.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_202" name="note_202" href="#noteref_202">202.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν
+τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα
+κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188, 186.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_203" name="note_203" href="#noteref_203">203.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See more concerning
+this matter in the <a href="#Appendix_D" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (D)</a>, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad
+fin.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_204" name="note_204" href="#noteref_204">204.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">At the end of S.
+Matthew's Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is found,—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ
+τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+and at the end of S. Mark's, (at fol. 147 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>)—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως
+ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+This second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Both</span></em>
+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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 125.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_205" name="note_205" href="#noteref_205">205.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">= Paris 72,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 107 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>. He might have added, (for
+Wetstein had pointed it out 79 years before,) that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the same note precisely</span></em>
+is found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span>
+98 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_206" name="note_206" href="#noteref_206">206.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See more at
+the very end of <a href="#Chapter_XI" class="tei tei-ref">Chap. XI</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_207" name="note_207" href="#noteref_207">207.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Cod. 1.
+(at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10) contain
+as follows:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV.
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">lege</span></span> 5],) according
+to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has only this:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_208" name="note_208" href="#noteref_208">208.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">It originated in this way. At the end
+of S. Matthew's Gospel, in both Codices, are found those large extracts from the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“2nd Hom. on the Resurrection”</span> which Montfaucon published in the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibl. Coisl.</span></span> (pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since
+reprinted at the end of his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catena in S. Matth.</span></span> (i. 243-251.)
+In Codd. 34 and 39 they are ascribed to <span class="tei tei-q">“Severus of Antioch.”</span> See
+above (p. <a href="#Pg040" class="tei tei-ref">40</a>.) See also pp. <a href="#Pg039" class="tei tei-ref">39</a>
+and <a href="#Pg057" class="tei tei-ref">57</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_209" name="note_209" href="#noteref_209">209.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above,
+pp. <a href="#Pg064" class="tei tei-ref">64</a>, <a href="#Pg065" class="tei tei-ref">65</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_210" name="note_210" href="#noteref_210">210.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19
++ 1 (374) = 20.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_211" name="note_211" href="#noteref_211">211.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">viz. Codd.
+L, 1, 199, 208, 209:—20, 300:—15, 22.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_212" name="note_212" href="#noteref_212">212.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Cod. Λ, 20, 262,
+300.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_213" name="note_213" href="#noteref_213">213.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Evan. 374.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_214" name="note_214" href="#noteref_214">214.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">viz. Evan. 24, 36,
+37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221,
+222. (Birch <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Varr. Lectt</span></span>. p. 225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add
+Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by
+Matthaei.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_215" name="note_215" href="#noteref_215">215.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5
+(enumerated in the preceding note) = 24.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_216" name="note_216" href="#noteref_216">216.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Paris 62,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">olim,</span></span> 2861 and 1558.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_217" name="note_217" href="#noteref_217">217.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">See the facsimile.—The original,
+(which knows nothing of Tischendorf's crosses,) reads as follows:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥ<br />
+ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗ<br />
+ΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣ<br />
+ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗ<br />
+ΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑ<br />
+ΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡ<br />
+Ο ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ<br />
+ΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣ<br />
+ἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙ<br />
+ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ<br />
+ΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗ<br />
+ΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩ<br />
+ΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ<br />
+ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟ<br />
+ΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟ<br />
+ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ
+ΓΑΡ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙ<br />
+ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩ
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">i.e.</span></span>—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_218" name="note_218" href="#noteref_218">218.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Reg, 79a,”</span> which is Scholz'
+designation (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prolegg.</span></span> p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which,
+after him, we number <span class="tei tei-q">“274.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_219" name="note_219" href="#noteref_219">219.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Nec
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Ammonii</span></span> Sectionibus, nec <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Eusebii</span></span>
+Canonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi versus.—Tisch. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span>
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed. 8va</span></span>), p. 406.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_220" name="note_220" href="#noteref_220">220.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed Text</span></span>, p. 248.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_221" name="note_221" href="#noteref_221">221.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_222" name="note_222" href="#noteref_222">222.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_223" name="note_223" href="#noteref_223">223.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This
+seems to represent <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span></em> what Eusebius means in this place. The
+nearest English equivalent to ἀφορμή is <span class="tei tei-q">“a hint.”</span> Consider Euseb.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hist. Eccl.</span></span> v. 27. Also the following:—πολλὰς λαβόντες
+ἀφορμάς. (Andreas, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Proleg. in Apocalyps.</span></span>).—λαβόντες
+τὰς ἀφρμάς. (Anastasius Sin., <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Routh's Rell.</span></span> i. 15.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_224" name="note_224" href="#noteref_224">224.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">κανόνας ... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This
+at least is decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome says
+of Ammonius,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Evangelicos canones excogitavit</span></em> quos postea
+secutus est Eusebius Cæsariensis,”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">De Viris Illust.</span></span> c. lv.
+vol. ii. p. 881,) we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand gain
+statements of this Father are entitled.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_225" name="note_225" href="#noteref_225">225.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-q">“Frustra ad
+Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Quæ
+supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.”</span> (Tischendorf
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">on S. Mark</span></span> xvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he
+assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to light in the
+vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century,
+and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was the lost work of Ammonius,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Proleg.</span></span> p. 63, § 660,)—was of course warranted
+in appealing to the authority of Ammonius <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in support</span></em> 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.
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Proleg.</span></span> 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Matthew's Gospel</span></em> which is dislocated,—for verses 10, 11, and 13
+to 17 of ch. xiii. come <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">after</span></em> verses 33-35; while ver. 12 has
+altogether disappeared.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The most convenient edition for reference is
+Schmeller's,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ammonii Alexandrini
+quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum</span></span>. (Vienna, 1841.)
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_226" name="note_226" href="#noteref_226">226.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">besides</span></em> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_227" name="note_227" href="#noteref_227">227.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">For proofs
+of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks on the
+(so-called) <span class="tei tei-q">“Ammonian”</span> Sections, the reader is referred to the
+<a href="#Appendix_G" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (G)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_228" name="note_228" href="#noteref_228">228.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p. <a href="#Pg128" class="tei tei-ref">128</a>, note
+(f).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_229" name="note_229" href="#noteref_229">229.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above,
+p. <a href="#Pg125" class="tei tei-ref">125</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_230" name="note_230" href="#noteref_230">230.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">As
+a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are noted <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">without</span></em>
+the Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in the
+<a href="#Appendix_G" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (G)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_231" name="note_231" href="#noteref_231">231.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">τέσσαρα εἰσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν
+ἑξηκονταδύο. The words are most unexpectedly, (may I not say
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suspiciously</span></em>?), found in Epiphanius, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ancor.</span></span> 50,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 54 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_232" name="note_232" href="#noteref_232">232.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">By Tischendorf, copying Mill's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Proleg.</span></span> p. 63, § 662:—the fontal source,
+by the way, of the twin references to <span class="tei tei-q">“Epiphanius and Cæsarius.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_233" name="note_233" href="#noteref_233">233.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Comp. Epiph.
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ancor.</span></span> 50,) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 53
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">c</span></span> to 55 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">a</span></span>, with Galland.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibl.</span></span> vi. 26 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">c</span></span> to 27
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">a</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_234" name="note_234" href="#noteref_234">234.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Galland. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibl.</span></span>
+vi. 147 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">a</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_235" name="note_235" href="#noteref_235">235.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_236" name="note_236" href="#noteref_236">236.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Possini
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cat.</span></span> p. 363.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_237" name="note_237" href="#noteref_237">237.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cat.</span></span> p. 364):—Where it will be seen that
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Text</span></em> (κείμενον) and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Interpretation</span></em>
+(ἑρμηνεία) are confusedly thrown together. <span class="tei tei-q">“Anonymus [Vaticanus]”</span>
+also quotes S. Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad fin.</span></span>—Matthaei
+(N.T. ii. 269),—overlooking the fact that <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Anonymus
+Vaticanus</span></span>”</span> (or simply <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Anonymus</span></span>”</span>) and
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Anonymus Tolosanus</span></span>”</span> (or simply
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Tolosanus</span></span>”</span>) denote two distinct Codices,—falls
+into a mistake himself while contradicting our learned countryman Mill,
+who says,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Certe Victor Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc.
+ver. 8] nec ultra commentantur.”</span>—Scholz' dictum is,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Commentatorum qui
+in catenis SS. Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ
+exhibetur.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_238" name="note_238" href="#noteref_238">238.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above
+pp. <a href="#Pg062" class="tei tei-ref">62-3</a>. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such Collections
+as the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Magna Bibliotheca Vett. PP.</span></span> (1618,) vol. iv. p. 330,
+col. 2 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">E, F</span></span>.—For the Greek, see Possini
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catena</span></span>, pp. 359-61.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_239" name="note_239" href="#noteref_239">239.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, pp.
+<a href="#Pg064" class="tei tei-ref">64-5</a>, and <a href="#Appendix_E" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (E)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_240" name="note_240" href="#noteref_240">240.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_241" name="note_241" href="#noteref_241">241.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, &amp;c. ii.
+p. 113.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_242" name="note_242" href="#noteref_242">242.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> Ed.
+8<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">va</span></span> i. p. 406.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_243" name="note_243" href="#noteref_243">243.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Developed Crit.</span></span> pp.
+51-2.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_244" name="note_244" href="#noteref_244">244.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον
+προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Eth. Nic.</span></span>
+I. iii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_245" name="note_245" href="#noteref_245">245.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">To the honour of the Rev. F. H.
+Scrivener be it said, that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he</span></em> at least absolutely refuses to pay any
+attention at all <span class="tei tei-q">“to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their
+alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.”</span> See by all means his
+remarks on this subject. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, pp. 431-2.)—One
+would have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English
+Poem,—which some able men were confident <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">might</span></em> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_246" name="note_246" href="#noteref_246">246.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Allusion is made to
+the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Professor of Interpretation of the New
+Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,”</span>—the
+author of an able and convincing paper entitled <span class="tei tei-q">“Exegetical Studies”</span> in
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Baptist Quarterly</span></span>”</span> for July, 1869
+(Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which <span class="tei tei-q">“the words and phrases”</span> contained in
+S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively examined.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor's hands, he will
+perceive that I must have written the present Chapter <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">before</span></em> 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.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_247" name="note_247" href="#noteref_247">247.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Dr. Kay's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Crisis Hupfeldiana</span></span>,
+p. 34,—the most masterly and instructive
+exposure of Bp. Colenso's incompetence and presumption which has ever appeared.
+Intended specially of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his</span></em> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_248" name="note_248" href="#noteref_248">248.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_249" name="note_249" href="#noteref_249">249.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">On the Creed</span></span>,
+Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_250" name="note_250" href="#noteref_250">250.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα
+συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ διαφωνεῖ
+τὰληθές. Aristot. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Eth. Nic.</span></span> I. c. vi.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_251" name="note_251" href="#noteref_251">251.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Davidson's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>,
+&amp;c. i. 170.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_252" name="note_252" href="#noteref_252">252.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">And yet, if it were ever
+so <span class="tei tei-q">“sententious,”</span> ever so <span class="tei tei-q">“abrupt;”</span> and if his <span class="tei tei-q">“brief notices”</span> were
+over so <span class="tei tei-q">“loosely linked together;”</span>—these, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">according to Dr.
+Davidson</span></em>, would only be indications that S. Mark actually <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">was</span></em> their
+Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark's <span class="tei tei-q">“characteristics,”</span> at p. 151:—<span class="tei tei-q">“In
+the consecution of his narrations, Mark <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">puts them together very loosely</span></em>.”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Mark is also characterised by a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">conciseness</span></em> and apparent incompleteness
+of delineation which are allied to the obscure.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“The <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">abrupt</span></em>
+introduction”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">because</span></em> it exhibits the very peculiarities
+which at p. 151 he had volunteered the information are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">characteristic</span></em> of
+its reputed Author?</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_253" name="note_253" href="#noteref_253">253.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">N.T. vol. i. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prolegg.</span></span> p.
+38.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_254" name="note_254" href="#noteref_254">254.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">It may be convenient, in this
+place, to enumerate the several words and expressions about to be considered:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 9.)—See above.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(ii.) ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνθα (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 9.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg152" class="tei tei-ref">152</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 9.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg153" class="tei tei-ref">153</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(iv.) πορεύεσθαι (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">vers.</span></span> 10, 12,
+15.)—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(v.) οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 10.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg155" class="tei tei-ref">155</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(vi.) θεᾶσθαι (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 11 and 14.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg156" class="tei tei-ref">156</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(vii.) θεαθῆναι (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 11.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg158" class="tei tei-ref">158</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 11 and
+16.)—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(ix.) μετὰ ταῦτα (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 12.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg159" class="tei tei-ref">159</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(x.) ἕτερος (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 12.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg160" class="tei tei-ref">160</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xi) ὅστερον (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 14.)—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xii.) βλάπτειν (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 18.)—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xiii.) πανταχοῦ (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 20.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg161" class="tei tei-ref">161</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν—βεβαιοῦν (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span>
+20.)—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 15.)—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xvii.) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 17.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg162" class="tei tei-ref">162</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 17 and
+19.)—See p. <a href="#Pg163" class="tei tei-ref">163</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xx.) χεῖρας ἐπιθεῖναι ἐρί τινα (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 18.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg164" class="tei tei-ref">164</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxi. and xxii.) μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 19 and
+20.)—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxiii.) ἀναληφθῆναι (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ver.</span></span> 19.)—See p.
+<a href="#Pg166" class="tei tei-ref">166</a>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">verses</span></span> 10, 11 [and
+13?].)—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxv.) <span class="tei tei-q">“Verses without a copulative,”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">verses</span></span> 10 and
+14.)—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(xxvi. and xxvii.) Absence of εὐθέως and πάλιν.—See p.
+<a href="#Pg168" class="tei tei-ref">168</a>.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_255" name="note_255" href="#noteref_255">255.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_256" name="note_256" href="#noteref_256">256.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S.
+Matth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_257" name="note_257" href="#noteref_257">257.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_258" name="note_258" href="#noteref_258">258.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>,
+&amp;c. i. 169.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_259" name="note_259" href="#noteref_259">259.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See the foregoing note.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_260" name="note_260" href="#noteref_260">260.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Buxtorf's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Lexicon Talmudicum</span></span>, p. 2323.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_261" name="note_261" href="#noteref_261">261.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Lightfoot
+(on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul's phrase κατὰ μίαν
+σαββάτων,—<span class="tei tei-q">“תבשב דהב [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b'had b'shabbath</span></span>,]
+<span class="tei tei-q">‘<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">In the first</span></span> [lit. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></span>]
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">of the Sabbath</span></span>,’</span> would the Talmudists say.”</span>—Professor
+Gandell writes,—<span class="tei tei-q">“in Syriac, the days of the week are similarly named. See
+Bernstein [lit. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">one in the Sabbath</span></span>, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">two in
+the Sabbath</span></span>, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">three in the Sabbath.</span></span>]”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_262" name="note_262" href="#noteref_262">262.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Mark xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_263" name="note_263" href="#noteref_263">263.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably
+תבש (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">shabbath</span></span>): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more
+nearly than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">shabbatha:</span></span>) the final א (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) being added
+for emphasis, as in Abb<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></em>, Aceldam<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></em>, Bethesd<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></em>,
+Ceph<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></em>, Pasch<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></em>, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">&amp;c</span></span>.: 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,) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">gave rise to
+another form of the Greek name for the Sabbath</span></em>,—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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. (Accordingly,
+it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invariably</span></em> rendered <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Sabbatum</span></em>”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one
+definite Sabbath-day</span></em>, is said to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10.
+S. Mark xii. 1.)
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">days</span></em> are spoken of.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for <span class="tei tei-q">“weeks;”</span>
+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
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">shavooa</span></span>) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any substitution of the
+one word for the other. But inasmuch as the recurrence of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Sabbath-day</span></em>
+was what constituted <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a week</span></em>; 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the day of
+rest</span></em>, became transferred to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the week</span></em>. 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.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_264" name="note_264" href="#noteref_264">264.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So Eusebius
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Eccl. Hist.</span></span> ii. 15), and Jerome (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">De Viris
+Illust.</span></span> ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also
+Euseb. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hist. Eccl.</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Synopsis Scripturæ</span></span> (wrongly)
+ascribed to Athanasius.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_265" name="note_265" href="#noteref_265">265.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">παρασκευὴ, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον.—Our
+E. V. <span class="tei tei-q">“preparation”</span> is from Augustine,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Parasceue
+Latine præparatio est.”</span>—See Pearson's interesting note
+on the word.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_266" name="note_266" href="#noteref_266">266.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Consider Rom. xvi. 13.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_267" name="note_267" href="#noteref_267">267.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Townson's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Discourses</span></span>, i. 172.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_268" name="note_268" href="#noteref_268">268.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_269" name="note_269" href="#noteref_269">269.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">una sabbati</span></span>.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_270" name="note_270" href="#noteref_270">270.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Davidson's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, &amp;c. i. 169, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> 1848:
+(ii. 113, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> 1868.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_271" name="note_271" href="#noteref_271">271.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Maria
+Magdalene ipsa est <span class="tei tei-q">‘a quâ septem dæmonia expulerat’</span>: <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ut ubi
+abundaverat peccatum, superabundant gratiæ</span></em>.”</span> (Hieron.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> i. 327.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_272" name="note_272" href="#noteref_272">272.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So
+Tischendorf,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽ ἦσ
+ἐκβεβλήκει ε. δ.”</span> (p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same remark reiterated
+by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p. 52.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_273" name="note_273" href="#noteref_273">273.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, &amp;c. vol. i. p.
+169.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_274" name="note_274" href="#noteref_274">274.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">viz. in chap. vii. 26.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_275" name="note_275" href="#noteref_275">275.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Professor
+Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_276" name="note_276" href="#noteref_276">276.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">habitually</span></em>
+present at such gatherings.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_277" name="note_277" href="#noteref_277">277.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_278" name="note_278" href="#noteref_278">278.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See S. Matth. ix. 9.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_279" name="note_279" href="#noteref_279">279.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">One is reminded that
+S. Matthew, in like manner, carefully <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">reserves</span></em> the verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii.
+55: xxviii. 1) for the contemplation of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span>
+Cross and of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Saviour's</span></span> Sepulchre.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_280" name="note_280" href="#noteref_280">280.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 5. S. Mark xvi. 11.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_281" name="note_281" href="#noteref_281">281.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, (vi. 1); and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις,
+(xxiii. 5).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_282" name="note_282" href="#noteref_282">282.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Luke xii. 4.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_283" name="note_283" href="#noteref_283">283.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Matth. x. 28.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_284" name="note_284" href="#noteref_284">284.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Mark iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_285" name="note_285" href="#noteref_285">285.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Professor
+Broadus, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ubi suprà</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_286" name="note_286" href="#noteref_286">286.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Col i. 15, 23. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_287" name="note_287" href="#noteref_287">287.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Who</span></em> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_288" name="note_288" href="#noteref_288">288.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Mark v.
+23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_289" name="note_289" href="#noteref_289">289.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix.
+13, 15.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_290" name="note_290" href="#noteref_290">290.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See
+below, pp. <a href="#Pg184" class="tei tei-ref">184-6</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_291" name="note_291" href="#noteref_291">291.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Pearson <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">on the Creed</span></span>, (ed.
+Burton), vol. i. p. 151.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_292" name="note_292" href="#noteref_292">292.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 183,—at the
+beginning of the exposition of <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Our
+</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord</span></span></em>.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_293" name="note_293" href="#noteref_293">293.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix.
+51. Acts i. 2.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_294" name="note_294" href="#noteref_294">294.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Alford.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_295" name="note_295" href="#noteref_295">295.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Davidson.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_296" name="note_296" href="#noteref_296">296.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Exactly so Professor Broadus:—<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">littles</span></em> may amount to much; but not so the
+multiplication of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nothings</span></em>.
+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?”</span>—p. 360, (see above, p. <a href="#Pg139" class="tei tei-ref">139</a>, note
+g.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_297" name="note_297" href="#noteref_297">297.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. John has πάλιν
+(47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times). And
+yet, πάλιν is not met with in the ii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">nd</span></span>, or the
+iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span>, or the
+v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>, or the
+vii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>, or
+the xv<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>, or the
+xvii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> chapter of S. John's Gospel.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_298" name="note_298" href="#noteref_298">298.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed Text</span></span>, p.
+256.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_299" name="note_299" href="#noteref_299">299.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_300" name="note_300" href="#noteref_300">300.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_301" name="note_301" href="#noteref_301">301.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p. <a href="#Pg146" class="tei tei-ref">146</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_302" name="note_302" href="#noteref_302">302.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The reader will be perhaps
+interested with the following passage in the
+pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded to:—<span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">number</span></em> of peculiarities, they
+certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford has laid
+stress.”</span>—p. 361.</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_303" name="note_303" href="#noteref_303">303.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_304" name="note_304" href="#noteref_304">304.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Mark i. 9: 14: 20.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_305" name="note_305" href="#noteref_305">305.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The same
+word is found also in S. Luke's narrative of the same event, ch. xxiv. 13.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_306" name="note_306" href="#noteref_306">306.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_307" name="note_307" href="#noteref_307">307.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Disc. v. Sect. ii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_308" name="note_308" href="#noteref_308">308.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This appears to be
+the true reading.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_309" name="note_309" href="#noteref_309">309.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So Chrysostom:—ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι <span class="tei tei-q">“καθαρίζων τὰ
+βρώματα,”</span> ταῦτα ἔλεγεν. [vii. 526 a].—He seems to have derived that remark from
+Origen [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in Matth.</span></span> ed. Huet. i. 249
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">d</span></span>]:—κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτὴρ <span class="tei tei-q">“καθαρίζων
+πάντα τὰ βρώματα.”</span>—From the same source, I suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus
+(Origen's disciple), Bp. of Neocæsarea in Pontus, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 261,
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Routh</span></span>, iii. 257] derived the following:—καὶ ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁ
+<span class="tei tei-q">“πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα”</span> οὐ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ, κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ
+τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον.—See, by all means, Field's most interesting
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Adnotationes in Chrys.</span></span>, vol. iii. p. 112.... Εντευθεν (finely
+says Victor of Antioch) ὁ καινὸς ἄρχεται νόμος ὁ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα.
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cramer</span></span> i. 335.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_310" name="note_310" href="#noteref_310">310.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Acts x. 15.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_311" name="note_311" href="#noteref_311">311.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver.
+2,—ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ... ἀνελήφθη.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_312" name="note_312" href="#noteref_312">312.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Mark x. 6:
+xiii. 19.—2 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_313" name="note_313" href="#noteref_313">313.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Is. lxvi. 2.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_314" name="note_314" href="#noteref_314">314.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See
+above, p. <a href="#Pg143" class="tei tei-ref">143-5</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_315" name="note_315" href="#noteref_315">315.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg174" class="tei tei-ref">174-5</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_316" name="note_316" href="#noteref_316">316.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">My
+attention was first drawn to this by my friend, the Rev. W. Kay, D.D.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_317" name="note_317" href="#noteref_317">317.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The Creed itself, (<span class="tei tei-q">“ex
+variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis collectum,”</span>) may be seen at p. 84 of De
+Touttée's ed. of Cyril. Let the following be compared:—
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi. 19.)
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ
+ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Art. VI.</span></span>) This may be seen <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in
+situ</span></span> at p. 224 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span> of Cyril.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ch. i. 4.)
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Art. X.</span></span>) This may
+be seen at p. 295 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span> of Cyril.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in Professor
+Heurtley's little work <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">De Fide et Symbolo</span></span>, 1869, p. 9.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_318" name="note_318" href="#noteref_318">318.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above,—p.
+<a href="#Pg165" class="tei tei-ref">165-6</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_319" name="note_319" href="#noteref_319">319.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cod. Bobbiensis</span></span>
+(k): which however for <span class="tei tei-q">“illis”</span> has <span class="tei tei-q">“et:”</span> for <span class="tei tei-q">“Petro,”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“puero:”</span> and for <span class="tei tei-q">“occidentem,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“orientem.”</span> It also repeats <span class="tei tei-q">“usque.”</span>
+I have ventured to alter <span class="tei tei-q">“ab orientem”</span> into <span class="tei tei-q">“ab oriente.”</span>—Compare what
+is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given by White and Adler.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_320" name="note_320" href="#noteref_320">320.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above (Art. II.) p.
+<a href="#Pg152" class="tei tei-ref">152-3</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_321" name="note_321" href="#noteref_321">321.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33.
+Acts ii. 14.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_322" name="note_322" href="#noteref_322">322.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_323" name="note_323" href="#noteref_323">323.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S.
+John xviii. 1,—where the moment of departure <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from the city</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">without the gate</span></em> is indicated: (for
+ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider S. Luke xxi.
+37.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_324" name="note_324" href="#noteref_324">324.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">S. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i.
+4.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_325" name="note_325" href="#noteref_325">325.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg002" class="tei tei-ref">2</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_326" name="note_326" href="#noteref_326">326.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> (ed. 1803), vol. i. p.
+748.—<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—Matthaei had slightly anticipated this in
+his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_327" name="note_327" href="#noteref_327">327.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν
+ἀποστόλων διαδοχάς,—are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the first words</span></em> of the Ecclesiatical
+History of Eusebius.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_328" name="note_328" href="#noteref_328">328.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorised
+Version.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_329" name="note_329" href="#noteref_329">329.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Bingham's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Origines</span></span>, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_330" name="note_330" href="#noteref_330">330.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Apol.</span></span> i. c. 67,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed</span></span>. Otto, i. 158.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_331" name="note_331" href="#noteref_331">331.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ,
+τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν σήμερον διέλχθη, καὶ περὶ
+τίνων;—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ix. p. 697 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">e</span></span>.
+Field's text.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_332" name="note_332" href="#noteref_332">332.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Cassian
+writes,—<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Instit.</span></span> lib. ii.
+c. 6. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed</span></span>.1733, p. 18.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_333" name="note_333" href="#noteref_333">333.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Constitutiones Apostolicae</span></span>,
+lib. ii. c. 57, 59: v. 19: viii. 5.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_334" name="note_334" href="#noteref_334">334.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See
+Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 74, and the reff. in note (k)
+overleaf.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_335" name="note_335" href="#noteref_335">335.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">English readers may be referred
+to Horne's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, &amp;c. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span>
+1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps aware of the importance of
+the preface to Van der Hooght's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hebrew Bible</span></span>,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> 1705) § 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p.
+352 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_336" name="note_336" href="#noteref_336">336.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγου is <span class="tei tei-q">“Quinquagesima
+Sunday;”</span> but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the week</span></em> of <span class="tei tei-q">“the cheese-eater”</span> is the week
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">previous</span></em>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_337" name="note_337" href="#noteref_337">337.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Suicer's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Thesaurus</span></span>, vol. ii. 920.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_338" name="note_338" href="#noteref_338">338.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Apud Rabbinos, לודגח תבש <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Sabbathum
+Magnum</span></em>. Sic vocatur Sabbathum proximum ante Pascha.”</span>—Buxtorf,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Lexicon Talmud.</span></span> p. 2323.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_339" name="note_339" href="#noteref_339">339.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cat.</span></span> xiv. c. 24. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> p. 217
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C, D</span></span>.)—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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ibid.</span></span> p.
+219 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>. A little lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων,
+τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν
+Υἱόν.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">D</span></span>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+From this it becomes plain <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why Cyril nowhere quotes S. Mark</span></em> xvi.
+19,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">or S. Luke</span></em> xxiv. 51,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">or Acts</span></em> i. 9.
+He must needs have enlarged upon those three <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">inevitable</span></em> places of
+Scripture, the day before.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_340" name="note_340" href="#noteref_340">340.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p. <a href="#Pg193" class="tei tei-ref">193</a> and p.
+<a href="#Pg194" class="tei tei-ref">194</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_341" name="note_341" href="#noteref_341">341.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hom.</span></span> i. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vii. 13
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>.)—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.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hom.</span></span> ix, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span>
+viii. 62 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_342" name="note_342" href="#noteref_342">342.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching.
+<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. iii. P. ii. p. 825,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prol.</span></span>)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_343" name="note_343" href="#noteref_343">343.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The place will be found
+quoted below, p. <a href="#Pg202" class="tei tei-ref">202</a>, note (o).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_344" name="note_344" href="#noteref_344">344.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more
+full and satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve attention,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above, p.
+<a href="#Pg045" class="tei tei-ref">45</a>, notes (r) and (s).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_345" name="note_345" href="#noteref_345">345.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">At the beginning of every
+volume of the first ed. of his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> (Riga, 1788) Matthaei
+has laboriously <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">edited</span></em> the <span class="tei tei-q">“Lectiones Ecclesiasticæ”</span> 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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“B”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“H,”</span> but which are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“Evstt. 47 and
+50,”</span>—uncial Evangelistaria of the viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+century (See Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introd.</span></span> p. 214.)
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full the <span class="tei tei-q">“Synaxarium”</span>
+and <span class="tei tei-q">“Menologium”</span> of Codd. K and M, (viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+or ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Gospels
+of the Passion”</span> (τῶν ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472);
+and so throughout.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Mr. Scrivener (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the
+most intelligible account of this matter, by exhibiting <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in English</span></em> the
+Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (<span class="tei tei-q">“gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 547,
+Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and Christ's Coll. Camb.”</span>); and supplying the
+references to Scripture in the ordinary way. See, by all means, his
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, pp. 62-65: also, pp. 211-225.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_346" name="note_346" href="#noteref_346">346.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii. 88.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 89 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">D</span></span>.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_347" name="note_347" href="#noteref_347">347.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 454
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B, D</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_348" name="note_348" href="#noteref_348">348.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 290
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">B</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_349" name="note_349" href="#noteref_349">349.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii.
+357 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">E</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_350" name="note_350" href="#noteref_350">350.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Meminit
+sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine lectionum nos solere
+tractare.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii. P. ii. 825
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Prol.</span></span>)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_351" name="note_351" href="#noteref_351">351.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 246.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_352" name="note_352" href="#noteref_352">352.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Chrysostom <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii.
+369 b, c.—Compare Scrivener, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ubi supra</span></span>, p. 75.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_353" name="note_353" href="#noteref_353">353.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ed.</span></span> Mabillon, p.
+116.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_354" name="note_354" href="#noteref_354">354.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. iii. p. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">85
+b: 88 a</span></span>:—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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_355" name="note_355" href="#noteref_355">355.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Anniversariâ sollemnitate post passionem Domini
+nostis illum librum recitari.”</span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii. (P. ii.) p. 337
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">g</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_356" name="note_356" href="#noteref_356">356.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Appointed (in 1867) for an <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">entirely</span></em> different purpose, (viz. the Ornaments
+and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and 15 Lay) found
+themselves further instructed <span class="tei tei-q">“to suggest and report <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">whether any and what
+alterations and amendments may be advantageously made</span></em> in the selection of
+Lessons to be read at the time of Divine Service.”</span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">an
+entirely new Lectionary for the Church of England</span></em>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+So to mutilate the Word of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span> 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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+That the blame, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the guilt</span></em> lies at the door of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our Bishops</span></em>,
+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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Can</span></em> 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,) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">liberavi animam meam</span></span>.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_357" name="note_357" href="#noteref_357">357.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">A trace of this remains in the
+old Gallican Liturgy,—pp. 137-8.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_358" name="note_358" href="#noteref_358">358.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Bingham, xiv. iii. 3.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_359" name="note_359" href="#noteref_359">359.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. vii. p. 791 B.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_360" name="note_360" href="#noteref_360">360.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Dean Payne Smith's Translation, p.
+863.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_361" name="note_361" href="#noteref_361">361.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">κατὰ
+τὴν μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα ἀναγινώσκεται.—Chrys.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vii. 818 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">c</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_362" name="note_362" href="#noteref_362">362.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. v. p. 980
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">e</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_363" name="note_363" href="#noteref_363">363.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ed.</span></span> Mabillon, pp. 130-5.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_364" name="note_364" href="#noteref_364">364.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Epiph. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 152-3.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_365" name="note_365" href="#noteref_365">365.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Chrys. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> i.
+497 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">c</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_366" name="note_366" href="#noteref_366">366.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Epiph. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 285-6.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_367" name="note_367" href="#noteref_367">367.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_368" name="note_368" href="#noteref_368">368.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Constt. Apostt.</span></span> 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
+viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Book of the Constitutions was written
+or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly assigned to the work.]</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_369" name="note_369" href="#noteref_369">369.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Bingham's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Origines</span></span>, B. xx. c. iv. §
+2.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_370" name="note_370" href="#noteref_370">370.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Chrys. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 355. (See the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Monitum</span></span>, p. 352.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_371" name="note_371" href="#noteref_371">371.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Chrys. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 369
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">d</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_372" name="note_372" href="#noteref_372">372.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Epiphanius, Adv. Haer.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">li</span></span>, c. xvi. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> i. 439
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">a</span></span>.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_373" name="note_373" href="#noteref_373">373.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See
+above, pp. <a href="#Pg058" class="tei tei-ref">58-9</a> and <a href="#Pg067" class="tei tei-ref">67</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_374" name="note_374" href="#noteref_374">374.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span>
+iii. 102 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">b</span></span>. See Bingham on this entire
+subject,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">b</span></span>. xiv, c. iii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_375" name="note_375" href="#noteref_375">375.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ep.</span></span> ad Januarium,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 124 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">b, c</span></span>).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_376" name="note_376" href="#noteref_376">376.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam
+Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos, ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in
+Euchar. lect. sext. Resurrect.”</span>—But <span class="tei tei-q">“Lect. γ Resurrectionis”</span> is <span class="tei tei-q">“Marc.
+xvi. 9-20:”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Lect. σ,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Luc. xxiv. 36-53.”</span>—See Dean Payne Smith's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogus Codd. Syrr.</span></span> (1864) pp. 116, 127.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_377" name="note_377" href="#noteref_377">377.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p. <a href="#Pg034" class="tei tei-ref">34</a>, note
+(e).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_378" name="note_378" href="#noteref_378">378.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">R. Payne Smith's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catal.</span></span> p. 148.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_379" name="note_379" href="#noteref_379">379.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hieronymi Comes</span></span>,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed</span></span>. 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. <a href="#Pg118" class="tei tei-ref">118</a>,
+line 22-8.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_380" name="note_380" href="#noteref_380">380.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ
+ἑωθινά. See Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 72, and
+R. P. Smith's Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Thes.
+Eccl.</span></span> i. 1229.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_381" name="note_381" href="#noteref_381">381.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Dr. Wright's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catal.</span></span> p. 70, No. cx.
+(Addit. 14,464: <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 61<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic"> b.</span></span>)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_382" name="note_382" href="#noteref_382">382.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> No. lxx
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 92 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>), and lxxii
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 87 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_383" name="note_383" href="#noteref_383">383.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Quae
+titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.”</span> (R. Payne Smith's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catal.</span></span> p. 116.)—In the <span class="tei tei-q">“Synaxarium”</span> of Matthaei
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> 1803, i. p. 731) it
+is styled Κ. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_384" name="note_384" href="#noteref_384">384.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Adler's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T. Verss. Syrr.</span></span>
+p. 71.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_385" name="note_385" href="#noteref_385">385.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Dean Payne Smith's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catal.</span></span> p. 146.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_386" name="note_386" href="#noteref_386">386.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ed.</span></span> Mabillon, pp. 144-5.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_387" name="note_387" href="#noteref_387">387.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Resurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis
+diebus [Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.”</span>
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> v. 977 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">c</span></span>)—<span class="tei tei-q">“Quoniam
+hoc moris est ... <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Marci Evangelium</span></em> est quod modo, cum legeretur,
+audivimus.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Quid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?”</span> And he subjoins a quotation
+from S. Mark xvi. 12.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">997 f,
+998 b</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_388" name="note_388" href="#noteref_388">388.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hieron. Comes</span></span>
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> Pamel. ii. 27.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_389" name="note_389" href="#noteref_389">389.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 75.—Little stress, however, is to be laid
+on Saint's Day lessons. In Matthaei's <span class="tei tei-q">“Menologium”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov.
+Test.</span></span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_390" name="note_390" href="#noteref_390">390.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Note, (in addition to
+all that has gone before,) that the Festivals are actually designated by their
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Greek</span></em> names in the earliest Latin Service Books: not only <span class="tei tei-q">“Theophania,”</span>
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Epiphania,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Pascha,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Pentecostes,”</span> (the second, third and fourth of
+which appellations survive in the Church of the West, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in memoriam</span></span>,
+to the present hour;) but <span class="tei tei-q">“Hypapante,”</span> which was the title bestowed by the
+Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of the
+Purification, or Presentation of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ</span></span> in the Temple,) from
+the <span class="tei tei-q">“Meeting”</span> of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκευή, was called
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Parasceve</span></span>”</span> in the West. (Mab. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Lit.
+Gall.</span></span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_391" name="note_391" href="#noteref_391">391.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">From Professor Wright's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum</span></span> (1870) it
+appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is dated <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span>
+824; the oldest Nestorian, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 862; the oldest Malkite,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485;
+14,492; and 14,488.—See his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue</span></span>, Part I. pp. 146,
+178, 194.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_392" name="note_392" href="#noteref_392">392.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">It is
+exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus (A.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_393" name="note_393" href="#noteref_393">393.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The reader is requested to refer back to p.
+<a href="#Pg045" class="tei tei-ref">45</a>, and the note there.—The actual words of Eusebius
+are given in <a href="#Appendix_B" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (B)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_394" name="note_394" href="#noteref_394">394.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See the enumeration of Greek
+Service-Books in Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, &amp;c. pp. 211-25.
+For the Syriac Lectionaries, see Dean Payne Smith's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue</span></span>,
+(1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also Professor Wright's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue</span></span>,
+(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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_395" name="note_395" href="#noteref_395">395.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Evangelistariorum codices literis
+uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.”</span>
+Tischendorf, quoted by Scrivener, [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction to Cod.
+Augiensis</span></span>,—80 pages which have been separately published and are
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">well</span></em> deserving of study,—p. 48,] who adds,—<span class="tei tei-q">“I cannot even
+conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be thought of less value than another
+MS. of the same age.”</span>—See also Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, &amp;c. p. 211.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_396" name="note_396" href="#noteref_396">396.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">e.g. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Addit. MSS.</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_397" name="note_397" href="#noteref_397">397.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Addit.</span></span> MS.
+14,464. (See Dr. Wright's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue</span></span>, p. 70.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_398" name="note_398" href="#noteref_398">398.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Add to the eight examples
+adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of C. P., (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>,
+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.
+<a href="#Pg220" class="tei tei-ref">220</a>), All Saints.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_399" name="note_399" href="#noteref_399">399.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke
+vii. 31) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which introduce an Ecclesiastical Lection</span></em> (Friday in the
+iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd </span></span> week of S. Luke,) inasmuch as the
+words are found in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> 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
+ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Sunday after Pentecost <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">begins at that
+place</span></em>.—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Ο ΙΣ”</span>
+in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">rubro</span></span> above <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the same
+contraction</span></em> (for ὁ Ἰησους) in the text.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_400" name="note_400" href="#noteref_400">400.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only because they agree with B</span></em>), as an all but infallible guide in
+settling the text of Scripture; and quietly taking it for granted that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all the
+other MSS. in existence</span></em> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_401" name="note_401" href="#noteref_401">401.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Matthaei's note on S. Luke xxii. 43,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test. ed.</span></span> 1803.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_402" name="note_402" href="#noteref_402">402.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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, &amp;c.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after
+S. Luke xxii. 42, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">besides</span></em> 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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+[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.]
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_403" name="note_403" href="#noteref_403">403.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See by all means
+Matthaei's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> (ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and 492.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_404" name="note_404" href="#noteref_404">404.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg075" class="tei tei-ref">75</a>, note (h).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_405" name="note_405" href="#noteref_405">405.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">For the 5th Sunday of S.
+Luke.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_406" name="note_406" href="#noteref_406">406.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual
+accuracy, points out several: e.g. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> (1788) vol. i.
+p. 19 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">note</span></span> 26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">note</span></span> 12), p. 14 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">notes</span></span> 14 and 15),
+&amp;c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_407" name="note_407" href="#noteref_407">407.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">SS. Philip and James.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_408" name="note_408" href="#noteref_408">408.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">viz. σαββάτῳ θ:
+i.e. the ix<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Saturday in S. Luke.—Note
+that Cod. A also reads ἐγένετο δέ in S. Lu. xi. 1.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_409" name="note_409" href="#noteref_409">409.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">viz. Monday in the
+v<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>, Thursday in the
+vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> week after Pentecost, and
+the viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Sunday after Pentecost.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_410" name="note_410" href="#noteref_410">410.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_411" name="note_411" href="#noteref_411">411.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See by all means Matthaei's interesting
+note on the place,—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> (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,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Origenes (iv. 171 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">d</span></span>)
+hanc pericopam haud adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in γενηθήτω σοι.”</span>
+Will not the disturbing <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Lectionary-practice</span></em> of his day sufficiently
+explain Origen's omission?</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_412" name="note_412" href="#noteref_412">412.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a Church Lesson begins in those places</span></em>, we may be sure that we have been put
+in possession of the name of the disturbing force.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_413" name="note_413" href="#noteref_413">413.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Viz. K and M. (Field's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Chrys.</span></span> 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?</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_414" name="note_414" href="#noteref_414">414.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg197" class="tei tei-ref">197</a> to 204.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_415" name="note_415" href="#noteref_415">415.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">e.g.
+in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_416" name="note_416" href="#noteref_416">416.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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
+<span class="tei tei-q">“ΤΕΛ:”</span> stands <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the text</span></em>,) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only two</span></em> notes of liturgical
+endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_417" name="note_417" href="#noteref_417">417.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Among
+the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Syriac</span></em> Evangelia, as explained above (p. <a href="#Pg215" class="tei tei-ref">215</a>),
+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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue</span></span>, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been only
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">irregularly</span></em> inserted in the oldest copies.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_418" name="note_418" href="#noteref_418">418.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Anon.
+Vat.</span></span>] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι, πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ
+κατ᾽ ἐμέ.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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): c<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">secr</span></span>
+(i.e. Lambeth, 1177): 2<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">pe</span></span> (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.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_419" name="note_419" href="#noteref_419">419.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So Scholz (i. 200):—<span class="tei tei-q">“Pericopa hæc
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">casu quodam</span></em> 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,”</span> &amp;c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_420" name="note_420" href="#noteref_420">420.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">περιττὰ
+ὰν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν
+μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibl. P.P. Nova</span></span>, vol. iv. p. 256.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_421" name="note_421" href="#noteref_421">421.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Alford's
+N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed</span></span>. 1868.)—And so Tischendorf,
+(ed. 8va. pp. 406-7.) <span class="tei tei-q">“Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere mutilandum
+adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus incredibile est, nec
+ullo probari potest exemplo.”</span>—Tregelles is of the same opinion.
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed Text</span></span>, pp. 255-6.)—Matthaei, a competent judge,
+seems to have thought differently. <span class="tei tei-q">“Una autem causa cur hic locus omitteretur fuit
+quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur Evangelistis.”</span> The general observation
+which follows is true enough:—<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> 1788, vol. ii. p.
+266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)—<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Dr.
+Davidson says the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,)
+Mr. Scrivener also. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Coll. Cod. Sin.</span></span> p. xliv.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_422" name="note_422" href="#noteref_422">422.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">I have to
+acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M. de
+Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_423" name="note_423" href="#noteref_423">423.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p. <a href="#Pg224" class="tei tei-ref">224</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_424" name="note_424" href="#noteref_424">424.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">No</span></em>
+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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_425" name="note_425" href="#noteref_425">425.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">= 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
+viii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> century.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_426" name="note_426" href="#noteref_426">426.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">End of the Lection for the Sunday before
+Epiphany.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_427" name="note_427" href="#noteref_427">427.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 iii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">rd</span></span> Gospel of the Passion, the
+vi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Sunday
+of S. Luke.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_428" name="note_428" href="#noteref_428">428.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This has already come before us in a different
+connection: (see p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref">119</a>): but it must needs be reproduced
+here; and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> time, it shall be exhibited as
+faithfully as my notes permit.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_429" name="note_429" href="#noteref_429">429.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">(1) In Evan. 282
+(written <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 1176),—a codex which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">has been
+adapted</span></em> to Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to say,
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Mark</span></em> xv. 47
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em> xvi. 8.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">according
+to S. Mark</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the only Gospel of
+the Four</span></em> 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.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_430" name="note_430" href="#noteref_430">430.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae
+filum ineptissime abrupisse verbis—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”</span>—Griesbach
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Comment. Crit.</span></span> (ii. 197.) So, in fact,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">uno ore</span></span> all the Critics.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_431" name="note_431" href="#noteref_431">431.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><a href="#Chapter_V" class="tei tei-ref">Chap.
+V</a>. See above, pp. <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref">66-7</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_432" name="note_432" href="#noteref_432">432.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The English reader will follow the
+text with sufficient exactness if he will refer back, and read from the last line of
+p. <a href="#Pg044" class="tei tei-ref">44</a> to the ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in
+two places, for <span class="tei tei-q">“the end,”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the end</span></span>”</span>.... The
+entire context of the Greek is given in the <a href="#Appendix_B" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix
+(B)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_433" name="note_433" href="#noteref_433">433.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν
+περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό,) I suspect must be an
+explanatory gloss.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_434" name="note_434" href="#noteref_434">434.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“This then is clear,”</span> (is Dr. Tregelles' comment,)
+<span class="tei tei-q">“that the greater part of the Greek copies had not the verses in
+question.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed Text</span></span>, p. 247.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_435" name="note_435" href="#noteref_435">435.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hist. Eccl.</span></span> lib. vi. c.
+6.)—Ἱππόλυτος ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτοπος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει,
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)—Or
+this, referred to by Stephanus (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in voce</span></span>),—Ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἔτι
+μνησθεὶς περιγράψω τὸν λόγον, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Praep. Evang.</span></span> lib. vi. c. 10,
+[p. 280 c, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> 1628].) But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for
+τὸ εὐαγγέλιον wants explaining; and can be only satisfactorily explained in one
+way.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_436" name="note_436" href="#noteref_436">436.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p. <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref">66</a> and p.
+<a href="#Pg067" class="tei tei-ref">67</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_437" name="note_437" href="#noteref_437">437.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Πάρειμι
+νῦν ... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">sic</span></span>].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_438" name="note_438" href="#noteref_438">438.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-q">“Consentit autem nobis ad
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">tractatum quem fecimus de scripturâ</span></em> Marci.”</span>—Origen.
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii. 929 B.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Tractat.</span></span> xxxv. in
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Matth.</span></span> [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,
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">olim</span></span> 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 (xvi<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> cent.) counterpart of the
+preceding; which has been transcribed [xviii<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span>
+cent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Possevinus [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Apparat. Sac.</span></span> ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Origeniana</span></span>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,”</span> (1600, lib. i. p. 49,) mentions
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae</span></em>, Stabat ad
+monumentum.”</span>—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe, <span class="tei tei-q">“Cat. Codd. MSS.
+C.C.C.;”</span> [No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Origenis presb. Hom. in istud
+Johannis, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Maria stabat ad monumentum</span></em>,”</span> &amp;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.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_439" name="note_439" href="#noteref_439">439.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but also
+that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">apud Heracleonem</span></em>, (who wrote within 50 years of S. John's death,) he
+found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved by <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">geographical</span></em>
+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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to reproduce Origen's reasoning</span></em>;—thereby betraying
+himself.—The author of the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catena in Matth.</span></span> (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 <span class="tei tei-q">“more accurate copies.”</span>
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the true reading
+of that place is not <span class="tei tei-q">“60”</span> but <span class="tei tei-q">“160,”</span>—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ
+Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις. Accordingly, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eusebius</span></em> also reads the place
+in the same erroneous way.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_440" name="note_440" href="#noteref_440">440.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Jerome says of himself
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vii. 537,)—<span class="tei tei-q">“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:
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">equi dentes inspicere donati</span></em>.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_441" name="note_441" href="#noteref_441">441.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, pp.
+<a href="#Pg057" class="tei tei-ref">57-9</a>: also <a href="#Appendix_C" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (C)</a>, §
+2.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_442" name="note_442" href="#noteref_442">442.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, pp. <a href="#Pg225" class="tei tei-ref">225-6</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_443" name="note_443" href="#noteref_443">443.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">R. Payne
+Smith's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catal.</span></span> p. 116.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_444" name="note_444" href="#noteref_444">444.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Adler's N. T.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Verss. Syrr.</span></span>, p. 70.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_445" name="note_445" href="#noteref_445">445.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">R. Payne Smith's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catal.</span></span> p. 146.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_446" name="note_446" href="#noteref_446">446.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See p. <a href="#Pg206" class="tei tei-ref">206</a>, also note (k).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_447" name="note_447" href="#noteref_447">447.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">R. Payne Smith's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catal.</span></span>
+p. 117.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_448" name="note_448" href="#noteref_448">448.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266
+(= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark xvi. 8 (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol</span></span>. 125), as
+follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">rubro</span></span>,] τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου,
+καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver.
+20, (at <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol</span></span>. 126 of the same Codex) is found the following
+concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽ ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_449" name="note_449" href="#noteref_449">449.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">R. Payne Smith's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catal.</span></span> p. 146.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_450" name="note_450" href="#noteref_450">450.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies of the
+Armenian version. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> (Tregelles,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed Text</span></span>, p. 253).... We are now in a position to
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">understand</span></em> the Armenian evidence, which has been described above, at p.
+<a href="#Pg036" class="tei tei-ref">36</a>, as well as to estimate its
+exact value.
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_451" name="note_451" href="#noteref_451">451.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii. 411-2.)—And
+see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Patres
+Apostol.</span></span>, (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_452" name="note_452" href="#noteref_452">452.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">I believe this will be found to be the
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">invariable</span></em> order of the Gospels <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the Lectionaries</span></em>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_453" name="note_453" href="#noteref_453">453.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). See
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 98 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_454" name="note_454" href="#noteref_454">454.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">I allude of course to Matthaei's Cod.
+g. (See the note in his <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">N. T.</span></span> vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no
+the learned critic was right in his conjecture <span class="tei tei-q">“aliquot folia excidisse,”</span>
+matters nothing. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The left hand page ends at the words</span></em> 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!
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a</span></span>) proves to
+be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>) from xiii. 24;
+Cod. Brix. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">f</span></span>) from xiv. 70.</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_455" name="note_455" href="#noteref_455">455.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Coll. Cod. Sin.</span></span> p.
+lix.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_456" name="note_456" href="#noteref_456">456.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See p.
+<a href="#Pg227" class="tei tei-ref">227</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_457" name="note_457" href="#noteref_457">457.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg226" class="tei tei-ref">226</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_458" name="note_458" href="#noteref_458">458.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So Scholz:—<span class="tei tei-q">“hic
+[sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,”</span>
+&amp;c.—Tischendorf,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Testantur scholia ... <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Marci Evangelium</span></em>
+... versu 9 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">finem habuisse</span></em>. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus,
+22 habet: ἐφοβουντο γαρ + τελος. εν τισι,”</span> &amp;c.—Tregelles appeals to
+copies, <span class="tei tei-q">“sometimes with τέλος interposed after ver. 8,”</span> (p. 254.)—Mai
+(iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Codex Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex
+quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum versum <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">habet quidem</span></em> vocem τέλος,
+ut alibi interdum observatum fuit; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sed tamen</span></em> ibidem eadem manu
+subscribitur incrementum cum progredientibus sectionum notis.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_459" name="note_459" href="#noteref_459">459.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Chap. I. and II.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_460" name="note_460" href="#noteref_460">460.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Chap. IV, VI-X.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_461" name="note_461" href="#noteref_461">461.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Chap. III, V, and VIII.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_462" name="note_462" href="#noteref_462">462.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tischendorf, Tregelles,
+Alford.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_463" name="note_463" href="#noteref_463">463.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tregelles,
+Alford.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_464" name="note_464" href="#noteref_464">464.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Alford.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_465" name="note_465" href="#noteref_465">465.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Hæc non a Marco
+scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.”</span>—See the rest of Tischendorf's
+verdict, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">suprà</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg010" class="tei tei-ref">10</a>; and opposite,
+p. <a href="#Pg245" class="tei tei-ref">245</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_466" name="note_466" href="#noteref_466">466.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tregelles' <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Account of the Printed
+Text</span></span>, p. 259.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_467" name="note_467" href="#noteref_467">467.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Alford's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">New
+Test.</span></span> vol. i. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Proleg.</span></span> [p. 38] and p. 437.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_468" name="note_468" href="#noteref_468">468.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So Norton,
+Tregelles, and others.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_469" name="note_469" href="#noteref_469">469.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This
+suggestion, which was originally Griesbach's, is found in Alford's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">New
+Test.</span></span> vol. i. p. 433, (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ed.</span></span> 1868.)—See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg012" class="tei tei-ref">12</a>. The italics are not mine.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_470" name="note_470" href="#noteref_470">470.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Vide
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">suprà</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg010" class="tei tei-ref">10</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_471" name="note_471" href="#noteref_471">471.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. iii. p. 671.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_472" name="note_472" href="#noteref_472">472.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Eusebius <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Eccl. Hist.</span></span> iv.
+28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_473" name="note_473" href="#noteref_473">473.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Note the remarkable adjuration of Irenæus,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> i. 821, preserved by Eusebius, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">lib.</span></span>
+v. 20.—See Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 383-4. Consider
+the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp's martyrdom,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">PP. App.</span></span> ii. 614-6.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_474" name="note_474" href="#noteref_474">474.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus;
+especially to the work of Marcion.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_475" name="note_475" href="#noteref_475">475.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, pp.
+381-391.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_476" name="note_476" href="#noteref_476">476.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See
+<a href="#Chapter_VI" class="tei tei-ref">Chap. VI</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_477" name="note_477" href="#noteref_477">477.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><a href="#Chapter_IX" class="tei tei-ref">Chap. IX</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_478" name="note_478" href="#noteref_478">478.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—C. F. Matthaei's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> (1788) vol.
+ii. p. 271.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_479" name="note_479" href="#noteref_479">479.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Speaking of the abrupt
+termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8, Dr. Tregelles asks,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Would this
+have been transmitted as a fact by good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds
+for regarding it to be true?”</span>—(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Printed Text</span></span>, p. 257.)
+Certainly not, we answer. But <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">where</span></em> are the <span class="tei tei-q">“good witnesses”</span> of the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“transmitted fact?”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">There is not so much as one.</span></em></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_480" name="note_480" href="#noteref_480">480.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, pp.
+<a href="#Pg086" class="tei tei-ref">86-90</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_481" name="note_481" href="#noteref_481">481.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See
+<a href="#Chapter_III" class="tei tei-ref">Chap. III</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_482" name="note_482" href="#noteref_482">482.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, Chap. III. and IV.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_483" name="note_483" href="#noteref_483">483.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Habent periocham hanc Codices Græci, si unum b
+excipias, omnes.”</span> (Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg070" class="tei tei-ref">70</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_484" name="note_484" href="#noteref_484">484.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, Chap. X.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_485" name="note_485" href="#noteref_485">485.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, pp. <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref">66-68</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_486" name="note_486" href="#noteref_486">486.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, pp. <a href="#Pg041" class="tei tei-ref">41</a> to 51:
+also <a href="#Appendix_B" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix (B)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_487" name="note_487" href="#noteref_487">487.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The reader is referred to Mai's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. PP. Bibl.</span></span> vol. iv. p. 262, line 12:
+p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_488" name="note_488" href="#noteref_488">488.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg064" class="tei tei-ref">64-5</a>: also <a href="#Appendix_E" class="tei tei-ref">Appendix
+(E)</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_489" name="note_489" href="#noteref_489">489.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">P. <a href="#Pg068" class="tei tei-ref">68</a>
+and note (d); p. <a href="#Pg119" class="tei tei-ref">119</a> and
+note (m).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_490" name="note_490" href="#noteref_490">490.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">P.
+<a href="#Pg051" class="tei tei-ref">51-7</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_491" name="note_491" href="#noteref_491">491.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">P. <a href="#Pg057" class="tei tei-ref">57-9</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_492" name="note_492" href="#noteref_492">492.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">P. <a href="#Pg059" class="tei tei-ref">59-66</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_493" name="note_493" href="#noteref_493">493.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">P.
+<a href="#Pg114" class="tei tei-ref">114-125</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_494" name="note_494" href="#noteref_494">494.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">P. <a href="#Pg068" class="tei tei-ref">68-9</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_495" name="note_495" href="#noteref_495">495.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><a href="#Chapter_VI" class="tei tei-ref">Chap. VI</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_496" name="note_496" href="#noteref_496">496.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See above, pp.
+<a href="#Pg086" class="tei tei-ref">86</a> to 88.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_497" name="note_497" href="#noteref_497">497.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Will it be believed that Tischendorf
+accordingly rejects <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_498" name="note_498" href="#noteref_498">498.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See <a href="#Chapter_IX" class="tei tei-ref">Chap.
+IX</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_499" name="note_499" href="#noteref_499">499.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><a href="#Chapter_X" class="tei tei-ref">Chapter X</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_500" name="note_500" href="#noteref_500">500.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius,
+and Marius Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_501" name="note_501" href="#noteref_501">501.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Codex A,—ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of
+the Psalms.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_502" name="note_502" href="#noteref_502">502.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not represented in the extant Greek
+text of Origen</span></em>. Here also we are presented with <span class="tei tei-q">“hominibus <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">bonae
+voluntatis</span></em>.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iii. 537
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span>). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_503" name="note_503" href="#noteref_503">503.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1.
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Suprà</span></span>, pp. <a href="#Pg096" class="tei tei-ref">96-99</a>.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_504" name="note_504" href="#noteref_504">504.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_505" name="note_505" href="#noteref_505">505.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vid. suprà</span></span>, p.
+<a href="#Pg233" class="tei tei-ref">233</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_506" name="note_506" href="#noteref_506">506.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">P.S. I avail myself of
+this blank space to introduce a passage from <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Theophylact</span></span>
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 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; [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. i. p. 263
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">C</span></span>.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like
+Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing
+Eusebius. See above, p. <a href="#Pg066" class="tei tei-ref">66</a>, note (c).
+</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_507" name="note_507" href="#noteref_507">507.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Kollar,
+(editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same opinion.—Huet
+(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Origeniana</span></span>, 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_508" name="note_508" href="#noteref_508">508.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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,
+&amp;c.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vide infrà</span></span>, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also,
+No. xlvii (comp, xxviii.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_509" name="note_509" href="#noteref_509">509.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">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.</span></span> Ingolstadt.
+1580, 8vo. pp. 510.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_510" name="note_510" href="#noteref_510">510.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Præfatio</span></span>: from
+which the particulars in the text are obtained.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_511" name="note_511" href="#noteref_511">511.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ
+πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐξήσησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον
+ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit C. F. Matthæi,
+Mosquae, 1775.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_512" name="note_512" href="#noteref_512">512.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">P. xxvii-xxviii.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_513" name="note_513" href="#noteref_513">513.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Chrys.</span></span>
+iii. 529, top of the page.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_514" name="note_514" href="#noteref_514">514.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Thus the two notes on
+p. 440 are found substantially to agree with the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p.
+527. See also <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">infrà</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg289" class="tei tei-ref">289</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_515" name="note_515" href="#noteref_515">515.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Let any one, with Mai's edition of the
+<span class="tei tei-q">“Quaestiones ad Marinum”</span> of Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are
+abridged, mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p. 257
+with Cramer's <span class="tei tei-q">“Catenae,”</span> i. p. 251-2; and this again with the <span class="tei tei-q">“Catena in
+Joannem”</span> of Corderius, p. 448-9.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_516" name="note_516" href="#noteref_516">516.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_517" name="note_517" href="#noteref_517">517.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p.
+4.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_518" name="note_518" href="#noteref_518">518.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Eusebius is again quoted at
+p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line 23-5). See especially p. 446.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_519" name="note_519" href="#noteref_519">519.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">c, d</span></span>,—which Victor is found to have abridged. Compare
+the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">a</span></span>. Note, that
+ἄλλος δέ φησι, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf. Possinus, p. 324.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_520" name="note_520" href="#noteref_520">520.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See pp. 408, 418,
+442.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_521" name="note_521" href="#noteref_521">521.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_522" name="note_522" href="#noteref_522">522.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">e.g. p. 408,
+411 (twice).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_523" name="note_523" href="#noteref_523">523.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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, &amp;c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_524" name="note_524" href="#noteref_524">524.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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
+28<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_525" name="note_525" href="#noteref_525">525.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_526" name="note_526" href="#noteref_526">526.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which
+= Chrys. p. 447.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_527" name="note_527" href="#noteref_527">527.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Laud.</span></span>
+Gr. 33 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">fol.</span></span> 100 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>, at top, &amp;c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_528" name="note_528" href="#noteref_528">528.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So in the
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catena</span></span> of Corderius, in <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">S. Joannem</span></span>, p.
+302.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_529" name="note_529" href="#noteref_529">529.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">I believe it
+will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 corresponds <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span></em> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_530" name="note_530" href="#noteref_530">530.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Note, that this recurs at fol. 145
+of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384 in
+the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Syr. Cat.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_531" name="note_531" href="#noteref_531">531.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue Librorum MSS.</span></span> Lips. 1830,
+4to. p. 656 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_532" name="note_532" href="#noteref_532">532.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Reg.</span></span> 177 = A:
+178 = B: 230 = C.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Coisl.</span></span> 19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F:
+22 = G: 24 = H.—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Matthaei's</span></em> d <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">or</span></em> D = I:
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his</span></em> e <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">or</span></em> E = J: <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his</span></em> 12 = K: <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his</span></em>
+a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">or</span></em> A = L.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vat.</span></span> 358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O:
+1229 = P: 1446 = Q.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vind. Koll.</span></span> 4
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Forlos.</span></span> 5 = R.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Xav. de Zelada</span></span>
+= S.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Laur.</span></span> 18 = T: 34 =
+U.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Venet.</span></span> 27 = V.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vind.
+Lamb.</span></span> 38 = W : 39 = X.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_533" name="note_533" href="#noteref_533">533.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So B-E (which I chiefly follow)
+begins,—Το δε αναστας.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_534" name="note_534" href="#noteref_534">534.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_535" name="note_535" href="#noteref_535">535.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_536" name="note_536" href="#noteref_536">536.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_537" name="note_537" href="#noteref_537">537.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_538" name="note_538" href="#noteref_538">538.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_539" name="note_539" href="#noteref_539">539.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_540" name="note_540" href="#noteref_540">540.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So B. All, except
+B, C, H, J, P seem to end at εφοβουντο γαρ.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_541" name="note_541" href="#noteref_541">541.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">e.g. οὐκ ἦν δέ for οὐ κεῖνται.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_542" name="note_542" href="#noteref_542">542.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Jerome
+evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Canons</span></em>
+as well:—<span class="tei tei-q">“Canones quos <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eusebius</span></em> Caesariensis Episcopus
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium</span></em> in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in Graeco
+habentur expressimus.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ad Papam Damasum. Epist.</span></span>) And again:
+<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavit</span></em> quos postea secutus est
+Eusebius Caesariensis.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">De Viris Illustr.</span></span> c. 55
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> ii. 881.])—See above, p.
+<a href="#Pg128" class="tei tei-ref">128</a>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_543" name="note_543" href="#noteref_543">543.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">There was published at the University Press in 1805,
+a handsome quarto volume (pp. 216) entitled <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Harmonia quatuor
+Evangeliorum juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones</span></span>. It is merely the
+contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printed <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">in
+extenso</span></span>,—and of course is no <span class="tei tei-q">“Harmony”</span> at all. It would have been
+a really useful book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has
+omitted to number the sections.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_544" name="note_544" href="#noteref_544">544.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">This last §
+according to <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Tischendorf's</span></span> ed. of the Eusebian Canons.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_545" name="note_545" href="#noteref_545">545.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Thus, certain disputed
+passages of importance are proved to have been recognised at least
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by Eusebius</span></em>. Our <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Lord's</span></span> 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.
+<a href="#Pg203" class="tei tei-ref">203</a>.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_546" name="note_546" href="#noteref_546">546.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sets</span></em> of References might be kept <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">together</span></em>; 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
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">strictly parallel places</span></em> 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? <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Who</span></em>
+does not miss the reference to <span class="tei tei-q">“Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12”</span> at Gen. ix. 14?
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Who</span></em> can afford to do without the reference to <span class="tei tei-q">“1 Macc. iv. 59”</span> at
+S. John x. 22?</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_547" name="note_547" href="#noteref_547">547.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Mai, vol. iv. p.
+287. See also p. 293.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_548" name="note_548" href="#noteref_548">548.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tischendorf says 19 only.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_549" name="note_549" href="#noteref_549">549.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tischendorf says 96
+only.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_550" name="note_550" href="#noteref_550">550.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tischendorf says 13 only.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_551" name="note_551" href="#noteref_551">551.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I,
+P, Q, R, W<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">6</span></span>, Y, Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440,
+i<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">scr</span></span>, s<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">scr</span></span>.
+Also D and K. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cod. Bezæ</span></span>, p. xx, and
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introd.</span></span> pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I think <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em>
+263.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_552" name="note_552" href="#noteref_552">552.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Scrivener's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>,
+pp. 51 and 52: <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cod. Bezæ</span></span>, p. xx. note [2.]</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_553" name="note_553" href="#noteref_553">553.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Evan. 263, for instance, has certainly <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">blank</span></em>
+Eusebian Tables at the beginning: the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">frame</span></em> only.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_554" name="note_554" href="#noteref_554">554.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>, p. 51 (note 2),—where
+Tregelles (in Horne's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introd.</span></span> iv. 200) is quoted.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_555" name="note_555" href="#noteref_555">555.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Introduction</span></span>,
+p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W, and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Cod. Bezae</span></span>, p. xx.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_556" name="note_556" href="#noteref_556">556.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">order</span></em> of these monograms requires explanation.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_557" name="note_557" href="#noteref_557">557.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue,</span></span> 4to. 1870.) Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred
+to Assemani; and to Adler, p. 52-3: also p. 63.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_558" name="note_558" href="#noteref_558">558.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Dawkins 3.”</span> See Dean Payne Smith's
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Catalogue</span></span>, p. 72.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_559" name="note_559" href="#noteref_559">559.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">It will
+be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every verse</span></em> 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. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vide
+infrà</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg311" class="tei tei-ref">311</a>.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_560" name="note_560" href="#noteref_560">560.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+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.
+</p>
+<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">
+[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.</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_561" name="note_561" href="#noteref_561">561.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_562" name="note_562" href="#noteref_562">562.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See the preceding
+note.—Availing myself of the reference given me by my learned correspondent,
+I read as follows in the Catalogue:—<span class="tei tei-q">“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,”</span> &amp;c. &amp;c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_563" name="note_563" href="#noteref_563">563.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Suidas
+[<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke, makes
+the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_564" name="note_564" href="#noteref_564">564.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_565" name="note_565" href="#noteref_565">565.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Dr.
+Tregelles. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vide suprà</span></span>, pp. <a href="#Pg125" class="tei tei-ref">125-6</a>.)
+And so, Tischendorf.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_566" name="note_566" href="#noteref_566">566.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em> 27.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_567" name="note_567" href="#noteref_567">567.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em> 17,982. Cromw. 16. Canonici 36
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em> 112. Wake 21.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_568" name="note_568" href="#noteref_568">568.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Viz.
+184, 192, 264, h<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">scr</span></span>, Add. 11,836. Ti. Wake
+29.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_569" name="note_569" href="#noteref_569">569.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The others are 10,
+20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl. 141.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_570" name="note_570" href="#noteref_570">570.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vide
+suprà</span></span>, p. <a href="#Pg033" class="tei tei-ref">33</a>. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p.
+53.) The others are 8, 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_571" name="note_571" href="#noteref_571">571.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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,
+k<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">scr</span></span>. Add. 22,740. Wake 22, 24, 30;
+<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em> 31 in which, ver. 20 is numbered
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">CMB</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_572" name="note_572" href="#noteref_572">572.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">But Cod.
+U inserts ευθεως before εξηλθεν; and (at least two of the other Codices, viz.) 48,
+67 read αιμα και υσωρ.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_573" name="note_573" href="#noteref_573">573.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Σημείωσις is what we call an <span class="tei tei-q">“Annotation.”</span> [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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Origeniana</span></span>, iii. § i. 4. (at the end of vol. iv. of
+Origen's <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> p. 292-3.)—Eusebius (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hist.
+Eccl.</span></span> v. 20) uses σημείωσις in this sense. (See the note of Valesius.) But it is
+plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinus (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">subscriptio</span></span>),
+that it often denoted a <span class="tei tei-q">“signature,”</span> or signing of the name. Eusebius so employs
+the word in <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">lib.</span></span> v. 19 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">ad fin.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_574" name="note_574" href="#noteref_574">574.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">He was Patriarch of Antioch,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 512-9.—The extract (made by Petrus junior,
+Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">A.D.</span></span> 578,) purports to be
+derived from the 26<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="vertical-align: super">th</span></span> Epistle, (Book 9,) which
+Severus addressed to Thomas Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani,
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bibl. Orient.</span></span> vol. ii. pp. 81-2.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_575" name="note_575" href="#noteref_575">575.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_576" name="note_576" href="#noteref_576">576.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hist. Eccl.</span></span> iv. 29, § 4.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_577" name="note_577" href="#noteref_577">577.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See, for example, the readings of B
+or א, or both, specified from p. <a href="#Pg080" class="tei tei-ref">80</a> to p. 86.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_578" name="note_578" href="#noteref_578">578.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Vid. suprà</span></span>, p.
+<a href="#Pg129" class="tei tei-ref">129</a>, note (g.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_579" name="note_579" href="#noteref_579">579.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. i. p. 391
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">D</span></span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_580" name="note_580" href="#noteref_580">580.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Haeret. Fab.</span></span> lib. i. c.
+xx. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> iv. 208.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_581" name="note_581" href="#noteref_581">581.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Clinton, F. R. ii. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Appendix</span></span>, p.
+473, quoting Theodoret's <span class="tei tei-q">“Ep. 113, p. 1190. [<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">al.</span></span> vol.
+iii. p. 986-7].”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_582" name="note_582" href="#noteref_582">582.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Quoted by Matthaei, N. T.</span></span> (1788)
+vol. ix. p. 228, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">from</span></span> g, a, d.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_583" name="note_583" href="#noteref_583">583.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid</span></span>., ii. 69, and ix. 228.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_584" name="note_584" href="#noteref_584">584.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Nov. Test.</span></span> (1869), p.
+404.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_585" name="note_585" href="#noteref_585">585.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Let the reader examine his <span class="tei tei-q">“Quaestio ix,”</span> (Mai, vol.
+iv. p. 293-5): his <span class="tei tei-q">“Quaestio x,”</span> (p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296,
+line 29-32.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_586" name="note_586" href="#noteref_586">586.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Chrys.
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Opp.</span></span> vol. viii. p. 522
+<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c</span></span>:—ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς ἐπεχωρίαζεν, οὐδὲ
+ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν.</dd></dl>
+  </div>
+  <hr class="doublepage" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em">
+    <div id="pgfooter" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"><pre class="pre tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em">***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK***
+</pre><hr class="doublepage" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><a name="rightpageheader57" id="rightpageheader57"></a><a name="pgtoc58" id="pgtoc58"></a><a name="pdf59" id="pdf59"></a><h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Credits</span></h1><table summary="This is a list." class="tei tei-list" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"><tbody><tr><th class="tei tei-label tei-label-gloss">July 27, 2008  </th></tr><tr><td class="tei tei-item"><table summary="This is a list." class="tei tei-list" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"><tbody><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item">Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1</td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item"><span class="tei tei-respStmt">
+        <span class="tei tei-name">
+            Produced by Colin Bell, Daniel J. Mount, Dave Morgan, David King.
+            and the Online Distributed
+            Proofreading Team at &lt;http://www.pgdp.net/&gt;.
+        </span>
+      </span></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div><hr class="doublepage" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><a name="rightpageheader60" id="rightpageheader60"></a><a name="pgtoc61" id="pgtoc61"></a><a name="pdf62" id="pdf62"></a><h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">A Word from Project Gutenberg</span></h1><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">This file should be named 
+          26134-h.html or 
+          26134-h.zip.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">This and all associated files of various formats will be found
+          in: 
+
+            <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/6/1/3/26134/" class="block tei tei-xref" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">http://www.gutenberg.org</span><span style="font-size: 90%">/dirs/2/6/1/3/26134/</span></a></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Updated editions will replace the previous one — the old
+          editions will be renamed.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Creating the works from public domain print editions means that
+          no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
+          Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
+          States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
+          Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this
+          license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
+          to protect the Project Gutenberg™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered
+          trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks,
+          unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge
+          anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is
+          very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
+          creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
+          They may be modified and printed and given away — you may do
+          practically <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">anything</span></em> with public domain eBooks.
+          Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
+          commercial redistribution.</p></div><hr class="page" /><div id="pglicense" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><a name="rightpageheader63" id="rightpageheader63"></a><a name="pgtoc64" id="pgtoc64"></a><a name="pdf65" id="pdf65"></a><h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">The Full Project Gutenberg License</span></h1><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Please read this before you distribute or use this
+          work.</span></em></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
+          distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing
+          this work (or any other work associated in any way with the
+          phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span>), you agree to comply with all the terms
+          of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License (<a href="#pglicense" class="tei tei-ref">available with this file</a> or online
+          at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/license" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/license</a>).</p><div id="pglicense1" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section 1.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">General Terms of Use &amp; Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
+            electronic works</span></h2><div id="pglicense1A" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.A.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic
+              work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+              and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
+              property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree
+              to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease
+              using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic
+              works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a
+              copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not
+              agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may
+              obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the
+              fee as set forth in paragraph <a href="#pglicense1E8" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.8.</a></p></div><div id="pglicense1B" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.B.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span> is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or
+              associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
+              bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you
+              can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
+              full terms of this agreement. See paragraph <a href="#pglicense1C" class="tei tei-ref">1.C</a> below. There are a lot of things you can
+              do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
+              agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic
+              works. See paragraph <a href="#pglicense1E" class="tei tei-ref">1.E</a> below.</p></div><div id="pglicense1C" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.C.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (<span class="tei tei-q">“the Foundation”</span> or PGLAF), owns a compilation
+              copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
+              individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
+              United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the
+              United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim
+              a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
+              displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all
+              references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support
+              the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+              freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
+              agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can
+              easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in
+              the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
+              without charge with others.</p></div><div id="pglicense1D" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.D.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+              what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
+              a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
+              the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+              before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+              creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work.
+              The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
+              of any work in any country outside the United States.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.E.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p><div id="pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.1.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+                access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any
+                copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span>
+                appears, or with which the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span> is associated) is
+                accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
+
+                    </p><div class="block tei tei-q" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"><span style="font-size: 90%">This eBook is for the use of
+                    anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no
+                    restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
+                    away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
+                    Gutenberg License included with this eBook or
+                    online at </span><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org" class="tei tei-xref"><span style="font-size: 90%">http://www.gutenberg.org</span></a></p></div></div><div id="pglicense1E2" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.2.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from the public
+                domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with
+                permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and
+                distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or
+                charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with
+                the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span> associated with or appearing on the work, you
+                must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs <a href="#pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.1</a> through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for
+                the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs
+                <a href="#pglicense1E8" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.8</a> or 1.E.9.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E3" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.3.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission
+                of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both
+                paragraphs <a href="#pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.1</a> through 1.E.7 and any
+                additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will
+                be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission
+                of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E4" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.4.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from
+                this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work
+                associated with Project Gutenberg™.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E5" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.5.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+                electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+                prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph <a href="#pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.1</a> with active links or immediate access
+                to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E6" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.6.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+                compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
+                any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
+                to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than
+                <span class="tei tei-q">“Plain Vanilla ASCII”</span> or other format used in the official
+                version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ web site (http://www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
+                no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
+                means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+                request, of the work in its original <span class="tei tei-q">“Plain Vanilla ASCII”</span> or
+                other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License
+                as specified in paragraph <a href="#pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.1.</a></p></div><div id="pglicense1E7" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.7.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
+                copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with
+                paragraph <a href="#pglicense1E8" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.8</a> or 1.E.9.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E8" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.8.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
+                or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that</p><table summary="This is a list." class="tei tei-list" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"><tbody><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label">•  </th><td class="tei tei-item"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+                  the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to
+                  calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the
+                  Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this
+                  paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
+                  following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
+                  prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
+                  marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in <a href="#pglicense4" class="tei tei-ref">Section 4, <span class="tei tei-q">“Information about donations to the
+                  Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”</span></a></p></td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+                  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
+                  not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such
+                  a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a
+                  physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other
+                  copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.</p></td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You provide, in accordance with paragraph <a href="#pglicense1F3" class="tei tei-ref">1.F.3</a>, a full refund of any money paid for a
+                  work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is
+                  discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the
+                  work.</p></td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+                  distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div id="pglicense1E9" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.9.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or
+                group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement,
+                you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+                Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
+                forth in <a href="#pglicense3" class="tei tei-ref">Section 3</a> below.</p></div></div><div id="pglicense1F" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.F.</span></h3><div id="pglicense1F1" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.1.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify,
+                do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works
+                in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
+                electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
+                contain <span class="tei tei-q">“Defects,”</span> such as, but not limited to, incomplete,
+                inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+                intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
+                medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be
+                read by your equipment.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F2" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.2.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES — Except for the <span class="tei tei-q">“Right of
+                Replacement or Refund”</span> described in <a href="#pglicense1F3" class="tei tei-ref">paragraph
+                1.F.3</a>, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any
+                other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement,
+                disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
+                legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+                LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+                PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
+                OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO
+                YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL
+                DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F3" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.3.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND — If you discover a defect in
+                this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a
+                refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written
+                explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received
+                the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your
+                written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
+                defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+                refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+                providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+                receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
+                is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+                opportunities to fix the problem.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F4" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.4.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
+                <a href="#pglicense1F3" class="tei tei-ref">paragraph 1.F.3</a>, this work is provided
+                to you 'AS-IS,' WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+                IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR
+                FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F5" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.5.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
+                the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any
+                disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of
+                the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+                interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+                the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+                provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F6" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.6.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">INDEMNITY — You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+                trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+                providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this
+                agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion
+                and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all
+                liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly
+                or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
+                (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration,
+                modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
+                Defect you cause.</p></div></div></div><div id="pglicense2" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section  2.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™</span></h2><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works
+            in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
+            obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the
+            efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks
+            of life.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+            assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™'s goals and
+            ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for
+            generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
+            secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn
+            more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
+            Sections <a href="#pglicense3" class="tei tei-ref">3</a> and <a href="#pglicense4" class="tei tei-ref">4</a> and the Foundation web page at <a href="http://www.pglaf.org" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.pglaf.org</a>.</p></div><div id="pglicense3" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section 3.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation</span></h2><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation
+            organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax
+            exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or
+            federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter
+            is posted at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf</a>. Contributions
+            to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S.
+            federal laws and your state's laws.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr.
+            S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are
+            scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is
+            located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801)
+            596-1887, email business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date
+            contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
+            official page at <a href="http://www.pglaf.org" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.pglaf.org</a></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">For additional contact information:
+
+              </p><div class="block tei tei-address" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span class="tei tei-addrLine"><span style="font-size: 90%">Dr. Gregory B. Newby</span></span><br /><span class="tei tei-addrLine"><span style="font-size: 90%">Chief Executive and Director</span></span><br /><span class="tei tei-addrLine"><span style="font-size: 90%">gbnewby@pglaf.org</span></span><br /></div></div><div id="pglicense4" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section 4.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation</span></h2><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public
+            support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number
+            of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in
+            machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment
+            including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
+            particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the
+            IRS.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+            charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+            States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+            considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+            with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where
+            we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
+            DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
+            visit <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate</a></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+            have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+            against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+            approach us with offers to donate.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+            any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+            outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and
+            addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
+            checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please
+            visit: <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate</a></p></div><div id="pglicense5" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section 5.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic
+            works.</span></h2><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-name">Professor Michael S. Hart</span> is the
+            originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that
+            could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and
+            distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer
+            support.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of
+            which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright
+            notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
+            compliance with any particular paper edition.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's
+            eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII,
+            compressed (zipped), HTML and others.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Corrected <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">editions</span></em> of our eBooks replace the old file
+            and take over the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file
+            is renamed. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Versions</span></em> based on separate sources are treated
+            as new eBooks receiving new filenames and etext numbers.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
+            facility: 
+            
+              <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org" class="block tei tei-xref" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">http://www.gutenberg.org</span></a></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to
+            make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and
+            how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.</p></div></div></div>
+  </div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body></html>
diff --git a/26134-h/images/305.png b/26134-h/images/305.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e51db5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/26134-h/images/305.png
diff --git a/26134-h/images/307.png b/26134-h/images/307.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5560a63
--- /dev/null
+++ b/26134-h/images/307.png
diff --git a/26134-h/images/facsimile-1.png b/26134-h/images/facsimile-1.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..32897b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/26134-h/images/facsimile-1.png
diff --git a/26134-h/images/facsimile-2.png b/26134-h/images/facsimile-2.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0cc72d0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/26134-h/images/facsimile-2.png
diff --git a/26134-h/images/facsimile-3.png b/26134-h/images/facsimile-3.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..77da9c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/26134-h/images/facsimile-3.png
author	Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org>	2025-10-15 02:20:14 -0700
committer	Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org>	2025-10-15 02:20:14 -0700
commit	8aa747b0d6af52293faf27299f6241c2aa429091 (patch)
tree	5bcfda48c4957748aa29b5c4ec23b8f390a72f81 /26134-h