diff options
| 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-tei | |
Diffstat (limited to '26134-tei')
| -rw-r--r-- | 26134-tei/26134-tei.tei | 20346 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 26134-tei/images/305.png | bin | 0 -> 10676 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 26134-tei/images/307.png | bin | 0 -> 12576 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 26134-tei/images/facsimile-1.png | bin | 0 -> 53988 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 26134-tei/images/facsimile-2.png | bin | 0 -> 98273 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 26134-tei/images/facsimile-3.png | bin | 0 -> 14590 bytes |
6 files changed, 20346 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/26134-tei/26134-tei.tei b/26134-tei/26134-tei.tei new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1cf37df --- /dev/null +++ b/26134-tei/26134-tei.tei @@ -0,0 +1,20346 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> + +<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "http://www.gutenberg.org/tei/marcello/0.4/dtd/pgtei.dtd" [ + +<!ENTITY u5 "http://www.tei-c.org/Lite/"> + +]> + +<TEI.2 lang="en"> +<teiHeader> + <fileDesc> + <titleStmt> + <title>The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark</title> + <author><name reg="Burgon, John">John Burgon</name></author> + </titleStmt> + <editionStmt> + <edition n="1">Edition 1</edition> + </editionStmt> + <publicationStmt> + <publisher>Project Gutenberg</publisher> + <date>July 27, 2008</date> + <idno type="etext-no">26134</idno> + <availability> + <p>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 online at www.gutenberg.org/license</p> + </availability> + </publicationStmt> + <sourceDesc> + <bibl> + Created electronically. + </bibl> + </sourceDesc> + </fileDesc> + <encodingDesc> + </encodingDesc> + <profileDesc> + <langUsage> + <language id="en"></language> + </langUsage> + </profileDesc> + <revisionDesc> + <change> + <date value="2008-07-27">July 27, 2008</date> + <respStmt> + <name> + Produced by Colin Bell, Daniel J. Mount, Dave Morgan, David King. + and the Online Distributed + Proofreading Team at <http://www.pgdp.net/>. + </name> + </respStmt> + <item>Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1</item> + </change> + </revisionDesc> +</teiHeader> + +<pgExtensions> + <pgStyleSheet> + .boxed { x-class: boxed } + .shaded { x-class: shaded } + .rules { x-class: rules; rules: all } + .indent { margin-left: 2 } + .bold { font-weight: bold } + .italic { font-style: italic } + .smallcaps { font-variant: small-caps } + </pgStyleSheet> + + <pgCharMap formats="txt.iso-8859-1"> + <char id="U0x0153"> + <charName>oelig</charName> + <desc>LATIN SMALL LIGATURE OE</desc> + <mapping>oe</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x0391"> + <charName>Alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA</desc> + <mapping>A</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x0392"> + <charName>Beta</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER BETA</desc> + <mapping>B</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x0393"> + <charName>Gamma</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER GAMMA</desc> + <mapping>G</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x0394"> + <charName>Delta</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER DELTA</desc> + <mapping>D</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x0395"> + <charName>Epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON</desc> + <mapping>E</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x0396"> + <charName>Zeta</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ZETA</desc> + <mapping>Z</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x0397"> + <charName>Eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ETA</desc> + <mapping>AE</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x0398"> + <charName>Theta</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER THETA</desc> + <mapping>TH</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x0399"> + <charName>Iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER IOTA</desc> + <mapping>I</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x039a"> + <charName>Kappa</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER KAPPA</desc> + <mapping>K</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x039b"> + <charName>Lambda</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER LAMBDA</desc> + <mapping>L</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x039c"> + <charName>Mu</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER MU</desc> + <mapping>M</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x039d"> + <charName>Nu</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER NU</desc> + <mapping>N</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x039e"> + <charName>Xi</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER XI</desc> + <mapping>KS</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x039f"> + <charName>Omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON</desc> + <mapping>O</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03a0"> + <charName>Pi</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER PI</desc> + <mapping>P</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03a1"> + <charName>Rho</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER RHO</desc> + <mapping>R</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03a3"> + <charName>Sigma</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER SIGMA</desc> + <mapping>S</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03a4"> + <charName>Tau</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER TAU</desc> + <mapping>T</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03a5"> + <charName>Upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER UPSILON</desc> + <mapping>U</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03a6"> + <charName>Phi</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER PHI</desc> + <mapping>PH</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03a7"> + <charName>Chi</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER CHI</desc> + <mapping>CH</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03a8"> + <charName>Psi</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER PSI</desc> + <mapping>PS</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03a9"> + <charName>Omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA</desc> + <mapping>O</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03b1"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03b2"> + <charName>beta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA</desc> + <mapping>b</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03b3"> + <charName>gamma</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA</desc> + <mapping>g</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03b4"> + <charName>delta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA</desc> + <mapping>d</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03b5"> + <charName>epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03b6"> + <charName>zeta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA</desc> + <mapping>z</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03b7"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA</desc> + <mapping>ae</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03b8"> + <charName>theta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA</desc> + <mapping>th</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03b9"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03ba"> + <charName>kappa</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA</desc> + <mapping>k</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03bb"> + <charName>lambda</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMBDA</desc> + <mapping>l</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03bc"> + <charName>mu</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER MU</desc> + <mapping>m</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03bd"> + <charName>nu</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER NU</desc> + <mapping>n</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03be"> + <charName>xi</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER XI</desc> + <mapping>z</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03bf"> + <charName>omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c0"> + <charName>pi</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER PI</desc> + <mapping>p</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c1"> + <charName>rho</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO</desc> + <mapping>r</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c2"> + <charName>sigmaf</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA</desc> + <mapping>s</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c3"> + <charName>sigma</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA</desc> + <mapping>s</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c4"> + <charName>tau</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU</desc> + <mapping>t</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c5"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c6"> + <charName>phi</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI</desc> + <mapping>ph</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c7"> + <charName>chi</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI</desc> + <mapping>ch</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c8"> + <charName>psi</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER PSI</desc> + <mapping>ps</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03c9"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03cb"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH DIALYTIKA</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03d7"> + <charName>Kappa</charName> + <desc>GREEK KAI SYMBOL</desc> + <mapping>kai</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x03d9"> + <charName>Kappa</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ARCHAIC KOPPA</desc> + <mapping>k</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05d0"> + <charName>Alef</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER ALEF</desc> + <mapping>A</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05d1"> + <charName>Bet</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER BET</desc> + <mapping>B</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05d2"> + <charName>Gimel</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER GIMEL</desc> + <mapping>G</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05d3"> + <charName>Dalet</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER DALET</desc> + <mapping>D</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05d4"> + <charName>He</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER HE</desc> + <mapping>H</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05d5"> + <charName>Vav</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER VAV</desc> + <mapping>V</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05d7"> + <charName>Het</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER HET</desc> + <mapping>H</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05dc"> + <charName>Lamed</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER LAMED</desc> + <mapping>L</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05e2"> + <charName>Ayin</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER AYIN</desc> + <mapping>'</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05e9"> + <charName>Shin</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER SHIN</desc> + <mapping>S</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x05ea"> + <charName>Tav</charName> + <desc>HEBREW LETTER TAV</desc> + <mapping>T</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f00"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f01"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f02"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI AND VARIA</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f04"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f05"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f06"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f08"> + <charName>Alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>A</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f09"> + <charName>Alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>A</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f0c"> + <charName>Alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>A</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f0d"> + <charName>Alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>A</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f10"> + <charName>epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f11"> + <charName>epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f13"> + <charName>epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH DASIA AND VARIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f14"> + <charName>epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f15"> + <charName>epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f18"> + <charName>Epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>E</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f19"> + <charName>Epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>E</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f1b"> + <charName>Epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH DASIA AND VARIA</desc> + <mapping>E</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f1c"> + <charName>Epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>E</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f20"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f21"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f22"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PSILI AND VARIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f23"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA AND VARIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f24"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f25"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f26"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PSILI AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f27"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f28"> + <charName>Eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ETA WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>E</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f29"> + <charName>Eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>E</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f2e"> + <charName>Eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ETA WITH PSILI AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>E</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f30"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f31"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f34"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f35"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f36"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f37"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH DASIA AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f38"> + <charName>Iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>I</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f39"> + <charName>Iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER IOTA WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>I</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f3d"> + <charName>Iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER IOTA WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>I</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f40"> + <charName>omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f41"> + <charName>omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f43"> + <charName>omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA AND VARIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f44"> + <charName>omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f45"> + <charName>omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f48"> + <charName>Omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f49"> + <charName>Omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f4c"> + <charName>Omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f4d"> + <charName>Omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f50"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f51"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f54"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f55"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f56"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PSILI AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f57"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH DASIA AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f5d"> + <charName>Upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER UPSILON WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f60"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f61"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f64"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f65"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f66"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PSILI AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f67"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH DASIA AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f68"> + <charName>Omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>O</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f6c"> + <charName>Omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA WITH PSILI AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>O</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f6d"> + <charName>Omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA WITH DASIA AND OXIA</desc> + <mapping>O</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f70"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH VARIA</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f71"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f72"> + <charName>epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH VARIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f73"> + <charName>epsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA</desc> + <mapping>e</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f74"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA</desc> + <mapping>ae</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f75"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA</desc> + <mapping>ae</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f76"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH VARIA</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f77"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f78"> + <charName>omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f79"> + <charName>omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f7a"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH VARIA</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f7b"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f7c"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH VARIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1f7d"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fa0"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PSILI AND YPOGEGRAMMENI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fa7"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH DASIA AND PERISPOMENI AND YPOGEGRAMMENI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fb3"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH YPOGGEGRAMMENI</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fb4"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA AND YPOGGEGRAMMENI</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fb6"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fb7"> + <charName>alpha</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PERISPOMENI AND YPOGEGRAMMENI</desc> + <mapping>a</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fbd"> + <charName></charName> + <desc>GREEK KORONIS</desc> + <mapping>'</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fc3"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH YPOGEGRAMMENI</desc> + <mapping>ae</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fc6"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>ae</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fc7"> + <charName>eta</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PERISPOMENI AND YPOGEGRAMMENI</desc> + <mapping>ae</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fd6"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fd7"> + <charName>iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH DIALYTIKA AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>i</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fda"> + <charName>Iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER IOTA WITH VARIA</desc> + <mapping>I</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fdb"> + <charName>Iota</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA</desc> + <mapping>I</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fe4"> + <charName>rho</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO WITH PSILI</desc> + <mapping>r</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fe5"> + <charName>rho</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>r</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fe6"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fe7"> + <charName>upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH DIALYTIKA AND PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>u</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fea"> + <charName>Upsilon</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER UPSILON WITH VARIA</desc> + <mapping>U</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1fec"> + <charName>Rho</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER RHO WITH DASIA</desc> + <mapping>R</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1ff3"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH YPOGEGRAMMENI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1ff6"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1ff7"> + <charName>omega</charName> + <desc>GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI AND YPOGEGRAMMENI</desc> + <mapping>o</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x1ff9"> + <charName>Omicron</charName> + <desc>GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA</desc> + <mapping>O</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2014"> + <charName>mdash</charName> + <desc>EM DASH</desc> + <mapping>--</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2003"> + <charName>emsp</charName> + <desc>EM SPACE</desc> + <mapping> </mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2026"> + <charName>hellip</charName> + <desc>HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS</desc> + <mapping>...</mapping> + </char> + </pgCharMap> +</pgExtensions> + +<text lang="en"> + <front> + <div> + <divGen type="pgheader" /> + </div> + <div> + <divGen type="encodingDesc" /> + </div> + + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">THE</p> + <p rend="font-size: xx-large; text-align: center">THE LAST TWELVE VERSES</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO</p> + <p rend="font-size: xx-large; text-align: center">S. MARK</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">Vindicated Against Recent Critical + Objectors</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">And Established</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">by</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">John W. Burgon B.D.</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">Vicar of S. Mary-The-Virgin's, Fellow of Oriel + College,</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">and Gresham Lecturer in Divinity.</p> + <p rend="text-align: center"><hi rend='italic'>With Facsimiles of Codex א And + Codex L</hi></p> + <p rend="text-align: center">"'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 + <hi rend='italic'>verifying your references</hi>, sir!"</p> + <p rend="text-align: center"><hi rend='italic'>Conversation of the late</hi> + <hi rend="smallcaps">President Routh</hi></p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Oxford and London:</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">James Parker and Co.</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">1871.</p> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <head>Contents</head> + <divGen type="toc" /> + </div> + </front> +<body> + +<pb n="i"/><anchor id="Pgi"/> + +<div rend="page-break-before: always"> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf"/> +<head>The Codex</head> + +<p> +[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> +On the next page is exhibited an <hi rend='italic'>exact Fac-simile</hi>, obtained +by Photography, of fol. 28 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi> of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Codex +Sinaiticus</hi> 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. <ref target="Pg070">70</ref>, and pp. +<ref target="Pg086">86-8</ref>. 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> +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> +Up to this hour, every endeavour to obtain a Photograph +of the corresponding page of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Codex Vaticanus</hi>, 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, <hi rend="smallcaps">Pope Pius IX.</hi>, 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Codex B</hi> (it is numbered +fol. 1303,) which exhibits the abrupt termination of the +Gospel according to S. Mark. +</p> + +<p> +J. W. B. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Oriel College, Oxford</hi>,<lb/> +<hi rend='italic'>June 14, 1871</hi>. +</p> + +<p rend="text-align: center"> + <figure url="images/facsimile-1.png" rend="width: 100%"> + <figDesc>[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]</figDesc> + </figure> +</p> +<p rend="text-align: center"> + <figure url="images/facsimile-2.png" rend="width: 100%"> + <figDesc>[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]</figDesc> + </figure> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="iv"/><anchor id="Pgiv"/> + +<div> +<head>"My Word Will Not Pass Away"</head> + +<lg> +<l rend="text-align: center">ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν,</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ,</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου,</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l rend="text-align: center">εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστι</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν,</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l rend="text-align: center">ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται,</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l rend="text-align: center">καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς,</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας,</l> +<l rend="text-align: center">καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.</l> +</lg> + +</div> + +<pb n="v"/><anchor id="Pgv"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf"/> +<head>Dedication: To Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., M.P.</head> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Dear Sir Roundell</hi>, +</p> + +<p> +I do myself the honour of inscribing this volume to you. Permit +me to explain the reason why. +</p> + +<p> +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> +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 <q>last Twelve Verses</q> 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, +<pb n="vi"/><anchor id="Pgvi"/> +that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,—untrustworthy +in every particular. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>that</emph> 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> +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,—<emph>S. Mark's +last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a +subject of dispute among men.</emph> 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> +I am, with sincere regard and respect,<lb/> +Dear Sir Roundell,<lb/> +Very faithfully yours,<lb/> +JOHN W. BURGON. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Oriel</hi>,<lb/> +July, 1871. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="vii"/><anchor id="Pgvii"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf"/> +<head>Preface.</head> + +<p> +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> +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 +<pb n="viii"/><anchor id="Pgviii"/> +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> +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—<emph>unremunerative</emph> +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> +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 <emph>Texts</emph> are wholly inadmissible, yet is it +equally certain that by the conscientious diligence +with which those distinguished Scholars have respectively +<pb n="ix"/><anchor id="Pgix"/> +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 <emph>him</emph>, I will very humbly beg +their pardon also. +</p> + +<p> +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,—<q>I +see the learned son of a learned Father, sir!</q>—Let +me be permitted to add that my friend inherits +the Bishop's fine taste and accurate judgment also. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n="x"/><anchor id="Pgx"/> +more than half a thousand years old,) as <hi rend='italic'>Collegium +Scholarium in Sacrâ Theologiâ studentium,—perpetuis +temporibus duraturum</hi>. Indebted, under <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>, 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 <q>employed my advantages,</q>—(the expression +occurs in a prayer used by this Society on its +three solemn anniversaries,)—as our Founder and +Benefactors <q>would approve if they were now upon +earth to witness what we do.</q> +</p> + +<p> +J. W. B. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Oriel</hi>,<lb/> +<hi rend='italic'>July, 1871</hi>. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="xvi"/><anchor id="Pgxvi"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf"/> +<head>The Last Twelve Verses.</head> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Subjoined, for convenience, are</hi> <q>the Last Twelve Verses.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{4.5cm} p{4.5cm}'"> +<row> + <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. + </cell> + <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. + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν + περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ + μορφῇ, πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν. κἀκεῖνοι + ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς + λοιποῖς; οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν. + </cell> + <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. + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς + ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισε τὴν + ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν, + ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον + + οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν. Καὶ εἶπεν + αὐτοῖς, <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.</q> + </cell> + <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, <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.</q> + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <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. + </cell> + <cell> + (19) So then after the <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> + had spoken unto them, He was + received up into Heaven, and + sat on the Right hand of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>. + (20) And they went forth, and + preached every where, the <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> + working with them, and confirming + the word with signs following. Amen. + </cell> +</row> +</table> + +</div> + +<pb n="001"/><anchor id="Pg001"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter I. THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES +OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL, STATED."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter I."/> +<head type="sub">Chapter I.</head> +<head>THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES +OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL, STATED.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +These Verses generally suspected at the present time. The popularity +of this opinion accounted for. +</quote> + +<p> +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 <q>the early Fathers</q> witness plainly against their +genuineness; (3) That, from considerations of <q>internal +evidence</q> 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 <emph>one</emph> 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> +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 +<pb n="002"/><anchor id="Pg002"/> +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> +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> +(1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief +of Christendom that the Word of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> must needs be consistent +with itself in every part, and prove in every part +(like its Divine Author) perfectly <q>faithful and true,</q> 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. <q>In +fact,</q> (says Mr. Scrivener,) <q>it brought suspicion upon these +verses, and caused their omission in some copies seen by +Eusebius.</q> 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 +<emph>occasion</emph> 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> +(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 <emph>now</emph>, <q>most sound +theologians have no dread whatever of acknowledging minute +points of disagreement</q> (i.e. minute <emph>errors</emph>) <q>in the fourfold +narrative even of the life of the Redeemer.</q><note place="foot">Abp. Tait's +<hi rend='italic'>Harmony of Revelation and the Sciences</hi>, (1864,) p. 21.</note> +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 +<pb n="003"/><anchor id="Pg003"/> +of the ancients; and which, at all events for 1300 years and +upwards, have deservedly sunk into oblivion. +</p> + +<p> +Whilst I write, <emph>that</emph> <q>most divine explication of the +chiefest articles of our Christian belief,</q> the Athanasian +Creed,<note place="foot">See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13.</note> +is made the object of incessant assaults.<note place="foot">Abp. Tait is of opinion +that it <q>should not retain its place in the public +Service of the Church:</q> and Dean Stanley gives sixteen reasons for the +same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that <q>many excellent laymen, including +King George III., have declined to take part in the recitation.</q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Final</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Report of the Ritual Commission</hi>, +1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.</note> +But then it is remembered that statements quite as <q>uncharitable</q> +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 <emph>warning +clause</emph>, I say, (miscalled <q>damnatory,</q><note place="foot">In the words of a +thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P. Eden),—<q><emph>Condemnatory</emph> +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, +<hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> judgment namely on the sin of unbelief. The +further question,—In whom the sin of unbelief is found; <emph>that</emph> +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.</q></note>) 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? <q>If it be acknowledged that the passage +has a harsh sound,</q> (remarks Dean Stanley,) <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 <emph>not a part of S. Mark's Gospel, but +an addition by another hand</emph>; of which the weakness in the +external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in +proving its later origin.</q><note place="foot"><q>The Athanasian Creed,</q> +by the Dean of Westminster (<hi rend='italic'>Contemporary +Review</hi>, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).</note> +</p> + +<p> +Modern prejudice, then,—added to a singularly exaggerated +estimate of the critical importance of the testimony +<pb n="004"/><anchor id="Pg004"/> +of our two oldest Codices, (another of the <q>discoveries of +later times,</q> 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> +Not that Biblical Critics would have us believe that the +Evangelist left off at verse 8, intending that the words,—<q>neither +said they anything to any man, for they were +afraid,</q> should be the conclusion of his Gospel. <q>No one +can imagine,</q> (writes Griesbach,) <q>that Mark cut short the +thread of his narrative at that +place.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Commentarius Criticus</hi>, ii. 197.</note> +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> +To explain this, shall be the object of the next ensuing +chapters. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="005"/><anchor id="Pg005"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter II. THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN +TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter II."/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER II.</head> +<head>THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN +TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses +(p. <ref target="Pg006">6</ref>).—Lachmann's fatal principle (p. +<ref target="Pg008">8</ref>) the clue to the unfavourable +verdict of Tischendorf (p. <ref target="Pg009">9</ref>), of Tregelles (p. +<ref target="Pg010">10</ref>), of Alford (p. <ref target="Pg012">12</ref>); +which has been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and Divines (p. +<ref target="Pg013">13</ref>).—The nature of the present inquiry explained +(p. <ref target="Pg015">15</ref>.) +</quote> + +<p> +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. <q>There +is no reason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of +Scripture,</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>in extenso</hi>, +left the passage in undisputed possession of its place. Alter +in 1786-7, and Birch in 1788,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Quatuor Evangelia +Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd. +MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit Andreas +Birch, Havniae</hi>, 1788. A copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may be +seen in the King's Library (Brit. Mus.)</note> (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, +<pb n="006"/><anchor id="Pg006"/> +that with no ordinary warmth, no common acuteness, he +insisted on their genuineness. +</p> + +<p> +<q>With Griesbach,</q> (remarks Dr. +Tregelles,)<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Account of the Printed Text</hi>, p. +83.</note> <q>Texts which may be called really critical begin;</q> 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.<note place="foot">See above, p. +<ref target="Pg003">3</ref>.</note> He was of opinion, +however, that <q>at some very remote period, the original +ending of the Gospel perished,—disappeared perhaps <emph>from +the Evangelist's own copy</emph>,—and that the present ending was +by some one substituted in its place.</q> Griesbach further invented +the following elaborate and extraordinary hypothesis +to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>The Gospel,</q>—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 <q>Alexandrine.</q> +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 <q>the Western recension.</q> 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. <q>Let this conjecture be accepted,</q> +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,)—<q>and every difficulty disappears; and +<pb n="007"/><anchor id="Pg007"/> +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.</q>—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> +It should perhaps be stated in passing, that Griesbach +was driven into this curious maze of unsupported conjecture +by the exigencies of his <q>Recension Theory;</q> 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 +<emph>omitting</emph> 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 <q>Alexandrine Recension.</q> +But then, on the Critic's own hypothesis, (as we have seen +already,) Codex B. ought, on the contrary, to have <emph>contained</emph> +it. How was that inconvenient fact to be got over? +Griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note that Codex B. +<q><emph>has affinity</emph> with the Eastern family of MSS.</q>—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 <hi rend='italic'>ignis fatuus</hi> 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> +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 +<pb n="008"/><anchor id="Pg008"/> +eagerly vindicated its genuineness.<note place="foot"><q>Eam esse authenticam +rationes internae et externae probant gravissimae.</q></note> +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,<note place="foot">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 <emph>he</emph> 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.</note>—the +three latest critics who have formally undertaken to +reconstruct the sacred Text. +</p> + +<p> +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; <q>a +fragment,</q>—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;<note place="foot">Tischendorf, +besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the +Greek Text, has edited our English <q>Authorized Version</q> (Tauchnitz, 1869,) +with an <q>Introduction</q> 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 <q>Account of the Printed Text,</q> and in +his <q>Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.</q> (vol. iv. of Horne's +<hi rend='italic'>Introd.</hi>)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek +Testament, and an abridgment <q>for the upper forms of Schools and for passmen at +the Universities,</q> put forth two editions of a <q>N. T. for English Readers,</q> +and three editions of <q>the Authorized Version newly compared with the original Greek +and revised;</q>—in every one of which it is stated that these twelve verses are +<q>probably an addition, placed here in very early times.</q></note> and +<pb n="009"/><anchor id="Pg009"/> +may be said to be at present in all but undisputed possession +of the field.<note place="foot">The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. +Wordsworth, are honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent Divine +reluctantly admitting that <q>this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark +himself;</q> and Bishop Ellicott (<hi rend='italic'>Historical Lectures</hi>, pp. 26-7) +asking <q>Why may not this portion have been written by S. Mark at a later +period?;</q>—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. <q>Without the slightest misgiving</q> he has uniformly +maintained the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, +pp. 7 and 429-32.)</note> The first-named Editor enjoys a vast reputation, +and has been generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, <q>the +first Biblical Critic in Europe.</q> 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 <emph>this</emph> instance shall prove to be mistaken. +</p> + +<p> +1. Tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single +sentence. <q>That these verses were not written by Mark,</q> +<pb n="010"/><anchor id="Pg010"/> +(he says,) <q>admits of satisfactory proof.</q> 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 <q>abhorrent</q> +to S. Mark's manner. <q>The facts of the case being +such,</q> (and with this he dismisses the subject,) <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.</q><note place="foot"><q>Hæc non a Marco +scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,</q> (p. 320.) <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.</q> (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:—<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.</q> (p. 407.)</note> +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 +<emph>in favour</emph> 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,) <emph>against</emph> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>Pseudo Marcus</hi>.</q><note place="foot"><hi +rend='italic'>Evangelia Apocrypha</hi>, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.</note> +</p> + +<p> +2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this +subject in his <q>Account of the Printed Text of the Greek +New Testament</q> (1854). The respected author undertakes +to shew <q>that the early testimony that S. Mark did not +write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments.</q> +Accordingly, he announces as the result of the propositions +which he thinks he has established, <q>that the <emph>book of Mark +himself</emph> extends no further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.</q> He is the +<pb n="011"/><anchor id="Pg011"/> +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 <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.</q> In this modest suggestion at least Dr. +Tregelles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing +whatever about <q>the circumstances of S. Mark,</q> (or of any +other Evangelist,) <q>when he wrote his Gospel:</q> neither +indeed are we quite sure <emph>who</emph> S. Mark <emph>was</emph>. But when he +goes on to declare, notwithstanding, <q>that the remaining +twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim +to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel;</q> +and complains that <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 <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>, and that it +is as much His as were the Commandments of the Law +written by His own finger on the tables of stone;</q><note place="foot">Pp. 253, +7-9.</note>—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 <emph>authorship</emph>, but only one of <emph>genuineness</emph>. Have the +codices been <emph>mutilated</emph> which do <emph>not</emph> contain these verses? +If they have, then must these verses be held to be <emph>genuine</emph>. +But on the contrary, Have the codices been <emph>supplemented</emph> +which contain them? Then are these verses certainly <emph>spurious</emph>. +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 <q>authentic anonymous addition to what +Mark himself wrote down</q> is as much the work of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> +<q>as were the Ten Commandments written by His own +<pb n="012"/><anchor id="Pg012"/> +finger on the tables of stone.</q> On the other hand, if they +<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,</q>—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, <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.</q> 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.<note place="foot">In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson +pronounced it <q>manifestly untenable</q> that S. Mark's Gospel was the last written; +and assigned <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 64 as <q>its most probable</q> date. In his +second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—<q>When we consider that <emph>the Gospel +was not written till the second century</emph>, internal evidence loses much of its force +against the authenticity of these verses.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Introduction to +N.T.</hi></note> +</p> + +<p> +3. Dean Alford went a little further than any of his predecessors. +He says that this passage <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</q> (he adds) +<q>is, that <emph>the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away</emph>.</q> +The italics in this conjecture (which was originally Griesbach's) +are not mine. The internal evidence (declares the +same learned writer) <q>preponderates vastly against the authorship +of Mark;</q> or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against +<q>its genuineness as a work of the Evangelist.</q> Accordingly, +in his Prolegomena, (p. 38) he describes it as <q><emph>the +remarkable fragment</emph> at the end of the Gospel.</q> After this, +we are the less astonished to find that he <emph>closes the second +Gospel at ver.</emph> 8; introduces the Subscription there; and encloses +the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets. +Thus, whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman +<pb n="013"/><anchor id="Pg013"/> +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> +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. <q>It is +probable,</q> (says Abp. Thomson in the <hi rend='italic'>Bible Dictionary</hi>,) +<q>that this section is from a different hand, and was annexed +to the Gospels soon after the times of the Apostles.</q><note place="foot">Vol. ii. p. +239.</note>—The Rev. T. S. Green,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Developed +Criticism</hi>, [1857], p. 53.</note> (an able scholar, never to be mentioned +without respect,) considers that <q>the hypothesis of very +early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in evidence,</q>—which +<q>point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious +origin.</q>—<q>In respect of Mark's Gospel,</q> (writes Professor +Norton in a recent work on the <hi rend='italic'>Genuineness of the Gospels</hi>,) +<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.</q><note place="foot">Ed. 1847. i. +p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader's acceptance +in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.</note>—Professor +Westcott—who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, +announces a revised Text—assures us that <q>the original +text, from whatever cause it may have happened, terminated +abruptly after the account of the Angelic vision.</q> The rest +<q>was added at another time, and probably by another hand.</q> +<q>It is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt +close.</q> <q>The remaining verses cannot be regarded as part +of the original narrative of S. Mark</q><note place="foot"> +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction to the Study of the Gospels</hi>, p. +311.</note>—Meyer insists that this is an <q>apocryphal fragment,</q> and +reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which have ever been +<pb n="014"/><anchor id="Pg014"/> +arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving. The +<q>note</q> with which he takes leave of the subject is even +insolent.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Critical and Exegetical Commentary</hi>, +1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92.</note> A comparison (he says) of these <q>fragments</q> +(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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> after His Resurrection, and concerning His +Ascension. (<q>Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?</q>) +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>that the more +ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver. 8.</q> +(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, <q>the phraseology and style of +the section</q> are declared to be <q>unfavourable to its authenticity;</q> +not a few of the words and expressions being +<q>foreign to the diction of Mark.</q>—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> +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> +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 +<pb n="015"/><anchor id="Pg015"/> +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 <emph>the burthen of proof lies on +the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue</emph>.<note place="foot">In the Roman +law this principle is thus expressed,—<q>Ei incumbit probatio +qui dicit, non qui negat.</q> Taylor <hi rend='italic'>on the Law of Evidence</hi>, +1868, i. p. 369.</note> We have +therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the supposed +proof is exactly worth; remembering always that in +this subject-matter a <emph>high degree of probability</emph> 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> +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> +1. When it is contended that our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>'s reply to the +young ruler (S. Matt. xix. 17) <emph>was not</emph> Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; +οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εῖς, ὁ Θεός,—it is at the same time insisted +that <emph>it was</emph> Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εῖς ἐστὶν +ὁ ἀγαθός. It is proposed to omit the former words <emph>only</emph> because +an alternative clause is at hand, which it is proposed +to substitute in its room. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>every +other charge of interpolation which can be named</emph>. If the +celebrated <q>pericopa de adulterâ,</q> for instance, be indeed +<pb n="016"/><anchor id="Pg016"/> +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 <emph>not</emph> cohere; (there +is no internal improbability, I mean, in the supposition;) +neither does there exist any <hi rend='italic'>à priori</hi> reason why a considerable +portion of narrative should be looked for in that particular +part of the Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +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> +(<hi rend='italic'>a.</hi>) And first, it does <emph>not</emph> mean that S. Mark +himself, with design, brought his Gospel to a close at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. +<emph>That</emph> 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> +(<hi rend='italic'>b.</hi>) 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 <emph>interrupted</emph> 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 <q><emph>the last leaf was torn +away</emph></q> 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 +<pb n="017"/><anchor id="Pg017"/> +logically reduced;)—<emph>this</emph> we are not certainly told. The +critics are only agreed in assuming that S. Mark's Gospel +<emph>was at first without the verses which at present conclude it</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>proof</emph>. The +foregoing improbable theories, based on a gratuitous assumption, +are confronted <hi rend='italic'>in limine</hi> 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.<note place="foot">This is freely allowed by all. +<q>Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam jam +in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.</q> Tregelles +<hi rend='italic'>N.T.</hi> p. 214.</note> In default, therefore, of distinct +historical evidence or definite documentary proof that +<emph>at some earlier period than that</emph> 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 <emph>general</emph> consent of MSS., Fathers, and +Versions in leaving these verses out. Else, it is evident +that we are logically <emph>forced</emph> to adopt the far easier supposition +that (<emph>not</emph> S. Mark, but) <emph>some copyist of the third century</emph> +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.<note place="foot">This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. +626) accounts for the phenomenon:—<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.</q></note> +</p> + +<pb n="018"/><anchor id="Pg018"/> + +<p> +I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully +at the outset; not in order to prejudge the question, (for +<emph>that</emph> could answer no good purpose,) but only in order that +the reader may have clearly set before him the real nature +of the issue. <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?</q> <emph>That</emph> is the question +which we have to consider,—the <emph>one</emph> 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> +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 <emph>possibly</emph> genuine, or else +as <emph>certainly</emph> spurious. If they entertain (as they say they +do) a decided opinion that they are <emph>not</emph> genuine, they ought +(if they would be consistent) <emph>to banish them from the text</emph>.<note +place="foot">It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his latest +edition) S. John xxi. 25.</note> Conversely, <emph>since they do not banish them from the +text</emph>, they have no right to pass a fatal sentence upon them; to designate +their author as <q>pseudo-Marcus;</q> 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 <emph>feel</emph> 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> + +<pb n="019"/><anchor id="Pg019"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter III. THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED +TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter III."/> +<anchor id="Chapter_III"/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER III.</head> +<head>THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED +TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p. +<ref target="Pg020">20</ref>).—The importance of such evidence explained +(p. <ref target="Pg021">21</ref>).—Nineteen Patristic witnesses to these Verses, +produced (p. <ref target="Pg023">23</ref>).—Summary (p. +<ref target="Pg030">30</ref>). +</quote> + +<p> +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:<note place="foot">Chap. III.-VIII., +also Chap. X.</note> for a discussion of the latter, one seventh of that space will +suffice.<note place="foot">Chap. IX.</note> 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> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Manuscripts</hi>,—(2.) on +<hi rend="smallcaps">Versions</hi>,—(3.) on <hi rend="smallcaps">Fathers</hi>. +And it is even self-evident that the <emph>most ancient</emph> MSS.,—the +<emph>earliest</emph> Versions,—the <emph>oldest</emph> of the Fathers, +will probably be in every instance the most trustworthy +witnesses. +</p> + +<p> +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:—(<hi rend='italic'>a.</hi>) Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not +licentiously; and sometimes <emph>allude</emph> only when they seem to +<emph>quote</emph>. (<hi rend='italic'>b.</hi>) They appear to have too often depended +on their memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inaccurate +<pb n="020"/><anchor id="Pg020"/> +in their citations; the same Father being observed +to quote the same place in different ways. (<hi rend='italic'>c.</hi>) 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> +3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed +out that when,—instead of certifying ourselves of the <emph>actual +words employed</emph> by an Evangelist, their precise <emph>form</emph> and +exact <emph>sequence</emph>,—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> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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 <q>monstra potius quam variae lectiones</q> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century,—7 of +the ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>,—4 of the +ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> or +x<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>,<note place="foot">Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, +Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch. <hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 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.</note> +while cursives of the xi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +and xii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +<pb n="021"/><anchor id="Pg021"/> +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 <emph>five</emph> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, +while it is thought by competent judges that the last named may very possibly +have been written quite late in the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century of our æra? Certainly not. Here, <hi rend="smallcaps">Fathers</hi> 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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 300 and <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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 <emph>frequently</emph> 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: <emph>not one</emph> 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 +<pb n="022"/><anchor id="Pg022"/> +attention), I shall refer him to the Appendix.<note place="foot">See +<ref target="Appendix_A">Appendix (A)</ref>, on the true reading of S. Luke ii. +14.</note> What is at least beyond the limits of controversy, whenever <emph>the +genuineness of a considerable passage of Scripture</emph> 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> +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; +<emph>the uncial codex</emph>, (it has long since perished) <emph>which belonged to +himself</emph> 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 <emph>substance</emph>. 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 <q>ipsissima verba</q> 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 <emph>form</emph> of the quoted verse, I repeat, may +have suffered almost to any extent. The <emph>substance</emph>, on the +contrary, inasmuch as it lay wholly beyond their province, +may be looked upon as an indisputable <emph>fact</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>allude</emph> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Spirit</hi>. It is evidently not so much +<pb n="023"/><anchor id="Pg023"/> +that their <emph>memory</emph> is in fault, as their <emph>judgment</emph>,—in that +they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to +recast, to reconstruct.<note place="foot">Consider how Ignatius (<hi rend='italic'>ad +Smyrn.</hi>, c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39; and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his +Ep. <hi rend='italic'>ad Ephes.</hi> c. 17.</note> +</p> + +<p> +I. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that <hi rend="smallcaps">Papias</hi> +refers to S. Mark xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous +tradition concerning <q>Justus surnamed Barsabas,</q> <q>how +that after drinking noxious poison, through the <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>'s grace +he experienced no evil consequence.</q><note place="foot">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. <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Eccl.</hi> iii. +39.</note> He does not give <emph>the words</emph> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 100. +</p> + +<p> +II. <hi rend="smallcaps">Justin Martyr</hi>, the date of whose first Apology is +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 151, is observed to say concerning the Apostles that, +after our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>'s Ascension,—ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ +ἐκήρυξαν:<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Apol.</hi> I. c. 45.—The supposed +quotations in c. 9 from the Fragment <hi rend='italic'>De Resurrectione</hi> (Westcott +and others) are clearly references to S. Luke xxiv.,—<emph>not</emph> +to S. Mark xvi.</note> 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> +III. When <hi rend="smallcaps">Irenæus</hi>, in his third Book against Heresies, +deliberately quotes and remarks upon the 19th verse of the +last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel,<note place="foot">lib. iii. c. x. <hi rend='italic'>ad +fin.</hi> (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). <q>In fine autem Evangelii ait +Marcus, <emph>et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est sis, receptus est in +caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.</emph></q> 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.</note> +we are put in possession of +<pb n="024"/><anchor id="Pg024"/> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 180, and which therefore cannot possibly have +been written much more than a hundred years after the +date of the Evangelist himself: while it <emph>may</emph> have been +written by a contemporary of S. Mark, and probably <emph>was</emph> +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 +<q>Manuscript</q> and <q>Patristic</q> 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 +<emph>a fragment from a dated manuscript</emph>; and <emph>that</emph> 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> +IV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of +S. Mark were in the second century accounted an integral +part of his Gospel. <hi rend="smallcaps">Hippolytus</hi>, Bishop of Portus near +Borne (190-227), a contemporary of Irenæus, quotes the +17th and 18th verses in his fragment Περὶ Χαρισμάτων.<note place="foot"><p>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) <q>Apostolical Constitutions,</q> +(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 <q>Apostolical +Constitutions;</q> of which the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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, (<hi rend='italic'>Hippolyti +Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce</hi>, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. 74. +</p> +<p> +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 <q>Octateuchus Clementinus,</q> concerning which Lagarde +has several remarks in the preface to his <hi rend='italic'>Reliquiæ Juris Ecclesiastici +Antiquissimæ</hi>, 1856. The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the +last-named publication. The exact correspondence between the <q>Octateuchus +Clementinus</q> and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend +no further than the single chapter (the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>) +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 +<hi rend='italic'>Reliquiæ</hi>, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there headed +Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων.</p></note> +<pb n="025"/><anchor id="Pg025"/> +Also in his Homily on the heresy of Noetus,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ad +fin.</hi> See Routh's <hi rend='italic'>Opuscula</hi>, i. p. 80.</note> +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, <hi rend="smallcaps">Christ</hi> is <emph>invariably</emph> spoken +of as ανελθόντα: in the Scriptures, <emph>invariably</emph> as ἀναληθέντα.<note +place="foot">For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf's remark (ed. 8va. +p. 407), <q>Quod idem [Justinus] Christum ἀνεληλυθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐράνους dicit, +[<hi rend='italic'>Apol.</hi> I. c. 50?] minus valet.</q></note> +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> +V. At the Seventh <hi rend="smallcaps">Council of Carthage</hi> held under +Cyprian, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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;<note place="foot"><q>In nomine meo manum +imponite, daemonia expellite,</q> (Cyprian Opp. p. 237 [<hi rend='italic'>Reliqq. +Sacr.</hi> iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,)—<q><hi rend='italic'>In +nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus imponent</hi> et bene +habebunt.</q></note> and Augustine, about a century and a half later, in his reply, +recited the words afresh.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Responsa ad Episcopos</hi>, +c. 44, (<hi rend='italic'>Reliqq.</hi> v. 248.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +VI. The Apocryphal <hi rend="smallcaps">Acta Pilati</hi> (sometimes called the +<q>Gospel of Nicodemus</q>) Tischendorf assigns without hesitation +to the iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> 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.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Evangelia +Apocrypha</hi>, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: also +<hi rend='italic'>Proleg.</hi> p. lvi.</note> +</p> + +<p> +VII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver. +15 is clearly alluded to in two places of the (so-called) +<q><hi rend="smallcaps">Apostolical Constitutions</hi>;</q><note place="foot">In +<hi rend='italic'>l.</hi> vii. <hi rend='italic'>c.</hi> 7 (<hi rend='italic'>ad +fin.</hi>),—λαβόντες ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κηρύξαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον: +and in <hi rend='italic'>l.</hi> viii. <hi rend='italic'>c.</hi> 1,—ἡμῖν τοῖς +ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Observe, this immediately +follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.</note> +and that verse 16 is quoted (with +<pb n="026"/><anchor id="Pg026"/> +no variety of reading from the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi><note +place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Lib.</hi> vi. <hi rend='italic'>c.</hi> 15.—The +quotation (at the beginning of <hi rend='italic'>lib.</hi> viii.) of the 17th +and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper place. +<hi rend='italic'>Supra</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg024">24</ref>.</note>) +in an earlier +part of the same ancient work. The <q>Constitutions</q> are +assigned to the iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> or the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century.<note place="foot">Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 421.</note> +</p> + +<p> +VIII and IX. It will be shewn in <ref target="Chapter_V">Chapter V.</ref> +that <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 325. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Marinus</hi> 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> +X. Tischendorf and his followers state that Jacobus Nisibenus +quotes these verses. For <q>Jacobus Nisibenus</q> read +<q><hi rend="smallcaps">Aphraates</hi> the Persian Sage,</q> and the statement will be +correct. The history of the mistake is curious. +</p> + +<p> +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, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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.<note place="foot"><hi +rend='italic'>Apud</hi> Hieron. <hi rend='italic'>Opp. ed.</hi> Vallars., ii. +951-4.</note> 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 <q>Jacobus Nisibenus</q> +is quoted. +</p> + +<pb n="027"/><anchor id="Pg027"/> + +<p> +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, <q>the +Persian Sage,</q>—a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of +the Syrian Church. In the first Homily, (which bears date +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 337), verses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are +quoted,<note place="foot">See Dr. Wright's ed. of <q>Aphraates,</q> +(4<hi rend="vertical-align: super">to</hi>. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am entirely +indebted to the learned Editor's <hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi> for the information in +the text.</note>—yet not from the version known as the Curetonian Syriac, +nor yet from the Peshito exactly.<note place="foot">From Dr. Wright, and my brother +Archdeacon Rose.</note>—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> +XI. <hi rend="smallcaps">Ambrose</hi>, Archbishop of Milan +(<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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.<note place="foot">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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +XII. The testimony of <hi rend="smallcaps">Chrysostom</hi> +(<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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. <q>This</q> +(he adds) <q>is the end of the Gospel. Mark makes no extended +mention of the Ascension.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. +765 A, B.</note> Elsewhere he has an +unmistakable reference to S. Mark xvi. 9.<note place="foot">Καὶ μὴν τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον +τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρία πρώτῃ [ὤφθη]. +Chrys. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ch. 355 B.</note> +</p> + +<p> +XIII. <hi rend="smallcaps">Jerome</hi>, 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 +<pb n="028"/><anchor id="Pg028"/> +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 <ref target="Chapter_V">Chapter V</ref>. +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.<note place="foot"><q>Cogis</q> (he says to Pope +Damasus) <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.</q></note> He familiarly quotes +the 9th verse in one place of his writings;<note place="foot">Vol. i. p. 327 C +(<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Vallars.)</note> in another place +he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the +copies, (especially the Greek,) was found after ver. 14 <emph>the +reply of the eleven Apostles</emph>, when our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> +<q>upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because +they believed not them which had seen Him after He was +risen.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Contra Pelagianos</hi>, II. 15, (Opp. ii. +744-5):—<q>In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum +in fine Evangelii scribitur: <hi rend='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.</hi></q></note> +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> +XIV. It was to have been expected that <hi rend="smallcaps">Augustine</hi> would +quote these verses: but he more than quotes them. He +brings them forward again and again,<note place="foot">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.</note>—discusses them as +the work of S. Mark,—remarks that <q>in diebus Paschalibus,</q> +S. Mark's narrative of the Resurrection was publicly +<pb n="029"/><anchor id="Pg029"/> +read in the Church.<note place="foot">Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.</note> +All this is noteworthy. Augustine +flourished <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 395-430. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Nestorius</hi>, +the heresiarch, quotes ver. 20; and <hi rend="smallcaps">Cyril</hi> of +<hi rend="smallcaps">Alexandria</hi> accepts his quotation, adding a few words of his +own.<note place="foot">ἐξελθόντες γάρ, φησι, διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ. +τοῦ Κυρίοῦ συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων σημειων. +Nestorius <hi rend='italic'>c. Orthodoxos</hi>: (Cyril. Alexand. <hi rend='italic'>adv. +Nestorian.</hi> Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,—τῇ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ +δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι, διεκηρύσσοντο καὶ εἰργάζοντο τὰς θεοσημείας οἱ θεοπέσιοι +μαθηταὶ. (<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> D.) This quotation was +first noticed by Matthaei (<hi rend='italic'>Enthym. Zig.</hi> i. 161.)</note> Let +it be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the discovery +of <emph>two</emph> dated codices containing the last twelve verses of +S. Mark,—and <emph>that</emph> date <emph>anterior</emph> (it is impossible to +say by how many years) to <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 430. +</p> + +<p> +XVII. <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor of Antioch</hi>, (concerning whom I shall +have to speak very largely in <ref target="Chapter_V">Chapter V</ref>.,) flourished +about <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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> +XVIII. <hi rend="smallcaps">Hesychius</hi> 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 <q>Homily on the Resurrection,</q> (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.<note place="foot">ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ +γεγραμμένον; Ὁ μὲν οὄν Κύριος—ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss. +<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. 415.</note> +The date of Hesychius is uncertain; +but he may, I suppose, be considered to belong to +the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century. His evidence is discussed +in <ref target="Chapter_V">Chapter V</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +XIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a reference +to the <hi rend="smallcaps">Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae</hi>,—an ancient work +<pb n="030"/><anchor id="Pg030"/> +ascribed to Athanasius,<note place="foot">Athanasii <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. ii. +p. 181 F, 182 A. See the <hi rend='italic'>Præfat.</hi>, pp. vii., viii.</note> +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.<note place="foot"><p>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 <q>Indices,</q> 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> +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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> 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></note> +</p> + +<p> +It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic +authorities; as, by appealing to Gregentius in the +vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, and to Gregory the Great, and +Modestus, patriarch of Constantinople +in the vii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>;—to Ven. Bede and John Damascene +in the viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>;—to Theophylact in the +xi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>;—to Euthymius in the +xii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi><note place="foot">Gregentius +<hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> Galland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in +Evang.)—Modestus <hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> Photium cod. 275.—Johannis +Damasceni <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> (ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and +Theophylact (who quotes <emph>all</emph> the verses) and Euthymius <hi rend='italic'>in +loc.</hi></note>: 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> chapter. +</p> + +<p> +It will be observed then that <emph>three</emph> competent Patristic +witnesses of the ii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> +century,—<emph>four</emph> of the +iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi>,—<emph>six</emph> of the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>,—<emph>four</emph> of the +v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>,—and <emph>two</emph> (of uncertain date, +but probably) of the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>,—have admitted +their familiarity with these <q>last Twelve Verses.</q> 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 +<pb n="031"/><anchor id="Pg031"/> +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,—<emph>seven</emph> of them at least of more ancient date than +the oldest copy of the Gospels extant. +</p> + +<p> +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> + +<pb n="032"/><anchor id="Pg032"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter IV. THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD +UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF +THESE VERSES."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter IV."/> +<anchor id="Chapter_IV"/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER IV.</head> +<head>THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD +UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF +THESE VERSES.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +The Peshito,—the Curetonian Syriac,—and the Recension of Thomas +of Hharkel (p. <ref target="Pg033">33</ref>.)—The Vulgate (p. +<ref target="Pg034">34</ref>)—and the Vetus Itala (p. +<ref target="Pg035">35</ref>)—the Gothic (p. +<ref target="Pg035">35</ref>)—and the Egyptian Versions (p. +<ref target="Pg035">35</ref>).—Review +of the Evidence up to this point, (p. <ref target="Pg036">36</ref>). +</quote> + +<p> +It was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to +establish in detail <emph>the Text</emph> 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, (<hi rend='italic'>a.</hi>) We know for the most part the approximate +date of the principal ancient Versions of the New +Testament:—(<hi rend='italic'>b.</hi>) Each Version is represented by at least one +very ancient Codex:—and (<hi rend='italic'>c.</hi>) 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> +I. <q>Literary history,</q> (says Mr. Scrivener,) <q>can hardly +afford a more powerful case than has been established for +the identity of the Version of the Syriac now called the +<q><hi rend="smallcaps">Peshito</hi></q> with that used by the Eastern Church long before +the great schism had its beginning, in the native land +<pb n="033"/><anchor id="Pg033"/> +of the blessed Gospel.</q> The Peshito is referred by common +consent to the ii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> century of our æra; and is +found to contain the verses in question. +</p> + +<p> +II. This, however, is not all. Within the last thirty years, +fragments of <emph>another</emph> very ancient Syriac translation of the +Gospels, (called from the name of its discoverer <q><hi rend="smallcaps">The Curetonian +Syriac</hi>,</q>) have come to light:<note place="foot">Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that +some more leaves of this Version have just been recovered.</note> and in this translation +also the verses in question are found.<note place="foot">By a happy providence, one of +the fragments contains the last four verses.</note> This fragmentary +codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the +v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> +century. +</p> + +<p> +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, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> +508; and by the aid of three<note place="foot">In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii. +5, Thomas writes,—<q><emph>In tribus codicibus Græcis</emph>, et in uno Syriaco +antiquæ versionis, non inventum est nomen, <q>Nazarenus.</q></q>—Cf. ad xxvii. +35.—Adler's <hi rend='italic'>N. T. Verss. Syrr.</hi>, p. 97.</note> +approved and accurate Greek manuscripts, this revised version of Polycarp was again +revised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the monastery of Antonia +at Alexandria, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 616. The Hharklensian Revision, (commonly +called the <q><hi rend="smallcaps">Philoxenian</hi>,</q>) 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, +it exhibits +<pb n="034"/><anchor id="Pg034"/> +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.<note place="foot">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. +<ref target="Chapter_VIII">viii</ref>.)—is not at all surprising. +Of these 437 readings and notes, 91 are not found in White's Edition; while +105 (the supplement in question being one of them) are found in White only. +This creates a suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must +exhibit traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text. (So +Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of some of those +marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to refer to Adler's learned +work, (pp. 79-134) and examine the notes on the following places:—S. Matth. +xv. 21: xx. 28 ( = D): xxvi. 7. S. Mk. i. 16: xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 ( = B D): +42 ( = B א L): xi. 1: 53. S. Jo. ii. 1 [3] ( = א): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly + = B): x. 8, &c. &c.</note> +</p> + +<p> +To these, if I do not add the <q>Jerusalem version,</q>—(as +an independent Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sections, +perhaps of the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, is +called,<note place="foot">This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, +1861-4, under the following title:—<hi rend='italic'>Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum +ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit, Prolegomenis et +Glossario adornavit, Comes</hi> <hi rend="smallcaps">Franciscus Miniscalchi +Erizzo</hi>.</note>)—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> +IV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> +382), was the author of that famous Latin version of the +Scriptures called <hi rend="smallcaps">The Vulgate</hi>, 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 +<pb n="035"/><anchor id="Pg035"/> +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> +V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much +older translation, generally known as the <hi rend="smallcaps">Vetus Itala</hi>. +This Old Latin, which is of African origin and of almost +Apostolic antiquity, (supposed of the ii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> +century,) conspires with the Vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the +genuineness of the end of S. Mark's Gospel:<note place="foot">It does not sensibly +detract from the value of this evidence that one ancient codex, the <q>Codex +Bobbiensis</q> (k), which Tregelles describes as <q>a revised text, in which the +influence of ancient MSS. is discernible,</q> [<hi rend='italic'>Printed text</hi>, &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.</note>—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> +VI. The next place may well be given to the venerable +version of the Gothic Bishop Ulphilas,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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.<note place="foot"><q>Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici +satis agnoverint, vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.</q> Mai, <hi rend='italic'>Nova Patt. +Bibl.</hi> iv. 256.</note> The oldest extant copy of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Gothic</hi> +of Ulphilas is assigned to the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> or early in the +vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century: and the verses in question are there +also met with. +</p> + +<p> +VII. and VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next +for notice: their testimony being so exceedingly ancient +and respectable. The <hi rend="smallcaps">Memphitic</hi>, or dialect of Lower +Egypt, (less properly called the <q>Coptic</q> version), which +is assigned to the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> or +v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, contains S. Mark xvi. +9-20.—Fragments of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Thebaic</hi>, or dialect of Upper +Egypt, (a distinct version and of considerably earlier date, +<pb n="036"/><anchor id="Pg036"/> +less properly called the <q>Sahidic,</q>) 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> century. +</p> + +<p> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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> +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> +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> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Carthaginian Council is +sufficiently inexact to make it unsafe to build upon it. The <q>Acta Pilati</q> +and the <q>Apostolical Constitutions,</q> since their date +is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century only, and not for the iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi>. And now, +how will the evidence stand for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel? +</p> + +<pb n="037"/><anchor id="Pg037"/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) In the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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,—(<emph>four</emph> +authorities in all,)—are observed to recognise these +verses. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) In the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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,—(<emph>eleven</emph> authorities in all,)—testify to familiar +acquaintance with this portion of S. Mark's Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) In the iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> 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 <emph>three</emph> distinct provinces +of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever attached +to these verses. Lastly,— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) In the ii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> 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> +4. Thus, we are in possession of the testimony of <emph>at least +six</emph> 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> +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> +The grounds for assuming that his <q>last Twelve Verses</q> +are spurious, shall be exhibited in the ensuing chapter. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="038"/><anchor id="Pg038"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter V. THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE +EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF +THE CRITICS."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter V."/> +<anchor id="Chapter_V"/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER V.</head> +<head>THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE +EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF +THE CRITICS.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p. <ref target="Pg039">39</ref>).—The +misconception concerning Eusebius (p. <ref target="Pg041">41</ref>).—The oversight +concerning Jerome (p. <ref target="Pg051">51</ref>);—also concerning Hesychius of +Jerusalem, (or else Severus of Antioch) (p. <ref target="Pg057">57</ref>);—and +concerning Victor of Antioch (p. <ref target="Pg059">59</ref>). +</quote> + +<p> +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. <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,</q> (says Dr. Tregelles,) <q>is attested +by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, +Severus of Antioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especially +Greeks.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Account of the Printed Text</hi>, p. +247.</note> 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 <q>many ancient Scholia.</q> <q>These verses</q> +(says Tischendorf) <q>are not recognised by the sections of +Ammonius nor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and +Cæsarius bear witness to the fact.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Gr. Test.</hi> +p. 322.</note> <q>In the Catenæ on Mark</q> (proceeds Davidson) <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;</q>—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 <hi rend='italic'>S. Matthew's</hi> Gospel, should +<pb n="039"/><anchor id="Pg039"/> +be also without any reference to the last chapter of <hi rend='italic'>S. Mark's</hi>: +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 <emph>at all</emph>.... 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 <emph>in favour of</emph> +the present portion of Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <q>it is attested</q> by +these seven Fathers that the concluding section of S. Mark's +Gospel <q>was not written by S. Mark himself?</q> Why, there +is <emph>not one</emph> 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) <q>later writers, especially +Greeks.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Gregory of Nyssa.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself +as follows in his second <q>Homily on the Resurrection;</q><note place="foot">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. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> (ed. 1638) iii, 411 B.</note>—<q>In +the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark +has its end at <q>for they were afraid.</q> In some copies, however, +this also is added,—<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.</q></q> +</p> + +<pb n="040"/><anchor id="Pg040"/> + +<p> +That this testimony should have been so often appealed +to as proceeding from Gregory of Nyssa,<note place="foot">Tregelles, +<hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, p. 248, also in Horne's +<hi rend='italic'>Introd.</hi> iv. 434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the +rest, following Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &c.</note> 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> +(1.) For, in the first place, the second <q>Homily on the +Resurrection</q> printed in the iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> 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, <emph>word for word the same Homily</emph> +which Combefis in his <q>Novum Auctarium,</q> and Gallandius +in his <q>Bibliotheca Patrum</q> printed as the work of Hesychius, +and vindicated to that Father, respectively in 1648 +and 1776.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Nov. Auct.</hi> i. +743-74.—<hi rend='italic'>Bibl. Vett. PP.</hi> xi. 221-6.</note> +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> +(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same +Homily is observed to reappear, <emph>word for word</emph>, under the +name of <q>Severus of Antioch,</q> and to be unsuspiciously +printed as his by Montfaucon in his <q>Bibliotheca Coisliniana</q> +(1715), and by Cramer in his <q>Catena</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Bibl. +Coisl.</hi> pp. 68-75.—<hi rend='italic'>Catena</hi>, i. 243-51.</note> +(1844),—although +it may very reasonably become a question among +critics whether Hesychius of Jerusalem or Severus of Antioch +<pb n="041"/><anchor id="Pg041"/> +was the actual author of the Homily in question,<note place="foot">Dionysius Syrus (i.e. +the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean Payne Smith's <hi rend='italic'>Cat. of +Syrr. MSS.</hi> p. 411] who died <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 1171) in his +<hi rend='italic'>Exposition of S. Mark's Gospel</hi> (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.</note> yet +it is plain that critics must make their election between the +two names; and not bring them <emph>both</emph> forward. No one, +I say, has any right to go on quoting <q>Severus</q> <emph>and</emph> +<q>Hesychius,</q>—as Tischendorf and Dr. Davidson are observed to +do:—<q>Gregory of Nyssa</q> <emph>and</emph> <q>Severus of Antioch,</q>—as +Dr. Tregelles is found to prefer. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>no one</emph> is found to suppose that +Gregory of Nyssa was its author,)—<emph>who</emph> will not admit that +no further mention must be made of the other two? +</p> + +<p> +(4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth +the name of <q>Gregory of Nyssa</q> must be banished from +this discussion. So must the name of <q>Severus of Antioch.</q> +The memorable passage which begins,—<q>In the more accurate +copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end +at <q>for they were afraid,</q></q>—is found in <emph>a Homily which +was probably written by Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem,—a +writer of the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century</emph>. I shall have +to recur to his work by-and-by. The next name is +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>stated that it is <emph>wanted in many +MSS.</emph>,</q><note place="foot">Alford, <hi rend='italic'>Greek Test.</hi> i. p. +433.</note>—he is mistaken. Eusebius nowhere says so. The reader's +attention is invited to a plain tale. +</p> + +<p> +It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by +<pb n="042"/><anchor id="Pg042"/> +Cardinal Angelo Mai<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Scriptorum Vett. Nova +Collectio</hi>, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101.</note> 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.<note place="foot">At p. 217, +(<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 1847), Mai designates it as <q>Codex Vat. Palat. cxx +pulcherrimus, sæculi ferme x.</q> 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.</note> These, the +learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in +his <q>Nova Patrum Bibliotheca;</q><note place="foot">Vol. iv. pp. 219-309.</note> +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> +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 <q>to Stephanus</q>) being discussions of difficulties +at the beginning of the Gospel,—the last (<q>to Marinus</q>) +relating to difficulties in its concluding chapters.<note place="foot">See +<hi rend='italic'>Nova P. P. Bibliotheca</hi>, iv. 255.—That it was styled +<q>Inquiries with their Resolutions</q> (Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσεις), Eusebius leads us to +suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name, (<hi rend='italic'>Demonstr. +Evang. lib.</hi> vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus, <hi rend='italic'>Mai</hi>, iv. +255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ (<hi rend='italic'>Mai</hi>, 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,—<hi rend='italic'>De Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ</hi>: <q>Edidit</q> (he says) +<q>de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ,</q> (<hi rend='italic'>De Scriptt. Illustt.</hi> c. 81.) +Again, Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων, (<hi rend='italic'>Hieron.</hi> in Matth. i. 16.) Consider +also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given below, p. <ref target="Pg044">44</ref>, +note (q). <q>Indicated</q> 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, <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Crit. N. T.</hi> p. +89.</note> 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 <q>Inquiries and Resolutions</q> exactly as it came +from the pen of Eusebius, may reasonably be doubted. That +<pb n="043"/><anchor id="Pg043"/> +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,—<q>An abridged selection +from the <q>Inquiries and Resolutions [of difficulties] in the +Gospels</q> by Eusebius.</q><note place="foot">Ἐκλογὴ ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ +Εὐσεβίου πρὸς Στέφανον [and πρὸς Μαρῖνον] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ +λύσεων. <hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes +facing the title of vol. i. ed. 1825.)</note> +Only <emph>some</emph> 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 <emph>amputation</emph> 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. <q>Inquiries,</q> &c, addressed +<q>to Stephanus;</q> while the concluding Book or Part is represented +by IV. more, <q>to Marinus,</q>—of which, <emph>the first</emph> +relates to our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> appearing to Mary Magdalene after +His Resurrection. Now, since the work which Eusebius addressed +to Marinus is found to have contained <q>Inquiries, +with their Resolutions, concerning our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> +<hi rend='italic'>Death</hi> and Resurrection,</q><note place="foot">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 <hi rend='italic'>Corderii Cat. in Joan.</hi> p. 436. (See Mai, iv. +299.)</note>—while a quotation professing to be derived +from <q>the <emph>thirteenth</emph> chapter</q> relates to Simon the +Cyrenian bearing our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> Cross;<note place="foot">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. (<hi rend='italic'>Possini Cat. in Marcum</hi>, p. +343.)</note>—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.<note place="foot">Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenæ, +inasmuch as their compilers are observed to have been very curious in such questions, +are evidently full of <hi rend='italic'>disjecta membra</hi> 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. +<hi rend='italic'>seu</hi> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Catena</hi> +of <hi rend='italic'>Corderius</hi> at pp. 448-9—449—450—457.—He +quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of John Xiphilinus, (<hi rend='italic'>Cod. +Vat.</hi> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Catenæ</hi>, 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 +<hi rend='italic'>Præfat.</hi> p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found +the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of the <hi rend='italic'>Catena</hi> +of Possinus. In countless places he might, by +such references, have improved his often manifestly faulty text.</note> +It is absolutely necessary +<pb n="044"/><anchor id="Pg044"/> +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<note place="foot"><p>Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius +(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 116.) to Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis) <q>scire +te vult in Siciliâ inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensis <hi rend='italic'>de +Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ</hi>, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.</q> The letter +is dated 1563.</p> +<p>I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will be found +that Eusebius digested his <q>Questions</q> <emph>under heads</emph>: e.g. περὶ το τάφου, +καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p. +299.)</p></note>,) 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 <q>Marinus,</q> who is represented as asking, first, the following +question:— +</p> + +<p> +<q>How is it, that, according to Matthew [xxviii. 1], the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> appears to have risen <q>in the end of the Sabbath;</q> +but, according to Mark [xvi. 9], <q>early the first day of the +week</q>?</q>—Eusebius answers, +</p> + +<p> +<q rend="pre">This difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for +<pb n="045"/><anchor id="Pg045"/> +getting rid of the entire passage,<note place="foot">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 <q>capitulum</q> by the Latins,) +to denote <emph>a passage</emph> 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 <emph>section</emph>, or <q>lesson.</q></note> will say that it is +not met with in <emph>all</emph> 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, <q>Fear not ye! Ye seek <hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi> of Nazareth,</q> &c.: +to which the Evangelist adds,—<q>And when they heard it, +they fled, and said nothing to any man, for they were +afraid.</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<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 <emph>both</emph> are to +be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, <emph>this</emph> +reading is not held to be genuine rather than <emph>that</emph>; nor <emph>that</emph> +than <emph>this</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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> +<q>Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our +business is to interpret the sense of the passage.<note place="foot">Ἀνάγνωσμα +(like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to be +here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgical <emph>section</emph>, +or <q>lectio.</q> See Suicer, <hi rend='italic'>in voce</hi>.</note> And certainly, +if I divide the meaning into two, we shall find that +it is not opposed to what Matthew says of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi>'s +having risen <q>in the end of the Sabbath.</q> For Mark's expression, +<pb n="046"/><anchor id="Pg046"/> +(<q>Now when He was risen early the first day of the +week,</q>) we shall read with a pause, putting a comma after +<q>Now when He was risen,</q>—the sense of the words which +follow being kept separate. Thereby, we shall refer [Mark's] +<q>when He was risen</q> to Matthew's <q>in the end of the Sabbath,</q> +(for it was <emph>then</emph> that He <emph>rose</emph>); and all that comes +after, expressive as it is of a distinct notion, we shall connect +with what follows; (for it was <q><emph>early</emph>, the first day of the +week,</q> that <q>He <emph>appeared to Mary Magdalene</emph>.</q>) This is in +fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that +<q>early,</q> <q>the first day of the week,</q> [<hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi>] +appeared to the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also says that He appeared +to her early: not that He <emph>rose</emph> early, but long before, +(according to that of Matthew, <q>in the end of the Sabbath:</q> +for though He <emph>rose</emph> then, He did not <emph>appear to Mary</emph> then, +but <q>early.</q>) In a word, two distinct seasons are set before +us by these words: first, the season of the Resurrection,—which +was <q>in the end of the Sabbath;</q> secondly, the season of our +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi>'s Appearing,—which was <q>early.</q> The +former,<note place="foot">The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some +disarrangement and depravation here.</note> +Mark writes of when he says, (it requires to be read +with a pause,)—<q>Now, when He was risen,</q> Then, after +a comma, what follows is to be spoken,—<q>Early, the first +day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of +whom He had cast seven devils.</q></q><note place="foot">Mai, <hi rend='italic'>Bibl. +P.P. Nova</hi>, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the original of this passage is +given in the Appendix (B).</note>—Such is the entire passage. +Little did the learned writer anticipate what bitter +fruit his words were destined to bear! +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>no problem +to solve</emph>. The discrepancy suggested by <q>Marinus</q> 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. <q>These places of the Gospels would never have +occasioned any difficulty,</q> he writes in the very next page, +<pb n="047"/><anchor id="Pg047"/> +(but it is the commencement of his reply to the <emph>second</emph> question +of Marinus,)—<q>if people would but abstain from assuming +that Matthew's phrase (ὀψὲ σαββάτων) refers to +<emph>the evening of the Sabbath-day</emph>: whereas, (in conformity with +the established idiom of the language,) it obviously refers +to an advanced period of the ensuing night.</q><note place="foot">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 +<q>ὀψὲ—τάφον</q> [xxviii. 1.] Ἰωάννου φήσαντος <q>τῇ δὲ μιᾷ—ἔτι οὔσης +σκοτίας.</q> [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) <hi rend='italic'>ad fin.</hi></note> He proceeds:—<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,—<q>in the end of the Sabbath, as it began +to dawn toward the first day of the week,</q> and John's—<q>The +first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalen early, +when it was yet dark.</q> The Evangelists indicate by different +expressions one and the same moment of time, but +in a broad and general way.</q> 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, <emph>not an original +production</emph>: 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 <emph>invariably</emph><note place="foot">I allude +to the following places:—Combefis, <hi rend='italic'>Novum Auctarium</hi>, col. +780.—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei, <hi rend='italic'>Anectt. Græc.</hi> +ii. 62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195 +<hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 165.—Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer, +<hi rend='italic'>Catt.</hi> i. 251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4, +<hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 169.—Cod. Bodl. Laud. Gr. 33, +<hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this subject +will do well to begin by reading Simon <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Crit. du +N. T.</hi> p. 89. See Mai's foot-note, iv. p. 257.</note> substituted +<pb n="048"/><anchor id="Pg048"/> +what Eusebius wrote in reply to the <emph>second</emph> question of +Marinus for what he wrote in reply to <emph>the first</emph>; in other +words, for the dissertation which is occasioning us all this +difficulty. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>that</emph> +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:—<q>Whatever +in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely consistent +with something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded +as genuine.</q> 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> +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 +<pb n="049"/><anchor id="Pg049"/> +(S. Mark xvi. 9-20,) <q><emph>is not met with in all</emph> the copies:</q> at +all events <emph>not</emph> <q><emph>in the accurate</emph></q> ones. Nay, it is +<q><emph>met with seldom</emph>.</q> In fact, it is <emph>absent from</emph> +<q><emph>almost all</emph></q> 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 <emph>are</emph> they trustworthy? +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>many</emph> of the copies,—even had it been insisted that <emph>the best +copies</emph> were without them,—well and good: but to assert that, +in the beginning of the fourth century, from <q><emph>almost all</emph></q> +copies of the Gospels they were away,—is palpably untrue. +What had become then of the MSS. from which the Syriac, +the Latin, <emph>all</emph> the ancient Versions were made? How is the +contradictory evidence of <emph>every copy of the Gospels in existence +but two</emph> 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 <q>three-score</q> but <q><emph>an +hundred</emph> and three-score;</q> for that so <q>the accurate copies</q> +used to read the place, besides Origen and Eusebius. And +yet (as I have elsewhere explained) the reading ἑκατὸν καὶ +ἑξήκοντα is altogether impossible. <q>Apud nos mixta sunt +omnia,</q> 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 <emph>cannot</emph> be correct. +</p> + +<pb n="050"/><anchor id="Pg050"/> + +<p> +And yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be it +observed, is clearly <emph>not Eusebius</emph>. It is evident that <emph>he</emph> 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, <q>This then is what a person will +say,</q>—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. <q>Here are two +readings,</q> he says, <q>(as is so often the case elsewhere:) +<emph>both</emph> of which are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful +and pious, <emph>this</emph> reading is not held to be genuine rather +than <emph>that</emph>; nor <emph>that</emph> than <emph>this</emph>.</q> 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> +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 +<q>according to Mark,</q> our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> <q>is not recorded to +have appeared to His Disciples after His Resurrection:</q> whereas +in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is plainly recorded that <q>Afterwards +<pb n="051"/><anchor id="Pg051"/> +He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat at meat.</q> 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 <q>Postscript</q> which shall form the last page of the +Appendix to the present volume. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>many</emph> 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 <emph>in the +evidence of Eusebius</emph>,—to induce us to believe that they are +a spurious addition to S. Mark's Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +III. We have next to consider what +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Jerome</hi> +</p> + +<p> +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> +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 +<pb n="052"/><anchor id="Pg052"/> +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:<note place="foot">Ep. cxx. +<hi rend='italic'>Opera</hi>, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43.</note> +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.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 844.</note> +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:—<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.</q> +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. <q>This has been hastily +dictated,</q> he says in conclusion,—(alluding to his constant +practice, which was to dictate, rather than to write,)—<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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>.</q> Then, after +special commendation of the learning of Origen and Eusebius, +and the valuable Scriptural expositions of many more,—<q>My +plan,</q> (he says,) <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.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.</note> +We are not surprised, after this straightforward avowal of what was the method +<pb n="053"/><anchor id="Pg053"/> +on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover that, +instead of hearing <emph>Jerome</emph> addressing <emph>Hedibia</emph>,—(who had +interrogated him concerning the very problem which is at +present engaging our attention,)—we find ourselves only +listening to <emph>Eusebius</emph> over again, addressing <emph>Marinus</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +<q>This difficulty admits of a two-fold solution,</q> 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,)—<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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> rose <q>late in the +week:</q> Mark,—when he says that Mary Magdalene saw Him +<q>early, the first day of the week.</q> For the passage must be +thus pointed,—<q>When He was risen:</q> and presently, after +a pause, must be added,—<q>Early, the first day of the week, +He appeared to Mary Magdalene.</q> 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.</q>—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 +<emph>translating his words</emph>.<note place="foot"><p><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.</q> +[τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι +αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.] +</p> +<p> +For the Latin of the above, see <hi rend='italic'>Hieronymi Opera</hi>, (ed. Vallars.) +vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B). +</p></note> +</p> + +<pb n="054"/><anchor id="Pg054"/> + +<p> +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 <emph>Hedibia's question to Jerome</emph> proves on +inspection to be nothing more than a translation of <emph>the very +question which Marinus had long before addressed to Eusebius</emph>? +We read on, perplexed at the coincidence; and speedily +make the notable discovery that her next question, and her +next, are <emph>also</emph> translations <emph>word for word</emph> of the next two of +Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is again +referred to the foot of the page.<note place="foot"><p>ἠρώτας +τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται +ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; [Eusebius +<hi rend='italic'>ad Marinum</hi>,(Mai, iv. 255.)] +</p> +<p> +Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente +in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane resurrectionem ejus +factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymus <hi rend='italic'>ad Hedibiam</hi>, (Opp. i. 818-9.)] +</p> +<p> +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. +[<hi rend='italic'>Ut suprà</hi>, p. 257.] +</p> +<p> +Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit Dominum +resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una sabbati +juxta sepulcrum fiere? [<hi rend='italic'>Ut suprà</hi>, p. 819.] +</p> +<p> +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. [<hi rend='italic'>Ut suprà</hi>, p. 262.] +</p> +<p> +Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ +Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem, audierit à +Domino, Noli me tangere. [<hi rend='italic'>Ut suprà</hi>, p. 821.] +</p> +</note> +It is at least decisive: +<pb n="055"/><anchor id="Pg055"/> +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 <emph>is not the testimony of +Jerome at all</emph>. 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 <q>Hedibia</q> 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 <q>Marinus.</q>) 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 <emph>translator</emph>, not +an original author: in other words, that it is <emph>Eusebius</emph> who +here speaks, and not Jerome. For a critic to pretend that it +<pb n="056"/><anchor id="Pg056"/> +is in <emph>any</emph> sense the testimony of Jerome which we are here +presented with; that Jerome is one of those Fathers <q>who, +even though they copied from their predecessors, were yet +competent to transmit the record of a fact,</q><note place="foot">Tregelles, +<hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, p. 247.</note>—is entirely to +misunderstand the case. The man who translates,—not +adopts, but <emph>translates</emph>,—<emph>the problem</emph> 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 <emph>verbatim as he found them written +in the pages of Eusebius</emph>; and then resolves them one by one +<emph>in the very language of the same Father</emph>:—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> +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 <q><emph>almost all the Greek codices</emph>,</q> +does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to +stand in the Vulgate? If he had met with them in <q><emph>scarcely +any copies of the Gospel</emph></q>—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 <q>without a cause</q> +(εἰκή,—S. Matth. v. 22,) only <q>in certain of his codices,</q> but +not <q>in the true ones,</q> <emph>omitted</emph> it from the Vulgate. Because, +however, he read <q>righteousness</q> (where we read <q>alms</q>) +in S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits <q><hi rend='italic'>justitiam</hi></q> in his revision +of the old Latin version. On the other hand, though he knew +of MSS. (as he expressly relates) which read <q>works</q> for +<q>children</q> (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 +<pb n="057"/><anchor id="Pg057"/> +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.<note place="foot">See above, p. <ref target="Pg028">28</ref>.</note> +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> +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 <q>Homily on the Resurrection,</q> +contained in the works of Gregory of Nyssa (above, +p. <ref target="Pg039">39</ref>), has delivered on the same subject. It will be +remembered that we saw reason for suspecting that not +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Severus of Antioch</hi>, but<lb/> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Hesychius of Jerusalem</hi>, +</p> + +<p> +(both of them writers of the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century,) has +the better claim to the authorship of the Homily in question,<note place="foot">See +above, p. <ref target="Pg040">40-1</ref>.</note>—which, +however, cannot at all events be assigned to the illustrious +Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of Basil the Great. <q>In the +more accurate copies,</q> (says this writer,) <q>the Gospel according +to Mark has its end at <q>for they were afraid.</q> In +some copies, however, this also is added,—<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.</q> +This, however, seems to contradict to some extent what we +before delivered; for since it happens that the hour of the +night when our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> rose is not known, how does it come +to be here written that He rose <q>early?</q> 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, +<q>Now when He was risen:</q> and then to proceed,—<q>Early in +the Sabbath He appeared first to Mary Magdalene:</q> in order +that <q>when He was risen</q> may refer (in conformity with +what Matthew says) to the foregoing season; while <q>early</q> +is connected with the appearance to Mary.</q><note place="foot">See the +<ref target="Appendix_C">Appendix (C)</ref> § 2.</note>—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 +<pb n="058"/><anchor id="Pg058"/> +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 <emph>words</emph> 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;<note place="foot">See the +<ref target="Appendix_C">Appendix (C)</ref> § 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § +2.</note> 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> +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<note place="foot">In the <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. Grac. Monumenta</hi> 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 <q>Gospel Harmony,</q>—of which nothing but an +abridgment has come down to us.</note>,) 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;<note place="foot">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.<hi rend='italic'> Opp.</hi> iii. 400 c.</note> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> rose from the dead. I need not enter more particularly +into an examination of this (so-called) <q>Homily</q>: +but I must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author +<pb n="059"/><anchor id="Pg059"/> +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.<note place="foot">ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ +Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένομ;Ὁ μὲν οῦν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ. +Greg. Nyss. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. 415 D.—See above, p. +<ref target="Pg029">29</ref>, note (g).</note> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>a passing allusion of his to +what Eusebius had long before delivered on the same subject</emph>, as +if it exhibited his own individual teaching. It is +demonstrable<note place="foot">See below, <ref target="Chapter_X">chap. X</ref>.</note> +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 <emph>at all</emph>. 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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> +VI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence +borne by +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor of Antioch.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q><hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 401,</q> it might be supposed that <q>Victor of +Antioch</q> is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely a Commentator +of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. +Clinton (who enumerates cccxxii <q>Ecclesiastical Authors</q> +from <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 70 to <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> +685<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Fasti Romani</hi>, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. +395-495.</note>) does not even record his name. +The recent <q>Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography</q> +is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest editor) +<pb n="060"/><anchor id="Pg060"/> +calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute +his Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria.<note place="foot">Vol. i. +<hi rend='italic'>Præfat.</hi> p. xxviii. See below, note (p).</note> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 444, and yet seems +to have written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which +took place <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 407), may be assigned to the first half of the +v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century,—suppose +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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 <q>Catenae.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>his <emph>testimony</emph> to the +absence of these twelve verses from some or many copies, +stands in contrast to his own <emph>opinion</emph> on the subject.</q> But +Victor delivers <emph>no</emph> <q>opinion:</q> and his <q>testimony</q> is the +direct reverse of what Dr. Tregelles asserts it to be. This +learned and respected critic has strangely misapprehended +the evidence.<note place="foot"><q>Victor Antiochenus</q> (writes Dr. Tregelles in his +N. T. vol. i. p. 214,) <q>dicit ὅτι νενόθενται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι +φερόμενον.</q></note> +</p> + +<p> +I must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore +confine myself to those facts concerning <q>Victor of Antioch,</q> +or rather concerning his work, which are necessary for the +purpose in hand.<note place="foot">For additional details concerning Victor of +Antioch, and his work, the studious in such matters are referred to the +<ref target="Appendix_D">Appendix (D)</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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, +<pb n="061"/><anchor id="Pg061"/> +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, <emph>word for word</emph>,) from Chrysostom's +88th Homily on S. Matthew's Gospel.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. +vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field's edition, p. 527, line 3 to 20.</note> +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 +<emph>Eusebius</emph> had written on the same subject. It is in fact an +extract from those very <q>Quaestiones ad Marinum</q> 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 <q>Catena</q> 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 <emph>not Victor's at all</emph>. For one half of them, +no one but Chrysostom is responsible: for the other half, no +one but Eusebius. +</p> + +<p> +But it is Victor's familiar use of the writings of Eusebius,—especially +of those Resolutions of hard Questions <q>concerning +the seeming Inconsistencies in the Evangelical accounts +of the Resurrection,</q> which Eusebius addressed to Marinus,—on +which the reader's attention is now to be concentrated. +Victor cites that work of Eusebius <emph>by name</emph> in the very +<emph>first</emph> page of his Commentary. That his <emph>last</emph> page also contains +a quotation from it, (also <emph>by name</emph>), has been already pointed +out.<note place="foot">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.</note> +Attention is now invited to what is found concerning +S. Mark xvi. 9-20 in the <emph>last page but one</emph> (p. 444) of +<pb n="062"/><anchor id="Pg062"/> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Homily of +Chrysostom<note place="foot">Compare Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Vict. Ant.</hi> i. p. +444, line 6-9, with Field's <hi rend='italic'>Chrys.</hi> iii. p. 539, line +7-21.</note>), reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to +do<note place="foot">Mai, iv. p. 257-8.</note>) 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> +<q>In certain copies of Mark's Gospel, next comes,—<q>Now +when [<hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi>] was risen early the first day of the week, He +appeared to Mary Magdalene;</q>—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:—<q>Now when [<hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi>] was +risen:</q> then, after a comma, to go on,—<q>early the first day +of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.</q> In this +way we refer [Mark's] <q>Now when [<hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi>] was risen</q> to +Matthew's <q>in the end of the sabbath,</q> (for <emph>then</emph> we believe +Him to have <emph>risen</emph>;) and all that comes after, expressive as +it is of a different notion, we connect with what follows. +Mark relates that He who <q><emph>arose</emph> (according to Matthew) <emph>in +the end of the Sabbath</emph>,</q> <emph>was seen</emph> by Mary Magdalene +<q><emph>early</emph>.</q> +This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded +that <q>early,</q> <q>the first day of the week,</q> [<hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi>] +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 <q>in the end of the Sabbath;</q> +secondly, the season of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> Appearing,—which +was <q>early.</q></q><note place="foot">Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, +line 4.</note> +</p> + +<p> +No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate +to admit that he is here listening to Eusebius <q>ad Marinum</q> +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, +<pb n="063"/><anchor id="Pg063"/> +surveying the originals with attention, may easily convince +himself that <emph>Victor is here nothing else but a +copyist</emph>.<note place="foot"><p>The following is the original of what is given +above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι +τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ, +<q>ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ +Μαγδαληνῇ,</q> 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; <q>ἀναστὰς δὲ,</q> καὶ ὑποστίξαντες +ἐπάγωμεν, <q>πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.</q> +ἵνα [<hi rend='italic'>The extract from</hi> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi> <hi rend='italic'>is continued below in the right +hand column: the left exhibiting the +text of</hi> <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> +<q><hi rend='italic'>ad Marinum</hi>.</q>] +[Transcriber's Note: The extracts will be on alternating paragraphs.] +</p> +<p> +(Eusebius.) + τὸ μὲν <q>ἀναστὰς,</q> ἀν[απέμψωμεν?] + ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ <q>ὀψὲ σαββάτων.</q> + (τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ + ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν, + συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις. +</p> +<p> +(Victor.) + τὸ μὲν <q>ἀναστὰς,</q> ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ + τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ <q>ὀψὲ σαββάτων.</q> + (τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.) + τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας + παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις; +</p> +<p> +(Eusebius.) + (<q>πρωί</q> γὰρ <q>τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου + ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.</q>) +</p> +<p> +(Victor.) + (τὸν γὰρ <q>ὀψὲ σαββάτων</q> κατὰ Ματθαῖον + ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ <q>πρωί</q> ἑωρακέναι + Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.) +</p> +<p> +(Eusebius.) + τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης + <q>πρωί</q> καί αὐτὸς <q>τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου</q> + ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ + μαρτυρήσας. +</p> +<p> +(Victor.) + τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες, + <q>πρωί</q> καὶ αὐτὸς <q>τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων</q> + ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ + μαρτυρήσας. +</p> +<p> + [31 words here omitted.] +</p> +<p> +(Eusebius.) + ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς + δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς αναστάσεως τὸν + <q>ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.</q> τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ + Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν <q>πρωί.</q> +</p> +<p> +(Victor.) + ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς + δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τὸν <q>ὀψὲ + τοῦ σαββάτου;</q> τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος + ἐπιφανείας, τὸ <q>προί.</q> +</p> +<p> + [<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, <hi rend="italic">apud Mai</hi>, + iv. p. 256.] +</p> +<p> + [<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor Antioch</hi>, <hi rend="italic">ed. Cramer</hi>, i. + p. 444-5: (<hi rend="italic">with a few slight emendations of the text from</hi> + Evan. Cod. Reg. 178.)] +</p> +<p>Note, that Victor <emph>twice</emph> omits the word πρῶτον, and <emph>twice</emph> +reads τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου), <emph>only because Eusebius had +inadvertently</emph> (three times) <emph>done the same thing</emph> in the place from +which Victor is copying. See Mai. <hi rend="italic">Nova P. P. Bibl.</hi> iv. p. +256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.</p> +</note> +That the work in which Eusebius reconciles <q>seeming discrepancies +in the Evangelical narratives,</q> 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:—<q>I +<pb n="064"/><anchor id="Pg064"/> +know very well,</q> he says, <q>what has been suggested <emph>by +those who are at the pains to remove the apparent inconsistencies +in this place</emph>.</q><note place="foot">οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δἐ ὡς διαφόρους ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί +φασιν οἱ τὴν δοκοῦσαν διαφωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες. +Vict. Ant. <hi rend='italic'>ed. Cramer</hi>, vol. i. p. 445, l. 23-5: +referring to what Eusebius says <hi rend='italic'>apud Mai</hi>, iv. 264 and 265 +(§ iiii): 287-290 (§§ v, vi, vii.)</note> +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 <emph>not the testimony of Victor at all</emph>: +but <emph>the testimony of Eusebius</emph>. 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> +What then <emph>is</emph> 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.<note place="foot">e.g. in the passage last quoted.</note> +But nowhere throughout his work +does he deliver such remarkable testimony as in this place. +Hear him! +</p> + +<p> +<q>Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present +Gospel, the passage beginning, <q>Now when [<hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi>] was risen +early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,</q> +be not found,—(certain individuals having supposed it to +be spurious,)—yet <hi rend="smallcaps">we</hi>, 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 <q>for they were afraid,</q>) +in conformity with the Palestinian exemplar of Mark +<pb n="065"/><anchor id="Pg065"/> +which exhibits the Gospel verity: that is to say, from +the words, <q>Now when [Jesus] was risen early the +first day of the week,</q> &c., down to <q>with signs following. +Amen.</q><note place="foot">For the original of this remarkable passage the reader +is referred to the <ref target="Appendix_E">Appendix (E)</ref>.</note>—And with +these words Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on S. Mark to an end.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent +Father, writing in the first half of the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century,— +</p> + +<p> +(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark +are absent from some ancient copies of his Gospel is <emph>because +they have been deliberately omitted by Copyists</emph>: +</p> + +<p> +(2.) That the ground for such omission was the <emph>subjective +judgment</emph> of individuals,—<emph>not</emph> the result of any appeal to +documentary evidence. Victor, therefore, clearly held that +the Verses in question had been <emph>expunged</emph> in consequence of +their (seeming) inconsistency with what is met with in the +other Gospels: +</p> + +<p> +(3.) That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself +by reference to <q>very many</q> and <q>accurate</q> copies, that +the verses in question are genuine: +</p> + +<p> +(4.) That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which enjoyed +the reputation of <q>exhibiting the genuine text of +S. Mark,</q> contained the Verses in dispute.—To <emph>Opinion</emph>, +therefore, Victor opposes <emph>Authority</emph>. 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> +(5.) That in consequence of all this, following the Palestinian +Exemplar, he had from accurate copies <emph>furnished his +own work with the Twelve Verses in dispute</emph>;—which is a categorical +refutation of the statement frequently met with that +the work of Victor of Antioch is <emph>without</emph> them. +</p> + +<p> +We are now at liberty to sum up; and to review the progress +which has been hitherto made in this Inquiry. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n="066"/><anchor id="Pg066"/> +easily reduced to <emph>one</emph>. 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 <emph>names</emph>: <hi rend="smallcaps">Gregory of Nyssa</hi> having +really no more to do with this discussion than Philip of Macedon; +and <q>Severus</q> and <q>Hesychius</q> 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.<note place="foot">How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years +ago,—<q>Scholia certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omnia +<emph>ex uno fonte promanarunt</emph>. 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. <emph>Fortasse Origenes auctor est hujus dubitationis.</emph></q> +(N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)—The reader is invited to remember what was offered above +in p. 47 (line 23.)</note> But, +</p> + +<p> +I. <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, (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<note place="foot">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.</note>.... +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> + +<pb n="067"/><anchor id="Pg067"/> + +<p> +II. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been +adopted, and in part transcribed, by an unknown writer of +the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century,—whether +<hi rend="smallcaps">Hesychius</hi> or <hi rend="smallcaps">Severus</hi> 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 <emph>no doubt whatever</emph> 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 <emph>quotes the verses as genuine</emph>, 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 <q>Hesychius +of Jerusalem</q> or <q>Severus of Antioch,</q>)—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> +III. As for <hi rend="smallcaps">Jerome</hi>, since that illustrious Father comes +before us in this place as a <emph>translator</emph> 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> +IV. Lastly, <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor of Antioch</hi>, 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 +<emph>the last Twelve Verses</emph> 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 +<pb n="068"/><anchor id="Pg068"/> +can anything be imagined more emphatic than his testimony, +or more conclusive. +</p> + +<p> +For the reader is requested to observe that here is an +Ecclesiastic, writing in the first half of the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century, who <emph>expressly witnesses to the genuineness</emph> 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 <q>accurate</q> 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 <emph>was there</emph>. 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;<note place="foot">Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, pp. 47, 125, 431.</note> +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> +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> +It remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove somewhat +less unaccommodating. +</p> + +<p> +VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of +the discussion, to appeal to +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Euthymius Zigabenus</hi>, +</p> + +<p> +the Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compilation +on the Gospels, assigned to <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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 +<pb n="069"/><anchor id="Pg069"/> +not unfavourable. He says,—<q>Some of the Commentators +state that here,</q> (viz. at ver. 8,) <q>the Gospel according to +Mark finishes; and that what follows is a spurious addition.</q> +(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.) <q>This portion we +must also interpret, however,</q> (Euthymius proceeds,) <q>since +there is nothing in it prejudicial to the truth.</q><note place="foot">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. +(<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Matthaei, 1792), <hi rend='italic'>in +loc.</hi></note>—But it is +idle to linger over such a writer. One might almost as well +quote <q>Poli <hi rend='italic'>Synopsis</hi></q> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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> +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 <emph>them</emph> 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> + +<pb n="070"/><anchor id="Pg070"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter VI. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY +IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART I."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter VI."/> +<anchor id="Chapter_VI"/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER VI.</head> +<head>MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY +IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART I.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +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. <ref target="Pg073">73</ref>) +and Cod. א (p. <ref target="Pg075">75</ref>).—These two Codices shewn to be full +of gross Omissions (p. <ref target="Pg078">78</ref>),—Interpolations (p. +<ref target="Pg080">80</ref>),—Corruptions of the Text (p. +<ref target="Pg081">81</ref>),—and Perversions of the Truth (p. +<ref target="Pg083">83</ref>).—The testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9-20, +shewn to be favorable, notwithstanding (p. <ref target="Pg086">86</ref>). +</quote> + +<p> +The two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the +famous Codex in the Vatican Library at Rome, known as +<q>Codex B;</q> 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.<note place="foot">For some remarks on this subject the +reader is referred to the <ref target="Appendix_F">Appendix (F)</ref>.</note> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century. But the two +Manuscripts agree in this,—that +<emph>they are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel</emph>. +In both, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (ver. 8), comes the subscription: +in Cod. B,—ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ; in Cod. א,—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ +ΜΑΡΚΟΝ. +</p> + +<p> +Let it not be supposed that we have any <emph>more</emph> 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 <emph>only not unanimous</emph> +in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness +<pb n="071"/><anchor id="Pg071"/> +of the MSS. is even extraordinary. With the exception of +the two uncial MSS. which have just been named, there is +<emph>not one</emph> Codex in existence, uncial or cursive,—(and we are +acquainted with, at least, eighteen other uncials,<note place="foot">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].</note> and about +six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)—which leaves out +the last twelve verses of S. Mark. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>derived from different originals</emph>;—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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century,) and +requests to have it explained to him <emph>why</emph> 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? +<emph>That</emph> single peculiarity (he tells himself) of bringing the +second Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse of the +xvi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century,—unless men are prepared to add the assurance that a Codex of the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century is <emph>of necessity</emph> +a more trustworthy witness to the text of the +Gospels than a Codex of the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>. The omission of +these twelve verses, I repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in +<pb n="072"/><anchor id="Pg072"/> +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 <emph>because</emph> +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> +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, <emph>after demonstration that those two Codices exhibit +a mutilated text</emph> 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> +I propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed +we to examine the evidence borne by these two witnesses +on certain <emph>other</emph> occasions which admit of <emph>no</emph> difference of +opinion; or next to none. Let us endeavour, I say, to ascertain +<emph>the character of the Witnesses</emph> 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 <emph>one more occasion</emph> on which +these <q>two false witnesses</q> 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 +<pb n="073"/><anchor id="Pg073"/> +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> +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. <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.</q><note place="foot">Vercellone,—<hi rend='italic'>Del antichissimo Codice +Vaticano della Bibbia Greca</hi>, Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)</note> In the Gospels alone, +Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than +1,491 times:<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Dublin Univ. Mag.</hi> (Nov. 1859,) +p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.</note> 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 <q>like +ending.</q><note place="foot">ὁμοιοτέλευτον.</note> +The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic<note place="foot"><p>See Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi> 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 +<hi rend='italic'>Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus</hi>.—Add to his instances, +this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:— +</p> +<p> +ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ Ε<lb/> +ΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕ<lb/> +Η ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣ<lb/> +ΑΣΤΡΑΠΗ +</p> +<p> +It is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The next +is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:— +</p> +<p> +ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗ<lb/> +ΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙ<lb/> +ΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟ<lb/> +ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝ<lb/> +ΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ +</p> +<p> +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> +ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝ<lb/> +ΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ<lb/> +ΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥ<lb/> +ΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙ +</p> +<p> +The next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke +xxii. 64:— +</p> +<p> +ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕ<lb/> +ΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε<lb/> +[ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟ<lb/> +ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ]<lb/> +ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟ +</p> +<p> +The next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are absent +in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:— +</p> +<p> +ΕΥΑΓΓΕ<lb/> +ΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣ<lb/> +ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙ<lb/> +ΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩ<lb/> +ΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ +</p></note>) was originally derived +<pb n="074"/><anchor id="Pg074"/> +from an older Codex which contained about twelve +or thirteen letters in a line.<note place="foot"><p>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 +(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> p. 1035: <hi rend='italic'>al. ed.</hi> p. 825)—is +explained:— +</p> +<p> +ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.<lb/> +ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥ<lb/> +ΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣ +</p> +<p> +Thus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious clause in +S. Luke xxiv. 42:— +</p> +<p> +ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ<lb/> +[ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙ<lb/> +ΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ]<lb/> +ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ +</p> +<p> +And why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S. Luke +xxiv. 53:— +</p> +<p> +ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝ<lb/> +ΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟ<lb/> +ΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝ +</p> +<p> +And why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of the Temptation +(S. Luke iv. 5) :— +</p> +<p> +ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥ<lb/> +ΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗ<lb/> +ΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ +</p></note> And it will be found that +some of its omissions which have given rise to prolonged +<pb n="075"/><anchor id="Pg075"/> +discussion are probably to be referred to nothing else but the +oscitancy of a transcriber with such a codex before him:<note place="foot"><p>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> +ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘ<lb/> +ΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟ<lb/> +ΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕ +</p> +<p> +and of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:— +</p> +<p> +ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ<lb/> +[ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ]<lb/> +ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ +</p></note> +without having recourse to any more abstruse hypothesis; +without any imputation of bad faith;—<emph>certainly without +supposing that the words omitted did not exist in the inspired +autograph of the Evangelist</emph>. 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 <emph>repetitions</emph>. 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> +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> +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.<note place="foot">He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii. +(1 Cor. v. 7.)</note> And yet the Codex in question abounds +with <q>errors of the the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, +but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate +importance.</q> On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words +are dropped through very carelessness.<note place="foot">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.</note> +<q>Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice +<pb n="076"/><anchor id="Pg076"/> +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 <q>the state of the text, as proceeding from +the first scribe, may be regarded as <emph>very +rough</emph>.</q></q><note place="foot">Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Full +Collation</hi>, &c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles' N. T. Part II. page ii.</note> But +when <q>the first scribe</q> and his <q>very rough</q> performance +have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would +like to be informed what remains to command respect in +Codex א? Is, then, <emph>manuscript authority</emph> to be confounded +with <emph>editorial caprice</emph>,—exercising itself upon the corrections +of <q>at least ten different revisers,</q> who, from the +vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> to the +xii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, have been endeavouring to lick into +shape a text which its original author left <q><emph>very rough</emph>?</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>Id verius quod prius,</q> 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;<note place="foot">See <ref target="Chapter_IV">Chap. IV</ref>. +p. <ref target="Pg037">37</ref>.</note> and by consequence, the credit of Codd. B +and א sustains a severe shock. Again, <q>Id verius quod +prius;</q> but it does not of course follow that a Codex of +the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century shall +exhibit a more correct text of Scripture than one written in the +v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, or even than one written +in the x<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>. 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century. +<pb n="077"/><anchor id="Pg077"/> +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 <emph>no</emph> 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,) +<q>it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it reproduces +the <emph>textus receptus</emph> 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.</q><note place="foot">Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction to Con. +Bezae</hi>, p. liv.</note> Where, then, is the <hi rend='italic'>à priori</hi> +probability that two MSS. of the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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> +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 +<q><emph>New Testament</emph></q>—<q>with various readings from the three +most celebrated manuscripts of the Greek Text</q> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> in its integrity. Dean Alford's constant appeal +in his revision of the Authorized Version (1870) to <q>the +oldest MSS.</q> (meaning thereby generally Codd. א and B +with one or two others<note place="foot">e.g. in S. John i. 42 (meaning only א, B, L): +iv. 42 (א, B, C): v. 12 (א, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, B, L), &c.</note>), 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> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) And first,—Ought it not sensibly to detract from our +<pb n="078"/><anchor id="Pg078"/> +opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that <emph>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</emph>? 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 <emph>perpetual</emph> inconsistencies between Codd. B +and א,—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross +ones,—altogether destroy my confidence in either? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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.<note place="foot">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 +<hi rend='italic'>Prolegomena</hi> to his 4to. reprint of the <hi rend='italic'>Cod. +Sin.</hi> p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to Scrivener's very +interesting <hi rend='italic'>Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus</hi>, Introduction, p. +xliii. <hi rend='italic'>seq.</hi></note> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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> +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 +<pb n="079"/><anchor id="Pg079"/> +scribe of Cod. א had <emph>also</emph> omitted the <emph>end of the Gospel according +to S. John</emph>.<note place="foot">See Tischendorf's note in his reprint of the +Cod. Sin., <hi rend='italic'>Prolegg.</hi> p. lix.</note> +In this suppression of ver. 25, Cod. א stands +<emph>alone</emph> among MSS. A cloud of primitive witnesses vouch +for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is nothing else +but the <hi rend='italic'>reductio ad absurdum</hi> 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> +Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two +solemn verses wherein S. Luke describes our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>'s <q>Agony +and bloody Sweat,</q> together with the act of the ministering +Angel.<note place="foot">Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος—καταβαίνοντα +ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44.</note> 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 <emph>no</emph> 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. +<q>The admitted error of Cod. B in this place,</q> (to quote the +words of Scrivener,) <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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Cod. B (not Cod. א) is further guilty of the <q>grave error</q> +(as Dean Alford justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn +record of the Evangelist:—<q>Then said <hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi>, +Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.</q> It also withholds +the statement that the inscription on the Cross was +<q>in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.</q><note place="foot">ὁ δὲ +Ἰησοῦς—τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 34):—γράμμασιν Ἐλληνικοῖς καὶ +Ῥωμαῖκοῖς καὶ Ἐβραῖκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.) </note> 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 +<pb n="080"/><anchor id="Pg080"/> +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 <emph>the design</emph> 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 <emph>from the +inspired autograph of the Evangelist</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where +the text of B or of א, or of both, has clearly been <emph>interpolated</emph>. +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.<note place="foot">αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, +και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!</note> +<q>This interpolation</q> (remarks Mr. Scrivener) <q>which would +represent the <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> 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.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Coll. of the Cod. Sin.</hi>, p. +xlvii.</note> 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,<note place="foot">So, in the margin of the +Hharklensian revision.</note> which is found <emph>only</emph> in +Cod. א:—οινον ουκ ειχον, οτι συνετελεσθε ο οινος του γαμου. +</p> + +<pb n="081"/><anchor id="Pg081"/> + +<p> +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 +<q>Isaiah</q> (ησαιου) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance +of authority and of <hi rend='bold'>fact</hi>.—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,<note place="foot">Note, that it is a mistake for +the advocates of this reading to claim the <emph>Latin</emph> versions as allies. +Ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ἄνθρωπος λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κ.τ.λ. +is not <q>Respondit, Ille homo qui dicitur Jesus,</q> (as both Tischendorf and +Tregelles assume;) but <q><emph>Respondit ille</emph>, Homo,</q> &c.,—as in +verses 25 and 36.</note> 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<note place="foot">This reading will be found +discussed in a footnote (p) at the end of <ref target="Chapter_VII">Chap. +VII</ref>.,—p. <ref target="Pg110">110</ref>.</note> (for ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν) in S. +John i. 4?—Certain at least it is that no one will <emph>ever</emph> 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 <emph>Infallibility</emph>, (as well as the plea of +Primacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of MSS. licentiously +corrupt as these have already been <emph>proved</emph> to be? For the +readings above enumerated, be it observed, are either critical +depravations of the inspired Text, or else unwarrantable +interpolations. They <emph>cannot</emph> have resulted from careless +transcription. +</p> + +<p> +3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind +<pb n="082"/><anchor id="Pg082"/> +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 <emph>revision</emph>. 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.<note place="foot">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, <hi rend='italic'>Coll. Cod. Sin.</hi> 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.</note> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Holy One</hi> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> 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 +<pb n="083"/><anchor id="Pg083"/> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> 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> +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 <q>how +that <emph>by works</emph> a man is justified,</q> the author of the text of +Codices B and א has ventured to alter our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>'s assertion +(in S. Matth. xi. 19,) <q>Wisdom is justified of <emph>her children</emph>,</q> +into <q>Wisdom is justified by <emph>her works</emph>;</q> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi>, 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 <q><emph>afterwards</emph> repented and went,</q> 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 <emph>only in Cod.</emph> 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 <emph>transposed the order of the +two sons</emph>: and in that queer condition the parable comes +down to us in the famous Vatican Codex B. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n="084"/><anchor id="Pg084"/> +of certain perversions of the truth of Scripture which <emph>must</emph> +have been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in +S. Mark xiv, they exhibit a set of passages—(verses 30, 68, +72)—<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 +<emph>twice</emph>. (In Cod. א, δίς is omitted in ver. 30,<q>—ἐκ δευτέρου +and δίς in ver. 72,—</q>and καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε in ver. 68: +the last change being countenanced by B.)</q><note place="foot">Scrivener, +<hi rend='italic'>Coll. Cod. Sin.</hi> p. xlvii.</note> 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> +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 <emph>inside the sepulchre</emph>; but who accepted the belief +(it is found to have been as common in ancient as in +modern times) that they beheld him <q>sitting on the +stone.</q><note place="foot">Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for +ἐξελθ. Chrys.^834 (twice,) (also quoted in Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> 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.</note>—In +consequence of a similar misconception, both Codices +are observed to present us with the word <q><emph>wine</emph></q> instead of +<q><emph>vinegar</emph></q> 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 +<pb n="085"/><anchor id="Pg085"/> +harmony with S. Mark xv. 23. The man did not perceive +that the cruel insult of the <q>vinegar and gall</q> (which the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct +thing from the proffered mercy of the <q>myrrhed wine</q> +which the <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> put away from Himself altogether. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><emph>an hundred</emph> and sixty</q> stadia +distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is +known. It is because some ancient critic (Origen probably) +erroneously assumed that <emph>Nicopolis</emph> was the place intended. +The conjecture met with favour, and there are not wanting +scholia to declare that this was the reading of <q>the accurate</q> +copies,—notwithstanding the physical impossibility +which is involved by the statement.<note place="foot">Tischendorf accordingly +<emph>is forced</emph>, 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. <ref target="Pg049">49</ref>.</note>—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 <emph>in Judæa</emph>. Accordingly he has +altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his +private notion.<note place="foot">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.</note>—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,<note place="foot">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.)</note> has been substituted +both in B and א, του ηλιου εκλιποντος,—a statement +<pb n="086"/><anchor id="Pg086"/> +which (as the ancients were perfectly well aware<note place="foot">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 +<q>the great Dionysius</q> of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on +the same subject in Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Catena in Matth.</hi> 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.</note>) +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> +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,—<emph>their omission of the last +twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel</emph>,—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> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +chapter, and that the +<pb n="087"/><anchor id="Pg087"/> +customary subscription (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ) follows,—is true; but +it is far from being <emph>the whole</emph> 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 <emph>the next +ensuing column</emph> 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 <emph>the only vacant +column</emph> in the whole manuscript;—a blank space <emph>abundantly +sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld. +Why</emph> did he leave that column vacant? <emph>What</emph> 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. <emph>The +older MS.</emph> from which Cod. B was copied must have infallibly +<emph>contained</emph> the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed +to leave them out,—and he obeyed: but he prudently +left a blank space <hi rend='italic'>in memoriam rei</hi>. Never was blank +more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By +this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex +is made to <emph>refute itself</emph> 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 <emph>leaving room</emph> for the +verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of +fifteen centuries and a half, <emph>a more ancient witness than itself</emph>. +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 +<emph>he</emph> 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> +It will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting +<pb n="088"/><anchor id="Pg088"/> +that the scribe of Cod. B. <emph>may</emph> 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> +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.<note place="foot">See above, p. +<ref target="Pg070">70</ref>, and the <ref target="Appendix_F">Appendix +(F)</ref>.</note> 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, <emph>every</emph> authority +we have hitherto met with has affirmed to belong to it +of right. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>contradict</emph> 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,—<q>Though without the Twelve Verses concerning +which you are so solicitous,</q> (it seems to say,) <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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of +<pb n="089"/><anchor id="Pg089"/> +the four oldest Codices of the Gospels extant,—B, א, A, C,—two +(B and א) are <emph>without</emph> these twelve verses: two (A and C) +are <emph>with</emph> them. Are these twelve verses then an unauthorized +<emph>addition</emph> to A and C? or are they an unwarrantable +<emph>omission</emph> 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 <q>S. Mark's Gospel was +at first without the verses which at present conclude it?</q> +</p> + +<p> +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> +<q rend="pre">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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend="pre">The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to +MSS. It has been accepted. And with what result?</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <q rend="pre">Those many Fathers whom you represented as +hostile, prove on investigation to be reducible to <emph>one</emph>, viz. Eusebius: +and Eusebius, as we have seen, <emph>does not say</emph> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> +century.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <q rend="pre">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 <emph>the oldest</emph> of them; for, +(as you are aware,) <emph>every MS. in the world except the two +oldest</emph> are against you.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend="pre">I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.; +and it has volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than +<pb n="090"/><anchor id="Pg090"/> +itself—<emph>the Codex from which it was copied</emph>—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?</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend="pre">But it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend="pre">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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> +or iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> 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, <emph>who</emph> 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?</q> +</p> + +<p> +<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,—<emph>all</emph> are observed to <emph>recognize these Verses</emph>. +<q>Cadit quaestio</q> therefore. The last shadow of pretext has +vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that <q>Mark the +Evangelist knew nothing of</q> these verses:—with Tregelles +that <q>The book of Mark himself extends no further than +ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ:</q>—with Griesbach that <q>the <emph>last leaf of the +original Gospel was probably torn away</emph>.</q>... 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 <q>two +false witnesses,</q> and must be held to go forth from this inquiry +with an injured reputation.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This entire subject is of so much importance that I must +needs yet awhile crave the reader's patience and attention. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="091"/><anchor id="Pg091"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter VII. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY +IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART II."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter VII."/> +<anchor id="Chapter_VII"/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER VII.</head> +<head>MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY +IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—PART II.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +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. <ref target="Pg093">93</ref>).—The Moderns +infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission (p. +<ref target="Pg100">100</ref>).—Marcion probably the author of this corruption of +the Text of Scripture (p. <ref target="Pg106">106</ref>).—Other peculiarities of +Codex א disposed of (p. <ref target="Pg109">109</ref>). +</quote> + +<p> +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> +<q>There are two remarkable readings,</q> (says Tischendorf, +addressing English readers on this subject in 1868,) <q>which +are very instructive towards determining the age of the +manuscripts [א and B], and <emph>their authority</emph>.</q> He proceeds +to adduce,— +</p> + +<p> +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> +2. He appeals to their omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ +from the first verse of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,—<emph>another +peculiarity, in which Codd.</emph> א <emph>and B stand quite alone +among MSS.</emph> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n="092"/><anchor id="Pg092"/> +of their high antiquity, no one will deny. But how about +<q>their <emph>authority</emph></q>? Does the coincidence also raise our +opinion of <emph>the trustworthiness of the Text</emph>, which these two +MSS. concur in exhibiting? for <emph>that</emph> is the question which +has to be considered,—the <emph>only</emph> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, or in the beginning of the +v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>: whereas it matters +much, or rather it matters <emph>everything</emph>, whether they exhibit +the Word of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> 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 <emph>critically allowable</emph> 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 <emph>possibly</emph> be +the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way +<emph>credible</emph> 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 +<emph>trustworthiness of the Text</emph> of those Manuscripts: (for of their +high <emph>Antiquity</emph>, 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 <emph>the omission is +unwarrantable</emph>.—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 +<emph>also</emph> pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand +<pb n="093"/><anchor id="Pg093"/> +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> +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 <emph>the other</emph> 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:—<q>In the +beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read, <q>to the +saints which are at Ephesus;</q> but Marcion (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 130-140), +did not find the words <q>at Ephesus</q> in his copy. The same +is true of Origen (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 185-254); and Basil the Great +(who died <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 379), affirmed that those words were wanting +in <emph>old</emph> 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 <q>at Ephesus;</q> yea (<hi rend='italic'>sic</hi>), even Jerome +knew no copy with a different reading. Now, only the +Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the <emph>old</emph> copies of +Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion.</q><note place="foot">Tischendorf's +<q><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi></q> to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the English +N.T., 1869,—p. xiii.</note>—This then is +the sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat +in detail. +</p> + +<p> +(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned +writer is absolutely without authority for his assertion that +<q>Marcion <emph>did not find</emph> the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy</q> 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 <q>Epistle to the Ephesians</q> the unauthorized title +of <q>Epistle <emph>to the Laodiceans</emph>.</q><note place="foot"><q>Epistola quam +nos <q>ad Ephesios</q> præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero 'ad Laodicenos.</q> +<hi rend='italic'>Adv. Marcion.</hi> lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.)</note> This, +(argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not have done had he found ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the +first verse.<note place="foot"><q><q>Titulum</q> enim <q><emph>ad Laodicenos</emph></q> +ut addidisse accusatur a Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba ἐν Ἐφέσῳ +omnino non legisse censendus est.</q> (N. T. <hi rend='italic'>in loc.</hi>)</note> +But the proposed inference is clearly invalid. +<pb n="094"/><anchor id="Pg094"/> +For, with what show of reason can Marcion,—whom Tertullian +taxes with having dared <q><hi rend='italic'>titulum interpolare</hi></q> in the +case of S. Paul's <q>Epistle to the Ephesians,</q>—be <emph>therefore</emph>, +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.<note place="foot"><q>Ecclesiæ quidem veritate Epistolam istam <q>ad +Ephesios</q> habemus emissam, non <q>ad Laodicenos;</q> sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando +interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.</q> +<hi rend='italic'>Adv. Marcion.</hi> lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>Ephesians</emph>, that it was +addressed to the <emph>Laodiceans</emph>,)—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,<note place="foot">ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἰκανῶν. (Epiphan. +<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> i. 310 c.)</note> and has elaborately described it, +as well as presented us with copious extracts from it.<note place="foot"><p>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 <hi rend="smallcaps">d</hi>: pointed out long since by +Jones, <hi rend='italic'>On the Canon</hi>, 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) <emph>Ephesians</emph>, (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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> Word, even when dismembered and exhibited in a +fragmentary shape. <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.</q> (p. 375 +<hi rend="smallcaps">b</hi>.) He seems to say of Marcion,— +</p> +<lg> +<l>Fool! to suppose thy shallow wits</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Could quench a fire like that. Go, learn</l> +<l>That cut into ten thousand bits</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Yet every bit would breathe and burn!</l> +</lg> +</note> And +<pb n="095"/><anchor id="Pg095"/> +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 <q>ut videtur</q> +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 <emph>Epistle to the +Ephesians</emph> was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which +Marcion <emph>retained</emph>. In his <q>Apostolicon,</q> or collection of +the (mutilated) Apostolical Epistles, the <q>Epistle to the +Ephesians,</q> (identified by the considerable quotations which +Epiphanius makes from it,<note place="foot">He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14: +v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius, <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> i. p. 318 and 371-2.) +</note>) stood (he says) <emph>seventh</emph> in +order; while the (so called) <q>Epistle to the Laodiceans,</q>—a +distinct composition therefore,—had the <emph>eleventh</emph>, that is, the +last place assigned to it.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 318 +<hi rend="smallcaps">c</hi> ( = 371 <hi rend="smallcaps">b</hi>), and +<hi rend="smallcaps"> 319 a ( = 374 a.)</hi></note> That this latter Epistle contained +a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius +records the fact in two places.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> 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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">b, c,</hi> is lost sight of at p. 319 +<hi rend="smallcaps">b</hi>.</note> But then it is to +be borne in mind that he charges Marcion with having +derived that quotation <emph>from the Apocryphal Epistle to the +Laodiceans</emph>;<note place="foot">See below, at the end of the next note.</note> +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.<note place="foot"><p>Προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Ἀποστολικῷ +καλουμένῳ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πρὸς Λαοδικέας:—<q>Εῖς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν +βάπτισμα, εἶς Χριστὸς, εἶς Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ +ἐν πᾶσιν.</q> (Epiphan. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">e</hi>.] 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 <q>fabrication</q> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">c</hi>. +</p> +<p> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">a</hi>.) +(Epiphanius here uses Ἀπόστολος in its technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with S. +Paul's Epistles.)</p></note>—I have entered into +<pb n="096"/><anchor id="Pg096"/> +this whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: +but I was determined to prove that Tischendorf's +statement that <q>Marcion (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 130-140) did not find the +words <q>at Ephesus</q> in his copy,</q>—is absolutely without +foundation. It is even <emph>contradicted</emph> 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> +(2.) The <emph>only</emph> 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. +<q>Only in the case of the Ephesians,</q> (he writes), +<q>do we meet with the expression <q>the Saints which are:</q> +and we inquire,—Unless that additional phrase be simply +redundant, what can it possibly signify? Consider, then, +whether those who have been partakers of <emph>His</emph> nature who +revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I <hi rend="smallcaps">am</hi>, may not, +in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as +<q>those <emph>which are</emph>:</q> persons, called out, of a state of +<emph>not</emph>-being, so to speak, into a state of +<emph>being</emph>.</q><note place="foot"><q>Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—</q>Ἐπὶ μόνων +Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ <q>τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;</q> καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει +προσκείμενον τὸ <q>τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,</q> 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 <q>ὄντες.</q> καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι. +<q>ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,</q> φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος, +<q>ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση.</q>—Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Catena in Ephes.</hi> +i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.</note>—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, +<pb n="097"/><anchor id="Pg097"/> +unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis +before him,—<emph>reasoning however only from the place in +Basil,</emph> (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 (<hi rend='italic'>infrà</hi>, p. +<ref target="Pg098">98</ref> <hi rend='italic'>note</hi>) that he, too, +seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be +called) of Codd. B and א. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Son</hi> of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>. +Even <emph>not to know</emph> <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> +(he remarks) is <emph>not to be</emph>: in proof of which, he quotes +S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. i. 28:—<q>Things <emph>which are not</emph>, +hath <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> chosen.</q> <q>Nay,</q> (he proceeds,) the same S. +Paul, <q>in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addressing +persons who by intimate knowledge were truly joined +to Him who <q><hi rend="smallcaps">is</hi>,</q> designates them specially as <q>those +<emph>which are</emph>:</q> saying,—<q>To the Saints <emph>which are</emph>, +and faithful in <hi rend="smallcaps">Christ Jesus</hi>.</q></q> That this fancy was not +original, Basil makes no secret. He derived it, (he says,) from <q>those +who were before us;</q> a plain allusion to the writings of +Origen. But neither was <emph>the reading</emph> his own, either. This +is evident. He had <emph>found</emph> it, he says,—(an asseveration indispensable +to the validity of his argument,)—but only after +he had made search,<note place="foot">Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: +xii. 14, &c.</note>—<q><emph>in the old +copies</emph>.</q><note place="foot">Ἀλλὰ +καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽ ἐπιγνώσεως, +<q>ὄντας</q> αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών: <q>τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσι, +καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.</q> οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν +τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. Note also what immediately follows. +(Basil <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> i. p. 254 E, 255 A.)</note> No doubt, +Origen's strange fancy must have been even <emph>unintelligible</emph> 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 +<pb n="098"/><anchor id="Pg098"/> +what there is in all this to induce us to +suspect that Origen's reading was after all the <emph>right</emph> one, +and <emph>ours</emph> the <emph>wrong</emph>, 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.<note place="foot">See the places quoted by Scrivener, +<hi rend='italic'>Introd.</hi> pp. 381-91; particularly p. 385.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(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 <q>certain persons</q> +had been <q>over-fanciful</q> in putting it forth. He alludes +probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians, +in three books, he expressly relates that he employed:<note place="foot">Hieron. +<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. vii. p. 543:—<q>Illud quoque in Præfatione +commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam conscripsisse, +quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.</q></note> but +he does not seem to have apprehended that Origen's text +<emph>was without the words</emph> 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 <q>the Saints <emph>which are</emph>:</q> but,—<q>the +Saints and faithful <emph>which are at Ephesus</emph>.</q><note place="foot"><q>Quidam +curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum est +<q>Haec dices filiis Israel, <hi rend="smallcaps">Qui est</hi> misit me,</q> etiam +eos qui Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf. <q>qui sunt Ephesi,</q> <hi rend='italic'>Vulg.</hi>] +sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... ab <hi rend="smallcaps">Eo</hi> +<q>qui est,</q> hi <q>qui sunt</q> appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, +non ad eos <q>qui sint,</q> sed <q>qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint</q> scriptum +arbitrantur.</q> Hieron. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vii. p. 545 +<hi rend="smallcaps">a, b.</hi></note> +</p> + +<p> +(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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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 +<pb n="099"/><anchor id="Pg099"/> +Basil testifies that it was absent from <q>the old copies</q> 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 <emph>approved</emph> of this reading. Still less does +Basil. They both witness to <emph>the fact</emph> that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ +were omitted from <emph>some</emph> copies of the +iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> century, +just as Codd. B and א witness to the same fact in the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>. +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 <emph>unintelligible</emph> +if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ be omitted: but (what is +far more to the purpose) the direct evidence of <emph>all</emph> the copies, +whether uncial or cursive,<note place="foot">The cursive <q>Cod. No. 67</q> (or +<q>67<hi rend="vertical-align: super">2</hi></q>) is improperly quoted as <q>omitting</q> +(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),—<q><emph>cod. +ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat</emph>.</q> ... The MS. must have a curious history. H. Treschow +describes it in his <hi rend='italic'>Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece</hi>, +&c. Havn. 1773, pp. 62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in his <hi rend='italic'>Libellus +Criticus de indole Cod. MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv.</hi> &c. Havn. +1785.—It appears to have been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. +B itself.</note>—and of <emph>all</emph> the Versions,—is +<emph>against</emph> 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 <emph>two</emph> MSS. confessedly untrustworthy +in countless other places,—against <emph>all</emph> the MSS.—<emph>all</emph> +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 <emph>there does not +exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament</emph> 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> +1. The adverse testimony of <emph>all the uncial MSS. except +two</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +2. The adverse testimony of all, or <emph>very nearly all</emph>, the +cursive MSS. +</p> + +<pb n="100"/><anchor id="Pg100"/> + +<p> +3. The adverse testimony of <emph>all the Versions</emph>, without exception. +</p> + +<p> +4. The adverse testimony of <emph>the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,— +</p> + +<p> +5. <emph>The highest inherent improbability</emph>,—it +is only because I desire to treat this question purely as +one of <emph>Evidence</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity <emph>to account +for</emph> 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<note place="foot">So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Collation</hi>, p. xlix.</note>,) 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 <q>reproduces +the <q>textus receptus</q> 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.</q><note place="foot">Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction +to Codex Bezae</hi>, p. liv.</note> Our business as Critics is not <emph>to +invent theories</emph> 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 +<pb n="101"/><anchor id="Pg101"/> +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. <emph>Guesses</emph> only +they are at best. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>was <emph>a Circular</emph> 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, +<emph>others may have had another city substituted, or the space after</emph> +τοῖς οὔσιν <emph>left utterly void</emph>.</q><note place="foot">Scrivener, +<hi rend='italic'>Coll. of Cod. Sin.</hi> p. xlv.</note> 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> +(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) when +S. Paul sent his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that +Tychicus, the bearer of it,<note place="foot">Eph. vi. 21, 22.</note> +was charged with <emph>a distinct Epistle</emph> to the +Colossians:<note place="foot">Coloss. iv. 7, 16.</note> 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, (<emph>that</emph> to the Ephesians,) furnished +with a different address, to so large and important a place +as Laodicea, for example, (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>Epistle to the +Colossians</hi>,</q> which the Colossians were ordered to send them. The Colossians +<pb n="102"/><anchor id="Pg102"/> +in like manner were to read the Epistle,—(to whom +addressed, we know not),—which S. Paul describes as τὴν ἐκ +Λαοδικείας.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ubi suprà</hi>.</note> +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 <emph>his Epistle to them should be +read in the Church of the Laodiceans</emph>. Why should the +Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously +adopted one method with the Churches of <emph>Colosse</emph> and Laodicea,—another +with the Churches of <emph>Ephesus</emph> and Laodicea,—in +respect of his epistolary communications? +</p> + +<p> +(2) (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) But even supposing, for argument's sake, that +S. Paul <emph>did</emph> 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 <emph>blank</emph>, (<q>carta bianca,</q> +as Bengel phrases it,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Gnomon</hi>, in Ephes. i. +1, <hi rend='italic'>ad init.</hi></note>) for Tychicus to fill up when he got +into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short +of <emph>this</emph> would account for the reading of Codd. B and א. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 +<q>Epistle to the Ephesians</q> sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul +with a blank address; i.e. <q>with the space after τοῖς οὔσιν +left utterly void:</q> (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 <q>old copies</q> 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) <emph>One +other</emph> copy of this same <q>Encyclical Epistle,</q> filled up with +the Ephesian address, became the archetype of <emph>every other +copy of this Epistle in the world</emph>.... 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 <emph>another City</emph> in the salutation of S. Paul's <q>Epistle +<pb n="103"/><anchor id="Pg103"/> +to the Ephesians,</q> but that we find the name of <emph>no</emph> city +at all; nor meet with any vacant space there. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 <emph>this</emph> 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 <emph>conflicting testimony</emph> as to the Church to which S. Paul's +Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas <emph>all</emph> the +most ancient writers, without exception,—(Marcion himself +[<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 140<note place="foot">See above, pp. +<ref target="Pg093">93-6</ref>. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius +(<hi rend='italic'>ad Ephes.</hi> c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also +Lardner, vol. ii.</note>], the <q>Muratorian</q> fragment +[<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 170 or earlier], +Irenæus [<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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 <emph>superscription</emph> of the Epistle attests that it was addressed +<q>to the Ephesians.</q> 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?<note place="foot"><p>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, +<emph>defective</emph>. +</p> +<p> +Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses alone remains +open to them in editing the text: either (1) <emph>To leave a blank space</emph> after +τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2) <emph>To let the words</emph> ἐν Ἐφέσῳ +<emph>stand</emph>,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they can do. +[For with Conybeare and Howson (<hi rend='italic'>Life and Letters of S. Paul</hi>, ii. +491), to eject the words <q>at Ephesus</q> from the text of Ephes. i. 1, and actually +to substitute in their room the words <q>in Laodicea,</q>—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. <hi rend='italic'>Prolegg.</hi> pp. 13-8); who infers, <q>in accordance +with the prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle was +<emph>veritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus</emph>, and <emph>to no other +Church</emph>.</q>] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity; viz. they +will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (<q>carta bianca</q>) copy of the +Epistle looked with <q>the space after τοῖς οὔσι left utterly void:</q> 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 <q>Encyclical</q> hypothesis +altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed +text of Scripture which can be named. +</p> +</note> +</p> + +<pb n="104"/><anchor id="Pg104"/> + +<p> +(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such +<q><emph>a Circular</emph></q> 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 <q>circularis,</q> +it seems to be imagined that ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολή may mean +<q>a Circular Letter.</q> Whereas it really means nothing of +the sort; but—<q><emph>a Catholic Epistle</emph>.</q><note place="foot">Ἐγκύκλιον +ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii interpretantur +<emph>literas circulares</emph>: ego cum viris doctis malim <emph>Epistolas</emph> +vel <emph>literas publicas</emph>, ad omnes fideles pertinentes, quas Græci aliàs +vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicer <hi rend='italic'>in voce</hi>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +An <q><emph>Encyclical</emph></q> (and <emph>that</emph> is the word which has been +imported into the present discussion), was quite a different +document from what <emph>we</emph> call <q>a Circular.</q> 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 <q>Encyclical.</q><note place="foot">Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ +ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicer <hi rend='italic'>in voce</hi>, Ἐγκύκλιος.</note> +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.<note place="foot">Routh's <hi rend='italic'>Reliquiæ</hi>, vol. iii. p. +266.—<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.</q>—Suicer <hi rend='italic'>in voc.</hi></note> +As for <q><emph>a blank circular</emph></q> to be filled up with +<pb n="105"/><anchor id="Pg105"/> +the words <q>in Ephesus,</q> <q>in Laodicea,</q> &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 <q>a Circular,</q> then it was not <q>Encyclical:</q> if it was +<q>Encyclical</q> then it was not <q>a Circular.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>the Epistle to the Ephesians,</q> was an <q>Encyclical,</q> <q>Catholic</q> +or <q>General Epistle,</q>—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.<note place="foot"><p><q>On the whole,</q> says +Bishop Middleton, (<hi rend='italic'>Doctrine of the Greek Art.</hi> +p. 355) <q>I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on Col. iv. +16,)—<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.</q></q>—This suggestion is intended to meet +<emph>another</emph> 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> +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 <emph>the Colossians</emph> <q>word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to +send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.</q> 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 <emph>the Ephesians</emph> +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 <emph>Ephesians</emph> +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></note> It is observed to collapse +before every test which can be applied to it. +</p> + +<pb n="106"/><anchor id="Pg106"/> + +<p> +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> +Marcion the heretic, (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 140) is distinctly charged by +Tertullian (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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.<note place="foot">Epiphan. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> i. 311 D.</note> +<q>Instead of a stylus,</q> (says Tertullian,) +<q>Marcion employed a knife.</q> <q>What wonder if he +omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages?</q><note place="foot"><q>Marcion +exerte et palam machæra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad materiam +suam cædem Scripturarum confecit.</q> (Tertullian <hi rend='italic'>Præscript. +Hær.</hi> c. 38, p. 50.) <q>Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque +subducat.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Adv. Marcion.</hi> lib. v, c. xvii, p. 455.)</note> 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 <ref target="Pg093">93</ref> +to page 96. +</p> + +<p> +Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul's Epistle <q><emph>to +the Ephesians</emph></q> 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, +<pb n="107"/><anchor id="Pg107"/> +Philippians. All this has been fully explained in +a preceding page.<note place="foot">See above p. <ref target="Pg095">95</ref>, +and see note (f) p. <ref target="Pg094">94</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul's +<emph>another</emph> 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 <q>to the Laodiceans.</q> 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 <emph>the only two words in the entire Epistle</emph> 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,—<emph>the +very two words whose omission we are trying to account for</emph>,—in +order to give some colour to his proposed attribution of +the Epistle, (<q>quasi in isto diligentissimus explorator,</q>)—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> +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.<note place="foot">See, by all +means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. <hi rend='italic'>Prolegg.</hi> pp. +13-15.</note> <emph>That</emph>,—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 +<pb n="108"/><anchor id="Pg108"/> +<q>Encyclical,</q> 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 <q><emph>the Churches of Asia</emph> +salute you,</q> (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)—may have known very well +that an Epistle of his <q>to the Ephesians,</q> 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 <q>Ephesian</q> in +the contents of the Epistle. The Apostle,—(as when he +addressed <q>the Churches of Galatia,</q>)—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 <emph>only</emph> question being <emph>this</emph>,—Which of the +three following addresses represents what S. Paul must be +considered to have actually written in the first verse of his +<q>Epistle to the Ephesians</q>?— +</p> + +<p> +(1) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ. +</p> + +<p> +(2) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν ... καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ. +</p> + +<p> +(3) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ. +</p> + +<p> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> century that a certain heretic, +named Marcion, <q>presumed to prefix an unauthorized title to that very Epistle,</q> +(<q>Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit,</q>)—which +title obviously <emph>could not stand unless those two words were first +erased from the text</emph>. 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> +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 +<pb n="109"/><anchor id="Pg109"/> +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 <emph>how</emph> 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 <emph>credible</emph> 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 <emph>most</emph> conspicuously at fault. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>vulgar errors.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>Introduction</q> +to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament<note place="foot">p. xiv.—See above, +pp. <ref target="Pg008">8</ref>, <ref target="Pg009">9</ref>, note (f).</note>:— +</p> + +<quote rend="display"> +<q>To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen +says on John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, <q>in +Him <emph>is</emph> life</q> for <q>in Him <emph>was</emph> life.</q> This is a reading +which +<pb n="110"/><anchor id="Pg110"/> +we find in sundry quotations before the time of Origen;<note place="foot"><p>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> +(1) Valentt. (<hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> Irenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus +(<hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> Clem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens +Alex., and (3) Theodotus (<hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> Clem.) <hi rend='italic'>also</hi> +read ἦν. These testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also has +<emph>both</emph> readings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but Origen, +(though he remarks that ἔστι is <q>perhaps not an improbable reading,</q>) reads ἦν +<emph>ten or eleven times</emph>. 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 <emph>all the +MSS. in the world</emph>, except of א and D. +</p> +<p> +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> +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 <emph>the evidence</emph>,—declining to import into the argument what +may be called <emph>logical</emph> 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 <emph>that</emph>, was obvious.... Chrysostom's opinion is well known, +<q>Let us beware of putting the full stop</q> (he says) <q>at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as +do the heretics.</q> [He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig. +<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> i. 130), and to Theodotus (<hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> Clem. +Alex.). But it must be confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (<hi rend='italic'>Routh, +Opusc.</hi> i. 68), Clemens Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. +(<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 269, <hi rend='italic'>Routh</hi> +iii. 293), Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the +Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (<hi rend='italic'>Routh</hi> iii. 459), and +Augustine,—point the place in the same way. <q>It is worth our observation,</q> +(says Pearson,) <q>that Eusebius citing the place of S. John to prove that the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Holy Ghost</hi> was made by the <hi rend="smallcaps">Son</hi>, +leaves out those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute that heresy +of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.</q>] +</p> +<p> +Chrysostom proceeds,—<q>In order to make out that <hi rend="smallcaps">the +Spirit</hi> is a creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the +Evangelist's language is made unintelligible.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> viii. +40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not by +Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred to +<hi rend='italic'>infrà</hi>), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the sentence +as we do.—See by all means +on this subject Pearson's <hi rend='italic'>note</hi> (<hi rend='italic'>z</hi>), +<hi rend="smallcaps">Art.</hi> viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh's +<hi rend='italic'>Opusc.</hi> i. 88-9.</p></note> +but now, among all known Greek MSS. it is <emph>only in the +Sinaitic, and the famous old Codex Bezae</emph>, 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 +<pb n="111"/><anchor id="Pg111"/> +that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist +of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew +for having said, <q>which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.</q> +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, +<emph>there is not a solitary example containing the name of Esaias in +the text referred to,—except the Sinaitic</emph>, to which a few of +less than a thousand years old may be added.—Once more, +Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but <emph>only the Sinaitic +and several ancient Latin MSS.</emph> read it the same as Origen: +<q>He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every +whit.</q>—In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difficult +to settle, the <emph>Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies</emph> indubitably +correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second +century, confirms the Sinaitic reading: <q>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.</q> We omit to indicate +further illustrations of this kind, although there are many +others like them.</q><note place="foot"><p>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> +(1.) <hi rend="smallcaps">S. John</hi> i. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.) +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Matth.</hi> xiii. 35: το ρηθεν δια ησαιου του +προφετου.—(3.) <hi rend="smallcaps">S. John</hi> xiii. 10: ο λελουμενος ουχ εχι +χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.) <hi rend="smallcaps">S. John</hi> 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 <q>indubitably +correct.</q>) +</p> +<p> +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 <emph>very</emph> 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 <emph>dropped a line</emph>: +thus:— +</p> +<p> +ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙ<lb/> +ΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙ<lb/> +ΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ +</p> +<p> +The first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p. +<ref target="Pg110">110</ref>. +</p></note> +</quote> + +<p> +Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to +<pb n="112"/><anchor id="Pg112"/> +exist in the mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless confusion +between the <emph>antiquity</emph> of a Codex and the <emph>value</emph> 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 <emph>value</emph>. And yet Tischendorf +thinks it enough in <emph>all</emph> 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 <hi rend='italic'>ipsissima verba</hi> of the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Spirit</hi>. Whereas it is notorious <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.</q><note place="foot">Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves careful +study.</note> 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 +<q>Codex Sinaiticus</q> than in establishing the Truth of the +pure Word of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>. He convinces me that to have found +<pb n="113"/><anchor id="Pg113"/> +an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have <q>taken +a gift.</q> Verily, <q><emph>it doth blind the eyes of the +wise</emph>.</q><note place="foot">Deut. xvi. 19.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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> +And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex א. +</p> + +<p> +I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion +of the <q>Internal Evidence,</q> but that the external testimony +commonly appealed to is not yet fully disposed of. There remain +to be considered certain ancient <q>Scholia</q> and <q>Notes,</q> +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> + +<pb n="114"/><anchor id="Pg114"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="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."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter VIII."/> +<anchor id="Chapter_VIII"/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER VIII.</head> +<head>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.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their predecessors' +inaccuracies.—Birch's unfortunate mistake (p. +<ref target="Pg117">117</ref>).—Scholz' serious +blunders (p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref> and pp. +<ref target="Pg120">120-1</ref>).—Griesbach's sweeping misstatement +(pp. <ref target="Pg121">121-2</ref>).—The grave misapprehension which has resulted +from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. <ref target="Pg122">122-3</ref>); +Codex L (p. <ref target="Pg123">123</ref>).—Ammonius not the author of the +so-called <q>Ammonian</q> Sections (p. <ref target="Pg125">125</ref>).—Epiphanius +(p. <ref target="Pg132">132</ref>).—<q>Caesarius,</q> a misnomer.—<q>The +Catenae,</q> misrepresented (p. <ref target="Pg133">133</ref>). +</quote> + +<p> +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:—<emph>The Twelve Verses +under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence +with the exception of Codices B and א</emph>. But then, +</p> + +<p> +I. We are assured,—(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)—that +<q>a Note or a Scholion stating the absence of these verses +from <emph>many</emph>, from <emph>most</emph>, or from the <emph>most correct</emph> +copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in twenty-five other cursive +Codices.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, p. 254.</note> +Tischendorf has nearly the same words: <q>Scholia</q> +(he says) <q>in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of Mark +in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the +ninth verse.</q> That distinguished Critic supports his assertion +by appealing to seven MSS. in particular,—and referring +generally to <q>about twenty-five others.</q> Dr. Davidson +adopts every word of this blindfold. +</p> + +<p> +1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department +of the Evidence would become deserving of serious +<pb n="115"/><anchor id="Pg115"/> +attention. But I simply <emph>deny the fact</emph>. I entirely deny that +the <q>Note or Scholion</q> 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 <q>in the older</q> or <q>the more accurate copies</q> the +last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel <emph>are contained</emph>,) 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> +2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German +plan of setting down <emph>all</emph> the twenty-five MSS.<note place="foot">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.</note> and <emph>all</emph> 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 <emph>in numerical order</emph>, and stating generally +concerning them that in one or other of those authorities +it would be found recorded <q>that the verses in question +were anciently <emph>wanting</emph> in some, or in most, or in almost +all the Greek copies, or in the most accurate ones:—or else +that they were <emph>found</emph> in a few, or in the more accurate +copies, or in many, or in most of them, specially in the +Palestinian Gospel.</q> 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 +<pb n="116"/><anchor id="Pg116"/> +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,<note place="foot">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.</note> the last fourteen +from Birch.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Variae Lectiones</hi>, &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. (<hi rend='italic'>leg.</hi> 5 ?) S. Mariæ +Bened. Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)</note> +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 <q>(z)</q>,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Nov. +Test.</hi> vol. i. p. 199.</note> with which practically +all that has since been delivered on this subject +by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is identical. +</p> + +<p> +(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two +MSS. in the Vatican Library<note place="foot">Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.</note> +the verses in question <q>are +marked with an asterisk.</q> The original author of this +statement was Birch, who followed it up by explaining the +fatal signification of this mark.<note place="foot">Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula +usi sunt librarii, qua Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, +tamquam dubias notarent.—<hi rend='italic'>Variae Lectiones</hi>, &c. p. +225.</note> 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 +<pb n="117"/><anchor id="Pg117"/> +witnesses against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of +the Gospel according to S. Mark. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>solitary</emph> asterisk (not +at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.<note place="foot">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 +<hi rend='italic'>pericope de adulterá</hi>.</note>) 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 +<emph>could</emph> not have that signification here,—for a reason which +I should have thought an intelligent boy might discover. +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place="foot">Further obligations to the same +friend are acknowledged in the <ref target="Appendix_D">Appendix (D)</ref>.</note> +That he would find Birch right +<emph>in his facts</emph>, 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> +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,—<emph>there +proves to be no asterisk at all,—either in Cod. 756, +or in Cod. 757</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +On the contrary. After ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, the former Codex +has, in the text of S. Mark xvi. 9 (<hi rend='italic'>fol. 150 b</hi>), a plain +cross,—(<emph>not</emph> 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 <hi rend='italic'>fol. 151 b</hi>, (marked, of course, with a cross +also,) <emph>to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is undoubtedly +<pb n="118"/><anchor id="Pg118"/> +genuine</emph>.<note place="foot">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.</note> +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 +<emph>not</emph> for the plaintiff, but <emph>for the defendant!</emph>—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> +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. (<q>I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, +behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.</q>) +</p> + +<p> +(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as +follows:—<q>From here to the end forms no part of the text +in some of the copies. <emph>In the ancient copies, however, it all +forms part of the text</emph>.</q><note place="foot">ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν +τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα +κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188, 186.)</note> 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 <emph>exactly</emph> +assimilated in ancient times to a common model; and that +they correspond one with the other so entirely<note place="foot">See more concerning +this matter in the <ref target="Appendix_D">Appendix (D)</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>ad +fin.</hi></note> that the +foregoing rubrical annotation appears <emph>in the wrong place</emph> in +both of them, viz. <emph>at the close of ver.</emph> 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 <q><emph>in the ancient copies</emph>,</q> S. Mark +xvi. 9-20 <q><emph>formed part of the text</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<pb n="119"/><anchor id="Pg119"/> + +<p> +(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 <q>collated with the +ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem.</q><note place="foot"><p>At the end of S. +Matthew's Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is found,— +</p> +<p> +εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ +τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδ +</p> +<p> +and at the end of S. Mark's, (at fol. 147 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>)— +</p> +<p> +εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως +ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξ +</p> +<p> +This second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20. <emph>Both</emph> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 125. +</p></note> What need to +point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in conjunction +with the express voucher that <q>although some copies of +the Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that +<emph>in the ancient copies</emph> all the verses are found,</q> is a <emph>critical +attestation to the genuineness</emph> of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20, far outweighing +the bare statement (next to be noticed) of the undeniable +historical fact that, <q><emph>in some copies</emph>,</q> S. Mark <emph>ends +at ver.</emph> 8,—but <q>in many <emph>does not</emph></q>? +</p> + +<p> +(4.) Scholz proceeds:—<q>In Cod. 22, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ ++ τελος is read the following rubric:</q>— +</p> + +<p> +ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγγελιστής: +ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται.<note place="foot">= Paris 72, +<hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 107 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>. He might have added, (for +Wetstein had pointed it out 79 years before,) that <emph>the same note precisely</emph> +is found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,) <hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> +98 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by +<emph>all</emph> subsequent Critics and Editors,—cross, and <q>τέλος,</q> and +all,—as an additional ancient attestation to the fact that +<q><emph>The End</emph></q> (τέλος) <emph>of S. Mark's Gospel</emph> is indeed at +ch. xvi. 8. Strange,—incredible rather,—that among so many learned +persons, not one should have perceived that <q>τέλος</q> in this +place merely denotes that here <emph>a well-known Ecclesiastical section +comes to an end</emph>!... As far, therefore, as the present discussion +is concerned, the circumstance is purely irrelevant;<note place="foot">See more at +the very end of <ref target="Chapter_XI">Chap. XI</ref>.</note> +<pb n="120"/><anchor id="Pg120"/> +and, (as I propose to shew in <ref target="Chapter_XI">Chapter XI</ref>,) the less said +about it by the opposite party, the better. +</p> + +<p> +(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> +<q>In certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here; +<emph>up to which place Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized</emph>. +In other copies, however, is found as follows.</q><note place="foot"><p>Cod. 1. +(at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10) contain +as follows:— +</p> +<p> +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> +But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. +[<hi rend='italic'>lege</hi> 5],) according +to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has only this:— +</p> +<p> +ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα. +</p></note> And then +comes the rest of S. Mark's Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +I shall have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, +and what he <q>canonized,</q> 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> +(6.) The reader's attention is specially invited to the imposing +statement which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says +Scholz,) <q rend="pre">contain these words of Severus of Antioch:—</q> +</p> + +<quote rend="display"> +<q>In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to +Mark has its end at <q>for they were afraid.</q> In some copies, +however, this also is added,—<q>Now when He was risen,</q> +&c. This, however, seems to contradict to some extent +what was before delivered,</q> &c. +</quote> + +<p> +It may sound fabulous, but it is strictly true, that every +word of this, (unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by <emph>every +Critic</emph> who has since gone over the same ground,) is a mere +tissue of mistakes. For first,—Cod. 23 contains <emph>nothing +whatever pertinent to the present inquiry</emph>. (Scholz, evidently +through haste and inadvertence, has confounded <emph>his own</emph> +<pb n="121"/><anchor id="Pg121"/> +<q>23</q> with <q><hi rend='italic'>Coisl.</hi> 23,</q> but <q>Coisl. 23</q> is his +<q>39,</q>—of which by-and-by. This reference therefore has to be +cancelled.)—Cod. 41 contains a scholion of <emph>precisely the opposite +tendency</emph>: I mean, a scholion which avers that <emph>the accurate +copies of S. Mark's Gospel contain these last twelve verses</emph>. +(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 <emph>any <q>scholion of Severus +of Antioch</q> whatever</emph>. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently +made a gross misstatement;<note place="foot">It originated in this way. At the end +of S. Matthew's Gospel, in both Codices, are found those large extracts from the +<q>2nd Hom. on the Resurrection</q> which Montfaucon published in the +<hi rend='italic'>Bibl. Coisl.</hi> (pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since +reprinted at the end of his <hi rend='italic'>Catena in S. Matth.</hi> (i. 243-251.) +In Codd. 34 and 39 they are ascribed to <q>Severus of Antioch.</q> See +above (p. <ref target="Pg040">40</ref>.) See also pp. <ref target="Pg039">39</ref> +and <ref target="Pg057">57</ref>.</note> 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> +(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 +<emph>a mere transcript of Griesbach's list</emph>; 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.<note place="foot">See above, +pp. <ref target="Pg064">64</ref>, <ref target="Pg065">65</ref>.</note>) +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> +But when the twenty MSS. which remain<note place="foot">22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19 ++ 1 (374) = 20.</note> undisposed of +have been scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite +<pb n="122"/><anchor id="Pg122"/> +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 <emph>Victor of Antioch's commentary +on S. Mark</emph>,—no less than <emph>sixteen</emph> of which contain +the famous attestation that in <emph>most of the accurate copies, and +in particular the authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelve +verses of S. Mark's Gospel</emph> <hi rend="smallcaps">were found</hi>. (See above, pp. +<ref target="Pg064">64</ref> and <ref target="Pg065">65</ref>.).... And this exhausts +the evidence. +</p> + +<p> +(8.) So far, therefore, as <q>Notes</q> and <q>Scholia</q> in MSS. +are concerned, the sum of the matter proves to be simply +this:—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Nine Codices<note place="foot">viz. Codd. +L, 1, 199, 208, 209:—20, 300:—15, 22.</note> are +observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark's +Gospel, though wanting <q>in some,</q> was yet found <q>in others,</q>—<q>in +many,</q>—<q><emph>in the ancient copies</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Next, four Codices<note place="foot">Cod. Λ, 20, 262, +300.</note> contain subscriptions vouching +for the genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring +that those four Codices had been <emph>collated with approved +copies preserved at Jerusalem</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Lastly, sixteen Codices,—(to which, besides that +already mentioned by Scholz,<note place="foot">Evan. 374.</note> I am able to add +at least five others, making twenty-two in all,<note place="foot">viz. Evan. 24, 36, +37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, +222. (Birch <hi rend='italic'>Varr. Lectt</hi>. p. 225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add +Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by +Matthaei.</note>)—contain a weighty +critical scholion asserting categorically that in <q>very many</q> +and <q>accurate copies,</q> specially in the <q>true Palestinian +exemplar,</q> <emph>these verses had been found by one who seems to +have verified the fact of their existence there for himself</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <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?</q> I repeat, there is not so +much as <emph>one single Codex</emph> which contains such a scholion; +<pb n="123"/><anchor id="Pg123"/> +while twenty-four<note place="foot">2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 +(enumerated in the preceding note) = 24.</note> of those commonly enumerated state +<emph>the exact reverse</emph>.—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 <emph>in favour</emph> +of the verses under discussion. (<q>I called thee to curse +mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed them +these three times.</q>) +</p> + +<p> +II. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.<note place="foot">Paris 62, +<hi rend='italic'>olim,</hi> 2861 and 1558.</note> This +is the designation of an uncial MS. of the viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +or ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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> + +<quote rend="display"> +<q rend="pre"><hi rend="smallcaps"><hi rend='italic'>Something to this effect +is also met with</hi></hi>:</q> +</quote> + +<quote rend="display"> +<q rend="pre">All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed +unto Peter and the rest. And after these things, from East +even unto West, did <hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi> Himself send forth by their means +the holy and incorruptible message of eternal Salvation.</q> +</quote> + +<quote rend="display"> +<q rend="pre"><hi rend="smallcaps"><emph>But this also is met with after +the words, <q>for they were afraid:</q></emph></hi></q> +</quote> + +<quote rend="display"> +<q>Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the +week,</q><note place="foot"><p>See the facsimile.—The original, +(which knows nothing of Tischendorf's crosses,) reads as follows:— +</p> +<p> +ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥ<lb/> +ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ +</p> +<p> +ΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗ<lb/> +ΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣ<lb/> +ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝ +</p> +<p> +ΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗ<lb/> +ΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑ<lb/> +ΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡ<lb/> +Ο ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ<lb/> +ΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣ<lb/> +ἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙ<lb/> +ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ<lb/> +ΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗ<lb/> +ΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩ<lb/> +ΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣ +</p> +<p> +ΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ<lb/> +ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟ<lb/> +ΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟ<lb/> +ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ +ΓΑΡ +</p> +<p> +ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙ<lb/> +ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩ +</p> +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα +</p> +<p> +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> +Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. +</p> +<p> +Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου. +</p></note> &c. +</quote> + +<pb n="124"/><anchor id="Pg124"/> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 616), and in a few other +quarters of less importance.<note place="foot">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 <q>Reg, 79a,</q> which is Scholz' +designation (<hi rend='italic'>Prolegg.</hi> p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which, +after him, we number <q>274.</q></note>—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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> or +ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious text,—is to +<pb n="125"/><anchor id="Pg125"/> +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 +<emph>every cursive copy of the Gospels in existence</emph>. 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. <emph>Not</emph> S. Mark's Gospel, <emph>but Codex L</emph> is the sufferer +by this appeal. +</p> + +<p> +III. I go back now to the statements found in certain +Codices of the x<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, +(derived probably from one of +older date,) to the effect that <q>the marginal references +to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than ver. 8:</q>—for +so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>,) +ἕως οὖ Εὐσέβιους ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν, which are found +at the end of ver. 8 in Codd. 1, 206, 209. +</p> + +<p> +(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> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi> +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>Neither by +<emph>the sections of Ammonius</emph> nor yet by the canons of Eusebius +are these last verses recognised</q><note place="foot">Nec +<hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonii</hi> Sectionibus, nec <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebii</hi> +Canonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi versus.—Tisch. <hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> +(<hi rend='italic'>ed. 8va</hi>), p. 406.</note> <q>Thus it is seen,</q> +<pb n="126"/><anchor id="Pg126"/> +proceeds Dr. Tregelles, <q>that just as Eusebius found these +verses absent in his day from the best and most numerous +copies (<hi rend='italic'>sic</hi>), <emph>so was also the case with Ammonius</emph> when +he formed his Harmony in the preceding +century.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, p. 248.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(The opposite page exhibits an <hi rend='italic'>exact Fac-simile</hi>, obtained by +Photography, of fol. 113 of <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan. Cod. L</hi>, (<q>Codex Regius,</q> +No. 62,) at Paris; containing S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;—as explained +at pp. <ref target="Pg123">123-4</ref>. The Text of that MS. has been published +by Dr. Tischendorf in his <q>Monumenta Sacra Inedita,</q> +(1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. <ref target="Pg206">206</ref>.) +</p> + +<p rend="text-align: center"> + <figure url="images/facsimile-3.png" rend="width: 100%"> + <figDesc>[Illustration: Codex Regius facsimile page.]</figDesc> + </figure> +</p> + +<p> +(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the +obliging permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the +Manuscript Department of the <q>Bibliothèque.</q> He has my +best thanks for the kindness with which he promoted my +wishes and facilitated my researches.) +</p> + +<p> +(It should perhaps be stated that <emph>the margin</emph> of <q>Codex L</q> +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> +A new and independent authority therefore is appealed +to,—one of high antiquity and evidently very great importance,—Ammonius +of Alexandria, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 220. But Ammonius +has left behind him <emph>no known writings whatsoever</emph>. What +then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident +way to the testimony of <q>Ammonius?</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>Ammonian Sections</q> and +the <q>Eusebian Canons:</q> 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 <q>Sections</q> and <q>Canons</q> themselves; added +to what Eusebius has told us in that short Epistle of his +<q>to Carpianus,</q>—which I suppose has been transcribed +and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle +in the world. +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place="foot">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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The <q>Diatessaron</q> 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 +<pb n="127"/><anchor id="Pg127"/> +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> +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.<note place="foot">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.</note> 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 <q><emph>suggested to him</emph></q> his own.<note place="foot">This +seems to represent <emph>exactly</emph> what Eusebius means in this place. The +nearest English equivalent to ἀφορμή is <q>a hint.</q> Consider Euseb. +<hi rend='italic'>Hist. Eccl.</hi> v. 27. Also the following:—πολλὰς λαβόντες +ἀφορμάς. (Andreas, <hi rend='italic'>Proleg. in Apocalyps.</hi>).—λαβόντες +τὰς ἀφρμάς. (Anastasius Sin., <hi rend='italic'>Routh's Rell.</hi> i. 15.)</note> 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 <emph>all the Four +Gospels.</emph> But then, whereas Ammonius had placed alongside +of S. Matthew <emph>the dislocated sections themselves</emph> of the +<pb n="128"/><anchor id="Pg128"/> +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 <emph>references</emph>. +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.<note place="foot"><p>κανόνας ... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This +at least is decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome says +of Ammonius,—<q><emph>Evangelicos canones excogitavit</emph> quos postea +secutus est Eusebius Cæsariensis,</q> (<hi rend='italic'>De Viris Illust.</hi> 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> +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></note> (If the section was unique, it belonged to his last +or X<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew's account +of the Title on the Cross, is written 335/I: but in the +I<hi rend="vertical-align: super">st</hi> 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> +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> + +<pb n="129"/><anchor id="Pg129"/> + +<p> +For if that earlier production be lost indeed,<note place="foot"><p><q>Frustra ad +Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Quæ +supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.</q> (Tischendorf +<hi rend='italic'>on S. Mark</hi> xvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he +assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to light in the +vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, +and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was the lost work of Ammonius, +(<hi rend='italic'>Proleg.</hi> p. 63, § 660,)—was of course warranted +in appealing to the authority of Ammonius <emph>in support</emph> 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. +(<hi rend='italic'>Proleg.</hi> 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 +<emph>S. Matthew's Gospel</emph> which is dislocated,—for verses 10, 11, and 13 +to 17 of ch. xiii. come <emph>after</emph> verses 33-35; while ver. 12 has +altogether disappeared. +</p> +<p> +The most convenient edition for reference is +Schmeller's,—<hi rend='italic'>Ammonii Alexandrini +quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum</hi>. (Vienna, 1841.) +</p></note>—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 <q><emph>the Sections of Ammonius</emph>,</q> +as to a known document? Why above all do +Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim <q>Ammonius</q> +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 <emph>never</emph> be examined? +their references <emph>never</emph> 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> +(1st.) <emph>Where</emph> then and <emph>what</emph> are those <q>Sections of +Ammonius</q> to which Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently +appeal? It is even notorious that when they <emph>say</emph> the <q>Sections +of Ammonius,</q> what they <emph>mean</emph> are the <q>Sections of +<emph>Eusebius</emph>.</q>—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 +<pb n="130"/><anchor id="Pg130"/> +without proof that so much as <emph>one</emph> of the Sections of Ammonius +corresponded with <emph>one</emph> 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,<note place="foot">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, <emph>besides</emph> 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.</note>)—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> +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 <emph>cannot</emph> have been so; +and the proof is supplied by the Sections themselves. It is +discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they <emph>imply</emph> +and <emph>presuppose the Ten Canons</emph>; being in many places even +meaningless,—nugatory, in fact, (I do not of course say +that they are <emph>practically</emph> without <emph>use</emph>,)—except +on the theory that those Canons were already in existence.<note place="foot">For proofs +of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks on the +(so-called) <q>Ammonian</q> Sections, the reader is referred to the +<ref target="Appendix_G">Appendix (G)</ref>.</note> Now the +Canons are confessedly the invention of Eusebius. He distinctly +claims them.<note place="foot">See above, p. <ref target="Pg128">128</ref>, note +(f).</note> Thus much then concerning the supposed +testimony of Ammonius. It is <emph>nil</emph>.—And now for +what is alleged concerning the evidence of Eusebius. +</p> + +<p> +The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking), +is the following memorandum found in certain +ancient MSS.:—<q>Thus far did Eusebius canonize;</q><note place="foot">See above, +p. <ref target="Pg125">125</ref>.</note> which +<pb n="131"/><anchor id="Pg131"/> +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> +On this slender foundation has been raised the following +precarious superstructure. It is assumed, +</p> + +<p> +(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark's Gospel which Eusebius +numbers <q>233,</q> and which begins at our ver. 8, <emph>cannot have +extended beyond</emph> ver. 8;—whereas it may have extended, and +probably did extend, down to the end of ver. 11. +</p> + +<p> +(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian +Canons of any sectional <emph>number</emph> in S. Mark's Gospel subsequent +to § 233, no <emph>Section</emph> (with, or without, such a subsequent +number) can have existed:—whereas there may +have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly numbered.<note place="foot">As +a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are noted <emph>without</emph> +the Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in the +<ref target="Appendix_G">Appendix (G)</ref>.</note> +This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the +memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have +<emph>canonized</emph> no further than § 233. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8</q> is +equivalent to this,—<q><emph>Eusebius numbered no Sections after +ver.</emph> 8;</q> (and more it cannot mean:)—What <emph>then</emph>? 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 <emph>more</emph> 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 +<pb n="132"/><anchor id="Pg132"/> +of the old one; and since it was Eusebius who was the +voucher for <emph>that</emph>, 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 <q>canonize</q> (or even to <q>sectionize</q>) +what he had already hypothetically hinted might as well be +left out altogether? (See above, pp. <ref target="Pg044">44-6</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 373,) +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Epiphanius</hi> +</p> + +<p> +states casually that <q>the four Gospels contain 1162 +sections.</q><note place="foot">τέσσαρα εἰσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν +ἑξηκονταδύο. The words are most unexpectedly, (may I not say +<emph>suspiciously</emph>?), found in Epiphanius, <hi rend='italic'>Ancor.</hi> 50, +(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 54 <hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>.)</note> +From this it is argued<note place="foot">By Tischendorf, copying Mill's +<hi rend='italic'>Proleg.</hi> p. 63, § 662:—the fontal source, +by the way, of the twin references to <q>Epiphanius and Cæsarius.</q></note> +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? <emph>That</emph> fact—(the +<emph>only</emph> thing which our opponents have to establish)—remains +exactly where it was; entirely unproved, and in the +highest degree improbable. +</p> + +<p> +To conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the +pages of Tischendorf:—<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;</q>—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> +(1.) About the <q>Sections of Ammonius,</q> 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> + +<pb n="133"/><anchor id="Pg133"/> + +<p> +(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either +as to the <q>Sections of Ammonius</q> or to <q>Canons of Eusebius,</q> +Tischendorf is perfectly well aware. So is my reader. +</p> + +<p> +(3.) His appeal to +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Cæsarius</hi> +</p> + +<p> +is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate +the younger brother of Gregory of Nazianzus; an eminent +physician of Constantinople, who died <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 368; and who, +(as far as is known,) <emph>never wrote anything</emph>. A work called +Πεύσεις, (which in the x<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century +was attributed to Cæsarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except +that Cæsarius was certainly <emph>not</emph> 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, <emph>is nothing else but +a condensed paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius</emph>, in which +the original statement occurs.<note place="foot">Comp. Epiph. +(<hi rend='italic'>Ancor.</hi> 50,) <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 53 +<hi rend="smallcaps">c</hi> to 55 <hi rend="smallcaps">a</hi>, with Galland. +<hi rend='italic'>Bibl.</hi> vi. 26 <hi rend="smallcaps">c</hi> to 27 +<hi rend="smallcaps">a</hi>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi>, +of <hi rend="smallcaps">Epiphanius</hi>, and of <hi rend="smallcaps">Cæsarius</hi> on +the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel. It is exactly +<emph>nil</emph>. In fact Pseudo-Cæsarius, so far from <q>bearing witness to the +fact</q> that the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel are +spurious, <emph>actually quotes the 16<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +verse as genuine</emph>.<note place="foot">Galland. <hi rend='italic'>Bibl.</hi> +vi. 147 <hi rend="smallcaps">a</hi>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added +to what we knew before concerning his probable estimate +of these verses. +</p> + +<p> +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> +<hi rend="smallcaps">The Catenæ</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +<q>In the Catenæ on Mark,</q> (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) +<q>there is no explanation of this section.</q><note place="foot">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.</note> +<pb n="134"/><anchor id="Pg134"/> +<q>The Catenæ on Mark:</q> as if they were quite common +things,—<q>plenty, as blackberries!</q> But,—<emph>Which</emph> of <q>the +Catenæ</q> may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined? +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>that</emph> Codex is expressly declared by the learned Editor to be +defective from ver. 8 to the end.<note place="foot">See Possini +<hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> p. 363.</note> +</p> + +<p> +2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the +Vatican Library and communicated to Possinus; because +in <emph>that</emph> Catena the 9th and 12th verses are distinctly commented +on.<note place="foot">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 <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> p. 364):—Where it will be seen that +<emph>Text</emph> (κείμενον) and <emph>Interpretation</emph> +(ἑρμηνεία) are confusedly thrown together. <q>Anonymus [Vaticanus]</q> +also quotes S. Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109, <hi rend='italic'>ad fin.</hi>—Matthaei +(N.T. ii. 269),—overlooking the fact that <q><hi rend='italic'>Anonymus +Vaticanus</hi></q> (or simply <q><hi rend='italic'>Anonymus</hi></q>) and +<q><hi rend='italic'>Anonymus Tolosanus</hi></q> (or simply +<q><hi rend='italic'>Tolosanus</hi></q>) denote two distinct Codices,—falls +into a mistake himself while contradicting our learned countryman Mill, +who says,—<q>Certe Victor Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. +ver. 8] nec ultra commentantur.</q>—Scholz' dictum is,—<q>Commentatorum qui +in catenis SS. Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ +exhibetur.</q></note> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>that</emph> 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.<note place="foot">See above +pp. <ref target="Pg062">62-3</ref>. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such Collections +as the <hi rend='italic'>Magna Bibliotheca Vett. PP.</hi> (1618,) vol. iv. p. 330, +col. 2 <hi rend="smallcaps">E, F</hi>.—For the Greek, see Possini +<hi rend='italic'>Catena</hi>, pp. 359-61.</note> +</p> + +<p> +4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic +has inspected either of the last two editions of the same +<pb n="135"/><anchor id="Pg135"/> +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 <emph>these</emph> is contained the famous +passage <emph>which</emph> categorically asserts the genuineness of the +last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel.<note place="foot">See above, pp. +<ref target="Pg064">64-5</ref>, and <ref target="Appendix_E">Appendix (E)</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Now this exhausts the subject. +</p> + +<p> +To <emph>which</emph>, then, of <q>the Catenæ on Mark,</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>tanquam vile corpus</hi>) the +writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed, or the +Faith of the Church of <hi rend="smallcaps">Christ</hi> is to be unsettled and +undermined. +</p> + +<p> +V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to +p. <ref target="Pg039">39</ref>, 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 <emph>un</emph>likely,—I am +quite content that my Reader shall decide. +</p> + +<p> +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> + +<pb n="136"/><anchor id="Pg136"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter IX. INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY +REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter IX."/> +<anchor id="Chapter_IX"/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER IX.</head> +<head>INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY +REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +The <q>Style</q> and <q>Phraseology</q> of these Verses declared by Critics +to be not S. Mark's.—Insecurity of such Criticism (p. +<ref target="Pg140">140</ref>).—The <q>Style</q> of chap. xvi. 9-20 +shewn to be the same as the style of chap. i. 9-20 (p. +<ref target="Pg142">142</ref>).—The <q>Phraseology</q> examined in twenty-seven +particulars, and shewn to be suspicious in none (p. +<ref target="Pg145">145</ref>),—but in twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the +reverse (p. <ref target="Pg170">170</ref>).—Such Remarks fallacious (p. +<ref target="Pg173">173</ref>).—Judged of by a truer, a more +delicate and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most probably +genuine (p. <ref target="Pg175">175</ref>). +</quote> + +<p> +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 <q>bear traces of <emph>another hand</emph> from that which +has shaped the <emph>diction</emph> and <emph>construction</emph> of the rest of the +Gospel.</q><note place="foot">Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20.</note> They are therefore +<q>an addition to the narrative,</q>—of which <q>the internal evidence will be +found to preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark.</q>—<q>A +difference,</q> (says Dr. Tregelles,) <q>has been remarked, and +truly remarked, between <emph>the phraseology</emph> of this section and +the rest of this Gospel.</q>—According to Dr. Davidson,—<q>The +<emph>phraseology and style</emph> of the section are unfavourable +to its authenticity.</q> <q>The characteristic peculiarities which +pervade Mark's Gospel do not appear in it; but, on the contrary, +terms and expressions,</q> <q>phrases and words, are introduced +which Mark never uses; or terms for which he +employs others.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, &c. ii. +p. 113.</note>—So Meyer,—<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, &c, but the baldness +<pb n="137"/><anchor id="Pg137"/> +and lack of clearness which mark a compiler;) while in +single expressions, it is altogether contrary to Mark's manner.</q>—<q>There +is</q> (says Professor Norton) <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.</q>—No +one, however, has expressed himself more strongly on this subject +than Tischendorf. <q>Singula</q> (he says) <q>multifariam a +Marci ratione abhorrent.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> Ed. +8<hi rend="vertical-align: super">va</hi> i. p. 406.</note>... Here, then, is something +very like a consensus of hostile opinion: although the terms of the +indictment are somewhat vague. Difference of <q>Diction and +Construction,</q>—difference of <q>Phraseology and Style,</q>—difference +of <q>Terms and Expressions,</q>—difference of <q>Words +and Phrases;</q>—the absence of S. Mark's <q>characteristic +peculiarities.</q> I suppose, however, that all may be brought +under two heads,—(I.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Style</hi>, and (II.) +<hi rend="smallcaps">Phraseology</hi>: meaning +by <q>Style</q> whatever belongs to the Evangelist's manner; +and by <q>Phraseology</q> 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> +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> + +<lg> +<l>Like ceaseless droppings, which at last are known</l> +<l>To leave their dint upon the solid stone.</l> +</lg> + +<p> +I observe that Scholars and Divines of the best type (as +the Rev. T. S. Green<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Developed Crit.</hi> pp. +51-2.</note>) 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 <emph>all</emph> be <emph>entirely</emph> in the wrong. They impose +upon learned and unlearned readers alike. <q>Even Barnabas +<pb n="138"/><anchor id="Pg138"/> +has been carried away with their dissimulation.</q> He has +(to my surprise and regret) two suggestions:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 <emph>no appearance whatever</emph> 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 <q>verbal peculiarities</q> 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 <q>after-thoughts,</q> <q>supplements,</q> +<q>appendices,</q> and <q>second editions</q> when the +everlasting Gospel of <hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus Christ</hi> 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<note place="foot">ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον +προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist. <hi rend='italic'>Eth. Nic.</hi> +I. iii.</note> will forgive my freedom in +having already made my personal sentiment on the subject +sufficiently plain. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 <emph>who</emph> 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 <emph>not till then</emph>. +</p> + +<pb n="139"/><anchor id="Pg139"/> + +<p> +2. True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been +lifted up in the way of protest<note place="foot">To the honour of the Rev. F. H. +Scrivener be it said, that <emph>he</emph> at least absolutely refuses to pay any +attention at all <q>to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their +alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.</q> See by all means his +remarks on this subject. (<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, pp. 431-2.)—One +would have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English +Poem,—which some able men were confident <emph>might</emph> 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.</note> 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 <emph>one</emph> honorable exception,<note place="foot"><p>Allusion is made to +the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—<q>Professor of Interpretation of the New +Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,</q>—the +author of an able and convincing paper entitled <q>Exegetical Studies</q> in +<q><hi rend='italic'>The Baptist Quarterly</hi></q> for July, 1869 +(Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which <q>the words and phrases</q> contained in +S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively examined. +</p> +<p> +If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor's hands, he will +perceive that I must have written the present Chapter <emph>before</emph> 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></note> 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 <q>the style,</q> <q>the phraseology,</q> <q>the diction</q> +of the present section of the Gospel. But I do more. +I entirely deny the accuracy of almost <emph>every individual statement</emph> +from which the unfavourable induction is made, and the +hostile inference drawn. Even <emph>this</emph> will not nearly satisfy +<pb n="140"/><anchor id="Pg140"/> +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> +3. Let me however distinctly declare beforehand that +remarks on <q>the style</q> 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 <emph>the style</emph> may indeed be exceedingly diverse, and yet +<emph>the Author</emph> 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 <q>style,</q> 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. <q>According to this argument, <emph>the recurrence +of the same words</emph> 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 <q>formulæ</q> 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.</q><note place="foot">Dr. Kay's <hi rend='italic'>Crisis Hupfeldiana</hi>, +p. 34,—the most masterly and instructive +exposure of Bp. Colenso's incompetence and presumption which has ever appeared. +Intended specially of <emph>his</emph> 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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation to +<pb n="141"/><anchor id="Pg141"/> +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 <emph>six times +repeated</emph> in his viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> and +ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> chapters is perhaps only once +met with besides in his Gospel,—viz. in his +xxi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">st</hi> chapter.<note place="foot">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).</note> The <q>style</q> of the 17th verse of his +i<hi rend="vertical-align: super">st</hi> 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; <q>rising strangely by degrees,</q> +(as Bp. Pearson expresses it,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>On the Creed</hi>, +Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.)</note>) <q>making the last +word of the former sentence the first of that which +followeth.</q>—<q><emph>He</emph> knoweth that he saith true,</q> is the language +of the same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35. +But, <q><emph>we</emph> know that his testimony is true,</q> 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: (<q>that +<emph>ye</emph> may believe.</q>) 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> +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.<note place="foot">τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα +συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ διαφωνεῖ +τὰληθές. Aristot. <hi rend='italic'>Eth. Nic.</hi> I. c. vi.</note> And we all desire +nothing but the Truth. +</p> + +<pb n="142"/><anchor id="Pg142"/> + +<p> +I. To begin then with the <q><hi rend="smallcaps">Style and manner</hi></q> of +S. Mark in this place. +</p> + +<p> +1. We are assured that <q>instead of the <emph>graphic, detailed</emph> +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.</q><note place="foot">Davidson's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, +&c. i. 170.</note> Surely if this be so, the only lawful +inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, <emph>has</emph> <q>extracted +brief notices from larger accounts, and loosely linked +them together:</q> 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 <emph>genuineness</emph> of the passage now under consideration. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><emph>extracts</emph>,</q> I know nothing: nor Dr. +Davidson either. That there existed <emph>any</emph> <q>larger accounts</q> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> +Resurrection,—is simply undeniable. And without at all +admitting that the style of the Evangelist is in consequence +either <q>abrupt</q> or <q>sententious,</q><note place="foot">And yet, if it were ever +so <q>sententious,</q> ever so <q>abrupt;</q> and if his <q>brief notices</q> were +over so <q>loosely linked together;</q>—these, <emph>according to Dr. +Davidson</emph>, would only be indications that S. Mark actually <emph>was</emph> their +Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark's <q>characteristics,</q> at p. 151:—<q>In +the consecution of his narrations, Mark <emph>puts them together very loosely</emph>.</q> +<q>Mark is also characterised by a <emph>conciseness</emph> and apparent incompleteness +of delineation which are allied to the obscure.</q> <q>The <emph>abrupt</emph> +introduction</q> 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 <emph>because</emph> it exhibits the very peculiarities +which at p. 151 he had volunteered the information are <emph>characteristic</emph> of +its reputed Author?</note> I yet recognise the +<pb n="143"/><anchor id="Pg143"/> +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 <emph>not</emph> be discoverable in +other parts of the Gospel where the Evangelist is <emph>not</emph> observed +to be doing the same thing? +</p> + +<p> +3. But wherever in his Gospel S. Mark <emph>is</emph> doing the same +thing, he is observed to adopt the style and manner which +Dr. Davidson is pleased to call <q>sententious</q> and <q>abrupt.</q> +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; <emph>the twelve corresponding verses</emph>, namely, in +S. Mark's <emph>first</emph> chapter, which are to be compared with the +twelve verses already under discussion, from his <emph>last</emph>; and +they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as +in Greek:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'><hi rend="smallcaps">S. Mark</hi></hi> i. 9-20.) +</p> + +<p> +(ver. 9.) <q>And it came to pass in those days, that <hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Spirit</hi> like +a dove descending upon Him: (11.) and there came a +voice from heaven saying, Thou art My beloved <hi rend="smallcaps">Son</hi>, in +whom I am well pleased. (12.) And immediately the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Spirit</hi> 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, +<hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi> came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the +kingdom of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>, (15.) and saying, The time is fulfilled, +and the Kingdom of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi> +<pb n="144"/><anchor id="Pg144"/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> 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 <emph>possible</emph> that when +incidents considerable as these had to be condensed within +the narrow compass of twelve verses, the same <q>graphic, +detailed description</q> 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 +<q>the <emph>abrupt transitions</emph> of this section</q> (ver. 1-13) have +also been noticed by Dean Alford: who very justly accounts +for the phenomenon by pointing out that here <q>Mark +appears as <emph>an abridger of previously well-known +facts</emph>.</q><note place="foot">N.T. vol. i. <hi rend='italic'>Prolegg.</hi> p. +38.</note> But then, I want to know what there is in this to induce us to +suspect <emph>the genuineness</emph> of either the beginning or the end of +S. Mark's Gospel? +</p> + +<p> +5. For it is a mistake to speak as if <q>graphic, detailed +description</q> <emph>invariably</emph> 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 <emph>sudden</emph>. His account of John's preaching +<pb n="145"/><anchor id="Pg145"/> +(i. 1-8) is the shortest of all. Very concise is his account +of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> Baptism (ver. 9-11). The brevity +of his description of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> 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> +II. Nothing more true, therefore, than Dr. Tregelles' admission +<q>that arguments on <emph>style</emph> are often very fallacious, and +that <emph>by themselves</emph> they prove very little. But</q> (he proceeds) +<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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +I have already shewn that there exists <emph>no</emph> such external +evidence as Dr. Tregelles supposes. And in the absence of +it, I am bold to assert that since nothing in the <q>Style</q> or +the <q>Phraseology</q> of these verses ever aroused suspicion in +times past, we have rather to be <emph>on our guard</emph> 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 <emph>can</emph> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Phraseology</hi>; and which +will be found to be nothing else but repeated assertions that +<pb n="146"/><anchor id="Pg146"/> +a certain Word or Phrase,—(there are about twenty-four +such words and phrases in all,<note place="foot"><p>It may be convenient, in this +place, to enumerate the several words and expressions about to be considered:— +</p> +<p> +(i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 9.)—See above. +</p> +<p> +(ii.) ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνθα (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 9.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg152">152</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 9.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg153">153</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(iv.) πορεύεσθαι (<hi rend='italic'>vers.</hi> 10, 12, +15.)—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +</p> +<p> +(v.) οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 10.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg155">155</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(vi.) θεᾶσθαι (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 11 and 14.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg156">156</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(vii.) θεαθῆναι (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 11.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg158">158</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 11 and +16.)—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +</p> +<p> +(ix.) μετὰ ταῦτα (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 12.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg159">159</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(x.) ἕτερος (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 12.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg160">160</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(xi) ὅστερον (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 14.)—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +</p> +<p> +(xii.) βλάπτειν (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 18.)—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +</p> +<p> +(xiii.) πανταχοῦ (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 20.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg161">161</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν—βεβαιοῦν (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> +20.)—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +</p> +<p> +(xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 15.)—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +</p> +<p> +(xvii.) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 17.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg162">162</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 17 and +19.)—See p. <ref target="Pg163">163</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(xx.) χεῖρας ἐπιθεῖναι ἐρί τινα (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 18.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg164">164</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(xxi. and xxii.) μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 19 and +20.)—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +</p> +<p> +(xxiii.) ἀναληφθῆναι (<hi rend='italic'>ver.</hi> 19.)—See p. +<ref target="Pg166">166</ref>. +</p> +<p> +(xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (<hi rend='italic'>verses</hi> 10, 11 [and +13?].)—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +</p> +<p> +(xxv.) <q>Verses without a copulative,</q> (<hi rend='italic'>verses</hi> 10 and +14.)—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +</p> +<p> +(xxvi. and xxvii.) Absence of εὐθέως and πάλιν.—See p. +<ref target="Pg168">168</ref>. +</p></note>)—<q>occurs nowhere in the +Gospel of Mark;</q> with probably the alarming asseveration +that it is <q>abhorrent to Mark's manner.</q> ... The result of +the inquiry which follows will perhaps be not exactly what +is commonly imagined. +</p> + +<p> +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> +(I.) The expression πρώτη σαββάτου, for the <q>first day of +the week</q> (in ver. 9) <q>is remarkable</q> (he says) <q>as occurring +so soon after</q> μία σαββάτων (a precisely equivalent +expression) in ver. 2.—Yes, it is remarkable. +</p> + +<p> +Scarcely more remarkable, perhaps, than that S. Luke +<emph>in the course of one and the same chapter</emph> should four times +designate the Sabbath τὸ σάββατον, and twice τὰ σάββατα: +again, twice, τὸ σάββατον,—twice, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ σαββάτου,—and +<pb n="147"/><anchor id="Pg147"/> +once, τὰ σάββατα.<note place="foot">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.</note> +Or again, that S. Matthew should <emph>in one and the same chapter</emph> five +times call the Sabbath, τὰ σάβββτα, and three times, τό σάββατον.<note place="foot">S. +Matth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.</note> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> Temptation,—chap. iv.,) has ὁ διάβολος in +ver. 1, and ὁ πειράζων in ver. 3, for him whom our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> +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 <emph>occurs only once +in each of the Four Gospels</emph>.<note place="foot">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.</note> 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 <emph>spuriousness</emph>? That is the only thing +<pb n="148"/><anchor id="Pg148"/> +I have to consider. Am I, with Dr. Davidson, to reason as +follows:—<q>πρώτη, Mark would scarcely have used. It should +have been μία, &c. as is proved by Mark xvi. 2, &c. The +expression could scarcely have proceeded from a Jew. It +betrays a Gentile author.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, +&c. i. 169.</note> Am I to reason thus?... I propose +to answer this question somewhat in detail. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <q>the first day of the week,</q> is +plain, not only from the fact that the day of the Resurrection +is so designated by each of the Four Evangelists in +turn;<note place="foot">See the foregoing note.</note> +(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.<note place="foot">See Buxtorf's +<hi rend='italic'>Lexicon Talmudicum</hi>, p. 2323.</note> The cardinal +(μία) for the ordinal (πρώτη) in this phrase was a known +Talmudic expression, which obtained also in Syriac.<note place="foot">Lightfoot +(on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul's phrase κατὰ μίαν +σαββάτων,—<q>תבשב דהב [<hi rend='italic'>b'had b'shabbath</hi>,] +<q><hi rend='italic'>In the first</hi> [lit. <hi rend='italic'>one</hi>] +<hi rend='italic'>of the Sabbath</hi>,</q> would the Talmudists say.</q>—Professor +Gandell writes,—<q>in Syriac, the days of the week are similarly named. See +Bernstein [lit. <hi rend='italic'>one in the Sabbath</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>two in +the Sabbath</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>three in the Sabbath.</hi>]</q></note> Σάββατον +and σάββατα,—designations in strictness of the <emph>Sabbath-day</emph>,—had +come to be <emph>also</emph> used as designations of the +<emph>week</emph>. 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, <emph>in the course of one and the same chapter</emph>, five +times designates the Sabbath as τὰ σαββάτα, and three +times as τὸ σάββατον.<note place="foot">S. Mark xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.</note> +The origin and history of both words will be found explained in a note at the foot of +the page.<note place="foot"><p>The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably +תבש (<hi rend='italic'>shabbath</hi>): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more +nearly than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש +(<hi rend='italic'>shabbatha:</hi>) the final א (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) being added +for emphasis, as in Abb<emph>a</emph>, Aceldam<emph>a</emph>, Bethesd<emph>a</emph>, +Ceph<emph>a</emph>, Pasch<emph>a</emph>, <hi rend='italic'>&c</hi>.: 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,) <emph>gave rise to +another form of the Greek name for the Sabbath</emph>,—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> +Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. (Accordingly, +it is <emph>invariably</emph> rendered <q><emph>Sabbatum</emph></q> 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 <emph>one +definite Sabbath-day</emph>, is said to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10. +S. Mark xii. 1.) +</p> +<p> +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 <emph>days</emph> are spoken of. +</p> +<p> +It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for <q>weeks;</q> +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 +(<hi rend='italic'>shavooa</hi>) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any substitution of the +one word for the other. But inasmuch as the recurrence of the <emph>Sabbath-day</emph> +was what constituted <emph>a week</emph>; 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 <emph>the day of +rest</emph>, became transferred to <emph>the week</emph>. 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></note> +</p> + +<pb n="149"/><anchor id="Pg149"/> + +<p> +(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 <q><emph>una sabbatorum</emph></q> 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, <q>Vespere <emph>sabbati</emph>, quæ lucescit in <emph>prima +sabbati</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(3.) The reader will now be prepared for the suggestion, +that when S. Mark, (who is traditionally related to have +written his Gospel <emph>at Rome</emph>,<note place="foot">So Eusebius +(<hi rend='italic'>Eccl. Hist.</hi> ii. 15), and Jerome (<hi rend='italic'>De Viris +Illust.</hi> ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also +Euseb. <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Eccl.</hi> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Synopsis Scripturæ</hi> (wrongly) +ascribed to Athanasius.</note>) varies, in ver. 9, the phrase +<pb n="150"/><anchor id="Pg150"/> +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 <emph>in Latin</emph> by the phrase <q>prima +sabbati,</q> we have already seen. In ver. 9, therefore, he is +solicitous to record the fact of the Resurrection afresh; and +<emph>this</emph> time, his phrase is observed to be <emph>the Greek equivalent +for the Latin <q>prima sabbati;</q></emph> 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 <emph>Syriac</emph> rendering of both +places is <emph>identical</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <q>Judæa,</q> is <q>a <emph>country</emph>,</q> +(ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα,)—and <q>Jordan,</q> <q>a <emph>river</emph>,</q> (ὁ Ἰορδάνης +ποταμός)?—Is not this the very man who explained to his +readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar Jewish designation +for <q>Friday,</q> ἡ παρασκευή, denotes <q><emph>the day before +the Sabbath</emph>?</q><note place="foot">παρασκευὴ, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον.—Our +E. V. <q>preparation</q> is from Augustine,—<q>Parasceue +Latine præparatio est.</q>—See Pearson's interesting note +on the word.</note>—and who was so minute in informing us (in +chap. vii. 3, 4) about certain ceremonial practices of <q>the +Pharisees and all the Jews?</q> Yet more,—Is not the self-same +writer clearly recognisable in this xvi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +chapter, who in chap. vi. 37 presented us with σπεκουλάτωρ (the Latin +<hi rend='italic'>spiculator</hi>) for <q>an executioner?</q> and who, in chap. xv. 39, +for <q>a <hi rend='italic'>centurion</hi>,</q> wrote—not ἑκατόνταρχος, +but—κεντυρίων?—and, in chap. xii. 42, explained that the two λεπτά +<pb n="151"/><anchor id="Pg151"/> +which the poor widow cast into the Treasury were equivalent +to κοδράντης, the Latin <hi rend='italic'>quadrans</hi>?—and in chap. vii. +4, 8, introduced the Roman measure <hi rend='italic'>sextarius</hi>, (ξέστης)?—and +who volunteered the information (in chap. xv. 16) that αὐλή is only another +designation of πραιτώριον (<hi rend='italic'>Prætorium</hi>)?—Yes. +S. Mark,—who, alone of the four Evangelists, +(in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the Cyrenian +was <q><emph>the father of Alexander and Rufus</emph>,</q> evidently for the +sake of his <emph>Latin</emph> readers:<note place="foot">Consider Rom. xvi. 13.</note> +S. Mark,—who alone ventures +to write in Greek letters (οὐά,—chap. xv. 29,) the Latin interjection +<q><hi rend='italic'>Vah!</hi></q>—obviously because he was writing where +that exclamation was most familiar, and the force of it best +understood:<note place="foot">Townson's <hi rend='italic'>Discourses</hi>, i. 172.</note> +S. Mark,—who attends to the Roman division of the day, in relating our +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> prophecy to S. +Peter:<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi></note>—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 <q><hi rend='italic'>una +sabbatorum</hi>,</q><note place="foot">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 <q><hi rend='italic'>una sabbati</hi>.</q></note>) +in ver. 2;—introduced, also for the benefit of his +Latin readers, the Greek equivalent for <q><hi rend='italic'>prima sabbati</hi>,</q> +(viz. πρώτη σαββάτου,) in ver. 9.—This, therefore, I repeat, +so far from being a circumstance <q><emph>unfavourable</emph> to its authenticity,</q> +(by which, I presume, the learned writer means +its <emph>genuineness</emph>), 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. <q>Not +only was the document intended for Gentile converts:</q> +(remarks Dr. Davidson, p. 149,) <q>but there are also appearances +of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians in +particular.</q> Just so. And I venture to say that in the +whole of <q>the document</q> Dr. Davidson will not find a more +striking <q>appearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman +Christians,</q>—<emph>and therefore of its genuineness</emph>,—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> + +<pb n="152"/><anchor id="Pg152"/> + +<p> +(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, <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.</q><note place="foot">Davidson's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, &c. i. 169, <hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 1848: +(ii. 113, <hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 1868.)</note>—Strange perversity, and yet +stranger blindness! +</p> + +<p> +(1.) The phrase <emph>cannot</emph> have been taken from S. Luke; +because S. Luke's Gospel was written after S. Mark's. It +<emph>was</emph> not taken from S. Luke; because <emph>there</emph> ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια +ἑπτα ἐξεληλύθει,—here, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα δαιμόνια +is read. +</p> + +<p> +(2.) More important is it to expose the shallowness and +futility of the entire objection.—Mary Magdalene <q>had +been mentioned three times before, <emph>without such appendix</emph>.</q> +Well but,—What <emph>then</emph>? After twice (ch. xiv. 54, 66) using +the word αὐλή without any <q>appendix,</q> in the very next +chapter (xv. 16) S. Mark adds, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον.—The +beloved Disciple having mentioned himself without any +<q>appendix</q> in S. John xx. 7, mentions himself with a very +elaborate <q>appendix</q> 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 <q>appendix,</q> (Μαρία ἡ +Ἰωσῆ) in ver. 47, and <emph>in the very next verse</emph>, 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 <q>appendices</q> +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> +(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 +<pb n="153"/><anchor id="Pg153"/> +of the clause <q>out of whom He had cast seven devils,</q> +for this place. The reason, I say, is even obvious why an +<q>appendix,</q> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi>. 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 <q>where +Sin had abounded, there did Grace much more abound.</q><note place="foot"><q>Maria +Magdalene ipsa est <q>a quâ septem dæmonia expulerat</q>: <emph>ut ubi +abundaverat peccatum, superabundant gratiæ</emph>.</q> (Hieron. +<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> i. 327.)</note> +Are we to be cheated of our birthright by Critics<note place="foot">So +Tischendorf,—<q>Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽ ἦσ +ἐκβεβλήκει ε. δ.</q> (p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same remark reiterated +by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p. 52.</note> who, +entirely overlooking a solution of the difficulty (<emph>if</emph> difficulty +it be) Divine as this, can see in the circumstance grounds +only for suspicion and cavil? Απαγε. +</p> + +<p> +(III.) Take the next example.—The very form of the +<q>appendix</q> which we have been considering (ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει +ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια) breeds offence. <q>Instead of ἐκβάλλειν +ἀπό,</q> (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) <q>Mark has ἐκβάλλειν +ἐκ.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, &c. vol. i. p. +169.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Nothing of the sort, I answer. S. Mark <emph>once</emph> has ἐκβάλλειν +ἐκ,<note place="foot">viz. in chap. vii. 26.</note> and <emph>once</emph> +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? +<emph>Who</emph> sees not that such Criticism is simply nugatory? +</p> + +<p> +(IV.) We are next favoured with the notable piece of +information that the word πορεύεσθαι, <q>never used by +S. Mark, is three times contained in this passage;</q> (viz. in +verses 10, 12 and 15.) +</p> + +<p> +(1.) Yes. The uncompounded verb, never used <emph>elsewhere</emph> +by S. Mark, is found here three times. But what then? +The <emph>compounds</emph> 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, +<emph>oftener than all the other three Evangelists put together</emph>,—viz. +twenty-four times against their nineteen: while the compound +<pb n="154"/><anchor id="Pg154"/> +προσπορεύεσθαι is <emph>peculiar to his Gospel</emph>.—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> +(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 <emph>suspicious</emph>. 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 <emph>in one and the same chapter</emph>. S. Luke alone +has χαρίζεσθαι, and he has it three times: but all three +cases are met with <emph>in one and the same chapter</emph>. S. John +alone has λύπη, and he has it four times: but all the four +instances occur <emph>in one and the same chapter</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>peculiar to the Gospels</emph> in which they +severally occur. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>which</emph> of the ordinary compounds +of πορεύεσθαι S. Mark could <emph>possibly</emph> have employed for the +uncompounded verb, in the three places which have suggested +the present inquiry, viz.:— +</p> + +<p> +ver. 10:—ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽ αυτοῦ +γενομένοις. +</p> + +<p> +ver. 12:—δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν ... πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν. +</p> + +<p> +ver. 13:—πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, κηρύξατε +τὸ εὐαγγέλιον;— +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n="155"/><anchor id="Pg155"/> +ver. 12,—πορευθέντες in ver. 15,—<emph>also</emph> <q>admit of no substitute +in the places where they severally occur;</q> 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 <emph>the same</emph> hand was +at work here which wrote all the rest of his Gospel.<note place="foot">Professor +Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(V.) Then further,—the phrase τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις +(in ver. 10) is noted as suspicious. <q>Though found in +the Acts (xx. 18) it <emph>never occurs in the Gospels</emph>: nor does the +word μαθηταί in this passage.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(1.) The phrase οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι occurs nowhere +in the Acts or in the Gospels, <emph>except here</emph>. But,—Why +<emph>should</emph> it appear elsewhere? or rather,—How <emph>could</emph> it? Now, +if the expression be (as it is) an ordinary, easy, and obvious +one,—<emph>wanted</emph> in this place, where it <emph>is</emph> met with; +but <emph>not</emph> met with elsewhere, simply because elsewhere it is <emph>not</emph> +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> +(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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> have been designated +at such a time. For had He not just now <q>overcome +the sharpness of Death</q>?) 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, +<emph>and here</emph>. This, therefore, is a slightly corroborative +circumstance,—not at all a ground of suspicion. +</p> + +<p> +(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> +(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> +(b) Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them +five hundred times, because he had occasion five hundred +<pb n="156"/><anchor id="Pg156"/> +times to speak of them;—what reason would <emph>that</emph> be for his +mentioning them here, where he is <emph>not</emph> speaking of them? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) It must be evident to any one reading the Gospel +with attention that besides οἱ μαθηταί,—(by which expression +S. Mark always designates <emph>the Twelve Apostles</emph>,)—there +was a considerable company of believers assembled together +throughout the first Easter Day.<note place="foot">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 <emph>habitually</emph> +present at such gatherings.</note> S. Luke notices this +circumstance when he relates how the Women, on their +return from the Sepulchre, <q>told all these things unto the +Eleven, and <emph>to all the rest</emph>,</q> (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, +<q>found the Eleven gathered together, <emph>and them that +were with them</emph></q> (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 <q><emph>them that had been with Him</emph></q> +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> +(VI.) We are next assured by our Critic that θεᾶσθαι <q>is +unknown to Mark;</q> but it occurs twice in this section, (viz. +in ver. 11 and ver. 14.) <emph>Another</emph> suspicious circumstance! +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>nowhere else</emph> 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 +<pb n="157"/><anchor id="Pg157"/> +verse: neither word being used on any other occasion <emph>either +by S. Matthew, or by any other Evangelist</emph>. 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> +(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> +(3.) None whatever, would have been the reply. But in +the meantime Dr. Davidson hints that the verb <emph>ought</emph> to have +been employed by S. Mark in chap. ii. 14.<note place="foot">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.</note>—It is, +I presume, sufficient to point out that S. Matthew, at all events, was +not of Dr. Davidson's opinion:<note place="foot">See S. Matth. ix. 9.</note> and +I respectfully submit that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here +<emph>writing about himself</emph>, must be allowed, just for once, to be +the better judge. +</p> + +<p> +(4.) In the meantime,—Is it not perceived that θεᾶσθαι +is the very word specially required in these two places,—though +<emph>nowhere else in S. Mark's Gospel</emph>?<note place="foot">One is reminded that +S. Matthew, in like manner, carefully <emph>reserves</emph> the verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii. +55: xxviii. 1) for the contemplation of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> +Cross and of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> Sepulchre.</note> The occasion is +one,—viz. the <q>beholding</q> of the person of the risen +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi>. Does not even natural piety suggest that the +uniqueness of such a <q>spectacle</q> as <emph>that</emph> 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 <q>a stumbling-block +and occasion of falling</q> in expressions like the present which +<q>should have been only for their wealth,</q> being so manifestly +designed for their edification. +</p> + +<pb n="158"/><anchor id="Pg158"/> + +<p> +(VII.) But,—(it is urged by a Critic of a very different +stamp,)—ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (ver. 11) <q>is a construction only +found here in the New Testament.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(1.) Very likely; but what then? The learned writer has +evidently overlooked the fact that the passive θεᾶσθαι occurs +but <emph>three times</emph> in the New Testament <emph>in +all</emph>.<note place="foot">S. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 5. S. Mark xvi. 11.</note> S. +Matthew, on the <emph>two</emph> occasions when he employs the word, connects it with +a dative.<note place="foot">Πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, (vi. 1); and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, +(xxiii. 5).</note> What is there <emph>suspicious</emph> 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,<note place="foot">S. Luke xii. 4.</note>—instead of making the verb govern +the accusative, as he does three times <emph>in the very next verse</emph>; and, +indeed, eleven times in the course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in +this instance is but copying S. Matthew, who <emph>also</emph> has μὴ +φοβεῖσθε ἀπό once;<note place="foot">S. Matth. x. 28.</note> 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> +(2.) In like manner, the phrase ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν +will be found to occur once, and once <emph>only</emph>, in S. Mark,—once, +and once only, in S. Luke;<note place="foot">S. Mark iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9.</note> +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 <emph>suspicious</emph>.—I pass on. +</p> + +<p> +(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> +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> +(1.) Where else in the course of this Gospel <emph>could</emph> ἀπιστεῖν +have occurred? Now, unless some reason can be shewn why +the word <emph>should</emph>, or at least <emph>might</emph> have been employed +elsewhere, to remark upon its introduction in this place, <emph>where it +<pb n="159"/><anchor id="Pg159"/> +could scarcely be dispensed with</emph>, 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, <emph>and there only</emph>, in this Gospel. +Nothing whatever follows from the circumstance. It is, in +fact, a point scarcely deserving of attention. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>exclusively used by S. Mark and S. Luke</emph>. And why +should not ἀπιστεῖν be, (as it is,) one of them? +</p> + +<p> +(3.) Note, next, that this word <emph>is used twice</emph>, and in the +course of his last chapter too, also <emph>by S. Luke</emph>. 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> +(4.) But, lastly, <emph>the noun</emph> 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,—<emph>this</emph> +one for example,—prove rather, on closer inspection, +to be confirmatory facts? +</p> + +<p> +(IX.) We are next assured that μετὰ ταῦτα (ver. 12) <q><emph>is +not found in Mark</emph>, though many opportunities occurred for +using it.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>nowhere</emph> +before does S. Mark employ <emph>any other phrase</emph> to express +<q>after these things,</q> or <q>after this,</q> or <q>afterwards.</q>) +</p> + +<pb n="160"/><anchor id="Pg160"/> + +<p> +But what is the obvious inference from the facts of the case, +as stated by the learned Critic, except that the blessed Evangelist +<emph>must be presumed to have been unconscious of any desire +to introduce the expression under consideration on any other occasion +except the present</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>never employs +it at all</emph>. Why, then,—I would respectfully inquire—<emph>why</emph> +need S. Mark introduce the phrase <emph>more than once</emph>? 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? <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,—<q>often as +he <emph>could</emph> have used it?</q> (Meyer's phrase here.<note place="foot">Professor +Broadus, <hi rend='italic'>ubi suprà</hi>.</note>)</q> +</p> + +<p> +(X.) Another objection awaits us,—<q>Ἓτερος also is unknown +to Mark,</q> says Dr. Davidson;—which only means +that the word occurs in chap. xvi. 12, but not elsewhere in +his Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +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> +(XI.) The same thing is said of ὕστερον (in ver. 14) viz. +that it <q>occurs nowhere</q> in the second Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +But why not state the case thus?—Ὕστερον, a word which +is twice employed by S. Luke, occurs only <emph>once</emph> in S. Mark +and <emph>once</emph> in S. John.—<emph>That</emph> 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> +(XII.) The same thing he says of βλάπτειν (in ver. 18). +</p> + +<p> +But what is the fact? The word occurs <emph>only twice in the +Gospels</emph>,—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 +<pb n="161"/><anchor id="Pg161"/> +and S. Luke. What possible significancy would Dr. Davidson +attach to the circumstance? +</p> + +<p> +(XIII.) Once more.—<q>πανταχοῦ</q> (proceeds Dr. Davidson) +<q>is unknown to Mark;</q> 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> +Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that it <emph>also</emph> occurs +in S. Mark i. 28. I respectfully differ from them in opinion: +but when it has been pointed out that the word <emph>is only used +besides in S. Luke</emph> ix. 6, what <emph>can</emph> be said of such Criticism but +that it is simply frivolous? +</p> + +<p> +(XIV. and XV.) Yet again:—συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν are +also said by the same learned Critic to be <q>unknown to +Mark.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>could</emph> 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> +(XVI.) <q>Πᾶσα κτίσις is Pauline,</q> proceeds Dr. Davidson, +(referring to a famous expression which is found in ver. 15.) +</p> + +<p> +(1.) All very oracular,—to be sure: but <emph>why</emph> πᾶσα κτίσις +should be thought <q>Pauline</q> rather than <q>Petrine,</q> I really, +once more, cannot discover; seeing that S. Peter has the expression +as well as S. Paul.<note place="foot">Col i. 15, 23. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(2.) In this place, however, the phrase is πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις. +But even this expression is no more to be called <q>Pauline</q> +than <q>Marcine;</q> 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> +(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 <emph>S. Mark alone of the Evangelists uses</emph>? +Its occurrence, therefore, in this place is a circumstance the +very reverse of suspicious. +</p> + +<p> +(4.) But lastly, inasmuch as the opening words of our +<pb n="162"/><anchor id="Pg162"/> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> 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 <emph>a direct reference</emph> to <emph>that</emph> place in S. Mark's +Gospel is contained in <emph>this</emph> place of S. Paul's Epistle? that +the inspired Apostle <q>beholding the universal tendency of +Christianity already realized,</q> announces (and from imperial +Rome!) the fulfilment of his <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> commands in his +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> +own words as recorded by the Evangelist S. Mark? +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 61;—seeing, +too, that it was in <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 61-2 (as Wordsworth and Alford are +agreed) that S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, and +wrote it from <emph>Rome</emph>;—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 +<emph>may</emph> be such as I have suggested,)—then, what an +august corroboration would <emph>this</emph> be of <q>the last Twelve +Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark!</q> ... 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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> great announcement concerning the <q>signs which +should follow them that believe!</q> Had he not himself <q>cast +out devils?</q>—<q>spoken with tongues more than they all?</q>—and +at Melita, not only <q>shaken off the serpent into the fire +and felt no harm,</q> but also <q>laid hands on the sick</q> father +of Publius, <q>and he had recovered?</q> ... To return, however, +to matters of fact; with an apology (if it be thought necessary) +for what immediately goes before. +</p> + +<p> +(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 +<pb n="163"/><anchor id="Pg163"/> +employing the preposition ἐπί:—(viz. in ix. 37: ix. 39: +xiii. 6.) +</p> + +<p> +(1.) Now really, if it were so, the reasoning would be nugatory. +<emph>S. Luke</emph> 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> +(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 <emph>corroborative</emph>, not a suspicious circumstance. +</p> + +<p> +(XVIII. and XIX.) We are further assured that παρακολουθεῖν +(in ver. 17) and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in ver. 20) <q>are both +<emph>foreign to the diction of Mark</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(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 <q>foreign to the diction of +Mark;</q> for there are no less than <emph>forty-two</emph> such verbs +which are even <emph>peculiar to S. Mark's short Gospel</emph>,—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 <emph>thirty-three</emph> such compounds, (besides the two before +us,) occur in his sixteen chapters.<note place="foot">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. <emph>Who</emph> 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.</note> What, then, I must +<pb n="164"/><anchor id="Pg164"/> +really ask, can the learned Critic possibly mean?—I respectfully +pause for an answer. +</p> + +<p> +(2.) In the meantime, I claim that as far as such evidence +goes,—(and it certainly goes a very little way, yet, <emph>as far as +it goes</emph>,)—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> +(XX.) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious circumstance, +that (in ver. 18) the phrase χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι +ἐπί τινα occurs; <q>instead of χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι τινι.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(1.) But on the contrary, the phrase <q><emph>is in Mark's manner</emph>,</q> +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.<note place="foot">S. Mark v. +23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23.</note>) +Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to as +a note of genuineness <emph>and</emph> as an indication of spurious origin. +What <emph>can</emph> be the value of such Criticism as this? +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>both</emph> 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.<note place="foot">S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix. +13, 15.</note> <emph>Who</emph> 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> +(XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος +(ver. 19 and ver. 20) are also declared to be <q><emph>foreign to the +diction of Mark</emph>.</q> I ask leave to examine these two charges +separately. +</p> + +<pb n="165"/><anchor id="Pg165"/> + +<p> +(1.) μὲν οὖν occurs only once in S. Mark's Gospel, truly: +but then <emph>it occurs only once in S. Luke</emph> (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> +(2.) As for ὁ Κύριος being <q><emph>foreign to the diction of Mark</emph> +in speaking of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>,</q>—I really do not know what +the learned Critic can possibly mean; except that he finds +our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> <emph>nowhere called</emph> ὁ Κύριος +<emph>by S. Mark, except in this place.</emph> +</p> + +<p> +But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does +he find our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> anywhere called by S. Mark +<q><hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus Christ</hi>,</q> 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 <emph>that</emph> expression in chap. i. 1. And so, +I venture to reply, there is a fully sufficient reason assignable +for the use of <emph>this</emph> expression in chap. xvi. 19.<note place="foot">See +below, pp. <ref target="Pg184">184-6</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> +is called Ἰησοῦς Χριστός,—but <emph>only in the first Chapter</emph> of +their respective Gospels. By S. Luke nowhere. The appellation +may,—or may not,—be thought <q>foreign to the +diction</q> 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> +(4.) S. John <emph>three times in the first verse of his first Chapter</emph> +designates the Eternal <hi rend="smallcaps">Son</hi> by the extraordinary title ὁ +Λόγος; but <emph>nowhere else in his Gospel</emph>, (except once in ver. +14,) does that Name recur. Would it be reasonable to represent +<emph>this</emph> as a suspicious circumstance? Is not the Divine +fitness of that sublime appellation generally recognised and +admitted?<note place="foot">See Pearson <hi rend='italic'>on the Creed</hi>, (ed. +Burton), vol. i. p. 151.</note>—Surely, we come to Scripture to be learners +only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to +have spoken about <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>! When will men learn that <q>the +<pb n="166"/><anchor id="Pg166"/> +Scripture-phrase, or <emph>language of the Holy +Ghost</emph></q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 183,—at the +beginning of the exposition of <q><emph>Our +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi></emph>.</q></note> is as +much above them as Heaven is above Earth? +</p> + +<p> +(XXIII.) Another complaint:—ἀναληφθῆναι, which is +found in ver. 19, occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. +</p> + +<p> +(1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs +which <q>occur nowhere else in the Gospels:</q> and this happens +to be one of them? What possible inconvenience can +be supposed to follow from that circumstance? +</p> + +<p> +(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. Ἀναληφθῆναι and +ἀνάληψις are words <emph>proper to the Ascension of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> +into Heaven</emph>. The two Evangelists who do <emph>not</emph> describe that +event, are <emph>without</emph> these words: the two Evangelists who <emph>do</emph> +describe it, <emph>have</emph> them.<note place="foot">S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. +51. Acts i. 2.</note> Surely, these are marks of genuineness, +not grounds for suspicion! +</p> + +<p> +It is high time to conclude this discussion.—Much has +been said about two other minute points:— +</p> + +<p> +(XXIV.) It is declared that ἐκεῖνος <q>is nowhere found +absolutely used by S. Mark:</q> (the same thing may be said +of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:) <q>but always emphatically: +whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely used.</q><note place="foot">Alford.</note> +Another writer says,—<q>The use of ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11, +and 13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with ὁ δέ, is +peculiar.</q><note place="foot">Davidson.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(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 <q>absolutely</q> +in two consecutive verses. +</p> + +<p> +(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves +as to <emph>which</emph> 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> +(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that <q>in the +10th and 14th verses there are sentences without a copulative: +<pb n="167"/><anchor id="Pg167"/> +whereas Mark always has the copulative in such cases, +particularly καί.</q> But then,— +</p> + +<p> +(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other +sections of S. Mark's Gospel <emph>resembling the present</emph>,—(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> +(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> +(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:—<q>Aye. +But men may not find fault with <emph>that</emph> 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 <q>the other Disciple</q> had many a time rehearsed in the +hearing of the wondering Church concerning the Magdalene +on the morning of the Resurrection.</q> And then we +should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth +Gospel:— +</p> + +<p> +γύναι τί κλαίεις; τίνα ζητεῖς; ἘΚΕΊΝΗ δοκοῦσα κ.τ.λ. +</p> + +<p> +After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all +strange, even though it be <q>without a copulative:</q>— +</p> + +<p> +ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. ἘΚΕΊΝΗ πορευθεῖσα κ.τ.λ. +</p> + +<p> +(4.) For after all, the <emph>only</emph> question to be asked is,—Will +any one pretend that such a circumstance as this is <emph>suspicious</emph>? +Unless <emph>that</emph> be asserted, I see not what is gained by +raking together,—(<emph>as one easily might do in any section of any +of the Gospels</emph>,)—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 +<pb n="168"/><anchor id="Pg168"/> +and represented as a note of spuriousness,—in the face of +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) the unfaltering tradition of the Church universal that +the document has <emph>never</emph> been hitherto suspected: and +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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> +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> +For if there really had remained after the discussion of +each of the foregoing XXV Articles, a slight residuum of +suspiciousness, <emph>then</emph> of course the aggregate of so many fractions +would have amounted to something in the end. +</p> + +<p> +But since it has been proved that there is absolutely +<emph>nothing at all</emph> suspicious in <emph>any</emph> of the alleged circumstances +which have been hitherto examined, the case becomes altogether +different. The sum of ten thousand nothings is still +nothing.<note place="foot">Exactly so Professor Broadus:—<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 <emph>littles</emph> may amount to much; but not so the +multiplication of <emph>nothings</emph>. +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?</q>—p. 360, (see above, p. <ref target="Pg139">139</ref>, note +g.)</note> This may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal +to the only charge which remains to be examined. +</p> + +<p> +(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> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The adverb εὐθέως (or εὐθύς) is indeed of <emph>very</emph> +frequent occurrence in S. Mark's Gospel. And yet its absence from +<pb n="169"/><anchor id="Pg169"/> +chap. xvi is <emph>proved</emph> to be in no degree a suspicious circumstance, +from the discovery that though it occurs as many as +</p> + +<p> +12 times in chap. i;<lb/> +and 6 times in chap. v;<lb/> +and 5 times in chap. iv, vi;<lb/> +and 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv;<lb/> +and 2 times in chap. vii, xi;<lb/> +it yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv;<lb/> +while it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi. +</p> + +<p> +(b) In like manner, πάλιν, which occurs as often as +</p> + +<p> +6 times in chap. xiv;<lb/> +and 5 times in chap. x;<lb/> +and 3 times in chap. viii, xv;<lb/> +and 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii;<lb/> +and 1 times in chap. iv, v;<lb/> +occurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.<note place="foot">S. John has πάλιν +(47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times). And +yet, πάλιν is not met with in the ii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi>, or the +iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi>, or the +v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, or the +vii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, or +the xv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, or the +xvii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> chapter of S. John's Gospel.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(1.) Now,—How can it possibly be more suspicious that +πάλιν should be absent from <emph>the last twelve</emph> verses of S. Mark, +than that it should be away from <emph>the first forty-five</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +(2.) Again. Since εὐθέως is not found in the xii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +or the xiii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> chapters of this same +Gospel,—nor πάλιν in the i<hi rend="vertical-align: super">st</hi>, +vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, +ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, or +xiii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> chapter,—(for the sufficient reason +that <emph>neither word is wanted in any of those places</emph>,)—what +possible <q>suspiciousness</q> can be supposed to result from the absence of +both words from the xvi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> chapter also, where +<emph>also</emph> neither of them is wanted? <emph>Why</emph> is the +xvi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> chapter of S. Mark's +Gospel,—or rather, why are <q>the last twelve verses</q> of it,—to +labour under such special disfavor and discredit? +</p> + +<p> +(3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,—<q>I am well aware that +arguments on <emph>style</emph> are often very fallacious, and that <emph>by +themselves</emph> 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.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, p. +256.</note>—For all +<pb n="170"/><anchor id="Pg170"/> +rejoinder, the respected writer is asked,—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) But when +there <emph>does not</emph> exist any such external evidence: what then? +Next, he is reminded (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) That whether there does, or does +not, it is at least certain that <emph>not one</emph> of those <q>proofs as to +style,</q> &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 <emph>mistakes</emph>;—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,—<emph>not</emph> that it is probably the work of another hand. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>thirteen</emph>, more or +less clearly witnessing <emph>in favour</emph> of the section.<note place="foot">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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> Ascension, viz. ἀνελήφθη +(in ver. 19):—and lastly, of the compounds παρακολουθεῖν +and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in verses 17 and 20.) +</p> + +<p> +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> +(xiv.) Ἀνίσταναι, for rising <emph>from the dead</emph>; which is one +<pb n="171"/><anchor id="Pg171"/> +of S. Mark's words. Taking into account the shortness of +his Gospel, he has it thrice as often as S. Luke; <emph>twelve times</emph> +as often as S. Matthew or S. John. +</p> + +<p> +(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,<note place="foot">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.</note>—of +which ver. 12 is one. +</p> + +<p> +(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> +(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> +(xviii.) The same <emph>words</emph> 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> +(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> +(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned +to vindicate <emph>the genuineness</emph> 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> +(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 <emph>two</emph> occasions; of which ch. xvi. 14 is one. +</p> + +<pb n="172"/><anchor id="Pg172"/> + +<p> +(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 <emph>twice</emph> used +by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present section. +</p> + +<p> +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> +(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> +(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observation +would have been that ἔχειν, in the sense of <q>to be,</q> (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> +(xxv.) They would have told us further that ἄῤῥωστος is +another of S. Mark's favorite words: for that he has it <emph>three</emph> +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> +(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> +(xxvii.) Lastly, <q>κατακρίνω (in ver. 16), instead of κρίνω, +is Mark's word, (comp. x. 33: xiv. 64).</q> 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> + +<pb n="173"/><anchor id="Pg173"/> + +<p> +Strange,—that there should be exactly <q>xxvii</q> notes of +genuineness discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of +<q>XXVII</q> grounds of suspicion! +</p> + +<p> +But enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage +review the progress hitherto made in this inquiry. +</p> + +<p> +I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing +assertions respecting the <q>Style</q> and <q>Phraseology</q> +of this section of the Gospel which were rehearsed at the +outset,<note place="foot">See above, p. <ref target="Pg146">146</ref>.</note>—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 <emph>proved</emph> to be above suspicion. <emph>That</emph> +character is rightly accounted <emph>blameless</emph> 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> +But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the +case in respect of the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel. Something +<emph>more</emph> 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> +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 <emph>themselves</emph>. 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 +<q>Concordance test,</q>—(for <emph>that</emph> is probably as apt and intelligible +a designation as can be devised for the purely <emph>mechanical</emph> +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 +<pb n="174"/><anchor id="Pg174"/> +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 <emph>the first</emph> twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are of a suspicious +character as <emph>the last</emph>.<note place="foot"><p>The reader will be perhaps +interested with the following passage in the +pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded to:—<q rend="pre">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.</q> +</p> +<p> +<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 <emph>number</emph> of peculiarities, they +certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford has laid +stress.</q>—p. 361.</p></note> In truth, except in very +skilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead. +</p> + +<p> +Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that <q>Mark +nowhere uses the appellation <hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus Christ</hi>:</q> and (ii.) that +<q>εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ</q> is <q><emph>Pauline</emph></q>—We should be +reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere introduces any +of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of +<q>Isaiah</q><note place="foot">Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.</note> (in ver. 2) is a +suspicious circumstance:—(iv.) that +a quotation from the Old Testament is <q>foreign to his manner,</q>—(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 <emph>two</emph> 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 <emph>unique</emph> designation, ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα (in ver. 5) +would be pronounced decisive against <q>the authorship of +Mark.</q>—(vii.) The same thing would be said of the <emph>unique</emph> +<pb n="175"/><anchor id="Pg175"/> +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.) <emph>That</emph> entire +expression in ver. 7 (<emph>unique</emph>, it must be confessed, in the Gospel,) +οὖ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανος—ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ, would be pronounced +<q>abhorrent to the style of Mark.</q>—(ix.) τὸ Πνεῦμα +<emph>twice</emph>, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we should be told is never +used by the Evangelist absolutely for the <hi rend="smallcaps">Holy Ghost</hi>: 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 <q>the inhabitants of Jerusalem:</q> 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 <q>cannot be Mark's;</q>—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 <q>unknown +to Mark:</q>—(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 <emph>twice</emph>, +(viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when <emph>S. Mark</emph> 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 <q>last twelve verses,</q> (that +πάλιν, a favourite adverb with S. Mark, is not found there,) +is here even more conspicuous. +</p> + +<p> +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> +V. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philosophical, +more <emph>real</emph> test than the coarse, uncritical expedient +<pb n="176"/><anchor id="Pg176"/> +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 <emph>every +principal characteristic of S. Mark's manner</emph>:—Thus, +</p> + +<p> +(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> +How many and how considerable are the <emph>new circumstances</emph> +which S. Mark here delivers!—(1) That Mary Magdalene +was <emph>the first</emph> to behold the risen <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi>: (2) +That it was <emph>He</emph> who had cast out from her the <q>seven devils:</q> (3) +<emph>How the men were engaged</emph> to whom she brought her joyful message,—(4) +who not only did not believe <emph>her</emph> story, but when +Cleopas and his companion declared what had happened to +themselves, <q><emph>neither believed they them</emph>.</q> (5) The terms of +the Ministerial Commission, as set down in verses 15 and 16, +are unique. (6) The announcement of the <q>signs which +should follow them that believe</q> is even extraordinary. +Lastly, (7) this is the only place in the Gospel where <emph>The +Session at the right Hand of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi></emph> 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> +(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, +<pb n="177"/><anchor id="Pg177"/> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) that in describing our +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> Baptism, it is only S. Mark who relates that <q>He +came <emph>from Nazareth</emph></q> to be baptized.—(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) +In his highly elliptical account of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> Temptation, +it is only he who relates that <q>He was <emph>with the wild +beasts</emph>.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 <q>in the ship <emph>with +the hired servants</emph>.</q><note place="foot">S. Mark i. 9: 14: 20.</note>—Now, +of this characteristic, we have +also within these twelve verses, at least four illustrations:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently +proceeded from an eye-witness,—<q>πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι.</q> +S. Mark relates that when Mary conveyed to the Disciples +the joyous tidings of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> Resurrection, +<emph>she found them overwhelmed with sorrow</emph>,—<q>mourning and weeping.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is +<emph>recorded only there.</emph> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciples +were <q>going into the country,</q> (πορευόμενοι εἰς ἀγρόν,<note place="foot">The same +word is found also in S. Luke's narrative of the same event, ch. xxiv. 13.</note> +ver. 12,) <hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi> also <q>went with +them</q>—(συν-επορεύετο, as +S. Luke relates;)—but that it was <emph>as they actually <q>walked</q> +along</emph> (περιπατοῦσιν) that this manifestation took place. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning +<q>them that believe;</q> what can be imagined more striking +than the promise that they should <q><emph>take up serpents</emph>;</q> and +suffer no harm even if they should <q><emph>drink any deadly thing</emph></q>? +</p> + +<p> +(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) +<pb n="178"/><anchor id="Pg178"/> +for S. Matthew's ἔκλαυσε μικρῶς (xxvi. 75);—and of ὁ τέκτων +(vi. 3) for ὁ τοῧ τέκτονος υιος (S. Matth. xiii. 55).—The +<q>woman of Canaan</q> in S. Matthew's Gospel (γυνὴ Χαναναία, +ch. xv. 22), is called <q>a Greek, a Syrophenician by +nation</q> in S. Mark's (Ἑλληνὶς, Συροφοίνισσα τῷ γένει, +ch. vii. 26).—At the Baptism, instead of the <q><emph>opened</emph></q> +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 <q><emph>cleaving</emph></q> or <q><emph>being rent +asunder</emph></q> (σχιζομένους,<note place="foot">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.)</note> 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> +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 <q><emph>their +eyes were holden</emph> that they should not know Him,</q> S. Mark +says that <q>He appeared to them <emph>in another form</emph>.</q> ... 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. <emph>Both</emph> are historically accurate, but they proceed +from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly +side, (God's side), the Disciples' <q>eyes</q> (of course) <q><emph>were +<pb n="179"/><anchor id="Pg179"/> +holden</emph>:</q>—viewed on the earthly side, (Man's side), the risen +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> (no doubt) <q><emph>appeared in another +form</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many +expressions into his Gospel which confirm the prevalent +tradition that it was <emph>at Rome</emph> he wrote it; and that it was +with an immediate view to <emph>Latin</emph> readers that it was published. +Twelve such expressions were enumerated above +(at p. <ref target="Pg150">150-1</ref>); 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 <emph>improbability</emph> +which attaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who +have considered this question the most. +</p> + +<p> +(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> +That the second Gospel contains many such hints has +often been pointed out; never more interestingly or more +convincingly than by Townson<note place="foot">Disc. v. Sect. ii.</note> 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> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Reference is made to our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> +sayings in S. Mark vii, and specially to what is found in ver. 19. <emph>That</emph> +expression, <q>purging all meats</q> (καθαρίζων<note place="foot">This appears to be +the true reading.</note> πάντα τὰ βρώματα), does +really seem to be no part of the Divine discourse; but the +Evangelist's inspired comment on the <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> +words.<note place="foot">So Chrysostom:—ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι <q>καθαρίζων τὰ +βρώματα,</q> ταῦτα ἔλεγεν. [vii. 526 a].—He seems to have derived that remark from +Origen [<hi rend='italic'>in Matth.</hi> ed. Huet. i. 249 +<hi rend="smallcaps">d</hi>]:—κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτὴρ <q>καθαρίζων +πάντα τὰ βρώματα.</q>—From the same source, I suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus +(Origen's disciple), Bp. of Neocæsarea in Pontus, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 261, +[<hi rend='italic'>Routh</hi>, iii. 257] derived the following:—καὶ ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁ +<q>πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα</q> οὐ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ, κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ +τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον.—See, by all means, Field's most interesting +<hi rend='italic'>Adnotationes in Chrys.</hi>, vol. iii. p. 112.... Εντευθεν (finely +says Victor of Antioch) ὁ καινὸς ἄρχεται νόμος ὁ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα. +(<hi rend='italic'>Cramer</hi> i. 335.)</note> +</p> + +<pb n="180"/><anchor id="Pg180"/> + +<p> +Our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> (he explains) by that discourse of His—ipso, +facto—<q><emph>made all meats clean</emph>.</q> 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 <q><hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> +<emph>had made clean</emph></q> (ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε<note place="foot">Acts x. 15.</note>) +<emph>all</emph> His creatures! +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Now, let a few words spoken by the same S. Peter on +a memorable occasion be considered:—<q>Wherefore of these +men which have companied with us all the time that the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord Jesus</hi> went in and out among us, <emph>beginning from the +Baptism of John</emph>, unto that same day that <emph>He was taken up</emph> +(ἀνελήφθη) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness +with us of His Resurrection.</q><note place="foot">Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. +2,—ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ... ἀνελήφθη.</note> Does not S. Peter thereby +define the precise limits of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> +Ministry,—shewing it to have <q>begun</q> (ἀρξάμενος) <q>from the Baptism of +John,</q>—and closed with the Day of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> +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 <emph>the Baptism of John</emph>,—and the utmost limit, +the day when (as S. Mark says) <q><emph>He was taken up</emph> (ἀνελήφθη) +into Heaven,</q>—(ch. xvi. 19)? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 <ref target="Pg162">162-3</ref>,)—that +both S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred writers) +conspire to use the expression ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.<note place="foot">S. Mark x. 6: +xiii. 19.—2 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.)</note> S. Mark +has besides κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισε ὁ Θεός (ch. xiii. 19); while +S. Peter alone styles the <hi rend="smallcaps">Almighty</hi>, from His work of Creation, +ὁ κτίστης (1 S. Pet. iv. 19). +</p> + +<p> +VI. But besides, and over and above such considerations +<pb n="181"/><anchor id="Pg181"/> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> 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> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Almighty God</hi> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Spirit</hi> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> +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 <q>trembleth at <hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> +Word.</q><note place="foot">Is. lxvi. 2.</note> 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 <q>the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> is in this place</q> although he <q>knew it not!</q> +</p> + +<p> +(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 +<pb n="182"/><anchor id="Pg182"/> +the <emph>Style</emph> 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.<note place="foot">See +above, p. <ref target="Pg143">143-5</ref>.</note> +We also instituted a brief comparison between +the two in order to discover whether the <emph>Diction</emph> of the one +might not possibly be found as suggestive of <emph>verbal</emph> doubts +as the diction of the other: and so we found it.<note place="foot">See above, p. +<ref target="Pg174">174-5</ref>.</note>—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 <emph>first</emph> chapter +which exactly correspond with the twelve verses of his <emph>last</emph> +chapter (ver. 9-20) which are the subject of the present volume. +</p> + +<p> +Now between these two sections of the Gospel, besides +(1) the obvious <emph>verbal</emph> resemblance, I detect (2) a singular +parallelism of <emph>essential structure</emph>. And this does not strike +me the less forcibly because nothing of the kind was to have +been <emph>expected</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(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 rend="latexcolumns: 'p{4.5cm} p{4.5cm}'"> +<row> + <cell> + (a) [βαπτίζων, βάπτισμα (i. 4)—καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο (i. 5)—ἐβάπτισα, + βαπτίσει (i. 8)]—καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη (i. 9) + </cell> + <cell> + (a) βαπτισθείς (xvi. 16) + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (b) [κηρύσσων, ἐκήρυσσδ (i. 7)] + </cell> + <cell> + (b) ἐκήρυξαν (xvi. 20) + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (b and c) κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (i. 14)—[ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (i. 1)] + </cell> + <cell> + (c) κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (xvi. 15) + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (c and d) πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (i. 15) + </cell> + <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.) + </cell> +</row> +</table> + +<p> +Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an +unmistakable relation of sympathy between the first page of +<pb n="183"/><anchor id="Pg183"/> +S. Mark's Gospel and the last. The same doctrinal phraseology,<note place="foot">My +attention was first drawn to this by my friend, the Rev. W. Kay, D.D.</note>—the +same indications of Divine purpose,—the same +prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both. +(i.) <emph>A Gospel</emph> to be everywhere <emph>preached</emph>;—(ii.) +<emph>Faith</emph>, to be of all required;—(iii.) <emph>Baptism</emph> to be +universally administered; <q>one <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>, one Faith, one +Baptism:</q>—Is not <emph>this</emph> 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 <emph>to clasp</emph>! +</p> + +<p> +(2.) But the <emph>essential</emph> 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 rend="latexcolumns: 'p{4.5cm} p{4.5cm}'"> +<row> + <cell> + (A) <hi rend='italic'>in ch.</hi> i. 9 <hi rend='italic'>to</hi> 11:—Our + <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> Manifestation to the World (ἐπιφανεία) on + <hi rend="smallcaps">His</hi> <q>coming up (ἀναβαίνων) out of the water</q> of + Jordan: (having been <q>buried by Baptism,</q> as the Apostle speaks:) when + the Voice from Heaven proclaimed,—<q>Thou art My beloved + <hi rend="smallcaps">Son</hi> in whom I am well pleased.</q> + </cell> + <cell> + (A) <hi rend='italic'>in ch.</hi> xvi. 9 <hi rend='italic'>to</hi> 11:—Our + <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> appearance to Mary Magdalene (ἐφάνη) after + <hi rend="smallcaps">His</hi> Resurrection (ἀναστάς) from death: <q>Thou art My + <hi rend="smallcaps">Son</hi>, this day have I begotten Thee.</q> + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> </cell> + <cell> + —12 <hi rend='italic'>to</hi> 14:—Two other Manifestations (ἐφανερώθη) + to Disciples. + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (B) —12, 13:—<hi rend="smallcaps">Christ's</hi> victory over Satan; + (whereby is fulfilled the promise <q>Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the + young lion and the dragon shalt Thou trample under feet.</q>) + </cell> + <cell> + (B) —17, 18:—<hi rend="smallcaps">Christ's</hi> promise that <q>they + that believe</q> <q>shall cast out devils</q> and <q>shall take up serpents:</q> (as + [in S. Luke x. 19] He had given the Seventy <q>power to tread on serpents and + scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy.</q>) + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (C) —8:—The Pentecostal Gift foretold: <q>He shall baptize you with + the <hi rend="smallcaps">Holy Ghost</hi>.</q> + </cell> + <cell> + (C) —17:—The chief Pentecostal Gift specified: <q>They shall speak with + new tongues.</q> + </cell> +</row> +</table> + +<pb n="184"/><anchor id="Pg184"/> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{4.5cm} p{4.5cm}'"> +<row> + <cell> + (D) <hi rend='italic'>in ch.</hi> i. 14, 15:—<hi rend="smallcaps">Christ</hi> + <q>comes into Galilee, preaching the Gospel ... and saying ... Repent ye, and + believe the Gospel.</q> + </cell> + <cell> + (D) <hi rend='italic'>in ch.</hi> xvi. 15, 16:—He commands His Apostles to + <q>go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth + and is baptized shall be saved.</q> + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (E) —15: His announcement, that <q>The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of + God is at hand.</q> + </cell> + <cell> + (E) —19:—S. Mark's record concerning Him, that <q>He was received up into + Heaven, and sat on the right hand of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi></q> (where He + must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet.) + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (F) —16 <hi rend='italic'>to</hi> 20:—The four Apostles' Call to the + Ministry: (which [S. Luke v. 8, 9] is miraculously attested.) + </cell> + <cell> + (F) —20:—The Apostles' Ministry, which is everywhere miraculously + attested,—<q>The <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> working with them, and + confirming the word by the signs that followed.</q> + </cell> +</row> +</table> + +<p> +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> +(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 (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 348) is found in the +one: the Xth Article, in the other.<note place="foot"><p>The Creed itself, (<q>ex +variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis collectum,</q>) may be seen at p. 84 of De +Touttée's ed. of Cyril. Let the following be compared:— +</p> +<p> +ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi. 19.) +</p> +<p> +ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ +ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ (<hi rend="smallcaps">Art. VI.</hi>) This may be seen <hi rend='italic'>in +situ</hi> at p. 224 <hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi> of Cyril. +</p> +<p> +βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ch. i. 4.) +</p> +<p> +ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (<hi rend="smallcaps">Art. X.</hi>) This may +be seen at p. 295 <hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi> of Cyril. +</p> +<p> +The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in Professor +Heurtley's little work <hi rend='italic'>De Fide et Symbolo</hi>, 1869, p. 9. +</p></note> If it be a purely fortuitous +<pb n="185"/><anchor id="Pg185"/> +circumstance, that two cardinal verities like these,—(viz. +<q><emph>He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right +Hand of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi></emph></q>—and <q><emph>One Baptism for the +Remission of sins</emph>,</q>) +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> +(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 <emph>the first</emph> verse +(S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title <q>Ἰησοῦς</q> +and <q>Χριστός,</q>—here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. +19, 20) is styled for the first and for the last time, <q>Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ</q>—the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>.<note place="foot">See above,—p. +<ref target="Pg165">165-6</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +And why? Because He who at His Circumcision was +named <q><hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi>,</q> (a Name which was given Him from +<emph>His Birth</emph>, yea, and before His Birth); He who at His Baptism +became <q>the <hi rend="smallcaps">Christ</hi>,</q> (a Title which belonged to +<emph>His Office</emph>, and which betokens His sacred <emph>Unction</emph>);—the +same, on the occasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the +Right Hand of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>,—when (as we know) <q>all power had +been given unto Him in Heaven and in Earth</q> (S. Matth. +xxviii. 18),—is designated by His Name of <emph>Dominion</emph>; <q>the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi></q> <hi rend="smallcaps">Jehovah</hi> ... <q>Magnifica +et opportuna appellatio!</q>—as Bengel well remarks. +</p> + +<p> +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, <emph>could</emph> have planted his foot +in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my +assertion is twofold:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) First, because the present indication that the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Holy Ghost</hi> was indeed the Author of these last Twelve Verses +is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson and his School, <emph>as +a proof of a spurious original</emph>. Verily, such Critics do not +recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they <emph>see</emph> it! +</p> + +<pb n="186"/><anchor id="Pg186"/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Next, as a matter of fact, we <emph>have</emph> +a spurious Supplement to the Gospel,—the same which was exhibited above +at p. <ref target="Pg123">123-4</ref>; and which may here be with advantage reproduced +in its Latin form:—<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.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Cod. Bobbiensis</hi> +(k): which however for <q>illis</q> has <q>et:</q> for <q>Petro,</q> +<q>puero:</q> and for <q>occidentem,</q> <q>orientem.</q> It also repeats <q>usque.</q> +I have ventured to alter <q>ab orientem</q> into <q>ab oriente.</q>—Compare what +is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given by White and Adler.</note>—Another +apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of the Thebaic version. +It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as follows:—<q>Exeuntes +terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evangelium +in mundo toto, <hi rend="smallcaps">Christo</hi> 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.</q> It will be seen +that the Title of <emph>Dominion</emph> (ὁ Κύριος—the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>) is found +in neither of these fabricated passages; but the Names of +<emph>Nativity</emph> and of <emph>Baptism</emph> +(Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός—<hi rend="smallcaps">Jesus</hi> and +<hi rend="smallcaps">Christ</hi>) occur instead. +</p> + +<p> +(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 +<emph>nowhere else</emph>. The writer,—supposing that he had only +S. Matthew's Gospel before him,—traverses (except in one +single instance) <emph>wholly new ground</emph>; 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 <emph>purposely</emph> to break away from +their guidance, and to adventure some extraordinary statement +<pb n="187"/><anchor id="Pg187"/> +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> +(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 <q>out of whom</q> the <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> <q>had cast seven +devils;</q> and <emph>that</emph>, 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.<note place="foot">See above (Art. II.) p. +<ref target="Pg152">152-3</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> +followers,—<q>τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις,</q>—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 <q>mourning and weeping</q> till after +sunrise on the first Easter Day. The reader is reminded of +what has been already offered on this subject, at p. <ref target="Pg155">155-6</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but +S. Mark, (or such an one as he<note place="foot">Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. +Acts ii. 14.</note>), would have familiarly designated +the Apostolic body as <q>αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἔνδεκα,</q> in ver. 14. +The phrase οἱ δώδεκα, he uses in proportion <emph>far</emph> oftener than +any other two of the Evangelists.<note place="foot">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.</note> And it is evident that +the phrase οἱ ἕνδεκα soon became an equally recognised designation +of the Apostolic body,—<q>from which Judas by +transgression fell.</q> Its familiar introduction into this place +by the second Evangelist is exactly what one might have +<pb n="188"/><anchor id="Pg188"/> +looked for, or at least what one is fully prepared to meet +with, <emph>in him</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(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> +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 <emph>out of the city of +Jerusalem</emph>.<note place="foot">Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. +John xviii. 1,—where the moment of departure <emph>from the city</emph> 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 <emph>without the gate</emph> is indicated: (for +ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider S. Luke xxi. +37.</note> And tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein contained a recollection +of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> command to His Apostles, twice +expressly recorded by S. Luke, <q>that they should <emph>not depart from +Jerusalem</emph>, but wait for the promise of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Father</hi>.</q> +<q>Behold,</q> (said He,) <q>I send the promise of My <hi rend="smallcaps">Father</hi> +upon you: but <emph>tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem</emph>, until ye be +endued with power from on high.</q><note place="foot">S. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. +4.</note>... After many days <q><emph>they went forth</emph></q> or +<q><emph>out</emph>.</q> S. Mark, (or perhaps it is +rather S. Peter,) expressly says so,—ἐξελθόντες. Aye, and +<emph>that</emph> was a memorable <q>outgoing,</q> truly! What else was +its purpose but the evangelization of the World? +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>Inconsistency</emph> +of certain statements contained in these <q>Twelve +Verses</q> with the larger notices contained in the parallel +narratives of S. Luke and S. John,—I proceed briefly to +explain <emph>why</emph> I am silent on this head. +</p> + +<p> +1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other +<pb n="189"/><anchor id="Pg189"/> +words,—what I should propose to myself as the end to be +attained by what I wrote. For, +</p> + +<p> +2. What would be gained by demonstrating,—(as I am +of course prepared to do,)—that there is really <emph>no inconsistency +whatever</emph> between anything which S. Mark here says, +and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should have +proved that,—(assuming the <emph>other</emph> 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 <emph>by whom</emph> is such proof required? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally +to be met with in the Evangelical narratives. In <emph>their</emph> estimation, +<emph>the genuineness of an inspired writing</emph> 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 <q>trifling,</q> +and the inaccuracies <q>minute,</q>—these <q>sound Theologians,</q> +(for so they style themselves,<note place="foot">See above, p. +<ref target="Pg002">2</ref>.</note>) <q>have no dread whatever +of acknowledging</q> their existence. Be it so. Then would +it be a gratuitous task to set about convincing <emph>them</emph> that +no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable within the +compass of these Twelve concluding Verses. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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:—"<hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> Word, +like all <hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> +other Works, (and I am taught to regard <hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> Word as +a very masterpiece of creative skill;)—the blessed Gospel, +I say, is <emph>full</emph> 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 +<pb n="190"/><anchor id="Pg190"/> +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> +This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon +a prolonged Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion +of <emph>the Principles of Gospel Harmony</emph>,—for which the +present would clearly not be the proper place. +</p> + +<p> +VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,— +</p> + +<p> +1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from <q>Style,</q> +(in itself a highly fallacious test,) disappears under investigation. +</p> + +<p> +It has been proved (pp. <ref target="Pg142">142-5</ref>) 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 <emph>it is rendered probable +by the Style</emph> that the Author of the beginning of this Gospel +was also the Author of the end of it. +</p> + +<p> +2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument +from <q>Phraseology,</q>—(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> +Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circumstances +in the Phraseology of these Twelve Verses, it has +been proved (pp. <ref target="Pg170">170-3</ref>) that in twenty-seven particulars there +emerge <emph>corroborative considerations</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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; <emph>a presumption</emph> of the highest +order is created <emph>that these Verses must needs be the work +of S. Mark</emph>. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="191"/><anchor id="Pg191"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter X. THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE +ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF +THESE VERSES."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter X."/> +<anchor id="Chapter_X"/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER X.</head> +<head>THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE +ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF +THESE VERSES.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +The Lectionary of the East shewn to be a work of extraordinary antiquity +(p. <ref target="Pg195">195</ref>).—Proved to be older than any extant MS. of the +Gospels, by an appeal to the Fathers (p. <ref target="Pg198">198</ref>).—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. <ref target="Pg204">204</ref>.)—Now, this +becomes the testimony of ante-Nicene Christendom in their favour (p. +<ref target="Pg209">209</ref>.) +</quote> + +<p> +I have reserved for the last the testimony of <hi rend="smallcaps">the Lectionaries</hi>, +which has been hitherto all but entirely overlooked;<note place="foot">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 <hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> (ed. 1803), vol. i. p. +748.—<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.</q>—Matthaei had slightly anticipated this in +his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.</note>—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 <emph>the united testimony of all +the Churches</emph>. It is therefore the evidence borne by a <q>goodly +fellowship of Prophets,</q> a <q>noble array of Martyrs</q> indeed; +as well as by <emph>MSS. innumerable which have long since +perished</emph>, 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 +<pb n="192"/><anchor id="Pg192"/> +most conveniently approached by some remarks which shall +rehearse the matter from the beginning. +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place="foot">Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν +ἀποστόλων διαδοχάς,—are <emph>the first words</emph> of the Ecclesiatical +History of Eusebius.</note> It +was found that <q>the Sacraments of the Jews are [but] types +of ours.</q><note place="foot">See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorised +Version.</note> Still were David's Psalms antiphonally recited, +and the voices of <q>Moses and the Prophets</q> were heard in +the sacred assemblies of God's people <q>every Sabbath day.</q> +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 <q>Eve</q> 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 <q>the rock whence we are hewn and the hole +of the pit whence we are digged:</q> only was it made a question, +a controversy rather, whether Easter should or should +not be celebrated <emph>with the Jews</emph>.<note place="foot">See Bingham's +<hi rend='italic'>Origines</hi>, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But it is the faithful handing on to the Christian community +of <emph>the Lectionary practice</emph> 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 +<pb n="193"/><anchor id="Pg193"/> +Martyr, (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 150) describes the Christian practice in his +time as precisely similar:<note place="foot">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.—<hi rend='italic'>Apol.</hi> i. c. 67, +(<hi rend='italic'>ed</hi>. Otto, i. 158.)</note> only that for <q>the Law,</q> there +is found to have been at once substituted <q>the Gospel.</q> He +speaks of the writings of <q><emph>the Apostles</emph></q> and of <q>the Prophets.</q> +Chrysostom has the same expression (for the two +Lessons) in one of his Homilies.<note place="foot">ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ, +τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν σήμερον διέλχθη, καὶ περὶ +τίνων;—(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ix. p. 697 <hi rend="smallcaps">e</hi>. +Field's text.)</note> Cassian (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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 <emph>on Saturdays</emph> and <emph>Sundays</emph>, +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.<note place="foot">Cassian +writes,—<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.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Instit.</hi> lib. ii. +c. 6. (<hi rend='italic'>ed</hi>.1733, p. 18.)</note> 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) +<q>Moses and the Prophets,</q> (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 <q>Epistles +or Acts,</q> together with a lesson out of the +<q>Gospels.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Constitutiones Apostolicae</hi>, +lib. ii. c. 57, 59: v. 19: viii. 5.</note> +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, <emph>in the autumn</emph>, (in September<note place="foot">See +Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 74, and the reff. in note (k) +overleaf.</note>); and +<pb n="194"/><anchor id="Pg194"/> +prescribes two immovable <q>Lections</q> for every <emph>Saturday</emph> (as +well as for every Sunday) in the year: differing chiefly in +this,—that the prominent place which had been hitherto assigned +to <q>the Law and the Prophets,</q><note place="foot">English readers may be referred +to Horne's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, &c. (<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> +1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps aware of the importance of +the preface to Van der Hooght's <hi rend='italic'>Hebrew Bible</hi>, +(<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 1705) § 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p. +352 <hi rend='italic'>b.</hi></note> was henceforth +enjoyed by the Gospels and the Apostolic writings. <q>Saturday-Sunday</q> +lections—(σαββατοκυριακαί, for so these Lections +were called,)—retain their place in the <q>Synaxarium</q> +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—<emph>not</emph> from the Sunday with which it +commences,<note place="foot">Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγου is <q>Quinquagesima +Sunday;</q> but <emph>the week</emph> of <q>the cheese-eater</q> is the week +<emph>previous</emph>.</note> but—from the Sabbath-and-Sunday with which +<emph>it concludes</emph>. 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 <q>μέγα σάββατον,</q><note place="foot">See Suicer's +<hi rend='italic'>Thesaurus</hi>, vol. ii. 920.</note> is discovered +to have borne the self-same appellation in the Church of the +Circumcision.<note place="foot"><q>Apud Rabbinos, לודגח תבש <emph>Sabbathum +Magnum</emph>. Sic vocatur Sabbathum proximum ante Pascha.</q>—Buxtorf, +<hi rend='italic'>Lexicon Talmud.</hi> p. 2323.</note>—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> +(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> +(II.) That although there happens to be extant neither +<q>Synaxarium,</q> (i.e. Table of Proper Lessons of the Greek +<pb n="195"/><anchor id="Pg195"/> +Church), nor <q>Evangelistarium,</q> (i.e. Book containing the +Ecclesiastical Lections <hi rend='italic'>in extenso</hi>), of higher antiquity than +the viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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 <emph>at least</emph> four, in fact by full <emph>five</emph> hundred years. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>invariably</emph> to occupy the +same singularly conspicuous, as well as most honourable +place. +</p> + +<p> +I. The first of the foregoing propositions is an established +fact. It is at least quite certain that in the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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 (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 348,) having to speak about our +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>'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;<note place="foot"><p>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. +<hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> xiv. c. 24. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> p. 217 +<hi rend="smallcaps">C, D</hi>.)—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, <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> p. +219 <hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>. A little lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, +τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν +Υἱόν.—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> <hi rend="smallcaps">D</hi>. +</p> +<p> +From this it becomes plain <emph>why Cyril nowhere quotes S. Mark</emph> xvi. +19,—<emph>or S. Luke</emph> xxiv. 51,—<emph>or Acts</emph> i. 9. +He must needs have enlarged upon those three <emph>inevitable</emph> places of +Scripture, the day before. +</p></note> and that he had availed +himself of the occasion to discourse largely on the subject.—Chrysostom, +preaching at Antioch, makes it plain that, in +<pb n="196"/><anchor id="Pg196"/> +the latter part of the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, the +order of the lessons which were publicly read in the Church <emph>on Saturdays and +Sundays</emph><note place="foot">See above, p. <ref target="Pg193">193</ref> and p. +<ref target="Pg194">194</ref>.</note> 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.<note place="foot">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. +<hi rend='italic'>Hom.</hi> i. (<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vii. 13 +<hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>.)—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. +<hi rend='italic'>Hom.</hi> ix, (<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> +viii. 62 <hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>.)</note>—Augustine is express in +recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for +Festival days;<note place="foot">It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching. +<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.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. iii. P. ii. p. 825, +<hi rend='italic'>Prol.</hi>)</note> and that an innovation which he had attempted +on Good Friday had given general offence.<note place="foot">The place will be found +quoted below, p. <ref target="Pg202">202</ref>, note (o).</note>—Now +by these few notices, to look no further, it is rendered certain +that a Lectionary system of <emph>some</emph> 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> +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.<note place="foot">See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more +full and satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve attention, +(<hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above, p. +<ref target="Pg045">45</ref>, notes (r) and (s).</note> +</p> + +<p> +II. The Oriental Lectionary consists of <q>Synaxarion</q> +and <q>Eclogadion,</q> (or Tables of Proper Lessons from the +Gospels and Apostolic writings daily throughout the year;) +<pb n="197"/><anchor id="Pg197"/> +together with <q>Menologion,</q> (or Calendar of immovable +Festivals and Saints' Days.) That we are thoroughly acquainted +with all of these, as exhibited in Codices of the +viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, +ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> and +x<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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.<note place="foot"><p>At the beginning of every +volume of the first ed. of his <hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> (Riga, 1788) Matthaei +has laboriously <emph>edited</emph> the <q>Lectiones Ecclesiasticæ</q> 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 +<q>B</q> and <q>H,</q> but which are <emph>our</emph> <q>Evstt. 47 and +50,</q>—uncial Evangelistaria of the viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century (See Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introd.</hi> p. 214.) +</p> +<p> +Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full the <q>Synaxarium</q> +and <q>Menologium</q> of Codd. K and M, (viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +or ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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 <q>Gospels +of the Passion</q> (τῶν ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472); +and so throughout. +</p> +<p> +Mr. Scrivener (<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the +most intelligible account of this matter, by exhibiting <emph>in English</emph> the +Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (<q>gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 547, +Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and Christ's Coll. Camb.</q>); and supplying the +references to Scripture in the ordinary way. See, by all means, his +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, pp. 62-65: also, pp. 211-225. +</p></note> But it is no less certain +that the scheme of Proper Lessons itself is of much +higher antiquity. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>had</emph> 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, +<pb n="198"/><anchor id="Pg198"/> +the employment of certain passages of Scripture is, in +a manner, inevitable,<note place="foot"><p>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. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. 88. +</p> +<p> +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.—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 89 <hi rend="smallcaps">D</hi>. +</p></note> and may on no account be pressed. +</p> + +<p> +2. Thus, when Chrysostom<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 454 +<hi rend="smallcaps">B, D</hi>.</note> and when +Epiphanius,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 290 +<hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>.</note> 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;<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. +357 <hi rend="smallcaps">E</hi>.</note> 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 +<emph>proof</emph> results therefrom that either chapter was actually used. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>a known +Ecclesiastical Lection</emph>; 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 <emph>the first words of +as many known Lections</emph>. <q>Let us attend to this delightful +section (περικοπή) which we never cease turning to,</q>—are +the opening words of Chrysostom's 79th Homily, of which +<q>the text</q> is S. Matth. xxv. 31, i.e. the beginning of the +Gospel for Sexagesima Sunday.—Cyril of Alexandria's (so +called) <q>Commentary on S. Luke</q> is nothing else but a +series of short Sermons, for the most part delivered on <emph>known +Ecclesiastical Lections</emph>; which does not seem to have been as +yet observed.—Augustine (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 416) says expressly that he +had handled S. John's Gospel in precisely the same way.<note place="foot"><q>Meminit +sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine lectionum nos solere +tractare.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. P. ii. 825 +<hi rend='italic'>Prol.</hi>)</note>—All this is significant in a high degree. +</p> + +<pb n="199"/><anchor id="Pg199"/> + +<p> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century,—and +which is contained in Syriac MSS. of the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +and vii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>—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<note place="foot">See Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 246.</note> into my foundations. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <q>Every one is aware,</q> (says Chrysostom in a sermon +on our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> Baptism, preached at Antioch, +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 387,) +<q>that this is called the Festival of the Epiphany. Two +manifestations are thereby intended: concerning both of +which <emph>you have heard this day S. Paul discourse in his Epistle +to Titus</emph>.</q><note place="foot">Chrysostom <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. +369 b, c.—Compare Scrivener, <hi rend='italic'>ubi supra</hi>, p. 75.</note> +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,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ed.</hi> Mabillon, p. +116.</note> the affinities of which with the +East are well known. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Epiphanius (speaking of the Feasts of the Church) +says, that at the Nativity, a Star shewed that the <hi rend="smallcaps">Word</hi> +had become incarnate: at the <q>Theophania</q> (<emph>our</emph> <q>Epiphany</q>) +John cried, <q>Behold the Lamb of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>,</q> &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> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 +<pb n="200"/><anchor id="Pg200"/> +liturgical arrangement of a yet earlier +age.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. iii. p. <hi rend="smallcaps">85 +b: 88 a</hi>:—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.</note>—After such an +announcement, it becomes a very striking circumstance that +Augustine also (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 412) should be found to bear witness to +the prevalence of the same liturgical arrangement in the +African Church.<note place="foot"><q>Anniversariâ sollemnitate post passionem Domini +nostis illum librum recitari.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. (P. ii.) p. 337 +<hi rend="smallcaps">g</hi>.</note> 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 <q><emph>making some advantageous alterations</emph></q> +in our Lectionary, have constructed an entirely new one,—vicious +in principle and liable to the gravest objections +throughout,—whereby <emph>this</emph> link also which bound the Church +of England to the practice of Primitive Christendom, has +been unhappily broken; <emph>this</emph> note of Catholicity also has +been effaced.<note place="foot"><p>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> +Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered. +</p> +<p> +Appointed (in 1867) for an <emph>entirely</emph> different purpose, (viz. the Ornaments +and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and 15 Lay) found +themselves further instructed <q>to suggest and report <emph>whether any and what +alterations and amendments may be advantageously made</emph> in the selection of +Lessons to be read at the time of Divine Service.</q> +</p> +<p> +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 <emph>an +entirely new Lectionary for the Church of England</emph>. +</p> +<p> +So to mutilate the Word of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> 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> +That the blame, <emph>the guilt</emph> lies at the door of <emph>our Bishops</emph>, +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. <emph>Can</emph> 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,) <hi rend='italic'>liberavi animam meam</hi>. +</p></note> +</p> + +<pb n="201"/><anchor id="Pg201"/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) The purely arbitrary arrangement, (as Mr. Scrivener +phrases it), by which the Book of Genesis, instead of the +Gospel, is appointed to be read<note place="foot">A trace of this remains in the +old Gallican Liturgy,—pp. 137-8.</note> on the <emph>week</emph> 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.<note place="foot">Bingham, xiv. iii. 3.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> <q>Agony +and bloody Sweat,</q> <emph>immediately after S. Matth.</emph> xxvi. 39. +<emph>That</emph> 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;<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. vii. p. 791 B.</note> +which shews that the Lectionary system of the Eastern +Church in this respect is at least as old as the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) The same two verses used to be <emph>left out</emph> +on the Tuesday after Sexagesima (τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου) for which day S. Luke +xxii. 39-xxiii. 1, is the appointed lection. And <emph>this</emph> explains +why Cyril (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 425) in his Homilies on S. Luke, +passes them by in silence.<note place="foot">See Dean Payne Smith's Translation, p. +863.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But we can carry back the witness to the Lectionary practice +of omitting these verses, at least a hundred years; for +<pb n="202"/><anchor id="Pg202"/> +Cod. B, (evidently for that same reason,) <emph>also</emph> omits them, +as was stated above, in p. <ref target="Pg079">79</ref>. They are wanting also in the +Thebaic version, which is of the iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> century. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) It will be found suggested in the next chapter (page +<ref target="Pg218">218</ref>) that the piercing of our +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century. But see +<ref target="Appendix_H">Appendix (H)</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) 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 <emph>alone</emph> on the evening +of Good Friday. Chrysostom clearly alludes to this practice;<note place="foot">κατὰ +τὴν μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα ἀναγινώσκεται.—Chrys. +<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vii. 818 <hi rend="smallcaps">c</hi>.</note> +which Augustine expressly states was also the practice +in his own day.<note place="foot"><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.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. v. p. 980 +<hi rend="smallcaps">e</hi>.</note> Traces of the same method are +discoverable in the old Gallican +Lectionary.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ed.</hi> Mabillon, pp. 130-5.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>i</hi>) Epiphanius, (or the namesake of his who was the +author of a well-known Homily on Palm Sunday,) remarks +that <q>yesterday</q> had been read the history of the rising +of Lazarus.<note place="foot">Epiph. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 152-3.</note> +Now S. John xi. 1-45 is the lection for the +antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>k</hi>) 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, <emph>that</emph> very fact becomes +irrefragable evidence of the antiquity of the Lectionary +which is the occasion of it. Not only must it be more +<pb n="203"/><anchor id="Pg203"/> +ancient than Cod. B or Cod. א, (which are referred to the +beginning of the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century), but it must +be older than Origen in the iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> century, or +the Vetus Itala and the Syriac in the ii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi>. +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> and +vii<hi rend="vertical-align: syper">th</hi> century, and was in +fact constructed in precisely the same way. +</p> + +<p> +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, +<emph>must of necessity have been established very long before</emph>. It is +as when we read of three British Bishops attending the +Council at Arles, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 314. The Church (we say) which +could send out those three Bishops must have been <emph>fully +organized</emph> at a greatly antecedent period. +</p> + +<p> +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. <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 386) to be the five +following:—(1) Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3) Pascha: (4) +Ascension: (5) Pentecost.<note place="foot">Chrys. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> i. +497 <hi rend="smallcaps">c</hi>.</note> Epiphanius, his contemporary, +(Bishop of Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the +same enumeration,<note place="foot">Epiph. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 285-6.</note> +in a Homily on the Ascension.<note place="foot"><p>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> +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></note> In the Apostolical Constitutions, the same five Festivals are +enumerated.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Constt. Apostt.</hi> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Book of the Constitutions was written +or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly assigned to the work.]</note> Let +me state a few Liturgical facts in connexion with each of these. +</p> + +<pb n="204"/><anchor id="Pg204"/> + +<p> +It is plain that the preceding enumeration could not have +been made at any earlier period: for the Epiphany of our +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> and His Nativity were originally but one +Festival.<note place="foot">Bingham's <hi rend='italic'>Origines</hi>, B. xx. c. iv. § +2.</note> Moreover, the circumstances are well known under which +Chrysostom (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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.<note place="foot">Chrys. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 355. (See the +<hi rend='italic'>Monitum</hi>, p. 352.)</note> +But this is not material to the present inquiry. +We know that, as a matter of fact, <q>the Epiphanies</q> (for +τὰ ἐπιφανία is the name of the Festival) became in consequence +distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5: our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> +<emph>Baptism</emph> being the event chiefly commemorated on the latter +anniversary,<note place="foot">Chrys. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 369 +<hi rend="smallcaps">d</hi>.</note>—which used to be chiefly observed in honour +of His <emph>Birth</emph><note place="foot">Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. +<hi rend="smallcaps">li</hi>, c. xvi. (<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> i. 439 +<hi rend="smallcaps">a</hi>.)</note>—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 +<q>Homily</q> which has already engaged so much of our attention,<note place="foot">See +above, pp. <ref target="Pg058">58-9</ref> and <ref target="Pg067">67</ref>.</note> +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 <emph>S. Mark's</emph> with the rest.—Chrysostom +once and again adverts to the practice of discontinuing the +reading of the Acts after Pentecost,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> +iii. 102 <hi rend="smallcaps">b</hi>. See Bingham on this entire +subject,—<hi rend="smallcaps">b</hi>. xiv, c. iii.</note>—which +is observed to be also the method of the Lectionaries. +</p> + +<p> +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;<note place="foot"><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.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Ep.</hi> ad Januarium, +(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 124 <hi rend="smallcaps">b, c</hi>).</note> so +exceedingly +<pb n="205"/><anchor id="Pg205"/> +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> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The Lesson for Matins <emph>on Ascension-Day</emph> in the +East, in the oldest documents to which we have access, consisted +(as now it does) of <emph>the last Twelve Verses</emph>,—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 <q>Synaxaria</q> is constant to this effect. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The same lection precisely was adopted among the +Syrians by the Melchite Churches,<note place="foot"><q>Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam +Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos, ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in +Euchar. lect. sext. Resurrect.</q>—But <q>Lect. γ Resurrectionis</q> is <q>Marc. +xvi. 9-20:</q> <q>Lect. σ,</q> <q>Luc. xxiv. 36-53.</q>—See Dean Payne Smith's +<hi rend='italic'>Catalogus Codd. Syrr.</hi> (1864) pp. 116, 127.</note>—(the +party, viz. which maintained the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon): and it +is found appointed also in the <q>Evangeliarium +Hierosolymitanum.</q><note place="foot">See above, p. <ref target="Pg034">34</ref>, note +(e).</note> 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, +<emph>the last seven</emph> verses of S. Mark's Gospel (ch. xvi. 14-20) +were read <emph>at the Liturgy</emph>.<note place="foot">R. Payne Smith's +<hi rend='italic'>Catal.</hi> p. 148.</note> Strange, that the self-same Gospel +should have been adopted at a remote age by some of +the Churches of the West,<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Hieronymi Comes</hi>, +(<hi rend='italic'>ed</hi>. 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. <ref target="Pg118">118</ref>, +line 22-8.</note> and should survive in our own +Book of Common Prayer to this hour! +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 <q><emph>Matin Gospels +of the Resurrection</emph></q> which were universally held in high +<pb n="206"/><anchor id="Pg206"/> +esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian<note place="foot">Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ +ἑωθινά. See Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 72, and +R. P. Smith's Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer's <hi rend='italic'>Thes. +Eccl.</hi> i. 1229.</note>), and +were read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the +year; as well as daily throughout Easter week. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) A rubricated copy of S. Mark's Gospel in +Syriac,<note place="foot">Dr. Wright's <hi rend='italic'>Catal.</hi> p. 70, No. cx. +(Addit. 14,464: <hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 61<hi rend='italic'> b.</hi>)</note> +<emph>certainly older than <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi></emph> 583, attests that +S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was the <q>Lection for the great First Day of the week,</q> (μεγάλη +κυριακή, i.e. Easter Day). Other copies almost as +ancient<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> No. lxx +(<hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 92 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>), and lxxii +(<hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 87 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>).</note> +add that it was used <q>at the end of the Service at the dawn.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Further, these same <q>Twelve Verses</q> constituted the +Lesson at Matins for <emph>the 2nd Sunday after Easter</emph>,—a Sunday +which by the Greeks is called κυριακή τῶν μυροφόρων, but +with the Syrians bore the names of <q>Joseph and Nicodemus.</q><note place="foot"><q>Quae +titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.</q> (R. Payne Smith's +<hi rend='italic'>Catal.</hi> p. 116.)—In the <q>Synaxarium</q> of Matthaei +(<hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> 1803, i. p. 731) it +is styled Κ. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου.</note> +So also in the <q>Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark +xvi. 9-18 (or 9-20<note place="foot">Adler's <hi rend='italic'>N. T. Verss. Syrr.</hi> +p. 71.</note>) was also read at Matins on +<emph>Easter-Tuesday</emph>.<note place="foot">Dean Payne Smith's +<hi rend='italic'>Catal.</hi> p. 146.</note> +In the Gallican Church, the third lection for +<emph>Easter-Monday</emph> extended from S. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 11: for +<emph>Easter-Tuesday</emph>, from xvi. 12 to the end of the +Gospel.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ed.</hi> Mabillon, pp. 144-5.</note> +Augustine says that in Africa also these concluding verses +of S. Mark's Gospel used to be publicly read <emph>at Easter +tide</emph>.<note place="foot"><q>Resurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis +diebus [Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.</q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> v. 977 <hi rend="smallcaps">c</hi>)—<q>Quoniam +hoc moris est ... <emph>Marci Evangelium</emph> est quod modo, cum legeretur, +audivimus.</q> <q>Quid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?</q> And he subjoins a quotation +from S. Mark xvi. 12.—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> <hi rend="smallcaps">997 f, +998 b</hi>.</note> +The same verses (beginning with ver. 9) are indicated in the +oldest extant Lectionary of the Roman +Church.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Hieron. Comes</hi> +(<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Pamel. ii. 27.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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.<note place="foot">So Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 75.—Little stress, however, is to be laid +on Saint's Day lessons. In Matthaei's <q>Menologium</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Nov. +Test.</hi> 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.</note> +</p> + +<pb n="207"/><anchor id="Pg207"/> + +<p> +<emph>He</emph> knows wondrous little about this department of Sacred +Science who can require to be informed that such a weight +of <emph>public</emph> 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> +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> +(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, <emph>at least</emph> 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 <emph>at least at that time</emph> fully established throughout the +Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, which seems to have +been essentially one and the same in the West<note place="foot">Note, (in addition to +all that has gone before,) that the Festivals are actually designated by their +<emph>Greek</emph> names in the earliest Latin Service Books: not only <q>Theophania,</q> +<q>Epiphania,</q> <q>Pascha,</q> <q>Pentecostes,</q> (the second, third and fourth of +which appellations survive in the Church of the West, <hi rend='italic'>in memoriam</hi>, +to the present hour;) but <q>Hypapante,</q> which was the title bestowed by the +Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of the +Purification, or Presentation of <hi rend="smallcaps">Christ</hi> in the Temple,) from +the <q>Meeting</q> of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκευή, was called +<q><hi rend='italic'>Parasceve</hi></q> in the West. (Mab. <hi rend='italic'>Lit. +Gall.</hi> 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.</note> 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 <emph>anterior to the age of +<pb n="208"/><anchor id="Pg208"/> +Eusebius,—which is the age of Codices B and</emph> א,—at least +admits of <emph>no</emph> controversy. +</p> + +<p> +(2.) Next,—Documents of the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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,<note place="foot">From Professor Wright's +<hi rend='italic'>Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum</hi> (1870) it +appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is dated <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> +824; the oldest Nestorian, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 862; the oldest Malkite, +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; +14,492; and 14,488.—See his <hi rend='italic'>Catalogue</hi>, Part I. pp. 146, +178, 194.</note> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century was universally acquainted. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>that</emph> 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 <emph>there they still are</emph>. Moreover they +may yet reappear at any moment. Thus, there exist Syriac +MSS. of the Gospels of the vii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> and even of +the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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 +<emph>dated</emph> <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 464.<note place="foot">It is +exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus (A.)</note> Should an +Evangelium of similar date +<pb n="209"/><anchor id="Pg209"/> +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> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +and even in the iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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 <emph>the age immediately +succeeding that of the Apostles</emph>. This will be found established +in the course of the ensuing Chapter. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>quite</emph>,—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> +(3.) Into this Lectionary then,—so universal in its extent, +so consistent in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,—<q><emph>the</emph> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Last Twelve Verses</hi> <emph>of the Gospel according to +S. Mark</emph></q> from the very first are found to have won for +themselves not only an entrance, a lodgment, an established +place; but, <emph>the place of highest honour</emph>,—an audience on two +of the Church's chiefest Festivals. +</p> + +<p> +The circumstance is far too important, far too significant +to be passed by without a few words of comment. +</p> + +<p> +For it is not here, (be it carefully observed,) as when +<pb n="210"/><anchor id="Pg210"/> +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. <emph>All +the Twelve Verses in dispute are found in every known copy</emph> +of the venerable Lectionary of the East. <emph>Those same Twelve +Verses</emph>,—neither more nor less,—<emph>are observed to constitute +one integral Lection</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>two</emph> 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 <q>fragment,</q> however +<q>remarkable,</q> could by possibility have so established itself +in the regards of the East and of the West, from the very +first. No suspected <q>addition, placed here in very early +times,</q> would have been tolerated in the Church's solemn +public Service six or seven times a-year. No. <emph>It is impossible.</emph> +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 <hi rend='italic'>pericopa +de adulterâ</hi>) 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:—<emph>this</emph> 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 +<pb n="211"/><anchor id="Pg211"/> +senses? or do they really suppose that we have taken leave +of ours? +</p> + +<p> +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. <emph>They</emph> may doubt. <emph>The ante-Nicene +Fathers</emph> at least never doubted. If <q>the last Twelve +Verses</q> of S. Mark were <emph>deservedly</emph> omitted from certain +Copies of his Gospel in the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, +utterly incredible is it that these same <hi rend="smallcaps">Twelve Verses</hi> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Easter</hi> time, as well as on +<hi rend="smallcaps">Ascension-Day</hi>. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="212"/><anchor id="Pg212"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter XI. THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN +ANCIENT COPIES OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND +ACCOUNTED FOR."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter XI."/> +<anchor id="Chapter_XI"/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER XI.</head> +<head>THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN +ANCIENT COPIES OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND +ACCOUNTED FOR.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +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. +<ref target="Pg217">217</ref>).—The omission of S. Mark's <q>last Twelve +Verses,</q> (constituting an integral Ecclesiastical Lection,) shewn to be probably +only one more example of the same depraving influence (p. <ref target="Pg224">224</ref>). +This solution of the problem corroborated by the language of Eusebius +and of Hesychius (p. <ref target="Pg232">232</ref>); as well as favoured by the +<q>Western</q> order of the Gospels (p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>). +</quote> + +<p> +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> +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 <emph>their genuineness</emph> was anciently <emph>suspected</emph>. 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 +<q>the entire passage</q><note place="foot">The reader is requested to refer back to p. +<ref target="Pg045">45</ref>, and the note there.—The actual words of Eusebius +are given in <ref target="Appendix_B">Appendix (B)</ref>.</note> was <q>not met with +in all the copies,</q> is the sum of his evidence: and two Greek manuscripts, yet +extant, supposed to be of the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century +(Codd. B and א), mutilated in this precise way, testify to the truth of his +statement. +</p> + +<p> +2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Verses,—neither +more nor less,—anciently constituted <emph>an integral +<pb n="213"/><anchor id="Pg213"/> +Ecclesiastical Lection</emph>; 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. <ref target="Pg045">45</ref>), +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 <emph>interdependent</emph>? Will not the omission +of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark from certain +ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way <emph>occasioned +by the fact</emph> 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 <emph>to be explained</emph>, and in a word <emph>accounted +for</emph>,—by the circumstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark's +xvi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> chapter, one ancient Lection <emph>came +to an end</emph>, and another ancient Lection <emph>began</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n="214"/><anchor id="Pg214"/> +Evidence; and I am much mistaken if even <emph>he</emph> 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> +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> +I. From the earliest ages of the Church, (as I shewed +at page <ref target="Pg192">192-5</ref>,) 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>Evangelistarium</hi>,</q> (εὐαγγελιστάριον,)—from +the Acts and Epistles, in a book called <q><hi rend='italic'>Praxapostolus</hi>,</q> +(πραξαπόστολος). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and Syriac, +are yet extant in great numbers,<note place="foot">See the enumeration of Greek +Service-Books in Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, &c. pp. 211-25. +For the Syriac Lectionaries, see Dean Payne Smith's <hi rend='italic'>Catalogue</hi>, +(1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also Professor Wright's <hi rend='italic'>Catalogue</hi>, +(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.</note> +and (I may remark in +<pb n="215"/><anchor id="Pg215"/> +passing) deserve a far greater amount of attention than has +hitherto been bestowed upon them.<note place="foot"><q>Evangelistariorum codices literis +uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.</q> +Tischendorf, quoted by Scrivener, [<hi rend='italic'>Introduction to Cod. +Augiensis</hi>,—80 pages which have been separately published and are +<emph>well</emph> deserving of study,—p. 48,] who adds,—<q>I cannot even +conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be thought of less value than another +MS. of the same age.</q>—See also Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, &c. p. 211.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<emph>When</emph> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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> +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 <emph>to adapt copies of the Gospel +to lectionary purposes</emph>. I suspect that this practice began in +the Churches of Syria; for Syriac copies of the Gospels (<emph>at +least</emph> of the vii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century) abound, +which have the Lections more or less systematically rubricated in the +Text.<note place="foot">e.g. <hi rend='italic'>Addit. MSS.</hi> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Catalogue</hi>.</note> There +is in the British Museum a copy of S. Mark's Gospel according +to the Peshito version, <emph>certainly written previous to +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi></emph> 583, which has at least five or six rubrics so +inserted by the original scribe.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Addit.</hi> MS. +14,464. (See Dr. Wright's <hi rend='italic'>Catalogue</hi>, p. 70.)</note> As a rule, +in all later cursive Greek MSS., (I mean those of the +xii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> to the +xv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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 <emph>when</emph> the ensuing +portion of Scripture was to be read. The ancients, to +a far greater extent than ourselves,<note place="foot">Add to the eight examples +adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of C. P., (<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, +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. +<ref target="Pg220">220</ref>), All Saints.</note> were accustomed,—(in +<pb n="216"/><anchor id="Pg216"/> +fact, they made it <emph>a rule</emph>,)—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.<note place="foot">Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke +vii. 31) <emph>which introduce an Ecclesiastical Lection</emph> (Friday in the +iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd </hi> week of S. Luke,) inasmuch as the +words are found in <emph>no</emph> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Sunday after Pentecost <emph>begins at that +place</emph>.—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 <emph>no</emph> 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 <q>Ο ΙΣ</q> +in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,) <hi rend='italic'>rubro</hi> above <emph>the same +contraction</emph> (for ὁ Ἰησους) in the text.</note> All that belongs to this +subject deserves particular attention; because it is <emph>this</emph> 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 <emph>liturgical note</emph>, became mistaken, through +the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a <emph>critical +suggestion</emph>; 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 <emph>systematic</emph> rubrication of +the Gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively recent +invention,—(I question if it be older in Greek MSS. than +the x<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century,)—yet +will persons engaged in the public Services of <hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> +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 +<pb n="217"/><anchor id="Pg217"/> +the text of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail to +add, that by a judicious, and above all by an <emph>unprejudiced</emph> +use of the materials at our disposal, it may, even at this +distance of time, in every such particular, be successfully +restored.<note place="foot">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 <emph>only because they agree with B</emph>), as an all but infallible guide in +settling the text of Scripture; and quietly taking it for granted that <emph>all the +other MSS. in existence</emph> 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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +III. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances, +that <emph>even in the oldest copies in existence</emph>, 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 <hi rend='italic'>primâ facie</hi> improbability will have been satisfactorily +disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such +a disturbing force and depraving influence, <emph>at least</emph> as far +back as the beginning of the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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 <q>the last Twelve Verses</q> of +S. Mark's Gospel is probably but one more instance,—though +confessedly by far the most extraordinary of any. +</p> + +<p> +(1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, the two +grand verses which describe our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> <q>Agony and Bloody +Sweat,</q> (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. <q>Confessedly erring,</q> 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.<note place="foot">See Matthaei's note on S. Luke xxii. 43, +(<hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test. ed.</hi> 1803.)</note> Of course they are also +<emph>omitted</emph> in the same Evangelistaria from the lesson for the Tuesday +<pb n="218"/><anchor id="Pg218"/> +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, <emph>the reader of S. Luke +xxii. is invariably directed by a marginal note to leave out those +two verses</emph>, and to proceed per saltum from ver. 42 to ver. +45.<note place="foot"><p>This will be best understood by actual reference to a +manuscript. In Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions are +given as follows. After τὸ σὸν γενέσθω (i.e. the last words of ver. 42), is written +ὑπέρβα εἰς τὸ τῆς γ᾽. Then, at the end of ver. 44, is written—ἄρχου τῆς γ᾽, +after which follows the text καὶ ἀναστὰς, &c. +</p> +<p> +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> +Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after +S. Luke xxii. 42, <emph>besides</emph> 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> +[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></note> +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> +(2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. א, C, L, U and Γ +are observed here to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> 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 +<pb n="219"/><anchor id="Pg219"/> +πλευρὰν: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα. (Chrysostom's codex was +evidently vitiated in <emph>precisely</emph> the same way.) This interpolation +therefore may have resulted from the corrupting influence +of Tatian's (so-called) <q>Harmony.</q> See <ref target="Appendix_H">Appendix (H)</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(3.) To keep on safe ground. Codd. B and D concur in what +Alford justly calls the <q>grave error</q> of simply omitting +from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> 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 <q>grave error</q> in so many ancient +MSS. to be accounted for? (for a <q>grave error</q> or rather +<q>a fatal omission</q> it certainly is). Simply by the fact that +in the Eastern Church the Lection for the Thursday after +Sexagesima <emph>breaks off abruptly, immediately before these very +words</emph>,—to recommence at ver. 44.<note place="foot">See by all means +Matthaei's <hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> (ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and 492.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(4.) Note, that at ver. 32, <emph>the eighth <q>Gospel of the Passion</q> +begins</emph>,—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> +(If I do not here insist that the absence of the famous +<hi rend='italic'>pericopa de adulterâ</hi> (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, <emph>leaving out the twelve verses</emph> 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> + +<pb n="220"/><anchor id="Pg220"/> + +<p> +(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 <emph>Ecclesiastical lection begins +here</emph>, and that the Evangelistaria (which <emph>invariably</emph> 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,<note place="foot">See above, p. +<ref target="Pg075">75</ref>, note (h).</note>) 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> +(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 <emph>the liturgical +introduction of a Church-lesson</emph><note place="foot">For the 5th Sunday of S. +Luke.</note> which afterwards began εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν +ταύτην.<note place="foot">Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual +accuracy, points out several: e.g. <hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> (1788) vol. i. +p. 19 (<hi rend='italic'>note</hi> 26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10 +(<hi rend='italic'>note</hi> 12), p. 14 (<hi rend='italic'>notes</hi> 14 and 15), +&c.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv. +begin with <emph>the liturgical formula</emph>,—(it survives in our Book of +Common Prayer<note place="foot">SS. Philip and James.</note> 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 <emph>throughout</emph> 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> +(8.) Cod. A, (supported by Athanasius, the Vulgate, +Gothic, and Philoxenian versions,) for καί, in S. Luke ix. 57, +<pb n="221"/><anchor id="Pg221"/> +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 +<emph>an Ecclesiastical lection begins here</emph>.<note place="foot">viz. σαββάτῳ θ: +i.e. the ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Saturday in S. Luke.—Note +that Cod. A also reads ἐγένετο δέ in S. Lu. xi. 1.</note> In different Churches, +the formula with which the lection was introduced slightly +differed. +</p> + +<p> +(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. <emph>The Ecclesiastical +lection</emph> for Wednesday in the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +week after Pentecost <emph>begins at that place</emph>; and begins with the +formula,—ἐν τῷ καίρῳ ἐκεινῳ, ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὀνειδίζειν. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>Ecclesiastical +lections begin at those places</emph>,<note place="foot">viz. Monday in the +v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, Thursday in the +vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> week after Pentecost, and +the viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Sunday after Pentecost.</note> +that the Holy Name is introduced there. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>Ecclesiastical +lection begins</emph>.<note place="foot">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.</note> 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> +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 <emph>a Church lesson begins there</emph>. +</p> + +<pb n="222"/><anchor id="Pg222"/> + +<p> +(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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> +finds particular mention. It is only because that verse was +claimed both as the <emph>conclusion</emph> of the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> and also as the +<emph>beginning</emph> of the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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) <emph>rejects it from the text altogether</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +(13.) Codices B, א, and D are <emph>alone</emph> 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 <emph>there</emph> the Church-lesson +for Tuesday in the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> week after Easter +<emph>came to an end</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Sunday after Pentecost in +that unauthorized manner.<note place="foot">See by all means Matthaei's interesting +note on the place,—<hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> (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,—<q>Origenes (iv. 171 <hi rend="smallcaps">d</hi>) +hanc pericopam haud adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in γενηθήτω σοι.</q> +Will not the disturbing <emph>Lectionary-practice</emph> of his day sufficiently +explain Origen's omission?</note> +But it is not only in cursive MSS. that these words are +found. <emph>They are met with also in the Codex Sinaiticus</emph> (א): +a witness at once to the inveteracy of Liturgical usage in +the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century of our æra, +and to the corruptions which the <q>Codex omnium antiquissimus</q> +will no doubt have inherited from a yet older copy than itself. +</p> + +<pb n="223"/><anchor id="Pg223"/> + +<p> +(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.<note place="foot">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 +<emph>a Church Lesson begins in those places</emph>, we may be sure that we have been put +in possession of the name of the disturbing force.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>after</emph> Ἱεροσόλυμα: when, lastly, two of Field's +MSS.,<note place="foot">Viz. K and M. (Field's <hi rend='italic'>Chrys.</hi> 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?</note> and one of +Matthaei's, (and I dare say a great many more, if the truth were known,) omit the words +ὁ Ἰησοῦς entirely:—<emph>who</emph> sees not that the true disturbing force in +this place, from the ii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> century of our æra +downwards, has been <emph>the Lectionary practice of the primitive +Church</emph>?—the fact that <emph>there</emph> the lection for the Thursday +after the viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +Sunday after Pentecost began?—And this may suffice. +</p> + +<p> +IV. It has been proved then, in what goes before, more +effectually even than in a preceding page,<note place="foot">See above, p. +<ref target="Pg197">197</ref> to 204.</note> not only that +Ecclesiastical Lections corresponding with those indicated +in the <q>Synaxaria</q> 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 <emph>this</emph> is the only point +I am now concerned to establish), that <hi rend='italic'>our five oldest Copies +of the Gospels</hi>,—B and א as well as A, C and D,—exhibit +<pb n="224"/><anchor id="Pg224"/> +not a few traces of the mischievous agency alluded to; +errors, and especially <emph>omissions</emph>, 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> +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> +A familiar contraction, executed probably in vermillion [χ over αρ], +ἀρ, indicates the <q>beginning</q> (ἀρχή) of each lection: a corresponding +contraction (ε over τ, τε, τελ), indicates its <q>end</q> +(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 +<q>beginning</q> and the <q>end</q> 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 <emph>the margin</emph> 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 <emph>into the body of the text</emph>.<note place="foot">e.g. +in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270.</note> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 844), there occurs no indication of the +<q>end</q> of a single lection in S. Luke's Gospel, until chap. +<pb n="225"/><anchor id="Pg225"/> +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.<note place="foot">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 +<q>ΤΕΛ:</q> stands <emph>in the text</emph>,) 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 <emph>only two</emph> notes of liturgical +endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.</note> In the +<emph>oldest</emph> uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even in +the Codex Bezæ, (vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century,) not +a single liturgical direction <emph>coeval with the MS.</emph> is anywhere to be found. +</p> + +<p> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century; +and although, previous to the ix<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century, systematic liturgical directions are probably unknown;<note place="foot">Among +the <emph>Syriac</emph> Evangelia, as explained above (p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>), +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 +<hi rend='italic'>Catalogue</hi>, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been only +<emph>irregularly</emph> inserted in the oldest copies.</note> the <emph>need</emph> +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 +<pb n="226"/><anchor id="Pg226"/> +the third day of the ii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> 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.<note place="foot"><p>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 [<hi rend='italic'>Anon. +Vat.</hi>] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι, πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ +κατ᾽ ἐμέ. +</p> +<p> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">secr</hi> +(i.e. Lambeth, 1177): 2<hi rend="vertical-align: super">pe</hi> (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></note> I find D's error here is shared (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) by +the Peshito Syriac, (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) by the old Latin, +and (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) by the Philoxenian: venerable partners +in error, truly! for the first two probably carry back +this false reading to <emph>the second century of our æra</emph>; and so, +furnish one more remarkable proof, to be added to the fifteen +(or rather the forty) already enumerated (pp. <ref target="Pg217">217-23</ref>), 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> +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 <emph>is</emph> <q>the end</q> of <emph>the Church-lection</emph> +for the ii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> Sunday after Easter,) should have +unhappily suggested to some copyist,—καλλιγραφίας <hi rend='italic'>quam vel +Criticæ Sacræ vel rerum Liturgicarum peritior</hi>,—the notion that the +entire <q><emph>Gospel according to S. Mark</emph>,</q> 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 <emph>misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note</emph> +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, +<pb n="227"/><anchor id="Pg227"/> +<emph>to transcribe</emph> any further, having before him, (as he thought,) +an assurance that <q><hi rend="smallcaps">the end</hi></q> had been reached at ver. 8. +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place="foot">So Scholz (i. 200):—<q>Pericopa hæc +<emph>casu quodam</emph> 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,</q> &c.</note> 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 <q>they would be in +a manner superfluous <emph>if it should appear that their testimony +is at variance with that of the other Evangelists</emph>.</q><note place="foot">περιττὰ +ὰν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν +μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai, <hi rend='italic'>Bibl. P.P. Nova</hi>, vol. iv. p. 256.)</note> (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.<note place="foot">Alford's +N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (<hi rend='italic'>ed</hi>. 1868.)—And so Tischendorf, +(ed. 8va. pp. 406-7.) <q>Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere mutilandum +adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus incredibile est, nec +ullo probari potest exemplo.</q>—Tregelles is of the same opinion. +(<hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, pp. 255-6.)—Matthaei, a competent judge, +seems to have thought differently. <q>Una autem causa cur hic locus omitteretur fuit +quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur Evangelistis.</q> The general observation +which follows is true enough:—<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.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> 1788, vol. ii. p. +266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)—<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.</q> Dr. +Davidson says the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,) +Mr. Scrivener also. (<hi rend='italic'>Coll. Cod. Sin.</hi> p. xliv.)</note> +(1) First, because there really was no need to withhold more +than three,—at the utmost, five of them,—if <emph>this</emph> had been +the reason of the omission. (2) Next, because it would have +<pb n="228"/><anchor id="Pg228"/> +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 <ref target="Chapter_X">Chap. X.</ref> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>something</emph> of the +circumstance; and in ancient MSS., if I am right, I ought +certainly to meet with <emph>some</emph> 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> +X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every +copy of the Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris;<note place="foot">I have to +acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M. de +Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.</note> and +devoted seventy hours exactly, with unflagging delight, to +the task. The success of the experiment astonished me. +</p> + +<p> +1. I began with <emph>our</emph> Cod. 24 ( = Reg. 178) of the Gospels: +turned to the last page of S. Mark: and beheld, in a Codex +of the xi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Century wholly +devoid of the Lectionary apparatus +which is sometimes found in MSS. of a similar +date,<note place="foot">See above, p. <ref target="Pg224">224</ref>.</note> +at fol. 104, the word + ΤΕΛΟΣ + conspicuously written +by the original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as +<pb n="229"/><anchor id="Pg229"/> +well as at the close of the Gospel. <emph>It occurred besides only +at ch.</emph> ix. 9, (the end of the lesson for the Transfiguration.) +And yet there are <emph>at least seventy</emph> 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> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) set down unabbreviated, +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) in black ink, and (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) +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.<note place="foot">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. <emph>No</emph> +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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. 36.<note place="foot">= 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century.</note> 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;<note place="foot">End of the Lection for the Sunday before +Epiphany.</note> 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 <emph>no</emph> Ecclesiastical lection came to +an end,—it will be felt that the MS. before us (of the +xi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century) if it was not actually +transcribed from,—must at least exhibit at second hand,—a far +more ancient Codex.<note place="foot">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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> Gospel of the Passion, the +vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Sunday +of S. Luke.</note> +</p> + +<pb n="230"/><anchor id="Pg230"/> + +<p> +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<note place="foot">This has already come before us in a different +connection: (see p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>): but it must needs be reproduced +here; and <emph>this</emph> time, it shall be exhibited as +faithfully as my notes permit.</note> in red letters. The whole stands thus:— +</p> + +<p> +ΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ + ΤΕΛΟΣ +—<lb/> +[cross] ΕΝ ΤΙΣΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΩΝ.<lb/> +ΕΩΣ ΩΔΕ ΠΛΗΡΟΥΤΑΙ Ο ΕΥ<lb/> +ΑΓΓΕΛΙΣΤΗΣ: ΕΝ ΠΟΛΛΟΙΣ<lb/> +ΔΕ. ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΕΤΑΙ +—<lb/> +ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ. ΠΡΟΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩΝ. +</p> + +<p> +And then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of +which, the sign + ΤΕΛΟΣ + is again repeated,—which sign, +however, occurs <emph>nowhere else</emph> in the MS. <emph>nor at the end of any of +the other three Gospels</emph>. 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 <q>In certain copies, <emph>the Evangelist proceeds no +further</emph>.</q> 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 +<pb n="231"/><anchor id="Pg231"/> +S. Mark for instance is <emph>invariably</emph> either ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as +in B and א): or else ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as +in A and C, and the other older uncials): <emph>never</emph> ΤΕΛΟΣ. +But here is a Scribe who first copies the <emph>liturgical</emph> note ΤΕΛΟΣ,—and +then volunteers the <emph>critical</emph> observation that <q>in some +copies of S. Mark's Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no further!</q> +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> +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.<note place="foot"><p>(1) In Evan. 282 +(written <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 1176),—a codex which <emph>has been +adapted</emph> to Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to say, +<emph>is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Mark</emph> xv. 47 +<emph>and</emph> xvi. 8. +</p> +<p> +(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> +(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 <emph>according +to S. Mark</emph> 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 <emph>the only Gospel of +the Four</emph> 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></note> Enough +has been said already to shew, +</p> + +<p> +(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> +(2ndly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt +<pb n="232"/><anchor id="Pg232"/> +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> +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> +(3rdly.) As a matter of fact, there are found to have +existed before the time of Eusebius, copies of S. Mark's +Gospel which <emph>did</emph> come to an end at this very place. Now, +that <emph>the Evangelist</emph> left off there, no one can +believe.<note place="foot"><q>Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae +filum ineptissime abrupisse verbis—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.</q>—Griesbach +<hi rend='italic'>Comment. Crit.</hi> (ii. 197.) So, in fact, +<hi rend='italic'>uno ore</hi> all the Critics.</note> <emph>Why</emph>, +then, did <emph>the Scribe</emph> 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 <emph>belongs</emph> to +the lock; is, in fact, the only instrument by which the chest +may lawfully be opened. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>some</emph> 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.<note place="foot"><ref target="Chapter_V">Chap. +V</ref>. See above, pp. <ref target="Pg066">66-7</ref>.</note> Do, then, the +terms in which <emph>Eusebius</emph> alludes to this matter lend us any +assistance? Let us have the original indictment read over +to us once more: and <emph>this</emph> time we are bound to listen to +every word of it with the utmost possible attention. +</p> + +<pb n="233"/><anchor id="Pg233"/> + +<p> +1. A problem is proposed for solution. <q>There are two +ways of solving it,</q> (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, <q>καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.</q> +Ἐν τούτῳ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατά Μάρκον +εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ<note place="foot">The English reader will follow the +text with sufficient exactness if he will refer back, and read from the last line of +p. <ref target="Pg044">44</ref> to the ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in +two places, for <q>the end,</q>—<q><hi rend="smallcaps">the end</hi></q>.... The +entire context of the Greek is given in the <ref target="Appendix_B">Appendix +(B)</ref>.</note> ... Let us halt here for one moment. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>now</emph> we perceive to be of paramount significancy? +Eusebius is pointing out that <emph>one</emph> 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 <q>Ecclesiastical Lection</q><note place="foot">τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν +περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό,) I suspect must be an +explanatory gloss.</note> 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) <q>will say that it is <emph>not met with in all</emph> +the copies of S. Mark's Gospel. The accurate copies, at all +events,</q>—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 +<emph>recognises the very phenomenon to which I have been calling +<pb n="234"/><anchor id="Pg234"/> +attention</emph> within the last two pages, and which I need not +further insist upon or explain: viz. that <emph>the words</emph> ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ +<emph>were</emph> in some very ancient (<q><emph>the accurate</emph></q>) copies +<emph>found written after</emph> ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ: although to an unsuspicious reader +the expression which he uses may well seem to denote +nothing more than that the second Gospel <emph>generally came +to an end</emph> there. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>almost all the Greek +copies</emph> were without our <q>last Twelve Verses</q> of S. Mark's +Gospel:<note place="foot"><q>This then is clear,</q> (is Dr. Tregelles' comment,) +<q>that the greater part of the Greek copies had not the verses in +question.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, p. 247.</note> +whereas Eusebius really <emph>does nowhere say so</emph>. He +expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a somewhat unusual +phrase<note place="foot">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, (<hi rend='italic'>Hist. Eccl.</hi> lib. vi. c. +6.)—Ἱππόλυτος ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτοπος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει, +(<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)—Or +this, referred to by Stephanus (<hi rend='italic'>in voce</hi>),—Ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἔτι +μνησθεὶς περιγράψω τὸν λόγον, (<hi rend='italic'>Praep. Evang.</hi> lib. vi. c. 10, +[p. 280 c, <hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 1628].) But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for +τὸ εὐαγγέλιον wants explaining; and can be only satisfactorily explained in one +way.</note> which perhaps admits of no exact English counterpart: +but what he says clearly amounts to no more than +this,—that <q><emph>the accurate</emph> copies, at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, +circumscribe <hi rend="smallcaps">the end</hi> (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of Mark's narrative:</q> that +<emph>there</emph>, <q>in almost all the Copies of the Gospel according to +Mark, is circumscribed <hi rend="smallcaps">the end</hi>.</q> He says no more. He +does not say that <emph>there</emph> <q>is circumscribed <emph>the Gospel</emph>.</q> As +for the twelve verses which follow, he merely declares that +they were <q><emph>not met with in all</emph> the copies;</q> i.e. that some +copies did not contain them. But this, so far from being +<pb n="235"/><anchor id="Pg235"/> +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. <ref target="Pg048">48-9</ref>,] 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 <emph>what +might be urged</emph> by one desirous of shelving a difficulty suggested +by their contents;— +</p> + +<p> +(1st.) That from <emph>some</emph> ancient copies of S. Mark's Gospel +these last Twelve Verses were away. +</p> + +<p> +(2nd.) That in <emph>almost</emph> 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 <emph>the end +of the Gospel</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place="foot">See above, p. <ref target="Pg066">66</ref> and p. +<ref target="Pg067">67</ref>.</note> 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 <q>for ever mooted by every body.</q><note place="foot">Πάρειμι +νῦν ... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα +[<hi rend='italic'>sic</hi>].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.</note> +I suspect (with Matthaei, [<hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>, p. +<ref target="Pg066">66</ref>,]) that <emph>Origen</emph> is the +<emph>true</emph> author of all this confusion. He certainly relates of himself +that among his voluminous exegetical writings was a <emph>treatise +on S. Mark's Gospel</emph>.<note place="foot"><p><q>Consentit autem nobis ad +<emph>tractatum quem fecimus de scripturâ</emph> Marci.</q>—Origen. +(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. 929 B.) <hi rend='italic'>Tractat.</hi> xxxv. in +<hi rend='italic'>Matth.</hi> [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, +[<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> cent.) counterpart of the +preceding; which has been transcribed [xviii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +cent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40. +</p> +<p> +Possevinus [<hi rend='italic'>Apparat. Sac.</hi> ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet, +<hi rend='italic'>Origeniana</hi>, 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 <q>Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,</q> (1600, lib. i. p. 49,) mentions +<q><emph>Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae</emph>, Stabat ad +monumentum.</q>—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe, <q>Cat. Codd. MSS. +C.C.C.;</q> [No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—<q>Origenis presb. Hom. in istud +Johannis, <emph>Maria stabat ad monumentum</emph>,</q> &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></note> To Origen's works, Eusebius, (his +<pb n="236"/><anchor id="Pg236"/> +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. <ref target="Pg096">96-7</ref>). And this would not be the first +occasion on which it would appear that when an ancient +Writer speaks of <q><emph>the accurate copies</emph></q>, what he actually +<emph>means is the text of Scripture which was employed or approved +by Origen</emph>.<note place="foot"><p>So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά. +</p> +<p> +Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but also +that <emph>apud Heracleonem</emph>, (who wrote within 50 years of S. John's death,) he +found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved by <emph>geographical</emph> +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 <emph>to reproduce Origen's reasoning</emph>;—thereby betraying +himself.—The author of the <hi rend='italic'>Catena in Matth.</hi> (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 <q>more accurate copies.</q> +</p> +<p> +A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the true reading +of that place is not <q>60</q> but <q>160,</q>—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ +Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις. Accordingly, <emph>Eusebius</emph> also reads the place +in the same erroneous way. +</p></note> 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 <emph>not</emph> say, as Jerome, from his +loose translation of the passage,<note place="foot">Jerome says of himself +(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vii. 537,)—<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: +<emph>equi dentes inspicere donati</emph>.</q></note> evidently +imagined,—<q><hi rend='italic'>omnibus +<pb n="237"/><anchor id="Pg237"/> +Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus</hi>:</q> +but only,—<q><hi rend='italic'>non in omnibus Evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum +inveniri</hi>;</q> which is an entirely different thing. Eusebius +adds,—<q>Accuratiora saltem exemplaria <hi rend="smallcaps">finem</hi> narrationis +secundum Marcum circumscribunt in verbis ἐφοβοῦντο +γάρ;</q>—and, <q>In hoc, fere in omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii +secundum Marcum, <hi rend="smallcaps">finem</hi> circumscribi.</q>—The point, +however, of greatest interest is, that Eusebius here calls attention +to the prevalence in MSS. of his time of the very <emph>liturgical +peculiarity</emph> 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. <ref target="Pg230">230</ref>,) and, rightly understood, does not go a whit +beyond it. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,</q> ἔχει ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.<note place="foot">See above, pp. +<ref target="Pg057">57-9</ref>: also <ref target="Appendix_C">Appendix (C)</ref>, § +2.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>the Liturgical hint</emph>, (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 +<emph>did</emph>. Origen at all events, (<hi rend='italic'>more suo</hi>,) will have +remarked on the phenomenon before him; and Eusebius will have +adopted his remarks,—as the heralds say, <q>with <emph>a +difference</emph></q>—simply because they suited his purpose, and seemed +to him ingenious and interesting. +</p> + +<p> +7. For the copy in question,—(<emph>like</emph> 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,<note place="foot">See above, pp. <ref target="Pg225">225-6</ref>.</note>)—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> + +<pb n="238"/><anchor id="Pg238"/> + +<p> +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 <emph>solely</emph> +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> +XII. But <emph>why</emph>, (it may reasonably be asked,)—<emph>Why</emph> should +there have been anything exceptional in the way of indicating +the end of this particular Lection? <emph>Why</emph> should +τέλος be so constantly found written after S. Mark xvi. 8? +</p> + +<p> +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,<note place="foot">R. Payne +Smith's <hi rend='italic'>Catal.</hi> p. 116.</note>) +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:<note place="foot">See Adler's N. T. +<hi rend='italic'>Verss. Syrr.</hi>, p. 70.</note> in the Churches of +the Jacobite, or Monophysite Christians, the Eucharistic +lesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1-8.<note place="foot">R. Payne Smith's +<hi rend='italic'>Catal.</hi> p. 146.</note> (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.<note place="foot">See p. <ref target="Pg206">206</ref>, also note (k).</note> +(6) <emph>That</emph> same third matin lesson of the Resurrection +was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; as +well in the Syrian<note place="foot">R. Payne Smith's <hi rend='italic'>Catal.</hi> +p. 117.</note> as in the Greek<note place="foot"><p>Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 +(= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark xvi. 8 (<hi rend='italic'>fol</hi>. 125), as +follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then, <hi rend='italic'>rubro</hi>,] τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου, +καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver. +20, (at <hi rend='italic'>fol</hi>. 126 of the same Codex) is found the following +concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽ ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου. +</p> +<p> +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></note> Churches. (7) With +<pb n="239"/><anchor id="Pg239"/> +the Monophysite Christians, the lection <q>feriae tertiae in +albis, ad primam vesperam,</q> (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.<note place="foot">R. Payne Smith's +<hi rend='italic'>Catal.</hi> p. 146.</note>—During eighteen weeks +after Easter therefore, <emph>the only parts</emph> of S. Mark's Gospel +publicly read were (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) the last thirteen [ch. xv. 43-xvi. 8], +and (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <q><emph>the last twelve</emph></q> [ch. xvi. 9-20] +verses. Can it be deemed a strange thing that it should have been found +<emph>indispensable</emph> 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?<note place="foot"><p>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> +Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies of the +Armenian version. <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.</q> (Tregelles, +<hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, p. 253).... We are now in a position to +<emph>understand</emph> the Armenian evidence, which has been described above, at p. +<ref target="Pg036">36</ref>, as well as to estimate its +exact value. +</p></note> +</p> + +<p> +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, <emph>the Gospel according to S. Mark +frequently stood last</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +This is memorably the case in respect of the Codex Bezae +[vi]: more memorably yet, in respect of the Gothic version +of Ulphilas (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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 <emph>the usual Western order</emph>. Accordingly +it is thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. Vercellensis +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>), Veronensis (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>), Palatinus +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>), Brixianus (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) of the +old Latin version. But this order is not <emph>exclusively</emph> Western. +It is found in Cod. 309. It is also observed in Matthaei's +Codd. 13, 14, (which last is <emph>our</emph> Evan. 256), at Moscow. And +<pb n="240"/><anchor id="Pg240"/> +in the same order Eusebius and others of the ancients<note place="foot">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. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. 411-2.)—And +see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp. <hi rend='italic'>Patres +Apostol.</hi>, (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515.</note> 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;<note place="foot">I believe this will be found to be the +<emph>invariable</emph> order of the Gospels <emph>in the Lectionaries</emph>.</note> +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 <emph>sometimes</emph> happened that S. Mark xvi. 8 came to +be written <emph>at the bottom of the left hand page</emph> of a +MS.<note place="foot">This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). See +<hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 98 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>.</note> And +we have but to suppose that in the case of one such Codex +the next leaf, which would have been <emph>the last</emph>, was +missing,—(<emph>the very thing which has happened in respect of one of the +Codices at Moscow</emph><note place="foot"><p>I allude of course to Matthaei's Cod. +g. (See the note in his <hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no +the learned critic was right in his conjecture <q>aliquot folia excidisse,</q> +matters nothing. <emph>The left hand page ends at the words</emph> 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> +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. (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) proves to +be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) from xiii. 24; +Cod. Brix. (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) from xiv. 70.</p></note>)—and what else +<emph>could</emph> result when a copyist reached the words, +</p> + +<p> +ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ. ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ +</p> + +<p> +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, <emph>of course</emph>. 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 <q>the last verse of +S. John's Gospel <emph>is omitted</emph> in Cod. 63:</q> the truth of the +matter being (as Mr. Scrivener has lately proved) that <emph>the +<pb n="241"/><anchor id="Pg241"/> +last leaf</emph> of Cod. 63,—on which the last verse of S. John's +Gospel was demonstrably once written,—<emph>has been +lost</emph>.<note place="foot">Scrivener, <hi rend='italic'>Coll. Cod. Sin.</hi> p. +lix.</note> +</p> + +<p> +XIV. To sum up. +</p> + +<p> +1. It will be perceived that I suppose the omission of +<q>the last Twelve Verses</q> of S. Mark's Gospel to have +originated in a sheer error and misconception on the part +of some very ancient Copyist. He <emph>saw</emph> ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ written after +ver. 8: he <emph>assumed</emph> that it was the Subscription, or at least +that it denoted <q>the End,</q> <emph>of the Gospel</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>regard what followed as superfluous +from its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of +the other Evangelists;</q><note place="foot">See p. +<ref target="Pg227">227</ref>.</note>—and that in this way the error +became propagated;—is likely enough. But an error it +most certainly was: and to that <emph>error</emph>, the <emph>accident</emph> described +in the last preceding paragraph <emph>would have</emph> very materially +conduced, and it may have very easily done so. +</p> + +<p> +3. I request however that it may be observed that the +<q>accident</q> is not <emph>needed</emph> in order to account for the <q>error.</q> +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 +<emph>did</emph> occur in an altogether exceptional manner in +that very place. Moreover, we have ascertained that its +meaning was <emph>not understood</emph> by the transcribers of ancient +MSS. +</p> + +<p> +4. And will any one venture to maintain that it is to him +a thing incredible that an intelligent copyist of the +iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> 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 <q>the End</q> of <emph>S. Mark's Gospel</emph>?—Shall +I be told that, even if <emph>one</emph> can have so entirely overlooked +the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer it +to insinuate itself into his text,<note place="foot">See above, p. +<ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</note> it is nevertheless so improbable +<pb n="242"/><anchor id="Pg242"/> +as to pass all credence that <emph>another</emph> can have supposed +that it designated <emph>the termination of the Gospel</emph> 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, <emph>one and all, without exception, misunderstood +the same word occurring in the same place, and in +precisely the same way</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +Yes. The forgotten inadvertence of a solitary Scribe in +the <emph>second</emph> or <emph>third</emph> century has been, <emph>in the +nineteenth</emph>, deliberately +reproduced, adopted, and stereotyped by every Critic +and every Editor of the New Testament in turn. +</p> + +<p> +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?<note place="foot">So Scholz:—<q>hic +[sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,</q> +&c.—Tischendorf,—<q>Testantur scholia ... <emph>Marci Evangelium</emph> +... versu 9 <emph>finem habuisse</emph>. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, +22 habet: ἐφοβουντο γαρ + τελος. εν τισι,</q> &c.—Tregelles appeals to +copies, <q>sometimes with τέλος interposed after ver. 8,</q> (p. 254.)—Mai +(iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,—<q>Codex Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex +quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum versum <emph>habet quidem</emph> vocem τέλος, +ut alibi interdum observatum fuit; <emph>sed tamen</emph> ibidem eadem manu +subscribitur incrementum cum progredientibus sectionum notis.</q></note> 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 +<q>ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τέλος,</q>—(for which they are so careful +to refer us to <q>Cod. 22,</q>)—is an indication that <emph>there</emph>, by +rights, comes <emph>the <q><hi rend="smallcaps">End</hi></q> of the Gospel according to +S. Mark</emph>. They have failed to perceive that ΤΕΛΟΣ in that place is only +<emph>a liturgical sign</emph>,—the same with which (in its contracted +form) they are sufficiently familiar; and that it serves no +other purpose whatever, but to mark that <emph>there</emph> a famous +<emph>Ecclesiastical Lection</emph> comes to an end. +</p> + +<p> +With a few pages of summary, we may now bring this +long disquisition to an end. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="243"/><anchor id="Pg243"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc" level1="Chapter XII. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF +THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE +SUBJECT."/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Chapter XII."/> +<head type="sub">CHAPTER XII.</head> +<head>GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF +THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE +SUBJECT.</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +This discussion narrowed to a single issue (p. +<ref target="Pg244">244</ref>).—That S. Mark's Gospel was imperfect from the +very first, a thing altogether incredible (p. +<ref target="Pg246">246</ref>):—But that at some very remote period Copies have +suffered mutilation, a supposition probable in the highest degree +(p. <ref target="Pg248">248</ref>).—Consequences of this admission (p. +<ref target="Pg252">252</ref>).—Parting words (p. +<ref target="Pg254">254</ref>.) +</quote> + +<p> +This Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem +was fully explained at the outset.<note place="foot">Chap. I. and II.</note> +All the known evidence has since been produced,<note place="foot">Chap. IV, VI-X.</note> +every Witness examined.<note place="foot">Chap. III, V, and VIII.</note> 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 <emph>single issue</emph> 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> +It being freely admitted that, in the beginning of the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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,—<emph>How is this phenomenon +to be accounted for?</emph>... 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> +But the most recent Editors of the text of the New Testament, +declining to entertain so much as the <emph>possibility</emph> that +certain copies of the second Gospel <emph>had experienced mutilation +in very early times</emph> in respect of these Twelve concluding +<pb n="244"/><anchor id="Pg244"/> +Verses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather with conjectures +as to how it may have happened that S. Mark's +Gospel <emph>was without a conclusion from the very first</emph>. Persuaded +that no more probable account is to be given of the phenomenon +than that <emph>the Evangelist himself put forth a Gospel +which</emph> (for some unexplained reason) <emph>terminated abruptly at +the words</emph> 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> +<hi rend='italic'>First</hi>,—That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the +hands of its inspired Author, <emph>was in this imperfect or unfinished +state</emph>; 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> +<hi rend='italic'>Secondly</hi>,—That certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel +<emph>having suffered mutilation</emph> 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> +I. Editors who adopt the former hypothesis, are observed +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) to sever the Verses in question from their +context:<note place="foot">Tischendorf, Tregelles, +Alford.</note>—(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) to introduce after ver. 8, +the subscription <q>ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ:</q><note place="foot">Tregelles, +Alford.</note>—(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) to shut up verses 9-20 within +brackets.<note place="foot">Alford.</note> Regarding +them as <q>no integral part of the Gospel</q><note place="foot"><q>Hæc non a Marco +scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.</q>—See the rest of Tischendorf's +verdict, <hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg010">10</ref>; and opposite, +p. <ref target="Pg245">245</ref>.</note>—<q>as an authentic +anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote +down,</q><note place="foot">Tregelles' <hi rend='italic'>Account of the Printed +Text</hi>, p. 259.</note>—a <q>remarkable Fragment,</q> <q>placed as a completion +of the Gospel in very early times;</q><note place="foot">Alford's <hi rend='italic'>New +Test.</hi> vol. i. <hi rend='italic'>Proleg.</hi> [p. 38] and p. 437.</note>—they +consider themselves at liberty to go on to suggest that <q>the Evangelist +may have been interrupted in his work:</q> at any rate, +<pb n="245"/><anchor id="Pg245"/> +that <q>something may have occurred, (as the death of +S. Peter,) to cause him to leave it unfinished.</q><note place="foot">So Norton, +Tregelles, and others.</note> But <q>the +most probable supposition</q> (we are assured) <q>is, that <emph>the +last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away</emph>.</q><note place="foot">This +suggestion, which was originally Griesbach's, is found in Alford's <hi rend='italic'>New +Test.</hi> vol. i. p. 433, (<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 1868.)—See above, p. +<ref target="Pg012">12</ref>. The italics are not mine.</note> +</p> + +<p> +We listen with astonishment; contenting ourselves with +modestly suggesting that surely it will be time to conjecture +<emph>why</emph> S. Mark's Gospel was left by its Divinely inspired +Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has been established +that it probably <emph>was</emph> so left. In the meantime, we +request to be furnished with some evidence of <emph>that fact</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +But not a particle of Evidence is forthcoming. It is not +even pretended that any such evidence exists. Instead, we +are magisterially informed by <q>the first Biblical Critic in +Europe,</q>—(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 <q><emph>a healthy piety +reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming +off as Mark's what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn</emph> [where?] +<emph>to have known nothing at all about</emph>.</q><note place="foot">Vide +<hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg010">10</ref>.</note> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century existed in considerable numbers. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 185-254) +complains of the licentious tampering with the Scriptures +which prevailed in his day. <q>Men add to them,</q> (he says) +<q>or <emph>leave out</emph>,—as seems good to +themselves.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. iii. p. 671.</note> +Dionysius of Corinth, yet earlier, (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 168-176) remarks that +it was no wonder his own writings were added to and <emph>taken from</emph>, +seeing that men presumed to deprave the Word of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> +<pb n="246"/><anchor id="Pg246"/> +in the same manner.<note place="foot">Eusebius <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. Hist.</hi> iv. +28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19.</note> Irenæus, his contemporary, (living +within seventy years of S. John's death,) complains of a corrupted +Text.<note place="foot">Note the remarkable adjuration of Irenæus, +<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> i. 821, preserved by Eusebius, <hi rend='italic'>lib.</hi> +v. 20.—See Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 383-4. Consider +the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp's martyrdom, +<hi rend='italic'>PP. App.</hi> ii. 614-6.</note> We are able to go back yet half a +century, and the depravations of Holy Writ become avowed and +flagrant.<note place="foot">Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus; +especially to the work of Marcion.</note> A competent authority has declared it <q>no +less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that <emph>the worst +corruptions to which the New Testament has been ever subjected</emph> +originated within a hundred years after it was +composed.</q><note place="foot">Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, pp. +381-391.</note> Above all, it is demonstrable that Cod. B and +Cod. א abound in unwarrantable omissions very like the present;<note place="foot">See +<ref target="Chapter_VI">Chap. VI</ref>.</note> +omissions which only do not provoke the same amount +of attention because they are of less moment. One such +extraordinary depravation of the Text, <emph>in which they also +stand alone among MSS.</emph> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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> +Now, in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of +<emph>any Evidence whatever</emph> 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> +(1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the +improbability of the hypothesis is excessive; <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.</q> No fabricator of a supplement +to S. Mark's Gospel would have ventured on introducing +so many minute <emph>seeming</emph> discrepancies: and certainly +<pb n="247"/><anchor id="Pg247"/> +<q>his contemporaries would not have accepted and +transmitted such an addition,</q> if he had. It has also been +shewn at great length that the Internal Evidence for the +genuineness of these Verses is overwhelmingly +strong.<note place="foot"><ref target="Chapter_IX">Chap. IX</ref>.</note> But, +</p> + +<p> +(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.<note place="foot"><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.</q>—C. F. Matthaei's <hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> (1788) vol. +ii. p. 271.</note> 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 <emph>considerably +fewer</emph> than those which attach to the last twelve verses of +any of the other three Gospels. +</p> + +<p> +(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.<note place="foot">Speaking of the abrupt +termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8, Dr. Tregelles asks,—<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?</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, p. 257.) +Certainly not, we answer. But <emph>where</emph> are the <q>good witnesses</q> of the +<q>transmitted fact?</q> <emph>There is not so much as one.</emph></note> 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 <emph>quite</emph> 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 <q>Seniores +apud Irenæum,</q>—Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, +or Hippolytus,—if not Origen, yet at least Eusebius,—if not +<pb n="248"/><anchor id="Pg248"/> +Eusebius, yet certainly Jerome,—<emph>some</emph> early Writer, I say, +must <emph>certainly</emph> 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,—(<emph>that</emph> +silence so profound, <emph>this</emph> improbability so gross!)—is +enough, I submit, <emph>in the entire absence of Evidence on the +other side</emph>, to establish <emph>the very contradictory</emph> of the alternative +which recent Critics are so strenuous in recommending to +our acceptance. +</p> + +<p> +(4th.) But on the contrary. We have indirect yet convincing +testimony that the <emph>oldest</emph> copies of all <emph>did contain</emph> the +Verses in question:<note place="foot">See above, pp. +<ref target="Pg086">86-90</ref>.</note> 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.<note place="foot">See +<ref target="Chapter_III">Chap. III</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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> +II. That, at some period <emph>subsequent</emph> 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 <emph>no trace whatever, no record of any sort, until +the beginning of the fourth century</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(i.) And the facts which <emph>now</emph> meet us on the very threshold, +are in a manner conclusive: for if Papias and Justin +Martyr [<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 150] do not refer to, yet certainly Irenæus +[<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 185] and Hippolytus [<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> +190-227] <emph>distinctly quote</emph> 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 +<pb n="249"/><anchor id="Pg249"/> +earlier by full a hundred years than <emph>the earliest record</emph> that +the verses in question were ever absent from ancient MSS. +At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as Cyprian relates,) +[<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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> +(ii.) Nor is this all.<note place="foot">See above, Chap. III. and IV.</note> +Besides the Gothic and Egyptian versions in the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, +Jerome, and Augustine in the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, to say nothing of +Codices A and C;—the Lectionary of the Church universal, +<emph>probably from the second century of our æra</emph>, is found to bestow +its solemn and emphatic sanction on <emph>every one</emph> of these Twelve +Verses. They are met with <emph>in every MS. of the Gospels in +existence</emph>, uncial and cursive,—<emph>except +two</emph>;<note place="foot"><q>Habent periocham hanc Codices Græci, si unum b +excipias, omnes.</q> (Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p. +<ref target="Pg070">70</ref>.</note> they are found <emph>in +every Version</emph>; and are contained besides in <emph>every known Lectionary</emph>, +where they are appointed to be read at Easter and +on Ascension Day.<note place="foot">See above, Chap. X.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(iii.) Early in the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century, however, we +are encountered by a famous place in the writings of Eusebius +[<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 300-340], who, (as I have elsewhere +explained,<note place="foot">See above, pp. <ref target="Pg066">66-68</ref>.</note>) +is the <emph>only</emph> 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> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) One, <q>Marinus,</q> is introduced <emph>quoting this part of +S. Mark's Gospel without suspicion</emph>, 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 <q>is <emph>not +found in all the copies</emph>:</q> (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,)—<emph>he adopts the hypothesis that the text is genuine</emph>. +Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, he +begins: and he enters at once without hesitation on an elaborate +<pb n="250"/><anchor id="Pg250"/> +discussion to shew <emph>how the two places may be +reconciled</emph>.<note place="foot">See above, pp. <ref target="Pg041">41</ref> to 51: +also <ref target="Appendix_B">Appendix (B)</ref>.</note> +What there is in this to countenance the notion that +in the opinion of Eusebius <q>the Gospel according to S. Mark +originally terminated at the 8th verse of the last chapter,</q>—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.<note place="foot">The reader is referred to Mai's +<hi rend='italic'>Nov. PP. Bibl.</hi> vol. iv. p. 262, line 12: +p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8.</note> On the other hand, the express +statement of Victor of Antioch [<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 450?] <emph>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 <q>Palestinian</q> Copy</emph>,<note place="foot">See above, p. +<ref target="Pg064">64-5</ref>: also <ref target="Appendix_E">Appendix +(E)</ref>.</note>—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, <emph>he accepted them as genuine</emph>: for +(what is at least certain) he argues upon their contents at +great length, and apparently without misgiving. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) It is high time however to point out that, after all, +the question to be decided is, not <emph>what Eusebius thought</emph> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century. And even if it could be +shewn that Eusebius deliberately <emph>rejected</emph> 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 +<pb n="251"/><anchor id="Pg251"/> +Pamphilus at Cæsarea, to which the ancients habitually referred, +<emph>recognised it as genuine</emph>,<note place="foot">P. <ref target="Pg068">68</ref> +and note (d); p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref> and +note (m).</note>—the only sufferer from such +a conflict of evidence would surely be Eusebius himself: (not +<emph>S. Mark</emph>, I say, but <emph>Eusebius</emph>:) 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;<note place="foot">P. +<ref target="Pg051">51-7</ref>.</note> adopted by +Hesychius;<note place="foot">P. <ref target="Pg057">57-9</ref>.</note> referred to by +Victor;<note place="foot">P. <ref target="Pg059">59-66</ref>.</note> reproduced <q>with +a difference</q> in more than one ancient scholion.<note place="foot">P. +<ref target="Pg114">114-125</ref>.</note> But they are +found to have died away into a very faint echo when Euthymius +Zigabenus<note place="foot">P. <ref target="Pg068">68-9</ref>.</note> rehearsed them for +the last time in his Commentary on the Gospels, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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> +(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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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.<note place="foot"><ref target="Chapter_VI">Chap. VI</ref>.</note> Moreover, it is +a highly significant circumstance that the Vatican Codex +(B), which is the more ancient of the two, exhibits <emph>a vacant +column</emph> at the end of S. Mark's Gospel,—<emph>the only vacant column +in the whole codex</emph>: 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:<note place="foot">See above, pp. +<ref target="Pg086">86</ref> to 88.</note> while the +<pb n="252"/><anchor id="Pg252"/> +original Scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus (א) is declared by +Tischendorf to have actually <emph>omitted the concluding verse of +S. John's Gospel</emph>,—in which unenviable peculiarity <emph>it stands +alone among MSS.</emph><note place="foot">Will it be believed that Tischendorf +accordingly rejects <emph>that</emph> 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.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>the mutilated condition of certain copies +of S. Mark's Gospel in the beginning of the fourth century</emph>; +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 <emph>evidence</emph> for this +<emph>fact</emph>,—(namely, that within the first two centuries and a-half of +our æra, the Gospel according to S. Mark <emph>suffered mutilation</emph>;)—and the +<emph>reasonableness</emph> of the other <emph>opinion</emph>, namely, that S. Mark's +<emph>original autograph</emph> 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 <emph>cannot</emph> be his,—(I have +proved on the contrary that he must needs be thought to +have written them,<note place="foot">See <ref target="Chapter_IX">Chap. +IX</ref>.</note>)—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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century must be because they did not exist in the original autograph of +the Evangelist. What else is this but to set unsupported +<emph>opinion</emph>, or rather unreasoning <emph>prejudice</emph>, before the +<emph>historical evidence</emph> of a <emph>fact</emph>? 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century:) is rendered +in the highest degree improbable by every internal, every +<pb n="253"/><anchor id="Pg253"/> +external consideration: is condemned by <emph>the deliberate judgment +of the universal Church</emph>,—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.<note place="foot"><ref target="Chapter_X">Chapter X</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(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, +(<emph>in the absence of any Evidence whatever to the contrary</emph>,) 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> +<emph>No</emph> reasons whatever are assignable, I reply; neither are +there <emph>any</emph> 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> +It will only follow, +</p> + +<p> +(1st) That Cod. B and Cod. א must be henceforth allowed +to be <emph>in one more serious particular</emph> 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> +(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> +(3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Testament, +these <q>Twelve Verses</q> will have to be restored to +their rightful honours: never more appearing disfigured +with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished from their +<pb n="254"/><anchor id="Pg254"/> +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 <q>vulgar error,</q> will have +henceforth to be introduced <hi rend='italic'>in memoriam rei</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>perhaps</emph> they may not be Divine, after all; +for that <emph>probably</emph> 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 <q>Athanasian</q> 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> +(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> +Enough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now +done, that <emph>not a particle of doubt</emph>, that <emph>not an +atom of suspicion</emph>, attaches to <q><hi rend="smallcaps">the +last Twelve Verses of the +Gospel according to +S. Mark.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="257"/><anchor id="Pg257"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Appendix A."/> +<anchor id="Appendix_A"/> +<head>APPENDIX (A).</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture.—The +correct Text of <hi rend="smallcaps">S. Luke</hi> ii. 14, established. +</quote> + +<p> +(Referred to at p. <ref target="Pg022">22</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +In <ref target="Chapter_III">Chapter III</ref>. 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> +I. Instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, (which is the reading +of the <q>Textus Receptus,</q>) Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles +and Alford present us with ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. Their +authority for this reading is the consentient testimony of +<hi rend="smallcaps">the four oldest MSS. which contain</hi> S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. +B, א, A, D): <hi rend="smallcaps">the Latin Versions</hi> generally +(<q><hi rend='italic'>in hominibus bonae voluntatis</hi></q>); and +<hi rend="smallcaps">the Gothic</hi>. Against these are +to be set, <hi rend="smallcaps">Cod.</hi> A (in the Hymn at the end of the Psalms); +<hi rend="smallcaps">all the other Uncials</hi>; together <hi rend="smallcaps">with +every known cursive MS.</hi>; and <hi rend="smallcaps">every other ancient Version</hi> +in existence. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>why</emph> 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, <emph>every other MS. and every other +Version in the world</emph> 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> + +<pb n="258"/><anchor id="Pg258"/> + +<p> +It is found then, that whereas εὐδοκίας <emph>is read by none</emph>, +εὐδοκία is read by all the following Fathers:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) <hi rend="smallcaps">Origen</hi>, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 +<hi rend="smallcaps">D</hi>: ii. 714 <hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>: iv. 15 +<hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 240.] +</p> + +<p> +(2) The <hi rend="smallcaps">Apostolical Constitutions</hi>, twice, [vii. 47: viii. +12 <hi rend='italic'>ad fin.</hi>,—II<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> +cent.] +</p> + +<p> +(3) <hi rend="smallcaps">Methodius</hi>, [<hi rend='italic'>Galland.</hi> iii. 809 +<hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 290.] +</p> + +<p> +(4) <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, twice, [<hi rend='italic'>Dem. Ev.</hi> 163 +<hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi>: 342 +<hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 320.] +</p> + +<p> +(5) <hi rend="smallcaps">Aphraates the Persian</hi>, (for whose name +[<hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>, pp. <ref target="Pg026">26-7</ref>] that of <q>Jacobus +of Nisibis</q> has been erroneously substituted), twice, [i. 180 and +385,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 337.] +</p> + +<p> +(6) <hi rend="smallcaps">Titus of Bostra</hi>, twice, [<hi rend='italic'>in loc.</hi>, +but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29 (<hi rend='italic'>Cramer</hi>, ii. 141, +<hi rend='italic'>line</hi> 20),—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 350.] +</p> + +<p> +(7) <hi rend="smallcaps">Gregory of Nazianzus</hi>, [i. 845 +<hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 360.] +</p> + +<p> +(8) <hi rend="smallcaps">Cyril of Jerusalem</hi>, +[<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 370], as will be found explained below. +</p> + +<p> +(9) <hi rend="smallcaps">Epiphanius</hi>, [i. +154 <hi rend="smallcaps">D</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 375.] +</p> + +<p> +(10) <hi rend="smallcaps">Chrysostom</hi>, four times, [vii. 311 +<hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>: 674 <hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi>: viii. 85 +<hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi>: xi. 374 +<hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi> expressly,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 400.] +</p> + +<p> +(11) <hi rend="smallcaps">Cyril of Alexandria</hi>, in three places, +[<hi rend='italic'>Comm. on S. Luke</hi>, pp. 12 and 16. Also +<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 593 <hi rend="smallcaps">A</hi>: vi. 398 +<hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 420.] +</p> + +<p> +(12) <hi rend="smallcaps">Theodoret</hi>, [<hi rend='italic'>in Coloss.</hi> i. +20,-<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 430.] +</p> + +<p> +(13) <hi rend="smallcaps">Theodotus of Ancyra</hi>, [<hi rend='italic'>Galland.</hi> +x. 446 <hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 430.] +</p> + +<p> +(14) <hi rend="smallcaps">Proclus</hi>, Abp. of Constantinople, +[<hi rend='italic'>Gall.</hi> x. 629 +<hi rend="smallcaps">A</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 434.] +</p> + +<p> +To which may be added the evidence of +</p> + +<p> +(15) <hi rend="smallcaps">Cosmas Indicopleustes</hi>, four times repeated, +[<hi rend='italic'>Coll. Nov. PP.</hi>, (Montfaucon,) ii. 152 +<hi rend="smallcaps">A</hi>, 160 <hi rend="smallcaps">D</hi>, 247 +<hi rend="smallcaps">E</hi>, 269 +<hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 535.] +</p> + +<p> +(16) <hi rend="smallcaps">Eulogius</hi>, Abp. of Alexandria, +[<hi rend='italic'>Gall.</hi> xii. 308 +<hi rend="smallcaps">E</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 581.] +</p> + +<p> +(17) <hi rend="smallcaps">Andreas of Crete</hi>, twice, +[<hi rend='italic'>Gall.</hi> xiii. 100 <hi rend="smallcaps">D</hi>, 123 +<hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi>,—<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 635.] +</p> + +<p> +Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers +of the Church<note place="foot">Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, +and Marius Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.</note> all concur +in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn <emph>as our own Textus Receptus exhibits +it</emph>,—(viz. ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία,)—<emph>who</emph> does not see +that the four oldest uncial authorities +<pb n="259"/><anchor id="Pg259"/> +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 <emph>two Codices of +the iii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> century</emph>; in <emph>nine of the +iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi></emph>; in <emph>three of the +v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi></emph>;—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> +Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form +in which <emph>the Churches of the East</emph> preserved the Angelic +Hymn in their private, as well as their solemn public Devotions. +Take it, from a document of the v<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century:— +</p> + +<p> +ΔΟΞΑ ΕΝ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΙΣ ΘΕΩ<lb/> +ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΓΗΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ<lb/> +ΕΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ ΕΥΔΟΚΙΑ.<note place="foot">Codex A,—ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of +the Psalms.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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. [<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> xi. 347 +<hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>.] Now this incontestably +proves that <emph>the Church's established way of reciting the +Angelic Hymn in the iv<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century</emph> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 400, which have long since perished. +</p> + +<p> +To insist upon this, however, is not at all my present +purpose. About the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14, +(which is <emph>not</emph> 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> +(1) That <emph>the four oldest Codices which contain S. Luke</emph> ii. 14 +(B, א, A, D, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 320-520), and two of the oldest Versions, +conspire in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn <emph>incorrectly</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(2) That we are indebted to <emph>fourteen of the Fathers</emph> +(<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> +<pb n="260"/><anchor id="Pg260"/> +240-434), and to the rest of the ancient Versions, for the +true reading of that memorable place of Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +II. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,— +</p> + +<p> +1. <hi rend="smallcaps">Irenæus</hi> sides with the oldest uncials.—Now, the Greek +of the place referred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that +survives. According to <emph>that</emph> evidence, Irenæus, having quoted +the place in conformity with the Vulgate reading (iii. c. x. +§ 41,—<q><hi rend='italic'>Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae +voluntatis</hi>,</q>) presently adds,—<q>In eo quod dicunt, +<hi rend='italic'>Gloria in altissimis <hi rend="smallcaps">Deo</hi> et in terra +pax</hi>, 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.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 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 <q>excelsis</q> for <q>altissimis.</q>) +</p> + +<p> +2. Next, <hi rend="smallcaps">Origen</hi> is claimed on the same side, on the +strength of the following passage in (Jerome's version of) +his lost Homilies on S. Luke:—<q>Si scriptum esset, <emph>Super +terram pax</emph>, et hucusque esset finita sententia, recte quaestio +nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est, hoc est, +quod post pacem dicitur, <emph>In hominibus bonae voluntatis</emph>, solvit +quaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super +terram, non est pax bonae voluntatis.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. p. 946.) +<q>From this,</q> (says Tischendorf, who is followed by Tregelles,) +<q>it is plain that Origen regarded εὐδοκίας as the +true reading; not εὐδοκία—which is now thrice found in his +Greek writings.</q>—But, +</p> + +<p> +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,<note place="foot">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 <emph>not represented in the extant Greek +text of Origen</emph>. Here also we are presented with <q>hominibus <emph>bonae +voluntatis</emph>.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. 537 +<hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi>). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.</note> +<pb n="261"/><anchor id="Pg261"/> +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, (<q>ut <emph>nunc</emph> reperitur,</q>) where there really is +<emph>no</emph> 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> +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:—<q>Since Angels on the night +when <hi rend="smallcaps">Christ</hi> was born proclaimed <q>on earth +<emph>Peace</emph>,</q>—why does our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> say, +<q>I am <emph>not</emph> come to send Peace upon +earth, but a sword?</q>... Consider,</q> (he proceeds) <q>whether +the answer may not be this:</q>—and then comes the +extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with colloquial +truthfulness,) is <emph>at his old tricks</emph>. 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.<note place="foot">Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. +(<hi rend='italic'>Suprà</hi>, pp. <ref target="Pg096">96-99</ref>.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +3. Lastly, <hi rend="smallcaps">Cyril of Jerusalem</hi> 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 <emph>the MSS. of Cyril</emph> exhibit +εὐδοκία, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured <emph>to print</emph> +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 <emph>copying</emph>, they ought in every instance +<emph>to verify</emph> their references?) +</p> + +<pb n="262"/><anchor id="Pg262"/> + +<p> +III. The history of this corruption of the Text is not hard +to discover. It is interesting and instructive also. +</p> + +<p> +(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> +ΕΝΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ +</p> + +<p> +Every one must see at a glance how easily the thing may +have happened. (It is in fact precisely what <emph>has</emph> 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> +(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 <emph>force</emph> 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:—<hi rend='italic'>Gloria in altissimis <hi rend="smallcaps">Deo</hi>, et in +terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis....</hi> 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> +(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, <emph>every Greek Evangelium +extant</emph> exhibits ἐν ἀνθρώποις: while <emph>all but four</emph> (B, א, A, D) +read εὐδοκία. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vulgate +(e.g. the <hi rend='italic'>Cod. Amiatinus</hi>,) the preposition (<q>in</q>) has +found its way back; but the genitive (<q>bonae voluntatis</q>) +has never been rectified in a single copy of the Latin version.—The +Gothic represents a copy which exhibited ἐν ἀνθρώποις +εὐδοκίας.<note place="foot">From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.</note> +</p> + +<pb n="263"/><anchor id="Pg263"/> + +<p> +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 <q>men of good +pleasure,</q>—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> +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,—<emph>What</emph> is important, if not the +utterance of Heaven, when, at the laying of the corner-stone +of the New Creation, <q>the Morning Stars sang together, +and all the Sons of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi> shouted for joy?</q> +</p> + +<p> +IV. Only one word in conclusion. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>a Translation</emph> are competent at +a moment's notice, as every fresh difficulty presents itself, to +develop the skill requisite for revising <emph>the original Text</emph>,—it +is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts in +one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in +another. +</p> + +<p> +But it so happens that, on the present occasion, that <emph>other</emph> +<pb n="264"/><anchor id="Pg264"/> +Science is one of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists <emph>here</emph> +will find it necessary altogether to disabuse their minds of +the <emph>Theory</emph> 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> +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 <emph>Churchmen</emph>. The +Church may never abdicate her function of being <q>a Witness +and a Keeper of Holy Writ.</q> 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 <q>One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.,</q> in the <q>Times</q> of +July 11, 1870] denies the eternal <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>head of her +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>. +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> + +<pb n="265"/><anchor id="Pg265"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Appendix B."/> +<anchor id="Appendix_B"/> +<head>APPENDIX (B).</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> <q>ad Marinum</q> concerning the reconcilement of +S. Mark xvi. 9 with S. Matthew xxviii. 1. +</quote> + +<p> +(Referred to at pp. <ref target="Pg046">46</ref>, <ref target="Pg047">47</ref>, +<ref target="Pg054">54</ref>, and <ref target="Pg233">233</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Subjoined</hi> is the original text of +<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, taken from +the <q>Quæstiones ad Marinum</q> published by Card. Mai, +in his <q>Nova Patrum Bibliotheca</q> (Romae, 1847,) vol. iv. +pp. 255-7. +</p> + +<p> +I. Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῷ ὄψε σαββάτων φαίνεται +ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν +σαββάτων. +</p> + +<p> +Τούτου διττὴ ἄν εἴη ἡ λύσις; ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ +<hi rend='italic'>del.</hi>?<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Vid. suprà</hi>, p. +<ref target="Pg233">233</ref>.</note>] 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 <q>μὴ +φοβεῖσθε, Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνόν.</q> καὶ τοῖς ἐξῆς, οἶς +ἐπιλέγει: <q>καὶ ἀκούσασαι ἔφυγον, καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, +ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.</q> 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> +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 <q>ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ +<pb n="266"/><anchor id="Pg266"/> +τοῦ σαββάτου</q> κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον, μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωσόμεθα; +καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀναστὰς δὲ, ὑποστίξομεν;<note place="foot"><p>P.S. I avail myself of +this blank space to introduce a passage from <hi rend="smallcaps">Theophylact</hi> +(<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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; [<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. i. p. 263 +<hi rend="smallcaps">C</hi>. +</p> +<p> +It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like +Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing +Eusebius. See above, p. <ref target="Pg066">66</ref>, note (c). +</p></note> 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> +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> +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> + +<pb n="267"/><anchor id="Pg267"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Appendix C."/> +<anchor id="Appendix_C"/> +<head>APPENDIX (C).</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +Proof that <hi rend="smallcaps">Hesychius</hi> is a copyist only in what he says +concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel. +</quote> + +<p> +(Referred to at pp. <ref target="Pg057">57-58</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +§ 1. It was confidently stated above (at p. <ref target="Pg058">58</ref>) that +<hi rend="smallcaps">Hesychius</hi>, +discussing the consistency of S. Matthew's ὀψὲ τῶν +σαββάτων (chap. xxviii. 1), with the πρωί of S. Mark (chap. +xvi. 9), is a <emph>copyist</emph> only; and that he copies from the +<q>Quaestiones ad Marinum</q> of <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>. 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 rend="latexcolumns: 'p{4.5cm} p{4.5cm}'"> +<row> + <cell>(<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>.)</cell> + <cell>(<hi rend="smallcaps">Hesychius</hi>, or + <hi rend="smallcaps">Severus</hi>.)</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων μὴ τὴν ἑσπερινὴν + ὥραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου + λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν + </cell> + <cell> + τὸ δὲ ὀψὲ σαββάτων οὺ τὴν ἑσπέραν + τὴν μετὰ τὴν δύσιν τοῦ ἡλίου + δηλοί ... + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς νυκτὸς. + </cell> + <cell> + ἀλλὰ ... τὸ βράδιον καὶ πολὺ διεστηκὸς ... + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <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; + </cell> + <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. + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + ὄθεν ὥσπερ διερμηνεύων αὐτὸς + ἑαυτὸν ὁ Ματθαῖος μετὰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων, + ἐπήγαγε τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῇ εἰς + μίαν σαββάτων. + </cell> + <cell> + ὁ Ματθαῖος ... ὥσπερ ἑρμηνεύων + ἑαυτὸν, ἐπήγαγε τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς + μίαν σαββάτων. + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + Ἔθος δὲ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα σάββατον + καλεῖν. + </cell> + <cell> + σάββατον δὲ τὴν πᾶσαν ἑβδομάσα + καλεῖν Ἑβραίοις ἔθος. + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + λέγεται γοῦν παρὰ τοῖς Εὐαγγελισταῖς + τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; + </cell> + <cell> + αὐτίκα γοῦν οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ τῇ + μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων φασί; + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + ἐν δὲ τῇ συνηθείᾳ, δευτέρα σαββάτων, + καί τρίτη σαββάτων. + </cell> + <cell> + οὔτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ κεκχρήμεθα, + δευτέραν σαββάτων, καὶ + τρίτη σαββάτων. + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> ad Marinum, <hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> + Mai, vol. iv. p. 257-8.) + </cell> + <cell> + (<hi rend="smallcaps">Greg. Nyss</hi>. [<hi rend='italic'>vid. suprà</hi>, p. + <ref target="Pg039">39 b</ref>to 41.] <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. iii. p. 402.) + </cell> +</row> +</table> + +<pb n="268"/><anchor id="Pg268"/> + +<p> +§ 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original +text of the passage of <hi rend="smallcaps">Hesychius</hi> exhibited in English at +p. <ref target="Pg057">57</ref>. The intention of setting down the parallel passages +from <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, and from <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi> of +Antioch, is in order to shew the sources from which Hesychius obtained his +materials,—as explained at p. <ref target="Pg058">58</ref>:— +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{4.5cm} p{4.5cm}'"> +<row> + <cell>(<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>.)</cell> + <cell>(<hi rend="smallcaps">Hesychius</hi>, or + <hi rend="smallcaps">Severus</hi>.)</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων + τὸ τέλος περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν + Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. + οἶς ἐπιλέγει; ... <q>καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν, + εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.</q> + </cell> + <cell> + ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις + τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον + μεχρὶ τοῦ <q>ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ,</q> ἔχει + τὸ τέλος. + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> ad Marinum, <hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> + Mai, iv. p. 255.) + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor of Antioch</hi>.) + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι ... πρόσκειται + ... <q>Ἀναστὰς</q> κ.τ.λ. δοκεῖ δὲ + τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου + εἰρημένῳ.... + </cell> + <cell> + ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα. + <q>Ἀναστὰς</q> κ.τ.λ. τοῦτο δὲ ἐναντίωσίν + τινα δοκεῖ ἔχειν πρὸς τὰ + ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένα; + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> </cell> + <cell> + [τῆς γὰρ ὤρας τῆς νυκτὸς ἀγνώστου + τυγχανούσης καθ᾽ ἤν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνέστη, + πῶς ἐνταῦθα ἀναστῆναι <q>πρωί</q> γέγραπται; + ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐναντίον φανήσεται + τὸ ῥητὸν, εἱ] + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + οὅτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα; <q>Ἀναστὰς + δὲ,</q> καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, <q>πρωί + τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ + τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ;</q> ἵνα τὸ μὲν <q>ἀναστὰς</q>— + </cell> + <cell> + μετ᾽ ἐπιστήμης ἀναγνωσόμεθα; καὶ + γὰρ ὑποστῖξαι δεῖ συνετῶς; <q>Ἀναστὰς + δὲ,</q> καὶ οὕτως ἐπαγάγειν, <q>πρωί + πρώτῃ σαββάτων ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ + τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.</q> ἵνα τὸ μὲν <q>ἀναστὰς</q> + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> + (<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor Antioch</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>ed. Cramer</hi>, + vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to line 27.) + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> </cell> + <cell> + [ἔχη τὴν ἀναφορὰν συμφώνως τῷ + Ματθαίῳ, πρὸς τὸν προλαβόντα καιρὸν, + τὸ δὲ <q>πρωί</q> πρὸς τὴν τῆς + Μαρίας γενομένην ἐπιφάνειαν ἀποδοθείη.] + </cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell> </cell> + <cell> + (<hi rend="smallcaps">Greg. Nyss.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. iii. + p. 411, <hi rend="smallcaps">B, C, D</hi>: which may be also seen in Cramer's + <hi rend='italic'>Catenae</hi>, [vol. i. p. 250, line 21 to line 33,] + ascribed to <q><hi rend="smallcaps">Severus</hi>, Archbishop of Antioch,</q> + [<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>, p. 243.]) + </cell> +</row> +</table> + +</div> + +<pb n="269"/><anchor id="Pg269"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Appendix D."/> +<anchor id="Appendix_D"/> +<head>APPENDIX (D).</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +Some account of <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor of Antioch's</hi> Commentary on S. Mark's +Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain +Victor's Work. +</quote> + +<p> +(Referred to at p. <ref target="Pg060">60</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +<q>Après avoir examiné avec soin les MSS. de la Bibliothèque +du Roi,</q> (says the Père Simon in his <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Crit. +du N. T.</hi> p. 79,) <q>j'ai réconnu que cet ouvrage</q> (he is +speaking of the Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel popularly +ascribed to Victor of Antioch,) <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 <emph>chaînes</emph>.</q><note place="foot">Kollar, +(editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same opinion.—Huet +(<hi rend='italic'>Origeniana</hi>, 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.</note> It will be seen from +the notices of the work in question already offered, (<hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>, +p. <ref target="Pg059">59</ref> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor of Antioch</hi> 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> +Concerning <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi> himself, nothing whatever is known +except that he was <q>a presbyter of Antioch.</q> 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. <ref target="Pg059">59</ref> to 65, I propose to offer a few observations +with which I was unwilling before to encumber the +<pb n="270"/><anchor id="Pg270"/> +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> +1. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark's Gospel, +which generally claims on its front <q><hi rend="smallcaps">Victor, Presbyter +of Antioch</hi>,</q> for its Author.<note place="foot">The copies which I have seen, +are headed,—ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ (sometimes ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ) ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙΣ +ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no Author's +name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril, Origen, +&c.—<hi rend='italic'>Vide infrà</hi>, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, +No. xlvii (comp, xxviii.)</note> A Latin translation of this +work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the first instance, +published at Ingolstadt in 1580,<note place="foot"><hi rend='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.</hi> Ingolstadt. +1580, 8vo. pp. 510.</note> by Theodore Peltanus. +His Latin version found its way at once into <q>Bibliothecæ,</q> +(or Collections of Writings of the Fathers,) and has been +again and again reprinted. +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place="foot"><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.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Præfatio</hi>: from +which the particulars in the text are obtained.</note> Still, the dislocated +<pb n="271"/><anchor id="Pg271"/> +paragraphs of Victor of Antioch are recognisable by +the name of their author (<q>Victor Antiochenus</q>) prefixed +to each: while <q>Tolosanus</q> designates the Toulouse MS.: +<q>Vaticanus</q> (or simply <q>Anonymus</q>) the Vatican. +</p> + +<p> +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:<note place="foot">ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ +πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐξήσησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον +ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit C. F. Matthæi, +Mosquae, 1775.</note> +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> +4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume +of his <hi rend='italic'>Catenae</hi> 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 [<hi rend='italic'>infrà</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg279">279</ref>] 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:<note place="foot">P. xxvii-xxviii.</note> +while his reasons for proposing to assign the work of Victor +of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are undeserving of serious +attention. +</p> + +<p> +On a comparison of these four Editions of the same work, +it is discovered that the Latin version of Peltanus (1580), +<pb n="272"/><anchor id="Pg272"/> +<emph>represents the same Greek text</emph> 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 <emph>additional +matter</emph> 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> +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;<note place="foot">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 <hi rend='italic'>Chrys.</hi> +iii. 529, top of the page.)</note>) as resulting from the boundless +<pb n="273"/><anchor id="Pg273"/> +license which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed +himself chiefly in <emph>abridging</emph> his author.—To skip a few lines: +to omit an explanatory paragraph, quotation, or digression: +to pass <hi rend='italic'>per saltum</hi> 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.<note place="foot">Thus the two notes on +p. 440 are found substantially to agree with the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. +527. See also <hi rend='italic'>infrà</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg289">289</ref>.</note> +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> +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.<note place="foot">Let any one, with Mai's edition of the +<q>Quaestiones ad Marinum</q> of Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are +abridged, mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p. 257 +with Cramer's <q>Catenae,</q> i. p. 251-2; and this again with the <q>Catena in +Joannem</q> of Corderius, p. 448-9.</note> <emph>Why</emph>, for example, remodel the +structure +<pb n="274"/><anchor id="Pg274"/> +of a sentence and needlessly vary its phraseology? +Never I think in my life have I been more hopelessly confused +than in the <hi rend='italic'>Bibliothèque</hi>, while attempting to collate +certain copies of Victor of Antioch. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>Preface</q> (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;—<emph>but not the same eleven</emph>. On the other hand, +Matthaei<note place="foot">With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.</note> +<emph>prolongs</emph> 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 [<hi rend='italic'>Cramer</hi>, i. p. 264, line 16,] Evan. 300, +[ = Reg. 186, <hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 93, line 16 from bottom] proceeds,—Κλήμης +ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων, (thirty-one lines, ending) +χαρακτήρ ἐγένετο. +</p> + +<p> +On referring to the work of Possinus, <q>Anonymus Vaticanus</q> +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> +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 <emph>one</emph>,—the production, no doubt, +of <q>Victor, Presbyter of Antioch,</q> 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 +<pb n="275"/><anchor id="Pg275"/> +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.<note place="foot">p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p. +4.</note> Accordingly, he presents us in +the first few lines of his Commentary (p. 266) with a brief +quotation from the work of Eusebius <q>to Marinus, on the +seeming inconsistency of the Evangelical accounts of the +Resurrection;</q> following it up with a passage from <q>the +vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +[vii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>?] +tome of Origen's Exegetics on S. John's Gospel.</q> +We are thus presented at the outset with <emph>two</emph> of Victor's +favorite authorities. The work of Eusebius just named he +was evidently thoroughly familiar with.<note place="foot">Eusebius is again quoted at +p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line 23-5). See especially p. 446.</note> +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> +Of Origen also Victor was evidently very fond<note place="foot">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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">c, d</hi>,—which Victor is found to have abridged. Compare +the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284 <hi rend="smallcaps">a</hi>. Note, that +ἄλλος δέ φησι, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf. Possinus, p. 324.</note>: 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.<note place="foot">See pp. 408, 418, +442.</note> Passages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met +with;<note place="foot">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.</note> and once at least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil. +The historian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name.<note place="foot">e.g. p. 408, +411 (twice).</note> +</p> + +<p> +But the Father to whom Victor is chiefly indebted is +Chrysostom,—whom he styles <q>the blessed John, Bishop of +the Royal City;</q> (meaning Constantinople<note place="foot">In p. 418,—ὁ τῆς +βασιλίδος πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος Ἰωάννης. For instances of quotation from Chrysostom, comp. +V. A. p. 315 with Chrys. pp. 398-9: p. 376 with Chrys. pp. 227-8: p. 420 with Chrys. +p. 447, &c.</note>). Not that +<pb n="276"/><anchor id="Pg276"/> +Victor, strictly speaking, <emph>transcribes</emph> 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.<note place="foot">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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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.</note> 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,<note place="foot">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.</note> 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,<note place="foot">e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which += Chrys. p. 447.</note> &c. The result is that +it is often impossible to know to <emph>whose</emph> 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> +I suspect that, occasionally, copyists of Victor's work, +as they recognised a fragment here and there, prefixed to it +<pb n="277"/><anchor id="Pg277"/> +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.<note place="foot">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 <hi rend='italic'>Laud.</hi> +Gr. 33 <hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 100 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>, at top, &c.</note> +Whether Victor's Commentary can in strictness be called a <q>Catena,</q> 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> +Yet, inasmuch as Victor never, or certainly very seldom, +prefixes to a passage from a Father <emph>the name of its Author</emph>;—above +all, seeing that sometimes, at all events, he is original, +or at least speaks in his own person;—I think the +title of <q>Catena</q> inappropriate to his Commentary. +</p> + +<p> +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):—<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<note place="foot">So in the +<hi rend='italic'>Catena</hi> of Corderius, in <hi rend='italic'>S. Joannem</hi>, p. +302.</note> 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 <emph>village</emph>; whereas Luke [viii. 37] speaks of some +one else; for, <q>Behold,</q> (saith he) <q>a woman <emph>in the city</emph> +which was <emph>a sinner</emph>,</q></q> &c., &c. +</p> + +<pb n="278"/><anchor id="Pg278"/> + +<p> +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. +<ref target="Pg064">64-5</ref>; 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. <ref target="Pg288">288</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 407, it <emph>cannot</emph> +be right to quote <q>401</q> +as the date of Victor's work. Rather would <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 450 be +a more reasonable suggestion: seeing that extracts from +Cyril, who lived on till <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 444, are found here and there +in Victor's pages. We shall not perhaps materially err +if we assign <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 430-450 as Victor of Antioch's approximate +date. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor of Antioch's</hi> Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel, +follows:— +</p> + +<p> +(i.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 12 ( = Reg. 230) <hi rend='italic'>a most +beautiful MS.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi> by +name; being a recension very like that which Matthaei has published. +S. Mark's text is given <hi rend='italic'>in extenso</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(ii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 19 ( = Reg. 189: anciently numbered 437 and +1880. Also 134 and 135. At back, 1603.) <hi rend='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, &c. and words from +Scripture all in gold.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Here also the Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel is assigned to +<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi>. 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> + +<pb n="279"/><anchor id="Pg279"/> + +<p> +(iii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 20 (= Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.) +<hi rend='italic'>A splendid +folio,—the work of several hands and beautifully written.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Victor's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel is generally considered +to be claimed for <hi rend="smallcaps">Cyril of Alexandria</hi> by the following +words: +</p> + +<p> +ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΑΓΙΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ<lb/> +ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ<lb/> +ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ. +</p> + +<p> +The correspondence between Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 [<hi rend='italic'>infrà</hi>, +No. xiv], (= Reg. 188 and 186), is extraordinary.<note place="foot">I believe it +will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 corresponds <emph>exactly</emph> 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.</note> +In S. Mark's Gospel, (which alone I examined,) <emph>every page begins with the same +syllable, both of Text and Commentary</emph>: (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 <emph>after</emph> 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. <ref target="Pg118">118-9</ref>,—where see the notes. +</p> + +<p> +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> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{4.5cm} p{4.5cm}'"> +<row> + <cell>(<hi rend="smallcaps">Cod. Reg.</hi> 186.)</cell> + <cell>(<hi rend="smallcaps">Cod. Reg.</hi> 188.)</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(1) Matth. xxvi. 70. αὐτῶν λέγων</cell> + <cell>αυτων παντων λεγων</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(2) Mk. i. 2. ώς</cell> + <cell>κάθως</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(3) Mk. i. 11. ῷ</cell> + <cell>σοι</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(4) Mk. i. 16. βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον</cell> + <cell>ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον</cell> +</row> +<pb n="280"/><anchor id="Pg280"/> +<row> + <cell>(5) Mk. ii. 21. παλαιῷ: εἰ δἐ μή γε αἱρεῖ απ᾽ αυτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα</cell> + <cell>παλαιῷ: εἰ δὲ μή, αἅρει τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(6) Mk. iii. 10. ἐθεράπευεν</cell> + <cell>ἐθεράπευσεν</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(7) Mk. iii. 17. τοῦ Ἰακώβου</cell> + <cell>Ἰακώβου</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(8) Mk. iii. 18. καὶ Ματθαῖον καὶ Θ.</cell> + <cell>καί Μ. τὸν τελώνην καὶ Θ.</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(9) Mk. vi. 9. μὴ ἐνδύσησθε</cell> + <cell>ἐνδέδυσθαι</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(10) Mk. vi. 10. μένετε</cell> + <cell>μείνατε</cell> +</row> +</table> + +<p> +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> +(iv.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 24 (= Reg. 178.) +<hi rend='italic'>A most beautifully written fol.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Catenae</hi>, vol. i. p. xxix,), as I have explained +already at p. <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>. Some notices of the present Codex are given +above at p. <ref target="Pg228">228-9</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(v.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 25 (= Reg. 191: anciently numbered Colb. 2259): +1880. <hi rend='italic'>Folio: grandly written.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +No Author's name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of +the Evangelist is given <hi rend='italic'>in extenso</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(vi.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 34 (= Coisl. 195.) +<hi rend='italic'>A grand folio, splendidly written, +and in splendid condition: the paintings as they came from the +hand of the artist.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +At fol. 172, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi>. +It will be found that Coisl. 23 (<hi rend='italic'>infrà</hi>, 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 (<hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>.) +There has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the Commentary. +</p> + +<p> +(vii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 36 (= Coisl. 20.) +<hi rend='italic'>A truly sumptuous Codex.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +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> + +<pb n="281"/><anchor id="Pg281"/> + +<p> +(viii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 37 (= Coisl. 21.) <hi rend='italic'>Fol.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi> at fol. 117. +It seems to be very much the same recension which is exhibited by +Coisl. 19 (<hi rend='italic'>infrà</hi>, No. xviii.) and Coisl. 24 +(<hi rend='italic'>infrà</hi>, No. xi.) The Text +is given <hi rend='italic'>in extenso</hi>: the Commentary, in the margin. +</p> + +<p> +(ix.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 39 (= Coisl. 23.) +<hi rend='italic'>A grand large fol. The writing +singularly abbreviated.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi>: 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 <q>P.</q> (See his +<hi rend='italic'>Catenae</hi>, vol. i. p. xxviii; and +<hi rend='italic'>vide supra</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +(x.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 40 (= Coisl. 22.) +</p> + +<p> +No Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary (fol. 103); +which is a recension resembling Matthaei's. The Text is +<hi rend='italic'>in extenso</hi>: the Commentary, in the margin. +</p> + +<p> +(xi.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 41 (= Coisl. 24.) <hi rend='italic'>Fol.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +This is a Commentary, not a Text. It is expressly claimed for +<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi>. The recension seems to approximate to that published by +Matthaei. (See on No. viii.) One leaf is missing. (See fol. 136 b.) +</p> + +<p> +(xii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 50 (= Bodl. Laud. Gracc. 33.) 4to. The Commentary +here seems to be claimed for <hi rend="smallcaps">Cyril of Alexandria</hi>, but +in the same unsatisfactory way as No. iii and xiv. (See Coxe's +<hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> i. 516.) +</p> + +<p> +(xiii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 299 (= Reg. 177: anciently numbered +2242<hi rend="vertical-align: super">3</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any +Author's name. The Text of S. Mark is given <hi rend='italic'>in extenso</hi>: Victor's +Commentary, in the margin. +</p> + +<p> +(xiv.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 300 (= Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750, +and 1882.) <hi rend='italic'>A noble Codex: but the work of different scribes. It is +most beautifully written.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +At fol. 94, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for <hi rend="smallcaps">Cyril of +Alexandria</hi>, 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> + +<pb n="282"/><anchor id="Pg282"/> + +<p> +See above, the note on Evan. 20 (No. iii),—a MS. which, as +already explained, has been elaborately assimilated to the present. +</p> + +<p> +(xv.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 301 (= Reg. 187: anciently numbered 504, 537 +and 1879.) <hi rend='italic'>A splendid fol. beautifully written throughout.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The Commentary on S. Mark is here claimed for <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(xvi.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 309 (= Reg. 201: anciently numbered 176 and +2423.) <hi rend='italic'>A very interesting little fol.: very peculiar in its style. +Drawings old and curious. Beautifully written.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The Commentary is here claimed for <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi>. This is not properly +a text of the Gospel; but parts of the text interwoven with +the Commentary. Take a specimen<note place="foot">Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 +of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384 in +the <hi rend='italic'>Syr. Cat.</hi></note>: (S. Mark xvi. 8-20.) +</p> + +<p> +ΚΑΙ ΕΞΕΛΘΟΥΣΑΙ ΕΦΥΓΟΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΝΗΜΕΙΟΥ. ΕΙΧΕΝ ΔΕ ΑΥΤΑΣ +ΤΡΟΜΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΚΣΤΑΣΙΣ. ΕΩΣ ΔΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΕΠΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΝΤΩΝ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΝ. +</p> + +<p> +Over the text is written ΚΕΙΜ (κειμένον i.e. <hi rend='italic'>Text</hi>) and over the +Commentary ΕΡΜ (ἑρμηνεία, i.e. <hi rend='italic'>Interpretation</hi>.) See the next. +</p> + +<p> +(xvii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 312 (= Reg. 206: anciently numbered 968, 1058, +2283; and behind, 1604. Also A. 67.) <hi rend='italic'>A beautiful little fol.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Contains only the Commentary, which is expressly assigned to +<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi>. 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> +(xviii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 329 (= Coisl. 19.) +<hi rend='italic'>A very grand fol.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any +Author's name. (See above, on No. viii.) +</p> + +<p> +(xix.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Reg.</hi> 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Reg. +2330: also No. 18.) +<hi rend='italic'>A grand large 4<hi rend="vertical-align: super">to</hi>.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The Commentary is here claimed for <hi rend="smallcaps">Origen</hi>. Such at least is +probably the intention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of +the Prologue:— +</p> + +<quote rend="display"> +ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΠΡΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ +ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΥ. +</quote> + +<p> +See on this subject the note at foot of p. <ref target="Pg235">235</ref>. +</p> + +<pb n="283"/><anchor id="Pg283"/> + +<p> +(xx.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 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 <q>Tolosanus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(xxi.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambec. 29.) +Victor's Commentary is here anonymous. +</p> + +<p> +(xxii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 92 (which belonged to Faesch of Basle +[see Wetstein's <hi rend='italic'>Proleg.</hi>], and which Haenel [p. 658 +<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>] 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,—<q>Continet +Marcum et in eum <hi rend='italic'>Victoris Antiocheni Commentarios</hi>, +foliis 5 mutilos. Item Scholia in Epistolas Catholicas,</q> &c. And +so Haenel. +</p> + +<p> +(xxiii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 94 (As before, precisely; except that Haenel's +[inaccurate] notice is at p. 657 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>.) This Codex contains +<hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi> of Antioch's Commentary on S. Mark, (which is evidently +hero also assigned to him <emph>by name</emph>;) and Titus of Bostra on S. Luke. Also +several Scholia: among the rest, I suspect, (from what Haenel +says), the Scholia spoken of <hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>, p. +<ref target="Pg047">47</ref>, note (x). +</p> + +<p> +(xxiv.) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning +them, Haenel says there also exists in the Library at +Basle,—<q><hi rend="smallcaps">Victoris</hi> +Antiocheni Scholia in Evang. Marci: +chart.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Catalogue Librorum MSS.</hi> Lips. 1830, +4to. p. 656 <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(xxv.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 108 (Vind. Forlos. d. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225) +refers to it for the Scholion given in the next article. +(<ref target="Appendix_E">Append. E</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +(xxvi.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 129 (Vat. 358.) ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ. ΠΓ ΑΝΤΙΟΧ ΕΡΜ ΕΙΣ ΚΑΤΑ +ΜΑΡΚΟΝ. The Commentary is written along the top and bottom +and down the side of each page; and there are references (α, β, γ) +inserted in the text to the paragraphs in the margin,—as in some +of the MSS. at Paris. Prefixed is an exegetical apparatus by +Eusebius, &c. +</p> + +<p> +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> + +<pb n="284"/><anchor id="Pg284"/> + +<p> +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. +<ref target="Pg274">274</ref>, line 24 to 27. +</p> + +<p> +(xxvii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is written as +in Vat. 358 (No. xxvi): but no Author's name is given. +</p> + +<p> +(xxviii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 138 (Vat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at +the beginning are these words:—ὁ ἀντίγραφος (<hi rend='italic'>sic</hi>) 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> +(xxix.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 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> +(xxx.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 181 (Xavier, Cod. Zelada.) Birch was shewn this +Codex of the Four Gospels in the Library of Cardinal Xavier of +Zelada (<hi rend='italic'>Prolegomena</hi>, p. lviii): <q>Cujus forma est in folio, +pp. 596. In margine passim occurrunt scholia ex Patrum Commentariis +exscripta.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(xxxi.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 186 (Laur. vi. 18.) This Codex is minutely +described by Bandini (<hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> i. 130), who gives the Scholion +(<hi rend='italic'>infra</hi>, p. 388-9), and says that the Commentary is without any +Author's name. +</p> + +<p> +(xxxii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 194 (Laur. vi. 33.) Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρου +Ἀντιοχείας ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον. (See the description of +this Codex in Bandini's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> i. 158.) +</p> + +<p> +(xxxiii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 195 (Laur. vi. 34.) This Codex seems to +correspond in its contents with No. xxxi. <hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>: the Commentary +containing the Scholion, and being anonymous. (See Bandini, +p. 161.) +</p> + +<p> +(xxxiv.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 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> +(xxxv.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 210 (Venet. 27.) <q>Conveniunt initio Commentarii +<pb n="285"/><anchor id="Pg285"/> +eum iis qui Victori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autem +discrepant.</q> (Theupoli <hi rend='italic'>Graeca D. Marci Bibl. Codd. MSS.</hi> Venet. +1740.) I infer that the work is anonymous. +</p> + +<p> +(xxxvi.) Venet. 495. <q><hi rend="smallcaps">Victoris Antiocheni</hi> Presbyteri +expositio in Evangelium Marci, collecta ex diversis Patribus.</q> (I obtain +this reference from the Catalogue of Theupolus.) +</p> + +<p> +(xxxvii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 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> +(xxxviii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 221 (Vind. Ness. 117, Lambec. 38). Kollar has +a long note (<hi rend="smallcaps">B</hi>) [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> +(xxxix.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Lambec. 39.) The +Commentary is anonymous. Birch refers to it, as before. +</p> + +<p> +Add the following six MSS. at Moscow, concerning which, see +Matthaei's Nov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. xii.:— +</p> + +<p> +(xl.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 237 (This is Matthaei's d or +<hi rend="smallcaps">D</hi> [described in his <hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> ix. 242. +Also <hi rend='italic'>Vict. Ant.</hi> ii. 137.] <q>SS. Synod. 42:</q>) 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> +(xli.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 238 (Matthaei's e or +<hi rend="smallcaps">E</hi> [described in his <hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> ix. +200. Also <hi rend='italic'>Vict. Ant.</hi> ii. 141.] <q>SS. Synod. 48.</q>) This Codex +formed the basis of Matthaei's ed. of Victor, [See the <hi rend='italic'>Not. Codd. +MSS.</hi> at the end of vol. ii. p. 123. Also <hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> ix. 202.] The +Commentary on S. Mark is anonymous. +</p> + +<p> +(xlii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 253 (Matthaei's 10 [described in his +<hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> ix. +234.] It was lent him by Archbishop Nicephorus.) Matthaei +says (p. 236) that it corresponds with a (<emph>our</emph> Evan. 259). No +Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary on S. Mark. +</p> + +<p> +(xliii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 255 (Matthaei's 12 [described in his +<hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> ix. 222. +Also <hi rend='italic'>Vict. Ant.</hi> ii. 133.]) <q>SS. Synod. 139.</q> 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 +<q><hi rend="smallcaps">b</hi>.</q> [N.T. ix. 224 <hi rend='italic'>note</hi>.] ... +See by all means, <hi rend='italic'>infrà</hi>, the <q>Postscript.</q> +</p> + +<pb n="286"/><anchor id="Pg286"/> + +<p> +(xliv.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 256 (Matthaei's 14 [described in his +<hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> ix. 220.] +<q>Bibl. Typ. Synod. 3.</q>) The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned +to <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi>, presbyter of Antioch; but the Scholia are said to +be (as in <q>12</q> [No. xxxix]) few in number. +</p> + +<p> +(xlv.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 259 (Matthaei's a or +<hi rend="smallcaps">A</hi> [described in his <hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> ix. +237. Also <hi rend='italic'>Vict. Ant.</hi> ii. 128.] <q>SS. Synod. 45.</q>) 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> +(xlvi.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 332 (Taurin. xx <hi rend='italic'>b</hi> +iv. 20.) Victor's Commentary +is here given anonymously. (See the Catalogue of Pasinus, +P. i. p. 91.) +</p> + +<p> +(xlvii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 353 (Ambros. M. 93): with the same Commentary +as Evan. 181, (i.e. No. xxx.) +</p> + +<p> +(xlviii.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 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> +(xlix.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 428 (Monacensis 381. Augsburg 11): said to be +duplicate of Evan. 300 (i.e. of No. xiv.) +</p> + +<p> +(1.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 432 (Monacensis 99.) The Commentary contained +in this Codex is evidently assigned to <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(li.) <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 7<hi rend="vertical-align: super">pe</hi> +(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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor Ant.</hi> (See Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 178.). +</p> + +<p> +(lii.) At Toledo, in the <q>Biblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor,</q> Haenel +[p. 885] mentions:—<q><hi rend="smallcaps">Victor Antiochenus</hi> Comm. +Graec. in iv. [?] Evangelia saec. xiv. membr. fol.</q> +</p> + +<p> +To this enumeration, (which could certainly be very extensively +increased,) will probably have to be added the following:— +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 146 (Palatino Vat. 5.)<lb/> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 233 (Escurial [Upsilon]. ii. 8.)<lb/> +<pb n="287"/><anchor id="Pg287"/> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 373 (Vat. 1423.)<lb/> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 379 (Vat. 1769.)<lb/> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.) +</p> + +<p> +Middle Hill, No. 13,975,—a MS. in the collection of Sir Thomas +Phillipps. +</p> + +<p> +In conclusion, it can scarcely require to be pointed out +that <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor's</hi> 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 <emph><hi rend="smallcaps">Victor's</hi> +compilation on S. Mark</emph>,—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> +These last remarks are offered in the way of partial elucidation +of the difficulty pointed out above, at pp. <ref target="Pg272">272-4</ref>. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="288"/><anchor id="Pg288"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Appendix E."/> +<anchor id="Appendix_E"/> +<head>APPENDIX (E).</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +Text of the concluding Scholion of <hi rend="smallcaps">Victor of Antioch's</hi> +Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to +the genuineness of <q>the last Twelve Verses.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +(Referred to at p. <ref target="Pg065">65</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +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> +The text chiefly followed is that of Coisl. 20, (in the Paris +Library,—our <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 36;) supplemented by several other +MSS., which, for convenience, I have arbitrarily designated +by the letters of the alphabet.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Reg.</hi> 177 = A: +178 = B: 230 = C.—<hi rend='italic'>Coisl.</hi> 19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F: +22 = G: 24 = H.—<emph>Matthaei's</emph> d <emph>or</emph> D = I: +<emph>his</emph> e <emph>or</emph> E = J: <emph>his</emph> 12 = K: <emph>his</emph> +a <emph>or</emph> A = L.—<hi rend='italic'>Vat.</hi> 358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O: +1229 = P: 1446 = Q.—<hi rend='italic'>Vind. Koll.</hi> 4 +<hi rend='italic'>Forlos.</hi> 5 = R.—<hi rend='italic'>Xav. de Zelada</hi> += S.—<hi rend='italic'>Laur.</hi> 18 = T: 34 = +U.—<hi rend='italic'>Venet.</hi> 27 = V.—<hi rend='italic'>Vind. +Lamb.</hi> 38 = W : 39 = X.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ <q>Ἀναστὰς<note place="foot">So B-E (which I chiefly follow) +begins,—Το δε αναστας.</note> δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου ἐφάνη +πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ,</q> καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς ἐπιφερόμενα, +ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ παρὰ<note place="foot">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.</note> πλείστοις +ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται,<note place="foot">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.</note> (ὡς νόθα γὰρ ἐνόμισαν αὐτά τινες +εἶναι<note place="foot">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.</note>) ἀλλ᾽ +<pb n="289"/><anchor id="Pg289"/> +ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων, ὡς ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ,<note place="foot">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.</note> +κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια, +συντεθείκαμεν<note place="foot">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.</note> καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομόνην δεσποτικὴν +ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ τὸ <q>ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ</q><note place="foot">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.</note> τούτεστιν ἀπὸ +τοῦ <q>ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτου,</q> καὶ καθ᾽ ἑξῇς μέχρι +τοῦ <q>διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. Αμήν.</q><note place="foot">So B. All, except +B, C, H, J, P seem to end at εφοβουντο γαρ.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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> +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.<note place="foot">e.g. οὐκ ἦν δέ for οὐ κεῖνται.</note> +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 +<pb n="290"/><anchor id="Pg290"/> +him. To amputate, or otherwise to mutilated; to abridge; to +amplify; to transpose; to remodel;—this has been the rule +with all. The <emph>types</emph> (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> +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 <emph>in the main</emph> 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> +(1.) That from certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel the last +Twelve Verses had been <hi rend="smallcaps">LEFT OUT</hi>; 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> +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. <ref target="Pg272">272-3</ref>. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="291"/><anchor id="Pg291"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Appendix F."/> +<anchor id="Appendix_F"/> +<head>APPENDIX (F).</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +On the Relative antiquity of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Codex Vaticanus</hi> (B), +and the <hi rend="smallcaps">Codex Sinaiticus</hi> (א). +</quote> + +<p> +(Referred to at p. <ref target="Pg070">70</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +I. <q>Vix differt aetate a Codice Sinaitico,</q> says Tischendorf, +(<hi rend='italic'>ed. 8va</hi>, 1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus +(B). Yet does he perpetually designate his own Sinaitic +Codex (א) as <q>omnium antiquissimus.</q> Now, +</p> + +<p> +(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> +(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 <emph>thirty</emph> +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 <emph>one</emph> place: but in Cod. א it is interrupted upwards +of <emph>fifty</emph> times. Again: from S. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of +the Gospel there is but <emph>one</emph> break in Cod. B. But it is +broken into well nigh <emph>an hundred and fifty</emph> short paragraphs +in Cod. א. +</p> + +<p> +There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B, +(resembling the style of the papyrus of <hi rend='italic'>Hyperides</hi> published +by Mr. Babington,) is the more ancient. The only places +where it approximates to the method of Cod. א, is where +the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, +&c.), and where our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> proclaims the eight Beatitudes +(S. Matth. v.) +</p> + +<pb n="292"/><anchor id="Pg292"/> + +<p> +(3) Again; Cod. א is prone to exhibit, on extraordinary +occasions, <emph>a single word</emph> in a line, as at— +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Matth. xv. 30.</hi><lb/> +ΧΩΛΟΥΣ<lb/> +ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ<lb/> +ΚΥΛΛΟΥΣ<lb/> +ΚΩΦΟΥΣ +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Mark x. 29.</hi><lb/> +Η ΑΔΕΛΦΑΣ<lb/> +Η ΠΑΤΕΡΑ<lb/> +Η ΜΗΤΕΡΑ<lb/> +Η ΤΕΚΝΑ<lb/> +Η ΑΓΡΟΥΣ +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Luke xiv. 13</hi><lb/> +ΠΤΩΧΟΥΣ<lb/> +ΑΝΑΠΗΡΟΥΣ<lb/> +ΧΩΛΟΥΣ<lb/> +ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ +</p> + +<p> +This became a prevailing fashion in the vi<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the +initial letter in Cod. א <emph>slightly projects into the margin</emph>,—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> +(5) Further; Cod. א abounds in such contractions as ΑΝΟΣ, +ΟΥΝΟΣ (with all their cases), for ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ, ΟΥΡΑΝΟΣ, &c. Not +only ΠΝΑ, ΠΗΡ, ΠΕΡ, ΠΡΑ, ΜΡΑ (for ΠΝΕΥΜΑ, ΠΑΤΗΡ-ΤΕΡ-ΤΕΡΑ, +ΜΗΤΕΡΑ), but also ΣΤΡΘΗ, ΙΗΛ, ΙΗΛΗΜ, for ΣΤΑΥΡΩΘΗ, ΙΣΡΑΗΛ, +ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ. +</p> + +<p> +But Cod. B, though familiar with ΙΣ, and a few other of +the most ordinary abbreviations, knows nothing of these +compendia: which certainly <emph>cannot</emph> 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> +(6) The very discrepancy observable between these two +Codices in their method of dealing with <q>the last twelve +verses of S. Mark's Gospel,</q> (already adverted to at p. <ref target="Pg088">88</ref>,) +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 <emph>familiar</emph> with the phenomenon which +<emph>astonishes</emph> Cod. B by its novelty and strangeness. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>that</emph> general air of primitiveness +<pb n="293"/><anchor id="Pg293"/> +in Cod. B which makes itself at once <emph>felt</emph>. The even +symmetry of the unbroken columns;—the work of the <hi rend='italic'>prima +manus</hi> everywhere vanishing through sheer antiquity;—the +small, even, <emph>square</emph> writing, which partly recalls the style +of the Herculanean rolls; partly, the papyrus fragments +of the <hi rend='italic'>Oration against Demosthenes</hi> (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> +II. It has been conjectured by one whose words are always +entitled to most respectful attention, that Codex Sinaiticus +may have been <q>one of the fifty Codices of Holy Scripture +which Eusebius prepared <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 331, by Constantine's +direction, for the use of the new Capital.</q> (Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Collation of the Cod. Sin.</hi>, Introd. p. xxxvii-viii.) +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>216</q> 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, <emph>which explains +the phenomenon</emph> in Cod. M), <emph>against ver.</emph> 29 is set the number, +<q>216,</q> instead of against ver. 28. But what then? Has +not the number <emph>demonstrably</emph> lost its place? And is there +not <emph>still</emph> one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And <emph>which</emph> +can it <emph>possibly</emph> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Canon, which +<pb n="294"/><anchor id="Pg294"/> +specifies things peculiar to each of the four Evangelists. +Eusebius, moreover, in a certain place (<hi rend='italic'>Dem. Evan.</hi> x. 8 +[quoted by Tisch.]) has an allusion to the same transaction, +and expressly says that it is recorded <emph>by S. John</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +2. No inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can be +drawn from the Eusebian notation of Sections in the margin: +<emph>that</emph> notation having been confessedly added at a subsequent +date. +</p> + +<p> +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> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +century, is written (like Cod. C) +across the page: yet was it <q>copied from an older model +similarly divided in respect to the lines or verses,</q>—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> +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> + +<pb n="295"/><anchor id="Pg295"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Appendix G."/> +<anchor id="Appendix_G"/> +<head>APPENDIX (G).</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +On the so-called <q><hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonian Sections</hi></q> and +<q><hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebian Canons.</hi></q> +</quote> + +<p> +(Referred to at p. <ref target="Pg130">130</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +I. That the Sections (popularly miscalled <q><emph>Ammonian</emph></q>) +with which <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> [<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 320] +has made the world thoroughly familiar, and of which some account was given +above (pp. <ref target="Pg127">127-8</ref>), cannot be the same which +<hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi> of +Alexandria [<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 220] employed,—but must needs be the +invention of <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> himself,—admits of demonstration. +On this subject, external testimony is altogether insecure.<note place="foot">Jerome +evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author of <emph>the Canons</emph> +as well:—<q>Canones quos <emph>Eusebius</emph> Caesariensis Episcopus +<emph>Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium</emph> in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in Graeco +habentur expressimus.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ad Papam Damasum. Epist.</hi>) And again: +<q><emph>Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavit</emph> quos postea secutus est +Eusebius Caesariensis.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>De Viris Illustr.</hi> c. 55 +[<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 881.])—See above, p. +<ref target="Pg128">128</ref>.</note> +The only safe appeal is to the Sections themselves. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> after the following extraordinary fashion: (the +fourth column represents the Gospel according to S. John):— +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{4.5cm} p{4.5cm}'"> +<row> + <cell>(1.)</cell><cell></cell><cell>§ 29, (v. 1-3)</cell><cell></cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(2.) § 20, (iv. 17, 18)</cell><cell>§ 9, (i. 14-1/2-16)</cell> + <cell></cell><cell></cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(3.)</cell><cell></cell><cell>§ 30, (v. 4-7)</cell><cell>§ 219, (xxi. 1-6)</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(4.)</cell><cell></cell><cell>§ 30 (v. 4-7)</cell><cell>§ 222, (xxi. 11)</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(5.)</cell><cell></cell><cell>§ 31, (v. 8-10-1/2)</cell><cell></cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(6.) § 21, (iv. 19, 20)</cell><cell>§ 10, (i. 17, 18)</cell> + <cell>§ 32, (v. 10-1/2, 11)</cell><cell></cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>(7.) § 22, (iv. 21, 22)</cell><cell>§ 11, (i. 19, 20)</cell> + <cell></cell><cell></cell> +</row> +</table> + +<pb n="296"/><anchor id="Pg296"/> + +<p> +It will be perceived from this, that <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> subdivides +these three portions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sections +(<q>§§;</q>)—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, <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> +distributed over four of his Canons: referring three +of there to his II<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi> Canon, +(which exhibits what S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in common); four of them to +his VI<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Canon, (which shews what S. Matthew +and S. Mark have in common); one, to his IX<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, +(which contains what is common to S. Luke and S. John); two, to his +X<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, (in +which is found what is peculiar to each Evangelist.) +</p> + +<p> +Now, the design which <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> 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) <emph>with two Sections</emph> +(§§ 219, 222) <emph>of S. John;</emph>—is perfectly plain. His object +was, (as he himself explains,) to shew—not only (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) what +S. Matthew has in common with S. Mark and S. Luke; but also (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) +<emph>what S. Luke has in common with S. John</emph>;—as well +as (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) what S. Luke has <emph>peculiar to himself</emph>. +But, in the work of <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi>, <emph>as far as we know +anything about that work</emph>, all this would have been simply impossible. (I have +already described his <q>Diatessaron,</q> at pp. <ref target="Pg126">126-7</ref>.) Intent +on exhibiting the Sections of the other Gospels which correspond +with the Sections of <emph>S. Matthew</emph>, <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi> 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> +Ministry, for the purpose of establishing its resemblance to +S. John's account of the <emph>second</emph> miraculous draught of fishes +which took place after the Resurrection, and is only found +in S. John's Gospel. These Sections therefore are +<q><hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebian</hi>,</q> +not <emph>Ammonian</emph>. They are <emph>necessary</emph>, according to the +scheme of <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>. They are not only unnecessary and +even meaningless, but actually impossible, in the <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonian</hi> +scheme. +</p> + +<pb n="297"/><anchor id="Pg297"/> + +<p> +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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi> +can have split up S. John xxi. 12, 13, into <emph>three distinct Sections</emph>; +and S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17, into <emph>six?</emph> and yet, after +so many injudicious disintegrations of the sacred Text, how +it is credible that he can have made but <emph>one</emph> Section of +S. John xxi. 18 to 25,—which nevertheless, from its very +varied contents, confessedly requires even <emph>repeated</emph> subdivision?... +Why <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> did all this, is abundantly plain. +His peculiar plan constrained him to refer the <emph>former</emph> half +of ver. 12,—the <emph>latter</emph> half of verses 15, 16, 17—to his +IX<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> +Canon, where S. Luke and S. John are brought together; +(ἐν ᾧ οἱ δύο τὰ παρακλήσια εἰρήκασι):—and to consign the +<emph>latter</emph> half of ver. 12,—the <emph>former</emph> +half of verses 15, 16, 17,—together with the whole of the <emph>last eight +verses</emph> of S. John's Gospel, to his +X<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> (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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi>, because +he confessedly <emph>recognised no such Canons</emph>, was under no such +constraint. He had in fact <emph>no such opportunity</emph>. He therefore +simply <emph>cannot</emph> have adopted the same extraordinary +sectional subdivision. +</p> + +<p> +3. To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps +to exhibit the argument in a more convincing form:—The +Canons of <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, and the so-called +<q><hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonian <emph>Sections</emph></hi>,</q>—(by +which, confessedly, nothing else whatever is +<emph>meant</emph> but the Sections of <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>,)—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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebian</hi> Canons. I say—<emph>That</emph> +particular sectional subdivision, +<pb n="298"/><anchor id="Pg298"/> +in other words, to which the epithet <q><hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonian</hi></q> +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 +<emph>who was already in possession of the Canons of +<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi></emph>. In plain terms, they are +demonstrably <emph>the work of <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> +himself</emph>,—who expressly claims <emph>The Canons</emph> 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 +(<hi rend='italic'>Proleg.</hi> p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the <q>Monitum</q> +prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand +the matter; and Mr. Scrivener (<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 51) evidently +inclines to the same opinion. +</p> + +<p> +II. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful +inspection of the Eusebian <q>Sections,</q> (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 <q><hi rend="smallcaps">Marginal References</hi>.</q> This has +been hitherto overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting +<q>Monitum</q> already quoted, remarks of the Eusebian Canons,—<q>quorum +haec est utilitas, ut eorum scilicet ope quivis, +nullo labore, Harmoniam sibi quatuor Evangeliorum possit +conficere.</q> The learned Prelate can never have made the +attempt in this way <q>Harmoniam sibi conficere,</q> or he +would not have so written. He evidently did not advert to +the fact that Eusebius refers his readers (in his +III<hi rend="vertical-align: super">rd</hi> Canon) +from S. John's account of the <emph>Healing of the Nobleman's son</emph> +to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the +<emph>Healing of the Centurion's servant</emph>. It is perfectly plain in fact +that to enable a reader <q>to construct for himself <emph>a Harmony +of the Gospels</emph>,</q> 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.<note place="foot">There was published at the University Press in 1805, +a handsome quarto volume (pp. 216) entitled <hi rend='italic'>Harmonia quatuor +Evangeliorum juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones</hi>. It is merely the +contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printed <hi rend='italic'>in +extenso</hi>,—and of course is no <q>Harmony</q> at all. It would have been +a really useful book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has +omitted to number the sections.</note> +</p> + +<pb n="299"/><anchor id="Pg299"/> + +<p> +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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> <emph>Eternal <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>head</emph> +in chap. i. 1-5: 9, 10: 14, are represented as parallel with the +<emph>Human Genealogy</emph> of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> 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 <emph>Tables +of Reference only</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +Eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing +them; which (he says) was twofold: (1<hi rend="vertical-align: super">st</hi>) To enable +a reader to see at a glance, <q><emph>which</emph> of the Evangelists +have said <emph>things of the same kind</emph>,</q> (τίνες τὰ παραπλήσια +εἰρήκαςι: the phrase occurs <emph>four times</emph> in the course of his +short Epistle): and (2<hi rend="vertical-align: super">ndly</hi>), To +enable him to find out <emph>where</emph> +they have severally done so: (τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ +τόπους, ἐν οἶς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν εἰπεῖν; +Eusebius uses the phrase <emph>twice</emph>.) But this, (as all are aware) +is precisely the office of (what are called) <q>Marginal References.</q> +Accordingly, +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a.</hi>) Whether referring <emph>from</emph> S. Matth. x. 40 (§ 98); +S. Mark ix. 37 (§ 96); or S. Luke x. 16 (§ 116);—we find ourselves +referred <emph>to</emph> the following <emph>six</emph> places of S. John,—v. 23: +xii. 44, 45: xiii. 20: xiv. 21: xiv. 24, 25: xv. 23<note place="foot">This last § +according to <hi rend='italic'>Tischendorf's</hi> ed. of the Eusebian Canons.</note> +(= §§ 40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144.) Again, +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b.</hi>) Whether we refer <emph>from</emph> S. Matth. xi. 27 (§§ +111, 112,) or S. Luke x. 22 (§ 119),—we find ourselves referred <emph>to</emph> +the following <emph>eleven</emph> 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> +(<hi rend='italic'>c.</hi>) 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. +<pb n="300"/><anchor id="Pg300"/> +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> +(<hi rend='italic'>d.</hi>) 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 +<emph>first</emph> Passover (ii. 13 = § 20); and of the <emph>second</emph> (vi. 4 = +§ 48); as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = § 96.) +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e.</hi>) 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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> 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> +(<hi rend='italic'>f.</hi>) Nothing but the spirit in which <q>Marginal References</q> +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> +(<hi rend='italic'>g.</hi>) 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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Canon +of Eusebius does) from our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> eating <q>broiled fish and +honeycomb,</q> 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> +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 <emph>the Eusebian +Numbers</emph> in the margin of a copy of the Greek Gospels <emph>the +References</emph> which these numbers severally indicate. It will +then become plain that the system of Sections and Canons +which Eusebius invented,—ingenious, interesting, and useful +<pb n="301"/><anchor id="Pg301"/> +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,<note place="foot">Thus, certain disputed +passages of importance are proved to have been recognised at least +<emph>by Eusebius</emph>. Our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> 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. +<ref target="Pg203">203</ref>.)</note>—is nothing else +but a clumsy substitute for what is achieved by an ordinary +<q>Reference Bible</q>:—participating in every inconvenience +incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which +English readers are familiar,<note place="foot">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, <emph>sets</emph> of References might be kept <emph>together</emph>; 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 +<emph>strictly parallel places</emph> 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? <emph>Who</emph> +does not miss the reference to <q>Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12</q> at Gen. ix. 14? +<emph>Who</emph> can afford to do without the reference to <q>1 Macc. iv. 59</q> at +S. John x. 22?</note> and yet inferior in the following +four respects:— +</p> + +<p> +(1st.) The references of Eusebius, (except those found in +Canon X.), require in every instance to be <emph>deciphered</emph>, 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 <emph>references to the Eusebian Canons</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(2ndly.) In their scope, they are of course strictly <emph>confined +to the Gospels</emph>,—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> +(3rdly.) By the very nature of their constitution, reference +even to <emph>another part of the same Gospel</emph> is impossible. (Eusebius +<pb n="302"/><anchor id="Pg302"/> +is unable, for example, to refer a reader from S. John +xix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.) +</p> + +<p> +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): <emph>not</emph> because +he disallowed the verse in S. Luke's Gospel,—for in a certain +place <emph>he discusses its statements</emph>.<note place="foot">Mai, vol. iv. p. +287. See also p. 293.</note> +</p> + +<p> +III. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before +that the work of <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> was entirely different in its +structure and intention from the work of <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi>. 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 +<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, S. Mark has 21 +Sections<note place="foot">Tischendorf says 19 only.</note> <emph>peculiar to his +Gospel</emph>: S. Luke, 72: S. John, 97.<note place="foot">Tischendorf says 96 +only.</note> According to the same <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>, +14 Sections<note place="foot">Tischendorf says 13 only.</note> are common to S. +Luke and S. Mark <emph>only</emph>: 21, to S. Luke and S. John <emph>only</emph>. +But those 225 Sections can have found <emph>no place</emph> in the work of +<hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi>. And if, (in some unexplained way,) room +<emph>was</emph> found for those parts of the Gospels, <emph>with what possible +motive can <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi> have subdivided +them into exactly 225 portions</emph>? It is nothing else but +irrational to assume that he did so. +</p> + +<p> +Not unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most +judicious living Critic as a <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.</q><note place="foot">Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I, +P, Q, R, W<hi rend="vertical-align: super">6</hi>, Y, Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, +i<hi rend="vertical-align: super">scr</hi>, s<hi rend="vertical-align: super">scr</hi>. +Also D and K. (<hi rend='italic'>Cod. Bezæ</hi>, p. xx, and +<hi rend='italic'>Introd.</hi> pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I think <emph>not</emph> +263.)</note> He considers it to be certainly indicated +thereby <q>that in the judgment of critics and transcribers, +<pb n="303"/><anchor id="Pg303"/> +(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.</q> But +I respectfully demur to the former of the two proposed inferences. +I also learn with surprise that <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.</q><note place="foot">Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, +pp. 51 and 52: <hi rend='italic'>Cod. Bezæ</hi>, p. xx. note [2.]</note> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>exactly the same office</emph> 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 <emph>supreme convenience to a Reader</emph>, 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> +A Greek copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin +furnished with the Eusebian <emph>Sectional</emph> notation, may be considered +to correspond generally with an English copy merely +divided into Chapters and Verses. The addition of the +Eusebian <emph>Canons</emph> at the beginning, with numerical references +thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but +superadd something analogous to the convenience of our +<emph>Marginal References</emph>,—and may just as reasonably (or just as +unreasonably) be dispensed with. +</p> + +<p> +I think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation +of a Codex, it will have been sometimes judged commercially +<pb n="304"/><anchor id="Pg304"/> +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,<note place="foot">Evan. 263, for instance, has certainly <emph>blank</emph> +Eusebian Tables at the beginning: the <emph>frame</emph> only.</note>—without +which <emph>the References</emph> 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 +<q>not a few ancient MSS. contain the <emph>Sections</emph> but omit the +<emph>Canons</emph>.</q> 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,—<hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi>, +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 <q>vulgar error</q> to designate the Eusebian Sections as the +<q>Sections of <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi>.</q> The expression cannot be too +soon banished from our critical terminology. Whether +banished or retained, to <emph>reason about</emph> the lost work of +<hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi> from the Sections of +<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> (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> +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.<note place="foot">See Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 51 (note 2),—where +Tregelles (in Horne's <hi rend='italic'>Introd.</hi> iv. 200) is quoted.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<emph>the numbers</emph> of the Sections of that Gospel contained +<hi rend='italic'>in extenso</hi> +on the same page; and, parallel with those numbers, to +exhibit the numbers of the corresponding Sections in the +<pb n="305"/><anchor id="Pg305"/> +other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an apparatus +at the foot of the page, are known to exist.<note place="foot">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 <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, +p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W, and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Cod. Bezae</hi>, p. xx.)</note> For +instance, in Cod. 262 (= Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written +in double columns, at foot of the first page (<hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 111) of +S. Mark, is found as follows:— +</p> + +<p rend="text-align: center"> + <figure url="images/305.png" rend="width: 100%"> + <figDesc>[Illustration: Apparatus Table From Cod. 262.]</figDesc> + </figure> +</p> + +<p> +The meaning of this, every one will see who,—(remembering +what is signified by the monograms ΜΡ, ΛΟ, ΙΩ, ΜΘ,<note place="foot">The +<emph>order</emph> of these monograms requires explanation.</note>)—will +turn successively to the II<hi rend="vertical-align: super">nd</hi>, the +I<hi rend="vertical-align: super">st</hi>, the +VI<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi>, and the +I<hi rend="vertical-align: super">st</hi> of +the Eusebian Canons. Translated into expressions more +familiar to English readers, it evidently amounts to this: +that we are referred, +</p> + +<p> +(§ 1) From S. Mark i. 1, 2,—to S. Matth. xi. 10: S. Luke vii. 27.<lb/> +(§ 2) From S. Mark i. 3,—to S. Matth. iii. 3: S. Luke iii. 3-6.<lb/> +(§ 3) From S. Mark i. 4, 5, 6,—to S. Matth. iii. 4-6.<lb/> +(§ 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> +(I venture to add that any one who will compare the +above with the margin of S. Mark's Gospel in a common +English <q>reference Bible,</q> 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> +The owner of such a MS. was able to refer to parallel passages, +(as above,) <emph>by merely turning over the pages of his book</emph>. +E.g. The parallel places to S. Mark's § 1 (Α) being § 70 of +<pb n="306"/><anchor id="Pg306"/> +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> +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 <emph>Parallel Passages</emph> 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;<note place="foot">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 +<hi rend='italic'>Catalogue,</hi> 4to. 1870.) Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred +to Assemani; and to Adler, p. 52-3: also p. 63.</note> of which a specimen +is subjoined,—derived however (because it was near at hand) +from a MS. in the Bodleian,<note place="foot"><q>Dawkins 3.</q> See Dean Payne Smith's +<hi rend='italic'>Catalogue</hi>, p. 72.</note> of the +vii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> or +viii<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> century. +</p> + +<p> +From this MS., I select for obvious reasons the last page +but one (<hi rend='italic'>fol.</hi> 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, <emph>by the original scribe</emph>, 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,<note place="foot">It will +be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, <emph>every verse</emph> 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. (<hi rend='italic'>Vide +infrà</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.)</note> +with references to the Eusebian Canons subscribed, are no +part of the (so-called) <q><emph>Ammonian</emph></q> system, will be recognised +at a glance. According to <emph>that</emph> scheme, S. Mark +xiv. 8 is numbered 233/2. But to proceed. +</p> + +<pb n="307"/><anchor id="Pg307"/> + +<p> +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 rend="text-align: center"> + <figure url="images/307.png" rend="width: 100%"> + <figDesc>[Illustration: Syriac Reference Table.]</figDesc> + </figure> +</p> + +<p> +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 rend="latexcolumns: 'p{2cm} p{2cm}|p{2cm} p{2cm} p{2cm}'"> +<row> + <cell><emph>Luke</emph></cell><cell><emph>Matthew</emph></cell> + <cell><emph>Mark</emph></cell><cell><emph>John</emph></cell> + <cell><emph>Luke</emph></cell><cell><emph>Matthew</emph></cell> + <cell><emph>Mark</emph></cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>391</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>286</cell><cell>247</cell><cell>390</cell> + <cell>421</cell><cell>281</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>...</cell><cell>426</cell><cell>288</cell><cell>247</cell><cell>390</cell> + <cell>421</cell><cell>283</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell></cell><cell></cell><cell></cell><cell>...</cell><cell>391</cell> + <cell>...</cell><cell>284</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell></cell><cell></cell><cell></cell><cell>...</cell><cell>393</cell> + <cell>...</cell><cell>285</cell> +</row> +</table> + +<p> +The general intention of this is sufficiently obvious: but +the Reader must be told that on making reference to +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Matthew's</hi> +Gospel, in this Syriac Codex, it is found that § 421 += chap, xxviii. 8; and § 426 = chap. xxviii. 19, 20: +</p> + +<p> +That, in <hi rend="smallcaps">S. Luke's</hi> Gospel,—§ 390 = chap. xxiv. 8-10: +§ 391 = chap. xxiv. 11; and § 393 = chap. xxiv. 13-17:<note place="foot"><p>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> +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> +[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></note> +</p> + +<p> +That, in <hi rend="smallcaps">S. John's</hi> Gospel,—§ 247 = chap. xx. 17 (πορεύου +down to Θεὸν ὑμῶν.) +</p> + +<pb n="308"/><anchor id="Pg308"/> + +<p> +So that, exhibited in familiar language, these Syriac +<emph>Marginal References</emph> are intended to guide a Reader, +</p> + +<p> +(§ 281) From S. Mark xvi. 8,—to S. Matth. xxviii. 8: S. Luke<lb/> +From S. Mark xxiv. 8-10: S. John xx. 17 (πορεύου +<emph>to the end of the verse</emph>).<lb/> +(§ 283) From S. Mark xvi. 10,—to the same three places.<lb/> +(§ 284) From S. Mark xvi. 11,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11.<lb/> +(§ 285) From S. Mark xvi. 12,—to S. Luke xxiv. 13-17.<lb/> +(§ 286) From S. Mark xvi. 13,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11.<lb/> +(§ 288) From S. Mark xvi. 15,—to S. Matth. xxiv. 19, 20. +</p> + +<p> +Here then, although the Ten Eusebian Canons are faithfully +retained, it is much to be noted that we are presented +with <emph>a different set of Sectional subdivisions</emph>. 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> +But the convincing <emph>proof</emph> 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 +<pb n="309"/><anchor id="Pg309"/> +more <emph>in number</emph>. 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.<note place="foot"><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.</q></note> +He quotes from <q>the beautiful MS. Addit. 7,157, written +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 768.</q><note place="foot">See the preceding +note.—Availing myself of the reference given me by my learned correspondent, +I read as follows in the Catalogue:—<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,</q> &c. &c.</note> From this, it appears that the +Sections in the Gospel according to,— +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Matthew</hi>, (instead of being from 359 to 355,) +are 426: (the last Section, § 426/6, consisting of ver. 19, 20.) +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Mark</hi>, (instead of being from 241 to 233,) are 290: +(the last Section, § 290/8, consisting of ver. 19, 20.) +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Luke</hi>, (instead of being from 349 to 342,) are 402: +(the last Section, § 402/10, consisting of ver. 52, 53.) +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. John</hi>, (instead of being 232,) is 271: (the last +Section, § 271/10, consisting of ver. 18-25.) +</p> + +<p> +The sum of the Sections therefore, in <hi rend='italic'>Syriac</hi> MSS. instead of +being between 1181 and 1162,<note place="foot">Suidas +[<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke, makes +the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171.</note> is found to be invariably 1389. +</p> + +<p> +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> +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 +(<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 586) in the Medicean Library.<note place="foot">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.</note> +The student who +<pb n="310"/><anchor id="Pg310"/> +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 rend="latexcolumns: 'p{2cm} p{1.5cm} p{1.5cm} p{1.5cm} p{1.5cm}'"> +<row> + <cell></cell><cell><hi rend='italic'>Matthew</hi></cell> + <cell><hi rend='italic'>Mark</hi></cell> + <cell><hi rend='italic'>Luke</hi></cell> + <cell><hi rend='italic'>John</hi></cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon i</cell><cell>421</cell><cell>283</cell><cell>390</cell><cell>247</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon ii</cell><cell>416</cell><cell>276</cell><cell>383</cell><cell>...</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon iii</cell><cell>134</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>145</cell><cell>178</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon iv</cell><cell>394</cell><cell>212</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>223</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon v</cell><cell>319</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>262</cell><cell>...</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon vi</cell><cell>426</cell><cell>288</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>...</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon vii</cell><cell>425</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>249</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon vii</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>290</cell><cell>401</cell><cell>...</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon ix</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>...</cell><cell>399</cell><cell>262</cell> +</row> +<row> + <cell>Canon x</cell><cell>424</cell><cell>289</cell><cell>402</cell><cell>271</cell> +</row> +</table> + +<p> +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 <emph>appearance</emph> and in <emph>the principle</emph> +of their arrangement with those with which Greek MSS. +have made us familiar,—yet differ materially from these as +to <emph>the numerical details</emph> of their contents. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>that</emph> may be, more palpably precarious +than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident +assertion of the Critics that, <q>just as <hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi> found these +Verses [S. Mark xvi. 9-20] absent in his day from the best +and most numerous [<hi rend='italic'>sic</hi>] copies, <emph>so was also the case +with <hi rend="smallcaps">Ammonius</hi></emph> +when he formed his Harmony in the preceding century.</q><note place="foot">Dr. +Tregelles. (<hi rend='italic'>Vide suprà</hi>, pp. <ref target="Pg125">125-6</ref>.) +And so, Tischendorf.</note>To speak plainly, the statement is purely mythical. +</p> + +<p> +VI. Birch [<hi rend='italic'>Varr. Lectt.</hi> 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, <q><emph>or</emph> ver. 9:</q> +<pb n="311"/><anchor id="Pg311"/> +but to introduce <emph>that</emph> alternative is to surrender everything. +I subjoin the result of an appeal to 151 Greek Evangelia. +There is written opposite to, +</p> + +<p> +ver. 6, ... § 232, in 3 Codices, (viz. A, U, 286)<lb/> +ver. 8, ... § 233, in 34 Codices, (including L, S)<note place="foot">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 <emph>and</emph> 27.</note><lb/> +ver. 9, (?) § 234, in 41 Codices, (including Γ, Δ, Π)<note place="foot">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 <emph>and</emph> 17,982. Cromw. 16. Canonici 36 +<emph>and</emph> 112. Wake 21.</note><lb/> +ver. 10, (?) § 235, in 4 Codices, (viz. 67, 282, 331, 406)<lb/> +ver. 12, (?) § 236, in 7 Codices, (the number assigned by Suidas)<note place="foot">Viz. +184, 192, 264, h<hi rend="vertical-align: super">scr</hi>, Add. 11,836. Ti. Wake +29.</note><lb/> +ver. 14, (?) § 237, in 12 Codices, (including Λ)<note place="foot">The others are 10, +20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl. 141.</note><lb/> +ver. 15, ... § 238, in 3 Codices, (viz. Add. 19,387: 27,861, Ti)<lb/> +ver. 17, ... § 239, in 1 Codex, (viz. G)<lb/> +ver. 19, ... § 240, in 10 Codices, (including H, M, and the Codices<lb/> +from which the Hharklensian Revision, +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 616, was made)<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Vide +suprà</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg033">33</ref>. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p. +53.) The others are 8, 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36.</note><lb/> +ver. 20, ... § 241, in 36 Codices, (including C, E, K, V)<note place="foot">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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">scr</hi>. Add. 22,740. Wake 22, 24, 30; +<emph>and</emph> 31 in which, ver. 20 is numbered +<hi rend="smallcaps">CMB</hi>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) That the reckoning which would +limit the sections to precisely 233, is altogether precarious; +and—(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) That the sum of the Sections assigned to S. Mark's +Gospel by Suidas and by Stephens (viz. 236) is arbitrary. +</p> + +<p> +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> +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 +<pb n="312"/><anchor id="Pg312"/> +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> +Jerome,—who is observed sometimes to exhibit the sense +of his author very loosely,—renders this as follows:— +</p> + +<p> +<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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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> +<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.</q> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n="313"/><anchor id="Pg313"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf" level1="Appendix H."/> +<anchor id="Appendix_H"/> +<head>APPENDIX (H).</head> + +<quote rend="display"> +On the Interpolation of the text of <hi rend="smallcaps">Codex B</hi> and +<hi rend="smallcaps">Codex</hi> א at +<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Matthew</hi> xxvii. 48 or 49. +</quote> + +<p> +(Referred to at pp. <ref target="Pg202">202</ref> and <ref target="Pg219">219</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +It is well known that our two oldest Codices, Cod. B +and Cod. א, (see above, p. <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvii. 49, +as follows. After σωσων [<hi rend='italic'>Cod. Sinait.</hi> σωσαι] αυτον, they +read:— +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">(Cod. B.)</hi><lb/> +αλλος δε λαβω<lb/> +λογχην ενυξεν αυτου<lb/> +την πνευραν και εξηλ<lb/> +θεν υδωρ και αιμα +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend="smallcaps">(Cod. א.)</hi><lb/> +αλλος<lb/> +δε λαβων λογχη<lb/> +ενυξεν αυτου ΤΗ<lb/> +πνευραν και εξηλ<lb/> +θεν υδωρ και αι<lb/> +μα +</p> + +<p> +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.<note place="foot">But Cod. +U inserts ευθεως before εξηλθεν; and (at least two of the other Codices, viz.) 48, +67 read αιμα και υσωρ.</note> +</p> + +<p> +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,) <emph>to interpose S. John</emph> xix. 31 +<emph>to</emph> 37 between the 54th and the 55th verses of S. Matthew. +This will be found alluded to above, at p. <ref target="Pg202">202</ref> and again at +pp. <ref target="Pg218">218-9</ref>. +</p> + +<pb n="314"/><anchor id="Pg314"/> + +<p> +After the pages just quoted were in type, while examining +Harl. MS. 5647 in the British Museum, (<emph>our</emph> 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 <emph>against ver.</emph> 48 that there is written in the +margin,— +</p> + +<p> +(Η<note place="foot">Σημείωσις is what we call an <q>Annotation.</q> [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, <hi rend='italic'>Origeniana</hi>, iii. § i. 4. (at the end of vol. iv. of +Origen's <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> p. 292-3.)—Eusebius (<hi rend='italic'>Hist. +Eccl.</hi> v. 20) uses σημείωσις in this sense. (See the note of Valesius.) But it is +plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinus (<hi rend='italic'>subscriptio</hi>), +that it often denoted a <q>signature,</q> or signing of the name. Eusebius so employs +the word in <hi rend='italic'>lib.</hi> v. 19 <hi rend='italic'>ad fin.</hi></note> +Ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διαδώρου καὶ +Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων: τοῦτο +πρόσκειται: +</p> + +<p> +(Η Ἄλλος δὲ λαβών: λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πνευρὰν. +καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα: τοῦτο λέγει καὶ ὁ +Χρυσόστομος. +</p> + +<p> +This writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In +Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew's Gospel, (<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> +vii, 825 <hi rend="smallcaps">c</hi>: [vol. ii, p. 526, <hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> +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 <emph>of ver.</emph> 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> +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. <ref target="Pg202">202</ref>,) 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. +<pb n="315"/><anchor id="Pg315"/> +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<note place="foot">He was Patriarch of Antioch, +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 512-9.—The extract (made by Petrus junior, +Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 578,) purports to be +derived from the 26<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> Epistle, (Book 9,) which +Severus addressed to Thomas Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani, +<hi rend='italic'>Bibl. Orient.</hi> vol. ii. pp. 81-2.</note> relates that between +<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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 (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 474-491); and preserved in the palace +with superstitious veneration in consequence. It contained +no record of the piercing of the <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> side: nor (adds +Severus) does any ancient Interpreter mention the transaction +in that place,—except Chrysostom and <emph>Cyril of Alexandria</emph>; +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<note place="foot">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.</note> employed; as well as evidently sundry other +Codices extant at Constantinople about <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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 <emph>originate</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +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<hi rend="vertical-align: super">th</hi> 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 <emph>only that one verse</emph> find place in the interpolated +copies? And next, (2) How does it come to pass +<pb n="316"/><anchor id="Pg316"/> +that <emph>that</emph> one verse is exhibited in so very depraved and so +peculiar a form? +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend="smallcaps">ONE OF THEM</hi> ran, and <emph>took a sponge</emph>, +and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink,</q> +S. John is made to say, <q><hi rend="smallcaps">And another</hi>—<emph>took a +spear</emph>.</q>) +Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by Eusebius to +have done: viz. <q>after some fashion of his own, to have composed +out of the four Gospels one connected narrative.</q><note place="foot">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, <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Eccl.</hi> iv. 29, § 4.</note> +</p> + +<p> +When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient +Critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with +the lost <q>Diatessaron</q> of Tatian, comes before us with the +express declaration that in that famous monument of the +primitive age (<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 173), S. John's record of the piercing +of our <hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> side was thrust into S. Matthew's History +of the Passion in this precise way and in these very terms,—(for, +<q>Note,</q> he says, <q>That into the Evangelical History +of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other holy Fathers, +is introduced [here] the following addition: <q>And another +took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water +and Blood.</q> This, Chrysostom also says</q>),—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, +<pb n="317"/><anchor id="Pg317"/> +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 <hi rend='italic'>monstra potius +quam variae lectiones</hi><note place="foot">See, for example, the readings of B +or א, or both, specified from p. <ref target="Pg080">80</ref> to p. 86.</note> +which are occasionally met with in +the earliest MSS. of all? And,—Am I not right in suggesting +that the circumstance before us is <emph>the only thing +we know for certain</emph> about the text of Tatian's (miscalled) +<q>Harmony?</q> +</p> + +<p> +To conclude.—That the <q>Diatessaron</q> of Tatian, (for so, +according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled +it,) has long since disappeared, no one now +doubts.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Vid. suprà</hi>, p. +<ref target="Pg129">129</ref>, note (g.)</note> 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. <q>The Diatessaron Gospel,</q> +(he remarks in passing,) <q>which some call the Gospel according +to the Hebrews, is said to have been the production +of this writer.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. i. p. 391 +<hi rend="smallcaps">D</hi>.</note> 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 [<hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 150], after Justin's death +aspired to being a heretical leader,—(statements which are +first found in Irenæus,)—Theodoret enumerates his special +tenets. <q>This man</q> (he proceeds) <q>put together the so-called +<emph>Diatessaron Gospel</emph>,—from which he cut away the +genealogies, and whatever else shews that the <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord</hi> 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. <emph>I myself found upwards of two hundred +such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place</emph>,</q> +(Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made +<pb n="318"/><anchor id="Pg318"/> +Bishop, <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 423,)—<q>all of which I +collected together, and +put aside; substituting the Gospels of the Four Evangelists +in their room.</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Haeret. Fab.</hi> lib. i. c. +xx. (<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iv. 208.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +The diocese of Theodoret (he says) contained eight hundred +Parishes.<note place="foot">Clinton, F. R. ii. <hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>, p. +473, quoting Theodoret's <q>Ep. 113, p. 1190. [<hi rend='italic'>al.</hi> vol. +iii. p. 986-7].</q></note> 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 <emph>some</emph> 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> +I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the +<q>Diodorus</q> of whom the unknown author of this scholion +speaks: but I suppose it was <emph>that</emph> Diodorus who was made +Bishop of Tarsus in <hi rend="smallcaps">A.D.</hi> 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 <q>on +the Four Gospels.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Lastly,—How about the singular introduction <emph>into the +Lection for Good-Friday</emph> of this incident of the piercing of +the <hi rend="smallcaps">Redeemer's</hi> 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> + +<pb n="319"/><anchor id="Pg319"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf"/> +<head>POSTSCRIPT.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend="smallcaps">Promised at</hi> p. <ref target="Pg051">51</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +I proceed to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.—C.F. Matthaei +(<hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi>, 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of +the MSS. at Moscow occurs the following <q>Scholion of +<hi rend="smallcaps">Eusebius</hi>:—κατὰ +Μάρκον μετὰ τῆν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι +τοῖς μαθηταῖς.</q> On this, Griesbach remarks (<hi rend='italic'>Comm. Crit.</hi> ii. +200),—<q>quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam +agnovisset:</q> 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> +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> +Accordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the +Rev. W. G. Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain +for me <emph>the entire context</emph> in which this <q>Scholion of Eusebius</q> +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 <q>12,</q> +(<q>Synod. 139,</q>) our <hi rend="smallcaps">Evan.</hi> 255. +</p> + +<p> +It proves to be the concluding portion of Victor's Commentary, +and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of +<pb n="320"/><anchor id="Pg320"/> +Possinus, and p. 446-7 of Cramer: except that after the +words <q>ἀποκυλίσειε τὸν λίθον,</q> and before the words +<q>ἄλλος δέ φησιν</q> [Possinus, <emph>line</emph> 12 <emph>from bottom</emph>: Cramer, +<emph>line</emph> 3 <emph>from the top</emph>], is read as follows:— +</p> + +<p> +οχολ εὐσεβίου +</p> + +<p> +κατὰ Μάρκον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι +τοῖς μαθηταῖς: κατὰ Ματθαῖον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῖς +μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ. +</p> + +<p> +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> +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> +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> +(1.) In the first place, we have already [<hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>, p. +<ref target="Pg044">44</ref>] heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question. +That he allowed it, is therefore <emph>certain</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> appearances +after His Resurrection. <emph>As it stands</emph>, it clearly is not the +work of Eusebius. +</p> + +<p> +(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement +cannot be accepted on my own mere <q>ipse dixit,</q> 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> + +<pb n="321"/><anchor id="Pg321"/> + +<p> +Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι συνεχῶς +αὐτοῖς συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον <emph>τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη</emph> ὁ Κύριος +<emph>μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν;</emph> οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ +τοῖς ἄλλοις παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφανερώθη +τοῖς μαθηταῖς. <emph>κατὰ</emph> μὲν γὰρ τὸν <emph>Ματθαῖον,</emph> ὤφθη αὐτοῖς +<emph>ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαιᾳ</emph> μόνον; <emph>κατὰ</emph> δὲ τὸν <emph>Ἰωάννην, ἐν αὐτῇ +τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, +μέσος</emph> αὐτῶν <emph>ἔστη</emph> ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, <emph>μὴ παρόντος</emph> ἐκει +Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, παρόντος καὶ +<emph>τοῦ Θωμᾶ,</emph> ὤφθη αὐτοῖς, ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. <emph>μετὰ ταῦτα +ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς,</emph> +ού τοῖς ΙΑ ἀλλὰ μόνοις ζ. <emph>κατὰ</emph> δὲ <emph>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,</emph> ὅτε <emph>καὶ διέστη</emph> ἀναληφθεὶς +<emph>ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν;</emph> 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.<note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Quoted by Matthaei, N. T.</hi> (1788) +vol. ix. p. 228, <hi rend='italic'>from</hi> g, a, d.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—the +<emph>only</emph> thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,—is +the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of +Eusebius,—(<q>quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam +agnovisset,</q>)—<emph>is no longer discoverable</emph>. To say that +<q>it has disappeared,</q> would be incorrect. In the original +document <emph>it has no existence</emph>. In plain terms, the famous +<q>σχόλιον εὐσεβίου</q> 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) <emph>cannot</emph> have been the Author. +</p> + +<p> +(5.) I may as well point out <emph>why</emph> the person who wrote +the longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark's Gospel. +It is because there was nothing for him to say. +<pb n="322"/><anchor id="Pg322"/> +He is enumerating our <hi rend="smallcaps">Lord's</hi> <emph>appearances to His +Disciples</emph> after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these +were exactly seven in number: <emph>one</emph> being peculiar to S. +Matthew,—<emph>three</emph>, to S. John,—<emph>three</emph>, to S. +Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there exists <emph>no</emph> +record of an appearance to the Disciples <emph>peculiar</emph> to S. Mark's Gospel, +the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark <emph>perforce</emph>.... +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, <q>conjicias ergo Eusebium +hunc totum locum repudiasse;</q> and, of the former, <q>ultimam +partem Evangelii Marci videtur +tollere:</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Ibid</hi>., ii. 69, and ix. 228.</note> +lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write,—<q>est enim ejusmodi ut +ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, +excludat:</q><note place="foot"><hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test.</hi> (1869), p. +404.</note>—I profess myself unable to understand. +</p> + +<p> +(6.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his +Author,—besides enumerating <emph>all</emph> the appearances of our +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour</hi> which S. Luke anywhere records,—is further +convicted of having injudiciously <emph>invented</emph> the negative statement +about S. Mark's Gospel which is occasioning us all +this trouble. +</p> + +<p> +(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 <emph>to disallow the end of S. Mark's Gospel</emph>, +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 <emph>balances</emph> one +against the other: thus,— +</p> + +<p> +κατὰ Μάρκον, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι,—κατὰ +Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ὤφθη,—τοῖς μαθηταῖς +ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ. +</p> + +<p> +Perfectly evident is it that the <q>plena locutio</q> so to speak, +of the Writer would have been somewhat as follows:— +</p> + +<p> +<q rend="pre">[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our +<hi rend="smallcaps">Saviour's</hi> +appearance to His Disciples <emph>in Galilee</emph>: but] by +<pb n="323"/><anchor id="Pg323"/> +S. Mark, He is <emph>not</emph>—by S. Matthew, He <emph>is</emph>—related +to have been actually <emph>seen</emph> by them there.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend="pre">[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances <emph>in +Jerusalem</emph>: and] according to S. John, &c. &c.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>According to S. Luke,</q> &c. &c. +</p> + +<p> +(8.) And on passing the <q>Quaestiones ad Marinum</q> +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.<note place="foot">Let the reader examine his <q>Quaestio ix,</q> (Mai, vol. +iv. p. 293-5): his <q>Quaestio x,</q> (p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296, +line 29-32.</note> Its remote parentage would fully account for its +being designated <q>σχόλιον εὐσεβίου</q> all the same. +</p> + +<p> +(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, +<emph>as it stands</emph>, 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 <emph>from Chrysostom's Commentary +on that same verse</emph> in his 87th Homily on S. John.<note place="foot">See Chrys. +<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. viii. p. 522 +<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>:—ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς ἐπεχωρίαζεν, οὐδὲ +ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(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> +So much has been offered, only because of the deliberate +pledge I gave in p. <ref target="Pg051">51</ref>.—Never again, I undertake to say, +will the <q>Scholion of Eusebius</q> 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> + +<pb n="324"/><anchor id="Pg324"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf"/> +<head>L'ENVOY</head> + +<lg> +<l>As one, escaped the bustling trafficking town,</l> +<l>Worn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill</l> +<l>And thinks it Heaven to see the calm green fields</l> +<l>Mapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet:</l> +<l>Or walks enraptured where the fitful south</l> +<l>Comes past the beans in blossom; and no sight</l> +<l>Or scent or sound but fills his soul with glee:—</l> +<l>So I,—rejoicing once again to stand</l> +<l>Where Siloa's brook flows softly, and the meads</l> +<l>Are all enamell'd o'er with deathless flowers,</l> +<l>And Angel voices fill the dewy air.</l> +<l>Strife is so hateful to me! most of all</l> +<l>A strife of words about the things of <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>.</l> +<l>Better by far the peasant's uncouth speech</l> +<l>Meant for the heart's confession of its hope.</l> +<l>Sweeter by far in village-school the words</l> +<l>But half remembered from the Book of Life,</l> +<l>Or scarce articulate lispings of the Creed.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>And yet, three times that miracle of Spring</l> +<l>The grand old tree that darkens Exeter wall</l> +<l>Hath decked itself with blossoms as with stars,</l> +<l>Since I, like one that striveth unto death,</l> +<l>Find myself early and late and oft all day</l> +<l>Engaged in eager conflict for <hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> Truth;</l> +<l><hi rend="smallcaps">God's</hi> Truth, to be maintained against Man's lie.</l> +<l>And lo, my brook which widened out long since</l> +<l>Into a river, threatens now at length</l> +<l>To burst its channel and become a sea.</l> +</lg> + +<pb n="325"/><anchor id="Pg325"/> + +<lg> +<l>O Sister, who ere yet my task is done</l> +<l>Art lying (my loved Sister!) in thy shroud</l> +<l>With a calm placid smile upon thy lips</l> +<l>As thou wert only <q>taking of rest in sleep,</q></l> +<l>Soon to wake up to ministries of love,—</l> +<l>Open those lips, kind Sister, for my sake</l> +<l>In the mysterious place of thy sojourn,</l> +<l>(For thou must needs be with the bless'd,—yea, where</l> +<l>The pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to <hi rend="smallcaps">God</hi>,)</l> +<l>And tell the Evangelist of thy brother's toil;</l> +<l>Adding (be sure!) <q rend="pre">He found it his reward,</q></l> +<l>Yet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers,</l> +<l>The blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers,</l> +<l><q rend="post">Sure at the least unceasingly of mine!</q></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>One other landed on the eternal shore!</l> +<l>One other garnered into perfect peace!</l> +<l>One other hid from hearing and from sight!...</l> +<l>O but the days go heavily, and the toil</l> +<l>Which used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy.</l> +<l>There come no tokens to us from the dead:</l> +<l>Save—it may be—that now and then we reap</l> +<l>Where not we sowed, and <emph>that</emph> may be from <emph>them</emph>,</l> +<l>Fruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray!</l> +<l>Meantime there comes no message, comes no word:</l> +<l>Day after day no message and no sign:</l> +<l>And the heart droops, and finds that it was Love</l> +<l>Not Fame it longed for, lived for: only Love.</l> +</lg> + +<ab> +<hi rend="smallcaps">Canterbury.</hi> +</ab> + +</div> + +<pb n="326"/><anchor id="Pg326"/> + +<div> +<index index="toc"/> +<index index="pdf"/> +<head>GENERAL INDEX.</head> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Under</hi> <q>Codices</q> <hi rend='italic'>will be found all the +Evangelia described or quoted: under</hi> <q>Texts</q> <hi rend='italic'>all the +places of Scripture illustrated or referred to.</hi> +</p> + +<lg> +<l><q>Acta Pilati,</q> p. <ref target="Pg025">25</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend="smallcaps">Acts</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg199">199</ref>-200. +<hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Texts">Texts</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Addit. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Adler, J. G. C, p. <ref target="Pg033">33-4</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Alford, Dean, p. <ref target="Pg008">8</ref>, <ref target="Pg013">13</ref>, <ref target="Pg038">38</ref>, <ref target="Pg077">77</ref>, <ref target="Pg103">103</ref>, <ref target="Pg164">164</ref>, <ref target="Pg227">227</ref>, <ref target="Pg244">244-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg259">259</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Algasia, p. <ref target="Pg052">52</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ambrose, p. <ref target="Pg027">27</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Ammonian"/> +<l><q>Ammonian</q> Sections, p. <ref target="Pg126">126-32</ref>, <ref target="Pg295">295-311</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">in the four Gospels, p. <ref target="Pg309">309</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">in S. Mark's Gospel, p. <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ammonius, p. <ref target="Pg125">125-32</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀνάγνωσις, p. <ref target="Pg196">196</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀνάγνωσμα, p. <ref target="Pg045">45</ref>, <ref target="Pg196">196</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀναληφθῆναι, p. <ref target="Pg166">166</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Andreas of Crete, p. <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Angelic Hymn, p. <ref target="Pg257">257-63</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀντεβλήθη, p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀπέχει, p. <ref target="Pg225">225</ref>, 6.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀφορμή, p. <ref target="Pg127">127</ref>, <ref target="Pg137">137</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Aphraates"/> +<l>Aphraates the Persian, p. <ref target="Pg026">26-7</ref>, <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀπιστεῖν, p. <ref target="Pg158">158-9</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Apocrypha, p. <ref target="Pg301">301</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Apolinarius, p. <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>, <ref target="Pg277">277</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Apostolical Constitutions,</q> p. <ref target="Pg025">25</ref>, <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀρχή, p. <ref target="Pg224">224-5</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Armenian"/> +<l>Armenian Version, p. <ref target="Pg036">36</ref>, <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ascension, The, p. <ref target="Pg195">195</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Lessons, p. <ref target="Pg204">204-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg238">238-9</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Assemani, p. <ref target="Pg309">309-10</ref>, <ref target="Pg315">315</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Asterisks, p. <ref target="Pg116">116-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Athanasian"/> +<l>Athanasian Creed, p. <ref target="Pg003">3</ref>, <ref target="Pg254">254</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Athanasius, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>, <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">how he read S. Jo. xvii. <ref target="Pg015">15</ref>, <ref target="Pg016">16</ref>, p. <ref target="Pg074">74</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Augustine, p. <ref target="Pg028">28</ref>, <ref target="Pg198">198</ref>, <ref target="Pg200">200</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Babington, Rev. C, p. <ref target="Pg291">291</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Basil, p. <ref target="Pg093">93-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>βαςιλίς, p. <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Basle, p. <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bede, Ven., p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bengel, J. A., p. <ref target="Pg017">17</ref>, <ref target="Pg101">101-2</ref>, <ref target="Pg185">185</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Benson, Rev. Dr., p. <ref target="Pg101">101</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Βηθαβαρά and Βηθανία, p. <ref target="Pg236">236</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Bibliothèque</hi> at Paris, p. <ref target="Pg228">228-31</ref>, <ref target="Pg278">278-83</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Birch's N. T., Andr., p. <ref target="Pg005">5</ref>, <ref target="Pg116">116-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Βλάπτειν, p. <ref target="Pg160">160</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bobbiensis, Codex, p. <ref target="Pg035">35</ref>, <ref target="Pg124">124</ref>, <ref target="Pg186">186</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bodleian. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Book"/> +<l>Book of Common Prayer, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bostra, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Titus">Titus</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bosworth, Rev. Prof., p. <ref target="Pg262">262</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Broadus, Prof., p. <ref target="Pg139">139</ref>, <ref target="Pg155">155</ref>, <ref target="Pg168">168</ref>, <ref target="Pg174">174</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cæsarius, p. <ref target="Pg133">133</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Canons, p. <ref target="Pg127">127-31</ref>, <ref target="Pg295">295-312</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Sections">Sections</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Carpian, Letter to, p. <ref target="Pg126">126-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311-2</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Carthage. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Council">Council</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cassian, p. <ref target="Pg193">193</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Catenaæ, p. <ref target="Pg133">133-5</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Corderius">Corderius</ref>, <ref target="Index-Cramer">Cramer</ref>, <ref target="Index-Matthaei">Matthaei</ref>, <ref target="Index-Peltanus">Peltanus</ref>, <ref target="Index-Possinus">Possinus</ref>, <ref target="Index-Victor">Victor</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Chrysostom, p. <ref target="Pg027">27</ref>, <ref target="Pg085">85</ref>, <ref target="Pg110">110</ref>, <ref target="Pg179">179</ref>, <ref target="Pg193">193</ref>, <ref target="Pg198">198-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg201">201-4</ref>, <ref target="Pg223">223</ref>, <ref target="Pg258">258-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg275">275-7</ref>, <ref target="Pg278">278</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314-6</ref>, <ref target="Pg323">323</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Church, the Christian, p. <ref target="Pg192">192</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Festivals, p. <ref target="Pg203">203</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Churton, Rev. W. R., p. <ref target="Pg236">236</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Circular,</q> A, p. <ref target="Pg101">101-5</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Citations, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Patristic">Patristic</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Clemens Alex., p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Codices, depraved, p. <ref target="Pg080">80-6</ref>, <ref target="Pg217">217-24</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Corrupt-Readings">Corrupt readings</ref>, <ref target="Index-Dated">Dated</ref>, <ref target="Index-Syriac">Syriac</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">151, referred to p. <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Codices"/> +<l>CODICES.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex א, p. <ref target="Pg070">70-90</ref>, <ref target="Pg077">77</ref>, <ref target="Pg109">109-13</ref>, <ref target="Pg218">218-22</ref>, <ref target="Pg252">252</ref>, <ref target="Pg257">257</ref>, <ref target="Pg313">313</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, <ref target="Pg088">88-90</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">omissions, <ref target="Pg073">73-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg079">79</ref>, <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Ephes. i. 1, <ref target="Pg091">91-109</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">interpolations and depravations, +<pb n="327"/><anchor id="Pg327"/> +p. <ref target="Pg080">80-6</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">affected by the Lectionary practice, p. <ref target="Pg217">217</ref>-24;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">sympathy with B, <ref target="Pg078">78</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">not so old as B, <ref target="Pg291">291-4</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend='italic'>facsimile</hi>, p. ii.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">A, p. <ref target="Pg220">220-1</ref>, <ref target="Pg222">222</ref>, <ref target="Pg257">257-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">B, p. <ref target="Pg070">70-90</ref>, <ref target="Pg257">257</ref>, <ref target="Pg202">202</ref>, <ref target="Pg217">217-20</ref>, <ref target="Pg222">222-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg313">313</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, <ref target="Pg086">86-90</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">omissions, <ref target="Pg074">74-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg079">79</ref>, <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Ephes. i. 1, <ref target="Pg091">91-109</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">interpolations and depravations, p. <ref target="Pg080">80-6</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">affected by the Lectionary practice, p. <ref target="Pg217">217-24</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">sympathy with א, <ref target="Pg078">78</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">older than א <ref target="Pg291">291-4</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">C, p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>, <ref target="Pg221">221-2</ref>, <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">depraved by the Lectionary practice, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">D, p. <ref target="Pg100">100</ref>, <ref target="Pg219">219-25</ref>, <ref target="Pg257">257</ref>, <ref target="Pg262">262</ref>, <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">E, p. <ref target="Pg305">305</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">F, p. <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">G, p. <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">H, p. <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">K, p. <ref target="Pg197">197</ref>, <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<anchor id="Index-Codex-L"/> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">L, p. <ref target="Pg123">123-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>, <ref target="Pg225">225</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend='italic'>facsimile</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg124">124</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">M, p. <ref target="Pg197">197</ref>, <ref target="Pg305">305</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">P, Q, R, Y, Z, p. <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">S, V, Δ, Π, p. <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">T<hi rend="vertical-align: super">b</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg305">305</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">U, p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">W<hi rend="vertical-align: super">b</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">W<hi rend="vertical-align: super">d</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg305">305</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Γ, p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>, <ref target="Pg224">224</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Λ, p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>, <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 1, p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>, <ref target="Pg123">123</ref>, <ref target="Pg125">125</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 7, p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 10, p. <ref target="Pg224">224</ref>, <ref target="Pg231">231</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 12, p. <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg278">278</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 13, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 15, p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 19, p. <ref target="Pg240">240</ref>, <ref target="Pg278">278</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 20, p. <ref target="Pg118">118-9</ref> 22, <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, 9, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>, 1, 2.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 22, p. <ref target="Pg066">66</ref>, <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>, <ref target="Pg230">230</ref>, 1, <ref target="Pg242">242</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 23, p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 24, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg228">228-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, 3, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 25, p. <ref target="Pg225">225</ref>, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 27, p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 30, p. <ref target="Pg231">231</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 33, p. <ref target="Pg123">123</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 34, p. <ref target="Pg066">66</ref>, <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 36, p. <ref target="Pg118">118</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg229">229</ref>, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>, 8, 9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 37, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 38, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 39, p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 40, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 41, p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 47, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 50, p. <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 54, 56 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 61, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 63, p. <ref target="Pg240">240-1</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 69, p. <ref target="Pg123">123</ref>, <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 72, p. <ref target="Pg023">23</ref>, <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 77, p. <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 90, p. <ref target="Pg240">240</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 92 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 94, p. <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 108, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 113, p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 117, p. <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 124, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 129, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 137, p. <ref target="Pg116">116-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 138, p. <ref target="Pg116">116-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 143, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 146, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 181 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 186, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, 8-9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 194, p. <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 195, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 197, p. <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 199, 206 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 209, p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>, 1-3, 5.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 210, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 215, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 221 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 222, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>, 8-9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 233, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 237 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 238, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>, 8-9, <ref target="Pg321">321</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 239, p. <ref target="Pg321">321</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 253, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 255, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg319">319-23</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 256, p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>, <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 259, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg321">321</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 262, p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>, <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg305">305</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 263, p. <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>, <ref target="Pg304">304</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 264, p. <ref target="Pg117">117</ref>, <ref target="Pg305">305-6</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 265, p. <ref target="Pg225">225</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 266, p. <ref target="Pg238">238</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 267, p. <ref target="Pg216">216</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 268, p. <ref target="Pg231">231</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 270, p. <ref target="Pg224">224</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 274, p. <ref target="Pg124">124</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 282 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 293, p. <ref target="Pg231">231</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 299, p. <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 300, p. <ref target="Pg118">118-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, 4, 9, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>, 1, 2.</l> +<pb n="328"/><anchor id="Pg328"/> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 301, p. <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 304, p. <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 309, p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>, <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 312, p. <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 329, p. <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 332 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 353, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 373, p. <ref target="Pg287">287</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 374, p. <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121</ref>, 2, <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 379 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 427, p. <ref target="Pg287">287</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 428 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 432, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 436, p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codex 439, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 7, 157, p. <ref target="Pg309">309</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 12,141, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,449, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>, <ref target="Pg309">309</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,450, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>, <ref target="Pg310">310</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,451, p. <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,452-4-5, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,456, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,457-8, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>, <ref target="Pg309">309</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,461, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,463, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,464, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,469, p. <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,485-8, p. <ref target="Pg208">208</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 14,492, p. <ref target="Pg208">208</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 17,113, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 17,114-5-6, p. <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Addit. 17,213, p. <ref target="Pg310">310</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Ambros. M. 93, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Basil., p. <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>, (three Codd.)</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Bobbiensis, p. <ref target="Pg035">35</ref>, <ref target="Pg124">124</ref>, <ref target="Pg186">186</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Bodleian, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> Codd. Γ, Λ, 47, 50, 54, Dawkins.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Coisl. 19, p. <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>, 8-9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Coisl. 20, p. <ref target="Pg118">118</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg229">229</ref>, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>, 8, 9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Coisl. 21, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, 8-9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Coisl. 22, p. <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Coisl. 23, p. <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Coisl. 24, p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Coisl. 195, p. <ref target="Pg066">66</ref>, <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>, 1-3, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Dawkins 3, p. <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>-9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Escurial Υ, ii. 8, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Florence, S. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv. p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>, 1-3, 5.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Harl. 1, 810, p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Harl. 5,107, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Harl. 5,647, p. <ref target="Pg023">23</ref>, <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Laur. vi. 18, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, 8-9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Laur. vi. 33, p. <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Laur. vi. 34, p. <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Laur. viii. 14, p. <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Matthaei's a, <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg321">321</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Matthaei's d, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Matthaei's e, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Matthaei's 10, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Matthaei's 12, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288</ref>, <ref target="Pg319">319-23</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Matthaei's 14, p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>, <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Meerman 117, p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Middle Hill 13, 975, p. <ref target="Pg287">287</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Monacen. 99 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 381, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Monacen 465, p. <ref target="Pg287">287</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Moscow, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Matthaei">Matthaei</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 14, p. <ref target="Pg123">123</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 50, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 53, p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>, <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg305">305</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 61 p. <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>, <ref target="Pg304">304</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 62, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codex-L">Codex L</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 64, p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 65, p. <ref target="Pg117">117</ref>, <ref target="Pg305">305</ref>-6.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 66, p. <ref target="Pg225">225</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 67, p. <ref target="Pg238">238</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 69, p. <ref target="Pg216">216</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 71, p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 72, p. <ref target="Pg066">66</ref>, <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>, <ref target="Pg230">230</ref>, 1, <ref target="Pg242">242</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 73, p. <ref target="Pg231">231</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 75, p. <ref target="Pg224">224</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 77, p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 79, p. <ref target="Pg124">124</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 90, p. <ref target="Pg231">231</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 91, p. <ref target="Pg224">224</ref>, <ref target="Pg231">231</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 100, p. <ref target="Pg231">231</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 115, p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 117, p. <ref target="Pg231">231</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 177, p. <ref target="Pg121">121</ref>, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, 8-9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 178, p. <ref target="Pg121">121</ref>, 3, <ref target="Pg228">228-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, 3, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>, 8, 9.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 186, p. <ref target="Pg118">118-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, 4, 9, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>, 1, 2.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 187, p. <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 188, p. <ref target="Pg118">118-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, 9, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>, 1, 2.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 189, p. <ref target="Pg240">240</ref>, <ref target="Pg278">278</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 191, p. <ref target="Pg225">225</ref>, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 194, p. <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 201, p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>, <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 206, p. <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 230, p. <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg278">278</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Reg. 703, p. <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">2<hi rend="vertical-align: super">pe</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">7<hi rend="vertical-align: super">pe</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<pb n="329"/><anchor id="Pg329"/> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">c<hi rend="vertical-align: super">scr</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i<hi rend="vertical-align: super">scr</hi> <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> s<hi rend="vertical-align: super">scr</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">T<hi rend="vertical-align: super">b</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg305">305</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Taurin. xx b. iv. 20, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Toledo, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vat. 358, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vat. 756-7, p. <ref target="Pg116">116-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vat. 1,229 p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vat. 1,423, p. <ref target="Pg287">287</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vat. 1,445, p. <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vat. 1,769, p. <ref target="Pg287">287</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vat. Palat. 5, p. <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Venet. 6, 10, p. <ref target="Pg120">120</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, 5.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Venet. 27, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Venet. 495, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Venet. 544, p. <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. <ref target="Pg121">121</ref>, 3, <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vind. Kell. Nep. 114, Lambec. 29, p. <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vind. Kell. 117, Vind. Kell. 38, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vind. Kill. 118, 31, p. <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Vind. Kill. 180, 39, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg285">285</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Xavier de Zelada, p. <ref target="Pg121">121-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, 8-9.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cod. Evstt. 47 <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> 50, p. <ref target="Pg197">197</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"> Paul, 67, p. <ref target="Pg099">99</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Collation of MSS. p. vii.-viii., <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Colossians, Ep. to, p. <ref target="Pg101">101</ref>, <ref target="Pg162">162</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Texts">Texts</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Commentaries, Ancient, p. <ref target="Pg287">287</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Common Prayer, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Book">Book</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Concordance test, p. <ref target="Pg173">173</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Constantinople, p. <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Conybeare and Howson, p. <ref target="Pg103">103</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Coptic Version, p. <ref target="Pg035">35</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Copyists"/> +<l>Copyists of MSS., p. <ref target="Pg262">262</ref>, <ref target="Pg273">273-4</ref>, <ref target="Pg320">320-3</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Corderius"/> +<l>Corderius, B., p. <ref target="Pg044">44</ref>, <ref target="Pg134">134</ref>, <ref target="Pg270">270</ref>, 4, 7.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Corrupt-Readings"/> +<l>Corrupt readings in MSS., p. <ref target="Pg100">100-1</ref>, <ref target="Pg112">112</ref>, <ref target="Pg262">262-3</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cosmas Indicopleustes, p. <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Council"/> +<l>Council of Carthage, p. <ref target="Pg025">25</ref>, <ref target="Pg249">249</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Cramer"/> +<l>Cramer, Dr. J. A., p. <ref target="Pg044">44</ref>, <ref target="Pg060">60</ref>, <ref target="Pg271">271-3</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Creed"/> +<l>Creed of Jerusalem, p. <ref target="Pg184">184-5</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Athanasian">Athanasian</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Curetonian Syriac Version, p. <ref target="Pg033">33</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cyprian, <ref target="Pg025">25</ref>, <ref target="Pg249">249</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cyprus, p. <ref target="Pg315">315</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cyril of Alex., p. <ref target="Pg029">29</ref>, <ref target="Pg060">60</ref>, <ref target="Pg110">110</ref>, <ref target="Pg198">198</ref>, <ref target="Pg201">201</ref>, <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>, <ref target="Pg271">271</ref>, 5, 7, 9, <ref target="Pg281">281</ref>, <ref target="Pg315">315</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Cyril of Jer., p. <ref target="Pg184">184-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg195">195</ref>, <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>, <ref target="Pg261">261</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cyrus in Syria, p. <ref target="Pg317">317</ref>, 8.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Damascene, John, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Dated"/> +<l>Dated MSS., p. <ref target="Pg208">208</ref>, <ref target="Pg224">224</ref>, <ref target="Pg309">309</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Davidson. Dr., p. <ref target="Pg012">12</ref>, <ref target="Pg038">38</ref>, <ref target="Pg114">114</ref>, <ref target="Pg133">133-5</ref>, 6; <ref target="Pg142">142</ref>, 8; <ref target="Pg153">153</ref>, <ref target="Pg160">160</ref>, 1, 4; <ref target="Pg185">185</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>De Touttée, p. <ref target="Pg184">184</ref>, <ref target="Pg261">261</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>δευτεροπρώτῳ, p. <ref target="Pg075">75</ref>, <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Diatessaron, p. <ref target="Pg126">126</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314-8</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Diodorus, p. <ref target="Pg314">314-8</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dionysius of Corinth, p. <ref target="Pg245">245</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dionysius Syrus, p. <ref target="Pg041">41</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, p. <ref target="Pg257">257-63</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Easter Lessons, p. <ref target="Pg204">204-6</ref>, <ref target="Pg238">238-9</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eden, Rev. C. P., p. <ref target="Pg003">3</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐγκύκλιον, p. <ref target="Pg104">104-5</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ and ἀπό, p. <ref target="Pg153">153</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐκεῖνος, p. <ref target="Pg166">166-7</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἔκλειψις, p. <ref target="Pg086">86</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ellicott, Bishop, p. <ref target="Pg009">9</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Encyclical, p. <ref target="Pg101">101-5</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ephesians, Ep. to, p. <ref target="Pg091">91-109</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Texts">Texts</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐπί, verbs compounded with, p. <ref target="Pg163">163-4</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐπιφανία, τὰ, p. <ref target="Pg204">204</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Epiphanius, p. <ref target="Pg095">95</ref>, <ref target="Pg132">132-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg199">199</ref>, <ref target="Pg202">202-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Epiphany, Festival of, p. <ref target="Pg204">204</ref>, 7;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">lessons, <ref target="Pg199">199</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Erizzo, F. M. p. <ref target="Pg034">34</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ethiopic Version, p. <ref target="Pg036">36</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>εὐδοκία, p. <ref target="Pg257">257-63</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eulogius, p. <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eusebius, p. <ref target="Pg026">26</ref>, <ref target="Pg041">41-51</ref>, <ref target="Pg043">43</ref>, <ref target="Pg061">61-4</ref>, <ref target="Pg066">66</ref>, <ref target="Pg084">84</ref>, <ref target="Pg126">126-33</ref>, <ref target="Pg332">332-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg240">240</ref>, <ref target="Pg249">249-52</ref>, <ref target="Pg265">265-6</ref>, <ref target="Pg267">267-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314</ref>, <ref target="Pg316">316</ref>, <ref target="Pg323">323</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">knew nothing of Cod. א, p. <ref target="Pg293">293-4</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">was the Author of the <q>Ammonian</q> Sections, p. <ref target="Pg295">295</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Eusebian Tables in Syriac MSS., p. <ref target="Pg309">309-10</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Scholion wrongly ascribed to, p. <ref target="Pg319">319-23</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>εὐθέως, p. <ref target="Pg168">168-9</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Euthymius Zig., p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>, <ref target="Pg068">68-9</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Evangelia, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Evangeliaria, p. <ref target="Pg195">195</ref>, <ref target="Pg197">197</ref>, <ref target="Pg214">214-5</ref>.</l> +<!-- poem --> +</lg> + +<pb n="330"/><anchor id="Pg330"/> + +<lg> +<l>Evangelists vary their expressions, p. <ref target="Pg147">147</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Evidence, Law of, p. <ref target="Pg015">15</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐξελθόντες, p. <ref target="Pg188">188</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Facsimile of Cod. א, p. ii.;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">of Cod. L, p. <ref target="Pg124">124</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Fathers badly indexed, p. vii, <ref target="Pg021">21</ref>, <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>, <ref target="Pg315">315</ref>: <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Patristic">Patristic</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Festivals of the Church, p. <ref target="Pg203">203</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Field's ed. of Chrysostom, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Florence. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Formulæ of the Lectionaries, p. <ref target="Pg215">215-224</ref>, 5.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gandell, Rev. Prof., p. <ref target="Pg148">148</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Garnier, J., p. <ref target="Pg101">101</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Genesis, when read, p. <ref target="Pg201">201</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gennadius, p. <ref target="Pg026">26</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Georgian Version, p. <ref target="Pg036">36</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Gloria in Excelsis</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg257">257-63</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gothic Version, p. <ref target="Pg035">35</ref>, <ref target="Pg262">262</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Green, Rev. T. S., p. <ref target="Pg013">13</ref>, <ref target="Pg137">137</ref>, <ref target="Pg153">153</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gregentius, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Gregory"/> +<l>Gregory of Nazianzus, p. <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Gregory of Nyssa, p. <ref target="Pg029">29</ref>, <ref target="Pg039">39-41</ref>, <ref target="Pg066">66</ref>, <ref target="Pg267">267-8</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Gregory the Great, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Griesbach, D. J. J., p. <ref target="Pg004">4-7</ref>, <ref target="Pg115">115-6</ref>, <ref target="Pg232">232</ref>, <ref target="Pg251">251</ref>, <ref target="Pg319">319</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Harleian. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Harmonia, &c.</hi>, Oxon. 1805, p. <ref target="Pg298">298</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Harmony of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with the other Gospels, p. <ref target="Pg188">188-90</ref>,</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Tables of, in Greek MSS., p. <ref target="Pg304">304-6</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">in Syriac MSS., p. <ref target="Pg306">306-11</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Harris, A. C, p. <ref target="Pg293">293</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hedibia, p. <ref target="Pg051">51-6</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hesychius of Jerusalem, p. <ref target="Pg029">29</ref>, <ref target="Pg040">40-1</ref>, <ref target="Pg057">57-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg067">67</ref>, <ref target="Pg204">204</ref>, <ref target="Pg237">237</ref>, <ref target="Pg267">267-8</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Heurtley, Rev. Prof., p. <ref target="Pg184">184</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hharklensian Revision, p. <ref target="Pg033">33</ref>, <ref target="Pg124">124</ref>, <ref target="Pg315">315</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hierosolymitan Version, p. <ref target="Pg034">34</ref>, <ref target="Pg199">199</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hippolytus, p. <ref target="Pg024">24-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg248">248</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hort, Rev. F. J. A., p. <ref target="Pg013">13</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Huet, P. D., p. <ref target="Pg269">269</ref>, <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hypapante, p. <ref target="Pg207">207</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, p. <ref target="Pg165">165</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Indices, p. vii-viii, <ref target="Pg021">21</ref>, <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>, <ref target="Pg315">315</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Interpolations in B and א p. <ref target="Pg080">80-6</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">from the Lectionary practice, p. <ref target="Pg217">217-214</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Irenæus, p. <ref target="Pg023">23</ref>, <ref target="Pg246">246</ref>, 8, <ref target="Pg260">260</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Itala, Vetus, p. <ref target="Pg035">35</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jacobus Bar-Salibi, p. <ref target="Pg041">41</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Jacobus Nisibenus,</q> p. <ref target="Pg026">26</ref>, <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>James' <hi rend='italic'>Ecloga</hi>, p. <ref target="Pg236">236</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jerome, p. <ref target="Pg026">26</ref>, <ref target="Pg027">27-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg034">34</ref>, <ref target="Pg042">42</ref>, <ref target="Pg049">49</ref>, <ref target="Pg051">51-7</ref>, <ref target="Pg067">67</ref>, <ref target="Pg098">98</ref>, <ref target="Pg106">106</ref>, <ref target="Pg128">128</ref>, <ref target="Pg153">153</ref>, <ref target="Pg236">236</ref>, <ref target="Pg260">260</ref>, <ref target="Pg295">295</ref>, <ref target="Pg312">312</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jerusalem, Version, p. <ref target="Pg034">34</ref>, <ref target="Pg199">199</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Copies at, p. <ref target="Pg119">119</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Creed">Creed</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jewish Church, p. <ref target="Pg192">192</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jewish Lectionary, p. <ref target="Pg194">194</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend="smallcaps">John</hi>, S. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Texts">Texts</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>John Damascene, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Josephus, p. <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Justin Martyr, p. <ref target="Pg023">23</ref>, <ref target="Pg193">193</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>καθαρίζων, p. <ref target="Pg179">179-80</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>κανονίζειν, p. <ref target="Pg120">120-1</ref>, <ref target="Pg125">125</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kay, Rev. Dr. W., p. <ref target="Pg140">140</ref>, <ref target="Pg183">183</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>κείμενον, p. <ref target="Pg131">131</ref>, <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>κεφάλαιον, p. <ref target="Pg045">45</ref>, <ref target="Pg229">229</ref>, <ref target="Pg298">298</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kollar, p. <ref target="Pg269">269</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>κτίσις, p. <ref target="Pg161">161-2</ref>, <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Κύριος, p. <ref target="Pg165">165</ref>, <ref target="Pg185">185</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lachmann, C., p. <ref target="Pg008">8</ref>, <ref target="Pg259">259</ref>, <ref target="Pg263">263-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Laodiceans, Ep. to, p. <ref target="Pg093">93-107</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Latinus Latinius, p. <ref target="Pg042">42-44</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Lectionary"/> +<l>Lectionary System, p. <ref target="Pg191">191-211</ref>, <ref target="Pg214">214-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg217">217-24</ref>, <ref target="Pg240">240</ref>, <ref target="Pg313">313-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg318">318</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Eastern p. <ref target="Pg196">196-211</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Jewish, p. <ref target="Pg192">192-4</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Syrian, p. <ref target="Pg205">205-8</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">the New, p. <ref target="Pg200">200</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Lections"/> +<l>Lections, p. <ref target="Pg238">238-9</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Lectionary">Lectionary System</ref>, <ref target="Index-Syrian">Syrian Lessons</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Lessons"/> +<l>Lessons. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Lections">Lections</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Licentious. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Copyists">Copyists</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Liturgical Formulæ, p. <ref target="Pg216">216-25</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lloyd, Bishop C, p. <ref target="Pg298">298</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>λόγος, p. <ref target="Pg165">165</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend="smallcaps">Luke</hi>, S. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Texts">Texts</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Macknight, p. <ref target="Pg105">105</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<pb n="331"/><anchor id="Pg331"/> + +<lg> +<l>Mai, Card. A., p. <ref target="Pg042">42-4</ref>, <ref target="Pg242">242</ref>, <ref target="Pg265">265</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Manuscripts. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <hi rend="smallcaps"><ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref></hi>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Marcion, p. <ref target="Pg093">93-6</ref>, <ref target="Pg103">103</ref>, <ref target="Pg106">106-8</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Marginal references, p. <ref target="Pg298">298-304</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Marinus, p. <ref target="Pg026">26</ref>, <ref target="Pg053">53-6</ref>, <ref target="Pg249">249-50</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Mark, S., p. <ref target="Pg161">161-2</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend="smallcaps">Mark</hi>, S. (<hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Texts">Texts</ref>), p. <ref target="Pg167">167</ref>, <ref target="Pg176">176</ref>, 7, 9;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Latinisms, <ref target="Pg149">149-51</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">style of ch. i. 9-20, p. <ref target="Pg143">143-4</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">phraseology of ch. i. 1-12, p. <ref target="Pg174">174-5</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">ch. xvi. 9-20, p. <ref target="Pg036">36-73</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">structure of ch. xvi. 9-20, p. <ref target="Pg181">181-4</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 9-20, a Lection in the Ancient Church, p. <ref target="Pg204">204-11</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Matthaei"/> +<l>Matthaei, C. F., p. <ref target="Pg005">5</ref>, <ref target="Pg066">66</ref>, <ref target="Pg191">191</ref>, <ref target="Pg197">197</ref>, <ref target="Pg227">227</ref>, <ref target="Pg247">247</ref>, <ref target="Pg271">271-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg319">319-23</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend="smallcaps">Matthew</hi>, S. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Texts">Texts</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>μέγα σάββατον, p. <ref target="Pg194">194</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Meerman 117, Cod., p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Memphitic Version, p. <ref target="Pg035">35</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Menologium, p. <ref target="Pg197">197</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Methodius, p. <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Meyer, p. <ref target="Pg013">13</ref>, <ref target="Pg136">136</ref>, <ref target="Pg160">160</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">τῶν σαββάτων, p. <ref target="Pg146">146-51</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Michaelis, J. D., p. <ref target="Pg101">101</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Middle Hill, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Middleton, Bp., p. <ref target="Pg105">105</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Mill, Dr. John, p. <ref target="Pg129">129</ref>, <ref target="Pg130">130</ref>, 2.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Modestus, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Montfaucon, B. de, p. <ref target="Pg121">121</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Moscow, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>, <ref target="Index-Penny">Rev. W. G. Penny</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Munich, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Muratorian fragment, p. <ref target="Pg103">103</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nativity, Festival of, p. <ref target="Pg199">199</ref>, <ref target="Pg204">204</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nazianzus, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Gregory">Gregory</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nestorius, p. <ref target="Pg029">29</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Neubauer, M., p. <ref target="Pg307">307</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nisibenus, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Aphraates">Aphraates</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Norton, Prof., p. <ref target="Pg013">13</ref>, <ref target="Pg137">137</ref>, <ref target="Pg245">245</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nyssa, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Gregory">Gregory</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Omissions in B and א, p. <ref target="Pg073">73-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg079">79</ref>, <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>, <ref target="Pg091">91</ref>, &c.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ὁμοιοτέλευτον, p. <ref target="Pg073">73</ref>, 4.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Order of the Gospels, p. <ref target="Pg239">239-240</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Oriel College, p. ix, x.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Origen, p. <ref target="Pg047">47</ref>, <ref target="Pg066">66</ref>, <ref target="Pg085">85</ref>, <ref target="Pg093">93-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg107">107</ref>, <ref target="Pg179">179</ref>, <ref target="Pg222">222</ref>, <ref target="Pg236">236</ref>, <ref target="Pg245">245</ref>, <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>, <ref target="Pg260">260-1</ref>, <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>, <ref target="Pg277">277</ref>, <ref target="Pg282">282</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">on S. Mark, <ref target="Pg235">235</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Palestinian exemplar, p. <ref target="Pg064">64-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121</ref>, <ref target="Pg289">289</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πάλιν, p. <ref target="Pg168">168-9</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Palmer, Sir Roundell, p. v, vi.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Palmer, Rev. W. J., p. v.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Papias, p. <ref target="Pg023">23</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>παρά, verbs compounded with, p. <ref target="Pg163">163-4</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Parallel passages. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Tables">Tables of Reference</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>παρασκευή, p. <ref target="Pg150">150</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Paris, MSS. at, p. <ref target="Pg228">228-31</ref>, <ref target="Pg278">278-83</ref>:</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>, Coisl. <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> Reg.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Passion-tide Lessons, p. <ref target="Pg202">202</ref>, <ref target="Pg204">204</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Patres App.,</q> p. <ref target="Pg240">240</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Patristic"/> +<l>Patristic Citations of SS., p. <ref target="Pg020">20-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg037">37</ref>, <ref target="Pg257">257-63</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Paul, S., p. <ref target="Pg161">161-2</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Peltanus"/> +<l>Peltanus, p. <ref target="Pg134">134</ref>, <ref target="Pg270">270-3</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Penny"/> +<l>Penny, Rev. W. G., p. <ref target="Pg319">319-23</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>περιγράφειν τὸ τέλος, p. <ref target="Pg233">233-4</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>περικοπή, p. <ref target="Pg045">45</ref>, <ref target="Pg196">196</ref>, 8, <ref target="Pg298">298</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Peshito Version, p. <ref target="Pg032">32</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Peter, S., p. <ref target="Pg161">161-2</ref>, <ref target="Pg179">179</ref>, <ref target="Pg180">180-1</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Texts">Texts</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Peter of Laodicea, p. <ref target="Pg284">284</ref>, <ref target="Pg286">286</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Petersburg. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Thompson">Rev. A. S. Thompson</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Petrus junior, p. <ref target="Pg315">315</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Phillipps, Sir T. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref> (Middle Hill).</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Philoxenian Version, p. <ref target="Pg033">33</ref>, 4.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Phraseology of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. <ref target="Pg136">136-173</ref>, <ref target="Pg146">146</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pius IX., p. ii.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Polycarp, p. <ref target="Pg240">240</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πορεύεσθαι, p. <ref target="Pg153">153</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Possevinus, p. <ref target="Pg235">235</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Possinus"/> +<l>Possinus, p. <ref target="Pg044">44</ref>, <ref target="Pg134">134</ref>, <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>, <ref target="Pg270">270-4</ref>, <ref target="Pg277">277</ref>, <ref target="Pg290">290-2</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Prayer-Book, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Book">Book</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Proclus, p. <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Proper, see <ref target="Index-Lessons">Lessons</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πρώτη σαββάτου, p. <ref target="Pg146">146-51</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Reference Bibles, p. <ref target="Pg300">300-1</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">ancient Tables of, p. <ref target="Pg304">304-11</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<pb n="332"/><anchor id="Pg332"/> + +<lg> +<l>Revision of Auth. Version, p. <ref target="Pg263">263-4</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Greek Text, p. <ref target="Pg263">263</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Lectionary, p. <ref target="Pg200">200-1</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rose, Ven. Archd., p. <ref target="Pg027">27</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Rev. W. F., p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Routh, Rev. President, p. ix.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rufinus, p. <ref target="Pg314">314</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>S. (G. V.) p. <ref target="Pg264">264</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σαββατοκυριακαί, p. <ref target="Pg194">194</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σάββατον—τα, p. <ref target="Pg146">146-51</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sahidic Version, p. <ref target="Pg036">36</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Saturday Lessons, p. <ref target="Pg193">193</ref>, 4.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scholia, p. <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg236">236</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314</ref>, <ref target="Pg319">319-23</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scholz, J. M. A., p. <ref target="Pg007">7</ref>, <ref target="Pg116">116-22</ref>2, <ref target="Pg197">197</ref>, <ref target="Pg227">227</ref>, <ref target="Pg242">242</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scrivener, Rev. F. H., p. vii, viii, <ref target="Pg009">9</ref>, <ref target="Pg077">77</ref>, <ref target="Pg139">139</ref>, <ref target="Pg197">197</ref>, <ref target="Pg215">215</ref>, <ref target="Pg227">227</ref>, <ref target="Pg246">246</ref>, <ref target="Pg302">302-4</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Sections"/> +<l>Sections without Canons in MSS., p. <ref target="Pg302">302</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">their use, <ref target="Pg303">303-10</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Ammonian">Ammonian</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σελίδες, p. <ref target="Pg294">294</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Severus of Antioch, p. <ref target="Pg040">40-1</ref>, <ref target="Pg057">57-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg067">67</ref>, <ref target="Pg121">121</ref>, <ref target="Pg267">267</ref>-8, <ref target="Pg315">315</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σημείωσις, p. <ref target="Pg314">314</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Simon, Père, p. <ref target="Pg048">48</ref>, <ref target="Pg269">269</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sinaiticus, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codex</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sirletus, Card., p. <ref target="Pg044">44</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Smith, Dean Payne, p. <ref target="Pg041">41</ref>, <ref target="Pg205">205-6</ref>, <ref target="Pg214">214</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Stanley, Dean A. P., p. <ref target="Pg003">3</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. <ref target="Pg136">136-45</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Subscription of Gospels, p. <ref target="Pg230">230-1</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Suidas, p. <ref target="Pg309">309</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Synagogue worship, p. <ref target="Pg192">192-3</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Synaxarium, p. <ref target="Pg197">197</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Synopsis Script. S.,</q> p. <ref target="Pg029">29</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Syriac"/> +<l>Syriac MSS., p. <ref target="Pg208">208</ref>, <ref target="Pg214">214-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg225">225</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306-11</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Syrian"/> +<l>Syrian Lessons, p. <ref target="Pg205">205</ref>, <ref target="Pg226">226</ref>, <ref target="Pg238">238-9</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Tables"/> +<l>Tables of Reference in MSS, p. <ref target="Pg304">304-11</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tait, Abp., p. <ref target="Pg002">2</ref>, <ref target="Pg003">3</ref>, <ref target="Pg189">189</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314-8</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tatian, p. <ref target="Pg129">129</ref>, <ref target="Pg314">314-8</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>τέλος, p. <ref target="Pg119">119-20</ref>, <ref target="Pg224">224-42</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tertullian, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>, <ref target="Pg093">93-4</ref>, <ref target="Pg106">106</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Textual Criticism, p. vii-ix, <ref target="Pg113">113</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Texts"/> +<l>TEXTS.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend="smallcaps">S. Matthew</hi> i. 10, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 25, p. <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iii. 16, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iii. 17, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iv. 18-22, p. <ref target="Pg295">295-6</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">viii. 9, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">viii. 13, p. <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>, <ref target="Pg222">222</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xi. 19, p. <ref target="Pg083">83</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xi. 20, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xii. 9, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiii. 35, p. <ref target="Pg081">81</ref>, <ref target="Pg110">110</ref>-1;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiii. 36, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiii. 39, 55, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 14, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 22, p. <ref target="Pg216">216</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 30, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xv. 22, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 10, p. <ref target="Pg177">177</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 12, p. <ref target="Pg178">178-9</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 15, p. <ref target="Pg162">162</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xx. 17, p. <ref target="Pg223">223</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xx. 29, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxi. 8, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxi. 31, p. <ref target="Pg083">83</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxv. 24, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxvi. 34, 75, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxvi. 39, p. <ref target="Pg217">217</ref>-8.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxvii. 32, p. <ref target="Pg188">188</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxvii. 34, p. <ref target="Pg084">84</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxvii. 35, p. <ref target="Pg075">75</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxvii. 48, 49, p. <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>, <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>, <ref target="Pg313">313-8</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxvii. 54, 55, p. <ref target="Pg315">315</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxviii. 2, 3, p. <ref target="Pg073">73</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxviii. 8, p. <ref target="Pg084">84</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxviii. 19, 20, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend="smallcaps">S. Mark</hi> i. 1, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>, <ref target="Pg185">185</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 9-20, p. <ref target="Pg182">182</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 10, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 11, 13, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 16-20, p. <ref target="Pg295">295-6</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 28, p. <ref target="Pg085">85</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vi. 3, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vii. 3, 4, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vii. 19, p. <ref target="Pg179">179</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vii. 26, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">viii. 10, 15, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">x. 6, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">x. 42, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">x. 46, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xi. 8, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiii. 19, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 3, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 30, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 30, 68, 72, p. <ref target="Pg084">84</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 41, p. <ref target="Pg225">225</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 58, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 72, p. <ref target="Pg177">177</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xv. 28, p. <ref target="Pg301">301</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xv. 46, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 8 and 9, p. <ref target="Pg239">239</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 8-20, p. <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 9, p. <ref target="Pg152">152-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg178">178-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg187">187</ref>, <ref target="Pg216">216</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 9-20, p. <ref target="Pg182">182</ref>, <ref target="Pg224">224</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 10, 14, p. <ref target="Pg187">187</ref>, <ref target="Pg319">319</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 15, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 15, 16, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 19, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>, <ref target="Pg195">195</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend="smallcaps">S. Luke</hi> i. 26, p. <ref target="Pg085">85</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 27, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">ii. 14, p. <ref target="Pg257">257-63</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">ii. 37, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iii. 22, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>, <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iii. 23, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iv. 5, p. <ref target="Pg074">74</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iv. 16, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iv. 44, p. <ref target="Pg085">85</ref>.</l> +<pb n="333"/><anchor id="Pg333"/> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">(<hi rend="smallcaps">S. Luke</hi>) v. 1, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>, <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 1-11, p. <ref target="Pg295">295-6</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 17, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vi. 1, p. <ref target="Pg075">75</ref>, <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vi. 37, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vi. 48, p. <ref target="Pg081">81</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vii. 1, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vii. 31, p. <ref target="Pg216">216</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">viii. 2, p. <ref target="Pg152">152</ref>, <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">ix. 57, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">x. 1, p. <ref target="Pg081">81</ref>, <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">x. 25, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiii. 2, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xv. 13, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 6, p. <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 16, p. <ref target="Pg074">74</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvi. 19, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xviii. 15, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xix. 45, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xx. 1, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxii. 25, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxii. 43, 44, p. <ref target="Pg079">79</ref>, <ref target="Pg201">201</ref>, <ref target="Pg217">217-8</ref>, <ref target="Pg301">301</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxii. 64, p. <ref target="Pg074">74</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiii. 15, p. <ref target="Pg083">83</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiii. 34, p. <ref target="Pg079">79</ref>, <ref target="Pg219">219</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiii. 38, p. <ref target="Pg079">79</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiii. 45, p. <ref target="Pg085">85-6</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiv. 12, p. <ref target="Pg222">222</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiv. 13, p. <ref target="Pg085">85</ref>, <ref target="Pg236">236</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiv. 16, p. <ref target="Pg178">178-9</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiv. 31, p. <ref target="Pg073">73</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiv. 36, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiv. 42, 52, 53, p. <ref target="Pg074">74</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxiv. 51, p. <ref target="Pg195">195</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend="smallcaps">S. John</hi> i. 3, 4, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>, <ref target="Pg110">110</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 3, 18, 50, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 4, p. <ref target="Pg081">81</ref>, <ref target="Pg109">109-11</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 18, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>, <ref target="Pg081">81</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 28, p. <ref target="Pg236">236</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 29, 44, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 34, p. <ref target="Pg081">81</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 50, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">ii. 3, p. <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iii. 13, p. <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vi. 14, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vi. 17, 64, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vi. 51, p. <ref target="Pg111">111</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vii. 53-viii. 11, p. <ref target="Pg219">219</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">viii. 57, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">viii. 59, p. <ref target="Pg080">80</ref>, <ref target="Pg222">222</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">ix. 4, 11, p. <ref target="Pg081">81</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">ix. 35, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">ix. 38, p. <ref target="Pg079">79</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">x. 14, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">x. 29, p. <ref target="Pg223">223</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiii. 3, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiii. 10, p. <ref target="Pg111">111</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 1, p. <ref target="Pg220">220</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiv. 31, p. <ref target="Pg188">188</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvii. 10, p. <ref target="Pg082">82</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xvii. 15, 16, p. <ref target="Pg076">76</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xviii. 1, p. <ref target="Pg188">188</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xix. 13, p. <ref target="Pg223">223</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xix. 17, p. <ref target="Pg188">188</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xix. 34, p. <ref target="Pg218">218</ref>, <ref target="Pg313">313-5</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxi. 1, p. <ref target="Pg221">221</ref>, 3;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxi. 1-6, 11, p. <ref target="Pg295">295-6</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxi. 12, 13, 15-17, p. <ref target="Pg297">297</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxi. 18, p. <ref target="Pg083">83</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xxi. 25, p. <ref target="Pg079">79</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend="smallcaps">Acts</hi> i. 2, 22, 23, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">i. 9, p. <ref target="Pg195">195</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iv. 12, p. <ref target="Pg262">262</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">viii. 5, p. <ref target="Pg085">85</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">x. 15, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">xiii. 15, 27, p. <ref target="Pg192">192</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend="smallcaps">Ephes</hi>. i. 1, p. <ref target="Pg091">91-109</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">vi. 21, 2, p. <ref target="Pg101">101</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend="smallcaps">Coloss.</hi> i. 23, p. <ref target="Pg162">162</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iv. 7, 16, p. <ref target="Pg101">101</ref>, <ref target="Pg105">105</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">1 <hi rend="smallcaps">S. Pet.</hi> ii. 13, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">iv. 19, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">2 <hi rend="smallcaps">S. Pet.</hi> iii. 4, p. <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l rend="margin-left: 2"><hi rend="smallcaps">Ecclus.</hi> xliii. 11, 12, p. <ref target="Pg301">301</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">1 <hi rend="smallcaps">Macc.</hi> iv. 59, p. <ref target="Pg301">301</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>θεᾶσθαι, p. <ref target="Pg156">156-8</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Thebaic Version, p. <ref target="Pg035">35</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>, 7.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theodoret, p. <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>, <ref target="Pg317">317-8</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theodotus of Ancyra, p. <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theophania, p. <ref target="Pg207">207</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theophylact, p. <ref target="Pg030">30</ref>, <ref target="Pg266">266</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>θεωρεῖν, p. <ref target="Pg157">157</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Thompson"/> +<l>Thompson, Rev. A. S., p. ii, <ref target="Pg252">252</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Thomson, Abp., p. <ref target="Pg013">13</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tischendorf, Dr., p. <ref target="Pg008">8</ref>, <ref target="Pg009">9</ref>, <ref target="Pg010">10</ref>, <ref target="Pg038">38</ref>, <ref target="Pg077">77-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg085">85-6</ref>, <ref target="Pg093">93</ref>, <ref target="Pg109">109-14</ref>, <ref target="Pg123">123</ref>, <ref target="Pg125">125-33</ref>, <ref target="Pg137">137</ref>, <ref target="Pg153">153</ref>, <ref target="Pg222">222</ref>, 7, <ref target="Pg242">242</ref>, 4, <ref target="Pg251">251-2</ref>, 9, <ref target="Pg260">260-1</ref>, <ref target="Pg280">280</ref>, <ref target="Pg293">293</ref>, <ref target="Pg311">311</ref>, <ref target="Pg322">322</ref>, viii-ix.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Titus"/> +<l>Titus of Bostra, p. <ref target="Pg258">258</ref>, <ref target="Pg275">275</ref>, <ref target="Pg283">283</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Toledo, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Townson, Rev. Dr., p. <ref target="Pg151">151</ref>, <ref target="Pg179">179</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tregelles, Dr., p. <ref target="Pg009">9</ref>, <ref target="Pg010">10-12</ref>, <ref target="Pg038">38</ref>, 9, <ref target="Pg060">60</ref>, <ref target="Pg076">76</ref>, <ref target="Pg114">114</ref>, <ref target="Pg126">126-9</ref>, <ref target="Pg136">136</ref>, <ref target="Pg145">145</ref>, <ref target="Pg169">169</ref>, <ref target="Pg222">222-3</ref>, <ref target="Pg227">227</ref>, <ref target="Pg234">234</ref>, <ref target="Pg242">242</ref>, 4, 5, 7, <ref target="Pg251">251</ref>, 9, <ref target="Pg260">260</ref>, <ref target="Pg319">319</ref>, viii-ix.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Turin, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ulphilas, p. <ref target="Pg035">35</ref>, <ref target="Pg262">262</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Uncial MSS. p. <ref target="Pg020">20</ref>, <ref target="Pg071">71</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ὑπόθεσις, p. <ref target="Pg274">274-5</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ὕστερον, p. <ref target="Pg160">160</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vatican, p. <ref target="Pg117">117</ref>, <ref target="Pg283">283-4</ref>, <ref target="Pg288">288-9</ref>: <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vaticanus, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codex</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Venice, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vercellone, C., p. <ref target="Pg073">73</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Versions, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Armenian">Armenian</ref>, &c.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vetus Itala, p. <ref target="Pg035">35</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id="Index-Victor"/> +<l>Victor of Antioch, p. <ref target="Pg029">29</ref>, <ref target="Pg059">59-65</ref>, <ref target="Pg067">67</ref>, <ref target="Pg122">122</ref>, <ref target="Pg134">134</ref>, <ref target="Pg178">178</ref>, <ref target="Pg180">180</ref>, <ref target="Pg235">235</ref>, <ref target="Pg250">250</ref>, <ref target="Pg268">268</ref>, <ref target="Pg269">269-87</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Codices, <ref target="Pg278">278-87</ref>;</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Scholion, <ref target="Pg288">288-90</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<pb n="334"/><anchor id="Pg334"/> + +<lg> +<l>Victor of Capua, p. <ref target="Pg129">129</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vienna, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vincentius a Thibari, p. <ref target="Pg025">25</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vulgate, p. <ref target="Pg034">34</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Westcott, Rev. Prof., p. <ref target="Pg013">13</ref>, <ref target="Pg023">23</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wetstein, J. J., p. <ref target="Pg121">121</ref>, <ref target="Pg125">125</ref>, <ref target="Pg129">129</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wordsworth, Bishop, p. ix, <ref target="Pg009">9</ref>.</l> +<l rend="margin-left: 2">Wordsworth, Rev. John, p. ix.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wright, Prof., p. <ref target="Pg027">27</ref>, <ref target="Pg033">33</ref>, <ref target="Pg206">206</ref>, 8, <ref target="Pg214">214-5</ref>, <ref target="Pg225">225</ref>, <ref target="Pg306">306</ref>, 7, 8, 9, 10.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Xavier de Zelada, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target="Index-Codices">Codices</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Xiphilinus, John, p. <ref target="Pg044">44</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<p> +ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ. +</p> +</div> +</body> +<back rend="page-break-before: right"> + <div id="footnotes"> + <index index="toc" /> + <index index="pdf" /> + <head>Footnotes</head> + <divGen type="footnotes"/> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: right"> + <divGen type="pgfooter" /> + </div> +</back> +</text> +</TEI.2> diff --git a/26134-tei/images/305.png b/26134-tei/images/305.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e51db5d --- /dev/null +++ b/26134-tei/images/305.png diff --git a/26134-tei/images/307.png b/26134-tei/images/307.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5560a63 --- /dev/null +++ b/26134-tei/images/307.png diff --git a/26134-tei/images/facsimile-1.png b/26134-tei/images/facsimile-1.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..32897b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/26134-tei/images/facsimile-1.png diff --git a/26134-tei/images/facsimile-2.png b/26134-tei/images/facsimile-2.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..0cc72d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/26134-tei/images/facsimile-2.png diff --git a/26134-tei/images/facsimile-3.png b/26134-tei/images/facsimile-3.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..77da9c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/26134-tei/images/facsimile-3.png |
