diff options
Diffstat (limited to '26134-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 26134-0.txt | 15164 |
1 files changed, 15164 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/26134-0.txt b/26134-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..056b843 --- /dev/null +++ b/26134-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,15164 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel +According to S. Mark by John Burgon + + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no +restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under +the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or +online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license + + + +Title: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark + +Author: John Burgon + +Release Date: July 27, 2008 [Ebook #26134] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK*** + + + + + + THE + + THE LAST TWELVE VERSES + + OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO + + S. MARK + + Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors + + And Established + + by + + John W. Burgon B.D. + + Vicar of S. Mary-The-Virgin’s, Fellow of Oriel College, + + and Gresham Lecturer in Divinity. + + _With Facsimiles of Codex א And Codex L_ + + "’Advice to you,’ sir, ’in studying Divinity?’ Did you say that you + ’wished I would give you a few words of advice,’ sir?... Then let me +recommend to you the practice of always _verifying your references_, sir!" + + _Conversation of the late_ PRESIDENT ROUTH + + Oxford and London: + + James Parker and Co. + + 1871. + + + + + +CONTENTS + + +The Codex +Dedication: To Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., M.P. +Preface. +The Last Twelve Verses. +Chapter I. THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK’S GOSPEL, STATED. +Chapter II. THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF +RECENT DATE. +Chapter III. THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR +FAVOURABLE WITNESS. +Chapter IV. THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING +TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES. +Chapter V. THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS +PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS. +Chapter VI. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF +THESE VERSES.—PART I. +Chapter VII. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF +THESE VERSES.—PART II. +Chapter VIII. THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE +SUBJECT OF THESE VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY +SUPPOSED. +Chapter IX. INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF +UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES. +Chapter X. THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY +DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES. +Chapter XI. THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES +OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR. +Chapter XII. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND +CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT. +APPENDIX (A). +APPENDIX (B). +APPENDIX (C). +APPENDIX (D). +APPENDIX (E). +APPENDIX (F). +APPENDIX (G). +APPENDIX (H). +POSTSCRIPT. +L’ENVOY +GENERAL INDEX. +Footnotes + + + + + + +THE CODEX + + +[Transcriber’s Note: This e-book contains much Greek text which is central +to the point of the book. In the ASCII versions of the e-book, the Greek +is transliterated into Roman letters, which do not perfectly represent the +Greek original; especially, accent and breathing marks do not +transliterate. The HTML and PDF versions contain the true Greek text of +the original book.] + +On the next page is exhibited an _exact Fac-simile_, obtained by +Photography, of fol. 28 _b_ of the CODEX SINAITICUS at S. Petersburg, +(Tischendorf’s א): shewing the abrupt termination of S. Mark’s Gospel at +the words ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ (chap. xvi. 8), as explained at p. 70, and pp. +86-8. The original Photograph, which is here reproduced on a diminished +scale, measures in height full fourteen inches and one-eighth; in breadth, +full thirteen inches. It was procured for me through the friendly and +zealous offices of the English Chaplain at S. Petersburg, the Rev. A. S. +Thompson, B.D.; by favour of the Keeper of the Imperial Library, who has +my hearty thanks for his liberality and consideration. + +It will be perceived that the text begins at S. Mark xvi. 2, and ends with +the first words of S. Luke i. 18. + +Up to this hour, every endeavour to obtain a Photograph of the +corresponding page of the CODEX VATICANUS, B, (No. 1209, in the Vatican,) +has proved unavailing. If the present Vindication of the genuineness of +Twelve Verses of the everlasting Gospel should have the good fortune to +approve itself to his Holiness, POPE PIUS IX., let me be permitted in this +unadorned and unusual manner,—(to which I would fain add some circumstance +of respectful ceremony if I knew how,)—very humbly to entreat his Holiness +to allow me to possess a Photograph, corresponding in size with the +original, of the page of CODEX B (it is numbered fol. 1303,) which +exhibits the abrupt termination of the Gospel according to S. Mark. + +J. W. B. + +ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD, +_June 14, 1871_. + + [[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]] + + [[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]] + + + + + +"MY WORD WILL NOT PASS AWAY" + + + ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, + ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, + ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, + ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. + + εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστι + τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν, + ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν. + + ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται, + οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι. + + καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ + ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης + ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ + ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς, + καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, + καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ. + + + + + +DEDICATION: TO SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, Q.C., M.P. + + +DEAR SIR ROUNDELL, + +I do myself the honour of inscribing this volume to you. Permit me to +explain the reason why. + +It is not merely that I may give expression to a sentiment of private +friendship which dates back from the pleasant time when I was Curate to +your Father,—whose memory I never recall without love and veneration;—nor +even in order to afford myself the opportunity of testifying how much I +honour you for the noble example of conscientious uprightness and +integrity which you set us on a recent public occasion. It is for no such +reason that I dedicate to you this vindication of the last Twelve Verses +of the Gospel according to S. Mark. + +It is because I desire supremely to submit the argument contained in the +ensuing pages to a practised judicial intellect of the loftiest stamp. +Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these “last Twelve Verses” +are not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same +opinion. Popular Prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted +on the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse +is the truth. It is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends +of mine, who, admitting the adversary’s premisses, content themselves with +denying the validity of his inference. However true it may be,—and it is +true,—that from those premisses the proposed conclusion does not follow, I +yet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether. I +insist, on the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is +untrustworthy,—untrustworthy in every particular. + +How, in the meantime, can such an one as I am hope to persuade the world +that it is as I say, while the most illustrious Biblical Critics at home +and abroad are agreed, and against me? Clearly, the first thing to be done +is to secure for myself a full and patient hearing. With this view, I have +written a book. But next, instead of waiting for the slow verdict of +Public Opinion, (which yet, I know, must come after many days,) I +desiderate for the Evidence I have collected, a competent and an impartial +Judge. And _that_ is why I dedicate my book to you. If I can but get this +case fairly tried, I have no doubt whatever about the result. + +Whether you are able to find time to read these pages, or not, it shall +content me to have shewn in this manner the confidence with which I +advocate my cause; the kind of test to which I propose to bring my +reasonings. If I may be allowed to say so,—_S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses +shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men._ I am able to prove +that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly +mistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But +I claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations +which have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be +reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain. + +I am, with sincere regard and respect, +Dear Sir Roundell, +Very faithfully yours, +JOHN W. BURGON. + +ORIEL, +July, 1871. + + + + + +PREFACE. + + +This volume is my contribution towards the better understanding of a +subject which is destined, when it shall have grown into a Science, to +vindicate for itself a mighty province, and to enjoy paramount attention. +I allude to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Scriptures. + +That this Study is still in its infancy, all may see. The very principles +on which it is based are as yet only imperfectly understood. The reason is +obvious. It is because the very foundations have not yet been laid, +(except to a wholly inadequate extent,) on which the future superstructure +is to rise. A careful collation of every extant Codex, (executed after the +manner of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener’s labours in this department,) is the +first indispensable preliminary to any real progress. Another, is a +revised Text, not to say a more exact knowledge, of the oldest Versions. +Scarcely of inferior importance would be critically correct editions of +the Fathers of the Church; and these must by all means be furnished with +far completer Indices of Texts than have ever yet been attempted.—There is +not a single Father to be named whose Works have been hitherto furnished +with even a tolerably complete Index of the places in which he either +quotes, or else clearly refers to, the Text of the New Testament: while +scarcely a tithe of the known MSS. of the Gospels have as yet been +satisfactorily collated. Strange to relate, we are to this hour without so +much as a satisfactory Catalogue of the Copies which are known to be +extant. + +But when all this has been done,—(and the Science deserves, and requires, +a little more public encouragement than has hitherto been bestowed on the +arduous and—let me not be ashamed to add the word—_unremunerative_ labour +of Textual Criticism,)—it will be discovered that the popular and the +prevailing Theory is a mistaken one. The plausible hypothesis on which +recent recensions of the Text have been for the most part conducted, will +be seen to be no longer tenable. The latest decisions will in consequence +be generally reversed. + +I am not of course losing sight of what has been already achieved in this +department of Sacred Learning. While our knowledge of the uncial MSS. has +been rendered tolerably exact and complete, an excellent beginning has +been made, (chiefly by the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the most judicious living +Master of Textual Criticism,) in acquainting us with the contents of about +seventy of the cursive MSS. of the New Testament. And though it is +impossible to deny that the published Texts of Doctors Tischendorf and +Tregelles as _Texts_ are wholly inadmissible, yet is it equally certain +that by the conscientious diligence with which those distinguished +Scholars have respectively laboured, they have erected monuments of their +learning and ability which will endure for ever. Their Editions of the New +Testament will not be superseded by any new discoveries, by any future +advances in the Science of Textual Criticism. The MSS. which they have +edited will remain among the most precious materials for future study. All +honour to them! If in the warmth of controversy I shall appear to have +spoken of them sometimes without becoming deference, let me here once for +all confess that I am to blame, and express my regret. When they have +publicly begged S. Mark’s pardon for the grievous wrong they have done +_him_, I will very humbly beg their pardon also. + +In conclusion, I desire to offer my thanks to the Rev. John Wordsworth, +late Fellow of Brasenose College, for his patient perusal of these sheets +as they have passed through the press, and for favouring me with several +judicious suggestions. To him may be applied the saying of President Routh +on receiving a visit from Bishop Wordsworth at his lodgings,—“I see the +learned son of a learned Father, sir!”—Let me be permitted to add that my +friend inherits the Bishop’s fine taste and accurate judgment also. + +And now I dismiss this Work, at which I have conscientiously laboured for +many days and many nights; beginning it in joy and ending it in sorrow. +The College in which I have for the most part written it is designated in +the preamble of its Charter and in its Foundation Statutes, (which are +already much more than half a thousand years old,) as _Collegium +Scholarium in Sacrâ Theologiâ studentium,—perpetuis temporibus duraturum_. +Indebted, under GOD, to the pious munificence of the Founder of Oriel for +my opportunities of study, I venture, in what I must needs call evil days, +to hope that I have to some extent “employed my advantages,”—(the +expression occurs in a prayer used by this Society on its three solemn +anniversaries,)—as our Founder and Benefactors “would approve if they were +now upon earth to witness what we do.” + +J. W. B. + +ORIEL, +_July, 1871_. + + + + + +THE LAST TWELVE VERSES. + + +_Subjoined, for convenience, are_ “the Last Twelve Verses.” + +Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ (9) Now when Jesus was +σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον risen early the first day +Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ᾽ of the week, He appeared +ῆς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα first to Mary Magdalene, +δαιμόμια. ἐκείνη out of whom He had cast +πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς seven devils. (10) And +μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, she went and told them +πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι. that had been with Him, +κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι as they mourned and wept. +ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (11) And they, when they +ἠπίστησαν. had heard that He was + alive, and had been seen + of her, believed not. +Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀυσὶν ἐξ (12) After that He +αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν appeared in another form +ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, unto two of them, as they +πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν. walked, and went into the +κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες country. (13) And they +ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς; went and told it unto the +οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν. residue: neither believed + they them. +Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις (14) Afterward He +αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα appeared unto the eleven +ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισε as they sat at meat, and +τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ upbraided them with their +σκληροκαρδίαν, ὅτι τοῖς unbelief and hardness of +θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν heart, because they +ἐγηγερμένον οὐκ believed not them which +ἐπίστευσαν. Καὶ εἶπεν had seen Him after He was +αὐτοῖς, “Πορευθέντες εἰς risen. (15) And He said +τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, unto them, “Go ye into +κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον all the world, and preach +πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. ὁ the Gospel to every +πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς creature. (16) He that +σωθήσεται; ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας believeth and is baptized +κατακριθήσεται. σημεῖα δὲ shall be saved; but he +τοῖς πιστεύσασι ταῦτα that believeth not shall +παρακολουθήσει; ἐν τῷ be damned. (17) And these +ὀνόματι μου δαιμόνια signs shall follow them +ἐκβαλοῦσι; γλώσσαις that believe; In My Name +λαλήσουσι καιναῖς; ὄφεις shall they cast out +ἀροῦσι; κὰν θανὰσιμόν τι devils; they shall speak +πίωσιν, οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς with new tongues; (18) +βλάψει; ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους they shall take up +χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσι, καὶ serpents; and if they +καλῶς ἕξουσιν.” drink any deadly thing, + it shall not hurt them; + they shall lay hands on + the sick, and they shall + recover.” +Ὀ μὲν οὄν Κύριος, μετὰ τὸ (19) So then after the +λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς, ἀνελήφθη LORD had spoken unto +εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, καὶ them, He was received up +ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ into Heaven, and sat on +Θεοῦ; ἐκεῖνοι δὲ the Right hand of GOD. +ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν (20) And they went forth, +πανταχοῦ, τοῦ Κυρίου and preached every where, +συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν the LORD working with +λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν them, and confirming the +ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. word with signs +Ἀμήν. following. Amen. + + + + + + Chapter I. + + +THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK’S GOSPEL, STATED. + + + These Verses generally suspected at the present time. The + popularity of this opinion accounted for. + + +It has lately become the fashion to speak of the last Twelve Verses of the +Gospel according to S. Mark, as if it were an ascertained fact that those +verses constitute no integral part of the Gospel. It seems to be generally +supposed, (1) That the evidence of MSS. is altogether fatal to their +claims; (2) That “the early Fathers” witness plainly against their +genuineness; (3) That, from considerations of “internal evidence” they +must certainly be given up. It shall be my endeavour in the ensuing pages +to shew, on the contrary, That manuscript evidence is so overwhelmingly in +their favour that no room is left for doubt or suspicion:—That there is +not so much as _one_ of the Fathers, early or late, who gives it as his +opinion that these verses are spurious:—and, That the argument derived +from internal considerations proves on inquiry to be baseless and +unsubstantial as a dream. + +But I hope that I shall succeed in doing more. It shall be my endeavour to +shew not only that there really is no reason whatever for calling in +question the genuineness of this portion of Holy Writ, but also that there +exist sufficient reasons for feeling confident that it must needs be +genuine. This is clearly as much as it is possible for me to achieve. But +when this has been done, I venture to hope that the verses in dispute will +for the future be allowed to retain their place in the second Gospel +unmolested. + +It will of course be asked,—And yet, if all this be so, how does it happen +that both in very ancient, and also in very modern times, this proposal to +suppress twelve verses of the Gospel has enjoyed a certain amount of +popularity? At the two different periods, (I answer,) for widely different +reasons. + +(1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief of Christendom +that the Word of GOD must needs be consistent with itself in every part, +and prove in every part (like its Divine Author) perfectly “faithful and +true,” the difficulty (which was deemed all but insuperable) of bringing +certain statements in S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses into harmony with +certain statements of the other Evangelists, is discovered to have +troubled Divines exceedingly. “In fact,” (says Mr. Scrivener,) “it brought +suspicion upon these verses, and caused their omission in some copies seen +by Eusebius.” That the maiming process is indeed attributable to this +cause and came about in this particular way, I am unable to persuade +myself; but, if the desire to provide an escape from a serious critical +difficulty did not actually _occasion_ that copies of S. Mark’s Gospel +were mutilated, it certainly was the reason why, in very early times, such +mutilated copies were viewed without displeasure by some, and appealed to +with complacency by others. + +(2.) But times are changed. We have recently been assured on high +authority that the Church has reversed her ancient convictions in this +respect: that _now_, “most sound theologians have no dread whatever of +acknowledging minute points of disagreement” (i.e. minute _errors_) “in +the fourfold narrative even of the life of the Redeemer.”(1) There has +arisen in these last days a singular impatience of Dogmatic Truth, +(especially Dogma of an unpalatable kind,) which has even rendered popular +the pretext afforded by these same mutilated copies for the grave +resuscitation of doubts, never as it would seem seriously entertained by +any of the ancients; and which, at all events for 1300 years and upwards, +have deservedly sunk into oblivion. + +Whilst I write, _that_ “most divine explication of the chiefest articles +of our Christian belief,” the Athanasian Creed,(2) is made the object of +incessant assaults.(3) But then it is remembered that statements quite as +“uncharitable” as any which this Creed contains are found in the 16th +verse of S. Mark’s concluding chapter; are in fact the words of Him whose +very Name is Love. The precious _warning clause_, I say, (miscalled +“damnatory,”(4)) which an impertinent officiousness is for glossing with a +rubric and weakening with an apology, proceeded from Divine lips,—at least +if these concluding verses be genuine. How shall this inconvenient +circumstance be more effectually dealt with than by accepting the +suggestion of the most recent editors, that S. Mark’s concluding verses +are an unauthorised addition to his Gospel? “If it be acknowledged that +the passage has a harsh sound,” (remarks Dean Stanley,) “unlike the usual +utterances of Him who came not to condemn but to save, the discoveries of +later times have shewn, almost beyond doubt, that it is _not a part of S. +Mark’s Gospel, but an addition by another hand_; of which the weakness in +the external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in proving its +later origin.”(5) + +Modern prejudice, then,—added to a singularly exaggerated estimate of the +critical importance of the testimony of our two oldest Codices, (another +of the “discoveries of later times,” concerning which I shall have more to +say by-and-by,)—must explain why the opinion is even popular that the last +twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious appendix to his Gospel. + +Not that Biblical Critics would have us believe that the Evangelist left +off at verse 8, intending that the words,—“neither said they anything to +any man, for they were afraid,” should be the conclusion of his Gospel. +“No one can imagine,” (writes Griesbach,) “that Mark cut short the thread +of his narrative at that place.”(6) It is on all hands eagerly admitted, +that so abrupt a termination must be held to mark an incomplete or else an +uncompleted work. How, then, in the original autograph of the Evangelist, +is it supposed that the narrative proceeded? This is what no one has even +ventured so much as to conjecture. It is assumed, however, that the +original termination of the Gospel, whatever it may have been, has +perished. We appeal, of course, to its actual termination: and,—Of what +nature then, (we ask,) is the supposed necessity for regarding the last +twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel as a spurious substitute for what the +Evangelist originally wrote? What, in other words, has been the history of +these modern doubts; and by what steps have they established themselves in +books, and won the public ear? + +To explain this, shall be the object of the next ensuing chapters. + + + + + + CHAPTER II. + + +THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE. + + + Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses (p. + 6).—Lachmann’s fatal principle (p. 8) the clue to the unfavourable + verdict of Tischendorf (p. 9), of Tregelles (p. 10), of Alford (p. + 12); which has been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and + Divines (p. 13).—The nature of the present inquiry explained (p. + 15.) + + +It is only since the appearance of Griesbach’s second edition [1796-1806] +that Critics of the New Testament have permitted themselves to handle the +last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel with disrespect. Previous critical +editions of the New Testament are free from this reproach. “There is no +reason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of Scripture,” wrote +Mill in 1707, after a review of the evidence (as far as he was acquainted +with it) for and against. Twenty-seven years later, appeared Bengel’s +edition of the New Testament (1734); and Wetstein, at the end of another +seventeen years (1751-2), followed in the same field. Both editors, after +rehearsing the adverse testimony _in extenso_, left the passage in +undisputed possession of its place. Alter in 1786-7, and Birch in 1788,(7) +(suspicious as the latter evidently was of its genuineness,) followed +their predecessors’ example. But Matthaei, (who also brought his labours +to a close in the year 1788,) was not content to give a silent suffrage. +He had been for upwards of fourteen years a laborious collator of Greek +MSS. of the New Testament, and was so convinced of the insufficiency of +the arguments which had been brought against these twelve verses of S. +Mark, that with no ordinary warmth, no common acuteness, he insisted on +their genuineness. + +“With Griesbach,” (remarks Dr. Tregelles,)(8) “Texts which may be called +really critical begin;” and Griesbach is the first to insist that the +concluding verses of S. Mark are spurious. That he did not suppose the +second Gospel to have always ended at verse 8, we have seen already.(9) He +was of opinion, however, that “at some very remote period, the original +ending of the Gospel perished,—disappeared perhaps _from the Evangelist’s +own copy_,—and that the present ending was by some one substituted in its +place.” Griesbach further invented the following elaborate and +extraordinary hypothesis to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi. +9-20. + +He invites his readers to believe that when, (before the end of the second +century,) the four Evangelical narratives were collected into a volume and +dignified with the title of “The Gospel,”—S. Mark’s narrative was +furnished by some unknown individual with its actual termination in order +to remedy its manifest incompleteness; and that this volume became the +standard of the Alexandrine recension of the text: in other words, became +the fontal source of a mighty family of MSS. by Griesbach designated as +“Alexandrine.” But there will have been here and there in existence +isolated copies of one or more of the Gospels; and in all of these, S. +Mark’s Gospel, (by the hypothesis,) will have ended abruptly at the eighth +verse. These copies of single Gospels, when collected together, are +presumed by Griesbach to have constituted “the Western recension.” If, in +codices of this family also, the self-same termination is now all but +universally found, the fact is to be accounted for, (Griesbach says,) by +the natural desire which possessors of the Gospels will have experienced +to supplement their imperfect copies as best they might. “Let this +conjecture be accepted,” proceeds the learned veteran,—(unconscious +apparently that he has been demanding acceptance for at least half-a-dozen +wholly unsupported as well as entirely gratuitous conjectures,)—“and every +difficulty disappears; and it becomes perfectly intelligible how there has +crept into almost every codex which has been written, from the second +century downwards, a section quite different from the original and genuine +ending of S. Mark, which disappeared before the four Gospels were +collected into a single volume.”—In other words, if men will but be so +accommodating as to assume that the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel +disappeared before any one had the opportunity of transcribing the +Evangelist’s inspired autograph, they will have no difficulty in +understanding that the present conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel was not +really written by S. Mark. + +It should perhaps be stated in passing, that Griesbach was driven into +this curious maze of unsupported conjecture by the exigencies of his +“Recension Theory;” which, inasmuch as it has been long since exploded, +need not now occupy us. But it is worth observing that the argument +already exhibited, (such as it is,) breaks down under the weight of the +very first fact which its learned author is obliged to lay upon it. Codex +B.,—the solitary manuscript witness for _omitting_ the clause in question, +(for Codex א had not yet been discovered,)—had been already claimed by +Griesbach as a chief exponent of his so-called “Alexandrine Recension.” +But then, on the Critic’s own hypothesis, (as we have seen already,) Codex +B. ought, on the contrary, to have _contained_ it. How was that +inconvenient fact to be got over? Griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note +that Codex B. “_has affinity_ with the Eastern family of MSS.”—The +misfortune of being saddled with a worthless theory was surely never more +apparent. By the time we have reached this point in the investigation, we +are reminded of nothing so much as of the weary traveller who, having +patiently pursued an _ignis fatuus_ through half the night, beholds it at +last vanish; but not until it has conducted him up to his chin in the +mire. + +Neither Hug, nor Scholz his pupil,—who in 1808 and 1830 respectively +followed Griesbach with modifications of his recension-theory,—concurred +in the unfavourable sentence which their illustrious predecessor had +passed on the concluding portion of S. Mark’s Gospel. The latter even +eagerly vindicated its genuineness.(10) But with Lachmann,—whose +unsatisfactory text of the Gospels appeared in 1842,—originated a new +principle of Textual Revision; the principle, namely, of paying exclusive +and absolute deference to the testimony of a few arbitrarily selected +ancient documents; no regard being paid to others of the same or of yet +higher antiquity. This is not the right place for discussing this +plausible and certainly most convenient scheme of textual revision. That +it leads to conclusions little short of irrational, is certain. I notice +it only because it supplies the clue to the result which, as far as S. +Mark xvi. 9-20 is concerned, has been since arrived at by Dr. Tischendorf, +Dr. Tregelles, and Dean Alford,(11)—the three latest critics who have +formally undertaken to reconstruct the sacred Text. + +They agree in assuring their readers that the genuine Gospel of S. Mark +extends no further than ch. xvi. ver. 8: in other words, that all that +follows the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an unauthorized addition by some later +hand; “a fragment,”—distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel not less +by internal evidence than by external testimony. This verdict becomes the +more important because it proceeds from men of undoubted earnestness and +high ability; who cannot be suspected of being either unacquainted with +the evidence on which the point in dispute rests, nor inexperienced in the +art of weighing such evidence. Moreover, their verdict has been +independently reached; is unanimous; is unhesitating; has been eagerly +proclaimed by all three on many different occasions as well as in many +different places;(12) and may be said to be at present in all but +undisputed possession of the field.(13) The first-named Editor enjoys a +vast reputation, and has been generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, “the +first Biblical Critic in Europe.” The other two have produced text-books +which are deservedly held in high esteem, and are in the hands of every +student. The views of such men will undoubtedly colour the convictions of +the next generation of English Churchmen. It becomes absolutely necessary, +therefore, to examine with the utmost care the grounds of their verdict, +the direct result of which is to present us with a mutilated Gospel. If +they are right, there is no help for it but that the convictions of +eighteen centuries in this respect must be surrendered. But if Tischendorf +and Tregelles are wrong in this particular, it follows of necessity that +doubt is thrown over the whole of their critical method. The case is a +crucial one. Every page of theirs incurs suspicion, if their deliberate +verdict in _this_ instance shall prove to be mistaken. + +1. Tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single sentence. “That +these verses were not written by Mark,” (he says,) “admits of satisfactory +proof.” He then recites in detail the adverse external testimony which his +predecessors had accumulated; remarking, that it is abundantly confirmed +by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a solitary sample; but declares +that the whole passage is “abhorrent” to S. Mark’s manner. “The facts of +the case being such,” (and with this he dismisses the subject,) “a healthy +piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as +Mark’s what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn to have known nothing at +all about.”(14) A mass of laborious annotation which comes surging in at +the close of verse 8, and fills two of Tischendorf’s pages, has the effect +of entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the inspired text +of the Evangelist. On the other hand, the evidence _in favour_ of the +place is despatched in less than twelve lines. What can be the reason that +an Editor of the New Testament parades elaborately every particular of the +evidence, (such as it is,) _against_ the genuineness of a considerable +portion of the Gospel; and yet makes summary work with the evidence in its +favour? That Tischendorf has at least entirely made up his mind on the +matter in hand is plain. Elsewhere, he speaks of the Author of these +verses as “_Pseudo Marcus_.”(15) + +2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this subject in his +“Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament” (1854). The +respected author undertakes to shew “that the early testimony that S. Mark +did not write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments.” +Accordingly, he announces as the result of the propositions which he +thinks he has established, “that the _book of Mark himself_ extends no +further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” He is the only critic I have met with to whom +it does not seem incredible that S. Mark did actually conclude his Gospel +in this abrupt way: observing that “perhaps we do not know enough of the +circumstances of S. Mark when he wrote his Gospel to say whether he did or +did not leave it with a complete termination.” In this modest suggestion +at least Dr. Tregelles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing +whatever about “the circumstances of S. Mark,” (or of any other +Evangelist,) “when he wrote his Gospel:” neither indeed are we quite sure +_who_ S. Mark _was_. But when he goes on to declare, notwithstanding, +“that the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full +claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel;” and +complains that “there is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to +Holy Scripture, as if all our notions of its authority depended on our +knowing who was the writer of each particular portion; instead of simply +seeing and owning that it was given forth from GOD, and that it is as much +His as were the Commandments of the Law written by His own finger on the +tables of stone;”(16)—the learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the +question at issue, which we are least of all prepared to encounter in such +a quarter. We admire his piety but it is at the expense of his critical +sagacity. For the question is not at all one of _authorship_, but only one +of _genuineness_. Have the codices been _mutilated_ which do _not_ contain +these verses? If they have, then must these verses be held to be +_genuine_. But on the contrary, Have the codices been _supplemented_ which +contain them? Then are these verses certainly _spurious_. There is no help +for it but they must either be held to be an integral part of the Gospel, +and therefore, in default of any proof to the contrary, as certainly by S. +Mark as any other twelve verses which can be named; or else an +unauthorized addition to it. If they belong to the post-apostolic age it +is idle to insist on their Inspiration, and to claim that this “authentic +anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down” is as much the work of +GOD “as were the Ten Commandments written by His own finger on the tables +of stone.” On the other hand, if they “ought as much to be received as +part of our second Gospel as the last chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as +the writer is) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the book +of Moses,”—it is difficult to understand why the learned editor should +think himself at liberty to sever them from their context, and introduce +the subscription ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ after ver. 8. In short, “How persons who +believe that these verses did not form a part of the original Gospel of +Mark, but were added afterwards, can say that they have a good claim to be +received as an authentic or genuine part of the second Gospel, that is, a +portion of canonical Scripture, passes comprehension.” It passes even Dr. +Davidson’s comprehension; (for the foregoing words are his;) and Dr. +Davidson, as some of us are aware, is not a man to stick at trifles.(17) + +3. Dean Alford went a little further than any of his predecessors. He says +that this passage “was placed as a completion of the Gospel soon after the +Apostolic period,—the Gospel itself having been, for some reason unknown +to us, left incomplete. The most probable supposition” (he adds) “is, that +_the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away_.” The italics in this +conjecture (which was originally Griesbach’s) are not mine. The internal +evidence (declares the same learned writer) “preponderates vastly against +the authorship of Mark;” or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against “its +genuineness as a work of the Evangelist.” Accordingly, in his Prolegomena, +(p. 38) he describes it as “_the remarkable fragment_ at the end of the +Gospel.” After this, we are the less astonished to find that he _closes +the second Gospel at ver._ 8; introduces the Subscription there; and +encloses the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets. Thus, +whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman Mill (1707), the +editors of the N. T. have either been silent on the subject, or else have +whispered only that this section of the Gospel is to be received with less +of confidence than the rest,—it has been reserved for the present century +to convert the ancient suspicions into actual charges. The latest to enter +the field have been the first to execute Griesbach’s adverse sentence +pronounced fifty years ago, and to load the blessed Evangelist with bonds. + +It might have been foreseen that when Critics so conspicuous permit +themselves thus to handle the precious deposit, others would take courage +to hurl their thunderbolts in the same direction with the less concern. +“It is probable,” (says Abp. Thomson in the _Bible Dictionary_,) “that +this section is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospels soon +after the times of the Apostles.”(18)—The Rev. T. S. Green,(19) (an able +scholar, never to be mentioned without respect,) considers that “the +hypothesis of very early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in +evidence,”—which “point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious +origin.”—“In respect of Mark’s Gospel,” (writes Professor Norton in a +recent work on the _Genuineness of the Gospels_,) “there is ground for +believing that the last twelve verses were not written by the Evangelist, +but were added by some other writer to supply a short conclusion to the +work, which some cause had prevented the author from +completing.”(20)—Professor Westcott—who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A. +Hort, announces a revised Text—assures us that “the original text, from +whatever cause it may have happened, terminated abruptly after the account +of the Angelic vision.” The rest “was added at another time, and probably +by another hand.” “It is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt +close.” “The remaining verses cannot be regarded as part of the original +narrative of S. Mark”(21)—Meyer insists that this is an “apocryphal +fragment,” and reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which +have ever been arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving. The +“note” with which he takes leave of the subject is even insolent.(22) A +comparison (he says) of these “fragments” (ver. 9-18 and 19) with the +parallel places in the other Gospels and in the Acts, shews how +vacillating and various were the Apostolical traditions concerning the +appearances of our LORD after His Resurrection, and concerning His +Ascension. (“Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?”) + +Such, then, is the hostile verdict concerning these last twelve verses +which I venture to dispute, and which I trust I shall live to see +reversed. The writers above cited will be found to rely (1.) on the +external evidence of certain ancient MSS.; and (2.) on Scholia which state +“that the more ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver. +8.” (3.) They assure us that this is confirmed by a formidable array of +Patristic authorities. (4.) Internal proof is declared not to be wanting. +Certain incoherences and inaccuracies are pointed out. In fine, “the +phraseology and style of the section” are declared to be “unfavourable to +its authenticity;” not a few of the words and expressions being “foreign +to the diction of Mark.”—I propose to shew that all these confident and +imposing statements are to a great extent either mistakes or +exaggerations, and that the slender residuum of fact is about as powerless +to achieve the purpose of the critics as were the seven green withs of the +Philistines to bind Samson. + +In order to exhibit successfully what I have to offer on this subject, I +find it necessary to begin (in the next chapter) at the very beginning. I +think it right, however, in this place to premise a few plain +considerations which will be of use to us throughout all our subsequent +inquiry; and which indeed we shall never be able to afford to lose sight +of for long. + +The question at issue being simply this,—Whether it is reasonable to +suspect that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion +and unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not?—the whole of our +business clearly resolves itself into an examination of what has been +urged in proof that the former alternative is the correct one. Our +opponents maintain that these verses did not form part of the original +autograph of the Evangelist. But it is a known rule in the Law of Evidence +that _the burthen of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative +of the issue_.(23) We have therefore to ascertain in the present instance +what the supposed proof is exactly worth; remembering always that in this +subject-matter a _high degree of probability_ is the only kind of proof +which is attainable. When, for example, it is contended that the famous +words in S. John’s first Epistle (1 S. John v. 7, 8,) are not to be +regarded as genuine, the fact that they are away from almost every known +Codex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph +of the Evangelist. On far less weighty evidence, in fact, we are at all +times prepared to yield the hearty assent of our understanding in this +department of sacred science. + +And yet, it will be found that evidence of overwhelming weight, if not of +an entirely different kind, is required in the present instance: as I +proceed to explain. + +1. When it is contended that our LORD’s reply to the young ruler (S. Matt. +xix. 17) _was not_ Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εῖς, ὁ +Θεός,—it is at the same time insisted that _it was_ Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ +ἀγαθοῦ; εῖς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. It is proposed to omit the former words _only_ +because an alternative clause is at hand, which it is proposed to +substitute in its room. + +2. Again. When it is claimed that some given passage of the Textus +Receptus,—S. Mark ch xv. 28, for example, (καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα, +Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη,) or the Doxology in S. Matth. vi. 13,—is +spurious, all that is pretended is that certain words are an unauthorized +addition to the inspired text; and that by simply omitting them we are so +far restoring the Gospel to its original integrity.—The same is to be said +concerning _every other charge of interpolation which can be named_. If +the celebrated “pericopa de adulterâ,” for instance, be indeed not +genuine, we have but to leave out those twelve verses of S. John’s Gospel, +and to read chap. vii. 52 in close sequence with chap. viii. 12; and we +are assured that we are put in possession of the text as it came from the +hands of its inspired Author. Nor, (it must be admitted), is any +difficulty whatever occasioned thereby; for there is no reason assignable +why the two last-named verses should _not_ cohere; (there is no internal +improbability, I mean, in the supposition;) neither does there exist any +_à priori_ reason why a considerable portion of narrative should be looked +for in that particular part of the Gospel. + +3. But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is +proposed to get rid of the twelve verses which for 1700 years and upwards +have formed the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel; no alternative conclusion +being proposed to our acceptance. For let it be only observed what this +proposal practically amounts to and means. + +(_a._) And first, it does _not_ mean that S. Mark himself, with design, +brought his Gospel to a close at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. _That_ +supposition would in fact be irrational. It does not mean, I say, that by +simply leaving out those last twelve verses we shall be restoring the +second Gospel to its original integrity. And this it is which makes the +present a different case from every other, and necessitates a fuller, if +not a different kind of proof. + +(_b._) What then? It means that although an abrupt and impossible +termination would confessedly be the result of omitting verses 9-20, no +nearer approximation to the original autograph of the Evangelist is at +present attainable. Whether S. Mark was _interrupted_ before he could +finish his Gospel,—(as Dr. Tregelles and Professor Norton suggest;)—in +which case it will have been published by its Author in an unfinished +state: or whether “_the last leaf was torn away_” before a single copy of +the original could be procured,—(a view which is found to have recommended +itself to Griesbach;)—in which case it will have once had a different +termination from at present; which termination however, by the hypothesis, +has since been irrecoverably lost;—(and to one of these two wild +hypotheses the critics are logically reduced;)—_this_ we are not certainly +told. The critics are only agreed in assuming that S. Mark’s Gospel _was +at first without the verses which at present conclude it_. + +But this assumption, (that a work which has been held to be a complete +work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete,) of +course requires _proof_. The foregoing improbable theories, based on a +gratuitous assumption, are confronted _in limine_ with a formidable +obstacle which must be absolutely got rid of before they can be thought +entitled to a serious hearing. It is a familiar and a fatal circumstance +that the Gospel of S. Mark has been furnished with its present termination +ever since the second century of the Christian æra.(24) In default, +therefore, of distinct historical evidence or definite documentary proof +that _at some earlier period than that_ it terminated abruptly, nothing +short of the utter unfitness of the verses which at present conclude S. +Mark’s Gospel to be regarded as the work of the Evangelist, would warrant +us in assuming that they are the spurious accretion of the post-apostolic +age: and as such, at the end of eighteen centuries, to be deliberately +rejected. We must absolutely be furnished, I say, with internal evidence +of the most unequivocal character; or else with external testimony of a +direct and definite kind, if we are to admit that the actual conclusion of +S. Mark’s Gospel is an unauthorized substitute for something quite +different that has been lost. I can only imagine one other thing which +could induce us to entertain such an opinion; and that would be the +_general_ consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions in leaving these verses +out. Else, it is evident that we are logically _forced_ to adopt the far +easier supposition that (_not_ S. Mark, but) _some copyist of the third +century_ left a copy of S. Mark’s Gospel unfinished; which unfinished copy +became the fontal source of the mutilated copies which have come down to +our own times.(25) + +I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully at the outset; +not in order to prejudge the question, (for _that_ could answer no good +purpose,) but only in order that the reader may have clearly set before +him the real nature of the issue. “Is it reasonable to suspect that the +concluding verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized +supplement to his Gospel, or not?” _That_ is the question which we have to +consider,—the _one_ question. And while I proceed to pass under careful +review all the evidence on this subject with which I am acquainted, I +shall be again and again obliged to direct the attention of my reader to +its bearing on the real point at issue. In other words, we shall have +again and again to ask ourselves, how far it is rendered probable by each +fresh article of evidence that S. Mark’s Gospel, when it left the hands of +its inspired Author, was an unfinished work; the last chapter ending +abruptly at ver. 8? + +I will only point out, before passing on, that the course which has been +adopted towards S. Mark xvi. 9-20, by the latest Editors of the New +Testament, is simply illogical. Either they regard these verses as +_possibly_ genuine, or else as _certainly_ spurious. If they entertain (as +they say they do) a decided opinion that they are _not_ genuine, they +ought (if they would be consistent) _to banish them from the text_.(26) +Conversely, _since they do not banish them from the text_, they have no +right to pass a fatal sentence upon them; to designate their author as +“pseudo-Marcus;” to handle them in contemptuous fashion. The plain truth +is, these learned men are better than their theory; the worthlessness of +which they are made to _feel_ in the present most conspicuous instance. It +reduces them to perplexity. It has landed them in inconsistency and +error.—They will find it necessary in the end to reverse their +convictions. They cannot too speedily reconsider their verdict, and +retrace their steps. + + + + + + CHAPTER III. + + +THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS. + + + Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p. + 20).—The importance of such evidence explained (p. 21).—Nineteen + Patristic witnesses to these Verses, produced (p. 23).—Summary (p. + 30). + + +The present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds of Evidence, +external and internal. For the full consideration of the former, seven +Chapters will be necessary:(27) for a discussion of the latter, one +seventh of that space will suffice.(28) We have first to ascertain whether +the external testimony concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is of such a nature as +to constrain us to admit that it is highly probable that those twelve +verses are a spurious appendix to S. Mark’s Gospel. + +1. It is well known that for determining the Text of the New Testament, we +are dependent on three chief sources of information: viz. (1.) on +MANUSCRIPTS,—(2.) on VERSIONS,—(3.) on FATHERS. And it is even +self-evident that the _most ancient_ MSS.,—the _earliest_ Versions,—the +_oldest_ of the Fathers, will probably be in every instance the most +trustworthy witnesses. + +2. Further, it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must +needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text +of Scripture than can possibly be rendered by any Translation, however +faithful: while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive +authority, even than Versions. The reasons are chiefly these:—(_a._) +Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not licentiously; and sometimes +_allude_ only when they seem to _quote_. (_b._) They appear to have too +often depended on their memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and +inaccurate in their citations; the same Father being observed to quote the +same place in different ways. (_c._) Copyists and Editors may not be +altogether depended upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations. +Thus the evidence of Fathers must always be to some extent precarious. + +3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed out that +when,—instead of certifying ourselves of the _actual words employed_ by an +Evangelist, their precise _form_ and exact _sequence_,—our object is only +to ascertain whether a considerable passage of Scripture is genuine or +not; is to be rejected or retained; was known or was not known in the +earliest ages of the Church; then, instead of supplying the least +important evidence, Fathers become by far the most valuable witnesses of +all. This entire subject may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to +the problem before us. + +4. Of course, if we possessed copies of the Gospels coeval with their +authors, nothing could compete with such evidence. But then unhappily +nothing of the kind is the case. The facts admit of being stated within +the compass of a few lines. We have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is +thought to belong to the first half of the ivth century; and another, the +newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, א) which is +certainly not quite so old,—perhaps by 50 years. Next come two famous +codices; the Alexandrine (in the British Museum, A) and the Codex Ephraemi +(in the Paris Library, C), which are probably from 50 to 100 years more +recent still. The Codex Bezae (at Cambridge, D) is considered by competent +judges to be the depository of a recension of the text as ancient as any +of the others. Notwithstanding its strangely depraved condition +therefore,—the many “monstra potius quam variae lectiones” which it +contains,—it may be reckoned with the preceding four, though it must be 50 +or 100 years later than the latest of them. After this, we drop down, (as +far as S. Mark is concerned,) to 2 uncial MSS. of the viiith century,—7 of +the ixth,—4 of the ixth or xth,(29) while cursives of the xith and xiith +centuries are very numerous indeed,—the copies increasing in number in a +rapid ratio as we descend the stream of Time. Our primitive manuscript +witnesses, therefore, are but _five_ in number at the utmost. And of these +it has never been pretended that the oldest is to be referred to an +earlier date than the beginning of the ivth century, while it is thought +by competent judges that the last named may very possibly have been +written quite late in the vith. + +5. Are we then reduced to this fourfold, (or at most fivefold,) evidence +concerning the text of the Gospels,—on evidence of not quite certain date, +and yet (as we all believe) not reaching further back than to the ivth +century of our æra? Certainly not. Here, FATHERS come to our aid. There +are perhaps as many as an hundred Ecclesiastical Writers older than the +oldest extant Codex of the N. T.: while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600, +(within which limits our five oldest MSS. may be considered certainly to +fall,) there exist about two hundred Fathers more. True, that many of +these have left wondrous little behind them; and that the quotations from +Holy Scripture of the greater part may justly be described as rare and +unsatisfactory. But what then? From the three hundred, make a liberal +reduction; and an hundred writers will remain who _frequently_ quote the +New Testament, and who, when they do quote it, are probably as trustworthy +witnesses to the Truth of Scripture as either Cod. א or Cod. B. We have +indeed heard a great deal too much of the precariousness of this class of +evidence: not nearly enough of the gross inaccuracies which disfigure the +text of those two Codices. Quite surprising is it to discover to what an +extent Patristic quotations from the New Testament have evidently retained +their exact original form. What we chiefly desiderate at this time is a +more careful revision of the text of the Fathers, and more skilfully +elaborated indices of the works of each: _not one_ of them having been +hitherto satisfactorily indexed. It would be easy to demonstrate the +importance of bestowing far more attention on this subject than it seems +to have hitherto enjoyed: but I shall content myself with citing a single +instance; and for this, (in order not to distract the reader’s attention), +I shall refer him to the Appendix.(30) What is at least beyond the limits +of controversy, whenever _the genuineness of a considerable passage of +Scripture_ is the point in dispute, the testimony of Fathers who +undoubtedly recognise that passage, is beyond comparison the most valuable +testimony we can enjoy. + +6. For let it be only considered what is implied by a Patristic appeal to +the Gospel. It amounts to this:—that a conspicuous personage, probably a +Bishop of the Church,—one, therefore, whose history, date, place, are all +more or less matter of notoriety,—gives us his written assurance that the +passage in question was found in that copy of the Gospels which he was +accustomed himself to employ; _the uncial codex_, (it has long since +perished) _which belonged to himself_ or to the Church which he served. It +is evident, in short, that any objection to quotations from Scripture in +the writings of the ancient Fathers can only apply to the form of those +quotations; not to their _substance_. It is just as certain that a verse +of Scripture was actually read by the Father who unmistakedly refers to +it, as if we had read it with him; even though the gravest doubts may be +entertained as to the “ipsissima verba” which were found in his own +particular copy. He may have trusted to his memory: or copyists may have +taken liberties with his writings: or editors may have misrepresented what +they found in the written copies. The _form_ of the quoted verse, I +repeat, may have suffered almost to any extent. The _substance_, on the +contrary, inasmuch as it lay wholly beyond their province, may be looked +upon as an indisputable _fact_. + +7. Some such preliminary remarks, (never out of place when quotations from +the Fathers are to be considered,) cannot well be withheld when the most +venerable Ecclesiastical writings are appealed to. The earliest of the +Fathers are observed to quote with singular licence,—to _allude_ rather +than to quote. Strange to relate, those ancient men seem scarcely to have +been aware of the grave responsibility they incurred when they substituted +expressions of their own for the utterances of the SPIRIT. It is evidently +not so much that their _memory_ is in fault, as their _judgment_,—in that +they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to recast, to +reconstruct.(31) + +I. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that PAPIAS refers to S. +Mark xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous tradition concerning “Justus +surnamed Barsabas,” “how that after drinking noxious poison, through the +LORD’s grace he experienced no evil consequence.”(32) He does not give +_the words_ of the Evangelist. It is even surprising how completely he +passes them by; and yet the allusion to the place just cited is manifest. +Now, Papias is a writer who lived so near the time of the Apostles that he +made it his delight to collect their traditional sayings. His date +(according to Clinton) is A.D. 100. + +II. JUSTIN MARTYR, the date of whose first Apology is A.D. 151, is +observed to say concerning the Apostles that, after our LORD’s +Ascension,—ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν:(33) which is nothing else but a +quotation from the last verse of S. Mark’s Gospel,—ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες +ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ. And thus it is found that the conclusion of S. Mark’s +Gospel was familiarly known within fifty years of the death of the last of +the Evangelists. + +III. When IRENÆUS, in his third Book against Heresies, deliberately quotes +and remarks upon the 19th verse of the last chapter of S. Mark’s +Gospel,(34) we are put in possession of the certain fact that the entire +passage now under consideration was extant in a copy of the Gospels which +was used by the Bishop of the Church of Lyons sometime about the year A.D. +180, and which therefore cannot possibly have been written much more than +a hundred years after the date of the Evangelist himself: while it _may_ +have been written by a contemporary of S. Mark, and probably _was_ written +by one who lived immediately after his time.—Who sees not that this single +piece of evidence is in itself sufficient to outweigh the testimony of any +codex extant? It is in fact a mere trifling with words to distinguish +between “Manuscript” and “Patristic” testimony in a case like this: for +(as I have already explained) the passage quoted from S. Mark’s Gospel by +Irenæus is to all intents and purposes _a fragment from a dated +manuscript_; and _that_ MS., demonstrably older by at least one hundred +and fifty years than the oldest copy of the Gospels which has come down to +our times. + +IV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of S. Mark were in the +second century accounted an integral part of his Gospel. HIPPOLYTUS, +Bishop of Portus near Borne (190-227), a contemporary of Irenæus, quotes +the 17th and 18th verses in his fragment Περὶ Χαρισμάτων.(35) Also in his +Homily on the heresy of Noetus,(36) Hippolytus has a plain reference to +this section of S. Mark’s Gospel. To an inattentive reader, the passage +alluded to might seem to be only the fragment of a Creed; but this is not +the case. In the Creeds, CHRIST is _invariably_ spoken of as ανελθόντα: in +the Scriptures, _invariably_ as ἀναληθέντα.(37) So that when Hippolytus +says of Him, ἀναλαμβάνεται εἰς οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἐκ δεξιῶν Πατρὸς καθίζεται, +the reference must needs be to S. Mark xvi. 19. + +V. At the Seventh COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE held under Cyprian, A.D. 256, (on +the baptizing of Heretics,) Vincentius, Bishop of Thibari, (a place not +far from Carthage,) in the presence of the eighty-seven assembled African +bishops, quoted two of the verses under consideration;(38) and Augustine, +about a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words +afresh.(39) + +VI. The Apocryphal ACTA PILATI (sometimes called the “Gospel of +Nicodemus”) Tischendorf assigns without hesitation to the iiird century; +whether rightly or wrongly I have no means of ascertaining. It is at all +events a very ancient forgery, and it contains the 15th, 16th, 17th and +18th verses of this chapter.(40) + +VII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver. 15 is clearly +alluded to in two places of the (so-called) “APOSTOLICAL +CONSTITUTIONS;”(41) and that verse 16 is quoted (with no variety of +reading from the _Textus Receptus_(42)) in an earlier part of the same +ancient work. The “Constitutions” are assigned to the iiird or the ivth +century.(43) + +VIII and IX. It will be shewn in Chapter V. that EUSEBIUS, the +Ecclesiastical Historian, was profoundly well acquainted with these +verses. He discusses them largely, and (as I shall prove in the chapter +referred to) was by no means disposed to question their genuineness. His +Church History was published A.D. 325. + +MARINUS also, (whoever that individual may have been,) a contemporary of +Eusebius,—inasmuch as he is introduced to our notice by Eusebius himself +as asking a question concerning the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel +without a trace of misgiving as to the genuineness of that about which he +inquires,—is a competent witness in their favor who has hitherto been +overlooked in this discussion. + +X. Tischendorf and his followers state that Jacobus Nisibenus quotes these +verses. For “Jacobus Nisibenus” read “APHRAATES the Persian Sage,” and the +statement will be correct. The history of the mistake is curious. + +Jerome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, makes no mention of +Jacob of Nisibis,—a famous Syrian Bishop who was present at the Council of +Nicæa, A.D. 325. Gennadius of Marseille, (who carried on Jerome’s list to +the year 495) asserts that the reason of this omission was Jerome’s +ignorance of the Syriac language; and explains that Jacob was the author +of twenty-two Syriac Homilies.(44) Of these, there exists a very ancient +Armenian translation; which was accordingly edited as the work of Jacobus +Nisibenus with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1756. Gallandius reprinted +both the Armenian and the Latin; and to Gallandius (vol. v.) we are +referred whenever “Jacobus Nisibenus” is quoted. + +But the proposed attribution of the Homilies in question,—though it has +been acquiesced in for nearly 1400 years,—is incorrect. Quite lately the +Syriac originals have come to light, and they prove to be the work of +Aphraates, “the Persian Sage,”—a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of +the Syrian Church. In the first Homily, (which bears date A.D. 337), +verses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are quoted,(45)—yet not from the version +known as the Curetonian Syriac, nor yet from the Peshito +exactly.(46)—Here, then, is another wholly independent witness to the last +twelve verses of S. Mark, coeval certainly with the two oldest copies of +the Gospel extant,—B and א. + +XI. AMBROSE, Archbishop of Milan (A.D. 374-397) freely quotes this portion +of the Gospel,—citing ver. 15 four times: verses 16, 17 and 18, each three +times: ver. 20, once.(47) + +XII. The testimony of CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) has been all but overlooked. +In part of a Homily claimed for him by his Benedictine Editors, he points +out that S. Luke alone of the Evangelists describes the Ascension: S. +Matthew and S. John not speaking of it,—S. Mark recording the event only. +Then he quotes verses 19, 20. “This” (he adds) “is the end of the Gospel. +Mark makes no extended mention of the Ascension.”(48) Elsewhere he has an +unmistakable reference to S. Mark xvi. 9.(49) + +XIII. JEROME, on a point like this, is entitled to more attention than any +other Father of the Church. Living at a very early period, (for he was +born in 331 and died in 420,)—endowed with extraordinary Biblical +learning,—a man of excellent judgment,—and a professed Editor of the New +Testament, for the execution of which task he enjoyed extraordinary +facilities,—his testimony is most weighty. Not unaware am I that Jerome is +commonly supposed to be a witness on the opposite side: concerning which +mistake I shall have to speak largely in Chapter V. But it ought to be +enough to point out that we should not have met with these last twelve +verses in the Vulgate, had Jerome held them to be spurious.(50) He +familiarly quotes the 9th verse in one place of his writings;(51) in +another place he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the +copies, (especially the Greek,) was found after ver. 14 _the reply of the +eleven Apostles_, when our SAVIOUR “upbraided them with their unbelief and +hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after +He was risen.”(52) To discuss so weak and worthless a forgery,—no trace of +which is found in any MS. in existence, and of which nothing whatever is +known except what Jerome here tells us,—would be to waste our time indeed. +The fact remains, however, that Jerome, besides giving these last twelve +verses a place in the Vulgate, quotes S. Mark xvi. 14, as well as ver. 9, +in the course of his writings. + +XIV. It was to have been expected that AUGUSTINE would quote these verses: +but he more than quotes them. He brings them forward again and +again,(53)—discusses them as the work of S. Mark,—remarks that “in diebus +Paschalibus,” S. Mark’s narrative of the Resurrection was publicly read in +the Church.(54) All this is noteworthy. Augustine flourished A.D. 395-430. + +XV. and XVI. Another very important testimony to the genuineness of the +concluding part of S. Mark’s Gospel is furnished by the unhesitating +manner in which NESTORIUS, the heresiarch, quotes ver. 20; and CYRIL of +ALEXANDRIA accepts his quotation, adding a few words of his own.(55) Let +it be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the discovery of _two_ +dated codices containing the last twelve verses of S. Mark,—and _that_ +date _anterior_ (it is impossible to say by how many years) to A.D. 430. + +XVII. VICTOR OF ANTIOCH, (concerning whom I shall have to speak very +largely in Chapter V.,) flourished about A.D. 425. The critical testimony +which he bears to the genuineness of these verses is more emphatic than is +to be met with in the pages of any other ancient Father. It may be +characterized as the most conclusive testimony which it was in his power +to render. + +XVIII. HESYCHIUS of Jerusalem, by a singular oversight, has been reckoned +among the impugners of these verses. He is on the contrary their eager +advocate and champion. It seems to have escaped observation that towards +the close of his “Homily on the Resurrection,” (published in the works of +Gregory of Nyssa, and erroneously ascribed to that Father,) Hesychius +appeals to the 19th verse, and quotes it as S. Mark’s at length.(56) The +date of Hesychius is uncertain; but he may, I suppose, be considered to +belong to the vith century. His evidence is discussed in Chapter V. + +XIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a reference to the +SYNOPSIS SCRIPTURAE SACRAE,—an ancient work ascribed to Athanasius,(57) +but probably not the production of that Father. It is at all events of +much older date than any of the later uncials; and it rehearses in detail +the contents of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.(58) + +It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic authorities; as, +by appealing to Gregentius in the vith century, and to Gregory the Great, +and Modestus, patriarch of Constantinople in the viith;—to Ven. Bede and +John Damascene in the viiith;—to Theophylact in the xith;—to Euthymius in +the xiith(59): but I forbear. It would add no strength to my argument that +I should by such evidence support it; as the reader will admit when he has +read my Xth chapter. + +It will be observed then that _three_ competent Patristic witnesses of the +iind century,—_four_ of the iiird,—_six_ of the ivth,—_four_ of the +vth,—and _two_ (of uncertain date, but probably) of the vith,—have +admitted their familiarity with these “last Twelve Verses.” Yet do they +not belong to one particular age, school, or country. They come, on the +contrary, from every part of the ancient Church: Antioch and +Constantinople,—Hierapolis, Cæsarea and Edessa,—Carthage, Alexandria and +Hippo,—Rome and Portus. And thus, upwards of nineteen early codexes have +been to all intents and purposes inspected for us in various lands by +unprejudiced witnesses,—_seven_ of them at least of more ancient date than +the oldest copy of the Gospels extant. + +I propose to recur to this subject for an instant when the reader has been +made acquainted with the decisive testimony which ancient Versions supply. +But the Versions deserve a short Chapter to themselves. + + + + + + CHAPTER IV. + + +THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO +THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES. + + + The Peshito,—the Curetonian Syriac,—and the Recension of Thomas of + Hharkel (p. 33.)—The Vulgate (p. 34)—and the Vetus Itala (p. + 35)—the Gothic (p. 35)—and the Egyptian Versions (p. 35).—Review + of the Evidence up to this point, (p. 36). + + +It was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to establish in +detail _the Text_ of the Gospels, the testimony of Manuscripts is +incomparably the most important of all. To early Versions, the second +place was assigned. To Patristic citations, the third. But it was +explained that whenever (as here) the only question to be decided is +whether a considerable portion of Scripture be genuine or not, then, +Patristic references yield to no class of evidence in importance. To which +statement it must now be added that second only to the testimony of +Fathers on such occasions is to be reckoned the evidence of the oldest of +the Versions. The reason is obvious, (_a._) We know for the most part the +approximate date of the principal ancient Versions of the New +Testament:—(_b._) Each Version is represented by at least one very ancient +Codex:—and (_c._) It may be safely assumed that Translators were never +dependant on a single copy of the original Greek when they executed their +several Translations. Proceed we now to ascertain what evidence the oldest +of the Versions bear concerning the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel: +and first of all for the Syriac. + +I. “Literary history,” (says Mr. Scrivener,) “can hardly afford a more +powerful case than has been established for the identity of the Version of +the Syriac now called the ‘PESHITO’ with that used by the Eastern Church +long before the great schism had its beginning, in the native land of the +blessed Gospel.” The Peshito is referred by common consent to the iind +century of our æra; and is found to contain the verses in question. + +II. This, however, is not all. Within the last thirty years, fragments of +_another_ very ancient Syriac translation of the Gospels, (called from the +name of its discoverer “THE CURETONIAN SYRIAC,”) have come to light:(60) +and in this translation also the verses in question are found.(61) This +fragmentary codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the vth century. +At what earlier date the Translation may have been executed,—as well as +how much older the original Greek copy may have been which this translator +employed,—can of course only be conjectured. But it is clear that we are +listening to another truly primitive witness to the genuineness of the +text now under consideration;—a witness (like the last) vastly more +ancient than either the Vatican Codex B, or the Sinaitic Codex א; more +ancient, therefore, than any Greek copy of the Gospels in existence. We +shall not be thought rash if we claim it for the iiird century. + +III. Even this, however, does not fully represent the sum of the testimony +which the Syriac language bears on this subject. Philoxenus, Monophysite +Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria, caused a revision of the +Peshito Syriac to be executed by his Chorepiscopus Polycarp, A.D. 508; and +by the aid of three(62) approved and accurate Greek manuscripts, this +revised version of Polycarp was again revised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the +monastery of Antonia at Alexandria, A.D. 616. The Hharklensian Revision, +(commonly called the “PHILOXENIAN,”) is therefore an extraordinary +monument of ecclesiastical antiquity indeed: for, being the Revision of a +revised Translation of the New Testament known to have been executed from +MSS. which must have been at least as old as the vth century, it exhibits +the result of what may be called a collation of copies made at a time when +only four of our extant uncials were in existence. Here, then, is a +singularly important accumulation of manuscript evidence on the subject of +the verses which of late years it has become the fashion to treat as +spurious. And yet, neither by Polycarp nor by Thomas of Hharkel, are the +last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel omitted.(63) + +To these, if I do not add the “Jerusalem version,”—(as an independent +Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sections, perhaps of the vth +century, is called,(64))—it is because our fourfold Syriac evidence is +already abundantly sufficient. In itself, it far outweighs in respect of +antiquity anything that can be shewn on the other side. Turn we next to +the Churches of the West. + +IV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382), was the author +of that famous Latin version of the Scriptures called THE VULGATE, is +known to all. It seems scarcely possible to overestimate the critical +importance of such a work,—executed at such a time,—under such +auspices,—and by a man of so much learning and sagacity as Jerome. When it +is considered that we are here presented with the results of a careful +examination of the best Greek Manuscripts to which a competent scholar had +access in the middle of the fourth century,—(and Jerome assures us that he +consulted several,)—we learn to survey with diminished complacency our own +slender stores (if indeed any at all exist) of corresponding antiquity. It +is needless to add that the Vulgate contains the disputed verses: that +from no copy of this Version are they away. Now, in such a matter as this, +Jerome’s testimony is very weighty indeed. + +V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much older translation, +generally known as the VETUS ITALA. This Old Latin, which is of African +origin and of almost Apostolic antiquity, (supposed of the iind century,) +conspires with the Vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the +genuineness of the end of S. Mark’s Gospel:(65)—an emphatic witness that +in the African province, from the earliest time, no doubt whatever was +entertained concerning the genuineness of these last twelve verses. + +VI. The next place may well be given to the venerable version of the +Gothic Bishop Ulphilas,—A.D. 350. Himself a Cappadocian, Ulphilas probably +derived his copies from Asia Minor. His version is said to have been +exposed to certain corrupting influences; but the unequivocal evidence +which it bears to the last verses of S. Mark is at least unimpeachable, +and must be regarded as important in the highest degree.(66) The oldest +extant copy of the GOTHIC of Ulphilas is assigned to the vth or early in +the vith century: and the verses in question are there also met with. + +VII. and VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next for notice: their +testimony being so exceedingly ancient and respectable. The MEMPHITIC, or +dialect of Lower Egypt, (less properly called the “Coptic” version), which +is assigned to the ivth or vth century, contains S. Mark xvi. +9-20.—Fragments of the THEBAIC, or dialect of Upper Egypt, (a distinct +version and of considerably earlier date, less properly called the +“Sahidic,”) survive in MSS. of very nearly the same antiquity: and one of +these fragments happily contains the last verse of the Gospel according to +S. Mark. The Thebaic version is referred to the iiird century. + +After this mass of evidence, it will be enough to record concerning the +Armenian version, that it yields inconstant testimony: some of the MSS. +ending at ver. 8; others putting after these words the subscription, +(ἐυαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαρκον,) and then giving the additional verses with a new +subscription: others going on without any break to the end. This version +may be as old as the vth century; but like the Ethiopic [iv-vii?] and the +Georgian [vi?] it comes to us in codices of comparatively recent date. All +this makes it impossible for us to care much for its testimony. The two +last-named versions, whatever their disadvantages may be, at least bear +constant witness to the genuineness of the verses in dispute. + +1. And thus we are presented with a mass of additional evidence,—so +various, so weighty, so multitudinous, so venerable,—in support of this +disputed portion of the Gospel, that it might well be deemed in itself +decisive. + +2. For these Versions do not so much shew what individuals held, as what +Churches have believed and taught concerning the sacred Text,—mighty +Churches in Syria and Mesopotamia, in Africa and Italy, in Palestine and +Egypt. + +3. We may here, in fact, conveniently review the progress which has been +hitherto made in this investigation. And in order to bar the door against +dispute and cavil, let us be content to waive the testimony of Papias as +precarious, and that of Justin Martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive. +Let us frankly admit that the citation of Vincentius à Thibari at the +viith Carthaginian Council is sufficiently inexact to make it unsafe to +build upon it. The “Acta Pilati” and the “Apostolical Constitutions,” +since their date is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the ivth +century only, and not for the iiird. And now, how will the evidence stand +for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel? + +(_a_) In the vth century, to which Codex A and Codex C are referred, (for +Codex D is certainly later,) at least three famous Greeks and the most +illustrious of the Latin Fathers,—(_four_ authorities in all,)—are +observed to recognise these verses. + +(_b_) In the ivth century, (to which Codex B and Codex א probably belong, +five Greek writers, one Syriac, and two Latin Fathers,—besides the +Vulgate, Gothic and Memphitic Versions,—(_eleven_ authorities in +all,)—testify to familiar acquaintance with this portion of S. Mark’s +Gospel. + +(_c_) In the iiird century, (and by this time MS. evidence has entirely +forsaken us,) we find Hippolytus, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Thebaic +Version, bearing plain testimony that at that early period, in at least +_three_ distinct provinces of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever +attached to these verses. Lastly,— + +(_d_) In the iind century, Irenæus, the Peshito, and the Italic Version as +plainly attest that in Gaul, in Mesopotamia and in the African province, +the same verses were unhesitatingly received within a century (more or +less) of the date of the inspired autograph of the Evangelist himself. + +4. Thus, we are in possession of the testimony of _at least six_ +independent witnesses, of a date considerably anterior to the earliest +extant Codex of the Gospels. They are all of the best class. They deliver +themselves in the most unequivocal way. And their testimony to the +genuineness of these Verses is unfaltering. + +5. It is clear that nothing short of direct adverse evidence of the +weightiest kind can sensibly affect so formidable an array of independent +authorities as this. What must the evidence be which shall set it entirely +aside, and induce us to believe, with the most recent editors of the +inspired Text, that the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel, as it came from +the hands of its inspired author, ended abruptly at ver. 8? + +The grounds for assuming that his “last Twelve Verses” are spurious, shall +be exhibited in the ensuing chapter. + + + + + + CHAPTER V. + + +THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE +AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS. + + + The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p. 39).—The misconception + concerning Eusebius (p. 41).—The oversight concerning Jerome (p. + 51);—also concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, (or else Severus of + Antioch) (p. 57);—and concerning Victor of Antioch (p. 59). + + +It would naturally follow to shew that manuscript evidence confirms the +evidence of the ancient Fathers and of the early Versions of Scripture. +But it will be more satisfactory that I should proceed to examine without +more delay the testimony, which, (as it is alleged,) is borne by a cloud +of ancient Fathers against the last twelve verses of S. Mark. “The absence +of this portion from some, from many, or from most copies of his Gospel, +or that it was not written by S. Mark himself,” (says Dr. Tregelles,) “is +attested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of +Antioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especially Greeks.”(67) The same +Fathers are appealed to by Dr. Davidson, who adds to the list Euthymius; +and by Tischendorf and Alford, who add the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem. +They also refer to “many ancient Scholia.” “These verses” (says +Tischendorf) “are not recognised by the sections of Ammonius nor by the +Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and Cæsarius bear witness to the fact.”(68) +“In the Catenæ on Mark” (proceeds Davidson) “the section is not explained. +Nor is there any trace of acquaintance with it on the part of Clement of +Rome or Clement of Alexandria;”—a remark which others have made also; as +if it were a surprising circumstance that Clement of Alexandria, who +appears to have no reference to the last chapter of _S. Matthew’s_ Gospel, +should be also without any reference to the last chapter of _S. Mark’s_: +as if, too, it were an extraordinary thing that Clement of Rome should +have omitted to quote from the last chapter of S. Mark,—seeing that the +same Clement does not quote from S. Mark’s Gospel _at all_.... The +alacrity displayed by learned writers in accumulating hostile evidence, is +certainly worthy of a better cause. Strange, that their united industry +should have been attended with such very unequal success when their object +was to exhibit the evidence _in favour of_ the present portion of +Scripture. + +(1) Eusebius then, and (2) Jerome; (3) Gregory of Nyssa and (4) Hesychius +of Jerusalem; (5) Severus of Antioch, (6) Victor of Antioch, and (7) +Euthymius:—Do the accomplished critics just quoted,—Doctors Tischendorf, +Tregelles, and Davidson, really mean to tell us that “it is attested” by +these seven Fathers that the concluding section of S. Mark’s Gospel “was +not written by S. Mark himself?” Why, there is _not one_ of them who says +so: while some of them say the direct reverse. But let us go on. It is, I +suppose, because there are Twelve Verses to be demolished that the list is +further eked out with the names of (8) Ammonius, (9) Epiphanius, and (10) +Cæsarius,—to say nothing of (11) the anonymous authors of Catenæ, and (12) +“later writers, especially Greeks.” + +I. I shall examine these witnesses one by one: but it will be convenient +in the first instance to call attention to the evidence borne by, + +GREGORY OF NYSSA. + +This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself as follows in +his second “Homily on the Resurrection;”(69)—“In the more accurate copies, +the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In +some copies, however, this also is added,—‘Now when He was risen early the +first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He +had cast seven devils.’ ” + +That this testimony should have been so often appealed to as proceeding +from Gregory of Nyssa,(70) is little to the credit of modern scholarship. +One would have supposed that the gravity of the subject,—the importance of +the issue,—the sacredness of Scripture, down to its minutest jot and +tittle,—would have ensured extraordinary caution, and induced every fresh +assailant of so considerable a portion of the Gospel to be very sure of +his ground before reiterating what his predecessors had delivered. And yet +it is evident that not one of the recent writers on the subject can have +investigated this matter for himself. It is only due to their known +ability to presume that had they taken ever so little pains with the +foregoing quotation, they would have found out their mistake. + +(1.) For, in the first place, the second “Homily on the Resurrection” +printed in the iiird volume of the works of Gregory of Nyssa, (and which +supplies the critics with their quotation,) is, as every one may see who +will take the trouble to compare them, _word for word the same Homily_ +which Combefis in his “Novum Auctarium,” and Gallandius in his +“Bibliotheca Patrum” printed as the work of Hesychius, and vindicated to +that Father, respectively in 1648 and 1776.(71) Now, if a critic chooses +to risk his own reputation by maintaining that the Homily in question is +indeed by Gregory of Nyssa, and is not by Hesychius,—well and good. But +since the Homily can have had but one author, it is surely high time that +one of these two claimants should be altogether dropped from this +discussion. + +(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same Homily is observed to +reappear, _word for word_, under the name of “Severus of Antioch,” and to +be unsuspiciously printed as his by Montfaucon in his “Bibliotheca +Coisliniana” (1715), and by Cramer in his “Catena”(72) (1844),—although it +may very reasonably become a question among critics whether Hesychius of +Jerusalem or Severus of Antioch was the actual author of the Homily in +question,(73) yet it is plain that critics must make their election +between the two names; and not bring them _both_ forward. No one, I say, +has any right to go on quoting “Severus” _and_ “Hesychius,”—as Tischendorf +and Dr. Davidson are observed to do:—“Gregory of Nyssa” _and_ “Severus of +Antioch,”—as Dr. Tregelles is found to prefer. + +(3.) In short, here are three claimants for the authorship of one and the +same Homily. To whichever of the three we assign it,—(and competent judges +have declared that there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Hesychius +rather than to Severus,—while _no one_ is found to suppose that Gregory of +Nyssa was its author,)—_who_ will not admit that no further mention must +be made of the other two? + +(4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth the name of +“Gregory of Nyssa” must be banished from this discussion. So must the name +of “Severus of Antioch.” The memorable passage which begins,—“In the more +accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they +were afraid,’ ”—is found in _a Homily which was probably written by +Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem,—a writer of the vi_th_ century_. I +shall have to recur to his work by-and-by. The next name is + +EUSEBIUS, + +II. With respect to whom the case is altogether different. What that +learned Father has delivered concerning the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel +requires to be examined with attention, and must be set forth much more in +detail. And yet, I will so far anticipate what is about to be offered, as +to say at once that if any one supposes that Eusebius has anywhere plainly +“stated that it is _wanted in many MSS._,”(74)—he is mistaken. Eusebius +nowhere says so. The reader’s attention is invited to a plain tale. + +It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by Cardinal Angelo +Mai(75) with a few fragmentary specimens of a lost work of Eusebius on the +(so-called) Inconsistencies in the Gospels, from a MS. in the Vatican.(76) +These, the learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in his +“Nova Patrum Bibliotheca;”(77) and hither we are invariably referred by +those who cite Eusebius as a witness against the genuineness of the +concluding verses of the second Gospel. + +It is much to be regretted that we are still as little as ever in +possession of the lost work of Eusebius. It appears to have consisted of +three Books or Parts; the former two (addressed “to Stephanus”) being +discussions of difficulties at the beginning of the Gospel,—the last (“to +Marinus”) relating to difficulties in its concluding chapters.(78) The +Author’s plan, (as usual in such works), was, first, to set forth a +difficulty in the form of a Question; and straightway, to propose a +Solution of it,—which commonly assumes the form of a considerable +dissertation. But whether we are at present in possession of so much as a +single entire specimen of these “Inquiries and Resolutions” exactly as it +came from the pen of Eusebius, may reasonably be doubted. That the work +which Mai has brought to light is but a highly condensed exhibition of the +original, (and scarcely that,) its very title shews; for it is headed,—“An +abridged selection from the ‘Inquiries and Resolutions [of difficulties] +in the Gospels’ by Eusebius.”(79) Only _some_ of the original Questions, +therefore, are here noticed at all: and even these have been subjected to +so severe a process of condensation and abridgment, that in some instances +_amputation_ would probably be a more fitting description of what has +taken place. Accordingly, what were originally two Books or Parts, are at +present represented by XVI. “Inquiries,” &c, addressed “to Stephanus;” +while the concluding Book or Part is represented by IV. more, “to +Marinus,”—of which, _the first_ relates to our LORD’S appearing to Mary +Magdalene after His Resurrection. Now, since the work which Eusebius +addressed to Marinus is found to have contained “Inquiries, with their +Resolutions, concerning our SAVIOUR’S _Death_ and Resurrection,”(80)—while +a quotation professing to be derived from “the _thirteenth_ chapter” +relates to Simon the Cyrenian bearing our SAVIOUR’S Cross;(81)—it is +obvious that the original work must have been very considerable, and that +what Mai has recovered gives an utterly inadequate idea of its extent and +importance.(82) It is absolutely necessary that all this should be clearly +apprehended by any one who desires to know exactly what the alleged +evidence of Eusebius concerning the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel is +worth,—as I will explain more fully by-and-by. Let it, however, be +candidly admitted that there seems to be no reason for supposing that +whenever the lost work of Eusebius comes to light, (and it has been seen +within about 300 years(83),) it will exhibit anything essentially +different from what is contained in the famous passage which has given +rise to so much debate, and which may be exhibited in English as follows. +It is put in the form of a reply to one “Marinus,” who is represented as +asking, first, the following question:— + +“How is it, that, according to Matthew [xxviii. 1], the SAVIOUR appears to +have risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ but, according to Mark [xvi. 9], +‘early the first day of the week’?”—Eusebius answers, + +“This difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for getting rid +of the entire passage,(84) will say that it is not met with in _all_ the +copies of Mark’s Gospel: the accurate copies, at all events, making the +end of Mark’s narrative come after the words of the young man who appeared +to the women and said, ‘Fear not ye! Ye seek JESUS of Nazareth,’ &c.: to +which the Evangelist adds,—‘And when they heard it, they fled, and said +nothing to any man, for they were afraid.’ For at those words, in almost +all copies of the Gospel according to Mark, comes the end. What follows, +(which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, certainly not in +all,) might be dispensed with; especially if it should prove to contradict +the record of the other Evangelists. This, then, is what a person will say +who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem. + +“But another, on no account daring to reject anything whatever which is, +under whatever circumstances, met with in the text of the Gospels, will +say that here are two readings, (as is so often the case elsewhere;) and +that _both_ are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, +_this_ reading is not held to be genuine rather than _that_; nor _that_ +than _this_.” + +It will be best to exhibit the whole of what Eusebius has written on this +subject,—as far as we are permitted to know it,—continuously. He +proceeds:— + +“Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our business is to +interpret the sense of the passage.(85) And certainly, if I divide the +meaning into two, we shall find that it is not opposed to what Matthew +says of our SAVIOUR’s having risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath.’ For Mark’s +expression, (‘Now when He was risen early the first day of the week,’) we +shall read with a pause, putting a comma after ‘Now when He was +risen,’—the sense of the words which follow being kept separate. Thereby, +we shall refer [Mark’s] ‘when He was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of +the Sabbath,’ (for it was _then_ that He _rose_); and all that comes +after, expressive as it is of a distinct notion, we shall connect with +what follows; (for it was ‘_early_, the first day of the week,’ that ‘He +_appeared to Mary Magdalene_.’) This is in fact what John also declares; +for he too has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ [JESUS] +appeared to the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also says that He appeared to +her early: not that He _rose_ early, but long before, (according to that +of Matthew, ‘in the end of the Sabbath:’ for though He _rose_ then, He did +not _appear to Mary_ then, but ‘early.’) In a word, two distinct seasons +are set before us by these words: first, the season of the +Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the season +of our SAVIOUR’s Appearing,—which was ‘early.’ The former,(86) Mark writes +of when he says, (it requires to be read with a pause,)—‘Now, when He was +risen,’ Then, after a comma, what follows is to be spoken,—‘Early, the +first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had +cast seven devils.’ ”(87)—Such is the entire passage. Little did the +learned writer anticipate what bitter fruit his words were destined to +bear! + +1. Let it be freely admitted that what precedes is calculated at first +sight to occasion nothing but surprise and perplexity. For, in the first +place, there really is _no problem to solve_. The discrepancy suggested by +“Marinus” at the outset, is plainly imaginary, the result (chiefly) of a +strange misconception of the meaning of the Evangelist’s Greek,—as in fact +no one was ever better aware than Eusebius himself. “These places of the +Gospels would never have occasioned any difficulty,” he writes in the very +next page, (but it is the commencement of his reply to the _second_ +question of Marinus,)—“if people would but abstain from assuming that +Matthew’s phrase (ὀψὲ σαββάτων) refers to _the evening of the +Sabbath-day_: whereas, (in conformity with the established idiom of the +language,) it obviously refers to an advanced period of the ensuing +night.”(88) He proceeds:—“The self-same moment therefore, or very nearly +the self-same, is intended by the Evangelists, only under different names: +and there is no discrepancy whatever between Matthew’s,—‘in the end of the +Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,’ and +John’s—‘The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalen early, when it was +yet dark.’ The Evangelists indicate by different expressions one and the +same moment of time, but in a broad and general way.” And yet, if Eusebius +knew all this so well, why did he not say so at once, and close the +discussion? I really cannot tell; except on one hypothesis,—which, +although at first it may sound somewhat extraordinary, the more I think of +the matter, recommends itself to my acceptance the more. I suspect, then, +that the discussion we have just been listening to, is, essentially, _not +an original production_: but that Eusebius, having met with the suggestion +in some older writer, (in Origen probably,) reproduced it in language of +his own,—doubtless because he thought it ingenious and interesting, but +not by any means because he regarded it as true. Except on some such +theory, I am utterly unable to understand how Eusebius can have written so +inconsistently. His admirable remarks just quoted, are obviously a full +and sufficient answer,—the proper answer in fact,—to the proposed +difficulty: and it is a memorable circumstance that the ancients generally +were so sensible of this, that they are found to have _invariably_(89) +substituted what Eusebius wrote in reply to the _second_ question of +Marinus for what he wrote in reply to _the first_; in other words, for the +dissertation which is occasioning us all this difficulty. + +2. But next, even had the discrepancy been real, the remedy for it which +is here proposed, and which is advocated with such tedious emphasis, would +probably prove satisfactory to no one. In fact, the entire method +advocated in the foregoing passage is hopelessly vicious. The writer +begins by advancing statements which, if he believed them to be true, he +must have known are absolutely fatal to the verses in question. This done, +he sets about discussing the possibility of reconciling an isolated +expression in S. Mark’s Gospel with another in S. Matthew’s: just as if on +_that_ depended the genuineness or spuriousness of the entire context: as +if, in short, the major premiss in the discussion were some such postulate +as the following:—“Whatever in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely +consistent with something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded as +genuine.” Did then the learned Archbishop of Cæsarea really suppose that a +comma judiciously thrown into the empty scale might at any time suffice to +restore the equilibrium, and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of +almost every MS. of the Gospels extant? Why does he not at least deny the +truth of the alleged facts to which he began by giving currency, if not +approval; and which, so long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted, +render all further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory? As +before, I really cannot tell,—except on the hypothesis which has been +already hazarded. + +3. Note also, (for this is not the least extraordinary feature of the +case,) what vague and random statements those are which we have been +listening to. The entire section (S. Mark xvi. 9-20,) “_is not met with in +all_ the copies:” at all events _not_ “_in the accurate_” ones. Nay, it is +“_met with seldom_.” In fact, it is _absent from_ “_almost all_” copies. +But,—Which of these four statements is to stand? The first is +comparatively unimportant. Not so the second. The last two, on the +contrary, would be absolutely fatal,—if trustworthy? But _are_ they +trustworthy? + +To this question only one answer can be returned. The exaggeration is so +gross that it refutes itself. Had it been merely asserted that the verses +in question were wanting in _many_ of the copies,—even had it been +insisted that _the best copies_ were without them,—well and good: but to +assert that, in the beginning of the fourth century, from “_almost all_” +copies of the Gospels they were away,—is palpably untrue. What had become +then of the MSS. from which the Syriac, the Latin, _all_ the ancient +Versions were made? How is the contradictory evidence of _every copy of +the Gospels in existence but two_ to be accounted for? With Irenæus and +Hippolytus, with the old Latin and the Vulgate, with the Syriac, and the +Gothic, and the Egyptian versions to refer to, we are able to assert that +the author of such a statement was guilty of monstrous exaggeration. We +are reminded of the loose and random way in which the Fathers,—(giants in +Interpretation, but very children in the Science of Textual +Criticism,)—are sometimes observed to speak about the state of the Text in +their days. We are reminded, for instance, of the confident assertion of +an ancient Critic that the true reading in S. Luke xxiv. 13 is not +“three-score” but “_an hundred_ and three-score;” for that so “the +accurate copies” used to read the place, besides Origen and Eusebius. And +yet (as I have elsewhere explained) the reading ἑκατὸν καὶ ἑξήκοντα is +altogether impossible. “Apud nos mixta sunt omnia,” is Jerome’s way of +adverting to an evil which, serious as it was, was yet not nearly so great +as he represents; viz. the unauthorized introduction into one Gospel of +what belongs of right to another. And so in a multitude of other +instances. The Fathers are, in fact, constantly observed to make critical +remarks about the ancient copies which simply _cannot_ be correct. + +And yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be it observed, is +clearly _not Eusebius_. It is evident that _he_ has nothing to say against +the genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. Those random +statements about the copies with which he began, do not even purport to +express his own sentiments. Nay, Eusebius in a manner repudiates them; for +he introduces them with a phrase which separates them from himself: and, +“This then is what a person will say,”—is the remark with which he finally +dismisses them. It would, in fact, be to make this learned Father stultify +himself to suppose that he proceeds gravely to discuss a portion of +Scripture which he had already deliberately rejected as spurious. But, +indeed, the evidence before us effectually precludes any such supposition. +“Here are two readings,” he says, “(as is so often the case elsewhere:) +_both_ of which are to be received,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, +_this_ reading is not held to be genuine rather than _that_; nor _that_ +than _this_.” And thus we seem to be presented with the actual opinion of +Eusebius, as far as it can be ascertained from the present passage,—if +indeed he is to be thought here to offer any personal opinion on the +subject at all; which, for my own part, I entirely doubt. But whether we +are at liberty to infer the actual sentiments of this Father from anything +here delivered or not, quite certain at least is it that to print only the +first half of the passage, (as Tischendorf and Tregelles have done,) and +then to give the reader to understand that he is reading the adverse +testimony of Eusebius as to the genuineness of the end of S. Mark’s +Gospel, is nothing else but to misrepresent the facts of the case; and, +however unintentionally, to deceive those who are unable to verify the +quotation for themselves. + +It has been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have recognised the verses +in question as genuine, because a scholium purporting to be his has been +cited by Matthaei from a Catena at Moscow, in which he appears to assert +that “according to Mark,” our SAVIOUR “is not recorded to have appeared to +His Disciples after His Resurrection:” whereas in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is +plainly recorded that “Afterwards He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat +at meat.” May I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the +proposed inference, and shall continue to feel so, until I know something +more about the scholium in question? Up to the time when this page is +printed I have not succeeded in obtaining from Moscow the details I wish +for: but they must be already on the way, and I propose to embody the +result in a “Postscript” which shall form the last page of the Appendix to +the present volume. + +Are we then to suppose that there was no substratum of truth in the +allegations to which Eusebius gives such prominence in the passage under +discussion? By no means. The mutilated state of S. Mark’s Gospel in the +Vatican Codex (B) and especially in the Sinaitic Codex (א) sufficiently +establishes the contrary. Let it be freely conceded, (but in fact it has +been freely conceded already,) that there must have existed in the time of +Eusebius _many_ copies of S. Mark’s Gospel which were without the twelve +concluding verses. I do but insist that there is nothing whatever in that +circumstance to lead us to entertain one serious doubt as to the +genuineness of these verses. I am but concerned to maintain that there is +nothing whatever in the evidence which has hitherto come before +us,—certainly not _in the evidence of Eusebius_,—to induce us to believe +that they are a spurious addition to S. Mark’s Gospel. + +III. We have next to consider what + +JEROME + +has delivered on this subject. So great a name must needs command +attention in any question of Textual Criticism: and it is commonly +pretended that Jerome pronounces emphatically against the genuineness of +the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. A little +attention to the actual testimony borne by this Father will, it is +thought, suffice to exhibit it in a wholly unexpected light; and induce us +to form an entirely different estimate of its practical bearing upon the +present discussion. + +It will be convenient that I should premise that it is in one of his many +exegetical Epistles that Jerome discusses this matter. A lady named +Hedibia, inhabiting the furthest extremity of Gaul, and known to Jerome +only by the ardour of her piety, had sent to prove him with hard +questions. He resolves her difficulties from Bethlehem:(90) and I may be +allowed to remind the reader of what is found to have been Jerome’s +practice on similar occasions,—which, to judge from his writings, were of +constant occurrence. In fact, Apodemius, who brought Jerome the Twelve +problems from Hedibia, brought him Eleven more from a noble neighbour of +hers, Algasia.(91) Once, when a single messenger had conveyed to him out +of the African province a quantity of similar interrogatories, Jerome sent +two Egyptian monks the following account of how he had proceeded in +respect of the inquiry,—(it concerned 1 Cor. xv. 51,)—which they had +addressed to him:—“Being pressed for time, I have presented you with the +opinions of all the Commentators; for the most part, translating their +very words; in order both to get rid of your question, and to put you in +possession of ancient authorities on the subject.” This learned Father +does not even profess to have been in the habit of delivering his own +opinions, or speaking his own sentiments on such occasions. “This has been +hastily dictated,” he says in conclusion,—(alluding to his constant +practice, which was to dictate, rather than to write,)—“in order that I +might lay before you what have been the opinions of learned men on this +subject, as well as the arguments by which they have recommended their +opinions. My own authority, (who am but nothing,) is vastly inferior to +that of our predecessors in the LORD.” Then, after special commendation of +the learning of Origen and Eusebius, and the valuable Scriptural +expositions of many more,—“My plan,” (he says,) “is to read the ancients; +to prove all things, to hold fast that which is good; and to abide +steadfast in the faith of the Catholic Church.—I must now dictate replies, +either original or at second-hand, to other Questions which lie before +me.”(92) We are not surprised, after this straightforward avowal of what +was the method on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover +that, instead of hearing _Jerome_ addressing _Hedibia_,—(who had +interrogated him concerning the very problem which is at present engaging +our attention,)—we find ourselves only listening to _Eusebius_ over again, +addressing _Marinus_. + +“This difficulty admits of a two-fold solution,” Jerome begins; as if +determined that no doubt shall be entertained as to the source of his +inspiration. Then, (making short work of the tedious disquisition of +Eusebius,)—“Either we shall reject the testimony of Mark, which is met +with in scarcely any copies of the Gospel,—almost all the Greek codices +being without this passage:—(especially since it seems to narrate what +contradicts the other Gospels:)—or else, we shall reply that both +Evangelists state what is true: Matthew, when he says that our LORD rose +‘late in the week:’ Mark,—when he says that Mary Magdalene saw Him ‘early, +the first day of the week.’ For the passage must be thus pointed,—‘When He +was risen:’ and presently, after a pause, must be added,—‘Early, the first +day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ He therefore who had +risen late in the week, according to Matthew,—Himself, early the first day +of the week, according to Mark, appeared to Mary Magdalene. And this is +what John also means, shewing that it was early on the next day that He +appeared.”—To understand how faithfully in what precedes Jerome treads in +the footsteps of Eusebius, it is absolutely necessary to set the Latin of +the one over against the Greek of the other, and to compare them. In order +to facilitate this operation, I have subjoined both originals at foot of +the page: from which it will be apparent that Jerome is here not so much +adopting the sentiments of Eusebius as simply _translating his words_.(93) + +This, however, is not by any means the strangest feature of the case. That +Jerome should have availed himself ever so freely of the materials which +he found ready to his hand in the pages of Eusebius cannot be regarded as +at all extraordinary, after what we have just heard from himself of his +customary method of proceeding. It would of course have suggested the +gravest doubts as to whether we were here listening to the personal +sentiment of this Father, or not; but that would have been all. What are +we to think, however, of the fact that _Hedibia’s question to Jerome_ +proves on inspection to be nothing more than a translation of _the very +question which Marinus had long before addressed to Eusebius_? We read on, +perplexed at the coincidence; and speedily make the notable discovery that +her next question, and her next, are _also_ translations _word for word_ +of the next two of Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is +again referred to the foot of the page.(94) It is at least decisive: and +the fact, which admits of only one explanation, can be attended by only +one practical result. It of course shelves the whole question as far as +the evidence of Jerome is concerned. Whether Hedibia was an actual +personage or not, let those decide who have considered more attentively +than it has ever fallen in my way to do that curious problem,—What was the +ancient notion of the allowable in Fiction? That different ideas have +prevailed in different ages of the world as to where fiction ends and +fabrication begins;—that widely discrepant views are entertained on the +subject even in our own age;—all must be aware. I decline to investigate +the problem on the present occasion. I do but claim to have established +beyond the possibility of doubt or cavil that what we are here presented +with _is not the testimony of Jerome at all_. It is evident that this +learned Father amused himself with translating for the benefit of his +Latin readers a part of the (lost) work of Eusebius; (which, by the way, +he is found to have possessed in the same abridged form in which it has +come down to ourselves:)—and he seems to have regarded it as allowable to +attribute to “Hedibia” the problems which he there met with. (He may +perhaps have known that Eusebius before him had attributed them, with just +as little reason, to “Marinus.”) In that age, for aught that appears to +the contrary, it may have been regarded as a graceful compliment to +address solutions of Scripture difficulties to persons of distinction, who +possibly had never heard of those difficulties before; and even to +represent the Interrogatories which suggested them as originating with +themselves. I offer this only in the way of suggestion, and am not +concerned to defend it. The only point I am concerned to establish is that +Jerome is here a _translator_, not an original author: in other words, +that it is _Eusebius_ who here speaks, and not Jerome. For a critic to +pretend that it is in _any_ sense the testimony of Jerome which we are +here presented with; that Jerome is one of those Fathers “who, even though +they copied from their predecessors, were yet competent to transmit the +record of a fact,”(95)—is entirely to misunderstand the case. The man who +translates,—not adopts, but _translates_,—_the problem_ as well as its +solution: who deliberately asserts that it emanated from a Lady inhabiting +the furthest extremity of Gaul, who nevertheless was demonstrably not its +author: who goes on to propose as hers question after question _verbatim +as he found them written in the pages of Eusebius_; and then resolves them +one by one _in the very language of the same Father_:—such a writer has +clearly conducted us into a region where his individual responsibility +quite disappears from sight. We must hear no more about Jerome, therefore, +as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of S. Mark’s +Gospel. + +On the contrary. Proof is at hand that Jerome held these verses to be +genuine. The proper evidence of this is supplied by the fact that he gave +them a place in his revision of the old Latin version of the Scriptures. +If he had been indeed persuaded of their absence from “_almost all the +Greek codices_,” does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to +stand in the Vulgate? If he had met with them in “_scarcely any copies of +the Gospel_”—do men really suppose that he would yet have retained them? +To believe this would, again, be to forget what was the known practice of +this Father; who, because he found the expression “without a cause” +(εἰκή,—S. Matth. v. 22,) only “in certain of his codices,” but not “in the +true ones,” _omitted_ it from the Vulgate. Because, however, he read +“righteousness” (where we read “alms”) in S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits +“_justitiam_” in his revision of the old Latin version. On the other hand, +though he knew of MSS. (as he expressly relates) which read “works” for +“children” (ἔργων for τέκνων) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does not admit that +(manifestly corrupt) reading,—which, however, is found both in the Codex +Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press +the matter further. It is an additional proof that Jerome accepted the +conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel that he actually quotes it, and on more +than one occasion: but to prove this, is to prove more than is here +required.(96) I am concerned only to demolish the assertion of +Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Alford, and Davidson, and so many more, +concerning the testimony of Jerome; and I have demolished it. I pass on, +claiming to have shewn that the name of Jerome as an adverse witness must +never again appear in this discussion. + +IV. and V. But now, while the remarks of Eusebius are yet fresh in the +memory, the reader is invited to recall for a moment what the author of +the “Homily on the Resurrection,” contained in the works of Gregory of +Nyssa (above, p. 39), has delivered on the same subject. It will be +remembered that we saw reason for suspecting that not + +SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH, but +HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM, + +(both of them writers of the vith century,) has the better claim to the +authorship of the Homily in question,(97)—which, however, cannot at all +events be assigned to the illustrious Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of +Basil the Great. “In the more accurate copies,” (says this writer,) “the +Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some +copies, however, this also is added,—‘Now when He was risen early the +first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He +had cast seven devils.’ This, however, seems to contradict to some extent +what we before delivered; for since it happens that the hour of the night +when our SAVIOUR rose is not known, how does it come to be here written +that He rose ‘early?’ But the saying will prove to be no ways +contradictory, if we read with skill. We must be careful intelligently to +introduce a comma after, ‘Now when He was risen:’ and then to +proceed,—‘Early in the Sabbath He appeared first to Mary Magdalene:’ in +order that ‘when He was risen’ may refer (in conformity with what Matthew +says) to the foregoing season; while ‘early’ is connected with the +appearance to Mary.”(98)—I presume it would be to abuse a reader’s +patience to offer any remarks on all this. If a careful perusal of the +foregoing passage does not convince him that Hesychius is here only +reproducing what he had read in Eusebius, nothing that I can say will +persuade him of the fact. The _words_ indeed are by no means the same; but +the sense is altogether identical. He seems to have also known the work of +Victor of Antioch. However, to remove all doubt from the reader’s mind +that the work of Eusebius was in the hands of Hesychius while he wrote, I +have printed in two parallel columns and transferred to the Appendix what +must needs be conclusive;(99) for it will be seen that the terms are only +not identical in which Eusebius and Hesychius discuss that favourite +problem with the ancients,—the consistency of S. Matthew’s ὀψὲ τῶν +σαββάτων with the πρωί of S. Mark. + +It is, however, only needful to read through the Homily in question to see +that it is an attempt to weave into one piece a quantity of foreign and +incongruous materials. It is in fact not a Homily at all, (though it has +been thrown into that form;) but a Dissertation,—into which, Hesychius, +(who is known to have been very curious in questions of that kind(100),) +is observed to introduce solutions of most of those famous difficulties +which cluster round the sepulchre of the world’s Redeemer on the morning +of the first Easter Day;(101) and which the ancients seem to have +delighted in discussing,—as, the number of the Marys who visited the +sepulchre; the angelic appearances on the morning of the Resurrection; and +above all the seeming discrepancy, already adverted to, in the Evangelical +notices of the time at which our LORD rose from the dead. I need not enter +more particularly into an examination of this (so-called) “Homily”: but I +must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author at all events +cannot be thought to have repudiated the concluding verses of S. Mark: for +at the end of his discourse, he quotes the 19th verse entire, without +hesitation, in confirmation of one of his statements, and declares that +the words are written by S. Mark.(102) + +I shall not be thought unreasonable, therefore, if I contend that +Hesychius is no longer to be cited as a witness in this behalf: if I point +out that it is entirely to misunderstand and misrepresent the case to +quote _a passing allusion of his to what Eusebius had long before +delivered on the same subject_, as if it exhibited his own individual +teaching. It is demonstrable(103) that he is not bearing testimony to the +condition of the MSS. of S. Mark’s Gospel in his own age: neither, indeed, +is he bearing testimony _at all_. He is simply amusing himself, (in what +is found to have been his favourite way,) with reconciling an apparent +discrepancy in the Gospels; and he does it by adopting certain remarks of +Eusebius. Living so late as the vith century; conspicuous neither for his +judgment nor his learning; a copyist only, so far as his remarks on the +last verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are concerned;—this writer does not really +deserve the space and attention we have been compelled to bestow upon him. + +VI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence borne by + +VICTOR OF ANTIOCH. + +And from the familiar style in which this Father’s name is always +introduced into the present discussion, no less than from the invariable +practice of assigning to him the date “A.D. 401,” it might be supposed +that “Victor of Antioch” is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely +a Commentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. Clinton +(who enumerates cccxxii “Ecclesiastical Authors” from A.D. 70 to A.D. +685(104)) does not even record his name. The recent “Dictionary of Greek +and Roman Biography” is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest +editor) calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute his +Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria.(105) Not to delay the reader +needlessly,—Victor of Antioch is an interesting and unjustly neglected +Father of the Church; whose date,—(inasmuch as he apparently quotes +sometimes from Cyril of Alexandria who died A.D. 444, and yet seems to +have written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which took place A.D. +407), may be assigned to the first half of the vth century,—suppose A.D. +425-450. And in citing him I shall always refer to the best (and most +easily accessible) edition of his work,—that of Cramer (1840) in the first +volume of his “Catenae.” + +But a far graver charge is behind. From the confident air in which +Victor’s authority is appealed to by those who deem the last twelve verses +of S. Mark’s Gospel spurious, it would of course be inferred that his +evidence is hostile to the verses in question; whereas his evidence to +their genuineness is the most emphatic and extraordinary on record. Dr. +Tregelles asserts that “his _testimony_ to the absence of these twelve +verses from some or many copies, stands in contrast to his own _opinion_ +on the subject.” But Victor delivers _no_ “opinion:” and his “testimony” +is the direct reverse of what Dr. Tregelles asserts it to be. This learned +and respected critic has strangely misapprehended the evidence.(106) + +I must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore confine myself to +those facts concerning “Victor of Antioch,” or rather concerning his work, +which are necessary for the purpose in hand.(107) + +Now, his Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel,—as all must see who will be at +the pains to examine it,—is to a great extent a compilation. The same +thing may be said, no doubt, to some extent, of almost every ancient +Commentary in existence. But I mean, concerning this particular work, that +it proves to have been the author’s plan not so much to give the general +results of his acquaintance with the writings of Origen, Apollinarius, +Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Eusebius, and Chrysostom; as, with or without +acknowledgment, to transcribe largely (but with great license) from one or +other of these writers. Thus, the whole of his note on S. Mark xv. 38, 39, +is taken, without any hint that it is not original, (much of it, _word for +word_,) from Chrysostom’s 88th Homily on S. Matthew’s Gospel.(108) The +same is to be said of the first twelve lines of his note on S. Mark xvi. +9. On the other hand, the latter half of the note last mentioned professes +to give the substance of what _Eusebius_ had written on the same subject. +It is in fact an extract from those very “Quaestiones ad Marinum” +concerning which so much has been offered already. All this, though it +does not sensibly detract from the interest or the value of Victor’s work, +must be admitted entirely to change the character of his supposed +evidence. He comes before us rather in the light of a Compiler than of an +Author: his work is rather a “Catena” than a Commentary: and as such in +fact it is generally described. Quite plain is it, at all events, that the +sentiments contained in the sections last referred to, are _not Victor’s +at all_. For one half of them, no one but Chrysostom is responsible: for +the other half, no one but Eusebius. + +But it is Victor’s familiar use of the writings of Eusebius,—especially of +those Resolutions of hard Questions “concerning the seeming +Inconsistencies in the Evangelical accounts of the Resurrection,” which +Eusebius addressed to Marinus,—on which the reader’s attention is now to +be concentrated. Victor cites that work of Eusebius _by name_ in the very +_first_ page of his Commentary. That his _last_ page also contains a +quotation from it, (also _by name_), has been already pointed out.(109) +Attention is now invited to what is found concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 in +the _last page but one_ (p. 444) of Victor’s work. It shall be given in +English; because I will convince unlearned as well as learned readers. +Victor, (after quoting four lines from the 89th Homily of +Chrysostom(110)), reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to do(111)) +the notes of time contained severally in S. Matth. xxviii. 1, S. Mark xvi. +2, S. Luke xxiv. 1, and S. John xx. 1. After which, he proceeds as +follows:— + +“In certain copies of Mark’s Gospel, next comes,—‘Now when [JESUS] was +risen early the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene;’—a +statement which seems inconsistent with Matthew’s narrative. This might be +met by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, though found in +certain copies, is spurious, However, that we may not seem to betake +ourselves to an off-hand answer, we propose to read the place thus:—‘Now +when [JESUS] was risen:’ then, after a comma, to go on,—‘early the first +day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ In this way we refer +[Mark’s] ‘Now when [JESUS] was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of the +sabbath,’ (for _then_ we believe Him to have _risen_;) and all that comes +after, expressive as it is of a different notion, we connect with what +follows. Mark relates that He who ‘_arose_ (according to Matthew) _in the +end of the Sabbath_,’ _was seen_ by Mary Magdalene ‘_early_.’ This is in +fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the +first day of the week,’ [JESUS] appeared to the Magdalene. In a word, two +distinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of +the Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the +season of our SAVIOUR’S Appearing,—which was ‘early.’ ”(112) + +No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate to admit that he +is here listening to Eusebius “ad Marinum” over again. But if any one +really retains a particle of doubt on the subject, he is requested to cast +his eye to the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader, +surveying the originals with attention, may easily convince himself that +_Victor is here nothing else but a copyist_.(113) That the work in which +Eusebius reconciles “seeming discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives,” +was actually lying open before Victor while he wrote, is ascertained +beyond dispute. He is observed in his next ensuing Comment to quote from +it, and to mention Eusebius as its author. At the end of the present note +he has a significant allusion to Eusebius:—“I know very well,” he says, +“what has been suggested _by those who are at the pains to remove the +apparent inconsistencies in this place_.”(114) But when writing on S. Mark +xvi. 9-20, he does more. After abridging, (as his manner is,) what +Eusebius explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the substance of +five columns in about three times as many lines,) he adopts the exact +expressions of Eusebius,—follows him in his very mistakes,—and finally +transcribes his words. The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind +that what he has been listening to is _not the testimony of Victor at +all_: but _the testimony of Eusebius_. This is but one more echo therefore +of a passage of which we are all beginning by this time to be weary; so +exceedingly rash are the statements with which it is introduced, so +utterly preposterous the proposed method of remedying a difficulty which +proves after all to be purely imaginary. + +What then _is_ the testimony of Victor? Does he offer any independent +statement on the question in dispute, from which his own private opinion +(though nowhere stated) may be lawfully inferred? Yes indeed. Victor, +though frequently a Transcriber only, is observed every now and then to +come forward in his own person, and deliver his individual sentiment.(115) +But nowhere throughout his work does he deliver such remarkable testimony +as in this place. Hear him! + +“Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the +passage beginning, ‘Now when [JESUS] was risen early the first day of the +week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,’ be not found,—(certain +individuals having supposed it to be spurious,)—yet WE, at all events, +inasmuch as in very many we have discovered it to exist, have, out of +accurate copies, subjoined also the account of our Lord’s Ascension, +(following the words ‘for they were afraid,’) in conformity with the +Palestinian exemplar of Mark which exhibits the Gospel verity: that is to +say, from the words, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of +the week,’ &c., down to ‘with signs following. Amen.’(116)—And with these +words Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on S. Mark to an end.” + +Here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent Father, +writing in the first half of the vth century,— + +(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark are absent from +some ancient copies of his Gospel is _because they have been deliberately +omitted by Copyists_: + +(2.) That the ground for such omission was the _subjective judgment_ of +individuals,—_not_ the result of any appeal to documentary evidence. +Victor, therefore, clearly held that the Verses in question had been +_expunged_ in consequence of their (seeming) inconsistency with what is +met with in the other Gospels: + +(3.) That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself by reference to +“very many” and “accurate” copies, that the verses in question are +genuine: + +(4.) That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which enjoyed the reputation +of “exhibiting the genuine text of S. Mark,” contained the Verses in +dispute.—To _Opinion_, therefore, Victor opposes _Authority_. He makes his +appeal to the most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is +acquainted; and the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete +counterpoise and antidote to the loose phrases of Eusebius on the same +subject: + +(5.) That in consequence of all this, following the Palestinian Exemplar, +he had from accurate copies _furnished his own work with the Twelve Verses +in dispute_;—which is a categorical refutation of the statement frequently +met with that the work of Victor of Antioch is _without_ them. + +We are now at liberty to sum up; and to review the progress which has been +hitherto made in this Inquiry. + +Six Fathers of the Church have been examined who are commonly represented +as bearing hostile testimony to the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s +Gospel; and they have been easily reduced to _one_. Three of them, +(Hesychius, Jerome, Victor,) prove to be echoes, not voices. The remaining +two, (Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices nor echoes, but +merely _names_: GREGORY OF NYSSA having really no more to do with this +discussion than Philip of Macedon; and “Severus” and “Hesychius” +representing one and the same individual. Only by a Critic seeking to +mislead his reader will any one of these five Fathers be in future cited +as witnessing against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Eusebius is +the solitary witness who survives the ordeal of exact inquiry.(117) But, + +I. EUSEBIUS, (as we have seen), instead of proclaiming his distrust of +this portion of the Gospel, enters upon an elaborate proof that its +contents are not inconsistent with what is found in the Gospels of S. +Matthew and S. John. His testimony is reducible to two innocuous and +wholly unconnected propositions: the first,—That there existed in his day +a vast number of copies in which the last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel +ended abruptly at ver. 8; (the correlative of which of course would be +that there also existed a vast number which were furnished with the +present ending.) The second,—That by putting a comma after the word +Ἀναστάς, S. Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with S. Matth. +xxviii. 1(118).... I profess myself unable to understand how it can be +pretended that Eusebius would have subscribed to the opinion of +Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that the Gospel of S. Mark was never +finished by its inspired Author, or was mutilated before it came abroad; +at all events, that the last Twelve Verses are spurious. + +II. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been adopted, and in +part transcribed, by an unknown writer of the vith century,—whether +HESYCHIUS or SEVERUS is not certainly known: but if it were Hesychius, +then it was not Severus; if Severus, then not Hesychius. This writer, +however, (whoever he may have been,) is careful to convince us that +individually he entertained _no doubt whatever_ about the genuineness of +this part of Scripture, for he says that he writes in order to remove the +(hypothetical) objections of others, and to silence their (imaginary) +doubts. Nay, he freely _quotes the verses as genuine_, and declares that +they were read in his day on a certain Sunday night in the public Service +of the Church.... To represent such an one,—(it matters nothing, I repeat, +whether we call him “Hesychius of Jerusalem” or “Severus of Antioch,”)—as +a hostile witness, is simply to misrepresent the facts of the case. He is, +on the contrary, the strenuous champion of the verses which he is commonly +represented as impugning. + +III. As for JEROME, since that illustrious Father comes before us in this +place as a _translator_ of Eusebius only, he is no more responsible for +what Eusebius says concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20, than Hobbes of Malmesbury +is responsible for anything that Thucydides has related concerning the +Peloponnesian war. Individually, however, it is certain that Jerome was +convinced of the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: for in two different +places of his writings he not only quotes the 9th and 14th verses, but he +exhibits all the twelve in the Vulgate. + +IV. Lastly, VICTOR OF ANTIOCH, who wrote in an age when Eusebius was held +to be an infallible oracle on points of Biblical Criticism,—having +dutifully rehearsed, (like the rest,) the feeble expedient of that +illustrious Father for harmonizing S. Mark xvi. 9 with the narrative of S. +Matthew,—is observed to cite the statements of Eusebius concerning _the +last Twelve Verses_ of S. Mark, only in order to refute them. Not that he +opposes opinion to opinion,—(for the opinions of Eusebius and of Victor of +Antioch on this behalf were probably identical;) but statement he meets +with counter-statement,—fact he confronts with fact. Scarcely can anything +be imagined more emphatic than his testimony, or more conclusive. + +For the reader is requested to observe that here is an Ecclesiastic, +writing in the first half of the vth century, who _expressly witnesses to +the genuineness_ of the Verses in dispute. He had made reference, he says, +and ascertained their existence in very many MSS. (ὡς ἐν πλείστοις). He +had derived his text from “accurate” ones: (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων.) More +than that: he leads his reader to infer that he had personally resorted to +the famous Palestinian Copy, the text of which was held to exhibit the +inspired verity, and had satisfied himself that the concluding section of +S. Mark’s Gospel _was there_. He had, therefore, been either to Jerusalem, +or else to Cæsarea; had inquired for those venerable records which had +once belonged to Origen and Pamphilus;(119) and had inspected them. +Testimony more express, more weighty,—I was going to say, more +decisive,—can scarcely be imagined. It may with truth be said to close the +present discussion. + +With this, in fact, Victor lays down his pen. So also may I. I submit that +nothing whatever which has hitherto come before us lends the slightest +countenance to the modern dream that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the +hands of its inspired Author, ended abruptly at ver. 8. Neither Eusebius +nor Jerome; neither Severus of Antioch nor Hesychius of Jerusalem; +certainly not Victor of Antioch; least of all Gregory of Nyssa,—yield a +particle of support to that monstrous fancy. The notion is an invention, a +pure imagination of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach. + +It remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove somewhat less +unaccommodating. + +VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of the discussion, +to appeal to + +EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS, + +the Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compilation on the +Gospels, assigned to A.D. 1116. Euthymius lived, in fact, full five +hundred years too late for his testimony to be of the slightest +importance. Such as it is, however, it is not unfavourable. He says,—“Some +of the Commentators state that here,” (viz. at ver. 8,) “the Gospel +according to Mark finishes; and that what follows is a spurious addition.” +(Which clearly is his version of the statements of one or more of the four +Fathers whose testimony has already occupied so large a share of our +attention.) “This portion we must also interpret, however,” (Euthymius +proceeds,) “since there is nothing in it prejudicial to the +truth.”(120)—But it is idle to linger over such a writer. One might almost +as well quote “Poli _Synopsis_” and then proceed to discuss it. The cause +must indeed be desperate which seeks support from a quarter like this. +What possible sanction can an Ecclesiastic of the xiith century be +supposed to yield to the hypothesis that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the +hands of its inspired Author, was an unfinished work? + +It remains to ascertain what is the evidence of the MSS. on this subject. +And the MSS. require to be the more attentively studied, because it is to +_them_ that our opponents are accustomed most confidently to appeal. On +them in fact they rely. The nature and the value of the most ancient +Manuscript testimony available, shall be scrupulously investigated in the +next two Chapters. + + + + + + CHAPTER VI. + + +MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE +VERSES.—PART I. + + + S. Mark xvi. 9-20, contained in every MS. in the world except + two.—Irrational Claim to Infallibility set up on behalf of Cod. B + (p. 73) and Cod. א (p. 75).—These two Codices shewn to be full of + gross Omissions (p. 78),—Interpolations (p. 80),—Corruptions of + the Text (p. 81),—and Perversions of the Truth (p. 83).—The + testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9-20, shewn to be favorable, + notwithstanding (p. 86). + + +The two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the famous Codex in +the Vatican Library at Rome, known as “Codex B;” and the Codex which +Tischendorf brought from Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by +the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (א). These two manuscripts are +probably not of equal antiquity.(121) An interval of fifty years at least +seems to be required to account for the marked difference between them. If +the first belongs to the beginning, the second may be referred to the +middle or latter part of the ivth century. But the two Manuscripts agree +in this,—that _they are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s +Gospel_. In both, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (ver. 8), comes the subscription: in +Cod. B,—ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ; in Cod. א,—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ. + +Let it not be supposed that we have any _more_ facts of this class to +produce. All has been stated. It is not that the evidence of Manuscripts +is one,—the evidence of Fathers and Versions another. The very reverse is +the case. Manuscripts, Fathers, and Versions alike, are _only not +unanimous_ in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness of +the MSS. is even extraordinary. With the exception of the two uncial MSS. +which have just been named, there is _not one_ Codex in existence, uncial +or cursive,—(and we are acquainted with, at least, eighteen other +uncials,(122) and about six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)—which +leaves out the last twelve verses of S. Mark. + +The inference which an unscientific observer would draw from this fact, is +no doubt in this instance the correct one. He demands to be shewn the +Alexandrine (A) and the Parisian Codex (C),—neither of them probably +removed by much more than fifty years from the date of the Codex +Sinaiticus, and both unquestionably _derived from different +originals_;—and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of +those venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this part of the +sacred text. He discovers that the Codex Bezae (D), the only remaining +very ancient MS. authority,—notwithstanding that it is observed on most +occasions to exhibit an extraordinary sympathy with the Vatican (B),—here +sides with A and C against B and א. He inquires after all the other +uncials and all the cursive MSS. in existence, (some of them dating from +the xth century,) and requests to have it explained to him _why_ it is to +be supposed that all these many witnesses,—belonging to so many different +patriarchates, provinces, ages of the Church,—have entered into a grand +conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and +importance? But he obtains no intelligible answer to this question. How, +then, is an unprejudiced student to draw any inference but one from the +premisses? _That_ single peculiarity (he tells himself) of bringing the +second Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse of the xvith chapter, +is absolutely fatal to the two Codices in question. It is useless to din +into his ears that those Codices are probably both of the ivth +century,—unless men are prepared to add the assurance that a Codex of the +ivth century is _of necessity_ a more trustworthy witness to the text of +the Gospels than a Codex of the vth. The omission of these twelve verses, +I repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in Cod. B and Cod. א: for it +is obvious that a copy of the Gospels which has been so seriously +mutilated in one place may have been slightly tampered with in another. He +is willing to suspend his judgment, of course. The two oldest copies of +the Gospels in existence are entitled to great reverence _because_ of +their high antiquity. They must be allowed a most patient, most +unprejudiced, most respectful, nay, a most indulgent hearing. But when all +this has been freely accorded, on no intelligible principle can more be +claimed for any two MSS. in the world. + +The rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious. Mistrust will no doubt +have been thrown over the evidence borne to the text of Scripture in a +thousand other places by Cod. B and Cod. א, _after demonstration that +those two Codices exhibit a mutilated text_ in the present place. But what +else is this but the very point requiring demonstration? Why may not these +two be right, and all the other MSS. wrong? + +I propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed we to examine +the evidence borne by these two witnesses on certain _other_ occasions +which admit of _no_ difference of opinion; or next to none. Let us +endeavour, I say, to ascertain _the character of the Witnesses_ by a +patient and unprejudiced examination of their Evidence,—not in one place, +or in two, or in three; but on several important occasions, and +throughout. If we find it invariably consentient and invariably truthful, +then of course a mighty presumption will have been established, the very +strongest possible, that their adverse testimony in respect of the +conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel must needs be worthy of all acceptation. +But if, on the contrary, our inquiries shall conduct us to the very +opposite result,—what else can happen but that our confidence in these two +MSS. will be hopelessly shaken? We must in such case be prepared to admit +that it is just as likely as not that this is only _one more occasion_ on +which these “two false witnesses” have conspired to witness falsely. If, +at this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely trustworthy kind can +be procured to confront them: above all, if some one ancient witness of +unimpeachable veracity can be found who shall bear contradictory evidence: +what other alternative will be left us but to reject their testimony in +respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with something like indignation; and to +acquiesce in the belief of universal Christendom for eighteen hundred +years that these twelve verses are just as much entitled to our +unhesitating acceptance as any other twelve verses in the Gospel which can +be named? + +I. It is undeniable, in the meantime, that for the last quarter of a +century, it has become the fashion to demand for the readings of Codex B +something very like absolute deference. The grounds for this superstitious +sentiment, (for really I can describe it in no apter way,) I profess +myself unable to discover. Codex B comes to us without a history: without +recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces +of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original +transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence. “They are chiefly omissions, +of one, two, or three words; but sometimes of half a verse, a whole verse, +or even of several verses.... I hesitate not to assert that it would be +easier to find a folio containing three or four such omissions than to +light on one which should be without any.”(123) In the Gospels alone, +Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times:(124) +of which by far the largest proportion is found in S. Mark’s Gospel. Many +of these, no doubt, are to be accounted for by the proximity of a “like +ending.”(125) The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic(126)) was originally +derived from an older Codex which contained about twelve or thirteen +letters in a line.(127) And it will be found that some of its omissions +which have given rise to prolonged discussion are probably to be referred +to nothing else but the oscitancy of a transcriber with such a codex +before him:(128) without having recourse to any more abstruse hypothesis; +without any imputation of bad faith;—_certainly without supposing that the +words omitted did not exist in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist_. +But then it is undeniable that some of the omissions in Cod. B are not to +be so explained. On the other hand, I can testify to the fact that the +codex is disfigured throughout with _repetitions_. The original scribe is +often found to have not only written the same words twice over, but to +have failed whenever he did so to take any notice with his pen of what he +had done. + +What then, (I must again inquire,) are the grounds for the superstitious +reverence which is entertained in certain quarters for the readings of +Codex B? If it be a secret known to the recent Editors of the New +Testament, they have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close. + +II. More recently, a claim to co-ordinate primacy has been set up on +behalf of the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf is actually engaged in +remodelling his seventh Leipsic edition, chiefly in conformity with the +readings of his lately discovered MS.(129) And yet the Codex in question +abounds with “errors of the the eye and pen, to an extent not +unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate +importance.” On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through +very carelessness.(130) “Letters and words, even whole sentences, are +frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while +that gross blunder ... whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to +end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 +times in the New Testament. Tregelles has freely pronounced that ‘the +state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as +_very rough_.’ ”(131) But when “the first scribe” and his “very rough” +performance have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would like to +be informed what remains to command respect in Codex א? Is, then, +_manuscript authority_ to be confounded with _editorial +caprice_,—exercising itself upon the corrections of “at least ten +different revisers,” who, from the vith to the xiith century, have been +endeavouring to lick into shape a text which its original author left +“_very rough_?” + +The co-ordinate primacy, (as I must needs call it,) which, within the last +few years, has been claimed for Codex B and Codex א, threatens to grow +into a species of tyranny,—from which I venture to predict there will come +in the end an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil. It behoves us, +therefore, to look closely into this matter, and to require a reason for +what is being done. The text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a +thing to be sacrificed to an irrational, or at least a superstitious +devotion to two MSS.,—simply because they may possibly be older by a +hundred years than any other which we possess. “Id verius quod prius,” is +an axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as in Dogmatic +Truth. But on that principle, (as I have already shewn,) the last twelve +verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are fully established;(132) and by consequence, +the credit of Codd. B and א sustains a severe shock. Again, “Id verius +quod prius;” but it does not of course follow that a Codex of the ivth +century shall exhibit a more correct text of Scripture than one written in +the vth, or even than one written in the xth. For the proof of this +statement, (if it can be supposed to require proof,) it is enough to +appeal to Codex D. That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the vith +century. It is, in fact, one of our five great uncials. No older MS. of +the Greek Text is known to exist,—excepting always A, B, C and א. And yet +_no_ text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations +than that of Codex D. In the Acts, (to use the language of its learned and +accurate Editor,) “it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it +reproduces the _textus receptus_ much in the same way that one of the best +Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the +variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of +expanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend +themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”(133) +Where, then, is the _à priori_ probability that two MSS. of the ivth +century shall have not only a superior claim to be heard, but almost an +exclusive right to dictate which readings are to be rejected, which +retained? + +How ready the most recent editors of the New Testament have shewn +themselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of Codd. B and א,—not +unfrequently in defiance of the evidence of all other MSS., and sometimes +to the serious detriment of the deposit,—would admit of striking +illustration were this place for such details. Tischendorf’s English “_New +Testament_”—“with various readings from the three most celebrated +manuscripts of the Greek Text” translated at the foot of every page,—is a +recent attempt (1869) to popularize the doctrine that we have to look +exclusively to two or three of the oldest copies, if we would possess the +Word of GOD in its integrity. Dean Alford’s constant appeal in his +revision of the Authorized Version (1870) to “the oldest MSS.” (meaning +thereby generally Codd. א and B with one or two others(134)), is an abler +endeavour to familiarize the public mind with the same belief. I am bent +on shewing that there is nothing whatever in the character of either of +the Codices in question to warrant this servile deference. + +(_a_) And first,—Ought it not sensibly to detract from our opinion of the +value of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two +consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, +than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_? Now this is a +plain matter of fact, of which any one who pleases may easily convince +himself. But the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one +another has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On every such +occasion, only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be +thought unreasonable if I confess that these _perpetual_ inconsistencies +between Codd. B and א,—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross +ones,—altogether destroy my confidence in either? + +(_b_) On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is +throughout, they yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in +exhibiting minute corruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to +betray a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. These +coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish +a real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to +any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent +witnesses.(135) + +(_c_) Further, it is evident that both alike have been subjected, probably +during the process of transcription, to the same depraving influences. But +because such statements require to be established by an induction of +instances, the reader’s attention must now be invited to a few samples of +the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies of the Gospel. + +1. And first, since it is the omission of the end of S. Mark’s Gospel +which has given rise to the present discussion, it becomes a highly +significant circumstance that the original scribe of Cod. א had _also_ +omitted the _end of the Gospel according to S. John_.(136) In this +suppression of ver. 25, Cod. א stands _alone_ among MSS. A cloud of +primitive witnesses vouch for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is +nothing else but the _reductio ad absurdum_ of a theory of recension, +(with Tischendorf in his last edition,) to accommodate our printed text to +the vicious standard of the original penman of Cod. א and bring the last +chapter of S. John’s Gospel to a close at ver. 24! + +Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two solemn verses +wherein S. Luke describes our LORD’s “Agony and bloody Sweat,” together +with the act of the ministering Angel.(137) As to the genuineness of those +verses, recognised as they are by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Hippolytus, +Epiphanius, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, by all +the oldest versions, and by almost every MS. in existence, including Cod. +א,—it admits of _no_ doubt. Here then is proof positive that in order to +account for omissions from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there +is no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of the +Gospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. “The admitted error of +Cod. B in this place,” (to quote the words of Scrivener,) “ought to make +some of its advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is +less countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us.” + +Cod. B (not Cod. א) is further guilty of the “grave error” (as Dean Alford +justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn record of the Evangelist:—“Then +said JESUS, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” It also +withholds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was “in letters +of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.”(138) Cod. א, on the other hand, omits +the confession of the man born blind (ὁ δὲ ἔφη, πιστεύω, κύριε; καὶ +προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ) in S. John ix. 38.—Both Cod. א and Cod. B retain +nothing but the word υἱόν of the expression τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, +in S. Matth. i. 25; and suppress altogether the important doctrinal +statement ὁ ὠν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in S. John iii. 13: as well as the clause +διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν; καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, in S. John viii. 59. +Concerning all of which, let it be observed that I am neither imputing +motives nor pretending to explain _the design_ with which these several +serious omissions were made. All that is asserted is, that they cannot be +imputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were intentional: and I +insist that they effectually dispose of the presumption that when an +important passage is observed to be wanting from Cod. B or Cod. א, its +absence is to be accounted for by assuming that it was also absent _from +the inspired autograph of the Evangelist_. + +2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or +of א, or of both, has clearly been _interpolated_. There does not exist in +the whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this +than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our +Redeemer’s side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and +Cod. א, where it is introduced at the end of ver. 49,—in defiance of +reason as well as of authority.(139) “This interpolation” (remarks Mr. +Scrivener) “which would represent the SAVIOUR as pierced while yet living, +is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may +combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false.”(140) Another +singularly gross specimen of interpolation, in my judgment, is supplied by +the purely apocryphal statement which is met with in Cod. א, at the end of +S. Matthew’s account of the healing of the Centurion’s servant,—και +υποστρεψας ο εκατονταρχος εις τον οικον αυτου εν αυτη τη ωρα, ευρεν τον +παιδα υγιαινοντα (viii. 13.)—Nor can anything well be weaker than the +substitution (for ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου, in S. John ii. 3) of the +following,(141) which is found _only_ in Cod. א:—οινον ουκ ειχον, οτι +συνετελεσθε ο οινος του γαμου. + +But the inspired text has been depraved in the same licentious way +throughout, by the responsible authors of Cod. B and Cod. א, although such +corruptions have attracted little notice from their comparative +unimportance. Thus, the reading (in א) ημας δει εργαζεσθαι τα εργα του +πεμψαντος ημας (S. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient +condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by B’s substitution +of με for the second ημας.—Instead of τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (S. +Luke vi. 48), B and א present us with the insipid gloss, δια το καλως +οικοδομεισθαι αυτην.—In the last-named codex, we find the name of “Isaiah” +(ησαιου) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance of authority and of +*fact*.—Can I be wrong in asserting that the reading ο μονογενης θεος (for +υἱός) in S. John i. 18, (a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. א alike,) is +undeserving of serious attention?—May it not also be confidently declared +that, in the face of all MS. evidence,(142) no future Editors of the New +Testament will be found to accept the highly improbable reading ο ανθρωπος +ο λεγομενος Ιησους, in S. John ix. 11, although the same two Codices +conspire in exhibiting it?—or, on the authority of one of them (א), to +read εν αυτῳ ζωη εστιν(143) (for ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν) in S. John i. 4?—Certain +at least it is that no one will _ever_ be found to read (with B) +εβδομηκοντα δϙο in S. Luke x. 1,—or (with א) ο εκλεκτος του θεου (instead +of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) in S. John i. 34.—But let me ask, With what show of +reason can the pretence of _Infallibility_, (as well as the plea of +Primacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of MSS. licentiously corrupt as +these have already been _proved_ to be? For the readings above enumerated, +be it observed, are either critical depravations of the inspired Text, or +else unwarrantable interpolations. They _cannot_ have resulted from +careless transcription. + +3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind to convince +me that the text with which Cod. B and Cod. א were chiefly acquainted, +must have been once and again subjected to a clumsy process of _revision_. +Not unfrequently, as may be imagined, the result (however tasteless and +infelicitous) is not of serious importance; as when, (to give examples +from Cod. א,) for τὸν ὄχλον ἐπικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ (in S. Luke v. 1) we are +presented with συναχθηναι τον οχλον:—when for ζῶν ἀσώτως (in S. Luke xv. +13) we read εις χωραν μακραν; and for οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες αὐτῶν (in S. Luke +xxii. 25), we find οι αρχοντες των [εθνων] εξουσιαζουσιν αυτων, και, +(which is only a weak reproduction of S. Matth. xx. 25):—when again, for +σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει (in S. John vi. 17), we are shewn καταλαβεν δε αυτους +η σκοτια: and when, for καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν (in S. John vi. +64) we are invited to accept και τις ην ο μελλων αυτον παραδιδοναι.(144) +But it requires very little acquaintance with the subject to foresee that +this kind of license may easily assume serious dimensions, and grow into +an intolerable evil. Thus, when the man born blind is asked by the HOLY +ONE if he believes ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ (S. John. ix. 35), we are by no +means willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute, τον υιον του +ανθρωπου: neither, when the SAVIOUR says, γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμων (S. John +x. 14) are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent γινωσκουσι +με τα εμα. Still less is και εμοι αυτους εδωκασ any equivalent at all for +καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστι, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά in S. John xvii. 10: or, αλλοι +ζωσουσιν σε, και ποιησουσιν σοι οσα ου θελεις, for ἄλλος σε ζώσει; καὶ +οὄσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις, in S. John xxi. 18. Indeed, even when our LORD is +not the speaker, such licentious depravation of the text is not to be +endured. Thus, in S. Luke xxiii. 15, Cod. B and Cod. א conspire in +substituting for ἀνέπεμψα γὰρ ὑμᾶς πρὸς αὐτόν,—ανεπεμψεν γαρ αυτον προς +ημας; which leads one to suspect the copyist was misled by the narrative +in ver. 7. Similar instances might be multiplied to an indefinite extent. + +Two yet graver corruptions of the truth of the Gospel, (but they belong to +the same category,) remain to be specified. Mindful, I suppose, of S. +James’ explanation “how that _by works_ a man is justified,” the author of +the text of Codices B and א has ventured to alter our LORD’s assertion (in +S. Matth. xi. 19,) “Wisdom is justified of _her children_,” into “Wisdom +is justified by _her works_;” and, in the case of Cod. א, his zeal is +observed to have so entirely carried him away, that he has actually +substituted εργων for τέκνων in the parallel place of S. Luke’s +Gospel.—The other example of error (S. Matth. xxi. 31) is calculated to +provoke a smile. Finding that our SAVIOUR, in describing the conduct of +the two sons in the parable, says of the one,—ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς +ἀπῆλθεν, and of the other,—καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν; some ancient scribe, (who can +have been but slenderly acquainted with the Greek language,) seems to have +conceived the notion that a more precise way of identifying the son who +“_afterwards_ repented and went,” would be to designate him as ὁ ὕστερος. +Accordingly, in reply to the question,—τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα +τοῦ πατρός; we are presented (but _only in Cod._ B) with the astonishing +information,—λεγουσιν ο υστερος. And yet, seeing clearly that this made +nonsense of the parable, some subsequent critic is found to have +_transposed the order of the two sons_: and in that queer condition the +parable comes down to us in the famous Vatican Codex B. + +4. Some of the foregoing instances of infelicitous tampering with the text +of the Gospels are, it must be confessed, very serious. But it is a yet +more fatal circumstance in connexion with Cod. B and Cod. א that they are +convicted of certain perversions of the truth of Scripture which _must_ +have been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in S. Mark xiv, they +exhibit a set of passages—(verses 30, 68, 72)—“which bear clear marks of +wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. א, only +partially in Cod. B; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative +of Peter’s denial with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the +fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed _twice_. (In Cod. +א, δίς is omitted in ver. 30,‘—ἐκ δευτέρου and δίς in ver. 72,—’and καὶ +ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε in ver. 68: the last change being countenanced by +B.)”(145) One such discovery, I take leave to point out, is enough to +destroy all confidence in the text of these two manuscripts: for it proves +that another kind of corrupting influence,—besides carelessness, and +accident, and tasteless presumption, and unskilful assiduity,—has been at +work on Codices B and א. We are constrained to approach these two +manuscripts with suspicion in all cases where a supposed critical +difficulty in harmonizing the statements of the several Evangelists will +account for any of the peculiar readings which they exhibit. + +Accordingly, it does not at all surprise me to discover that in both +Codices the important word ἐξελθοῦσαι (in S. Matth. xxviii. 8) has been +altered into απελθουσαι. I recognise in that substitution of απο for ἔξ +the hand of one who was not aware that the women, when addressed by the +Angel, were _inside the sepulchre_; but who accepted the belief (it is +found to have been as common in ancient as in modern times) that they +beheld him “sitting on the stone.”(146)—In consequence of a similar +misconception, both Codices are observed to present us with the word +“_wine_” instead of “_vinegar_” in S. Matthew’s phrase ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς +μεμνγμένον: which results from a mistaken endeavour on the part of some +ancient critic to bring S. Matth. xxvii. 34 into harmony with S. Mark xv. +23. The man did not perceive that the cruel insult of the “vinegar and +gall” (which the SAVIOUR tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct +thing from the proffered mercy of the “myrrhed wine” which the SAVIOUR put +away from Himself altogether. + +So again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into harmony with a +supposed fact of geography that Cod. א states that Emmaus, (which Josephus +also places at sixty stadia from Jerusalem), was “_an hundred_ and sixty” +stadia distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is known. It +is because some ancient critic (Origen probably) erroneously assumed that +_Nicopolis_ was the place intended. The conjecture met with favour, and +there are not wanting scholia to declare that this was the reading of “the +accurate” copies,—notwithstanding the physical impossibility which is +involved by the statement.(147)—Another geographical misconception under +which the scribe of Cod. א is found to have laboured was that Nazareth (S. +Luke i. 26) and Capernaum (S. Mark i. 28) were _in Judæa_. Accordingly he +has altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his private +notion.(148)—A yet more striking specimen of the preposterous method of +the same scribe is supplied by his substitution of Καισαριας for Σαμαρείας +in Acts viii. 5,—evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi. +8.—Again, it must have been with a view of bringing Revelation into +harmony with the (supposed) facts of physical Science that for the highly +significant Theological record καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος at the +Crucifixion,(149) has been substituted both in B and א, του ηλιου +εκλιποντος,—a statement which (as the ancients were perfectly well +aware(150)) introduces into the narrative an astronomical +contradiction.—It may be worth adding, that Tischendorf with singular +inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contradiction, while +he rejects the geographical impossibility.—And this may suffice concerning +the text of Codices B and א. + +III. We are by this time in a condition to form a truer estimate of the +value of the testimony borne by these two manuscripts in respect of the +last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. If we were disposed before to +regard their omission of an important passage as a serious matter, we +certainly cannot any longer so regard it. We have by this time seen enough +to disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B and א are the very +reverse of infallible guides. Their deflections from the Truth of +Scripture are more constant, as well as more licentious by far, than those +of their younger brethren: their unauthorized omissions from the sacred +text are not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also. And yet +the main matter before us,—_their omission of the last twelve verses of S. +Mark’s Gospel_,—when rightly understood, proves to be an entirely +different phenomenon from what an ordinary reader might have been led to +suppose. Attention is specially requested for the remarks which follow. + +IV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the +oldest we possess, S. Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly at the 8th verse of the +xvith chapter, and that the customary subscription (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ) +follows,—is true; but it is far from being _the whole_ truth. It requires +to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been +to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of _the next ensuing +column_ to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding +book, has at the close of S. Mark’s Gospel deviated from his else +invariable practice. He has left in this place one column entirely vacant. +It is _the only vacant column_ in the whole manuscript;—a blank space +_abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless +withheld. Why_ did he leave that column vacant? _What_ can have induced +the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? +The phenomenon,—(I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to +it,)—is in the highest degree significant, and admits of only one +interpretation. _The older MS._ from which Cod. B was copied must have +infallibly _contained_ the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was +instructed to leave them out,—and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank +space _in memoriam rei_. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was +silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the +Vatican Codex is made to _refute itself_ even while it seems to be bearing +testimony against the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, by +withholding them: for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary +circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By +_leaving room_ for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at +the end of fifteen centuries and a half, _a more ancient witness than +itself_. The venerable Author of the original Codex from which Codex B was +copied, is thereby brought to view. And thus, our supposed adversary +(Codex B) proves our most useful ally: for it procures us the testimony of +an hitherto unsuspected witness. The earlier scribe, I repeat, +unmistakably comes forward at this stage of the inquiry, to explain that +_he_ at least is prepared to answer for the genuineness of these Twelve +concluding Verses with which the later scribe, his copyist, from his +omission of them, might unhappily be thought to have been unacquainted. + +It will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting that the scribe +of Cod. B. _may_ have copied from a MS. which exhibited the same +phenomenon which he has himself reproduced. This, by shifting the question +a little further back, does but make the case against Cod. א the stronger. + +But in truth, after the revelation which has been already elicited from +Cod. B, the evidence of Cod. א may be very summarily disposed of. I have +already, on independent grounds, ventured to assign to that Codex a +somewhat later date than is claimed for the Codex Vaticanus.(151) My +opinion is confirmed by observing that the Sinaitic contains no such blank +space at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel as is conspicuous in the Vatican +Codex. I infer that the Sinaitic was copied from a Codex which had been +already mutilated, and reduced to the condition of Cod. B; and that the +scribe, only because he knew not what it meant, exhibited S. Mark’s Gospel +in consequence as if it really had no claim to those twelve concluding +verses which, nevertheless, _every_ authority we have hitherto met with +has affirmed to belong to it of right. + +Whatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion, it is at least +undeniable that Cod. B and Cod. א are at variance on the main point. They +_contradict_ one another concerning the twelve concluding verses of S. +Mark’s Gospel. For while Cod. א refuses to know anything at all about +those verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by volunteering +the statement that they were found in the older codex, of which it is in +every other respect a faithful representative. The older and the better +manuscript (B), therefore, refutes its junior (א). And it will be seen +that logically this brings the inquiry to a close, as far as the evidence +of the manuscripts is concerned. We have referred to the oldest extant +copy of the Gospels in order to obtain its testimony: and,—“Though without +the Twelve Verses concerning which you are so solicitous,” (it seems to +say,) “I yet hesitate not to confess to you that an older copy than +myself,—the ancient Codex from which I was copied,—actually did contain +them.” + +The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of the four oldest +Codices of the Gospels extant,—B, א, A, C,—two (B and א) are _without_ +these twelve verses: two (A and C) are _with_ them. Are these twelve +verses then an unauthorized _addition_ to A and C? or are they an +unwarrantable _omission_ from B and א? B itself declares plainly that from +itself they are an omission. And B is the oldest Codex of the Gospel in +existence. What candid mind will persist in clinging to the solitary fact +that from the single Codex א these verses are away, in proof that “S. +Mark’s Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude +it?” + +Let others decide, therefore, whether the present discussion has not +already reached a stage at which an unprejudiced Arbiter might be expected +to address the prosecuting parties somewhat to the following effect:— + +“This case must now be dismissed. The charge brought by yourselves against +these Verses was, that they are an unauthorized addition to the second +Gospel; a spurious appendix, of which the Evangelist S. Mark can have +known nothing. But so far from substantiating this charge, you have not +adduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable. + +“The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to MSS. It has been +accepted. And with what result? + +(_a_) “Those many Fathers whom you represented as hostile, prove on +investigation to be reducible to _one_, viz. Eusebius: and Eusebius, as we +have seen, _does not say_ that the verses are spurious, but on the +contrary labours hard to prove that they may very well be genuine. On the +other hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote them without +any signs of misgiving. In this way, the positive evidence in their favour +is carried back to the iind century. + +(_b_) “Declining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted on an appeal +to MSS. On the MSS., in fact, you still make your stand,—or rather you +rely on _the oldest_ of them; for, (as you are aware,) _every MS. in the +world except the two oldest_ are against you. + +“I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.; and it has +volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than itself—_the Codex from which +it was copied_—was furnished with those very Verses which you wish me to +believe that some older MS. still must needs have been without. What else +can be said, then, of your method but that it is frivolous? and of your +charge, but that it is contradicted by the evidence to which you +yourselves appeal? + +“But it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides. + +“For it is high time to point out that even if it so happened that the +oldest known MS. was observed to be without these twelve concluding +verses, it would still remain a thing unproved (not to say highly +improbable) that from the autograph of the Evangelist himself they were +also away. Supposing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the iind +or iiird century could be found who quoted them: even so, it would not +follow that there existed no such verses for a primitive Father to quote. +The earliest of the Versions might in addition yield faltering testimony; +but even so, _who_ would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis +the monstrous hypothesis, that S. Mark’s Gospel when it left the hands of +its inspired Author was without the verses which at present conclude it? +How, then, would you have proposed to account for the consistent testimony +of an opposite kind yielded by every other known document in the world? + +“But, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case? (1) The earliest +of the Fathers,—(2) the most venerable of the Versions,—(3) the oldest MS. +of which we can obtain any tidings,—_all_ are observed to _recognize these +Verses_. ‘Cadit quaestio’ therefore. The last shadow of pretext has +vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that ‘Mark the Evangelist knew +nothing of’ these verses:—with Tregelles that ‘The book of Mark himself +extends no further than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ:’—with Griesbach that ‘the _last +leaf of the original Gospel was probably torn away_.’... It is high time, +I say, that this case were dismissed. But there are also costs to be paid. +Cod. B and Cod. א are convicted of being ‘two false witnesses,’ and must +be held to go forth from this inquiry with an injured reputation.” + +This entire subject is of so much importance that I must needs yet awhile +crave the reader’s patience and attention. + + + + + + CHAPTER VII. + + +MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE +VERSES.—PART II. + + + The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and א (viz. the omission + of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1) considered.—Antiquity + unfavourable to the omission of those words (p. 93).—The Moderns + infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission (p. + 100).—Marcion probably the author of this corruption of the Text + of Scripture (p. 106).—Other peculiarities of Codex א disposed of + (p. 109). + + +The subject which exclusively occupied our attention throughout the +foregoing chapter admits of apt and powerful illustration. Its vast +importance will be a sufficient apology for the particular disquisition +which follows, and might have been spared, but for the plain challenge of +the famous Critic to be named immediately. + +“There are two remarkable readings,” (says Tischendorf, addressing English +readers on this subject in 1868,) “which are very instructive towards +determining the age of the manuscripts [א and B], and _their authority_.” +He proceeds to adduce,— + +1. The absence from both, of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s +Gospel,—concerning which, the reader probably thinks that by this time he +has heard enough. Next,— + +2. He appeals to their omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from the first verse +of S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians,—_another peculiarity, in which +Codd._ א _and B stand quite alone among MSS._ + +I. Here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the New +Testament indeed. Altogether unique is it: and that it powerfully +corroborates the general opinion of their high antiquity, no one will +deny. But how about “their _authority_”? Does the coincidence also raise +our opinion of _the trustworthiness of the Text_, which these two MSS. +concur in exhibiting? for _that_ is the question which has to be +considered,—the _only_ question. The ancientness of a reading is one +thing: its genuineness, (as I have explained elsewhere,) quite another. +The questions are entirely distinct. It may even be added that while the +one is really of little moment, the latter is of all the importance in the +world. I am saying that it matters very little whether Codd. א and B were +written in the beginning of the ivth century, or in the beginning of the +vth: whereas it matters much, or rather it matters _everything_, whether +they exhibit the Word of GOD faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous +license. How far the reading which results from the suppression of the +last two words in the phrase τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, is +_critically allowable_ or not, I forbear to inquire. That is not the point +which we have to determine. The one question to be considered is,—May it +_possibly_ be the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way +_credible_ that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as +follows:—Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις +τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ?... If it be eagerly declared in +reply that the thing is simply incredible: that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are +required for the sense; and that the commonly received reading is no doubt +the correct one: then,—there is an end of the discussion. Two +extraordinary notes of sympathy between two Manuscripts will have been +appealed to as crucial proofs of the _trustworthiness of the Text_ of +those Manuscripts: (for of their high _Antiquity_, let me say it once +more, there can be no question whatever:) and it will have been proved in +one case,—admitted in the other,—that _the omission is unwarrantable_.—If, +however, on the contrary, it be maintained that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ +probably had no place in the original copy of this Epistle, but are to be +regarded as an unauthorized addition to it,—then, (as in the case of the +Twelve Verses omitted from the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, and which it was +_also_ pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand to be shewn +the evidence on the strength of which this opinion is maintained, in order +that we may ascertain what it is precisely worth. + +Tischendorf,—the illustrious discoverer and champion of Codex א, and who +is accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ +as _the other_ conclusive proof of the trustworthiness of its text,—may be +presumed to be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as well +as the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its support. From +him, we learn that the evidence for the omission of the words in question +is as follows:—“In the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read, +‘to the saints which are at Ephesus;’ but Marcion (A.D. 130-140), did not +find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy. The same is true of Origen (A.D. +185-254); and Basil the Great (who died A.D. 379), affirmed that those +words were wanting in _old_ copies. And this omission accords very well +with the encyclical or general character of the Epistle. At the present +day, our ancient Greek MSS., and all ancient Versions, contain the words +‘at Ephesus;’ yea (_sic_), even Jerome knew no copy with a different +reading. Now, only the Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the _old_ +copies of Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion.”(152)—This then is the +sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat in detail. + +(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned writer is +absolutely without authority for his assertion that “Marcion _did not +find_ the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy” of S. Paul’s Epistle to the +Ephesians. Tischendorf’s one pretence for saying so is Tertullian’s +statement that certain heretics, (Marcion he specifies by name,) had given +to S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians” the unauthorized title of “Epistle +_to the Laodiceans_.”(153) This, (argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not +have done had he found ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the first verse.(154) But the proposed +inference is clearly invalid. For, with what show of reason can +Marcion,—whom Tertullian taxes with having dared “_titulum interpolare_” +in the case of S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians,”—be _therefore_, +assumed to have read the first verse differently from ourselves? Rather is +the directly opposite inference suggested by the very language in which +Tertullian (who was all but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the +circumstance.(155) + +Those, however, who would really understand the work of the heretic, +should turn from the African Father,—(who after all does but say that +Marcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul’s Epistle to the +_Ephesians_, that it was addressed to the _Laodiceans_,)—and betake +themselves to the pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a +half later. This Father had for many years made Marcion’s work his special +study,(156) and has elaborately described it, as well as presented us with +copious extracts from it.(157) And the account in Epiphanius proves that +Tischendorf is mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the English +reader, (quoted above;) and that he would have better consulted for his +reputation if he had kept to the “ut videtur” with which (in his edition +of 1859) he originally broached his opinion. It proves in fact to be no +matter of opinion at all. Epiphanius states distinctly that the _Epistle +to the Ephesians_ was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which Marcion +_retained_. In his “Apostolicon,” or collection of the (mutilated) +Apostolical Epistles, the “Epistle to the Ephesians,” (identified by the +considerable quotations which Epiphanius makes from it,(158)) stood (he +says) _seventh_ in order; while the (so called) “Epistle to the +Laodiceans,”—a distinct composition therefore,—had the _eleventh_, that +is, the last place assigned to it.(159) That this latter Epistle contained +a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius records +the fact in two places.(160) But then it is to be borne in mind that he +charges Marcion with having derived that quotation _from the Apocryphal +Epistle to the Laodiceans_;(161) instead of taking it, as he ought to have +done, from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage, when +faithfully exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by its very form refutes +the heretical tenet which the context of Marcion’s spurious epistle to the +Laodiceans was intended to establish; and which the verse in question, in +its interpolated form, might seem to favour.(162)—I have entered into this +whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: but I was +determined to prove that Tischendorf’s statement that “Marcion (A.D. +130-140) did not find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy,”—is absolutely +without foundation. It is even _contradicted_ by the known facts of the +case. I shall have something more to say about Marcion by-and-by; who, it +is quite certain, read the text of Ephes. i. 1 exactly as we do. + +(2.) The _only_ Father who so expresses himself as to warrant the +inference that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were absent from his copy, is Origen, in +the beginning of the third century. “Only in the case of the Ephesians,” +(he writes), “do we meet with the expression ‘the Saints which are:’ and +we inquire,—Unless that additional phrase be simply redundant, what can it +possibly signify? Consider, then, whether those who have been partakers of +_His_ nature who revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I AM, may not, +in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as ‘those _which +are_:’ persons, called out, of a state of _not_-being, so to speak, into a +state of _being_.”(163)—If Origen had read τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ +in his copy, it is to me incredible that he would have gone so very far +out of his way to miss the sense of such a plain, and in fact, +unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis before +him,—_reasoning however only from the place in Basil,_ (to be quoted +immediately,)—are unwilling to allow that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were ever +away from the text. It must be admitted as the obvious inference from what +Jerome has delivered on this subject (_infrà_, p. 98 _note_) that he, too, +seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be called) of +Codd. B and א. + +(3) The influence which Origen’s writings exercised over his own and the +immediately succeeding ages of the Church, was prodigious. Basil, bishop +of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150 +years later,—although he read ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his own copy of S. Paul’s +Epistles,—thought fit to avail himself of Origen’s suggestion. It suited +his purpose. He was proving the eternal existence of the SON of GOD. Even +_not to know_ GOD (he remarks) is _not to be_: in proof of which, he +quotes S. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. i. 28:—“Things _which are not_, hath GOD +chosen.” “Nay,” (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, “in his Epistle to the +Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge +were truly joined to Him who ‘IS,’ designates them specially as ‘those +_which are_:’ saying,—‘To the Saints _which are_, and faithful in CHRIST +JESUS.’ ” That this fancy was not original, Basil makes no secret. He +derived it, (he says,) from “those who were before us;” a plain allusion +to the writings of Origen. But neither was _the reading_ his own, either. +This is evident. He had _found_ it, he says,—(an asseveration +indispensable to the validity of his argument,)—but only after he had made +search,(164)—“_in the old copies_.”(165) No doubt, Origen’s strange fancy +must have been even _unintelligible_ to Basil when first he met with it. +In plain terms, it sounds to this day incredibly foolish,—when read apart +from the mutilated text which alone suggested it to Origen’s fervid +imagination.—But what there is in all this to induce us to suspect that +Origen’s reading was after all the _right_ one, and _ours_ the _wrong_, I +profess myself wholly at a loss to discover. Origen himself complains +bitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time; and attributes +it (1) to the carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of +correctors of the text: (3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopting +some of these corrections and rejecting others, according to their own +private caprice.(166) + +(4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters than either Origen +or Basil, after rehearsing the preceding gloss, (but only to reject it,) +remarks that “certain persons” had been “over-fanciful” in putting it +forth. He alludes probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians, +in three books, he expressly relates that he employed:(167) but he does +not seem to have apprehended that Origen’s text _was without the words_ ἐν +Ἐφέσῳ. If he was acquainted with Origen’s text, (of which, however, his +writings afford no indication,) it is plain that he disapproved of it. +Others, he says, understand S. Paul to say not “the Saints _which are_:” +but,—“the Saints and faithful _which are at Ephesus_.”(168) + +(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit that there has +been elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to +shake our confidence in the universally received reading of Ephesians i. +1. The facts of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully +stated in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the ivth century, (exhibiting in +other respects several striking notes of vicious sympathy,) are found to +conspire in omitting a clause in Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it +is to the sense,) may be inferred to have been absent from Origen’s copy: +and Basil testifies that it was absent from “the old copies” to which he +himself obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter: in which +it is much to be noted that Origen does not say that he _approved_ of this +reading. Still less does Basil. They both witness to _the fact_ that the +words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were omitted from _some_ copies of the iiird century, just +as Codd. B and א witness to the same fact in the ivth. But what then? +Origen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings +confessedly worthless; and, why not here? For not only is the text all but +_unintelligible_ if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ be omitted: but (what is far more +to the purpose) the direct evidence of _all_ the copies, whether uncial or +cursive,(169)—and of _all_ the Versions,—is _against_ the omission. In the +face of this overwhelming mass of unfaltering evidence to insist that +Codd. B and א must yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity +wrong, is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of this +nonsensical reading, of _two_ MSS. confessedly untrustworthy in countless +other places,—against _all_ the MSS.—_all_ the Versions,—is nothing else +but an act of vulgar prejudice. I venture to declare,—(and with this I +shall close the discussion and dismiss the subject,)—that _there does not +exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament_ of a reading +even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin +concur,—which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings +which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz. + +1. The adverse testimony of _all the uncial MSS. except two_. + +2. The adverse testimony of all, or _very nearly all_, the cursive MSS. + +3. The adverse testimony of _all the Versions_, without exception. + +4. The adverse testimony of _the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers_. + +To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,— + +5. _The highest inherent improbability_,—it is only because I desire to +treat this question purely as one of _Evidence_. + +II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity _to account for_ the +phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is +commendable; but I take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set +about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every +corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first +three centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough +to do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod. +B shews marvellous sympathy(170),) and explain if he can why there is a +grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and +how it comes to pass that Cod. D “reproduces the ‘textus receptus’ of the +Acts much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the +Hebrew of the Old Testament; so wide are the variations in the diction, so +constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means +of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a +semblance of internal probability.”(171) Our business as Critics is not +_to invent theories_ to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to +ascertain where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable +depravations of early Heretics,—the preposterous emendations of ancient +Critics,—the injudicious assiduity of Harmonizers,—the licentious caprice +of individuals;—what with errors resulting from the inopportune +recollection of similar or parallel places,—or from the familiar +phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections,—or from the inattention of +Scribes,—or from marginal glosses;—however arising, endless are the +corrupt readings of the oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means +safe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory +to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories +are seldom satisfactory. _Guesses_ only they are at best. + +Thus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of +Ussher,—(which, however, found favour with Garnier (Basil’s editor), +Bengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and has since been not only eagerly +advocated by Conybeare and Howson following a host of German Critics, but +has even enjoyed Mr. Scrivener’s distinct approval;)—that the Epistle to +the Ephesians “was _a Circular_ addressed to other Asiatic Cities besides +the capital Ephesus,—to Laodicea perhaps among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and +that while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephesus in the +first verse, _others may have had another city substituted, or the space +after_ τοῖς οὔσιν _left utterly void_.”(172) At first sight, this +conjecture has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it to +our favour. On closer inspection,—(i) It is found to be not only +gratuitous; but (ii) altogether unsupported and unsanctioned by the known +facts of the case; and (what is most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I +humbly think, demonstrably erroneous. I demur to it,— + +(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (_a_) when S. Paul sent +his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tychicus, the bearer of it,(173) +was charged with _a distinct Epistle_ to the Colossians:(174) an Epistle +nevertheless so singularly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is +scarcely credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epistles to +two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of +them, (_that_ to the Ephesians,) furnished with a different address, to so +large and important a place as Laodicea, for example, (_b_) Then further, +the provision which S. Paul made at this very time for communicating with +the Churches of Asia which he did not separately address is found to have +been different. The Laodiceans were to read in their public assembly S. +Paul’s “_Epistle to the Colossians_,” which the Colossians were ordered to +send them. The Colossians in like manner were to read the Epistle,—(to +whom addressed, we know not),—which S. Paul describes as τὴν ἐκ +Λαοδικείας.(175) If then it had been S. Paul’s desire that the Laodiceans +(suppose) should read publicly in their Churches his Epistle to the +Ephesians, surely, he would have charged the Ephesians to procure that +_his Epistle to them should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans_. Why +should the Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously adopted +one method with the Churches of _Colosse_ and Laodicea,—another with the +Churches of _Ephesus_ and Laodicea,—in respect of his epistolary +communications? + +(2) (_a_) But even supposing, for argument’s sake, that S. Paul _did_ send +duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the +principal Churches of Asia Minor,—why should he have left the salutation +_blank_, (“carta bianca,” as Bengel phrases it,(176)) for Tychicus to fill +up when he got into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short +of _this_ would account for the reading of Codd. B and א. + +(_b_) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature +be clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A +copy of what we call S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians” sent into Asia +Minor by S. Paul with a blank address; i.e. “with the space after τοῖς +οὔσιν left utterly void:” (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that +blank: and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up +for him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy +seen by Origen, and (5) Of the “old copies” seen by Basil; as well as (6) +Of Codd. B and א. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains +us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) _One other_ copy of this same +“Encyclical Epistle,” filled up with the Ephesian address, became the +archetype of _every other copy of this Epistle in the world_.... But of +what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such +a marvellous structure of hypothesis,—of which the top story overhangs and +overbalances all the rest of the edifice? The thing which puzzles us in +Codd. B and א is not that we find the name of _another City_ in the +salutation of S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians,” but that we find the +name of _no_ city at all; nor meet with any vacant space there. + +(_c_) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to +different Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as +of course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious +documents left his hands,—then, doubtless, each several Church would have +received, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if _this_ had +been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the +Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a +word about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there +should nowhere exist traces of _conflicting testimony_ as to the Church to +which S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas _all_ the +most ancient writers, without exception,—(Marcion himself [A.D. 140(177)], +the “Muratorian” fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Irenæus [A.D. 175], +Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian, +Eusebius,)—and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying, +unfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. א, (and this is much to be +noted,) the _superscription_ of the Epistle attests that it was addressed +“to the Ephesians.” Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in +inventing facts in the history of an Apostle’s practice, in order to +account for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his +text?(178) + +(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such “_a Circular_” as +was described above, (each copy furnished with a blank, to be filled up +with the name of a different City,) would be a document without parallel +in the annals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware, +essentially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the suggestion +before us is only another instance of the fatal misapprehension which +results from the incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some +familiar word in a living language to its supposed equivalent in an +ancient tongue. Thus, because κύκλιος or ἐγκύκλιος confessedly signifies +“circularis,” it seems to be imagined that ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολή may mean “a +Circular Letter.” Whereas it really means nothing of the sort; but—“_a +Catholic Epistle_.”(179) + +An “_Encyclical_” (and _that_ is the word which has been imported into the +present discussion), was quite a different document from what _we_ call “a +Circular.” Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was +Catholic or General,—the common property of all to whom it came. The +General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, S. John are +“Encyclical.”(180) So is the well-known Canonical Epistle which Gregory, +Bp. of Neocæsaræa in Pontus, in the middle of the third century, sent to +the Bishops of his province.(181) As for “_a blank circular_” to be filled +up with the words “in Ephesus,” “in Laodicea,” &c.,—its like (I repeat) is +wholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. The two notions +are at all events inconsistent and incompatible. If S. Paul’s Epistle to +the Ephesians was “a Circular,” then it was not “Encyclical:” if it was +“Encyclical” then it was not “a Circular.” + +Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are +logically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies the fifth place among +S. Paul’s writings, and which from the beginning of the second +century,—that is, from the very dawn of Historical evidence,—has been +known as “the Epistle to the Ephesians,” was an “Encyclical,” “Catholic” +or “General Epistle,”—addressed τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν +Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ? There does not live the man who will accept so irrational a +supposition. The suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to +account for the absence of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in Ephes. i. 1 is not only +in itself in the highest degree improbable, and contradicted by all the +evidence to which we have access; but it is even inadmissible on critical +grounds, and must be unconditionally surrendered.(182) It is observed to +collapse before every test which can be applied to it. + +III. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me,—if men must needs +account for the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from this place,—that they +should have recourse to wild, improbable, and wholly unsupported theories, +like those which go before; while an easy,—I was going to say the +obvious,—solution of the problem is close at hand, and even solicits +acceptance. + +Marcion the heretic, (A.D. 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (A.D. +200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly +mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul’s Epistles in particular. +Epiphanius compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to a +moth-eaten coat.(183) “Instead of a stylus,” (says Tertullian,) “Marcion +employed a knife.” “What wonder if he omits syllables, since often he +omits whole pages?”(184) S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian +even singles out by name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a +new title. All this has been fully explained above, from page 93 to page +96. + +Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul’s Epistle “_to the Ephesians_” +that Apostolical writing which stands fifth in our Canon, (but which stood +seventh in his,) is just as certain as that he recognised as such S. +Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, +Colossians, Philippians. All this has been fully explained in a preceding +page.(185) + +But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul’s _another_ +Epistle,—of which all we know for certain is, that it contained portions +of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and purported to be addressed by S. Paul +“to the Laodiceans.” To ascertain with greater precision the truth of this +matter at the end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible. +Nor is it necessary. Obvious is it to suspect that not only did this +heretical teacher at some period of his career prefix a new heading to +certain copies of the Epistle to the Ephesians, but also that some of his +followers industriously erased from certain other copies the words ἐν +Ἐφέσῳ in ver. 1,—as being _the only two words in the entire Epistle_ which +effectually refuted their Master. It was not needful, (be it observed,) to +multiply copies of the Epistle for the propagation of Marcion’s deceit. +Only two words had to be erased,—_the very two words whose omission we are +trying to account for_,—in order to give some colour to his proposed +attribution of the Epistle, (“quasi in isto diligentissimus +explorator,”)—to the Laodiceans. One of these mutilated copies will have +fallen into the hands of Origen,—who often complains of the corrupt state +of his text: while the critical personages for whom Cod. B and Cod. א were +transcribed will probably have been acquainted with other such mutilated +copies. Are we not led, as it were by the hand, to take some such view of +the case? In this way we account satisfactorily, and on grounds of +historic evidence, for the omission which has exercised the Critics so +severely. + +I do not lose sight of the fact that the Epistle to the Ephesians ends +without salutations, without personal notices of any kind. But in this +respect it is not peculiar.(186) _That_,—joined to a singular absence of +identifying allusion,—sufficiently explains why Marcion selected this +particular Epistle for the subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this +circumstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Universal, and in +defiance of its very Title, that the Epistle is “Encyclical,” in the +technical sense of that word; and to go on to urge this characteristic as +an argument in support of the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ,—is clearly +the device of an eager Advocate; not the method of a calm and unprejudiced +Judge. True it is that S. Paul,—who, writing to the Corinthians from +Ephesus, says “_the Churches of Asia_ salute you,” (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)—may +have known very well that an Epistle of his “to the Ephesians,” would, as +a matter of course, be instantly communicated to others besides the +members of that particular Church: and in fact this may explain why there +is nothing specially “Ephesian” in the contents of the Epistle. The +Apostle,—(as when he addressed “the Churches of Galatia,”)—may have had +certain of the other neighbouring Churches in his mind while he wrote. But +all this is wholly foreign to the question before us: the one _only_ +question being _this_,—Which of the three following addresses represents +what S. Paul must be considered to have actually written in the first +verse of his “Epistle to the Ephesians”?— + +(1) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ. + +(2) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν ἐν ... καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ. + +(3) τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὔσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ. + +What I have been saying amounts to this: that it is absolutely +unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting +every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the +words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have +under their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the iind +century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, “presumed to prefix an +unauthorized title to that very Epistle,” (“Marcion ei titulum aliquando +interpolare gestiit,”)—which title obviously _could not stand unless those +two words were first erased from the text_. To interpolate that new title, +and to erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it, were +obviously correlative acts which must always have been performed together. + +But however all this may be, (as already pointed out,) the only question +to be determined by us is,—whether it be credible that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ +are an unauthorized addition; foisted into the text of Ephes. i. 1 as far +back as the Apostolic age: an interpolation which, instead of dying out, +and at last all but disappearing, has spread and established itself, until +the words are found in every copy,—are represented in every +translation,—have been recognised in every country,—witnessed to by every +Father,—received in every age of the Church? I repeat that the one +question which has to be decided is, not _how_ the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ came to +be put in, or came to be left out; but simply whether, on an impartial +review of the evidence, it be reasonable (with Tischendorf, Tregelles, +Conybeare and Howson, and so many more,) to suspect their genuineness and +enclose them in brackets? Is it _credible_ that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are a +spurious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph of the +Apostle?... We have already, as I think, obtained a satisfactory answer to +this question. It has been shewn, as conclusively as in inquiries of this +nature is possible, that in respect of the reading of Ephesians i. 1, +Codd. B and א are even _most_ conspicuously at fault. + +IV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted of error in respect of the +one remaining text which their chief upholders have selected, and to which +they still make their most confident appeal,—what remains, but to point +out that it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their +minds of the extravagant opinion which they have been so industriously +taught to entertain of the value of the two Codices in question? It has +already degenerated into an unreasoning prejudice, and threatens at last +to add one more to the already overgrown catalogue of “vulgar errors.” + +V. I cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by Tischendorf than by +transcribing in conclusion his remarks on the four remaining readings of +Codex א to which he triumphantly appeals: promising to dismiss them all +with a single remark. He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his +“Introduction” to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament(187):— + + + “To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen says on + John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, ‘in Him _is_ life’ + for ‘in Him _was_ life.’ This is a reading which we find in sundry + quotations before the time of Origen;(188) but now, among all + known Greek MSS. it is _only in the Sinaitic, and the famous old + Codex Bezae_, a copy of the Gospels at Cambridge; yet it is also + found in most of the early Latin versions, in the most ancient + Syriac, and in the oldest Coptic.—Again, in Matth. xiii. 35, + Jerome observes that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist + of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew for + having said, ‘which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.’ A writing + of the second century had already witnessed to the same reading; + but Jerome adds further that well-informed men had long ago + removed the name of Esaias. Among all our MSS. of a thousand years + old and upwards, _there is not a solitary example containing the + name of Esaias in the text referred to,—except the Sinaitic_, to + which a few of less than a thousand years old may be added.—Once + more, Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but _only the + Sinaitic and several ancient Latin MSS._ read it the same as + Origen: ‘He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every + whit.’—In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difficult + to settle, the _Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies_ + indubitably correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second + century, confirms the Sinaitic reading: ‘If any man eat of my + bread, he shall live for ever. The bread that I will give for the + life of the world is my flesh.’ We omit to indicate further + illustrations of this kind, although there are many others like + them.”(189) + + +Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to exist in the +mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless confusion between the +_antiquity_ of a Codex and the _value_ of its readings. I venture to +assert that a reading is valuable or the contrary, exactly in proportion +to the probability of its being true or false. Interesting it is sure to +be, be it what it may, if it be found in a very ancient codex,—interesting +and often instructive: but the editor of Scripture must needs bring every +reading, wherever found, to this test at last:—Is it to be thought that +what I am here presented with is what the Evangelist or the Apostle +actually wrote? If an answer in the negative be obtained to this question, +then, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early Fathers appear to +have so read the place, will not avail to impart to the rejected reading +one particle of _value_. And yet Tischendorf thinks it enough in _all_ the +preceding passages to assure his reader that a given reading in Cod. א was +recognised by Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have established this +one point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in all this an +utterly false major premiss: viz. That Scriptural quotations found in the +writings of Origen, of Tertullian, of Jerome, must needs be the _ipsissima +verba_ of the SPIRIT. Whereas it is notorious “that the worst corruptions +to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a +hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus and the whole Western, +with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to +those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries +later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”(190) And one is astonished that +a Critic of so much sagacity, (who of course knows better,) should +deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy,—not only without a word of +explanation, a word of caution, but in such a manner as inevitably to +mislead an unsuspecting reader. Without offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must +be allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been considering, he +shews himself far more bent on glorifying the “Codex Sinaiticus” than in +establishing the Truth of the pure Word of GOD. He convinces me that to +have found an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have “taken +a gift.” Verily, “_it doth blind the eyes of the wise_.”(191) + +And with this, I shall conclude my remarks on these two famous Codices. I +humbly record my deliberate conviction that when the Science of Textual +Criticism, which is at present only in its infancy, comes to be better +understood; (and a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New +Testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a +trustworthy basis;) a very different estimate will be formed of the +importance of not a few of those readings which at present are received +with unquestioning submission, chiefly on the authority of Codex B and +Codex א. On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that no future +collations, no future discoveries, will ever make it credible that the +last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are a spurious supplement to the +Evangelical Narrative; or that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are an unauthorized +interpolation of the inspired Text. + +And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex א. + +I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the “Internal +Evidence,” but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet +fully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient “Scholia” +and “Notes,” and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection +of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this may reasonably +claim one entire Chapter to itself. + + + + + + CHAPTER VIII. + + +THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE SUBJECT OF THESE +VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED. + + + Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their + predecessors’ inaccuracies.—Birch’s unfortunate mistake (p. + 117).—Scholz’ serious blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).—Griesbach’s + sweeping misstatement (pp. 121-2).—The grave misapprehension which + has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3); Codex + L (p. 123).—Ammonius not the author of the so-called “Ammonian” + Sections (p. 125).—Epiphanius (p. 132).—“Caesarius,” a + misnomer.—“The Catenae,” misrepresented (p. 133). + + +In the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review whatever manuscript +testimony still remains unconsidered; our attention having been hitherto +exclusively devoted to Codices B and א. True, that the rest of the +evidence may be disposed of in a single short sentence:—_The Twelve Verses +under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence with +the exception of Codices B and א_. But then, + +I. We are assured,—(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)—that “a Note or a +Scholion stating the absence of these verses from _many_, from _most_, or +from the _most correct_ copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in +twenty-five other cursive Codices.”(192) Tischendorf has nearly the same +words: “Scholia” (he says) “in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of +Mark in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the ninth +verse.” That distinguished Critic supports his assertion by appealing to +seven MSS. in particular,—and referring generally to “about twenty-five +others.” Dr. Davidson adopts every word of this blindfold. + +1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department of the +Evidence would become deserving of serious attention. But I simply _deny +the fact_. I entirely deny that the “Note or Scholion” which these learned +persons affirm to be of such frequent occurrence has any existence +whatever,—except in their own imaginations. On the other hand, I assert +that notes or scholia which state the exact reverse, (viz. that “in the +older” or “the more accurate copies” the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s +Gospel _are contained_,) recur even perpetually. The plain truth is +this:—These eminent persons have taken their information at +second-hand,—partly from Griesbach, partly from Scholz,—without suspicion +and without inquiry. But then they have slightly misrepresented Scholz; +and Scholz (1830) slightly misunderstood Griesbach; and Griesbach (1796) +took liberties with Wetstein; and Wetstein (1751) made a few serious +mistakes. The consequence might have been anticipated. The Truth, once +thrust out of sight, certain erroneous statements have usurped its +place,—which every succeeding Critic now reproduces, evidently to his own +entire satisfaction; though not, it must be declared, altogether to his +own credit. Let me be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred. + +2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German plan of setting +down _all_ the twenty-five MSS.(193) and _all_ the five Patristic +authorities which up to his time had been cited as bearing on the +genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: giving the former _in numerical order_, +and stating generally concerning them that in one or other of those +authorities it would be found recorded “that the verses in question were +anciently _wanting_ in some, or in most, or in almost all the Greek +copies, or in the most accurate ones:—or else that they were _found_ in a +few, or in the more accurate copies, or in many, or in most of them, +specially in the Palestinian Gospel.” The learned writer (who had made up +his mind long before that the verses in question are to be rejected) no +doubt perceived that this would be the most convenient way of disposing of +the evidence for and against: but one is at a loss to understand how +English scholars can have acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well +nigh a hundred years. A very little study of the subject would have shewn +them that Griesbach derived the first eleven of his references from +Wetstein,(194) the last fourteen from Birch.(195) As for Scholz, he +unsuspiciously adopted Griesbach’s fatal enumeration of Codices; adding +five to the number; and only interrupting the series here and there, in +order to insert the quotations which Wetstein had already supplied from +certain of them. With Scholz, therefore, rests the blame of everything +which has been written since 1830 concerning the MS. evidence for this +part of S. Mark’s Gospel; subsequent critics having been content to adopt +his statements without acknowledgment and without examination. +Unfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such a slovenly style, +that besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones; which, of +course, have been reproduced by those who have simply translated or +transcribed him. And now I shall examine his note “(z)”,(196) with which +practically all that has since been delivered on this subject by +Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is identical. + +(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two MSS. in the +Vatican Library(197) the verses in question “are marked with an asterisk.” +The original author of this statement was Birch, who followed it up by +explaining the fatal signification of this mark.(198) From that day to +this, the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been religiously +reproduced by every Critic in turn; and it is universally taken for +granted that they represent two ancient witnesses against the genuineness +of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. + +And yet, (let me say it without offence,) a very little attention ought to +be enough to convince any one familiar with this subject that the proposed +inference is absolutely inadmissible. For, in the first place, a +_solitary_ asterisk (not at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.(199)) +has of necessity no such signification. And even if it does sometimes +indicate that all the verses which follow are suspicious, (of which, +however, I have never seen an example,) it clearly _could_ not have that +signification here,—for a reason which I should have thought an +intelligent boy might discover. + +Well aware, however, that I should never be listened to, with Birch and +Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and indeed every one else against me,—I +got a learned friend at Rome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and +inspect the two Codices in question.(200) That he would find Birch right +_in his facts_, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more than doubted the +correctness of his proposed inference from them. I even felt convinced +that the meaning and purpose of the asterisks in question would be +demonstrably different from what Birch had imagined. + +Altogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found that the learned +Dane has here made one of those (venial, but) unfortunate blunders to +which every one is liable who registers phenomena of this class in haste, +and does not methodize his memoranda until he gets home. To be +brief,—_there proves to be no asterisk at all,—either in Cod. 756, or in +Cod. 757_. + +On the contrary. After ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, the former Codex has, in the text of +S. Mark xvi. 9 (_fol. 150 b_), a plain cross,—(_not_ an asterisk, thus +[symbol: x with dots in corners] or [symbol: broken x with corner dots] or +[symbol: inverse or open x], but a cross, thus +),—the intention of which +is to refer the reader to an annotation on _fol. 151 b_, (marked, of +course, with a cross also,) _to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is +undoubtedly __ genuine_.(201) The evidence, therefore, not only breaks +hopelessly down; but it is discovered that this witness has been by +accident put into the wrong box. This is, in fact, a witness _not_ for the +plaintiff, but _for the defendant!_—As for the other Codex, it exhibits +neither asterisk nor cross; but contains the same note or scholion +attesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of S. Mark. + +I suppose I may now pass on: but I venture to point out that unless the +Witnesses which remain to be examined are able to produce very different +testimony from that borne by the last two, the present inquiry cannot be +brought to a close too soon. (“I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, +behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.”) + +(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as follows:—“From here +to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. _In the +ancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text_.”(202) Scholz (who +was the first to adduce this important testimony to the genuineness of the +verses now under consideration) takes no notice of the singular +circumstance that the two MSS. he mentions have been _exactly_ assimilated +in ancient times to a common model; and that they correspond one with the +other so entirely(203) that the foregoing rubrical annotation appears _in +the wrong place_ in both of them, viz. _at the close of ver._ 15, where it +interrupts the text. This was, therefore, once a scholion written in the +margin of some very ancient Codex, which has lost its way in the process +of transcription; (for there can be no doubt that it was originally +written against ver. 8.) And let it be noted that its testimony is +express; and that it avouches for the fact that “_in the ancient copies_,” +S. Mark xvi. 9-20 “_formed part of the text_.” + +(3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the same two MSS., (of +which also Scholz says nothing,) viz. that they exhibit a text which had +been “collated with the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem.”(204) +What need to point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in +conjunction with the express voucher that “although some copies of the +Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that _in the ancient +copies_ all the verses are found,” is a _critical attestation to the +genuineness_ of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20, far outweighing the bare statement +(next to be noticed) of the undeniable historical fact that, “_in some +copies_,” S. Mark _ends at ver._ 8,—but “in many _does not_”? + +(4.) Scholz proceeds:—“In Cod. 22, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τελος is read the +following rubric:”— + +ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγγελιστής: ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ +ταῦτα φέρεται.(205) + +And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by _all_ subsequent +Critics and Editors,—cross, and “τέλος,” and all,—as an additional ancient +attestation to the fact that “_The End_” (τέλος) _of S. Mark’s Gospel_ is +indeed at ch. xvi. 8. Strange,—incredible rather,—that among so many +learned persons, not one should have perceived that “τέλος” in this place +merely denotes that here _a well-known Ecclesiastical section comes to an +end_!... As far, therefore, as the present discussion is concerned, the +circumstance is purely irrelevant;(206) and, (as I propose to shew in +Chapter XI,) the less said about it by the opposite party, the better. + +(5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,) other Codices +very nearly the same colophon as the preceding recurs, with an important +additional clause. In Codd. 1, 199, 206, 209, (he says) is read,— + +“In certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here; _up to which +place Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized_. In other copies, +however, is found as follows.”(207) And then comes the rest of S. Mark’s +Gospel. + +I shall have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, and what he +“canonized,” by-and-by. But what is there in all this, (let me in the +meantime ask), to recommend the opinion that the Gospel of S. Mark was +published by its Author in an incomplete state; or that the last twelve +verses of it are of spurious origin? + +(6.) The reader’s attention is specially invited to the imposing statement +which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says Scholz,) “contain these words +of Severus of Antioch:— + + + “In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its + end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, however, this also + is added,—‘Now when He was risen,’ &c. This, however, seems to + contradict to some extent what was before delivered,” &c. + + +It may sound fabulous, but it is strictly true, that every word of this, +(unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by _every Critic_ who has since +gone over the same ground,) is a mere tissue of mistakes. For first,—Cod. +23 contains _nothing whatever pertinent to the present inquiry_. (Scholz, +evidently through haste and inadvertence, has confounded _his own_ “23” +with “_Coisl._ 23,” but “Coisl. 23” is his “39,”—of which by-and-by. This +reference therefore has to be cancelled.)—Cod. 41 contains a scholion of +_precisely the opposite tendency_: I mean, a scholion which avers that +_the accurate copies of S. Mark’s Gospel contain these last twelve +verses_. (Scholz borrowed this wrong reference from Wetstein,—who, by an +oversight, quotes Cod. 41 three times instead of twice.)—There remain but +Codd. 34 and 39; and in neither of those two manuscripts, from the first +page of S. Mark’s Gospel to the last, does there exist _any _“scholion of +Severus of Antioch”_ whatever_. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently made +a gross misstatement;(208) and every Critic who has since written on this +subject has adopted his words,—without acknowledgment and without +examination.... Such is the evidence on which it is proposed to prove that +S. Mark did not write the last twelve verses of his Gospel! + +(7.) Scholz proceeds to enumerate the following twenty-two Codices:—24, +34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 199, +206, 209, 210, 221, 222. And this imposing catalogue is what has misled +Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest. They have not perceived that it is _a +mere transcript of Griesbach’s list_; which Scholz interrupts only to give +from Cod. 24, (imperfectly and at second-hand,) the weighty scholion, +(Wetstein had given it from Cod. 41,) which relates, on the authority of +an eye-witness, that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 existed in the ancient Palestinian +Copy. (About that Scholion enough has been offered already.(209)) Scholz +adds that very nearly the same words are found in 374.—What he says +concerning 206 and 209 (and he might have added 199,) has been explained +above. + +But when the twenty MSS. which remain(210) undisposed of have been +scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite different from what is +commonly supposed. One of them (No. 38) has been cited in error: while the +remaining nineteen are nothing else but copies of _Victor of Antioch’s +commentary on S. Mark_,—no less than _sixteen_ of which contain the famous +attestation that in _most of the accurate copies, and in particular the +authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel_ +WERE FOUND. (See above, pp. 64 and 65.).... And this exhausts the +evidence. + +(8.) So far, therefore, as “Notes” and “Scholia” in MSS. are concerned, +the sum of the matter proves to be simply this:—(_a_) Nine Codices(211) +are observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark’s +Gospel, though wanting “in some,” was yet found “in others,”—“in +many,”—“_in the ancient copies_.” + +(_b_) Next, four Codices(212) contain subscriptions vouching for the +genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring that those four +Codices had been _collated with approved copies preserved at Jerusalem_. + +(_c_) Lastly, sixteen Codices,—(to which, besides that already mentioned +by Scholz,(213) I am able to add at least five others, making twenty-two +in all,(214))—contain a weighty critical scholion asserting categorically +that in “very many” and “accurate copies,” specially in the “true +Palestinian exemplar,” _these verses had been found by one who seems to +have verified the fact of their existence there for himself_. + +(9.) And now, shall I be thought unfair if, on a review of the premisses, +I assert that I do not see a shadow of reason for the imposing statement +which has been adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that +“there exist about thirty Codices which state that from the more ancient +and more accurate copies of the Gospel, the last twelve verses of S. Mark +were absent?” I repeat, there is not so much as _one single Codex_ which +contains such a scholion; while twenty-four(215) of those commonly +enumerated state _the exact reverse_.—We may now advance a step: but the +candid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the supposed hostile +evidence is on the contrary entirely _in favour_ of the verses under +discussion. (“I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast +altogether blessed them these three times.”) + +II. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.(216) This is the +designation of an uncial MS. of the viiith or ixth century, in the Library +at Paris, chiefly remarkable for the correspondence of its readings with +those of Cod. B and with certain of the citations in Origen; a peculiarity +which recommends Cod. L, (as it recommends three cursive Codices of the +Gospels, 1, 33, 69,) to the especial favour of a school with which +whatever is found in Cod. B is necessarily right. It is described as the +work of an ignorant foreign copyist, who probably wrote with several MSS. +before him; but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to determine +which reading to adopt and which to reject. Certain it is that he +interrupts himself, at the end of ver. 8, to write as follows:— + + + “_SOMETHING TO THIS EFFECT IS ALSO MET WITH_: + + + “All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed unto Peter + and the rest. And after these things, from East even unto West, + did JESUS Himself send forth by their means the holy and + incorruptible message of eternal Salvation. + + + “_BUT THIS ALSO IS MET WITH AFTER THE WORDS, _‘FOR THEY WERE + AFRAID:’ + + + “Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the week,”(217) + &c. + + +It cannot be needful that I should delay the reader with any remarks on +such a termination of the Gospel as the foregoing. It was evidently the +production of some one who desired to remedy the conspicuous +incompleteness of his own copy of S. Mark’s Gospel, but who had imbibed so +little of the spirit of the Evangelical narrative that he could not in the +least imitate the Evangelist’s manner. As for the scribe who executed +Codex L, he was evidently incapable of distinguishing the grossest +fabrication from the genuine text. The same worthless supplement is found +in the margin of the Hharklensian Syriac (A.D. 616), and in a few other +quarters of less importance.(218)—I pass on, with the single remark that I +am utterly at a loss to understand on what principle Cod. L,—a solitary +MS. of the viiith or ixth century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious +text,—is to be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the +present occasion, rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence it bears +concerning the last twelve verses of the second Gospel by all the +seventeen remaining Uncials, (three of which are from 300 to 400 years +more ancient than itself;) and by _every cursive copy of the Gospels in +existence_. Quite certain at least is it that not the faintest additional +probability is established by Cod. L that S. Mark’s Gospel when it left +the hands of its inspired Author was in a mutilated condition. The copyist +shews that he was as well acquainted as his neighbours with our actual +concluding Verses: while he betrays his own incapacity, by seeming to view +with equal favour the worthless alternative which he deliberately +transcribes as well, and to which he gives the foremost place. _Not_ S. +Mark’s Gospel, _but Codex L_ is the sufferer by this appeal. + +III. I go back now to the statements found in certain Codices of the xth +century, (derived probably from one of older date,) to the effect that +“the marginal references to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than +ver. 8:”—for so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. 120,) +ἕως οὖ Εὐσέβιους ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν, which are found at the end of ver. +8 in Codd. 1, 206, 209. + +(1.) Now this statement need not have delayed us for many minutes. But +then, therewith, recent Critics have seen fit to connect another and an +entirely distinct proposition: viz. that + +AMMONIUS + +also, a contemporary of Origen, conspires with Eusebius in disallowing the +genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. This is in fact a piece +of evidence to which recently special prominence has been given: every +Editor of the Gospels in turn, since Wetstein, having reproduced it; but +no one more emphatically than Tischendorf. “Neither by _the sections of +Ammonius_ nor yet by the canons of Eusebius are these last verses +recognised”(219) “Thus it is seen,” proceeds Dr. Tregelles, “that just as +Eusebius found these verses absent in his day from the best and most +numerous copies (_sic_), _so was also the case with Ammonius_ when he +formed his Harmony in the preceding century.”(220) + +(The opposite page exhibits an _exact Fac-simile_, obtained by +Photography, of fol. 113 of EVAN. COD. L, (“Codex Regius,” No. 62,) at +Paris; containing S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;—as explained at pp. 123-4. The Text +of that MS. has been published by Dr. Tischendorf in his “Monumenta Sacra +Inedita,” (1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. 206.) + + [[Illustration: Codex Regius facsimile page.]] + +(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the obliging +permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the Manuscript Department of +the “Bibliothèque.” He has my best thanks for the kindness with which he +promoted my wishes and facilitated my researches.) + +(It should perhaps be stated that _the margin_ of “Codex L” is somewhat +ampler than can be represented in an octavo volume; each folio measuring +very nearly nine inches, by very nearly six inches and a half.) + +A new and independent authority therefore is appealed to,—one of high +antiquity and evidently very great importance,—Ammonius of Alexandria, +A.D. 220. But Ammonius has left behind him _no known writings whatsoever_. +What then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident way to the +testimony of “Ammonius?” + +To make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English reader, I must +needs introduce in this place some account of what are popularly called +the “Ammonian Sections” and the “Eusebian Canons:” concerning both of +which, however, it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing whatever +is known beyond what is discoverable from a careful study of the +“Sections” and “Canons” themselves; added to what Eusebius has told us in +that short Epistle of his “to Carpianus,”—which I suppose has been +transcribed and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle in +the world. + +Eusebius there explains that Ammonius of Alexandria constructed with great +industry and labour a kind of Evangelical Harmony; the peculiarity of +which was, that, retaining S. Matthew’s Gospel in its integrity, it +exhibited the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists by the +side of S. Matthew’s text. There resulted this inevitable inconvenience; +that the sequence of the narrative, in the case of the three last Gospels, +was interrupted throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed.(221) + +The “Diatessaron” of Ammonius, (so Eusebius styles it), has long since +disappeared; but it is plain from the foregoing account of it by a +competent witness that it must have been a most unsatisfactory +performance. It is not easy to see how room can have been found in such a +scheme for entire chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel; as well as for the larger +part of the Gospel according to S. John: in short, for anything which was +not capable of being brought into some kind of agreement, harmony, or +correspondence with something in S. Matthew’s Gospel. + +How it may have fared with the other Gospels in the work of Ammonius is +not in fact known, and it is profitless to conjecture. What we know for +certain is that Eusebius, availing himself of the hint supplied by the +very imperfect labours of his predecessor, devised an entirely different +expedient, whereby he extended to the Gospels of S. Mark, S. Luke and S. +John all the advantages, (and more than all,) which Ammonius had made the +distinctive property of the first Gospel.(222) His plan was to retain the +Four Gospels in their integrity; and, besides enabling a reader to +ascertain at a glance the places which S. Matthew has in common with the +other three Evangelists, or with any two, or with any one of them, (which, +I suppose, was the sum of what had been exhibited by the work of +Ammonius,)—to shew which places S. Luke has in common with S. Mark,—which +with S. John only; as well as which places are peculiar to each of the +four Evangelists in turn. It is abundantly clear therefore what Eusebius +means by saying that the labours of Ammonius had “_suggested to him_” his +own.(223) The sight of that Harmony of the other three Evangelists with S. +Matthew’s Gospel had suggested to him the advantage of establishing a +series of parallels throughout _all the Four Gospels._ But then, whereas +Ammonius had placed alongside of S. Matthew _the dislocated sections +themselves_ of the other three Evangelists which are of corresponding +purport, Eusebius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same object by +means of a system of double numerical _references_. He invented X Canons, +or Tables: he subdivided each of the Four Gospels into a multitude of +short Sections. These he numbered; (a fresh series of numbers appearing in +each Gospel, and extending from the beginning right on to the end;) and +immediately under every number, he inserted, in vermillion, another +numeral (I to X); whose office it was to indicate in which of his X +Canons, or Tables, the reader would find the corresponding places in any +of the other Gospels.(224) (If the section was unique, it belonged to his +last or Xth Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew’s account of the Title on the +Cross, is written 335/I: but in the Ist Canon (which contains the places +common to all four Evangelists) parallel with 335, is found,—214, 324, +199: and the Sections of S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John thereby designated, +(which are discoverable by merely casting one’s eye down the margin of +each of those several Gospels in turn, until the required number has been +reached,) will be found to contain the parallel record in the other three +Gospels. + +All this is so purely elementary, that its very introduction in this place +calls for apology. The extraordinary method of the opposite party +constrains me however to establish thus clearly the true relation in which +the familiar labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of Ammonius. + +For if that earlier production be lost indeed,(225)—if its precise +contents, if the very details of its construction, can at this distance of +time be only conjecturally ascertained,—what right has any one to appeal +to “_the Sections of Ammonius_,” as to a known document? Why above all do +Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim “Ammonius” for +their ally on an occasion like the present; seeing that they must needs be +perfectly well aware that they have no means whatever of knowing (except +from the precarious evidence of Catenæ) what Ammonius thought about any +single verse in any of the four Gospels? At every stage of this +discussion, I am constrained to ask myself,—Do then the recent Editors of +the Text of the New Testament really suppose that their statements will +_never_ be examined? their references _never_ verified? or is it thought +that they enjoy a monopoly of the learning (such as it is) which enables a +man to form an opinion in this department of sacred Science? For, + +(1st.) _Where_ then and _what_ are those “Sections of Ammonius” to which +Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently appeal? It is even notorious that +when they _say_ the “Sections of Ammonius,” what they _mean_ are the +“Sections of _Eusebius_.”—But, (2dly.) Where is the proof,—where is even +the probability,—that these two are identical? The Critics cannot require +to be reminded by me that we are absolutely without proof that so much as +_one_ of the Sections of Ammonius corresponded with _one_ of those of +Eusebius; and yet, (3dly.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of +Ammonius and those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded +throughout, the name of Ammonius has no business whatever to be introduced +into such a discussion as the present? They must at least be told that in +the entire absence of proof of any kind,—(and certainly nothing that +Eusebius says warrants any such inference,(226))—to reason from the one to +the other as if they were identical, is what no sincere inquirer after +Truth is permitted to do. + +It is time, however, that I should plainly declare that it happens to be +no matter of opinion at all whether the lost Sections of Ammonius were +identical with those of Eusebius or not. It is demonstrable that they +_cannot_ have been so; and the proof is supplied by the Sections +themselves. It is discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they +_imply_ and _presuppose the Ten Canons_; being in many places even +meaningless,—nugatory, in fact, (I do not of course say that they are +_practically_ without _use_,)—except on the theory that those Canons were +already in existence.(227) Now the Canons are confessedly the invention of +Eusebius. He distinctly claims them.(228) Thus much then concerning the +supposed testimony of Ammonius. It is _nil_.—And now for what is alleged +concerning the evidence of Eusebius. + +The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking), is the +following memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.:—“Thus far did Eusebius +canonize;”(229) which means either: (1) That his Canons recognise no +section of S. Mark’s Gospel subsequent to § 233, (which number is commonly +set over against ver. 8:) or else, (which comes to the same thing,)—(2) +That no sections of the same Gospel, after § 233, are referred to any of +his X Canons. + +On this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious +superstructure. It is assumed, + +(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark’s Gospel which Eusebius numbers “233,” +and which begins at our ver. 8, _cannot have extended beyond_ ver. +8;—whereas it may have extended, and probably did extend, down to the end +of ver. 11. + +(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian Canons of any +sectional _number_ in S. Mark’s Gospel subsequent to § 233, no _Section_ +(with, or without, such a subsequent number) can have existed:—whereas +there may have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly +numbered.(230) This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the +memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have _canonized_ no further +than § 233. + +I am not disposed, however, to contest the point as far as Eusebius is +concerned. I have only said so much in order to shew how unsatisfactory is +the argumentation on the other side. Let it be assumed, for argument sake, +that the statement “Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8” is +equivalent to this,—“_Eusebius numbered no Sections after ver._ 8;” (and +more it cannot mean:)—What _then_? I am at a loss to see what it is that +the Critics propose to themselves by insisting on the circumstance. For we +knew before,—it was in fact Eusebius himself who told us,—that Copies of +the Gospel ending abruptly at ver. 8, were anciently of frequent +occurrence. Nay, we heard the same Eusebius remark that one way of +shelving a certain awkward problem would be, to plead that the subsequent +portion of S. Mark’s Gospel is frequently wanting. What _more_ have we +learned when we have ascertained that the same Eusebius allowed no place +to that subsequent portion in his Canons? The new fact, (supposing it to +be a fact,) is but the correlative of the old one; and since it was +Eusebius who was the voucher for _that_, what additional probability do we +establish that the inspired autograph of S. Mark ended abruptly at ver. 8, +by discovering that Eusebius is consistent with himself, and omits to +“canonize” (or even to “sectionize”) what he had already hypothetically +hinted might as well be left out altogether? (See above, pp. 44-6.) + +So that really I am at a loss to see that one atom of progress is made in +this discussion by the further discovery that, (in a work written about +A.D. 373,) + +EPIPHANIUS + +states casually that “the four Gospels contain 1162 sections.”(231) From +this it is argued(232) that since 355 of these are commonly assigned to S. +Matthew, 342 to S. Luke, and 232 to S. John, there do but remain for S. +Mark 233; and the 233rd section of S. Mark’s Gospel confessedly begins at +ch. xvi. 8.—The probability may be thought to be thereby slightly +increased that the sectional numbers of Eusebius extended no further than +ver. 8: but—Has it been rendered one atom more probable that the inspired +Evangelist himself ended his Gospel abruptly at the 8th verse? _That_ +fact—(the _only_ thing which our opponents have to establish)—remains +exactly where it was; entirely unproved, and in the highest degree +improbable. + +To conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the pages of +Tischendorf:—“These verses are not recognised by the Sections of Ammonius, +nor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and Cæsarius bear witness to the +fact;”—I am constrained to remark that the illustrious Critic has drawn +upon his imagination for three of his statements, and that the fourth is +of no manner of importance. + +(1.) About the “Sections of Ammonius,” he really knows no more than about +the lost Books of Livy. He is, therefore, without excuse for adducing them +in the way of evidence. + +(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either as to the “Sections +of Ammonius” or to “Canons of Eusebius,” Tischendorf is perfectly well +aware. So is my reader. + +(3.) His appeal to + +CÆSARIUS + +is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate the younger +brother of Gregory of Nazianzus; an eminent physician of Constantinople, +who died A.D. 368; and who, (as far as is known,) _never wrote anything_. +A work called Πεύσεις, (which in the xth century was attributed to +Cæsarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that +Cæsarius was certainly _not_ its author,) is the composition to which +Tischendorf refers. Even the approximate date of this performance, +however, has never been ascertained. And yet, if Tischendorf had +condescended to refer to it, (instead of taking his reference at +second-hand,) he would have seen at a glance that the entire context in +which the supposed testimony is found, _is nothing else but a condensed +paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius_, in which the original statement +occurs.(233) + +Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of AMMONIUS, of EPIPHANIUS, and +of CÆSARIUS on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. +It is exactly _nil_. In fact Pseudo-Cæsarius, so far from “bearing witness +to the fact” that the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are spurious, +_actually quotes the 16_th_ verse as genuine_.(234) + +(4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added to what we knew +before concerning his probable estimate of these verses. + +IV. We are now at liberty to proceed to the only head of external +testimony which remains undiscussed. I allude to the evidence of + +THE CATENÆ. + +“In the Catenæ on Mark,” (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) “there is no +explanation of this section.”(235) “The Catenæ on Mark:” as if they were +quite common things,—“plenty, as blackberries!” But,—_Which_ of “the +Catenæ” may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined? + +1. Not the Catena which Possinus found in the library of Charles de +Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse, and which forms the basis of his Catena +published at Rome in 1673; because _that_ Codex is expressly declared by +the learned Editor to be defective from ver. 8 to the end.(236) + +2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the Vatican Library and +communicated to Possinus; because in _that_ Catena the 9th and 12th verses +are distinctly commented on.(237) + +3. Still less can Dr. Davidson be thought to have inspected the Catena +commonly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,—which Peltanus published in Latin +in 1580, but which Possinus was the first to publish in Greek (1673). Dr. +Davidson, I say, cannot certainly have examined _that_ Catena; inasmuch as +it contains, (as I have already largely shewn, and, in fact, as every one +may see,) a long and elaborate dissertation on the best way of reconciling +the language of S. Mark in ver. 9 with the language of the other +Evangelists.(238) + +4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic has inspected +either of the last two editions of the same Catena: viz. that of Matthaei, +(Moscow 1775,) or that of Cramer, (Oxford 1844,) from MSS. in the Royal +Library at Paris and in the Bodleian. This is simply impossible, because +(as we have seen), in _these_ is contained the famous passage _which_ +categorically asserts the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. +Mark’s Gospel.(239) + +Now this exhausts the subject. + +To _which_, then, of “the Catenæ on Mark,” I must again inquire, does this +learned writer allude?—I will venture to answer the question myself; and +to assert that this is only one more instance of the careless, second-hand +(and third-rate) criticism which is to be met with in every part of Dr. +Davidson’s book: one proof more of the alacrity with which worn-out +objections and worthless arguments are furbished up afresh, and paraded +before an impatient generation and an unlearned age, whenever (_tanquam +vile corpus_) the writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed, +or the Faith of the Church of CHRIST is to be unsettled and undermined. + +V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to p. 39, he will +perceive that I have now disposed of every witness whom I originally +undertook to examine. He will also, in fairness, admit that there has not +been elicited one particle of evidence, from first to last, which renders +it in the slightest degree probable that the Gospel of S. Mark, as it +originally came from the hands of its inspired Author, was either an +imperfect or an unfinished work. Whether there have not emerged certain +considerations which render such a supposition in the highest degree +_un_likely,—I am quite content that my Reader shall decide. + +Dismissing the external testimony, therefore, proceed we now to review +those internal evidences, which are confidently appealed to as proving +that the concluding Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel cannot be regarded as +really the work of the Evangelist. + + + + + + CHAPTER IX. + + +INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO +THESE VERSES. + + + The “Style” and “Phraseology” of these Verses declared by Critics + to be not S. Mark’s.—Insecurity of such Criticism (p. 140).—The + “Style” of chap. xvi. 9-20 shewn to be the same as the style of + chap. i. 9-20 (p. 142).—The “Phraseology” examined in twenty-seven + particulars, and shewn to be suspicious in none (p. 145),—but in + twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reverse (p. 170).—Such + Remarks fallacious (p. 173).—Judged of by a truer, a more delicate + and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most probably + genuine (p. 175). + + +A distinct class of objections remains to be considered. An argument much +relied on by those who deny or doubt the genuineness of this portion of S. +Mark’s Gospel, is derived from considerations of internal evidence. In the +judgment of a recent Editor of the New Testament,—These twelve verses +“bear traces of _another hand_ from that which has shaped the _diction_ +and _construction_ of the rest of the Gospel.”(240) They are therefore “an +addition to the narrative,”—of which “the internal evidence will be found +to preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark.”—“A difference,” +(says Dr. Tregelles,) “has been remarked, and truly remarked, between _the +phraseology_ of this section and the rest of this Gospel.”—According to +Dr. Davidson,—“The _phraseology and style_ of the section are unfavourable +to its authenticity.” “The characteristic peculiarities which pervade +Mark’s Gospel do not appear in it; but, on the contrary, terms and +expressions,” “phrases and words, are introduced which Mark never uses; or +terms for which he employs others.”(241)—So Meyer,—“With ver. 9, we +suddenly come upon an excerpting process totally different from the +previous mode of narration. The passage contains none of Mark’s +peculiarities (no εὐθέως, no πάλιν, &c, but the baldness and lack of +clearness which mark a compiler;) while in single expressions, it is +altogether contrary to Mark’s manner.”—“There is” (says Professor Norton) +“a difference so great between the use of language in this passage, and +its use in the undisputed portion of Mark’s Gospel, as to furnish strong +reasons for believing the passage not genuine.”—No one, however, has +expressed himself more strongly on this subject than Tischendorf. +“Singula” (he says) “multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.”(242)... Here, +then, is something very like a consensus of hostile opinion: although the +terms of the indictment are somewhat vague. Difference of “Diction and +Construction,”—difference of “Phraseology and Style,”—difference of “Terms +and Expressions,”—difference of “Words and Phrases;”—the absence of S. +Mark’s “characteristic peculiarities.” I suppose, however, that all may be +brought under two heads,—(I.) STYLE, and (II.) PHRASEOLOGY: meaning by +“Style” whatever belongs to the Evangelist’s manner; and by “Phraseology” +whatever relates to the words and expressions he has employed. It remains, +therefore, that we now examine the proofs by which it is proposed to +substantiate these confident assertions, and ascertain exactly what they +are worth by constant appeals to the Gospel. Throughout this inquiry, we +have to do not with Opinion but with Fact. The unsupported dicta of +Critics, however distinguished, are entitled to no manner of attention. + +1. In the meantime, as might have been expected, these confident and +often-repeated asseverations have been by no means unproductive of +mischievous results: + +Like ceaseless droppings, which at last are known +To leave their dint upon the solid stone. + +I observe that Scholars and Divines of the best type (as the Rev. T. S. +Green(243)) at last put up with them. The wisest however reproduce them +under protest, and with apology. The names of Tischendorf and Tregelles, +Meyer and Davidson, command attention. It seems to be thought incredible +that they can _all_ be _entirely_ in the wrong. They impose upon learned +and unlearned readers alike. “Even Barnabas has been carried away with +their dissimulation.” He has (to my surprise and regret) two suggestions:— + +(_a_) The one,—That this entire section of the second Gospel may possibly +have been written long after the rest; and that therefore its verbal +peculiarities need not perplex or trouble us. It was, I suppose, +(according to this learned and pious writer,) a kind of after-thought, or +supplement, or Appendix to S. Mark’s Gospel. In this way I have seen the +last Chapter of S. John once and again accounted for.—To which, it ought +to be a sufficient answer to point out that there is _no appearance +whatever_ of any such interval having been interposed between S. Mark xvi. +8 and 9: that it is highly improbable that any such interval occurred: and +that until the “verbal peculiarities” have been ascertained to exist, it +is, to say the least, a gratuitous exercise of the inventive faculty to +discover reasons for their existence. Whether there be not something +radically unsound and wrong in all such conjectures about +“after-thoughts,” “supplements,” “appendices,” and “second editions” when +the everlasting Gospel of JESUS CHRIST is the thing spoken of,—a confusing +of things heavenly with things earthly which must make the Angels weep,—I +forbear to press on the present occasion. It had better perhaps be +discussed at another opportunity. But φίλοι ἄνδρες(244) will forgive my +freedom in having already made my personal sentiment on the subject +sufficiently plain. + +(_b_) His other suggestion is,—That this portion may not have been penned +by S. Mark himself after all. By which he clearly means no more than +this,—that as we are content not to know _who_ wrote the conclusion of the +Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, so, if needful, we may well be content +not to know who wrote the end of the Gospel of S. Mark.—In reply to which, +I have but to say, that after cause has been shewn why we should indeed +believe that not S. Mark but some one else wrote the end of S. Mark’s +Gospel, we shall be perfectly willing to acquiesce in the new fact:—but +_not till then_. + +2. True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been lifted up in the +way of protest(245) against the proposed inference from the familiar +premisses; (for the self-same statements have now been so often +reproduced, that the eye grows weary at last of the ever-recurring string +of offending vocables:)—but, with _one_ honorable exception,(246) men do +not seem to have ever thought of calling the premisses themselves in +question: examining the statements one by one: contesting the ground inch +by inch: refusing absolutely to submit to any dictation whatever in this +behalf: insisting on bringing the whole matter to the test of severe +inquiry, and making every detail the subject of strict judicial +investigation. This is what I propose to do in the course of the present +Chapter. I altogether deny the validity of the inference which has been +drawn from “the style,” “the phraseology,” “the diction” of the present +section of the Gospel. But I do more. I entirely deny the accuracy of +almost _every individual statement_ from which the unfavourable induction +is made, and the hostile inference drawn. Even _this_ will not nearly +satisfy me. I insist that one only result can attend the exact analysis of +this portion of the Gospel into its elements; namely, a profound +conviction that S. Mark is most certainly its Author. + +3. Let me however distinctly declare beforehand that remarks on “the +style” of an Evangelist are singularly apt to be fallacious, especially +when (as here) it is proposed to apply them to a very limited portion of +the sacred narrative. Altogether to be mistrusted moreover are they, when +(as on the present occasion) it is proposed to make them the ground for +possibly rejecting such a portion of Scripture as spurious. It becomes a +fatal objection to such reasoning that _the style_ may indeed be +exceedingly diverse, and yet _the Author_ be confessedly one and the same. +How exceedingly dissimilar in style are the Revelation of S. John and the +Gospel of S. John! Moreover, practically, the promised remarks on “style,” +when the Authorship of some portion of Scripture is to be discussed, are +commonly observed to degenerate at once into what is really quite a +different thing. Single words, perhaps some short phrase, is appealed to, +which (it is said) does not recur in any part of the same book; and thence +it is argued that the Author can no longer be the same. “According to this +argument, _the recurrence of the same words_ constitutes identity of +style; the want of such recurrence implies difference of style;—difference +of style in such a sense as compels us to infer diversity of authorship. +Each writer is supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of +‘formulæ’ within the range of which he must work. He must in each chapter +employ these formulæ, and these only. He must be content with one small +portion of his mother-tongue, and not dare to venture across the limits of +that portion,—on pain of losing his identity.”(247) + +4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation to such a method of +judging about the Authorship of any twelve verses of Scripture which can +be named, scarcely requires illustration. The attentive reader of S. +Matthew’s Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is _six times +repeated_ in his viiith and ixth chapters is perhaps only once met with +besides in his Gospel,—viz. in his xxist chapter.(248) The “style” of the +17th verse of his ist chapter may be thought unlike anything else in S. +Matthew. S. Luke’s five opening verses are unique, both in respect of +manner and of matter. S. John also in his five opening verses seems to me +to have adopted a method which is not recognisable anywhere else in his +writings; “rising strangely by degrees,” (as Bp. Pearson expresses +it,(249)) “making the last word of the former sentence the first of that +which followeth.”—“_He_ knoweth that he saith true,” is the language of +the same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35. But, “_we_ know +that his testimony is true,” is his phrase in chap. xxi. 24. Twice, and +twice only throughout his Gospel, (viz. in chap. xix. 35: xx. 31), is he +observed to address his readers, and on both occasions in the same words: +(“that _ye_ may believe.”) But what of all this? Is it to be supposed that +S. Matthew, S. Luke, S. John are not the authors of those several places? +From facts like these no inference whatever is to be drawn as to the +genuineness or the spuriousness of a writing. It is quite to mistake the +Critic’s vocation to imagine that he is qualified, or called upon, to pass +any judgment of the sort. + +5. I have not said all this, of course, as declining the proposed +investigation. I approach it on the contrary right willingly, being +confident that it can be attended by only one result. With what is true, +endless are the harmonies which evolve themselves: from what is false, the +true is equally certain to stand out divergent.(250) And we all desire +nothing but the Truth. + +I. To begin then with the “STYLE AND MANNER” of S. Mark in this place. + +1. We are assured that “instead of the _graphic, detailed_ description by +which this Evangelist is distinguished, we meet with an abrupt, +sententious manner, resembling that of brief notices extracted from larger +accounts and loosely linked together.”(251) Surely if this be so, the only +lawful inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, _has_ “extracted +brief notices from larger accounts, and loosely linked them together:” and +unless such a proceeding on the part of the Evangelist be judged +incredible, it is hard to see what is the force of the adverse criticism, +as directed against the _genuineness_ of the passage now under +consideration. + +2. But in truth, (when divested of what is merely a gratuitous +assumption,) the preceding account of the matter is probably not far from +the correct one. Of S. Mark’s practice of making “_extracts_,” I know +nothing: nor Dr. Davidson either. That there existed _any_ “larger +accounts” which would have been available for such a purpose, (except the +Gospel according to S. Matthew,) there is neither a particle of evidence, +nor a shadow of probability. On the other hand, that, notwithstanding the +abundant oral information to which confessedly he had access, S. Mark has +been divinely guided in this place to handle, in the briefest manner, some +of the chiefest things which took place after our LORD’S Resurrection,—is +simply undeniable. And without at all admitting that the style of the +Evangelist is in consequence either “abrupt” or “sententious,”(252) I yet +recognise the inevitable consequence of relating many dissimilar things +within very narrow limits; namely, that the transition from one to the +other forces itself on the attention. What wonder that the same phenomenon +should _not_ be discoverable in other parts of the Gospel where the +Evangelist is _not_ observed to be doing the same thing? + +3. But wherever in his Gospel S. Mark _is_ doing the same thing, he is +observed to adopt the style and manner which Dr. Davidson is pleased to +call “sententious” and “abrupt.” Take twelve verses in his first chapter, +as an example. Between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark i. 9-20, I profess +myself unable to discern any real difference of style. I proceed to +transcribe the passage which I deliberately propose for comparison; _the +twelve corresponding verses_, namely, in S. Mark’s _first_ chapter, which +are to be compared with the twelve verses already under discussion, from +his _last_; and they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as +in Greek:— + +(_S. MARK_ i. 9-20.) + +(ver. 9.) “And it came to pass in those days, that JESUS came from +Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (10.) And +straightway coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the +SPIRIT like a dove descending upon Him: (11.) and there came a voice from +heaven saying, Thou art My beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased. (12.) +And immediately the SPIRIT driveth Him into the wilderness. (13.) And He +was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the +wild beasts; and the Angels ministered unto Him. (14.) Now after that John +was put in prison, JESUS came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the +kingdom of GOD, (15.) and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom +of GOD is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel. (16.) Now, as He +walked by the sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting +a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (17.) And JESUS said unto them, +Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. (18.) And +straightway they forsook their net’s, and followed Him. (19.) And when He +had gone a little farther thence, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and +John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. (20.) And +straightway He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the ship +with the hired servants, and went after Him.” + +4. The candid reader must needs admit that precisely the self-same manner +is recognisable in this first chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel which is +asserted to be peculiar to the last. Note, that from our SAVIOUR’S Baptism +(which occupies the first three verses) the Evangelist passes to His +Temptation, which is dismissed in two. Six months elapse. The commencement +of the Ministry is dismissed in the next two verses. The last five +describe the call of four of the Apostles,—without any distinct allusion +to the miracle which was the occasion of it.... How was it _possible_ that +when incidents considerable as these had to be condensed within the narrow +compass of twelve verses, the same “graphic, detailed description” could +reappear which renders S. Mark’s description of the miracle performed in +the country of the Gadarenes (for example) so very interesting; where a +single incident is spread over twenty verses, although the action did not +perhaps occupy an hour? I rejoice to observe that “the _abrupt +transitions_ of this section” (ver. 1-13) have also been noticed by Dean +Alford: who very justly accounts for the phenomenon by pointing out that +here “Mark appears as _an abridger of previously well-known facts_.”(253) +But then, I want to know what there is in this to induce us to suspect +_the genuineness_ of either the beginning or the end of S. Mark’s Gospel? + +5. For it is a mistake to speak as if “graphic, detailed description” +_invariably_ characterise the second Gospel. S. Mark is quite as +remarkable for his practice of occasionally exhibiting a considerable +transaction in a highly abridged form. The opening of his Gospel is +singularly concise, and altogether _sudden_. His account of John’s +preaching (i. 1-8) is the shortest of all. Very concise is his account of +our SAVIOUR’S Baptism (ver. 9-11). The brevity of his description of our +LORD’S Temptation is even extraordinary (ver. 12, 13.)—I pass on; +premising that I shall have occasion to remind the reader by-and-by of +certain peculiarities in these same Twelve Verses, which seem to have been +hitherto generally overlooked. + +II. Nothing more true, therefore, than Dr. Tregelles’ admission “that +arguments on _style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_ +they prove very little. But” (he proceeds) “when there does exist external +evidence; and when internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, +and connection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming +a judgment; then, these internal considerations possess very great +weight.” + +I have already shewn that there exists _no_ such external evidence as Dr. +Tregelles supposes. And in the absence of it, I am bold to assert that +since nothing in the “Style” or the “Phraseology” of these verses ever +aroused suspicion in times past, we have rather to be _on our guard_ +against suffering our judgment to be warped by arguments drawn from such +precarious considerations now. As for determining from such data the +authorship of an isolated passage; asserting or denying its genuineness +for no other reason but because it contains certain words and expressions +which do or do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel of which it forms +part;—let me again declare plainly that the proceeding is in the highest +degree uncritical. We are not competent judges of what words an Evangelist +was likely on any given occasion to employ. We have no positive knowledge +of the circumstances under which any part of any one of the four Gospels +was written; nor the influences which determined an Evangelist’s choice of +certain expressions in preference to others. We are learners,—we _can_ be +only learners here. But having said all this, I proceed (as already +declared) without reluctance or misgiving to investigate the several +charges which have been brought against this section of the Gospel; +charges derived from its PHRASEOLOGY; and which will be found to be +nothing else but repeated assertions that a certain Word or Phrase,—(there +are about twenty-four such words and phrases in all,(254))—“occurs nowhere +in the Gospel of Mark;” with probably the alarming asseveration that it is +“abhorrent to Mark’s manner.” ... The result of the inquiry which follows +will perhaps be not exactly what is commonly imagined. + +The first difficulty of this class is very fairly stated by one whose name +I cannot write without a pang,—the late Dean Alford:— + +(I.) The expression πρώτη σαββάτου, for the “first day of the week” (in +ver. 9) “is remarkable” (he says) “as occurring so soon after” μία +σαββάτων (a precisely equivalent expression) in ver. 2.—Yes, it is +remarkable. + +Scarcely more remarkable, perhaps, than that S. Luke _in the course of one +and the same chapter_ should four times designate the Sabbath τὸ σάββατον, +and twice τὰ σάββατα: again, twice, τὸ σάββατον,—twice, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ +σαββάτου,—and once, τὰ σάββατα.(255) Or again, that S. Matthew should _in +one and the same chapter_ five times call the Sabbath, τὰ σάβββτα, and +three times, τό σάββατον.(256) Attentive readers will have observed that +the Evangelists seem to have been fond in this way of varying their +phrase; suddenly introducing a new expression for something which they had +designated differently just before. Often, I doubt not, this is done with +the profoundest purpose, and sometimes even with manifest design; but the +phenomenon, however we may explain it, still remains. Thus, S. Matthew, +(in his account of our LORD’S Temptation,—chap. iv.,) has ὁ διάβολος in +ver. 1, and ὁ πειράζων in ver. 3, for him whom our SAVIOUR calls Σατανᾶς +in ver. 10.—S. Mark, in chap. v. 2, has τὰ μνημεῖα,—but in ver. 5, τὰ +μνήματα.—S. Luke, in xxiv. 1, has τὸ μνῆμα; but in the next verse, τὸ +μνημεῗον.—Ἐπί with an accusative twice in S. Matth. xxv. 21, 23, is twice +exchanged for ἐπί with a genitive in the same two verses: and ἔριφοϋ (in +ver. 32) is exchanged for ἐρίφια in ver. 33.—Instead of ἄρχων τς συναγωγῆς +(in S. Luke viii. 41) we read, in ver. 49, ἀρχισυνάγωγος: and for οἱ +ἀπόστολοι (in ix. 10) we find οἱ δώδεκα in ver. 12.—Οὖς in S. Luke xxii. +50 is exchanged for ὠτίον in the next verse.—In like manner, those whom S. +Luke calls οἱ νεώτεροι in Acts v. 6, he calls νεανίσκοι in ver. 10.... All +such matters strike me as highly interesting, but not in the least as +suspicious. It surprises me a little, of course, that S. Mark should +present me with πρώτη σαββάτου (in ver. 9) instead of the phrase μία +σαββάτων, which he had employed just above (in ver. 2.) But it does not +surprise me much,—when I observe that μία σαββάτων _occurs only once in +each of the Four Gospels_.(257) Whether surprised much or little, +however,—Am I constrained in consequence, (with Tischendorf and the rest,) +to regard this expression (πρώτη σαββάτου) as a note of _spuriousness_? +That is the only thing I have to consider. Am I, with Dr. Davidson, to +reason as follows:—“πρώτη, Mark would scarcely have used. It should have +been μία, &c. as is proved by Mark xvi. 2, &c. The expression could +scarcely have proceeded from a Jew. It betrays a Gentile author.”(258) Am +I to reason thus?... I propose to answer this question somewhat in detail. + +(1.) That among the Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine, in the days of the +Gospel, ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων was the established method of indicating “the +first day of the week,” is plain, not only from the fact that the day of +the Resurrection is so designated by each of the Four Evangelists in +turn;(259) (S. John has the expression twice;) but also from S. Paul’s use +of the phrase in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. It proves, indeed, to have been the +ordinary Hellenistic way of exhibiting the vernacular idiom of +Palestine.(260) The cardinal (μία) for the ordinal (πρώτη) in this phrase +was a known Talmudic expression, which obtained also in Syriac.(261) +Σάββατον and σάββατα,—designations in strictness of the _Sabbath-day_,—had +come to be _also_ used as designations of the _week_. A reference to S. +Mark xvi. 9 and S. Luke xviii. 12 establishes this concerning σάββατον: a +reference to the six places cited just now in earlier note establishes it +concerning σαββάτα. To see how indifferently the two forms (σάββατον and +σαββάτα) were employed, one has but to notice that S. Matthew, _in the +course of one and the same chapter_, five times designates the Sabbath as +τὰ σαββάτα, and three times as τὸ σάββατον.(262) The origin and history of +both words will be found explained in a note at the foot of the page.(263) + +(2.) Confessedly, then, a double Hebraism is before us, which must have +been simply unintelligible to Gentile readers. Μία τῶν σαββάτων sounded as +enigmatical to an ordinary Greek ear, as “_una sabbatorum_” to a Roman. A +convincing proof, (if proof were needed,) how abhorrent to a Latin reader +was the last-named expression, is afforded by the old Latin versions of S. +Matthew xxviii. 1; where ὄψε σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούση εἰς μίαν σαββάτων is +invariably rendered, “Vespere _sabbati_, quæ lucescit in _prima sabbati_.” + +(3.) The reader will now be prepared for the suggestion, that when S. +Mark, (who is traditionally related to have written his Gospel _at +Rome_,(264)) varies, in ver. 9, the phrase he had employed in ver. 2, he +does so for an excellent and indeed for an obvious reason. In ver. 2, he +had conformed to the prevailing usage of Palestine, and followed the +example set him by S. Matthew (xxviii. 1) in adopting the enigmatical +expression, ἡ μία σαββάτων. That this would be idiomatically represented +_in Latin_ by the phrase “prima sabbati,” we have already seen. In ver. 9, +therefore, he is solicitous to record the fact of the Resurrection afresh; +and _this_ time, his phrase is observed to be _the Greek equivalent for +the Latin _“prima sabbati;” viz. πρώτη σαββάτου. How strictly equivalent +the two modes of expression were felt to be by those who were best +qualified to judge, is singularly illustrated by the fact that the +_Syriac_ rendering of both places is _identical_. + +(4.) But I take leave to point out that this substituted phrase, instead +of being a suspicious circumstance, is on the contrary a striking note of +genuineness. For do we not recognise here, in the last chapter of the +Gospel, the very same hand which, in the first chapter of it, was careful +to inform us, just for once, that “Judæa,” is “a _country_,” (ἡ Ἰουδαία +χώρα,)—and “Jordan,” “a _river_,” (ὁ Ἰορδάνης ποταμός)?—Is not this the +very man who explained to his readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar +Jewish designation for “Friday,” ἡ παρασκευή, denotes “_the day before the +Sabbath_?”(265)—and who was so minute in informing us (in chap. vii. 3, 4) +about certain ceremonial practices of “the Pharisees and all the Jews?” +Yet more,—Is not the self-same writer clearly recognisable in this xvith +chapter, who in chap. vi. 37 presented us with σπεκουλάτωρ (the Latin +_spiculator_) for “an executioner?” and who, in chap. xv. 39, for “a +_centurion_,” wrote—not ἑκατόνταρχος, but—κεντυρίων?—and, in chap. xii. +42, explained that the two λεπτά which the poor widow cast into the +Treasury were equivalent to κοδράντης, the Latin _quadrans_?—and in chap. +vii. 4, 8, introduced the Roman measure _sextarius_, (ξέστης)?—and who +volunteered the information (in chap. xv. 16) that αὐλή is only another +designation of πραιτώριον (_Prætorium_)?—Yes. S. Mark,—who, alone of the +four Evangelists, (in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the +Cyrenian was “_the father of Alexander and Rufus_,” evidently for the sake +of his _Latin_ readers:(266) S. Mark,—who alone ventures to write in Greek +letters (οὐά,—chap. xv. 29,) the Latin interjection “_Vah!_”—obviously +because he was writing where that exclamation was most familiar, and the +force of it best understood:(267) S. Mark,—who attends to the Roman +division of the day, in relating our LORD’S prophecy to S. Peter:(268)—S. +Mark, I say, no doubt it was who,—having conformed himself to the +precedent set him by S. Matthew and the familiar usage of Palestine; and +having written τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων, (which he knew would sound like “_una +sabbatorum_,”(269)) in ver. 2;—introduced, also for the benefit of his +Latin readers, the Greek equivalent for “_prima sabbati_,” (viz. πρώτη +σαββάτου,) in ver. 9.—This, therefore, I repeat, so far from being a +circumstance “_unfavourable_ to its authenticity,” (by which, I presume, +the learned writer means its _genuineness_), is rather corroborative of +the Church’s constant belief that the present section of S. Mark’s Gospel +is, equally with the rest of it, the production of S. Mark. “Not only was +the document intended for Gentile converts:” (remarks Dr. Davidson, p. +149,) “but there are also appearances of its adaptation to the use of +Roman Christians in particular.” Just so. And I venture to say that in the +whole of “the document” Dr. Davidson will not find a more striking +“appearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians,”—_and +therefore of its genuineness_,—than this. I shall have to request my +reader by-and-by to accept it as one of the most striking notes of Divine +origin which these verses contain.—For the moment, I pass on. + +(II.) Less excusable is the coarseness of critical perception betrayed by +the next remark. It has been pointed out as a suspicious circumstance that +in ver. 9, “the phrase ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτα δαιμόνια is attached to the +name of Mary Magdalene, although she had been mentioned three times before +without such appendix. It seems to have been taken from Luke viii. +2.”(270)—Strange perversity, and yet stranger blindness! + +(1.) The phrase _cannot_ have been taken from S. Luke; because S. Luke’s +Gospel was written after S. Mark’s. It _was_ not taken from S. Luke; +because _there_ ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτα ἐξεληλύθει,—here, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει +ἑπτα δαιμόνια is read. + +(2.) More important is it to expose the shallowness and futility of the +entire objection.—Mary Magdalene “had been mentioned three times before, +_without such appendix_.” Well but,—What _then_? After twice (ch. xiv. 54, +66) using the word αὐλή without any “appendix,” in the very next chapter +(xv. 16) S. Mark adds, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον.—The beloved Disciple having +mentioned himself without any “appendix” in S. John xx. 7, mentions +himself with a very elaborate “appendix” in ver. 20. But what of it?—The +sister of the Blessed Virgin, having been designated in chap. xv. 40, as +Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆ μήτηρ; is mentioned with one half of +that “appendix,” (Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆ) in ver. 47, and _in the very next verse_, +with the other half (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου.)—I see no reason why the +Traitor, who, in S. Luke vi. 16, is called Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης, should be +designated as Ἰούδαν τὸν ἐπικαλούμενον Ἰσκαριώτην in S. Luke xxii. 3.—I am +not saying that such “appendices” are either uninteresting or unimportant. +That I attend to them habitually, these pages will best evince. I am only +insisting that to infer from such varieties of expression that a different +author is recognisable, is abhorrent to the spirit of intelligent +Criticism. + +(3.) But in the case before us, the hostile suggestion is peculiarly +infelicitous. There is even inexpressible tenderness and beauty, the +deepest Gospel significancy, in the reservation of the clause “out of whom +He had cast seven devils,” for this place. The reason, I say, is even +obvious why an “appendix,” which would have been meaningless before, is +introduced in connexion with Mary Magdalene’s august privilege of being +the first of the human race to behold the risen SAVIOUR. Jerome (I rejoice +to find) has been beforehand with me in suggesting that it was done, in +order to convey by an example the tacit assurance that “where Sin had +abounded, there did Grace much more abound.”(271) Are we to be cheated of +our birthright by Critics(272) who, entirely overlooking a solution of the +difficulty (_if_ difficulty it be) Divine as this, can see in the +circumstance grounds only for suspicion and cavil? Απαγε. + +(III.) Take the next example.—The very form of the “appendix” which we +have been considering (ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια) breeds offence. +“Instead of ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό,” (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) “Mark has +ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ.”(273) + +Nothing of the sort, I answer. S. Mark _once_ has ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ,(274) and +_once_ ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό. So has S. Matthew, (viz. in chap. vii. 4 and 5): and +so has S. Luke, (viz. in chap. vi. 42, and in Acts xiii. 50.)—But what of +all this? _Who_ sees not that such Criticism is simply nugatory? + +(IV.) We are next favoured with the notable piece of information that the +word πορεύεσθαι, “never used by S. Mark, is three times contained in this +passage;” (viz. in verses 10, 12 and 15.) + +(1.) Yes. The uncompounded verb, never used _elsewhere_ by S. Mark, is +found here three times. But what then? The _compounds_ of πορεύεσθαι are +common enough in his Gospel. Thus, short as his Gospel is, he alone has +εἰσ-πορεύεσθαι, ἐκ-πορεύεσθαι, συμ-πορεύεσθαι, παρα-πορεύεσθαι, _oftener +than all the other three Evangelists put together_,—viz. twenty-four times +against their nineteen: while the compound προσπορεύεσθαι is _peculiar to +his Gospel_.—I am therefore inclined to suggest that the presence of the +verb πορεύεσθαι in these Twelve suspected Verses, instead of being an +additional element of suspicion, is rather a circumstance slightly +corroborative of their genuineness. + +(2.) But suppose that the facts had been different. The phenomenon +appealed to is of even perpetual recurrence, and may on no account be +represented as _suspicious_. Thus, παρουσία, a word used only by S. +Matthew among the Evangelists, is by him used four times; yet are all +those four instances found _in one and the same chapter_. S. Luke alone +has χαρίζεσθαι, and he has it three times: but all three cases are met +with _in one and the same chapter_. S. John alone has λύπη, and he has it +four times: but all the four instances occur _in one and the same +chapter_. + +(3.) Such instances might be multiplied to almost any extent. Out of the +fifteen occasions when S. Matthew uses the word τάλαντον, no less than +fourteen occur in one chapter. The nine occasions when S. Luke uses the +word μνᾶ all occur in one chapter. S. John uses the verb ἀνιστάναι +transitively only four times: but all four instances of it are found in +one chapter.—Now, these three words (be it observed) are _peculiar to the +Gospels_ in which they severally occur. + +(4.) I shall of course be reminded that τάλαντον and μνᾶ are unusual +words,—admitting of no substitute in the places where they respectively +occur. But I reply,—Unless the Critics are able to shew me _which_ of the +ordinary compounds of πορεύεσθαι S. Mark could _possibly_ have employed +for the uncompounded verb, in the three places which have suggested the +present inquiry, viz.:— + +ver. 10:—ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽ αυτοῦ γενομένοις. + +ver. 12:—δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν ... πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν. + +ver. 13:—πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἄπαντα, κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον;— + +their objection is simply frivolous, and the proposed adverse reasoning, +worthless. Such, in fact, it most certainly is; for it will be found that +πορευθεῖσα in ver. 10,—πορευομένοις in ver. 12,—πορευθέντες in ver. +15,—_also_ “admit of no substitute in the places where they severally +occur;” and therefore, since the verb itself is one of S. Mark’s favourite +verbs, not only are these three places above suspicion, but they may be +fairly adduced as indications that _the same_ hand was at work here which +wrote all the rest of his Gospel.(275) + +(V.) Then further,—the phrase τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις (in ver. 10) is +noted as suspicious. “Though found in the Acts (xx. 18) it _never occurs +in the Gospels_: nor does the word μαθηταί in this passage.” + +(1.) The phrase οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι occurs nowhere in the Acts or in +the Gospels, _except here_. But,—Why _should_ it appear elsewhere? or +rather,—How _could_ it? Now, if the expression be (as it is) an ordinary, +easy, and obvious one,—_wanted_ in this place, where it _is_ met with; but +_not_ met with elsewhere, simply because elsewhere it is _not_ +wanted;—surely it is unworthy of any one calling himself a Critic to +pretend that there attaches to it the faintest shadow of suspicion! + +(2.) The essence of the phrase is clearly the expression οἱ μετ᾽ αυτοῦ. +(The aorist participle of γίνομαι, is added of necessity to mark the +persons spoken of. In no other, (certainly in no simpler, more obvious, or +more precise) way could the followers of the risen SAVIOUR have been +designated at such a time. For had He not just now “overcome the sharpness +of Death”?) But this expression, which occurs four times in S. Matthew and +four times in S. Luke, occurs also four times in S. Mark: viz. in chap. i. +36; ii. 25; v. 40, _and here_. This, therefore, is a slightly +corroborative circumstance,—not at all a ground of suspicion. + +(3.) But it seems to be implied that S. Mark, because he mentions τοὺς +μαθητάς often elsewhere in his Gospel, ought to have mentioned them here. + +(a) I answer:—He does not mention τοὺς μαθητάς nearly so often as S. +Matthew; while S. John notices them twice as often as he does. + +(b) Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them five hundred times, +because he had occasion five hundred times to speak of them;—what reason +would _that_ be for his mentioning them here, where he is _not_ speaking +of them? + +(_c_) It must be evident to any one reading the Gospel with attention that +besides οἱ μαθηταί,—(by which expression S. Mark always designates _the +Twelve Apostles_,)—there was a considerable company of believers assembled +together throughout the first Easter Day.(276) S. Luke notices this +circumstance when he relates how the Women, on their return from the +Sepulchre, “told all these things unto the Eleven, and _to all the rest_,” +(xxiv. 9): and again when he describes how Cleopas and his companion (δύο +ἐξ αὐτῶν as S. Luke and S. Mark call them) on their return to Jerusalem, +“found the Eleven gathered together, _and them that were with them_” +(xxiv. 33.) But this was at least as well known to S. Mark as it was to S. +Luke. Instead, therefore, of regarding the designation “_them that had +been with Him_” with suspicion,—are we not rather to recognise in it one +token more that the narrative in which it occurs is unmistakably genuine? +What else is this but one of those delicate discriminating touches which +indicate the hand of a great Master; one of those evidences of minute +accuracy which stamp on a narrative the impress of unquestionable Truth? + +(VI.) We are next assured by our Critic that θεᾶσθαι “is unknown to Mark;” +but it occurs twice in this section, (viz. in ver. 11 and ver. 14.) +_Another_ suspicious circumstance! + +(1.) A strange way (as before) of stating an ordinary fact, certainly! +What else is it but to assume the thing which has to be proved? If the +learned writer had said instead, that the verb θεᾶσθαι, here twice +employed by S. Mark, occurs _nowhere else_ in his Gospel,—he would have +acted more loyally, not to say more fairly by the record: but then he +would have been stating a strictly ordinary phenomenon,—of no +significancy, or relevancy to the matter in hand. He is probably aware +that παραβαίνειν in like manner is to be found in two consecutive verses +of S. Matthew’s Gospel; παρακούειν, twice in the course of one verse: +neither word being used on any other occasion _either by S. Matthew, or by +any other Evangelist_. The same thing precisely is to be said of ἀναζητεῖν +and ἀνταποδιδόναι, of ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι, and διατίθεσθαι, in S. Luke: of +ἀνιστάναι and ζωννύναι in S. John. But who ever dreamed of insinuating +that the circumstance is suspicious? + +(2.) As for θεᾶσθαι, we should have reminded our Critic that this verb, +which is used seven times by S. John, and four times by S. Matthew, is +used only three times by S. Luke, and only twice by S. Mark. And we should +have respectfully inquired,—What possible suspicion does θεᾶσθαι throw +upon the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel? + +(3.) None whatever, would have been the reply. But in the meantime Dr. +Davidson hints that the verb _ought_ to have been employed by S. Mark in +chap. ii. 14.(277)—It is, I presume, sufficient to point out that S. +Matthew, at all events, was not of Dr. Davidson’s opinion:(278) and I +respectfully submit that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here +_writing about himself_, must be allowed, just for once, to be the better +judge. + +(4.) In the meantime,—Is it not perceived that θεᾶσθαι is the very word +specially required in these two places,—though _nowhere else in S. Mark’s +Gospel_?(279) The occasion is one,—viz. the “beholding” of the person of +the risen SAVIOUR. Does not even natural piety suggest that the uniqueness +of such a “spectacle” as _that_ might well set an Evangelist on casting +about for a word of somewhat less ordinary occurrence? The occasion cries +aloud for this very verb θεᾶσθαι; and I can hardly conceive a more apt +illustration of a darkened eye,—a spiritual faculty perverted from its +lawful purpose,—than that which only discovers “a stumbling-block and +occasion of falling” in expressions like the present which “should have +been only for their wealth,” being so manifestly designed for their +edification. + +(VII.) But,—(it is urged by a Critic of a very different stamp,)—ἐθεάθη +ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (ver. 11) “is a construction only found here in the New +Testament.” + +(1.) Very likely; but what then? The learned writer has evidently +overlooked the fact that the passive θεᾶσθαι occurs but _three times_ in +the New Testament _in all_.(280) S. Matthew, on the _two_ occasions when +he employs the word, connects it with a dative.(281) What is there +_suspicious_ in the circumstance that θεᾶσθαι ὑπό should be the +construction preferred by S. Mark? The phenomenon is not nearly so +remarkable as that S. Luke, on one solitary occasion, exhibits the phrase +μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπό,(282)—instead of making the verb govern the accusative, as +he does three times _in the very next verse_; and, indeed, eleven times in +the course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in this instance is but +copying S. Matthew, who _also_ has μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπό once;(283) and seven +times makes the verb govern an accusative. This, nevertheless, constitutes +no reason whatever for suspecting the genuineness either of S. Matth. x. +28 or of S. Luke xii. 4. + +(2.) In like manner, the phrase ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν will be found to +occur once, and once _only_, in S. Mark,—once, and once only, in S. +Luke;(284) although S. Mark and S. Luke use the verb φοβεῖσθαι upwards of +forty times. Such facts are interesting. They may prove important. But no +one who is ever so little conversant with such inquiries will pretend that +they are in the least degree _suspicious_.—I pass on. + +(VIII.) It is next noted as a suspicious circumstance that ἀπιστεῖν occurs +in ver. 11 and in ver. 16; but nowhere else in the Gospels,—except in S. +Luke xxiv. 11, 14. + +But really, such a remark is wholly without force, as an argument against +the genuineness of the passage in which the word is found: for, + +(1.) Where else in the course of this Gospel _could_ ἀπιστεῖν have +occurred? Now, unless some reason can be shewn why the word _should_, or +at least _might_ have been employed elsewhere, to remark upon its +introduction in this place, _where it __ could scarcely be dispensed +with_, as a ground of suspicion, is simply irrational. It might just as +well be held to be a suspicious circumstance, in respect of verses 3 and +4, that the verb ἀποκυλίζειν occurs there, _and there only_, in this +Gospel. Nothing whatever follows from the circumstance. It is, in fact, a +point scarcely deserving of attention. + +(2.) To be sure, if the case of a verb exclusively used by the two +Evangelists, S. Mark and S. Luke, were an unique, or even an exceedingly +rare phenomenon, it might have been held to be a somewhat suspicious +circumstance that the phenomenon presented itself in the present section. +But nothing of the sort is the fact. There are no fewer than forty-five +verbs _exclusively used by S. Mark and S. Luke_. And why should not +ἀπιστεῖν be, (as it is,) one of them? + +(3.) Note, next, that this word _is used twice_, and in the course of his +last chapter too, also _by S. Luke_. Nowhere else does it occur in the +Gospels. It is at least as strange that the word ἀπιστεῖν should be found +twice in the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Luke, as in the +last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark. And if no shadow of +suspicion is supposed to result from this circumstance in the case of the +third Evangelist, why should it in the case of the second? + +(4.) But, lastly, _the noun_ ἀπιστία (which occurs in S. Mark xvi. 14) +occurs in two other places of the same Gospel. And this word (which S. +Matthew uses twice,) is employed by none of the other Evangelists.—What +need to add another word? Do not many of these supposed suspicious +circumstances,—_this_ one for example,—prove rather, on closer inspection, +to be confirmatory facts? + +(IX.) We are next assured that μετὰ ταῦτα (ver. 12) “_is not found in +Mark_, though many opportunities occurred for using it.” + +(1.) I suppose that what this learned writer means, is this; that if S. +Mark had coveted an opportunity for introducing the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα +earlier in his Gospel, he might have found one. (More than this cannot be +meant: for _nowhere_ before does S. Mark employ _any other phrase_ to +express “after these things,” or “after this,” or “afterwards.”) + +But what is the obvious inference from the facts of the case, as stated by +the learned Critic, except that the blessed Evangelist _must be presumed +to have been unconscious of any desire to introduce the expression under +consideration on any other occasion except the present_? + +(2.) Then, further, it is worth observing that while the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα +occurs five times in S. Luke’s Gospel, it is found only twice in the Acts; +while S. Matthew _never employs it at all_. Why, then,—I would +respectfully inquire—_why_ need S. Mark introduce the phrase _more than +once_? Why, especially, is his solitary use of the expression to be +represented as a suspicious circumstance; and even perverted into an +article of indictment against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of +his Gospel? “Would any one argue that S. Luke was not the author of the +Acts, because the author of the Acts has employed this phrase only +twice,—‘often as he _could_ have used it?’ (Meyer’s phrase here.(285))” + +(X.) Another objection awaits us,—“Ἓτερος also is unknown to Mark,” says +Dr. Davidson;—which only means that the word occurs in chap. xvi. 12, but +not elsewhere in his Gospel. + +It so happens, however, that ἕτερος also occurs once only in the Gospel of +S. John. Does it therefore throw suspicion on S. John xix. 37? + +(XI.) The same thing is said of ὕστερον (in ver. 14) viz. that it “occurs +nowhere” in the second Gospel. + +But why not state the case thus?—Ὕστερον, a word which is twice employed +by S. Luke, occurs only _once_ in S. Mark and _once_ in S. John.—_That_ +would be the true way of stating the facts of the case. But it would be +attended with this inconvenient result,—that it would make it plain that +the word in question has no kind of bearing on the matter in hand. + +(XII.) The same thing he says of βλάπτειν (in ver. 18). + +But what is the fact? The word occurs _only twice in the Gospels_,—viz. in +S. Mark xvi. 18 and S. Luke iv. 35. It is one of the eighty-four words +which are peculiar to S. Mark and S. Luke. What possible significancy +would Dr. Davidson attach to the circumstance? + +(XIII.) Once more.—“πανταχοῦ” (proceeds Dr. Davidson) “is unknown to +Mark;” which (as we begin to be aware) is the learned gentleman’s way of +stating that it is only found in chap. xvi. 20. + +Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that it _also_ occurs in S. Mark +i. 28. I respectfully differ from them in opinion: but when it has been +pointed out that the word _is only used besides in S. Luke_ ix. 6, what +_can_ be said of such Criticism but that it is simply frivolous? + +(XIV. and XV.) Yet again:—συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν are also said by the same +learned Critic to be “unknown to Mark.” + +S. Mark certainly uses these two words only once,—viz. in the last verse +of the present Chapter: but what there is suspicious in this circumstance, +I am at a loss even to divine. He _could_ not have used them oftener; and +since one hundred and fifty-six words are peculiar to his Gospel, why +should not συνεργεῖν and βεβαιοῦν be two of them? + +(XVI.) “Πᾶσα κτίσις is Pauline,” proceeds Dr. Davidson, (referring to a +famous expression which is found in ver. 15.) + +(1.) All very oracular,—to be sure: but _why_ πᾶσα κτίσις should be +thought “Pauline” rather than “Petrine,” I really, once more, cannot +discover; seeing that S. Peter has the expression as well as S. Paul.(286) + +(2.) In this place, however, the phrase is πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις. But even this +expression is no more to be called “Pauline” than “Marcine;” seeing that +as S. Mark uses it once and once only, so does S. Paul use it once and +once only, viz. in Rom. viii. 22. + +(3.) In the meantime, how does it come to pass that the learned Critic has +overlooked the significant fact that the word κτίσις occurs besides in S. +Mark x. 6 and xiii. 19; and that it is a word which _S. Mark alone of the +Evangelists uses_? Its occurrence, therefore, in this place is a +circumstance the very reverse of suspicious. + +(4.) But lastly, inasmuch as the opening words of our LORD’S Ministerial +Commission to the Apostles are these,—κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάση τῇ +κτίσει (ver. 15): inasmuch, too, as S. Paul in his Epistle to the +Colossians (i. 23) almost reproduces those very words; speaking of the +Hope τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάση [τῇ] κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν +οὐρανόν:—Is it not an allowable conjecture that _a direct reference_ to +_that_ place in S. Mark’s Gospel is contained in _this_ place of S. Paul’s +Epistle? that the inspired Apostle “beholding the universal tendency of +Christianity already realized,” announces (and from imperial Rome!) the +fulfilment of his LORD’S commands in his LORD’S own words as recorded by +the Evangelist S. Mark? + +I desire to be understood to deliver this only as a conjecture. But seeing +that S. Mark’s Gospel is commonly thought to have been written at Rome, +and under the eye of S. Peter; and that S. Peter (and therefore S. Mark) +must have been at Rome before S. Paul visited that city in A.D. +61;—seeing, too, that it was in A.D. 61-2 (as Wordsworth and Alford are +agreed) that S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, and wrote it +from _Rome_;—I really can discover nothing unreasonable in the +speculation. If, however, it be well founded,—(and it is impossible to +deny that the coincidence of expression _may_ be such as I have +suggested,)—then, what an august corroboration would _this_ be of “the +last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark!” ... If, indeed, +the great Apostle on reaching Rome inspected S. Mark’s Gospel for the +first time, with what awe will he have recognised in his own recent +experience the fulfilment of his SAVIOUR’S great announcement concerning +the “signs which should follow them that believe!” Had he not himself +“cast out devils?”—“spoken with tongues more than they all?”—and at +Melita, not only “shaken off the serpent into the fire and felt no harm,” +but also “laid hands on the sick” father of Publius, “and he had +recovered?” ... To return, however, to matters of fact; with an apology +(if it be thought necessary) for what immediately goes before. + +(XVII.) Next,—ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι μου (ver. 17) is noticed as another suspicious +peculiarity. The phrase is supposed to occur only in this place of S. +Mark’s Gospel; the Evangelist elsewhere employing the preposition +ἐπί:—(viz. in ix. 37: ix. 39: xiii. 6.) + +(1.) Now really, if it were so, the reasoning would be nugatory. _S. Luke_ +also once, and once only, has ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου: his usage elsewhere +being, (like S. Mark’s) to use ἐπί. Nay, in two consecutive verses of ch. +ix, ἐπί τῷ ὀνόματί μου—σου is read: and yet, in the very next chapter, his +Gospel exhibits an unique instance of the usage of ἐν. Was it ever thought +that suspicion is thereby cast on S. Luke x. 17? + +(2.) But, in fact, the objection is an oversight of the learned (and +generally accurate) objector. The phrase recurs in S. Mark ix. 38,—as the +text of that place has been revised by Tischendorf, by Tregelles and by +himself. This is therefore a slightly _corroborative_, not a suspicious +circumstance. + +(XVIII. and XIX.) We are further assured that παρακολουθεῖν (in ver. 17) +and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in ver. 20) “are both _foreign to the diction of Mark_.” + +(1.) But what can the learned author of this statement possibly mean? He +is not speaking of the uncompounded verb ἀκολουθεῖν, of course; for S. +Mark employs it at least twenty times. He cannot be speaking of the +compounded verb; for συνακολουθεῖν occurs in S. Mark v. 37. He cannot mean +that παρακολουθεῖν, because the Evangelist uses it only once, is +suspicious; for that would be to cast a slur on S. Luke i. 3. He cannot +mean generally that verbs compounded with prepositions are “foreign to the +diction of Mark;” for there are no less than _forty-two_ such verbs which +are even _peculiar to S. Mark’s short Gospel_,—against thirty which are +peculiar to S. Matthew, and seventeen which are peculiar to S. John. He +cannot mean that verbs compounded with παρά and ἐπί have a suspicious +look; for at least _thirty-three_ such compounds, (besides the two before +us,) occur in his sixteen chapters.(287) What, then, I must really ask, +can the learned Critic possibly mean?—I respectfully pause for an answer. + +(2.) In the meantime, I claim that as far as such evidence goes,—(and it +certainly goes a very little way, yet, _as far as it goes_,)—it is a note +of S. Mark’s authorship, that within the compass of the last twelve verses +of his Gospel these two compounded verbs should be met with. + +(XX.) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious circumstance, that +(in ver. 18) the phrase χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι ἐπί τινα occurs; “instead of +χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι τινι.” + +(1.) But on the contrary, the phrase “_is in Mark’s manner_,” says Dean +Alford: the plain fact being that it occurs no less than three times in +his Gospel,—viz. in chap. viii. 25: x. 16: xvi. 18. (The other idiom, he +has four times.(288)) Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to +as a note of genuineness _and_ as an indication of spurious origin. What +_can_ be the value of such Criticism as this? + +(2.) Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt illustration of the +precariousness of the style of remark which is just now engaging our +attention. Within the space of three verses, S. Mark has _both_ +expressions,—viz. ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ (viii. 23) and also ἐπέθηκε τὰς +χεῖρας ἐπί (ver. 25.) S. Matthew has the latter phrase once; the former, +twice.(289) _Who_ will not admit that all this (so-called) Criticism is +the veriest trifling; and that to pretend to argue about the genuineness +of a passage of Scripture from such evidence as the present is an act of +rashness bordering on folly?... The reader is referred to what was offered +above on Art. VII. + +(XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver. 19 and ver. 20) +are also declared to be “_foreign to the diction of Mark_.” I ask leave to +examine these two charges separately. + +(1.) μὲν οὖν occurs only once in S. Mark’s Gospel, truly: but then _it +occurs only once in S. Luke_ (iii. 18);—only twice in S. John (xix. 24: +xx. 30):—in S. Matthew, never at all. What imaginable plea can be made out +of such evidence as this, for or against the genuineness of the last +Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel?—Once more, I pause for an answer. + +(2.) As for ὁ Κύριος being “_foreign to the diction of Mark_ in speaking +of the LORD,”—I really do not know what the learned Critic can possibly +mean; except that he finds our LORD _nowhere called_ ὁ Κύριος _by S. Mark, +except in this place._ + +But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does he find our LORD +anywhere called by S. Mark “JESUS CHRIST,” except in chap. i. 1. Are we, +therefore, to suspect the beginning of S. Mark’s Gospel as well as the end +of it? By no means, (I shall perhaps be told:) a reason is assignable for +the use of _that_ expression in chap. i. 1. And so, I venture to reply, +there is a fully sufficient reason assignable for the use of _this_ +expression in chap. xvi. 19.(290) + +(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our LORD is called Ἰησοῦς +Χριστός,—but _only in the first Chapter_ of their respective Gospels. By +S. Luke nowhere. The appellation may,—or may not,—be thought “foreign to +the diction” of those Evangelists. But surely it constitutes no reason +whatever why we should suspect the genuineness of the beginning of the +first, or the second, or the fourth Gospel. + +(4.) S. John _three times in the first verse of his first Chapter_ +designates the Eternal SON by the extraordinary title ὁ Λόγος; but +_nowhere else in his Gospel_, (except once in ver. 14,) does that Name +recur. Would it be reasonable to represent _this_ as a suspicious +circumstance? Is not the Divine fitness of that sublime appellation +generally recognised and admitted?(291)—Surely, we come to Scripture to be +learners only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to have +spoken about GOD! When will men learn that “the Scripture-phrase, or +_language of the Holy Ghost_”(292) is as much above them as Heaven is +above Earth? + +(XXIII.) Another complaint:—ἀναληφθῆναι, which is found in ver. 19, occurs +nowhere else in the Gospels. + +(1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs which “occur +nowhere else in the Gospels:” and this happens to be one of them? What +possible inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circumstance? + +(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. Ἀναληφθῆναι and ἀνάληψις are words +_proper to the Ascension of our _LORD_ into Heaven_. The two Evangelists +who do _not_ describe that event, are _without_ these words: the two +Evangelists who _do_ describe it, _have_ them.(293) Surely, these are +marks of genuineness, not grounds for suspicion! + +It is high time to conclude this discussion.—Much has been said about two +other minute points:— + +(XXIV.) It is declared that ἐκεῖνος “is nowhere found absolutely used by +S. Mark:” (the same thing may be said of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:) +“but always emphatically: whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely +used.”(294) Another writer says,—“The use of ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11, and +13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with ὁ δέ, is peculiar.”(295) + +(1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not very, that an Evangelist +who employs an ordinary word in the ordinary way about thirty times in +all, should use it “absolutely” in two consecutive verses. + +(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves as to +_which_ are precisely the offending instances,—(for it is evidently a moot +point whether ἐκεῖνος be emphatic in ver. 13, or not,)—we may be excused +from a prolonged discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the +subject in the consideration of the next Article (XXV.) + +(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that “in the 10th and 14th +verses there are sentences without a copulative: whereas Mark always has +the copulative in such cases, particularly καί.” But then,— + +(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other sections of S. +Mark’s Gospel _resembling the present_,—(I mean, passages in which S. Mark +summarizes many disconnected incidents, as he does here,)—is it not plain +that such an objection is wholly without point? + +(2.) Two instances are cited. In the latter, (ver. 14), Lachmann and +Tregelles read ὔστερον δέ: and the reading is not impossible. So that the +complaint is really reduced to this,—That in ver. 10 the Evangelist begins +Ἐκεὶνη πορευθεῖσα, instead of saying Καὶ ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα. And (it is +implied) there is something so abhorrent to probability in this, as +slightly to strengthen the suspicion that the entire context is not the +work of the Evangelist. + +(3.) Now, suppose we had S. Mark back among us: and suppose that he, on +being shewn this objection, were to be heard delivering himself somewhat +to the following effect:—“Aye. But men may not find fault with _that_ turn +of phrase. I derived it from Simon Peter’s lips. I have always suspected +that it was a kind of echo, so to say, of what he and ‘the other Disciple’ +had many a time rehearsed in the hearing of the wondering Church +concerning the Magdalene on the morning of the Resurrection.” And then we +should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth Gospel:— + +γύναι τί κλαίεις; τίνα ζητεῖς; ἘΚΕΊΝΗ δοκοῦσα κ.τ.λ. + +After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all strange, even +though it be “without a copulative:”— + +ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. ἘΚΕΊΝΗ πορευθεῖσα κ.τ.λ. + +(4.) For after all, the _only_ question to be asked is,—Will any one +pretend that such a circumstance as this is _suspicious_? Unless _that_ be +asserted, I see not what is gained by raking together,—(_as one easily +might do in any section of any of the Gospels_,)—every minute peculiarity +of form or expression which can possibly be found within the space of +these twelve verses. It is an evidence of nothing so much as an +incorrigible coarseness of critical fibre, that every slight variety of +manner or language should be thus pounced upon and represented as a note +of spuriousness,—in the face of (_a_) the unfaltering tradition of the +Church universal that the document has _never_ been hitherto suspected: +and (_b_) the known proclivity of all writers, as free moral and +intellectual agents, sometimes to deviate from their else invariable +practice.—May I not here close the discussion? + +There will perhaps be some to remark, that however successfully the +foregoing objections may seem to have been severally disposed of, yet that +the combined force of such a multitude of slightly suspicious +circumstances must be not only appreciable, but even remain an +inconvenient, not to say a formidable fact. Let me point out that the +supposed remark is nothing else but a fallacy; which is detected the +instant it is steadily looked at. + +For if there really had remained after the discussion of each of the +foregoing XXV Articles, a slight residuum of suspiciousness, _then_ of +course the aggregate of so many fractions would have amounted to something +in the end. + +But since it has been proved that there is absolutely _nothing at all_ +suspicious in _any_ of the alleged circumstances which have been hitherto +examined, the case becomes altogether different. The sum of ten thousand +nothings is still nothing.(296) This may be conveniently illustrated by an +appeal to the only charge which remains to be examined. + +(XXVI. and XXVII.) The absence from these twelve verses of the adverbs +εὐθέως and πάλιν,—(both of them favourite words with the second +Evangelist,)—has been pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance. Let +us take the words singly:— + +(_a_) The adverb εὐθέως (or εὐθύς) is indeed of _very_ frequent occurrence +in S. Mark’s Gospel. And yet its absence from chap. xvi is _proved_ to be +in no degree a suspicious circumstance, from the discovery that though it +occurs as many as + +12 times in chap. i; +and 6 times in chap. v; +and 5 times in chap. iv, vi; +and 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv; +and 2 times in chap. vii, xi; +it yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv; +while it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi. + +(b) In like manner, πάλιν, which occurs as often as + +6 times in chap. xiv; +and 5 times in chap. x; +and 3 times in chap. viii, xv; +and 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii; +and 1 times in chap. iv, v; +occurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.(297) + +(1.) Now,—How can it possibly be more suspicious that πάλιν should be +absent from _the last twelve_ verses of S. Mark, than that it should be +away from _the first forty-five_? + +(2.) Again. Since εὐθέως is not found in the xiith or the xiiith chapters +of this same Gospel,—nor πάλιν in the ist, vith, ixth, or xiiith +chapter,—(for the sufficient reason that _neither word is wanted in any of +those places_,)—what possible “suspiciousness” can be supposed to result +from the absence of both words from the xvith chapter also, where _also_ +neither of them is wanted? _Why_ is the xvith chapter of S. Mark’s +Gospel,—or rather, why are “the last twelve verses” of it,—to labour under +such special disfavor and discredit? + +(3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,—“I am well aware that arguments on +_style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_ they prove +very little: but when there does exist external evidence, and when +internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and connection, +are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment; +then these internal considerations possess very great weight.”(298)—For +all rejoinder, the respected writer is asked,—(_a_) But when there _does +not_ exist any such external evidence: what then? Next, he is reminded +(_b_) That whether there does, or does not, it is at least certain that +_not one_ of those “proofs as to style,” &c., of which he speaks, has been +able to stand the test of strict examination. Not only is the +precariousness of all such Criticism as has been brought to bear against +the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 excessive, but the supposed facts +adduced in evidence have been found out to be every one of them +_mistakes_;—being either, (1) demonstrably without argumentative cogency +of any kind;—or else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory +circumstances: indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by S. +Mark,—_not_ that it is probably the work of another hand. + +And thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven grounds of suspicion +vanishes out of sight: fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and +nugatory; and _thirteen_, more or less clearly witnessing _in favour_ of +the section.(299) + +III. Of these thirteen expressions, some are even eloquent in their +witness. I am saying that it is impossible not to be exceedingly struck by +the discovery that this portion of the Gospel contains (as I have +explained already) so many indications of S. Mark’s undoubted manner. Such +is the reference to ἡ κτίσις (in ver. 15):—the mention of ἀπιστία (in ver. +14):—the occurrence of the verb πορεύεσθαι (in ver. 10 and 12),—of the +phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (in ver. 17),—and of the phrase χεῖρας ἐτιτιθέναι +ἐπί τινα (in ver. 18):—of the Evangelical term for our LORD’S Ascension, +viz. ἀνελήφθη (in ver. 19):—and lastly, of the compounds παρακολουθεῖν and +ἐπακολουθεῖν (in verses 17 and 20.) + +To these Thirteen, will have to be added all those other notes of identity +of authorship,—such as they are,—which result from recurring identity of +phrase, and of which the assailants of this portion of the Gospel have +prudently said nothing. Such are the following:— + +(xiv.) Ἀνίσταναι, for rising _from the dead_; which is one of S. Mark’s +words. Taking into account the shortness of his Gospel, he has it thrice +as often as S. Luke; _twelve times_ as often as S. Matthew or S. John. + +(xv.) The idiomatic expression πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν, of which S. Matthew +does not present a single specimen; but which occurs three times in the +short Gospel of S. Mark,(300)—of which ver. 12 is one. + +(xvi.) The expression προί (in ver. 9,)—of which S. Mark avails himself +six times: i.e. (if the length of the present Gospel be taken into +account) almost five times as often as either S. Matthew or S. John,—S. +Luke never using the word at all. In his first chapter (ver. 35), and here +in his last (ver. 2), S. Mark uses λίαν in connexion with προί. + +(xvii.) The phrase κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (in ver. 15) is another of S. +Mark’s phrases. Like S. Matthew, he employs it four times (i. 14: xiii. +10: xiv. 9: xvi. 15): but it occurs neither in S. Luke’s nor in S. John’s +Gospel. + +(xviii.) The same _words_ singly are characteristic of his Gospel. Taking +the length of their several narratives into account, S. Mark has the word +κηρύσσειν more than twice as often as S. Matthew: three times as often as +S. Luke. + +(xix.) εὐαγγέλιον,—a word which occurs only in the first two Gospels,—is +found twice as often in S. Mark’s as in S. Matthew’s Gospel: and if the +respective length of their Gospels be considered, the proportion will be +as three to one. It occurs, as above stated, in ver. 15. + +(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned to vindicate _the +genuineness_ of this section of the Gospel, we should have been assured +that φανερουσθαι is another of S. Mark’s words: by which they would have +meant no more than this,—that though employed neither by S. Matthew nor by +S. Luke it is used thrice by S. Mark,—being found twice in this section +(verses 12, 14), as well as in ch. iv. 22. + +(xxi.) They would have also pointed out that σκληροκαρδία is another of S. +Mark’s words: being employed neither by S. Luke nor by S. John,—by S. +Matthew only once,—but by S. Mark on _two_ occasions; of which ch. xvi. 14 +is one. + +(xxii.) In the same spirit, they would have bade us observe that πανταχοῦ +(ver. 20)—unknown to S. Matthew and S. John, and employed only once by S. +Luke,—is _twice_ used by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present +section. + +Nor would it have been altogether unfair if they had added that the +precisely similar word πανταχόθεν (or πάντοθεν) is only found in this same +Gospel,—viz. in ch. i. 45. + +(xxiii.) They would further have insisted (and this time with a greater +show of reason) that the adverb καλῶς (which is found in ver. 18) is +another favorite word with S. Mark: occurring as it does, (when the length +of these several narratives is taken into account,) more than twice as +often in S. Mark’s as in S. John’s Gospel,—just three times as often as in +the Gospel of S. Matthew and S. Luke. + +(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observation would have +been that ἔχειν, in the sense of “to be,” (as in the phrase καλῶς ἔχειν, +ver. 18,) is characteristic of S. Mark. He has it oftener than any of the +Evangelists, viz. six times in all (ch. i. 32, 34: ii. 17: v. 23: vi. 55: +xvi. 18.) Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account, he employs this +idiom twice as often as S. Matthew;—three times as often as S. John;—four +times as often as S. Luke. + +(xxv.) They would have told us further that ἄῤῥωστος is another of S. +Mark’s favorite words: for that he has it _three_ times,—viz. in ch. vi. +5, 13, and here in ver. 18. S. Matthew has it only once. S. Luke and S. +John not at all. + +(xxvi.) And we should have been certainly reminded by them that the +conjunction of πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι (in ver. 10) is characteristic of S. +Mark,—who has κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας in ch. v. 38: θορυβεῖσθε και +κλαίετε in the very next verse. As for πενθεῖν, it is one of the 123 words +common to S. Matthew and S. Mark, and peculiar to their two Gospels. + +(xxvii.) Lastly, “κατακρίνω (in ver. 16), instead of κρίνω, is Mark’s +word, (comp. x. 33: xiv. 64).” The simple verb which is used four times by +S. Matthew, five times by S. Luke, nineteen times by S. John, is never at +all employed by S. Mark: whereas the compound verb he has oftener in +proportion than S. Matthew,—more than twice as often as either S. Luke or +S. John. + +Strange,—that there should be exactly “xxvii” notes of genuineness +discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of “XXVII” grounds of +suspicion! + +But enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage review the progress +hitherto made in this inquiry. + +I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing assertions +respecting the “Style” and “Phraseology” of this section of the Gospel +which were rehearsed at the outset,(301)—are destitute of foundation. But +from this discovery alone there results a settled conviction which it will +be found difficult henceforth to disturb. A page of Scripture which has +been able to endure so severe an ordeal of hostile inquiry, has been +_proved_ to be above suspicion. _That_ character is rightly accounted +_blameless_ which comes out unsullied after Calumny has done her worst; +done it systematically; done it with a will; done it for a hundred years. + +But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the case in respect +of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. Something _more_ is certain than +that the charges which have been so industriously brought against this +portion of the Gospel are without foundation. It has been also proved that +instead of there being discovered twenty-seven suspicious words and +phrases scattered up and down these twelve verses of the Gospel, there +actually exist exactly as many words and phrases which attest with more or +less certainty that those verses are nothing else but the work of the +Evangelist. + +IV. And now it is high time to explain that though I have hitherto +condescended to adopt the method of my opponents, I have only done so in +order to shew that it proves fatal to _themselves_. I am, to say the +truth, ashamed of what has last been written,—so untrustworthy do I deem +the method which, (following the example of those who have preceded me in +this inquiry,) I have hitherto pursued. The “Concordance test,”—(for +_that_ is probably as apt and intelligible a designation as can be devised +for the purely _mechanical_ process whereby it is proposed by a certain +school of Critics to judge of the authorship of Scripture,)—is about the +coarsest as well as about the most delusive that could be devised. By +means of this clumsy and vulgar instrument, especially when applied, (as +in the case before us,) without skill and discrimination, it would be just +as easy to prove that _the first_ twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are of +a suspicious character as _the last_.(302) In truth, except in very +skilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead. + +Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that “Mark nowhere uses the +appellation JESUS CHRIST:” and (ii.) that “εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” is +“_Pauline_”—We should be reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere +introduces any of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of +“Isaiah”(303) (in ver. 2) is a suspicious circumstance:—(iv.) that a +quotation from the Old Testament is “foreign to his manner,”—(for writers +of this class would not hesitate to assume that S. Mark xv. 28 is no part +of the Gospel;)—and (v.) that the fact that here are quotations from _two_ +different prophets, betrays an unskilful hand.—(vi.) Because S. Mark three +times calls Judæa by its usual name (Ιουδαια, viz. in iii. 7: x. 1: xiii. +14), the _unique_ designation, ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα (in ver. 5) would be +pronounced decisive against “the authorship of Mark.”—(vii.) The same +thing would be said of the _unique_ expression, ἐν Ἰορδάνη ποταμῷ, which +is found in ver. 5,—seeing that this Evangelist three times designates +Jordan simply as Ἰορδάνης (i. 9: iii. 8: x. 1).—(viii.) _That_ entire +expression in ver. 7 (_unique_, it must be confessed, in the Gospel,) οὖ +οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανος—ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ, would be pronounced “abhorrent to the +style of Mark.”—(ix.) τὸ Πνεῦμα _twice_, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we +should be told is never used by the Evangelist absolutely for the HOLY +GHOST: but always τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον (as in ch. iii. 29: xii. 36: xiii. +11).—(x.) The same would be said of οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται (in ver. 5) for “the +inhabitants of Jerusalem:” we should be assured that S. Mark’s phrase +would rather be οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων,—as in ch. iii. 8 and 22.—And (xi.) the +expression πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῷ (ver. 15), we should be informed +“cannot be Mark’s;”—who either employs εἰς and the accusative (as in ch. +ix. 92), or else makes the verb take a dative (as in ch. xi. 31: xvi. 13, +14.)—We should also probably be told that the ten following words are all +“unknown to Mark:”—(xii.) τρίχες,—(xiii.) δερματίνη,—(xiv.) ὀσφύς,—(xv.) +ἀκρίδες,—(xvi.) μέλι,—(xvii.) ἄγριος,(six instances in a single verse +(ver. 6): a highly suspicious circumstance!),—(xviii.) κύπτειν,—(xix.) +ἱμάς,—(xx.) ὑποδήματα, (all three instances in ver. 7!)—(xxi.) +εὐδοκεῖν,—(xxii.) καὶ ἐγένετο ... ἦλθεν (ver. 9),—unique in S. +Mark!—(xxiii.) βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς (ver 9), another unique phrase!—(xxiv.) οἱ +οὐρανοί _twice_, (viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when _S. Mark_ +speaks of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41: vii. 34: viii. 11: xvi. 19) he always uses +the singular.—Lastly, (xxv.) the same sorry objection which was brought +against the “last twelve verses,” (that πάλιν, a favourite adverb with S. +Mark, is not found there,) is here even more conspicuous. + +Turning away from all this,—(not, however, without an apology for having +lingered over such frivolous details so long,)—I desire to point out that +we have reverently to look below the surface, if we would ascertain how +far it is to be presumed from internal considerations whether S. Mark was +indeed the author of this portion of his Gospel, or not. + +V. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philosophical, more +_real_ test than the coarse, uncritical expedient which has been hitherto +considered of ascertaining by reference to the pages of a Greek +Concordance whether a certain word which is found in this section of the +Gospel is, or is not, used elsewhere by S. Mark. And I suppose it will be +generally allowed to be deserving of attention,—in fact, to be a +singularly corroborative circumstance,—that within the narrow compass of +these Twelve Verses we meet with _every principal characteristic of S. +Mark’s manner_:—Thus, + +(i.) Though he is the Author of the shortest of the Gospels, and though to +all appearance he often merely reproduces what S. Matthew has said before +him, or else anticipates something, which is afterwards delivered by S. +Luke,—it is surprising how often we are indebted to S. Mark for precious +pieces of information which we look for in vain elsewhere. Now, this is a +feature of the Evangelist’s manner which is susceptible of memorable +illustration from the section before us. + +How many and how considerable are the _new circumstances_ which S. Mark +here delivers!—(1) That Mary Magdalene was _the first_ to behold the risen +SAVIOUR: (2) That it was _He_ who had cast out from her the “seven +devils:” (3) _How the men were engaged_ to whom she brought her joyful +message,—(4) who not only did not believe _her_ story, but when Cleopas +and his companion declared what had happened to themselves, “_neither +believed they them_.” (5) The terms of the Ministerial Commission, as set +down in verses 15 and 16, are unique. (6) The announcement of the “signs +which should follow them that believe” is even extraordinary. Lastly, (7) +this is the only place in the Gospel where _The Session at the right Hand +of _GOD is recorded.... So many, and such precious incidents, showered +into the Gospel Treasury at the last moment, and with such a lavish hand, +must needs have proceeded if not from an Apostle at least from a companion +of Apostles. O, if we had no other token to go by, there could not be a +reasonable doubt that this entire section is by no other than S. Mark +himself! + +(ii.) A second striking characteristic of the second Evangelist is his +love of picturesque, or at least of striking details,—his proneness to +introduce exceedingly minute particulars, often of the profoundest +significancy, and always of considerable interest. Not to look beyond the +Twelve Verses (chap. i. 9-20) which were originally proposed for +comparison,—We are reminded (_a_) that in describing our SAVIOUR’S +Baptism, it is only S. Mark who relates that “He came _from Nazareth_” to +be baptized.—(_b_) In his highly elliptical account of our LORD’S +Temptation, it is only he who relates that “He was _with the wild +beasts_.”—(_c_) In his description of the Call of the four Disciples, S. +Mark alone it is who, (notwithstanding the close resemblance of his +account to what is found in S. Matthew,) records that the father of S. +James and S. John was left “in the ship _with the hired +servants_.”(304)—Now, of this characteristic, we have also within these +twelve verses, at least four illustrations:— + +(_a_) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently proceeded from +an eye-witness,—“πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσι.” S. Mark relates that when Mary +conveyed to the Disciples the joyous tidings of the LORD’S Resurrection, +_she found them overwhelmed with sorrow_,—“mourning and weeping.” + +(_b_) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is _recorded only +there._ + +(_c_) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciples were “going +into the country,” (πορευόμενοι εἰς ἀγρόν,(305) ver. 12,) JESUS also “went +with them”—(συν-επορεύετο, as S. Luke relates;)—but that it was _as they +actually _“walked”_ along_ (περιπατοῦσιν) that this manifestation took +place. + +(_d_) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning “them that +believe;” what can be imagined more striking than the promise that they +should “_take up serpents_;” and suffer no harm even if they should +“_drink any deadly thing_”? + +(iii) Next,—all have been struck, I suppose, with S. Mark’s proneness to +substitute some expression of his own for what he found in the Gospel of +his predecessor S. Matthew: or, when he anticipates something which is +afterwards met with in the Gospel of S. Luke, his aptness to deliver it in +language entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude, for +instance; to his substitution of ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (xiv. 72) for S. +Matthew’s ἔκλαυσε μικρῶς (xxvi. 75);—and of ὁ τέκτων (vi. 3) for ὁ τοῧ +τέκτονος υιος (S. Matth. xiii. 55).—The “woman of Canaan” in S. Matthew’s +Gospel (γυνὴ Χαναναία, ch. xv. 22), is called “a Greek, a Syrophenician by +nation” in S. Mark’s (Ἑλληνὶς, Συροφοίνισσα τῷ γένει, ch. vii. 26).—At the +Baptism, instead of the “_opened_” heavens of S. Matthew (ἀνεῷχθησαν, ch. +iii. 16) and S. Luke (ἀνεῳχθῆναι, ch. iii. 22), we are presented by S. +Mark with the striking image of the heavens “_cleaving_” or “_being rent +asunder_” (σχιζομένους,(306) ch. i. 10).—What S. Matthew calls τὰ ὅρια +Μαγδαλά (ch. xv. 39), S. Mark designates as τὰ μέρθ Δαλμανουθά (ch. viii. +10.)—In place of S. Matthew’s ζύμη Σαδδουκαίων (ch. xvi. 6), S. Mark has +ζύμη Ἡρώδου (ch. viii. 15.)—In describing the visit to Jericho, for the +δύο τυφλοί of S. Matthew (ch. xx. 29), S. Mark gives υἱὸς Τιμαίου +Βαρτίμαιος ὁ τυφλὸς ... προσαιτῶν (ch. ch. 46.)—For the κλάδους of S. +Matth. xxi. 8, S. Mark (ch. xi. 8) has στοιβάδας; and for the other’s πρὶν +ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (xxvi. 34), he has πρὶν ἢ δίς (xiv. 30.)—It is so +throughout. + +Accordingly,—(as we have already more than once had occasion to +remark,)—whereas the rest say only ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων, S. Mark says πρώτη +σαββάτου (in ver. 9).—Whereas S. Luke (viii. 2) says ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ +ἐξεληλύθει,—S. Mark records that from her ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.—Very +different is the great ministerial Commission as set down by S. Mark in +ver. 15, 16, from what is found in S. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20.—And whereas +S. Luke says “_their eyes were holden_ that they should not know Him,” S. +Mark says that “He appeared to them _in another form_.” ... Is it credible +that any one fabricating a conclusion to S. Mark’s narrative after S. +Luke’s Gospel had appeared, would have ventured so to paraphrase S. Luke’s +statement? And yet, let the consistent truthfulness of either expression +be carefully noted. _Both_ are historically accurate, but they proceed +from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly side, (God’s side), +the Disciples’ “eyes” (of course) “_were __ holden_:”—viewed on the +earthly side, (Man’s side), the risen SAVIOUR (no doubt) “_appeared in +another form_.” + +(iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many expressions into +his Gospel which confirm the prevalent tradition that it was _at Rome_ he +wrote it; and that it was with an immediate view to _Latin_ readers that +it was published. Twelve such expressions were enumerated above (at p. +150-1); and such, it was also there shewn, most unmistakably is the phrase +πρώτη σαββάτου in ver. 9.—It is simply incredible that any one but an +Evangelist writing under the peculiar conditions traditionally assigned to +S. Mark, would have hit upon such an expression as this,—the strict +equivalent, to Latin ears, for ἡ μία σαββάτων, which has occurred just +above, in ver. 2. Now this, it will be remembered, is one of the hacknied +objections to the genuineness of this entire portion of the Gospel;—quite +proof enough, if proof were needed, of the exceeding _improbability_ which +attaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who have considered this +question the most. + +(v.) The last peculiarity of S. Mark to which I propose to invite +attention is supplied by those expressions which connect his Gospel with +S. Peter, and remind us of the constant traditional belief of the ancient +Church that S. Mark was the companion of the chief of the Apostles. + +That the second Gospel contains many such hints has often been pointed +out; never more interestingly or more convincingly than by Townson(307) in +a work which deserves to be in the hands of every student of Sacred +Science. Instead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to +illustrate my meaning, I will mention one which has perhaps never been +mentioned in this connexion before. + +(_a_) Reference is made to our LORD’S sayings in S. Mark vii, and +specially to what is found in ver. 19. _That_ expression, “purging all +meats” (καθαρίζων(308) πάντα τὰ βρώματα), does really seem to be no part +of the Divine discourse; but the Evangelist’s inspired comment on the +SAVIOUR’S words.(309) + +Our SAVIOUR (he explains) by that discourse of His—ipso, facto—“_made all +meats clean_.” How doubly striking a statement, when it is remembered that +probably Simon Peter himself was the actual author of it;—the same who, on +the house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that “GOD _had made +clean_” (ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε(310)) _all_ His creatures! + +(_b_) Now, let a few words spoken by the same S. Peter on a memorable +occasion be considered:—“Wherefore of these men which have companied with +us all the time that the LORD JESUS went in and out among us, _beginning +from the Baptism of John_, unto that same day that _He was taken up_ +(ἀνελήφθη) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His +Resurrection.”(311) Does not S. Peter thereby define the precise limits of +our SAVIOUR’S Ministry,—shewing it to have “begun” (ἀρξάμενος) “from the +Baptism of John,”—and closed with the Day of our LORD’S Ascension? And +what else are those but the exact bounds of S. Mark’s Gospel,—of which the +ἀρχή (ch. i. 1) is signally declared to have been _the Baptism of +John_,—and the utmost limit, the day when (as S. Mark says) “_He was taken +up_ (ἀνελήφθη) into Heaven,”—(ch. xvi. 19)? + +(_c_) I will only further remind the reader, in connexion with the phrase, +πᾶσῃ τῇ κτίσει, in ver. 15,—(concerning which, the reader is referred back +to page 162-3,)—that both S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred +writers) conspire to use the expression ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.(312) S. Mark +has besides κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισε ὁ Θεός (ch. xiii. 19); while S. Peter alone +styles the ALMIGHTY, from His work of Creation, ὁ κτίστης (1 S. Pet. iv. +19). + +VI. But besides, and over and above such considerations as those which +precede,—(some of which, I am aware, might be considerably evacuated of +their cogency; while others, I am just as firmly convinced, will remain +forcible witnesses of GOD’S Truth to the end of Time,)—I hesitate not to +avow my personal conviction that abundant and striking evidence is +garnered up within the brief compass of these Twelve Verses that they are +identical in respect of fabric with the rest of the Gospel; were clearly +manufactured out of the same Divine materials,—wrought in the same +heavenly loom. + +It was even to have been expected, from what is found to have been +universally the method in other parts of Scripture,—(for it was of course +foreseen by ALMIGHTY GOD from the beginning that this portion of His Word +would be, like its Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, reviled, +hated, rejected, denied,)—that the SPIRIT would not leave Himself without +witness in this place. It was to have been anticipated, I say, that +Eternal Wisdom would carefully—(I trust there is no irreverence in so +speaking of GOD and His ways!)—would carefully make provision: meet the +coming unbelief (as His Angel met Balaam) with a drawn sword: plant up and +down throughout these Twelve Verses of the Gospel, sure indications of +their Divine Original,—unmistakable notes of purpose and +design,—mysterious traces and tokens of Himself; not visible indeed to the +scornful and arrogant, the impatient and irreverent; yet clear as if +written with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student, the man who +“trembleth at GOD’S Word.”(313) Or, (if the Reader prefers the image,) the +indications of a Divine Original to be met with in these verses shall be +likened rather to those cryptic characters, invisible so long as they +remain unsuspected, but which shine forth clear and strong when exposed to +the Light or to the Heat; (Light and Heat, both emblems of Himself!) so +that even he that gropeth in darkness must now see them, and admit that of +a truth “the LORD is in this place” although he “knew it not!” + +(i.) I propose then that in the first instance we compare the conclusion +of S. Mark’s Gospel with the beginning of it. We did this before, when our +object was to ascertain whether the _Style_ of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 be indeed +as utterly discordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as is commonly +represented. We found, instead, the most striking resemblance.(314) We +also instituted a brief comparison between the two in order to discover +whether the _Diction_ of the one might not possibly be found as suggestive +of _verbal_ doubts as the diction of the other: and so we found +it.(315)—Let us for the third time draw the two extremities of this +precious fabric into close proximity in order again to compare them. +Nothing I presume can be fairer than to elect that, once more, our +attention be chiefly directed to what is contained within the twelve +verses (ver. 9-20) of S. Mark’s _first_ chapter which exactly correspond +with the twelve verses of his _last_ chapter (ver. 9-20) which are the +subject of the present volume. + +Now between these two sections of the Gospel, besides (1) the obvious +_verbal_ resemblance, I detect (2) a singular parallelism of _essential +structure_. And this does not strike me the less forcibly because nothing +of the kind was to have been _expected_. + +(1.) On the verbal coincidences I do not propose to lay much stress. Yet +are they certainly not without argumentative weight and significancy. I +allude to the following:— + +(a) [βαπτίζων, βάπτισμα (a) βαπτισθείς (xvi. 16) +(i. 4)—καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο +(i. 5)—ἐβάπτισα, βαπτίσει +(i. 8)]—καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη (i. +9) +(b) [κηρύσσων, ἐκήρυσσδ (b) ἐκήρυξαν (xvi. 20) +(i. 7)] +(b and c) κηρύσσων τὸ (c) κηρύξατε τὸ +εὐαγγέλιον (i. 14)—[ἀρχὴ εὐαγγέλιον (xvi. 15) +τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (i. 1)] +(c and d) πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ (d) ἠπίστησαν (xvi. +εὐαγγελίῳ (i. 15) 11)—οὐδὲ ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. + 13)—τὴν ἀπιστίαν, οὐκ + ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 14)—ὁ + πιστεύσας, ὁ ἀπιστήσας + (xvi. 16)—τοῖς πιστεύσασι + (xvi. 17.) + +Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an unmistakable +relation of sympathy between the first page of S. Mark’s Gospel and the +last. The same doctrinal phraseology,(316)—the same indications of Divine +purpose,—the same prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both. +(i.) _A Gospel_ to be everywhere _preached_;—(ii.) _Faith_, to be of all +required;—(iii.) _Baptism_ to be universally administered; “one LORD, one +Faith, one Baptism:”—Is not _this_ the theme of the beginning of S. Mark’s +Gospel as well as of the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the +two extremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether the fabric +be identical or not, it were discovered that those extremities are even +meant _to clasp_! + +(2.) But the _essential_ parallelism between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark +i. 9-20 is a profounder phenomenon and deserves even more attention. I +proceed to set down side by side, as before, what ought to require neither +comment nor explanation of mine. Thus we find,— + +(A) _in ch._ i. 9 _to_ (A) _in ch._ xvi. 9 _to_ +11:—Our LORD’S 11:—Our LORD’S appearance +Manifestation to the to Mary Magdalene (ἐφάνη) +World (ἐπιφανεία) on HIS after HIS Resurrection +“coming up (ἀναβαίνων) (ἀναστάς) from death: +out of the water” of “Thou art My SON, this +Jordan: (having been day have I begotten +“buried by Baptism,” as Thee.” +the Apostle speaks:) when +the Voice from Heaven +proclaimed,—“Thou art My +beloved SON in whom I am +well pleased.” + —12 _to_ 14:—Two other + Manifestations + (ἐφανερώθη) to Disciples. +(B) —12, 13:—CHRIST’S (B) —17, 18:—CHRIST’S +victory over Satan; promise that “they that +(whereby is fulfilled the believe” “shall cast out +promise “Thou shalt tread devils” and “shall take +upon the lion and adder: up serpents:” (as [in S. +the young lion and the Luke x. 19] He had given +dragon shalt Thou trample the Seventy “power to +under feet.”) tread on serpents and + scorpions, and over all + the power of the Enemy.”) +(C) —8:—The Pentecostal (C) —17:—The chief +Gift foretold: “He shall Pentecostal Gift +baptize you with the HOLY specified: “They shall +GHOST.” speak with new tongues.” + +(D) _in ch._ i. 14, (D) _in ch._ xvi. 15, +15:—CHRIST “comes into 16:—He commands His +Galilee, preaching the Apostles to “go into all +Gospel ... and saying ... the world and preach the +Repent ye, and believe Gospel to every creature. +the Gospel.” He that believeth and is + baptized shall be saved.” +(E) —15: His (E) —19:—S. Mark’s record +announcement, that “The concerning Him, that “He +time is fulfilled, and was received up into +the Kingdom of God is at Heaven, and sat on the +hand.” right hand of GOD” (where + He must reign till He + hath put all enemies + under His feet.) +(F) —16 _to_ 20:—The four (F) —20:—The Apostles’ +Apostles’ Call to the Ministry, which is +Ministry: (which [S. Luke everywhere miraculously +v. 8, 9] is miraculously attested,—“The LORD +attested.) working with them, and + confirming the word by + the signs that followed.” + +It is surely not an unmeaning circumstance, a mere accident, that the +Evangelist should at the very outset and at the very conclusion of his +Gospel, so express himself! If, however, it should seem to the Reader a +mere matter of course, a phenomenon without interest or +significancy,—nothing which I could add would probably bring him to a +different mind. + +(3.) Then, further: when I scrutinize attentively the two portions of +Scripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am not a little struck by +the discovery that the VIth Article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem +(A.D. 348) is found in the one: the Xth Article, in the other.(317) If it +be a purely fortuitous circumstance, that two cardinal verities like +these,—(viz. “_He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right Hand of +_GOD”—and “_One Baptism for the Remission of sins_,”) should be found at +either extremity of one short Gospel,—I will but point out that it is +certainly one of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circumstances.—But +in the thing to be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be, any talk +of fortuitousness at all. + +(4.) Allusion is made to the diversity of Name whereby the Son of Man is +indicated in these two several places of the Gospel; which constitutes a +most Divine circumstance, and is profoundly significant. He who in _the +first_ verse (S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title “Ἰησοῦς” and +“Χριστός,”—here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 19, 20) is styled +for the first and for the last time, “Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ”—the LORD.(318) + +And why? Because He who at His Circumcision was named “JESUS,” (a Name +which was given Him from _His Birth_, yea, and before His Birth); He who +at His Baptism became “the CHRIST,” (a Title which belonged to _His +Office_, and which betokens His sacred _Unction_);—the same, on the +occasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the Right Hand of +GOD,—when (as we know) “all power had been given unto Him in Heaven and in +Earth” (S. Matth. xxviii. 18),—is designated by His Name of _Dominion_; +“the LORD” JEHOVAH ... “Magnifica et opportuna appellatio!”—as Bengel well +remarks. + +But I take leave to point out that all this is what never either would or +could have entered into the mind of a fabricator of a conclusion to S. +Mark’s unfinished Gospel. No inventor of a supplement, I say, _could_ have +planted his foot in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my +assertion is twofold:— + +(_a_) First, because the present indication that the HOLY GHOST was indeed +the Author of these last Twelve Verses is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson +and his School, _as a proof of a spurious original_. Verily, such Critics +do not recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they _see_ it! + +(_b_) Next, as a matter of fact, we _have_ a spurious Supplement to the +Gospel,—the same which was exhibited above at p. 123-4; and which may here +be with advantage reproduced in its Latin form:—“Omnia autem quaecumque +praecepta erant illis qui cum Petro erant, breviter exposuerunt. Post haec +et ipse Iesus adparuit, et ab oriente usque in occidentem misit per illos +sanctam et incorruptam praedicationem salutis aeternae. +Amen.”(319)—Another apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of +the Thebaic version. It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as +follows:—“Exeuntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evangelium +in mundo toto, CHRISTO operante cum iis in verbo confirmationem cum signis +sequentibus eos et miraculis. Atque hoc modo cognitum est regnum Dei in +terra tota et in mundo toto Israelis in testimonium gentium omnium harum +quae exsistunt ab oriente ad occasum.” It will be seen that the Title of +_Dominion_ (ὁ Κύριος—the LORD) is found in neither of these fabricated +passages; but the Names of _Nativity_ and of _Baptism_ (Ἰησοῦς and +Χριστός—JESUS and CHRIST) occur instead. + +(ii.) Then further:—It is an extraordinary note of genuineness that such a +vast number of minute but important facts should be found accumulated +within the narrow compass of these twelve verses; and should be met with +_nowhere else_. The writer,—supposing that he had only S. Matthew’s Gospel +before him,—traverses (except in one single instance) _wholly new ground_; +moves forward with unmistakable boldness and a rare sense of security; and +wherever he plants his foot, it is to enrich the soil with fertility and +beauty. But on the supposition that he wrote after S. Luke’s and S. John’s +Gospel had appeared,—the marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold: for how +then does it come to pass that he evidently draws his information from +quite independent sources? is not bound by any of their statements? even +seems _purposely_ to break away from their guidance, and to adventure some +extraordinary statement of his own,—which nevertheless carries the true +Gospel savour with it; and is felt to be authentic from the very +circumstance that no one would have ever dared to invent such a detail and +put it forth on his own responsibility? + +(iii.) Second to no indication that this entire section of the Gospel has +a Divine original, I hold to be a famous expression which (like πρώτη +σαββάτου) has occasioned general offence: I mean, the designation of Mary +Magdalene as one “out of whom” the LORD “had cast seven devils;” and +_that_, in immediate connexion with the record of her august privilege of +being the first of the Human Race to behold His risen form. There is such +profound Gospel significancy;—such sublime improbability,—such exquisite +pathos in this record,—that I would defy any fabricator, be he who he +might, to have achieved it. This has been to some extent pointed out +already.(320) + +(iv.) It has also been pointed out, (but the circumstance must be by all +means here insisted upon afresh,) that the designation (found in ver. 10) +of the little company of our LORD’S followers,—“τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ +γενομένοις,”—is another rare note of veracious origin. No one but S. +Mark,—or just such an one as he,—would or could have so accurately +designated the little band of Christian men and women who, unconscious of +their bliss, were “mourning and weeping” till after sunrise on the first +Easter Day. The reader is reminded of what has been already offered on +this subject, at p. 155-6. + +(v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but S. Mark, (or such +an one as he(321)), would have familiarly designated the Apostolic body as +“αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἔνδεκα,” in ver. 14. The phrase οἱ δώδεκα, he uses in +proportion _far_ oftener than any other two of the Evangelists.(322) And +it is evident that the phrase οἱ ἕνδεκα soon became an equally recognised +designation of the Apostolic body,—“from which Judas by transgression +fell.” Its familiar introduction into this place by the second Evangelist +is exactly what one might have looked for, or at least what one is fully +prepared to meet with, _in him_. + +(vi.) I will close this enumeration by calling attention to an unobtrusive +and unobserved verb in the last of these verses which (I venture to say) +it would never have entered into the mind of any ordinary writer to employ +in that particular place. I allude to the familiar word ἐξελθόντες. + +The precise meaning of the expression,—depending on the known force of the +preposition with which the verb is compounded,—can scarcely be missed by +any one who, on the one hand, is familiar with the Evangelical method; on +the other, is sufficiently acquainted with the Gospel History. Reference +is certainly made to the final departure of the Apostolic body _out of the +city of Jerusalem_.(323) And tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein +contained a recollection of our SAVIOUR’S command to His Apostles, twice +expressly recorded by S. Luke, “that they should _not depart from +Jerusalem_, but wait for the promise of the FATHER.” “Behold,” (said He,) +“I send the promise of My FATHER upon you: but _tarry ye in the city of +Jerusalem_, until ye be endued with power from on high.”(324)... After +many days “_they went forth_” or “_out_.” S. Mark, (or perhaps it is +rather S. Peter,) expressly says so,—ἐξελθόντες. Aye, and _that_ was a +memorable “outgoing,” truly! What else was its purpose but the +evangelization of the World? + +VII. Let this suffice, then, concerning the evidence derived from Internal +considerations. But lest it should hereafter be reckoned as an omission, +and imputed to me as a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged +_Inconsistency_ of certain statements contained in these “Twelve Verses” +with the larger notices contained in the parallel narratives of S. Luke +and S. John,—I proceed briefly to explain _why_ I am silent on this head. + +1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other words,—what I +should propose to myself as the end to be attained by what I wrote. For, + +2. What would be gained by demonstrating,—(as I am of course prepared to +do,)—that there is really _no inconsistency whatever_ between anything +which S. Mark here says, and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should +have proved that,—(assuming the _other_ Evangelical narratives to be +authentic, i.e. historically true,)—the narrative before us cannot be +objected to on the score of its not being authentic also. But _by whom_ is +such proof required? + +(_a_) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally to be met +with in the Evangelical narratives. In _their_ estimation, _the +genuineness of an inspired writing_ is a thing not in the least degree +rendered suspicious by the erroneousness of its statements. According to +them, the narrative may exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may +yet be the work of S. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but “trifling,” and +the inaccuracies “minute,”—these “sound Theologians,” (for so they style +themselves,(325)) “have no dread whatever of acknowledging” their +existence. Be it so. Then would it be a gratuitous task to set about +convincing _them_ that no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable +within the compass of these Twelve concluding Verses. + +(_b_) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers; who, for +want of the requisite Scientific knowledge, are unable to discern the +perfect Harmony of the Evangelical narratives in this place. It is only +one of many places where a primâ facie discrepancy, though it does not +fail to strike,—yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them. +Consciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with themselves somewhat +as follows:—"GOD’S Word, like all GOD’S other Works, (and I am taught to +regard GOD’S Word as a very masterpiece of creative skill;)—the blessed +Gospel, I say, is _full_ of difficulties. And yet those difficulties are +observed invariably to disappear under competent investigation. Can I +seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill were brought to bear on +the highly elliptical portion of narrative contained in these Twelve +Verses, it would present no exception to a rule which is observed to be +else universal; and that any apparent inconsistency between S. Mark’s +statements in this place, and those of S. Luke and S. John, would also be +found to be imaginary only?" + +This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon a prolonged +Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion of _the Principles +of Gospel Harmony_,—for which the present would clearly not be the proper +place. + +VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,— + +1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from “Style,” (in itself a +highly fallacious test,) disappears under investigation. + +It has been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the style of S. Mark +xvi. 9-20 is exceedingly like the style of S. Mark i. 9-20; and therefore, +that _it is rendered probable by the Style_ that the Author of the +beginning of this Gospel was also the Author of the end of it. + +2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument from “Phraseology,”—(in +itself, a most unsatisfactory test; and as it has been applied to the +matter in hand, a very coarse and clumsy one;)—breaks down hopelessly +under severe analysis. + +Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circumstances in the +Phraseology of these Twelve Verses, it has been proved (pp. 170-3) that in +twenty-seven particulars there emerge _corroborative considerations_. + +3. Lastly, I have shewn that a loftier method of Criticism is at hand; and +that, tested by this truer, more judicious, and more philosophical +standard; _a presumption_ of the highest order is created _that these +Verses must needs be the work of S. Mark_. + + + + + + CHAPTER X. + + +THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO +THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES. + + + The Lectionary of the East shewn to be a work of extraordinary + antiquity (p. 195).—Proved to be older than any extant MS. of the + Gospels, by an appeal to the Fathers (p. 198).—In this Lectionary, + (and also in the Lectionary of the West,) the last Twelve Verses + of S. Mark’s Gospel have, from the first, occupied a most + conspicuous, as well as most honourable place, (p. 204.)—Now, this + becomes the testimony of ante-Nicene Christendom in their favour + (p. 209.) + + +I have reserved for the last the testimony of THE LECTIONARIES, which has +been hitherto all but entirely overlooked;(326)—passed by without so much +as a word of comment, by those who have preceded me in this inquiry. Yet +is it, when rightly understood, altogether decisive of the question at +issue. And why? Because it is not the testimony rendered by a solitary +father or by a solitary MS.; no, nor even the testimony yielded by a +single Church, or by a single family of MSS. But it is _the united +testimony of all the Churches_. It is therefore the evidence borne by a +“goodly fellowship of Prophets,” a “noble array of Martyrs” indeed; as +well as by _MSS. innumerable which have long since perished_, but which +must of necessity once have been. And so, it comes to us like the voice of +many waters: dates, (as I shall shew by-and-by,) from a period of +altogether immemorial antiquity: is endorsed by the sanction of all the +succeeding ages: admits of neither doubt nor evasion. This subject, in +order that it may be intelligibly handled, will be most conveniently +approached by some remarks which shall rehearse the matter from the +beginning. + +The Christian Church succeeded to the Jewish. The younger society +inherited the traditions of the elder, not less as a measure of necessity +than as a matter of right; and by a kind of sacred instinct conformed +itself from the very beginning in countless particulars to its +divinely-appointed model. The same general Order of Service went on +unbroken,—conducted by a Priesthood whose spiritual succession was at +least as jealously guarded as had been the natural descent from Aaron in +the Church of the Circumcision.(327) It was found that “the Sacraments of +the Jews are [but] types of ours.”(328) Still were David’s Psalms +antiphonally recited, and the voices of “Moses and the Prophets” were +heard in the sacred assemblies of God’s people “every Sabbath day.” +Canticle succeeded to Canticle; while many a Versicle simply held its +ground. The congenial utterances of the chosen race passed readily into +the service of the family of the redeemed. Unconsciously perhaps, the very +method of the one became adopted by the other: as, for example, the method +of beginning a festival from the “Eve” of the preceding Day. The +Synagogue-worship became transfigured; but it did not part with one of its +characteristic features. Above all, the same three great Festivals were +still retained which declare “the rock whence we are hewn and the hole of +the pit whence we are digged:” only was it made a question, a controversy +rather, whether Easter should or should not be celebrated _with the +Jews_.(329) + +But it is the faithful handing on to the Christian community of _the +Lectionary practice_ of the Synagogue to which the reader’s attention is +now exclusively invited. That the Christian Church inherited from the +Jewish the practice of reading a first and a second Lesson in its public +assemblies, is demonstrable. What the Synagogue practice was in the time +of the Apostles is known from Acts xiii. 15, 27. Justin Martyr, (A.D. 150) +describes the Christian practice in his time as precisely similar:(330) +only that for “the Law,” there is found to have been at once substituted +“the Gospel.” He speaks of the writings of “_the Apostles_” and of “the +Prophets.” Chrysostom has the same expression (for the two Lessons) in one +of his Homilies.(331) Cassian (A.D. 400) says that in Egypt, after the +Twelve Prayers at Vespers and at Matins, two Lessons were read, one out of +the Old Testament and the other out of the New. But _on Saturdays_ and +_Sundays_, and the fifty days of Pentecost, both Lessons were from the New +Testament,—one from the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles; the other, +from the Gospels.(332) Our own actual practice seems to bear a striking +resemblance to that of the Christian Church at the earliest period: for we +hear of (1) “Moses and the Prophets,” (which will have been the carrying +on of the old synagogue-method, represented by our first and second +Lesson,)—(2) a lesson out of the “Epistles or Acts,” together with a +lesson out of the “Gospels.”(333) It is, in fact, universally received +that the Eastern Church has, from a period of even Apostolic antiquity, +enjoyed a Lectionary,—or established system of Scripture lessons,—of her +own. In its conception, this Lectionary is discovered to have been +fashioned (as was natural) upon the model of the Lectionary of God’s +ancient people, the Jews: for it commences, as theirs did, _in the +autumn_, (in September(334)); and prescribes two immovable “Lections” for +every _Saturday_ (as well as for every Sunday) in the year: differing +chiefly in this,—that the prominent place which had been hitherto assigned +to “the Law and the Prophets,”(335) was henceforth enjoyed by the Gospels +and the Apostolic writings. “Saturday-Sunday” lections—(σαββατοκυριακαί, +for so these Lections were called,)—retain their place in the “Synaxarium” +of the East to the present hour. It seems also a singular note of +antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday succeeding it do as it were +cohere, and bear one appellation; so that the week takes its name—_not_ +from the Sunday with which it commences,(336) but—from the +Sabbath-and-Sunday with which _it concludes_. To mention only one out of a +hundred minute traits of identity which the public Service of the +sanctuary retained:—Easter Eve, which from the earliest period to this day +has been called “μέγα σάββατον,”(337) is discovered to have borne the +self-same appellation in the Church of the Circumcision.(338)—If I do not +enter more minutely into the structure of the Oriental Lectionary,—(some +will perhaps think I have said too much, but the interest of the subject +ought to be a sufficient apology,)—it is because further details would be +irrelevant to my present purpose; which is only to call attention to the +three following facts: + +(I.) That the practice in the Christian Church of reading publicly before +the congregation certain fixed portions of Holy Writ, according to an +established and generally received rule, must have existed from a period +long anterior to the date of any known Greek copy of the New Testament +Scriptures. + +(II.) That although there happens to be extant neither “Synaxarium,” (i.e. +Table of Proper Lessons of the Greek Church), nor “Evangelistarium,” (i.e. +Book containing the Ecclesiastical Lections _in extenso_), of higher +antiquity than the viiith century,—yet that the scheme itself, as +exhibited by those monuments,—certainly in every essential particular,—is +older than any known Greek MS. which contains it, by _at least_ four, in +fact by full _five_ hundred years. + +(III.) Lastly,—That in the said Lectionaries of the Greek and of the +Syrian Churches, the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark which are the +subject of discussion throughout the present pages are observed +_invariably_ to occupy the same singularly conspicuous, as well as most +honourable place. + +I. The first of the foregoing propositions is an established fact. It is +at least quite certain that in the ivth century (if not long before) there +existed a known Lectionary system, alike in the Church of the East and of +the West. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 348,) having to speak about our LORD’s +Ascension, remarks that by a providential coincidence, on the previous +day, which was Sunday, the event had formed the subject of the appointed +lessons;(339) and that he had availed himself of the occasion to discourse +largely on the subject.—Chrysostom, preaching at Antioch, makes it plain +that, in the latter part of the ivth century, the order of the lessons +which were publicly read in the Church _on Saturdays and Sundays_(340) was +familiarly known to the congregation: for he invites them to sit down, and +study attentively beforehand, at home, the Sections (περικοπάς) of the +Gospel which they were about to hear in Church.(341)—Augustine is express +in recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for Festival +days;(342) and that an innovation which he had attempted on Good Friday +had given general offence.(343)—Now by these few notices, to look no +further, it is rendered certain that a Lectionary system of _some_ sort +must have been in existence at a period long anterior to the date of any +copy of the New Testament Scriptures extant. I shall shew by-and-by that +the fact is established by the Codices (B, א, A, C, D) themselves. + +But we may go back further yet; for not only Eusebius, but Origen and +Clemens Alexandrinus, by their habitual use of the technical term for an +Ecclesiastical Lection (περικοπή, ἀνάγνωσις, ἀνάγνωσμα,) remind us that +the Lectionary practice of the East was already established in their +days.(344) + +II. The Oriental Lectionary consists of “Synaxarion” and “Eclogadion,” (or +Tables of Proper Lessons from the Gospels and Apostolic writings daily +throughout the year;) together with “Menologion,” (or Calendar of +immovable Festivals and Saints’ Days.) That we are thoroughly acquainted +with all of these, as exhibited in Codices of the viiith, ixth and xth +centuries,—is a familiar fact; in illustration of which it is enough to +refer the reader to the works cited at the foot of the page.(345) But it +is no less certain that the scheme of Proper Lessons itself is of much +higher antiquity. + +1. The proof of this, if it could only be established by an induction of +particular instances, would not only be very tedious, but also very +difficult indeed. It will be perceived, on reflection, that even when the +occasion of a Homily (suppose) is actually recorded, the Scripture +references which it contains, apart from the Author’s statement that what +he quotes _had_ formed part of that day’s Service, creates scarcely so +much as a presumption of the fact: while the correspondence, however +striking, between such references to Scripture and the Lectionary as we +have it, is of course no proof whatever that we are so far in possession +of the Lectionary of the Patristic age. Nay, on famous Festivals, the +employment of certain passages of Scripture is, in a manner, +inevitable,(346) and may on no account be pressed. + +2. Thus, when Chrysostom(347) and when Epiphanius,(348) preaching on +Ascension Day, refer to Acts i. 10, 11,—we do not feel ourselves warranted +to press the coincidence of such a quotation with the Liturgical section +of the day.—So, again, when Chrysostom preaches on Christmas Day, and +quotes from S. Matthew ii. 1, 2;(349) or on Whitsunday, and quotes from S. +John vii. 38 and Acts ii. 3 and 13;—though both places form part of the +Liturgical sections for the day, no _proof_ results therefrom that either +chapter was actually used. + +3. But we are not reduced to this method. It is discovered that nearly +three-fourths of Chrysostom’s Homilies on S. Matthew either begin at the +first verse of _a known Ecclesiastical Lection_; or else at the first +ensuing verse after the close of one. Thirteen of those Homilies in +succession (the 63rd to the 75th inclusive) begin with _the first words of +as many known Lections_. “Let us attend to this delightful section +(περικοπή) which we never cease turning to,”—are the opening words of +Chrysostom’s 79th Homily, of which “the text” is S. Matth. xxv. 31, i.e. +the beginning of the Gospel for Sexagesima Sunday.—Cyril of Alexandria’s +(so called) “Commentary on S. Luke” is nothing else but a series of short +Sermons, for the most part delivered on _known Ecclesiastical Lections_; +which does not seem to have been as yet observed.—Augustine (A.D. 416) +says expressly that he had handled S. John’s Gospel in precisely the same +way.(350)—All this is significant in a high degree. + +4. I proceed, however, to adduce a few distinct proofs that the existing +Lectionary of the great Eastern Church,—as it is exhibited by Matthaei, by +Scholz, and by Scrivener from MSS. of the viiith century,—and which is +contained in Syriac MSS. of the vith and viith—must needs be in the main a +work of extraordinary antiquity. And if I do not begin by insisting that +at least one century more may be claimed for it by a mere appeal to the +Hierosolymitan Version, it is only because I will never knowingly admit +what may prove to be untrustworthy materials(351) into my foundations. + +(_a_) “Every one is aware,” (says Chrysostom in a sermon on our SAVIOUR’S +Baptism, preached at Antioch, A.D. 387,) “that this is called the Festival +of the Epiphany. Two manifestations are thereby intended: concerning both +of which _you have heard this day S. Paul discourse in his Epistle to +Titus_.”(352) Then follows a quotation from ch. ii. 11 to 13,—which proves +to be the beginning of the lection for the day in the Greek Menology. In +the time of Chrysostom, therefore, Titus ii. 11, 12, 13 formed part of one +of the Epiphany lessons,—as it does to this hour in the Eastern Church. +What is scarcely less interesting, it is also found to have been part of +the Epistle for the Epiphany in the old Gallican Liturgy,(353) the +affinities of which with the East are well known. + +(_b_) Epiphanius (speaking of the Feasts of the Church) says, that at the +Nativity, a Star shewed that the WORD had become incarnate: at the +“Theophania” (_our_ “Epiphany”) John cried, “Behold the Lamb of GOD,” &c., +and a Voice from Heaven proclaimed Him at His Baptism. Accordingly, S. +Matth. ii. 1-12 is found to be the ancient lection for Christmas Day: S. +Mark i. 9-11 and S. Matth. iii. 13-17 the lections for Epiphany. On the +morrow, was read S. John i. 29-34. + +(_c_) In another of his Homilies, Chrysostom explains with considerable +emphasis the reason why the Book of the Acts was read publicly in Church +during the interval between Easter and Pentecost; remarking, that it had +been the liturgical arrangement of a yet earlier age.(354)—After such an +announcement, it becomes a very striking circumstance that Augustine also +(A.D. 412) should be found to bear witness to the prevalence of the same +liturgical arrangement in the African Church.(355) In the old Gallican +Lectionary, as might have been expected, the same rule is recognisable. It +ought to be needless to add that the same arrangement is observed +universally to prevail in the Lectionaries both of the East and of the +West to the present hour; although the fact must have been lost sight of +by the individuals who recently, under pretence of “_making some +advantageous alterations_” in our Lectionary, have constructed an entirely +new one,—vicious in principle and liable to the gravest objections +throughout,—whereby _this_ link also which bound the Church of England to +the practice of Primitive Christendom, has been unhappily broken; _this_ +note of Catholicity also has been effaced.(356) + +(_d_) The purely arbitrary arrangement, (as Mr. Scrivener phrases it), by +which the Book of Genesis, instead of the Gospel, is appointed to be +read(357) on the _week_ days of Lent, is discovered to have been fully +recognised in the time of Chrysostom. Accordingly, the two series of +Homilies on the Book of Genesis which that Father preached, he preached in +Lent.(358) + +(_e_) It will be seen in the next chapter that it was from a very remote +period the practice of the Eastern Church to introduce into the lesson for +Thursday in Holy-week, S. Luke’s account (ch. xxii. 43, 44) of our LORD’S +“Agony and bloody Sweat,” _immediately after S. Matth._ xxvi. 39. _That_ +is, no doubt, the reason why Chrysostom,—who has been suspected, (I think +unreasonably,) of employing an Evangelistarium instead of a copy of the +Gospels in the preparation of his Homilies, is observed to quote those +same two verses in that very place in his Homily on S. Matthew;(359) which +shews that the Lectionary system of the Eastern Church in this respect is +at least as old as the ivth century. + +(_f_) The same two verses used to be _left out_ on the Tuesday after +Sexagesima (τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου) for which day S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1, +is the appointed lection. And _this_ explains why Cyril (A.D. 425) in his +Homilies on S. Luke, passes them by in silence.(360) + +But we can carry back the witness to the Lectionary practice of omitting +these verses, at least a hundred years; for Cod. B, (evidently for that +same reason,) _also_ omits them, as was stated above, in p. 79. They are +wanting also in the Thebaic version, which is of the iiird century. + +(_g_) It will be found suggested in the next chapter (page 218) that the +piercing of our LORD’S side, (S. John xix. 34),—thrust into Codd. B and א +immediately after S. Matth. xxvii. 49,—is probably indebted for its place +in those two MSS. to the Eastern Lectionary practice. If this suggestion +be well founded, a fresh proof is obtained that the Lectionary of the East +was fully established in the beginning of the ivth century. But see +Appendix (H). + +(_h_) It is a remarkable note of the antiquity of that Oriental Lectionary +system with which we are acquainted, that S. Matthew’s account of the +Passion (ch. xxvii. 1-61,) should be there appointed to be read _alone_ on +the evening of Good Friday. Chrysostom clearly alludes to this +practice;(361) which Augustine expressly states was also the practice in +his own day.(362) Traces of the same method are discoverable in the old +Gallican Lectionary.(363) + +(_i_) Epiphanius, (or the namesake of his who was the author of a +well-known Homily on Palm Sunday,) remarks that “yesterday” had been read +the history of the rising of Lazarus.(364) Now S. John xi. 1-45 is the +lection for the antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries. + +(_k_) In conclusion, I may be allowed so far to anticipate what will be +found fully established in the next chapter, as to point out here that +since in countless places the text of our oldest Evangelia as well as the +readings of the primitive Fathers exhibit unmistakable traces of the +corrupting influence of the Lectionary practice, _that_ very fact becomes +irrefragable evidence of the antiquity of the Lectionary which is the +occasion of it. Not only must it be more ancient than Cod. B or Cod. א, +(which are referred to the beginning of the ivth century), but it must be +older than Origen in the iiird century, or the Vetus Itala and the Syriac +in the iind. And thus it is demonstrated, (1st) That fixed Lessons were +read in the Churches of the East in the immediately post-Apostolic age; +and (2ndly) That, wherever we are able to test it, the Lectionary of that +remote period corresponded with the Lectionary which has come down to us +in documents of the vith and viith century, and was in fact constructed in +precisely the same way. + +I am content in fact to dismiss the preceding instances with this general +remark:—that a System which is found to have been fully recognised +throughout the East and throughout the West in the beginning of the fourth +century, _must of necessity have been established very long before_. It is +as when we read of three British Bishops attending the Council at Arles, +A.D. 314. The Church (we say) which could send out those three Bishops +must have been _fully organized_ at a greatly antecedent period. + +4. Let us attend, however, to the great Festivals of the Church. These are +declared by Chrysostom (in a Homily delivered at Antioch 20 Dec. A.D. 386) +to be the five following:—(1) Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3) Pascha: +(4) Ascension: (5) Pentecost.(365) Epiphanius, his contemporary, (Bishop +of Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the same enumeration,(366) +in a Homily on the Ascension.(367) In the Apostolical Constitutions, the +same five Festivals are enumerated.(368) Let me state a few Liturgical +facts in connexion with each of these. + +It is plain that the preceding enumeration could not have been made at any +earlier period: for the Epiphany of our SAVIOUR and His Nativity were +originally but one Festival.(369) Moreover, the circumstances are well +known under which Chrysostom (A.D. 386) announced to his Eastern auditory +that in conformity with what had been correctly ascertained at Rome, the +ancient Festival was henceforth to be disintegrated.(370) But this is not +material to the present inquiry. We know that, as a matter of fact, “the +Epiphanies” (for τὰ ἐπιφανία is the name of the Festival) became in +consequence distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5: our LORD’S _Baptism_ +being the event chiefly commemorated on the latter anniversary,(371)—which +used to be chiefly observed in honour of His _Birth_(372)—Concerning the +Lessons for Passion-tide and Easter, as well as concerning those for the +Nativity and Epiphany, something has been offered already; to which may be +added that Hesychius, in the opening sentences of that “Homily” which has +already engaged so much of our attention,(373) testifies that the +conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel was in his days, as it has been ever since, +one of the lections for Easter. He begins by saying that the Evangelical +narratives of the Resurrection were read on the Sunday night; and proceeds +to reconcile _S. Mark’s_ with the rest.—Chrysostom once and again adverts +to the practice of discontinuing the reading of the Acts after +Pentecost,(374)—which is observed to be also the method of the +Lectionaries. + +III. I speak separately of the Festival of the Ascension, for an obvious +reason. It ranked, as we have seen, in the estimation of Primitive +Christendom, with the greatest Festivals of the Church. Augustine, in a +well-known passage, hints that it may have been of Apostolical +origin;(375) so exceedingly remote was its institution accounted in the +days of the great African Father, as well as so entirely forgotten by that +time was its first beginning. I have to shew that in the Great Oriental +Lectionary (whether of the Greek or of the Syrian Church) the last Twelve +Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel occupy a conspicuous as well as a most +honourable place. And this is easily done: for, + +(_a_) The Lesson for Matins _on Ascension-Day_ in the East, in the oldest +documents to which we have access, consisted (as now it does) of _the last +Twelve Verses_,—neither more nor less,—of S. Mark’s Gospel. At the Liturgy +on Ascension was read S. Luke xxiv. 36-53: but at Matins, S. Mark xvi. +9-20. The witness of the “Synaxaria” is constant to this effect. + +(_b_) The same lection precisely was adopted among the Syrians by the +Melchite Churches,(376)—(the party, viz. which maintained the decrees of +the Council of Chalcedon): and it is found appointed also in the +“Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.”(377) In the Evangelistarium used in the +Jacobite, (i.e. the Monophysite) Churches of Syria, a striking difference +of arrangement is discoverable. While S. Luke xxiv. 36-53 was read at +Vespers and at Matins on Ascension Day, _the last seven_ verses of S. +Mark’s Gospel (ch. xvi. 14-20) were read _at the Liturgy_.(378) Strange, +that the self-same Gospel should have been adopted at a remote age by some +of the Churches of the West,(379) and should survive in our own Book of +Common Prayer to this hour! + +(_c_) But S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was not only appointed by the Greek Church to +be read upon Ascension Day. Those same twelve verses constitute the third +of the xi “_Matin Gospels of the Resurrection_” which were universally +held in high esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian(380)), and +were read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the year; as well +as daily throughout Easter week. + +(_d_) A rubricated copy of S. Mark’s Gospel in Syriac,(381) _certainly +older than _A.D. 583, attests that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was the “Lection for +the great First Day of the week,” (μεγάλη κυριακή, i.e. Easter Day). Other +copies almost as ancient(382) add that it was used “at the end of the +Service at the dawn.” + +(_e_) Further, these same “Twelve Verses” constituted the Lesson at Matins +for _the 2nd Sunday after Easter_,—a Sunday which by the Greeks is called +κυριακή τῶν μυροφόρων, but with the Syrians bore the names of “Joseph and +Nicodemus.”(383) So also in the “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.” + +(_f_) Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark xvi. 9-18 (or +9-20(384)) was also read at Matins on _Easter-Tuesday_.(385) In the +Gallican Church, the third lection for _Easter-Monday_ extended from S. +Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 11: for _Easter-Tuesday_, from xvi. 12 to the end of +the Gospel.(386) Augustine says that in Africa also these concluding +verses of S. Mark’s Gospel used to be publicly read _at Easter tide_.(387) +The same verses (beginning with ver. 9) are indicated in the oldest extant +Lectionary of the Roman Church.(388) + +(_g_) Lastly, it may be stated that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was with the Greeks +the Gospel for the Festival of S. Mary Magdalene (ἡ μυροφόρος), July +22.(389) + +_He_ knows wondrous little about this department of Sacred Science who can +require to be informed that such a weight of _public_ testimony as this to +the last Twelve Verses of a Gospel is simply overwhelming. The single +discovery that in the age of Augustine [385-430] this portion of S. Mark’s +Gospel was unquestionably read at Easter in the Churches of Africa, added +to the express testimony of the Author of the 2nd Homily on the +Resurrection, and of the oldest Syriac MSS., that they were also read by +the Orientals at Easter in the public services of the Church, must be held +to be in a manner decisive of the question. + +Let the evidence, then, which is borne by Ecclesiastical usage to the +genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, be summed up, and the entire case caused +again to pass under review. + +(1.) That Lessons from the New Testament were publicly read in the +assemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an +established system, _at least_ as early as the fourth century,—has been +shewn to be a plain historical fact. Cyril, at Jerusalem,—(and by +implication, his namesake at Alexandria,)—Chrysostom, at Antioch and at +Constantinople,—Augustine, in Africa,—all four expressly witness to the +circumstance. In other words, there is found to have been _at least at +that time_ fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom a +Lectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and the same in the +West(390) and in the East. That it must have been of even Apostolic +antiquity may be inferred from several considerations. But that it dates +its beginning from a period _anterior to the age of __ Eusebius,—which is +the age of Codices B and_ א,—at least admits of _no_ controversy. + +(2.) Next,—Documents of the vith century put us in possession of the great +Oriental Lectionary as it is found at that time to have universally +prevailed throughout the vast unchanging East. In other words, several of +the actual Service Books, in Greek and in Syriac,(391) have survived the +accidents of full a thousand years: and rubricated copies of the Gospels +carry us back three centuries further. The entire agreement which is +observed to prevail among these several documents,—added to the fact that +when tested by the allusions incidentally made by Greek Fathers of the +ivth century to what was the Ecclesiastical practice of their own time, +there are found to emerge countless as well as highly significant notes of +correspondence,—warrants us in believing, (in the absence of testimony of +any sort to the contrary,) that the Lectionary we speak of differs in no +essential respect from that system of Lections with which the Church of +the ivth century was universally acquainted. + +Nothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in the course of the +present inquiry than the fact, that documents alone are wanting to make +_that_ altogether demonstrable which, in default of such evidence, must +remain a matter of inevitable inference only. The forms we are pursuing at +last disappear from our sight: but it is only the mist of the early +morning which shrouds them. We still hear their voices: still track their +footsteps: know that others still see them, although we ourselves see them +no longer. We are sure that _there they still are_. Moreover they may yet +reappear at any moment. Thus, there exist Syriac MSS. of the Gospels of +the viith and even of the vith century, in which the Lessons are +rubricated in the text or on the margin. A Syriac MS. (of part of the Old +T.) is actually _dated_ A.D. 464.(392) Should an Evangelium of similar +date ever come to light of which the rubrication was evidently by the +original Scribe, the evidence of the Lectionaries would at once be carried +back full three hundred years. + +But in fact we stand in need of no such testimony. Acceptable as it would +be, it is plain that it would add no strength to the argument whatever. We +are already able to plant our footsteps securely in the ivth and even in +the iiird century. It is not enough to insist that inasmuch as the +Liturgical method of Christendom was at least fully established in the +East and in the West at the close of the ivth century, it therefore must +have had its beginning at a far remoter period. Our two oldest Codices (B +and א) bear witness throughout to the corrupting influence of a system +which was evidently in full operation before the time of Eusebius. And +even this is not all. The readings in Origen, and of the earliest versions +of the Gospel, (the old Latin, the Syriac, the Egyptian versions,) carry +back our evidence on this subject unmistakably to _the age immediately +succeeding that of the Apostles_. This will be found established in the +course of the ensuing Chapter. + +Beginning our survey of the problem at the opposite end, we arrive at the +same result; with even a deepened conviction that in its essential +structure, the Lectionary of the Eastern Church must be of truly primitive +antiquity: indeed that many of its leading provisions must date back +almost,—nay _quite_,—to the Apostolic age. From whichever side we approach +this question,—whatever test we are able to apply to our premisses,—our +conclusion remains still the very same. + +(3.) Into this Lectionary then,—so universal in its extent, so consistent +in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,—“_the_ LAST TWELVE VERSES +_of the Gospel according to S. Mark_” from the very first are found to +have won for themselves not only an entrance, a lodgment, an established +place; but, _the place of highest honour_,—an audience on two of the +Church’s chiefest Festivals. + +The circumstance is far too important, far too significant to be passed by +without a few words of comment. + +For it is not here, (be it carefully observed,) as when we appeal to some +Patristic citation, that the recognition of a phrase, or a verse, or a +couple of verses, must be accepted as a proof that the same ancient Father +recognised the context also in which those words are found. Not so. _All +the Twelve Verses in dispute are found in every known copy_ of the +venerable Lectionary of the East. _Those same Twelve Verses_,—neither more +nor less,—_are observed to constitute one integral Lection_. + +But even this is not all. The most important fact seems to be that to +these Verses has been assigned a place of the highest possible +distinction. It is found that, from the very first, S. Mark xvi. 9-20 has +been everywhere, and by all branches of the Church Catholic, claimed for +_two_ of the Church’s greatest Festivals,—Easter and Ascension. A more +weighty or a more significant circumstance can scarcely be imagined. To +suppose that a portion of Scripture singled out for such extraordinary +honour by the Church universal is a spurious addition to the Gospel, is +purely irrational; is simply monstrous. No unauthorized “fragment,” +however “remarkable,” could by possibility have so established itself in +the regards of the East and of the West, from the very first. No suspected +“addition, placed here in very early times,” would have been tolerated in +the Church’s solemn public Service six or seven times a-year. No. _It is +impossible._ Had it been one short clause which we were invited to +surrender: a verse: two verses: even three or four:—the plea being that +(as in the case of the celebrated _pericopa de adulterâ_) the Lectionaries +knew nothing of them:—the case would have been entirely different. But for +any one to seek to persuade us that these Twelve Verses, which exactly +constitute one of the Church’s most famous Lections, are every one of them +spurious:—that the fatal taint begins with the first verse, and only ends +with the last:—_this_ is a demand on our simplicity which, in a less +solemn subject, would only provoke a smile. We are constrained to testify +astonishment and even some measure of concern. Have the Critics then, +(supposing them to be familiar with the evidence which has now been set +forth so much in detail;)—Have the Critics then, (we ask) utterly taken +leave of their senses? or do they really suppose that we have taken leave +of ours? + +It is time to close this discussion. It was declared at the outset that +the witness of the Lectionaries to the genuineness of these Verses, though +it has been generally overlooked, is the most important of any: admitting, +as it does, of no evasion: being simply, as it is, decisive. I have now +fully explained the grounds of that assertion. I have set the Verses, +which I undertook to vindicate and establish, on a basis from which it +will be found impossible any more to dislodge them. Whatever Griesbach, +and Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and the rest, may think about the +matter,—the Holy Eastern Church in her corporate capacity, has never been +of their opinion. _They_ may doubt. _The ante-Nicene Fathers_ at least +never doubted. If “the last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark were _deservedly_ +omitted from certain Copies of his Gospel in the ivth century, utterly +incredible is it that these same TWELVE VERSES should have been +disseminated, by their authority, throughout Christendom;—read, by their +command, in all the Churches;—selected, by their collective judgment, from +the whole body of Scripture for the special honour of being listened to +once and again at EASTER time, as well as on ASCENSION-DAY. + + + + + + CHAPTER XI. + + +THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES OF THE +GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR. + + + The Text of our five oldest Uncials proved, by an induction of + instances, to have suffered depravation throughout by the + operation of the ancient Lectionary system of the Church (p. + 217).—The omission of S. Mark’s “last Twelve Verses,” + (constituting an integral Ecclesiastical Lection,) shewn to be + probably only one more example of the same depraving influence (p. + 224). This solution of the problem corroborated by the language of + Eusebius and of Hesychius (p. 232); as well as favoured by the + “Western” order of the Gospels (p. 239). + + +I am much mistaken if the suggestion which I am about to offer has not +already presented itself to every reader of ordinary intelligence who has +taken the trouble to follow the course of my argument thus far with +attention. It requires no acuteness whatever,—it is, as it seems to me, +the merest instinct of mother-wit,—on reaching the present stage of the +discussion, to debate with oneself somewhat as follows:— + +1. So then, the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel were anciently +often observed to be missing from the copies. Eusebius expressly says so. +I observe that he nowhere says that _their genuineness_ was anciently +_suspected_. As for himself, his elaborate discussion of their contents +convinces me that individually, he regarded them with favour. The mere +fact,—(it is best to keep to his actual statement,)—that “the entire +passage”(393) was “not met with in all the copies,” is the sum of his +evidence: and two Greek manuscripts, yet extant, supposed to be of the +ivth century (Codd. B and א), mutilated in this precise way, testify to +the truth of his statement. + +2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Verses,—neither more +nor less,—anciently constituted _an integral __ Ecclesiastical Lection_; +which lection,—inasmuch as it is found to have established itself in every +part of Christendom at the earliest period to which liturgical evidence +reaches back, and to have been assigned from the very first to two of the +chiefest Church Festivals,—must needs be a lection of almost Apostolic +antiquity. Eusebius, I observe, (see p. 45), designates the portion of +Scripture in dispute by its technical name,—κεφάλαιον or περικοπή; (for so +an Ecclesiastical lection was anciently called). Here then is a rare +coincidence indeed. It is in fact simply unique. Surely, I may add that it +is in the highest degree suggestive also. It inevitably provokes the +inquiry,—Must not these two facts be not only connected, but even +_interdependent_? Will not the omission of the Twelve concluding Verses of +S. Mark from certain ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way +_occasioned by the fact_ that those same twelve verses constituted an +integral Church Lection? How is it possible to avoid suspecting that the +phenomenon to which Eusebius invites attention, (viz. that certain copies +of S. Mark’s Gospel in very ancient times had been mutilated from the end +of the 8th verse onwards,) ought to be capable of illustration,—will have +in fact _to be explained_, and in a word _accounted for_,—by the +circumstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark’s xvith chapter, one ancient +Lection _came to an end_, and another ancient Lection _began_? + +Somewhat thus, (I venture to think,) must every unprejudiced Reader of +intelligence hold parley with himself on reaching the close of the +preceding chapter. I need hardly add that I am thoroughly convinced he +would be reasoning rightly. I am going to shew that the Lectionary +practice of the ancient Church does indeed furnish a sufficient clue for +the unravelment of this now famous problem: in other words, enables us +satisfactorily to account for the omission of these Twelve Verses from +ancient copies of the collected Gospels. But I mean to do more. I propose +to make my appeal to documents which shall be observed to bear no +faltering witness in my favour. More yet. I propose that Eusebius himself, +the chief author of all this trouble, shall be brought back into Court and +invited to resyllable his Evidence; and I am much mistaken if even _he_ +will not be observed to let fall a hint that we have at last got on the +right scent;—have accurately divined how this mistake took its first +beginning;—and, (what is not least to the purpose,) have correctly +apprehended what was his own real meaning in what he himself has said. + +The proposed solution of the difficulty,—if not the evidence on which it +immediately rests,—might no doubt be exhibited within exceedingly narrow +limits. Set down abruptly, however, its weight and value would inevitably +fail to be recognised, even by those who already enjoy some familiarity +with these studies. Very few of the considerations which I shall have to +rehearse are in fact unknown to Critics: yet is it evident that their +bearing on the problem before us has hitherto altogether escaped their +notice. On the other hand, by one entirely a novice to this department of +sacred Science, I could scarcely hope to be so much as understood. Let me +be allowed, therefore, to preface what I have to say with a few +explanatory details which I promise shall not be tedious, and which I +trust will not be found altogether without interest either. If they are +anywhere else to be met with, it is my misfortune, not my fault, that I +have been hitherto unsuccessful in discovering the place. + +I. From the earliest ages of the Church, (as I shewed at page 192-5,) it +has been customary to read certain definite portions of Holy Scripture, +determined by Ecclesiastical authority, publicly before the Congregation. +In process of time, as was natural, the sections so required for public +use were collected into separate volumes: Lections from the Gospels being +written out in a Book which was called “_Evangelistarium_,” +(εὐαγγελιστάριον,)—from the Acts and Epistles, in a book called +“_Praxapostolus_,” (πραξαπόστολος). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and +Syriac, are yet extant in great numbers,(394) and (I may remark in +passing) deserve a far greater amount of attention than has hitherto been +bestowed upon them.(395) + +_When_ the Lectionary first took the form of a separate book, has not been +ascertained. That no copy is known to exist (whether in Greek or in +Syriac) older than the viiith century, proves nothing. Codices in daily +use, (like the Bibles used in our Churches,) must of necessity have been +of exceptionally brief duration; and Lectionaries, more even than Biblical +MSS. were liable to injury and decay. + +II. But it is to be observed,—(and to explain this, is much more to my +present purpose,)—that besides transcribing the Ecclesiastical lections +into separate books, it became the practice at a very early period _to +adapt copies of the Gospel to lectionary purposes_. I suspect that this +practice began in the Churches of Syria; for Syriac copies of the Gospels +(_at least_ of the viith century) abound, which have the Lections more or +less systematically rubricated in the Text.(396) There is in the British +Museum a copy of S. Mark’s Gospel according to the Peshito version, +_certainly written previous to _A.D. 583, which has at least five or six +rubrics so inserted by the original scribe.(397) As a rule, in all later +cursive Greek MSS., (I mean those of the xiith to the xvth century,) the +Ecclesiastical lections are indicated throughout: while either at the +summit, or else at the foot of the page, the formula with which the +Lection was to be introduced is elaborately inserted; prefaced probably by +a rubricated statement (not always very easy to decipher) of the occasion +_when_ the ensuing portion of Scripture was to be read. The ancients, to a +far greater extent than ourselves,(398) were accustomed,—(in fact, they +made it _a rule_,)—to prefix unauthorized formulæ to their public +Lections; and these are sometimes found to have established themselves so +firmly, that at last they became as it were ineradicable; and later +copyists of the fourfold Gospel are observed to introduce them +unsuspiciously into the inspired text.(399) All that belongs to this +subject deserves particular attention; because it is _this_ which explains +not a few of the perturbations (so to express oneself) which the text of +the New Testament has experienced. We are made to understand how, what was +originally intended only as a _liturgical note_, became mistaken, through +the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a _critical +suggestion_; and thus, besides transpositions without number, there has +arisen, at one time, the insertion of something unauthorized into the text +of Scripture,—at another, the omission of certain inspired words, to the +manifest detriment of the sacred deposit. For although the _systematic_ +rubrication of the Gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively +recent invention,—(I question if it be older in Greek MSS. than the xth +century,)—yet will persons engaged in the public Services of GOD’S House +have been prone, from the very earliest age, to insert memoranda of the +kind referred to, into the margin of their copies. In this way, in fact, +it may be regarded as certain that in countless minute particulars the +text of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail to add, that by a +judicious, and above all by an _unprejudiced_ use of the materials at our +disposal, it may, even at this distance of time, in every such particular, +be successfully restored.(400) + +III. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances, that _even in +the oldest copies in existence_, I mean in Codd. B, א, A, C, and D, the +Lectionary system of the early Church has left abiding traces of its +operation. When a few such undeniable cases have been adduced, all +objections grounded on _primâ facie_ improbability will have been +satisfactorily disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such +a disturbing force and depraving influence, _at least_ as far back as the +beginning of the ivth century, (but it is in fact more ancient by full two +hundred years,) will have been established: of which I shall only have to +shew, in conclusion, that the omission of “the last Twelve Verses” of S. +Mark’s Gospel is probably but one more instance,—though confessedly by far +the most extraordinary of any. + +(1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, the two grand verses which +describe our LORD’S “Agony and Bloody Sweat,” (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44,) are +missing. The same two verses are absent also from a few other important +MSS., as well as from both the Egyptian versions; but I desire to fasten +attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place of Codex B. +“Confessedly erring,” I say; for the genuineness of those two verses is no +longer disputed. Now, in every known Evangelistarium, the two verses here +omitted by Cod. B follow, (the Church so willed it,) S. Matth. xxvi. 39, +and are read as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy +Week.(401) Of course they are also _omitted_ in the same Evangelistaria +from the lesson for the Tuesday after Sexagesima, (τῇ γ᾽ τῆς τυροφάγου, as +the Easterns call that day,) when S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1 used to be +read. Moreover, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have been +accommodated to ecclesiastical use, _the reader of S. Luke xxii. is +invariably directed by a marginal note to leave out those two verses_, and +to proceed per saltum from ver. 42 to ver. 45.(402) What more obvious +therefore than that the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in +S. Luke’s Gospel is to be attributed to nothing else but the Lectionary +practice of the primitive Church? Quite unreasonable is it to impute +heretical motives, or to invent any other unsupported theory, while this +plain solution of the difficulty is at hand. + +(2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. א, C, L, U and Γ are observed +here to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the SAVIOUR’S side (S. John +xix. 34) at the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. Now, I only do not insist that +this must needs be the result of the singular Lectionary practice already +described at p. 202, because a scholion in Cod. 72 records the singular +fact that in the Diatessaron of Tatian, after S. Matth. xxvii. 48, was +read ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ +αἷμα. (Chrysostom’s codex was evidently vitiated in _precisely_ the same +way.) This interpolation therefore may have resulted from the corrupting +influence of Tatian’s (so-called) “Harmony.” See Appendix (H). + +(3.) To keep on safe ground. Codd. B and D concur in what Alford justly +calls the “grave error” of simply omitting from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our +LORD’S supplication on behalf of His murderers, (ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγε, Πάτερ, +ἄφες αὐτοῖς: οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσι). They are not quite singular in so +doing; being, as usual, kept in countenance by certain copies of the old +Latin, as well as by both the Egyptian versions. How is this “grave error” +in so many ancient MSS. to be accounted for? (for a “grave error” or +rather “a fatal omission” it certainly is). Simply by the fact that in the +Eastern Church the Lection for the Thursday after Sexagesima _breaks off +abruptly, immediately before these very words_,—to recommence at ver. +44.(403) + +(4.) Note, that at ver. 32, _the eighth _“Gospel of the Passion”_ +begins_,—which is the reason why Codd. B and א (with the Egyptian +versions) exhibit a singular irregularity in that place; and why the +Jerusalem Syriac introduces the established formula of the Lectionaries +(σὺν τῷ Ἰησοῦ) at the same juncture. + +(If I do not here insist that the absence of the famous _pericopa de +adulterâ_ (S. John vii. 53-viii. 11,) from so many MSS., is to be +explained in precisely the same way, it is only because the genuineness of +that portion of the Gospel is generally denied; and I propose, in this +enumeration of instances, not to set foot on disputed ground. I am +convinced, nevertheless, that the first occasion of the omission of those +memorable verses was the lectionary practice of the primitive Church, +which, on Whitsunday, read from S. John vii. 37 to viii. 12, _leaving out +the twelve verses_ in question. Those verses, from the nature of their +contents, (as Augustine declares,) easily came to be viewed with dislike +or suspicion. The passage, however, is as old as the second century, for +it is found in certain copies of the old Latin. Moreover Jerome +deliberately gave it a place in the Vulgate. I pass on.) + +(5.) The two oldest Codices in existence,—B and א,—stand all but alone in +omitting from S. Luke vi. 1 the unique and indubitably genuine word +δευτεροπρώτῳ; which is also omitted by the Peshito, Italic and Coptic +versions. And yet, when it is observed that an _Ecclesiastical lection +begins here_, and that the Evangelistaria (which _invariably_ leave out +such notes of time) simply drop the word,—only substituting for ἐν σαββάτῳ +the more familiar τοῖς σάββασι,—every one will be ready to admit that if +the omission of this word be not due to the inattention of the copyist, +(which, however, seems to me not at all unlikely,(404)) it is sufficiently +explained by the Lectionary practice of the Church,—which may well date +back even to the immediately post-Apostolic age. + +(6.) In S. Luke xvi. 19, Cod. D introduces the Parable of Lazarus with the +formula,—εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἑτέραν παραβολήν; which is nothing else but a +marginal note which has found its way into the text from the margin; being +_the liturgical introduction of a Church-lesson_(405) which afterwards +began εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην.(406) + +(7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv. begin with _the +liturgical formula_,—(it survives in our Book of Common Prayer(407) to +this very hour!)—καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθήταις αὐτοῦ: in which it is +countenanced by certain MSS. of the Vulgate and of the old Latin Version. +Indeed, it may be stated generally concerning the text of Cod. D, that it +bears marks _throughout_ of the depraving influence of the ancient +Lectionary practice. Instances of this, (in addition to those elsewhere +cited in these pages,) will be discovered in S. Luke iii. 23: iv. 16 (and +xix. 45): v. 1 and 17: vi. 37 (and xviii. 15): vii. 1: x. 1 and 25: xx. 1: +in all but three of which, Cod. D is kept in countenance by the old Latin, +often by the Syriac, and by other versions of the greatest antiquity. But +to proceed. + +(8.) Cod. A, (supported by Athanasius, the Vulgate, Gothic, and +Philoxenian versions,) for καί, in S. Luke ix. 57, reads ἐγένετο δὲ,—which +is the reading of the Textus Receptus. Cod. D, (with some copies of the +old Latin,) exhibits καὶ ἐγένετο. All the diversity which is observable in +this place, (and it is considerable,) is owing to the fact that _an +Ecclesiastical lection begins here_.(408) In different Churches, the +formula with which the lection was introduced slightly differed. + +(9.) Cod. C is supported by Chrysostom and Jerome, as well as by the +Peshito, Cureton’s and the Philoxenian Syriac, and some MSS. of the old +Latin, in reading ὁ Ἰησοῦς at the beginning of S. Matth. xi. 20. That the +words have no business there, is universally admitted. So also is the +cause of their interpolation generally recognized. _The Ecclesiastical +lection_ for Wednesday in the ivth week after Pentecost _begins at that +place_; and begins with the formula,—ἐν τῷ καίρῳ ἐκεινῳ, ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς +ὀνειδίζειν. + +(10.) Similarly, in S. Matth. xii. 9, xiii. 36, and xiv. 14, Cod. C +inserts ὁ Ἰησοῦς; a reading which on all three occasions is countenanced +by the Syriac and some copies of the old Latin, and on the last of the +three, by Origen also. And yet there can be no doubt that it is only +because _Ecclesiastical lections begin at those places_,(409) that the +Holy Name is introduced there. + +(11.) Let me add that the Sacred Name is confessedly an interpolation in +the six places indicated at foot,—its presence being accounted for by the +fact that, in each, an _Ecclesiastical lection begins_.(410) Cod. D in one +of these places, Cod. A in four, is kept in countenance by the old Latin, +the Syriac, the Coptic and other early versions;—convincing indications of +the extent to which the Lectionary practice of the Church had established +itself so early as the second century of our æra. + +Cod. D, and copies of the old Latin and Egyptian versions also read τοῦ +Ἰησοῦ, (instead of αὐτοῦ,) in S. Mark xiv. 3; which is only because _a +Church lesson begins there_. + +(12.) The same Cod. D is all but unique in leaving out that memorable +verse in S. Luke’s Gospel (xxiv. 12), in which S. Peter’s visit to the +Sepulchre of our risen LORD finds particular mention. It is only because +that verse was claimed both as the _conclusion_ of the ivth and also as +the _beginning_ of the vth Gospel of the Resurrection: so that the +liturgical note ἀρχή stands at the beginning,—τέλος at the end of it. +Accordingly, D is kept in countenance here only by the Jerusalem +Lectionary and some copies of the old Latin. But what is to be thought of +the editorial judgment which (with Tregelles) encloses this verse within +brackets; and (with Tischendorf) _rejects it from the text altogether_? + +(13.) Codices B, א, and D are _alone_ among MSS. in omitting the clause +διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν: καὶ παρῆγεν οὔτως, at the end of the 59th verse +of S. John viii. The omission is to be accounted for by the fact that just +_there_ the Church-lesson for Tuesday in the vth week after Easter _came +to an end_. + +(14.) Again. It is not at all an unusual thing to find in cursive MSS., at +the end of S. Matth. viii. 13, (with several varieties), the spurious and +tasteless appendix,—καὶ ὑποστρέψας ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐν +αὐτῇ τῇ ὤρᾳ εὗρεν τὸν παῖδα ὑγιαίνοντα: a clause which owes its existence +solely to the practice of ending the lection for the ivth Sunday after +Pentecost in that unauthorized manner.(411) But it is not only in cursive +MSS. that these words are found. _They are met with also in the Codex +Sinaiticus_ (א): a witness at once to the inveteracy of Liturgical usage +in the ivth century of our æra, and to the corruptions which the “Codex +omnium antiquissimus” will no doubt have inherited from a yet older copy +than itself. + +(15.) In conclusion, I may remark generally that there occur instances, +again and again, of perturbations of the Text in our oldest MSS., +(corresponding sometimes with readings vouched for by the most ancient of +the Fathers,) which admit of no more intelligible or inoffensive solution +than by referring them to the Lectionary practice of the primitive +Church.(412) + +Thus when instead of καὶ ἀναβαίνω ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (S. Matth. xx. +17), Cod. B reads, (and, is almost unique in reading,) Μέλλων δὲ +ἀναβαίνειν ὁ Ἰησοῦς; and when Origen sometimes quotes the place in the +same way, but sometimes is observed to transpose the position of the Holy +Name in the sentence; when again six of Matthaei’s MSS., (and Origen +once,) are observed to put the same Name _after_ Ἱεροσόλυμα: when, lastly, +two of Field’s MSS.,(413) and one of Matthaei’s, (and I dare say a great +many more, if the truth were known,) omit the words ὁ Ἰησοῦς +entirely:—_who_ sees not that the true disturbing force in this place, +from the iind century of our æra downwards, has been _the Lectionary +practice of the primitive Church_?—the fact that _there_ the lection for +the Thursday after the viiith Sunday after Pentecost began?—And this may +suffice. + +IV. It has been proved then, in what goes before, more effectually even +than in a preceding page,(414) not only that Ecclesiastical Lections +corresponding with those indicated in the “Synaxaria” were fully +established in the immediately post-Apostolic age, but also that at that +early period the Lectionary system of primitive Christendom had already +exercised a depraving influence of a peculiar kind on the text of +Scripture. Further yet, (and _this_ is the only point I am now concerned +to establish), that _our five oldest Copies of the Gospels_,—B and א as +well as A, C and D,—exhibit not a few traces of the mischievous agency +alluded to; errors, and especially _omissions_, which sometimes seriously +affect the character of those Codices as witnesses to the Truth of +Scripture.—I proceed now to consider the case of S. Mark xvi. 9-20; only +prefacing my remarks with a few necessary words of explanation. + +V. He who takes into his hands an ordinary cursive MS. of the Gospels, is +prepared to find the Church-lessons regularly indicated throughout, in the +text or in the margin. + +A familiar contraction, executed probably in vermillion [χ over αρ], ἀρ, +indicates the “beginning” (ἀρχή) of each lection: a corresponding +contraction (ε over τ, τε, τελ), indicates its “end” (τέλοσ.) Generally, +these rubrical directions, (for they are nothing else,) are inserted for +convenience into the body of the text,—from which the red pigment with +which they are almost invariably executed, effectually distinguishes them. +But all these particulars gradually disappear as recourse is had to older +and yet older MSS. The studious in such matters have noticed that even the +memorandums as to the “beginning” and the “end” of a lection are rare, +almost in proportion to the antiquity of a Codex. When they do occur in +the later uncials, they do not by any means always seem to have been the +work of the original scribe; neither has care been always taken to +indicate them in ink of a different colour. It will further be observed in +such MSS. that whereas the sign where the reader is to begin is +generally—(in order the better to attract his attention,)—inserted in _the +margin_ of the Codex, the note where he is to leave off, (in order the +more effectually to arrest his progress,) is as a rule introduced _into +the body of the text_.(415) In uncial MSS., however, all such symbols are +not only rare, but (what is much to be noted) they are exceedingly +irregular in their occurrence. Thus in Codex Γ, in the Bodleian Library, +(a recently acquired uncial MS. of the Gospels, written A.D. 844), there +occurs no indication of the “end” of a single lection in S. Luke’s Gospel, +until chap. xvi. 31 is reached; after which, the sign abounds. In Codex L, +the original notes of Ecclesiastical Lections occur at the following rare +and irregular intervals:—S. Mark ix. 2: x. 46: xii. 40 (where the sign has +lost its way; it should have stood against ver. 44): xv. 42 and xvi. +1.(416) In the _oldest_ uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even +in the Codex Bezæ, (vith century,) not a single liturgical direction +_coeval with the MS._ is anywhere to be found. + +VI. And yet, although the practice of thus indicating the beginning and +the end of a liturgical section, does not seem to have come into general +use until about the xiith century; and although, previous to the ixth +century, systematic liturgical directions are probably unknown;(417) the +_need_ of them must have been experienced by one standing up to read +before the congregation, long before. The want of some reminder where he +was to begin,—above all, of some hint where he was to leave off,—will have +infallibly made itself felt from the first. Accordingly, there are not +wanting indications that, occasionally, ΤΕΛΟΣ (or ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) was written in +the margin of Copies of the Gospels at an exceedingly remote epoch. One +memorable example of this practice is supplied by the Codex Bezæ (D): +where in S. Mark xiv. 41, instead of ἀπέχει ἦλθεν ἡ ὤρα,—we meet with the +unintelligible ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ Η ΩΡΑ. Now, nothing else has here +happened but that a marginal note, designed originally to indicate the end +(ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of the lesson for the third day of the iind week of the +Carnival, has lost its way from the end of ver. 42, and got thrust into +the text of ver. 41,—to the manifest destruction of the sense.(418) I find +D’s error here is shared (_a_) by the Peshito Syriac, (_b_) by the old +Latin, and (_c_) by the Philoxenian: venerable partners in error, truly! +for the first two probably carry back this false reading to _the second +century of our æra_; and so, furnish one more remarkable proof, to be +added to the fifteen (or rather the forty) already enumerated (pp. +217-23), that the lessons of the Eastern Church were settled at a period +long anterior to the date of the oldest MS. of the Gospels extant. + +VII. Returning then to the problem before us, I venture to suggest as +follows:—What if, at a very remote period, this same isolated liturgical +note (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) occurring at S. Mark xvi. 8, (which _is_ “the end” of _the +Church-lection_ for the iind Sunday after Easter,) should have unhappily +suggested to some copyist,—καλλιγραφίας _quam vel Criticæ Sacræ vel rerum +Liturgicarum peritior_,—the notion that the entire “_Gospel according to +S. Mark_,” came to an end at verse 8?... I see no more probable account of +the matter, I say, than this:—That the mutilation of the last chapter of +S. Mark has resulted from the fact, that some very ancient scribe +_misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note_ ΤΕΛΟΣ (or ΤΟ +ΤΕΛΟΣ) which he found at the close of verse 8. True, that he will have +probably beheld, further on, several additional στίχοι. But if he did, how +could he acknowledge the fact more loyally than by leaving (as the author +of Cod. B is observed to have done) one entire column blank, before +proceeding with S. Luke? He hesitated, all the same, _to transcribe_ any +further, having before him, (as he thought,) an assurance that “THE END” +had been reached at ver. 8. + +VIII. That some were found in very early times eagerly to acquiesce in +this omission: to sanction it: even to multiply copies of the Gospel so +mutilated; (critics or commentators intent on nothing so much as +reconciling the apparent discrepancies in the Evangelical +narratives:)—appears to me not at all unlikely.(419) Eusebius almost says +as much, when he puts into the mouth of one who is for getting rid of +these verses altogether, the remark that “they would be in a manner +superfluous _if it should appear that their testimony is at variance with +that of the other Evangelists_.”(420) (The ancients were giants in +Divinity but children in Criticism.) On the other hand, I altogether agree +with Dean Alford in thinking it highly improbable that the difficulty of +harmonizing one Gospel with another in this place, (such as it is,) was +the cause why these Twelve Verses were originally suppressed.(421) (1) +First, because there really was no need to withhold more than three,—at +the utmost, five of them,—if _this_ had been the reason of the omission. +(2) Next, because it would have been easier far to introduce some critical +correction of any supposed discrepancy, than to sweep away the whole of +the unoffending context. (3) Lastly, because nothing clearly was gained by +causing the Gospel to end so abruptly that every one must see at a glance +that it had been mutilated. No. The omission having originated in a +mistake, was perpetuated for a brief period (let us suppose) only through +infirmity of judgment: or, (as I prefer to believe), only in consequence +of the religious fidelity of copyists, who were evidently always +instructed to transcribe exactly what they found in the copy set before +them. The Church meanwhile in her corporate capacity, has never known +anything at all of the matter,—as was fully shewn above in Chap. X. + +IX. When this solution of the problem first occurred to me, (and it +occurred to me long before I was aware of the memorable reading ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ +in the Codex Bezæ, already adverted to,) I reasoned with myself as +follows:—But if the mutilation of the second Gospel came about in this +particular way, the MSS. are bound to remember _something_ of the +circumstance; and in ancient MSS., if I am right, I ought certainly to +meet with _some_ confirmation of my opinion. According to my view, at the +root of this whole matter lies the fact that at S. Mark xvi. 8 a +well-known Ecclesiastical lesson comes to an end. Is there not perhaps +something exceptional in the way that the close of that liturgical section +was anciently signified? + +X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every copy of the +Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris;(422) and devoted seventy hours +exactly, with unflagging delight, to the task. The success of the +experiment astonished me. + +1. I began with _our_ Cod. 24 ( = Reg. 178) of the Gospels: turned to the +last page of S. Mark: and beheld, in a Codex of the xith Century wholly +devoid of the Lectionary apparatus which is sometimes found in MSS. of a +similar date,(423) at fol. 104, the word + ΤΕΛΟΣ + conspicuously written +by the original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as well as at the +close of the Gospel. _It occurred besides only at ch._ ix. 9, (the end of +the lesson for the Transfiguration.) And yet there are _at least seventy_ +occasions in the course of S. Mark’s Gospel where, in MSS. which have been +accommodated to Church use, it is usual to indicate the close of a +Lection. This discovery, which surprised me not a little, convinced me +that I was on the right scent; and every hour I met with some fresh +confirmation of the fact. + +2. For the intelligent reader will readily understand that three such +deliberate liturgical memoranda, occurring solitary in a MS. of this date, +are to be accounted for only in one way. They infallibly represent a +corresponding peculiarity in some far more ancient document. The fact that +the word ΤΕΛΟΣ is here (_a_) set down unabbreviated, (_b_) in black ink, +and (_c_) as part of the text,—points unmistakably in the same direction. +But that Cod. 24 is derived from a Codex of much older date is rendered +certain by a circumstance which shall be specified at foot.(424) + +3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. 36.(425) The sign + ΤΕΛΟΣ +, +(which occurs punctually at S. Mark xvi. 8 and again at v. 20,) is found +besides in S. Mark’s Gospel only at chap. i. 8;(426) at chap. xiv. 31; and +(+ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΕΦΑΛ) at chap. xv. 24;—being on every occasion incorporated +with the Text. Now, when it is perceived that in the second and third of +these places, ΤΕΛΟΣ has clearly lost its way,—appearing where _no_ +Ecclesiastical lection came to an end,—it will be felt that the MS. before +us (of the xith century) if it was not actually transcribed from,—must at +least exhibit at second hand,—a far more ancient Codex.(427) + +4. Only once more.—Codex 22 ( = Reg. 72) was never prepared for Church +purposes. A rough hand has indeed scrawled indications of the beginnings +and endings of a few of the Lessons, here and there; but these liturgical +notes are no part of the original MS. At S. Mark xvi. 8, however, we are +presented (as before) with the solitary note + ΤΕΛΟΣ +—, incorporated with +the text. Immediately after which, (in writing of the same size,) comes a +memorable statement(428) in red letters. The whole stands thus:— + +ΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ + ΤΕΛΟΣ +— +[cross] ΕΝ ΤΙΣΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΩΝ. +ΕΩΣ ΩΔΕ ΠΛΗΡΟΥΤΑΙ Ο ΕΥ +ΑΓΓΕΛΙΣΤΗΣ: ΕΝ ΠΟΛΛΟΙΣ +ΔΕ. ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΕΤΑΙ +— +ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ. ΠΡΟΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩΝ. + +And then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of which, the sign + +ΤΕΛΟΣ + is again repeated,—which sign, however, occurs _nowhere else_ in +the MS. _nor at the end of any of the other three Gospels_. A more +opportune piece of evidence could hardly have been invented. A statement +so apt and so significant was surely a thing rather to be wished than to +be hoped for. For here is the liturgical sign ΤΕΛΟΣ not only occurring in +the wholly exceptional way of which we have already seen examples, but +actually followed by the admission that “In certain copies, _the +Evangelist proceeds no further_.” The two circumstances so brought +together seem exactly to bridge over the chasm between Codd. B and א on +the one hand,—and Codd. 24 and 36 on the other; and to supply us with +precisely the link of evidence which we require. For observe:—During the +first six centuries of our æra, no single instance is known of a codex in +which ΤΕΛΟΣ is written at the end of a Gospel. The subscription of S. Mark +for instance is _invariably_ either ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as in B and א): or else +ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ,—(as in A and C, and the other older uncials): +_never_ ΤΕΛΟΣ. But here is a Scribe who first copies the _liturgical_ note +ΤΕΛΟΣ,—and then volunteers the _critical_ observation that “in some copies +of S. Mark’s Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no further!” A more +extraordinary corroboration of the view which I am endeavouring to +recommend to the reader’s acceptance, I really cannot imagine. Why, the +ancient Copyist actually comes back, in order to assure me that the +suggestion which I have been already offering in explanation of the +difficulty, is the true one! + +5. I am not about to abuse the reader’s patience with a prolonged +enumeration of the many additional conspiring circumstances,—insignificant +in themselves and confessedly unimportant when considered singly, but of +which the cumulative force is unquestionably great,—which an examination +of 99 MSS. of the Gospels brought to light.(429) Enough has been said +already to shew, + +(1st.) That it must have been a customary thing, at a very remote age, to +write the word ΤΕΛΟΣ against S. Mark xvi. 8, even when the same note was +withheld from the close of almost every other ecclesiastical lection in +the Gospel. + +(2ndly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt was originally +written as a liturgical memorandum in the margin, became at a very early +period incorporated with the text; where, retaining neither its use nor +its significancy, it was liable to misconception, and may have easily come +to be fatally misunderstood. + +And although these two facts certainly prove nothing in and by themselves, +yet, when brought close alongside of the problem which has to be solved, +their significancy becomes immediately apparent: for, + +(3rdly.) As a matter of fact, there are found to have existed before the +time of Eusebius, copies of S. Mark’s Gospel which _did_ come to an end at +this very place. Now, that _the Evangelist_ left off there, no one can +believe.(430) _Why_, then, did _the Scribe_ leave off? But the Reader is +already in possession of the reason why. A sufficient explanation of the +difficulty has been elicited from the very MSS. themselves. And surely +when, suspended to an old chest which has been locked up for ages, a key +is still hanging which fits the lock exactly and enables men to open the +chest with ease, they are at liberty to assume that the key _belongs_ to +the lock; is, in fact, the only instrument by which the chest may lawfully +be opened. + +XI. And now, in conclusion, I propose that we summon back our original +Witness, and invite him to syllable his evidence afresh, in order that we +may ascertain if perchance it affords any countenance whatever to the view +which I have been advocating. Possible at least it is that in the +Patristic record that copies of S. Mark’s Gospel were anciently defective +from the 8th verse onwards _some_ vestige may be discoverable of the +forgotten truth. Now, it has been already fully shewn that it is a mistake +to introduce into this discussion any other name but that of +Eusebius.(431) Do, then, the terms in which _Eusebius_ alludes to this +matter lend us any assistance? Let us have the original indictment read +over to us once more: and _this_ time we are bound to listen to every word +of it with the utmost possible attention. + +1. A problem is proposed for solution. “There are two ways of solving it,” +(Eusebius begins):—ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν +περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, εἔποι ἀν μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτην φέρεσθαι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις +τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου: τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ +περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. οἶς +ἐπιλέγει, “καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” Ἐν τούτῳ σχεδὸν ἐν +ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατά Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται ΤΟ +ΤΕΛΟΣ(432) ... Let us halt here for one moment. + +2. Surely, a new and unexpected light already begins to dawn upon this +subject! How is it that we paid so little attention before to the terms in +which this ancient Father delivers his evidence, that we overlooked the +import of an expression of his which from the first must have struck us as +peculiar, but which _now_ we perceive to be of paramount significancy? +Eusebius is pointing out that _one_ way for a man (so minded) to get rid +of the apparent inconsistency between S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Matth. xxviii. +1, would be for him to reject the entire “Ecclesiastical Lection”(433) in +which S. Mark xvi. 9 occurs. Any one adopting this course, (he proceeds; +and it is much to be noted that Eusebius is throughout delivering the +imaginary sentiments of another,—not his own:) Such an one (he says) “will +say that it is _not met with in all_ the copies of S. Mark’s Gospel. The +accurate copies, at all events,”—and then follows an expression in which +this ancient Critic is observed ingeniously to accommodate his language to +the phenomenon which he has to describe, so as covertly to insinuate +something else. Eusebius employs an idiom (it is found elsewhere in his +writings) sufficiently colourless to have hitherto failed to arouse +attention; but of which it is impossible to overlook the actual design and +import, after all that has gone before. He clearly _recognises the very +phenomenon to which I have been calling __ attention_ within the last two +pages, and which I need not further insist upon or explain: viz. that _the +words_ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ _were_ in some very ancient (“_the accurate_”) copies +_found written after_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ: although to an unsuspicious reader +the expression which he uses may well seem to denote nothing more than +that the second Gospel _generally came to an end_ there. + +3. And now it is time to direct attention to the important bearing of the +foregoing remark on the main point at issue. The true import of what +Eusebius has delivered, and which has at last been ascertained, will be +observed really to set his evidence in a novel and unsuspected light. From +the days of Jerome, it has been customary to assume that Eusebius roundly +states that, in his time _almost all the Greek copies_ were without our +“last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel:(434) whereas Eusebius really +_does nowhere say so_. He expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a +somewhat unusual phrase(435) which perhaps admits of no exact English +counterpart: but what he says clearly amounts to no more than this,—that +“_the accurate_ copies, at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, circumscribe THE END +(ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ) of Mark’s narrative:” that _there_, “in almost all the Copies +of the Gospel according to Mark, is circumscribed THE END.” He says no +more. He does not say that _there_ “is circumscribed _the Gospel_.” As for +the twelve verses which follow, he merely declares that they were “_not +met with in all_ the copies;” i.e. that some copies did not contain them. +But this, so far from being a startling statement, is no more than what +Codd. B and א in themselves are sufficient to establish. In other words, +Eusebius, (whose testimony on this subject as it is commonly understood is +so extravagant [see above, p. 48-9,] as to carry with it its own +sufficient refutation,) is found to bear consistent testimony to the two +following modest propositions; which, however, are not adduced by him as +reasons for rejecting S. Mark xvi. 9-20, but only as samples of _what +might be urged_ by one desirous of shelving a difficulty suggested by +their contents;— + +(1st.) That from _some_ ancient copies of S. Mark’s Gospel these last +Twelve Verses were away. + +(2nd.) That in _almost_ all the copies,—(whether mutilated or not, he does +not state,)—the words ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ were found immediately after ver. 8; which, +(he seems to hint,) let those who please accept as evidence that there +also is _the end of the Gospel_. + +4. But I cannot dismiss the testimony of Eusebius until I have recorded my +own entire conviction that this Father is no more an original authority +here than Jerome, or Hesychius, or Victor.(436) He is evidently adopting +the language of some more ancient writer than himself. I observe that he +introduces the problem with the remark that what follows is one of tho +questions “for ever mooted by every body.”(437) I suspect (with Matthaei, +[_suprà_, p. 66,]) that _Origen_ is the _true_ author of all this +confusion. He certainly relates of himself that among his voluminous +exegetical writings was a _treatise on S. Mark’s Gospel_.(438) To Origen’s +works, Eusebius, (his apologist and admirer,) is known to have habitually +resorted; and, like many others, to have derived not a few of his notions +from that fervid and acute, but most erratic intellect. Origen’s writings +in short, seem to have been the source of much, if not most of the +mistaken Criticism of Antiquity. (The reader is reminded of what has been +offered above at p. 96-7). And this would not be the first occasion on +which it would appear that when an ancient Writer speaks of “_the accurate +copies_”, what he actually _means is the text of Scripture which was +employed or approved by Origen_.(439) The more attentively the language of +Eusebius in this place is considered, the more firmly (it is thought) will +the suspicion be entertained that he is here only reproducing the +sentiments of another person. But, however this may be, it is at least +certain that the precise meaning of what he says, has been hitherto +generally overlooked. He certainly does _not_ say, as Jerome, from his +loose translation of the passage,(440) evidently imagined,—“_omnibus __ +Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus_:” but +only,—“_non in omnibus Evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum inveniri_;” +which is an entirely different thing. Eusebius adds,—“Accuratiora saltem +exemplaria FINEM narrationis secundum Marcum circumscribunt in verbis +ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ;”—and, “In hoc, fere in omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii +secundum Marcum, FINEM circumscribi.”—The point, however, of greatest +interest is, that Eusebius here calls attention to the prevalence in MSS. +of his time of the very _liturgical peculiarity_ which plainly supplies +the one true solution of the problem under discussion. His testimony is a +marvellous corroboration of what we learn from Cod. 22, (see above, p. +230,) and, rightly understood, does not go a whit beyond it. + +5. What wonder that Hesychius, because he adopted blindly what he found in +Eusebius, should at once betray his author and exactly miss the point of +what his author says? Τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον (so he writes) μέχρι τοῦ +“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,” ἔχει ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.(441) + +6. This may suffice concerning the testimony of Eusebius.—It will be +understood that I suppose Origen to have fallen in with one or more copies +of S. Mark’s Gospel which exhibited _the Liturgical hint_, (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ,) +conspicuously written against S. Mark xvi. 9. Such a copy may, or may not, +have there terminated abruptly. I suspect however that it _did_. Origen at +all events, (_more suo_,) will have remarked on the phenomenon before him; +and Eusebius will have adopted his remarks,—as the heralds say, “with _a +difference_”—simply because they suited his purpose, and seemed to him +ingenious and interesting. + +7. For the copy in question,—(_like_ that other copy of S. Mark from which +the Peshito translation was made, and in which ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ most inopportunely +occurs at chap. xiv. 41,(442))—will have become the progenitor of several +other copies (as Codd. B and א); and some of these, it is pretty evident, +were familiarly known to Eusebius. + +8. Let it however be clearly borne in mind that nothing of all this is in +the least degree essential to my argument. Eusebius, (for aught that I +know or care,) may be _solely_ responsible for every word that he has +delivered concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Every link in my argument will +remain undisturbed, and the conclusion will be still precisely the same, +whether the mistaken Criticism before us originated with another or with +himself. + +XII. But _why_, (it may reasonably be asked,)—_Why_ should there have been +anything exceptional in the way of indicating the end of this particular +Lection? _Why_ should τέλος be so constantly found written after S. Mark +xvi. 8? + +I answer,—I suppose it was because the Lections which respectively ended +and began at that place were so many, and were Lections of such unusual +importance. Thus,—(1) On the 2nd Sunday after Easter, (κυριακή γ᾽ τῶν +μυροφόρων, as it was called,) at the Liturgy, was read S. Mark xv. 43 to +xvi. 8; and (2) on the same day at Matins, (by the Melchite Syrian +Christians as well as by the Greeks,(443)) S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The +severance, therefore, was at ver. 8. (3) In certain of the Syrian Churches +the liturgical section for Easter Day was S. Mark xvi 2-8:(444) in the +Churches of the Jacobite, or Monophysite Christians, the Eucharistic +lesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1-8.(445) (4) The second matin lesson of +the Resurrection (xvi. 1-8) also ends,—and (5) the third (xvi. 9-20) +begins, at the same place: and these two Gospels (both in the Greek and in +the Syrian Churches) were in constant use not only at Easter, but +throughout the year.(446) (6) _That_ same third matin lesson of the +Resurrection was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; as well in +the Syrian(447) as in the Greek(448) Churches. (7) With the Monophysite +Christians, the lection “feriae tertiae in albis, ad primam vesperam,” +(i.e. for the Tuesday in Easter-Week) was S. Mark xv. 37-xvi. 8: and (8) +on the same day, at Matins, ch. xvi. 9-18.(449)—During eighteen weeks +after Easter therefore, _the only parts_ of S. Mark’s Gospel publicly read +were (_a_) the last thirteen [ch. xv. 43-xvi. 8], and (_b_) “_the last +twelve_” [ch. xvi. 9-20] verses. Can it be deemed a strange thing that it +should have been found _indispensable_ to mark, with altogether +exceptional emphasis,—to make it unmistakably plain,—where the former +Lection came to an end, and where the latter Lection began?(450) + +XIII. One more circumstance, and but one, remains to be adverted to in the +way of evidence; and one more suggestion to be offered. The circumstance +is familiar indeed to all, but its bearing on the present discussion has +never been pointed out. I allude to the fact that anciently, in copies of +the fourfold Gospel, _the Gospel according to S. Mark frequently stood +last_. + +This is memorably the case in respect of the Codex Bezae [vi]: more +memorably yet, in respect of the Gothic version of Ulphilas (A.D. 360): in +both of which MSS., the order of the Gospels is (1) S. Matthew, (2) S. +John, (3) S. Luke, (4) S. Mark. This is in fact _the usual Western order_. +Accordingly it is thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. Vercellensis +(_a_), Veronensis (_b_), Palatinus (_e_), Brixianus (_f_) of the old Latin +version. But this order is not _exclusively_ Western. It is found in Cod. +309. It is also observed in Matthaei’s Codd. 13, 14, (which last is _our_ +Evan. 256), at Moscow. And in the same order Eusebius and others of the +ancients(451) are occasionally observed to refer to the four +Gospels,—which induces a suspicion that they were not unfamiliar with it. +Nor is this all. In Codd. 19 and 90 the Gospel according to S. Mark stands +last; though in the former of these the order of the three antecedent +Gospels is (1) S. John, (2) S. Matthew, (3) S. Luke;(452) in the latter, +(1) S. John, (2) S. Luke, (3) S. Matthew. What need of many words to +explain the bearing of these facts on the present discussion? Of course it +will have _sometimes_ happened that S. Mark xvi. 8 came to be written _at +the bottom of the left hand page_ of a MS.(453) And we have but to suppose +that in the case of one such Codex the next leaf, which would have been +_the last_, was missing,—(_the very thing which has happened in respect of +one of the Codices at Moscow_(454))—and what else _could_ result when a +copyist reached the words, + +ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ. ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ + +but the very phenomenon which has exercised critics so sorely and which +gives rise to the whole of the present discussion? The copyist will have +brought S. Mark’s Gospel to an end there, _of course_. What else could he +possibly do?... Somewhat less excusably was our learned countryman Mill +betrayed into the statement, (inadvertently adopted by Wetstein, +Griesbach, and Tischendorf,) that “the last verse of S. John’s Gospel _is +omitted_ in Cod. 63:” the truth of the matter being (as Mr. Scrivener has +lately proved) that _the __ last leaf_ of Cod. 63,—on which the last verse +of S. John’s Gospel was demonstrably once written,—_has been lost_.(455) + +XIV. To sum up. + +1. It will be perceived that I suppose the omission of “the last Twelve +Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel to have originated in a sheer error and +misconception on the part of some very ancient Copyist. He _saw_ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ +written after ver. 8: he _assumed_ that it was the Subscription, or at +least that it denoted “the End,” _of the Gospel_. + +2. Whether certain ancient Critics, because it was acceptable to them, +were not found to promote this mistake,—it is useless to inquire. That +there may have arisen some old harmonizer of the Gospels, who, (in the +words of Eusebius,) was disposed to “regard what followed as superfluous +from its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of the other +Evangelists;”(456)—and that in this way the error became propagated;—is +likely enough. But an error it most certainly was: and to that _error_, +the _accident_ described in the last preceding paragraph _would have_ very +materially conduced, and it may have very easily done so. + +3. I request however that it may be observed that the “accident” is not +_needed_ in order to account for the “error.” The mere presence of ΤΟ +ΤΕΛΟΣ at ver. 8, so near the end of the Gospel, would be quite enough to +occasion it. And we have seen that in very ancient times the word ΤΕΛΟΣ +frequently _did_ occur in an altogether exceptional manner in that very +place. Moreover, we have ascertained that its meaning was _not understood_ +by the transcribers of ancient MSS. + +4. And will any one venture to maintain that it is to him a thing +incredible that an intelligent copyist of the iiird century, because he +read the words ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ at S. Mark xvi. 8, can have been beguiled thereby +into the supposition that those words indicated “the End” of _S. Mark’s +Gospel_?—Shall I be told that, even if _one_ can have so entirely +overlooked the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer it to insinuate +itself into his text,(457) it is nevertheless so improbable as to pass all +credence that _another_ can have supposed that it designated _the +termination of the Gospel_ of the second Evangelist?—For all reply, I take +leave to point out that Scholz, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Mai +and the rest of the Critics have, _one and all, without exception, +misunderstood the same word occurring in the same place, and in precisely +the same way_. + +Yes. The forgotten inadvertence of a solitary Scribe in the _second_ or +_third_ century has been, _in the nineteenth_, deliberately reproduced, +adopted, and stereotyped by every Critic and every Editor of the New +Testament in turn. + +What wonder,—(I propose the question deliberately,)—What wonder that an +ancient Copyist should have been misled by a phenomenon which in our own +days is observed to have imposed upon two generations of professed +Biblical Critics discussing this very textual problem, and therefore fully +on their guard against delusion?(458) To this hour, the illustrious +Editors of the text of the Gospels are clearly, one and all, labouring +under the grave error of supposing that “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ + τέλος,”—(for +which they are so careful to refer us to “Cod. 22,”)—is an indication that +_there_, by rights, comes _the _“END”_ of the Gospel according to S. +Mark_. They have failed to perceive that ΤΕΛΟΣ in that place is only _a +liturgical sign_,—the same with which (in its contracted form) they are +sufficiently familiar; and that it serves no other purpose whatever, but +to mark that _there_ a famous _Ecclesiastical Lection_ comes to an end. + +With a few pages of summary, we may now bring this long disquisition to an +end. + + + + + + CHAPTER XII. + + +GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF +THE WHOLE SUBJECT. + + + This discussion narrowed to a single issue (p. 244).—That S. + Mark’s Gospel was imperfect from the very first, a thing + altogether incredible (p. 246):—But that at some very remote + period Copies have suffered mutilation, a supposition probable in + the highest degree (p. 248).—Consequences of this admission (p. + 252).—Parting words (p. 254.) + + +This Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem was fully +explained at the outset.(459) All the known evidence has since been +produced,(460) every Witness examined.(461) Counsel has been heard on both +sides. A just Sentence will assuredly follow. But it may not be improper +that I should in conclusion ask leave to direct attention to the _single +issue_ which has to be decided, and which has been strangely thrust into +the background and practically kept out of sight, by those who have +preceded me in this Investigation. The case stands simply thus:— + +It being freely admitted that, in the beginning of the ivth century, there +must have existed Copies of the Gospels in which the last chapter of S. +Mark extended no further than ver. 8, the Question arises,—_How is this +phenomenon to be accounted for?_... The problem is not only highly +interesting and strictly legitimate, but it is even inevitable. In the +immediately preceding chapter, I have endeavoured to solve it, and I +believe in a wholly unsuspected way. + +But the most recent Editors of the text of the New Testament, declining to +entertain so much as the _possibility_ that certain copies of the second +Gospel _had experienced mutilation in very early times_ in respect of +these Twelve concluding Verses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather +with conjectures as to how it may have happened that S. Mark’s Gospel _was +without a conclusion from the very first_. Persuaded that no more probable +account is to be given of the phenomenon than that _the Evangelist himself +put forth a Gospel which_ (for some unexplained reason) _terminated +abruptly at the words_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (chap. xvi. 8),—they have unhappily +seen fit to illustrate the liveliness of this conviction of theirs, by +presenting the world with his Gospel mutilated in this particular way. +Practically, therefore, the question has been reduced to the following +single issue:—Whether of the two suppositions which follow is the more +reasonable: + +_First_,—That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the hands of its +inspired Author, _was in this imperfect or unfinished state_; ending +abruptly at (what we call now) the 8th verse of the last chapter:—of which +solemn circumstance, at the end of eighteen centuries, Cod. B and Cod. א +are the alone surviving Manuscript witnesses?... or, + +_Secondly_,—That certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel _having suffered +mutilation_ in respect of their Twelve concluding Verses in the +post-Apostolic age, Cod. B and Cod. א are the only examples of MSS. so +mutilated which are known to exist at the present day? + +I. Editors who adopt the former hypothesis, are observed (_a_) to sever +the Verses in question from their context:(462)—(_b_) to introduce after +ver. 8, the subscription “ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ:”(463)—(_c_) to shut up verses 9-20 +within brackets.(464) Regarding them as “no integral part of the +Gospel”(465)—“as an authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself +wrote down,”(466)—a “remarkable Fragment,” “placed as a completion of the +Gospel in very early times;”(467)—they consider themselves at liberty to +go on to suggest that “the Evangelist may have been interrupted in his +work:” at any rate, that “something may have occurred, (as the death of S. +Peter,) to cause him to leave it unfinished.”(468) But “the most probable +supposition” (we are assured) “is, that _the last leaf of the original +Gospel was torn away_.”(469) + +We listen with astonishment; contenting ourselves with modestly suggesting +that surely it will be time to conjecture _why_ S. Mark’s Gospel was left +by its Divinely inspired Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has +been established that it probably _was_ so left. In the meantime, we +request to be furnished with some evidence of _that fact_. + +But not a particle of Evidence is forthcoming. It is not even pretended +that any such evidence exists. Instead, we are magisterially informed by +“the first Biblical Critic in Europe,”—(I desire to speak of him with +gratitude and respect, but S. Mark’s Gospel is a vast deal more precious +to me than Dr. Tischendorf’s reputation,)—that “_a healthy piety reclaims +against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as Mark’s what the +Evangelist is so plainly shewn_ [where?] _to have known nothing at all +about_.”(470) In the meanwhile, it is assumed to be a more reasonable +supposition,—(α) That S. Mark published an imperfect Gospel; and that the +Twelve Verses with which his Gospel concludes were the fabrication of a +subsequent age; than,—(β) That some ancient Scribe having with design or +by accident left out these Twelve concluding Verses, copies of the second +Gospel so mutilated become multiplied, and in the beginning of the ivth +century existed in considerable numbers. + +And yet it is notorious that very soon after the Apostolic age, liberties +precisely of this kind were freely taken with the text of the New +Testament. Origen (A.D. 185-254) complains of the licentious tampering +with the Scriptures which prevailed in his day. “Men add to them,” (he +says) “or _leave out_,—as seems good to themselves.”(471) Dionysius of +Corinth, yet earlier, (A.D. 168-176) remarks that it was no wonder his own +writings were added to and _taken from_, seeing that men presumed to +deprave the Word of GOD in the same manner.(472) Irenæus, his +contemporary, (living within seventy years of S. John’s death,) complains +of a corrupted Text.(473) We are able to go back yet half a century, and +the depravations of Holy Writ become avowed and flagrant.(474) A competent +authority has declared it “no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, +that _the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has been ever +subjected_ originated within a hundred years after it was composed.”(475) +Above all, it is demonstrable that Cod. B and Cod. א abound in +unwarrantable omissions very like the present;(476) omissions which only +do not provoke the same amount of attention because they are of less +moment. One such extraordinary depravation of the Text, _in which they +also stand alone among MSS._ and to which their patrons are observed to +appeal with triumphant complacency, has been already made the subject of +distinct investigation. I am much mistaken if it has not been shewn in my +VIIth chapter, that the omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1, +is just as unauthorized,—quite as serious a blemish,—as the suppression of +S. Mark xvi. 9-20. + +Now, in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of _any Evidence +whatever_ to prove that S. Mark’s Gospel was imperfect from the first,—I +submit that an hypothesis so violent and improbable, as well as so wholly +uncalled for, is simply undeserving of serious attention. For, + +(1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the improbability of +the hypothesis is excessive; “the contents of these Verses being such as +to preclude the supposition that they were the work of a post-Apostolic +period. The very difficulties which they present afford the strongest +presumption of their genuineness.” No fabricator of a supplement to S. +Mark’s Gospel would have ventured on introducing so many minute _seeming_ +discrepancies: and certainly “his contemporaries would not have accepted +and transmitted such an addition,” if he had. It has also been shewn at +great length that the Internal Evidence for the genuineness of these +Verses is overwhelmingly strong.(477) But, + +(2nd.) Even external Evidence is not wanting. It has been acutely pointed +out long since, that the absence of a vast assemblage of various Readings +in this place, is, in itself, a convincing argument that we have here to +do with no spurious appendage to the Gospel.(478) Were this a deservedly +suspected passage, it must have shared the fate of all other deservedly +(or undeservedly) suspected passages. It never could have come to pass +that the various Readings which these Twelve Verses exhibit would be +_considerably fewer_ than those which attach to the last twelve verses of +any of the other three Gospels. + +(3rd.) And then surely, if the original Gospel of S. Mark had been such an +incomplete work as is feigned, the fact would have been notorious from the +first, and must needs have become the subject of general comment.(479) It +may be regarded as certain that so extraordinary a circumstance would have +been largely remarked upon by the Ancients, and that evidence of the fact +would have survived in a hundred quarters. It is, I repeat, simply +incredible that Tradition would have proved so utterly neglectful of her +office as to remain _quite_ silent on such a subject, if the facts had +been such as are imagined. Either Papias, or else John the +Presbyter,—Justin Martyr, or Hegesippus, or one of the “Seniores apud +Irenæum,”—Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, or Hippolytus,—if not +Origen, yet at least Eusebius,—if not Eusebius, yet certainly +Jerome,—_some_ early Writer, I say, must _certainly_ have recorded the +tradition that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired +author, was an incomplete or unfinished work. The silence of the Ancients, +joined to the inherent improbability of the conjecture,—(_that_ silence so +profound, _this_ improbability so gross!)—is enough, I submit, _in the +entire absence of Evidence on the other side_, to establish _the very +contradictory_ of the alternative which recent Critics are so strenuous in +recommending to our acceptance. + +(4th.) But on the contrary. We have indirect yet convincing testimony that +the _oldest_ copies of all _did contain_ the Verses in question:(480) +while so far are any of the Writers just now enumerated from recording +that these verses were absent from the early copies, that five out of +those ten Fathers actually quote, or else refer to the verses in question +in a way which shews that in their day they were the recognised +termination of S. Mark’s Gospel.(481) + +We consider ourselves at liberty, therefore, to turn our attention to the +rival alternative. Our astonishment is even excessive that it should have +been seriously expected of us that we could accept without Proof of any +sort,—without a particle of Evidence, external, internal, or even +traditional,—the extravagant hypothesis that S. Mark put forth an +unfinished Gospel; when the obvious and easy alternative solicits us, of +supposing, + +II. That, at some period _subsequent_ to the time of the Evangelist, +certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel suffered that mutilation in respect of +their last Twelve Verses of which we meet with _no trace whatever, no +record of any sort, until the beginning of the fourth century_. + +(i.) And the facts which _now_ meet us on the very threshold, are in a +manner conclusive: for if Papias and Justin Martyr [A.D. 150] do not refer +to, yet certainly Irenæus [A.D. 185] and Hippolytus [A.D. 190-227] +_distinctly quote_ Six out of the Twelve suspected Verses,—which are also +met with in the two oldest Syriac Versions, as well as in the old Latin +Translation. Now the latest of these authorities is earlier by full a +hundred years than _the earliest record_ that the verses in question were +ever absent from ancient MSS. At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as +Cyprian relates,) [A.D. 256] Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven +African Bishops there assembled, quoted the 17th verse in the presence of +the Council. + +(ii.) Nor is this all.(482) Besides the Gothic and Egyptian versions in +the ivth century; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, and +Augustine in the vth, to say nothing of Codices A and C;—the Lectionary of +the Church universal, _probably from the second century of our æra_, is +found to bestow its solemn and emphatic sanction on _every one_ of these +Twelve Verses. They are met with _in every MS. of the Gospels in +existence_, uncial and cursive,—_except two_;(483) they are found _in +every Version_; and are contained besides in _every known Lectionary_, +where they are appointed to be read at Easter and on Ascension Day.(484) + +(iii.) Early in the ivth century, however, we are encountered by a famous +place in the writings of Eusebius [A.D. 300-340], who, (as I have +elsewhere explained,(485)) is the _only_ Father who delivers any +independent testimony on this subject at all. What he says has been +strangely misrepresented. It is simply as follows:— + +(_a_) One, “Marinus,” is introduced _quoting this part of S. Mark’s Gospel +without suspicion_, and enquiring, How its opening statement is to be +reconciled with S. Matth. xxviii. 1? Eusebius, in reply, points out that a +man whose only object was to get rid of the difficulty, might adopt the +expedient of saying that this last section of S. Mark’s Gospel “is _not +found in all the copies_:” (μὴ ἐν ἁπᾶσι φέρεσθαι.) Declining, however, to +act thus presumptuously in respect of anything claiming to be a part of +Evangelical Scripture, (οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν +εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ φερομένων,)—_he adopts the hypothesis that the text is +genuine_. Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, he begins: +and he enters at once without hesitation on an elaborate discussion to +shew _how the two places may be reconciled_.(486) What there is in this to +countenance the notion that in the opinion of Eusebius “the Gospel +according to S. Mark originally terminated at the 8th verse of the last +chapter,”—I profess myself unable to discover. I draw from his words the +precisely opposite inference. It is not even clear to me that the Verses +in dispute were absent from the copy which Eusebius habitually employed. +He certainly quotes one of those verses once and again.(487) On the other +hand, the express statement of Victor of Antioch [A.D. 450?] _that he knew +of the mutilation, but had ascertained by Critical research the +genuineness of this Section of Scripture, and had adopted the Text of the +authentic _“Palestinian”_ Copy_,(488)—is more than enough to outweigh the +faint presumption created (as some might think) by the words of Eusebius, +that his own copy was without it. And yet, as already stated, there is +nothing whatever to shew that Eusebius himself deliberately rejected the +last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. Still less does that Father +anywhere say, or even hint, that in his judgment the original Text of S. +Mark was without them. If he may be judged by his words, _he accepted them +as genuine_: for (what is at least certain) he argues upon their contents +at great length, and apparently without misgiving. + +(_b_) It is high time however to point out that, after all, the question +to be decided is, not _what Eusebius thought_ on this subject, but what is +historically probable. As a plain matter of fact, the sum of the Patristic +Evidence against these Verses is the hypothetical suggestion of Eusebius +already quoted; which, (after a fashion well understood by those who have +given any attention to these studies), is observed to have rapidly +propagated itself in the congenial soil of the vth century. And even if it +could be shewn that Eusebius deliberately _rejected_ this portion of +Scripture, (which has never been done,)—yet, inasmuch as it may be +regarded as certain that those famous codices in the library of his friend +Pamphilus at Cæsarea, to which the ancients habitually referred, +_recognised it as genuine_,(489)—the only sufferer from such a conflict of +evidence would surely be Eusebius himself: (not _S. Mark_, I say, but +_Eusebius_:) who is observed to employ an incorrect text of Scripture on +many other occasions; and must (in such case) be held to have been unduly +partial to copies of S. Mark in the mutilated condition of Cod. B or Cod. +א. His words were translated by Jerome;(490) adopted by Hesychius;(491) +referred to by Victor;(492) reproduced “with a difference” in more than +one ancient scholion.(493) But they are found to have died away into a +very faint echo when Euthymius Zigabenus(494) rehearsed them for the last +time in his Commentary on the Gospels, A.D. 1116. Exaggerated and +misunderstood, behold them resuscitated after an interval of seven +centuries by Griesbach, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles and the rest: again +destined to fall into a congenial, though very differently prepared soil; +and again destined (I venture to predict) to die out and soon to be +forgotten for ever. + +(iv.) After all that has gone before, our two oldest Codices (Cod. B and +Cod. א) which alone witness to the truth of Eusebius’ testimony as to the +state of certain copies of the Gospels in his own day, need not detain us +long. They are thought to be as old as the ivth century: they are +certainly without the concluding section of S. Mark’s Gospel. But it may +not be forgotten that both Codices alike are disfigured throughout by +errors, interpolations and omissions without number; that their testimony +is continually divergent; and that it often happens that where they both +agree they are both demonstrably in error.(495) Moreover, it is a highly +significant circumstance that the Vatican Codex (B), which is the more +ancient of the two, exhibits _a vacant column_ at the end of S. Mark’s +Gospel,—_the only vacant column in the whole codex_: whereby it is shewn +that the Copyist was aware of the existence of the Twelve concluding +Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, even though he left them out:(496) while the +original Scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus (א) is declared by Tischendorf to +have actually _omitted the concluding verse of S. John’s Gospel_,—in which +unenviable peculiarity _it stands alone among MSS._(497) + +(I.) And thus we are brought back to the point from which we started. We +are reminded that the one thing to be accounted for is _the mutilated +condition of certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel in the beginning of the +fourth century_; of which, Cod. B and Cod. א are the two solitary +surviving specimens,—Eusebius, the one historical witness. We have to +decide, I mean, between the _evidence_ for this _fact_,—(namely, that +within the first two centuries and a-half of our æra, the Gospel according +to S. Mark _suffered mutilation_;)—and the _reasonableness_ of the other +_opinion_, namely, that S. Mark’s _original autograph_ extended no farther +than ch. xvi. 8. All is reduced to this one issue; and unless any are +prepared to prove that the Twelve familiar Verses (ver. 9 to ver. 20) with +which S. Mark ends his Gospel _cannot_ be his,—(I have proved on the +contrary that he must needs be thought to have written them,(498))—I +submit that it is simply irrational to persist in asseverating that the +reason why those verses are not found in our two Codexes of the ivth +century must be because they did not exist in the original autograph of +the Evangelist. What else is this but to set unsupported _opinion_, or +rather unreasoning _prejudice_, before the _historical evidence_ of a +_fact_? The assumption is not only gratuitous, arbitrary, groundless; but +it is discountenanced by the evidence of MSS., of Versions, of Fathers, +(Versions and Fathers much older than the ivth century:) is rendered in +the highest degree improbable by every internal, every external +consideration: is condemned by _the deliberate judgment of the universal +Church_,—which, in its corporate capacity, for eighteen hundred years, in +all places, has not only solemnly accepted the last Twelve Verses of S. +Mark’s Gospel as genuine, but has even singled them out for special +honour.(499) + +(II.) Let it be asked in conclusion,—(for this prolonged discussion is now +happily at an end,)—Are any inconveniences likely to result from a frank +and loyal admission, (_in the absence of any Evidence whatever to the +contrary_,) that doubtless the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are +just as worthy of acceptation as the rest? It might reasonably be +supposed, from the strenuous earnestness with which the rejection of these +Verses is generally advocated, that some considerations must surely be +assignable why the opinion of their genuineness ought on no account to be +entertained. Do any such reasons exist? Are any inconveniences whatever +likely to supervene? + +_No_ reasons whatever are assignable, I reply; neither are there _any_ +inconvenient consequences of any sort to be anticipated,—except indeed to +the Critics: to whom, it must be confessed, the result proves damaging +enough. + +It will only follow, + +(1st) That Cod. B and Cod. א must be henceforth allowed to be _in one more +serious particular_ untrustworthy and erring witnesses. They have been +convicted, in fact, of bearing false witness in respect of S. Mark xvi. +9-20, where their evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most +undoubting confidence. + +(2ndly) That the critical statements of recent Editors, and indeed the +remarks of Critics generally, in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, will have +to undergo serious revision: in every important particular, will have to +be unconditionally withdrawn. + +(3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Testament, these +“Twelve Verses” will have to be restored to their rightful honours: never +more appearing disfigured with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished +from their context, or molested with notes of suspicion. On the contrary. +A few words of caution against the resuscitation of what has been proved +to be a “vulgar error,” will have henceforth to be introduced _in memoriam +rei_. + +(4thly) Lastly, men must be no longer taught to look with distrust on this +precious part of the Deposit; and encouraged to dispute the Divine sayings +which it contains on the plea that _perhaps_ they may not be Divine, after +all; for that _probably_ the entire section is not genuine. They must be +assured, on the contrary, that these Twelve Verses are wholly +undistinguishable in respect of genuineness from the rest of the Gospel of +S. Mark; and it may not be amiss to remind them the Creed called the +“Athanasian” speaks no other language than that employed by the Divine +Author of our Religion and Object of our Faith. The Church warns her +children against the peril incurred by as many as wilfully reject the +Truth, in no other language but that of the Great Head of the Church. No +person may presume to speak disparagingly of S. Mark xvi. 16, any more. + +(III.) Whether,—after the foregoing exposure of a very prevalent and +highly popular, but at the same time most calamitous misapprehension,—it +will not become necessary for Editors of the Text of the New Testament to +reconsider their conclusions in countless other places:—whether they must +not be required to review their method, and to remodel their text +throughout, now that they have been shewn the insecurity of the foundation +on which they have so confidently builded, and been forced to reverse +their verdict in respect of a place of Scripture where at least they +supposed themselves impregnable;—I forbear at this time to inquire. + +Enough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now done, that _not a +particle of doubt_, that _not an atom of suspicion_, attaches to “THE LAST +TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK.” + +ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ. + + + + + +APPENDIX (A). + + + On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of + Scripture.—The correct Text of S. LUKE ii. 14, established. + + +(Referred to at p. 22.) + +In Chapter III. the importance of attending to Patristic citations of +Scripture has been largely insisted upon. The controverted reading of S. +Luke ii. 14 supplies an apt illustration of the position there maintained, +viz. that this subject has not hitherto engaged nearly as much attention +as it deserves. + +I. Instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, (which is the reading of the “Textus +Receptus,”) Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford present us with ἐν +ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. Their authority for this reading is the consentient +testimony of THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. WHICH CONTAIN S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. B, א, +A, D): THE LATIN VERSIONS generally (“_in hominibus bonae voluntatis_”); +and THE GOTHIC. Against these are to be set, COD. A (in the Hymn at the +end of the Psalms); ALL THE OTHER UNCIALS; together WITH EVERY KNOWN +CURSIVE MS.; and EVERY OTHER ANCIENT VERSION in existence. + +So far, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed to preponderate in +favour of εὐδοκίας: though no judicious Critic, it is thought, should +hesitate in deciding in favour of εὐδοκία, even upon the evidence already +adduced. The advocates of the popular Theory ask,—But _why_ should the +four oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic Versions, +conspire in reading εὐδοκίας, if εὐδοκία be right? That question shall be +resolved by-and-by. Let them in the mean time tell us, if they can,—How is +it credible that, in such a matter as this, _every other MS. and every +other Version in the world_ should read εὐδοκία, if εὐδοκία be wrong? But +the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited. I proceed to set +it forth in detail. + +It is found then, that whereas εὐδοκίας _is read by none_, εὐδοκία is read +by all the following Fathers:— + +(1) ORIGEN, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 D: ii. 714 B: iv. 15 +B,—A.D. 240.] + +(2) The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, twice, [vii. 47: viii. 12 _ad +fin._,—IIrd cent.] + +(3) METHODIUS, [_Galland._ iii. 809 B,—A.D. 290.] + +(4) EUSEBIUS, twice, [_Dem. Ev._ 163 C: 342 B,—A.D. 320.] + +(5) APHRAATES THE PERSIAN, (for whose name [_suprà_, pp. 26-7] that of +“Jacobus of Nisibis” has been erroneously substituted), twice, [i. 180 and +385,—A.D. 337.] + +(6) TITUS OF BOSTRA, twice, [_in loc._, but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29 +(_Cramer_, ii. 141, _line_ 20),—A.D. 350.] + +(7) GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, [i. 845 C,—A.D. 360.] + +(8) CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, [A.D. 370], as will be found explained below. + +(9) EPIPHANIUS, [i. 154 D,—A.D. 375.] + +(10) CHRYSOSTOM, four times, [vii. 311 B: 674 C: viii. 85 C: xi. 374 B +expressly,—A.D. 400.] + +(11) CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, in three places, [_Comm. on S. Luke_, pp. 12 and +16. Also _Opp._ ii. 593 A: vi. 398 C,—A.D. 420.] + +(12) THEODORET, [_in Coloss._ i. 20,-A.D. 430.] + +(13) THEODOTUS OF ANCYRA, [_Galland._ x. 446 B,—A.D. 430.] + +(14) PROCLUS, Abp. of Constantinople, [_Gall._ x. 629 A,—A.D. 434.] + +To which may be added the evidence of + +(15) COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, four times repeated, [_Coll. Nov. PP._, +(Montfaucon,) ii. 152 A, 160 D, 247 E, 269 C,—A.D. 535.] + +(16) EULOGIUS, Abp. of Alexandria, [_Gall._ xii. 308 E,—A.D. 581.] + +(17) ANDREAS OF CRETE, twice, [_Gall._ xiii. 100 D, 123 C,—A.D. 635.] + +Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers of the Church(500) +all concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn _as our own Textus Receptus +exhibits it_,—(viz. ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία,)—_who_ does not see that the +four oldest uncial authorities for εὐδοκίας are hopelessly outvoted by +authorities yet older than themselves? Here is, to all intents and +purposes, a record of what was once found in _two Codices of the iii_rd_ +century_; in _nine of the iv_th; in _three of the v_th;—added to the +testimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian +versions. In this instance therefore the evidence of Antiquity is even +overwhelming. + +Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form in which _the +Churches of the East_ preserved the Angelic Hymn in their private, as well +as their solemn public Devotions. Take it, from a document of the vth +century:— + +ΔΟΞΑ ΕΝ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΙΣ ΘΕΩ +ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΓΗΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ +ΕΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ ΕΥΔΟΚΙΑ.(501) + +But the text of this Hymn, as a Liturgical document, at a yet earlier +period is unequivocally established by the combined testimony of the +Apostolical Constitutions (already quoted,) and of Chrysostom, who says +expressly:—Εὐχαριστοῦντες λέγομεν, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς +εἰρήνη, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. [_Opp._ xi. 347 B.] Now this incontestably +proves that _the Church’s established way of reciting the Angelic Hymn in +the iv_th_ century_ was in conformity with the reading of the Textus +Receptus. And this fact infinitely outweighs the evidence of any extant +MSS. which can be named: for it is the consentient evidence of +hundreds,—or rather of thousands of copies of the Gospels of a date +anterior to A.D. 400, which have long since perished. + +To insist upon this, however, is not at all my present purpose. About the +true reading of S. Luke ii. 14, (which is _not_ the reading of Lachmann, +Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,) there is clearly no longer any room for +doubt. It is perhaps one of the best established readings in the whole +compass of the New Testament. My sole object is to call attention to the +two following facts:— + +(1) That _the four oldest Codices which contain S. Luke_ ii. 14 (B, א, A, +D, A.D. 320-520), and two of the oldest Versions, conspire in exhibiting +the Angelic Hymn _incorrectly_. + +(2) That we are indebted to _fourteen of the Fathers_ (A.D. 240-434), and +to the rest of the ancient Versions, for the true reading of that +memorable place of Scripture. + +II. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,— + +1. IRENÆUS sides with the oldest uncials.—Now, the Greek of the place +referred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that survives. According +to _that_ evidence, Irenæus, having quoted the place in conformity with +the Vulgate reading (iii. c. x. § 41,—“_Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra +pax hominibus bonae voluntatis_,”) presently adds,—“In eo quod dicunt, +_Gloria in altissimis __DEO__ et in terra pax_, eum qui sit altissimorum, +hoc est, supercaelestium factor et eorum, quae super terram omnium +conditor, his sermonibus glorificaverunt; qui suo plasmati, hoc est +hominibus suam benignitatem salutis de caelo misit.” (_ed._ Stieren, i. +459).—But it must suffice to point out (1) that these words really prove +nothing: and (2) that it would be very unsafe to build upon them, even if +they did; since (3) it is plain that the Latin translator exhibits the +place in the Latin form most familiar to himself: (consider his +substitution of “excelsis” for “altissimis.”) + +2. Next, ORIGEN is claimed on the same side, on the strength of the +following passage in (Jerome’s version of) his lost Homilies on S. +Luke:—“Si scriptum esset, _Super terram pax_, et hucusque esset finita +sententia, recte quaestio nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est, +hoc est, quod post pacem dicitur, _In hominibus bonae voluntatis_, solvit +quaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super terram, non est pax bonae +voluntatis.” (_Opp._ iii. p. 946.) “From this,” (says Tischendorf, who is +followed by Tregelles,) “it is plain that Origen regarded εὐδοκίας as the +true reading; not εὐδοκία—which is now thrice found in his Greek +writings.”—But, + +Is one here more struck with the unfairness of the Critic, or with the +feebleness of his reasoning? For,—(to say nothing of the insecurity of +building on a Latin Translation,(502) especially in such a matter as the +present,)—How can testimony like this be considered to outweigh the three +distinct places in the original writings of this Father, where he reads +not εὐδοκίας but εὐδοκία? Again. Why is a doubt insinuated concerning the +trustworthiness of those three places, (“ut _nunc_ reperitur,”) where +there really is _no_ doubt? How is Truth ever to be attained if +investigations like the present are to be conducted in the spirit of an +eager partisan, instead of with the calm gravity of an impartial judge? + +But I may as well state plainly that the context of the passage above +quoted shews that Tischendorf’s proposed inference is inadmissible. Origen +is supposing some one to ask the following question:—“Since Angels on the +night when CHRIST was born proclaimed ‘on earth _Peace_,’—why does our +SAVIOUR say, ‘I am _not_ come to send Peace upon earth, but a sword?’... +Consider,” (he proceeds) “whether the answer may not be this:”—and then +comes the extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with colloquial +truthfulness,) is _at his old tricks_. He is evidently acquainted with the +reading εὐδοκίας: and because it enables him to offer (what appears to +him) an ingenious solution of a certain problem, he adopts it for the +nonce: his proposal to take the words εἰρήνη εὐδοκίας together, being +simply preposterous,—as no one ever knew better than Origen himself.(503) + +3. Lastly, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM is invariably cited by the latest Critics as +favouring the reading εὐδοκίας. Those learned persons have evidently +overlooked the candid acknowledgment of De Touttée, Cyril’s editor, (p. +180, cf. bottom of p. 102,) that though _the MSS. of Cyril_ exhibit +εὐδοκία, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured _to print_ +εὐδοκίας. This therefore is one more Patristic attestation to the +trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of S. Luke ii. 14, which +has been hitherto unaccountably lost sight of by Critics. (May I, without +offence, remind Editors of Scripture that instead of _copying_, they ought +in every instance _to verify_ their references?) + +III. The history of this corruption of the Text is not hard to discover. +It is interesting and instructive also. + +(1.) In the immediately post-Apostolic age,—if not earlier still,—some +Copyist will have omitted the ἐν before ἀνθρώποις. The resemblance of the +letters and the similarity of the sound (ΕΝ, ΑΝ,) misled him:— + +ΕΝΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ + +Every one must see at a glance how easily the thing may have happened. (It +is in fact precisely what _has_ happened in Acts iv. 12; where, for ἐν +ἀνθρώποις, D and a few cursive MSS. read ἀνθρώποις,—being countenanced +therein by the Latin Versions generally, and by them only.) + +(2.) The result however—(δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις +εὐδοκία)—was obviously an impossible sentence. It could not be allowed to +stand. And yet it was not by any means clear what had happened to it. In +order, as it seems, to _force_ a meaning into the words, some one with the +best intentions will have put the sign of the genitive (Σ) at the end of +εὐδοκία. The copy so depraved was destined to play an important part; for +it became the fontal source of the Latin Version, which exhibits the place +thus:—_Gloria in altissimis __DEO__, et in terra pax hominibus bonae +voluntatis...._ It is evident, by the way, (if the quotation from Irenæus, +given above, is to be depended upon,) that Irenæus must have so read the +place: (viz. εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.) + +(3.) To restore the preposition (ΕΝ) which had been accidentally thrust +out, and to obliterate the sign of the genitive (Σ) which had been without +authority thrust in, was an obvious proceeding. Accordingly, _every Greek +Evangelium extant_ exhibits ἐν ἀνθρώποις: while _all but four_ (B, א, A, +D) read εὐδοκία. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vulgate (e.g. the +_Cod. Amiatinus_,) the preposition (“in”) has found its way back; but the +genitive (“bonae voluntatis”) has never been rectified in a single copy of +the Latin version.—The Gothic represents a copy which exhibited ἐν +ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.(504) + +The consequence is that a well-nigh untranslatable expression retains its +place in the Vulgate to the present hour. Whether (with Origen) we connect +εὐδοκίας with εἰρήνη,—or (with the moderns) we propose to understand “men +of good pleasure,”—the result is still the same. The harmony of the +three-part Anthem which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity is +hopelessly marred, and an unintelligible discord substituted in its place. +Logic, Divinity, Documents are here all at one. The reading of Stephens is +unquestionably correct. The reading of the latest Editors is as certainly +corrupt. This is a case therefore where the value of Patristic testimony +becomes strikingly apparent. It affords also one more crucial proof of the +essential hollowness of the theory on which it has been recently proposed +by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest to reconstruct the text +of the New Testament. + +To some, it may perhaps seem unreasonable that so many words should be +devoted to the establishment of the text of a single place of +Scripture,—depending, as that text does, on the insertion or the omission +of a single letter. I am content to ask in reply,—_What_ is important, if +not the utterance of Heaven, when, at the laying of the corner-stone of +the New Creation, “the Morning Stars sang together, and all the Sons of +GOD shouted for joy?” + +IV. Only one word in conclusion. + +Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized +Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first +instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons +carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know +precisely what it is they have to translate before they can pretend to +translate it. As for supposing that Scholars who have been appointed to +revise _a Translation_ are competent at a moment’s notice, as every fresh +difficulty presents itself, to develop the skill requisite for revising +_the original Text_,—it is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts +in one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in another. + +But it so happens that, on the present occasion, that _other_ Science is +one of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists _here_ will find it necessary +altogether to disabuse their minds of the _Theory_ of Textual Criticism +which is at present the dominant and the popular one,—and of which I have +made it my business to expose the fallaciousness, in respect of several +crucial texts, in the course of the present work. + +I cannot so far forget the unhappy circumstances of the times as to close +this note without the further suggestion, (sure therein of the approval of +our trans-Atlantic brethren,) that, for a Revision of the Authorized +Version to enjoy the confidence of the Nation, and to procure for itself +acceptance at the hands of the Church,—it will be found necessary that the +work should be confided to _Churchmen_. The Church may never abdicate her +function of being “a Witness and a Keeper of Holy Writ.” Neither can she, +without flagrant inconsistency and scandalous consequence, ally herself in +the work of Revision with the Sects. Least of all may she associate with +herself in the sacred undertaking an Unitarian Teacher,—one who avowedly +[see the letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.,” in the “Times” of +July 11, 1870] denies the eternal GODhead of her LORD. That the individual +alluded to has shewn any peculiar aptitude for the work of a Revisionist; +or that he is a famous Scholar; or that he can boast of acquaintance with +any of the less familiar departments of Sacred Learning; is not even +pretended. (It would matter nothing if the reverse were the case.) What +else, then, is this but to offer a deliberate insult to the Majesty of +Heaven in the Divine Person of Him who is alike the Object of the +Everlasting Gospel, and its Author? + + + + + +APPENDIX (B). + + + EUSEBIUS “ad Marinum” concerning the reconcilement of S. Mark xvi. + 9 with S. Matthew xxviii. 1. + + +(Referred to at pp. 46, 47, 54, and 233.) + +SUBJOINED is the original text of EUSEBIUS, taken from the “Quæstiones ad +Marinum” published by Card. Mai, in his “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca” (Romae, +1847,) vol. iv. pp. 255-7. + +I. Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῷ ὄψε σαββάτων φαίνεται ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ +δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων. + +Τούτου διττὴ ἄν εἴη ἡ λύσις; ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ _del._?(505)] +τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, εἴποι ἄν μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτὴν φέρεσθαι +τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου; τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων +τὸ τέλος περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ +ὀφθέντος νεανίσκου ταῖς γυναιξὶ καὶ εἰρηκότος αὐταῖς “μὴ φοβεῖσθε, Ἰησοῦν +ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνόν.” καὶ τοῖς ἐξῆς, οἶς ἐπιλέγει: “καὶ ἀκούσασαι +ἔφυγον, καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν +ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος; +τὰ δὲ ἑξῆς σπανίως ἔν τισιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσι φερόμενα περιττὰ ἄν εἴη, καὶ +μάλιστα εἴπεν ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. ταῦτα +μὲν οὖν εἴποι ἄν τις παραιτούμενος καὶ τάντη ἀναιρῶν περιττὸν ἐρώτημα. +Ἄλλος δέ τις οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν εὐαγγελίων +γραφῇ φερομένον, διπλῆν εἶναι φησι τὴν ἀναγνωσιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις +πολλοῖς, ἑκατέραν τε παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρχειν, τῷ μὴ μᾶλλον ταύτην ἐκείνης, ἥ +ἐκείνην ταύτης, παρὰ τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ εὐλαβέσιν ἐγκρίνεσθαι. + +Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, προσήκει τὸν νοῦν +διερμηνεύειν τοῦ ἀναγνώσματος; εἰ γοῦν διέλοιμεν τὴν τοῦ λόγου διάνοιαν, +οὐκ ἄν εὕροιμεν αὐτὴν ἐναντίαν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Ματθαίου ὀψὲ σαββάτων +ἐγηγέρθαι τὸν Σωτῆρα λελεγμένοις; τὸ γὰρ “ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ +σαββάτου” κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον, μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωσόμεθα; καὶ μετὰ τὸ +ἀναστὰς δὲ, ὑποστίξομεν;(506) καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀφορίζομεν τῶν ἑξῆς +ἐπιλεγομένων. εἶτα τὸ μὲν ἀναστὰς ἄν, ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψέ +σαββάτων. τότε γὰρ ἐγήγετο; τὸ δὲ ἐξῆς ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν, +συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις; πρωί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ +Μαγδαληνῇ. τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης πρωί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ +σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας. οὕτως οὖν καί παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ +πρωί ἐφάνη αὐτῇ. οὐ πρωί ἀναστὰς, ἀλλὰ πολὺ πρότερον κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον ὀψὲ +τοῦ σαββάτου. τότε γὰρ ἀναστὰς ἐφάνη τῇ Μαρίᾳ, οὐ τότε ἀλλὰ πρωί. ὡς +παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο. τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τὸν ὀψὲ τοῦ +σαββάτου, τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν πρωί, ὃν ἔγραψεν ὁ Μάρκος +εἰπὼν (ὃ καὶ μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον) ἀναστὰς δέ; εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες, τὸ +ἑξῆς ρητέον, πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ᾽ ἦς +ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. + +II. Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον ὀψὲ σαββάτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν +ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ μιᾷ +τοῦ σαββάτου. + +Οὐδὲν ἄν ζητηθείν κατὰ τοὺς τόπους, εἰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων μὴ τὴν ἑσπερινήν +ὥραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν, ὥς τινες +ὑπειλήφασιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς νυκτὸς τῆς μετὰ τὸ σάββατον, κ.τ.λ. + + + + + +APPENDIX (C). + + + Proof that HESYCHIUS is a copyist only in what he says concerning + the end of S. Mark’s Gospel. + + +(Referred to at pp. 57-58.) + +§ 1. It was confidently stated above (at p. 58) that HESYCHIUS, discussing +the consistency of S. Matthew’s ὀψὲ τῶν σαββάτων (chap. xxviii. 1), with +the πρωί of S. Mark (chap. xvi. 9), is a _copyist_ only; and that he +copies from the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of EUSEBIUS. The proof of that +statement is subjoined. It should perhaps be explained that the extracts +in the right-hand column have been dislocated in order to shew their close +resemblance to what is set down in the left-hand column from Eusebius:— + +(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.) +τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων μὴ τὴν τὸ δὲ ὀψὲ σαββάτων οὺ τὴν +ἑσπερινὴν ὥραν τὴν μετὰ ἑσπέραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν +τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου δύσιν τοῦ ἡλίου δηλοί ... +λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν +ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς ἀλλὰ ... τὸ βράδιον καὶ +νυκτὸς. πολὺ διεστηκὸς ... +οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς ὤρας καὶ γάρ που καὶ οὕτως +εἰώθαμεν λέγειν, καὶ ὀψὲ ημῖν σύνηθες λέγειν, ὀψὲ +τοῦ καιροῦ, καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς τοῦ καιροῦ παραγέγονας; +χρείας; οὸ τὴν ἑσπέραν ὀψὲ τῆς ὤρας, ὀψὲ τῆς +δηλοῦντες, οὐδὲ τὸν μετὰ χρείας; οὐχὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν, +ἡλίου δυσμὰς χρόνον, τὸ καὶ τὸν μετὰ ἡλίου δυσμὰς +δὲ σφόδρα βράδιον τούτῳ χρόνον δηλοῦσιν; ἀλλὰ τὸ +σημαίνοντες τῷ τρόπῳ; βράδιον ... τὸν τρόπον + τοῦτον μηνύουσι. +ὄθεν ὥσπερ διερμηνεύων ὁ Ματθαῖος ... ὥσπερ +αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ὁ Ματθαῖος ἑρμηνεύων ἑαυτὸν, ἐπήγαγε +μετὰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν +ἐπήγαγε τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῇ σαββάτων. +εἰς μίαν σαββάτων. +Ἔθος δὲ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα σάββατον δὲ τὴν πᾶσαν +σάββατον καλεῖν. ἑβδομάσα καλεῖν Ἑβραίοις + ἔθος. +λέγεται γοῦν παρὰ τοῖς αὐτίκα γοῦν οἱ +Εὐαγγελισταῖς τῇ μιᾷ τῶν εὐαγγελισταὶ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν +σαββάτων; σαββάτων φασί; +ἐν δὲ τῇ συνηθείᾳ, οὔτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ +δευτέρα σαββάτων, καί συνηθείᾳ κεκχρήμεθα, +τρίτη σαββάτων. δευτέραν σαββάτων, καὶ + τρίτη σαββάτων. +(EUSEBIUS ad Marinum, (GREG. NYSS. [_vid. +_apud_ Mai, vol. iv. p. suprà_, p. 39 bto 41.] +257-8.) _Opp._ vol. iii. p. 402.) + +§ 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original text of the +passage of HESYCHIUS exhibited in English at p. 57. The intention of +setting down the parallel passages from EUSEBIUS, and from VICTOR of +Antioch, is in order to shew the sources from which Hesychius obtained his +materials,—as explained at p. 58:— + +(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.) +τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς +ἀντιγράφων τὸ τέλος ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις +περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον +Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς μεχρὶ τοῦ “ἐφοβοῦντο +λόγοις κ.τ.λ. οἶς γὰρ,” ἔχει τὸ τέλος. +ἐπιλέγει; ... “καὶ οὐδενὶ +οὐδὲν, εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο +γάρ.” +(EUSEBIUS ad Marinum, +_apud_ Mai, iv. p. 255.) +(VICTOR OF ANTIOCH.) +ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι ... ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ +πρόσκειται ... “Ἀναστὰς” ταῦτα. “Ἀναστὰς” κ.τ.λ. +κ.τ.λ. δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτο τοῦτο δὲ ἐναντίωσίν τινα +διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου δοκεῖ ἔχειν πρὸς τὰ +εἰρημένῳ.... ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένα; + [τῆς γὰρ ὤρας τῆς νυκτὸς + ἀγνώστου τυγχανούσης καθ᾽ + ἤν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνέστη, πῶς + ἐνταῦθα ἀναστῆναι “πρωί” + γέγραπται; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν + ἐναντίον φανήσεται τὸ + ῥητὸν, εἱ] +οὅτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα; μετ᾽ ἐπιστήμης +“Ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ ἀναγνωσόμεθα; καὶ γὰρ +ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, ὑποστῖξαι δεῖ συνετῶς; +“πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων “Ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ οὕτως +ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ ἐπαγάγειν, “πρωί πρώτῃ +Μαγδαληνῇ;” ἵνα τὸ μὲν σαββάτων ἐφάνη πρῶτον +“ἀναστὰς”— Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.” ἵνα + τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς” +(VICTOR ANTIOCH, _ed. +Cramer_, vol. i. p. 444, +line 19 to line 27.) + [ἔχη τὴν ἀναφορὰν + συμφώνως τῷ Ματθαίῳ, πρὸς + τὸν προλαβόντα καιρὸν, τὸ + δὲ “πρωί” πρὸς τὴν τῆς + Μαρίας γενομένην + ἐπιφάνειαν ἀποδοθείη.] + (GREG. NYSS. _Opp._ vol. + iii. p. 411, B, C, D: + which may be also seen in + Cramer’s _Catenae_, [vol. + i. p. 250, line 21 to + line 33,] ascribed to + “SEVERUS, Archbishop of + Antioch,” [_Ibid._, p. + 243.]) + + + + + +APPENDIX (D). + + + Some account of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH’S Commentary on S. Mark’s + Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain + Victor’s Work. + + +(Referred to at p. 60.) + +“Après avoir examiné avec soin les MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roi,” (says +the Père Simon in his _Hist. Crit. du N. T._ p. 79,) “j’ai réconnu que cet +ouvrage” (he is speaking of the Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel popularly +ascribed to Victor of Antioch,) “n’est ni d’Origéne, ni de Victor +d’Antioche, ni de Cyrille, ni d’aucun autre auteur en particulier. C’est +un recueil de plusieurs Pères, dont on a marqué les noms dans quelques +exemplaires; et si ces noms ne se trouvent point dans d’autres, cela est +assez ordinaire à ces recueils, qu’on appelle _chaînes_.”(507) It will be +seen from the notices of the work in question already offered, (_suprà_, +p. 59 to p. 65,) that I am able to yield only a limited acquiescence in +this learned writer’s verdict. That the materials out of which VICTOR OF +ANTIOCH constructed his Commentary are scarcely ever original,—is what no +one will deny who examines the work with attention. But the Author of a +compilation is an Author still; and to put Victor’s claim to the work +before us on a level with that of Origen or of Cyril, is entirely to +misrepresent the case and hopelessly to perplex the question. + +Concerning VICTOR himself, nothing whatever is known except that he was “a +presbyter of Antioch.” Concerning his Work, I will not here repeat what I +have already stated elsewhere; but, requesting the Reader to refer to what +was remarked at pp. 59 to 65, I propose to offer a few observations with +which I was unwilling before to encumber the text; holding it to be a +species of duty for those who have given any time and attention to a +subject like the present to contribute the result, (however slender and +unsatisfactory it may prove,) to the common store. Let abler men enlarge +the ensuing scanty notices, and correct me if in any respect I shall have +inadvertently fallen into error. + +1. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark’s Gospel, which generally +claims on its front “VICTOR, PRESBYTER OF ANTIOCH,” for its Author.(508) A +Latin translation of this work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the +first instance, published at Ingolstadt in 1580,(509) by Theodore +Peltanus. His Latin version found its way at once into “Bibliothecæ,” (or +Collections of Writings of the Fathers,) and has been again and again +reprinted. + +2. The Greek text of Victor was first published at Rome by Peter Possinus +in 1673, from a MS. existing somewhere in Germany; which Bathazar +Corderius had transcribed and presented to Possinus about thirty years +before. Corderius gave Possinus at the same time his transcript of an +anonymous Commentary on S. Mark preserved in the Vatican; and Possinus had +already in his possession the transcript of a third Commentary on the same +Evangelist (also anonymous) which he had obtained from the Library of +Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse. These three transcripts Possinus +published in a well-known volume. It is to be wished that he had kept them +distinct, instead of to some extent blending their contents confusedly +into one.(510) Still, the dislocated paragraphs of Victor of Antioch are +recognisable by the name of their author (“Victor Antiochenus”) prefixed +to each: while “Tolosanus” designates the Toulouse MS.: “Vaticanus” (or +simply “Anonymus”) the Vatican. + +3. At the end of another century, (1775) C. F. Matthaei put forth at +Moscow, with his usual skill and accuracy, a new and independent Edition +of Victor’s Commentary:(511) the text of which is based on four of the +Moscow MSS. This work, which appeared in two parts, has become of +extraordinary rarity. I have only just ascertained (June, 1871,) that one +entire Copy is preserved in this country. + +4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume of his +_Catenae_ on the N. T., reproduced Victor’s work from independent MS. +sources. He took for his basis two Codices in the Paris Library, (No. 186 +and No. 188), which, however, prove to have been anciently so exactly +assimilated the one to the other [_infrà_, p. 279] as to be, in fact, but +duplicates of one and the same original. Cramer supplemented their +contents from Laud. Gr. 33, (in the Bodleian:) Coisl. 23: and Reg. 178 at +Paris. The result has been by far the fullest and most satisfactory +exhibition of the Commentary of Victor of Antioch which has hitherto +appeared. Only is it to be regretted that the work should have been +suffered to come abroad disfigured in every page with errors so gross as +to be even scandalous, and with traces of slovenly editorship which are +simply unintelligible. I cannot bring myself to believe that Dr. Cramer +ever inspected the MSS. in the Paris Library in person. Else would the +slender advantage which those abundant materials have proved to so learned +and accomplished a scholar, be altogether unaccountable. Moreover, he is +incorrect in what he says about them:(512) while his reasons for proposing +to assign the work of Victor of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are +undeserving of serious attention. + +On a comparison of these four Editions of the same work, it is discovered +that the Latin version of Peltanus (1580), _represents the same Greek +text_ which Possinus gave to the world in 1673. Peltanus translates very +loosely; in fact he paraphrases rather than translates his author, and +confesses that he has taken great liberties with Victor’s text. But I +believe it will be found that there can have been no considerable +discrepancy between the MS. which Peltanus employed, and that which +Possinus afterwards published.—Not so the text which Matthaei edited, +which is in fact for the most part, (though not invariably,) rather an +Epitome of Victor’s Commentary. On the other hand, Cramer’s text is more +full than that of Possinus. There seem to be only a few lines in Possinus, +here and there, which are not to be met with in Cramer; whereas no less +than twenty-eight of Cramer’s pages are not found in the work of Possinus. +Cramer’s edition, therefore, is by far the most complete which has +hitherto appeared. And though it cries aloud for revision throughout; +though many important corrections might easily be introduced into it, and +the whole brought back in countless particulars more nearly to the state +in which it is plain that Victor originally left it;—I question whether +more than a few pages of _additional matter_ could easily be anywhere +recovered. I collated several pages of Cramer (Oct. 1869) with every MS. +of Victor in the Paris Library; and all but invariably found that Cramer’s +text was fuller than that of the MS. which lay before me. Seldom indeed +did I meet with a few lines in any MS. which had not already seen the +light in Cramer’s edition. One or other of the four Codices which he +employed seems to fill up almost every hiatus which is met with in any of +the MSS. of this Father. + +For it must be stated, once for all, that an immense, and I must add, a +most unaccountable discrepancy is observable between the several extant +copies of Victor: yet not so much in respect of various readings, or +serious modifications of his text; (though the transpositions are very +frequent, and often very mischievous;(513)) as resulting from the +boundless license which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed himself +chiefly in _abridging_ his author.—To skip a few lines: to omit an +explanatory paragraph, quotation, or digression: to pass _per saltum_ from +the beginning to the end of a passage: sometimes to leave out a whole +page: to transpose: to paraphrase: to begin or to end with quite a +different form of words;—proves to have been the rule. Two copyists +engaged on the same portion of Commentary are observed to abridge it in +two quite different ways. I question whether there exist in Europe three +manuscripts of Victor which correspond entirely throughout. The result is +perplexing in a high degree. Not unfrequently (as might be expected) we +are presented with two or even three different exhibitions of one and the +same annotation.(514) Meanwhile, as if to render the work of collation (in +a manner) impossible,—(1) Peltanus pleads guilty to having transposed and +otherwise taken liberties with the text he translated: (2) Possinus +confessedly welded three codices into one: (3) Matthaei pieced and patched +his edition out of four MSS.; and (4) Cramer, out of five. + +The only excuse I can invent for this strange licentiousness on the part +of Victor’s ancient transcribers is this:—They must have known perfectly +well, (in fact it is obvious,) that the work before them was really little +else but a compilation; and that Victor had already abridged in the same +merciless way the writings of the Fathers (Chrysostom chiefly) from whom +he obtained his materials. We are to remember also, I suppose, the labour +which transcription involved, and the costliness of the skins out of which +ancient books were manufactured. But when all has been said, I must +candidly admit that the extent of license which the ancients evidently +allowed themselves quite perplexes me.(515) _Why_, for example, remodel +the structure of a sentence and needlessly vary its phraseology? Never I +think in my life have I been more hopelessly confused than in the +_Bibliothèque_, while attempting to collate certain copies of Victor of +Antioch. + +I dismiss this feature of the case by saying that if any person desires a +sample of the process I have been describing, he cannot do better than +bestow a little attention on the “Preface” (ὑπόθεσις) at the beginning of +Victor’s Commentary. It consists of thirty-eight lines in Cramer’s +edition: of which Possinus omits eleven; and Matthaei also, eleven;—_but +not the same eleven_. On the other hand, Matthaei(516) _prolongs_ the +Preface by eight lines. Strange to relate, the MS. from which Cramer +professes to publish, goes on differently. If I may depend on my hasty +pencilling, after ἐκκλησίαις [_Cramer_, i. p. 264, line 16,] Evan. 300, [ += Reg. 186, _fol._ 93, line 16 from bottom] proceeds,—Κλήμης ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν +ὑποτυπώσεων, (thirty-one lines, ending) χαρακτήρ ἐγένετο. + +On referring to the work of Possinus, “Anonymus Vaticanus” is found to +exhibit so admirable a condensation (?) of the ὑπόθεσις in question, that +it is difficult to divest oneself of the suspicion that it must needs be +an original and independent composition; the germ out of which the longer +Preface has grown.... We inspect the first few pages of the Commentary, +and nothing but perplexity awaits us at every step. It is not till we have +turned over a few pages that we begin to find something like exact +correspondence. + +As for the Work,—(for I must now divest myself of the perplexing +recollections which the hurried collation of so many MSS. left behind; and +plainly state that, in spite of all, I yet distinctly ascertained, and am +fully persuaded that the original work was _one_,—the production, no +doubt, of “Victor, Presbyter of Antioch,” as 19 out of the 52 MSS. +declare):—For the Commentary itself, I say, Victor explains at the outset +what his method had been. Having failed to discover any separate +exposition of S. Mark’s Gospel, he had determined to construct one, by +collecting the occasional notices scattered up and down the writings of +Fathers of the Church.(517) Accordingly, he presents us in the first few +lines of his Commentary (p. 266) with a brief quotation from the work of +Eusebius “to Marinus, on the seeming inconsistency of the Evangelical +accounts of the Resurrection;” following it up with a passage from “the +vith [viith?] tome of Origen’s Exegetics on S. John’s Gospel.” We are thus +presented at the outset with _two_ of Victor’s favorite authorities. The +work of Eusebius just named he was evidently thoroughly familiar +with.(518) I suspect that he has many an unsuspected quotation from its +pages. Towards the end of his Commentary, (as already elsewhere +explained,) he quotes it once and again. + +Of Origen also Victor was evidently very fond(519): and his words on two +or three occasions seem to shew that he had recourse besides habitually to +the exegetical labours of Apolinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Titus +of Bostra.(520) Passages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met +with;(521) and once at least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil. The +historian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name.(522) + +But the Father to whom Victor is chiefly indebted is Chrysostom,—whom he +styles “the blessed John, Bishop of the Royal City;” (meaning +Constantinople(523)). Not that Victor, strictly speaking, _transcribes_ +from Chrysostom; at least, to any extent. His general practice is slightly +to adapt his Author’s language to his own purpose; sometimes, to leave out +a few words; a paragraph; half a page.(524) Then, he proceeds to quote +another Father probably; or, it may be, to offer something of his own. But +he seldom gives any intimation of what it is he does: and if it were not +for the occasional introduction of the phrase ὁ μέν φησι or ἄλλος δέ +φησι,(525) a reader of Victor’s Commentary might almost mistake it for an +original composition. So little pains does this Author take to let his +reader know when he is speaking in his own person, when not, that he has +not scrupled to retain Chrysostom’s phrases ἐγὼ δὲ οἶμαι,(526) &c. The +result is that it is often impossible to know to _whose_ sentiments we are +listening. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that ancient ideas +concerning authorship differed entirely from those of modern times; +especially when Holy Scripture was to be commented on. + +I suspect that, occasionally, copyists of Victor’s work, as they +recognised a fragment here and there, prefixed to it the name of its +author. This would account for the extremely partial and irregular +occurrence of such notes of authorship; as well as explain why a name duly +prefixed in one copy is often missing in another.(527) Whether Victor’s +Commentary can in strictness be called a “Catena,” or not, must remain +uncertain until some one is found willing to undertake the labour of +re-editing his pages; from which, by the way, I cannot but think that some +highly interesting (if not some important) results would follow. + +Yet, inasmuch as Victor never, or certainly very seldom, prefixes to a +passage from a Father _the name of its Author_;—above all, seeing that +sometimes, at all events, he is original, or at least speaks in his own +person;—I think the title of “Catena” inappropriate to his Commentary. + +As favourable and as interesting a specimen of this work as could be +found, is supplied by his annotation on S. Mark xiv. 3. He begins as +follows, (quoting Chrysostom, p. 436):—“One and the same woman seems to be +spoken of by all the Evangelists. Yet is this not the case. By three of +them one and the same seems to be spoken of; not however by S. John, but +another famous person,—the sister of Lazarus. This is what is said by +John, the Bishop of the Royal City.—Origen on the other hand says that she +who, in S. Matthew and S. Mark, poured the ointment in the house of Simon +the leper was a different person from the sinner whom S. Luke writes about +who poured the ointment on His feet in the house of the +Pharisee.—Apolinarius(528) and Theodorus say that all the Evangelists +mention one and the same person; but that John rehearses the story more +accurately than the others. It is plain, however, that Matthew, Mark, and +John speak of the same individual; for they relate that Bethany was the +scene of the transaction; and this is a _village_; whereas Luke [viii. 37] +speaks of some one else; for, ‘Behold,’ (saith he) ‘a woman _in the city_ +which was _a sinner_,’ ” &c., &c. + +But the most important instance by far of independent and sound judgment +is supplied by that concluding paragraph, already quoted and largely +remarked upon, at pp. 64-5; in which, after rehearsing all that had been +said against the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, Victor vindicates +their genuineness by appealing in his own person to the best and the most +authentic copies. The Reader is referred to Victor’s Text, which is given +below, at p. 288. + +It only remains to point out, that since Chrysostom, (whom Victor speaks +of as ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις,[p. 408,] and ὁ μακαριος, [p. 442,]) died in A.D. 407, +it _cannot_ be right to quote “401” as the date of Victor’s work. Rather +would A.D. 450 be a more reasonable suggestion: seeing that extracts from +Cyril, who lived on till A.D. 444, are found here and there in Victor’s +pages. We shall not perhaps materially err if we assign A.D. 430-450 as +Victor of Antioch’s approximate date. + +I conclude these notices of an unjustly neglected Father, by specifying +the MSS. which contain his Work. Dry enough to ordinary readers, these +pages will not prove uninteresting to the critical student. An enumeration +of all the extant Codices with which I am acquainted which contain VICTOR +OF ANTIOCH’S Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel, follows:— + +(i.) EVAN. 12 ( = Reg. 230) _a most beautiful MS._ + +The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to VICTOR by name; being a +recension very like that which Matthaei has published. S. Mark’s text is +given _in extenso_. + +(ii.) EVAN. 19 ( = Reg. 189: anciently numbered 437 and 1880. Also 134 and +135. At back, 1603.) _A grand folio, well-bound and splendidly written. +Pictures of the Evangelists in such marvellous condition that the very +tools employed by a scribe might be reproduced. The ground gilded. +Headings, &c. and words from Scripture all in gold._ + +Here also the Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel is assigned to VICTOR. The +differences between this text and that of Cramer (e.g. at fol. 320-3, +370,) are hopelessly numerous and complicated. There seem to have been +extraordinary liberties taken with the text of this copy throughout. + +(iii.) EVAN. 20 (= Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.) _A splendid +folio,—the work of several hands and beautifully written._ + +Victor’s Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel is generally considered to be +claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA by the following words: + +ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΑΓΙΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ +ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ +ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ. + +The correspondence between Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 [_infrà_, No. xiv], (= +Reg. 188 and 186), is extraordinary.(529) In S. Mark’s Gospel, (which +alone I examined,) _every page begins with the same syllable, both of Text +and Commentary_: (i.e. Reg. 186, fol. 94 to 197 = Reg. 188, fol. 87 to +140). Not that the number of words and letters in every line corresponds: +but the discrepancy is compensated for by a blank at the end of each +column, and at the foot of each page. Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 seem, +therefore, in some mysterious way referable to a common original. The +sacred Text of these two MSS., originally very dissimilar, has been made +identical throughout; some very ancient (the original?) possessor of Reg. +188 having carefully assimilated the readings of his MS. to those of Reg. +186, the more roughly written copy; which therefore, in the judgment of +the possessor of Reg. 188, exhibits the purer text. But how then does it +happen that in both Codices alike, each of the Gospels (except S. +Matthew’s Gospel in Reg. 188,) ends with the attestation that it has been +collated with approved copies? Are we to suppose that the colophon in +question was added _after_ the one text had been assimilated to the other? +This is a subject which well deserves attention. The reader is reminded +that these two Codices have already come before us at pp. 118-9,—where see +the notes. + +I proceed to set down some of the discrepancies between the texts of these +two MSS.: in every one of which, Reg. 188 has been made conformable to +Reg. 186:— + +(COD. REG. 186.) (COD. REG. 188.) +(1) Matth. xxvi. 70. αυτων παντων λεγων +αὐτῶν λέγων +(2) Mk. i. 2. ώς κάθως +(3) Mk. i. 11. ῷ σοι +(4) Mk. i. 16. βάλλοντας ἀμφιβάλλοντας +ἀμφίβληστρον ἀμφίβληστρον +(5) Mk. ii. 21. παλαιῷ: παλαιῷ: εἰ δὲ μή, αἅρει +εἰ δἐ μή γε αἱρεῖ απ᾽ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ +αυτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα +(6) Mk. iii. 10. ἐθεράπευσεν +ἐθεράπευεν +(7) Mk. iii. 17. τοῦ Ἰακώβου +Ἰακώβου +(8) Mk. iii. 18. καὶ καί Μ. τὸν τελώνην καὶ Θ. +Ματθαῖον καὶ Θ. +(9) Mk. vi. 9. μὴ ἐνδέδυσθαι +ἐνδύσησθε +(10) Mk. vi. 10. μένετε μείνατε + +In the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th of these instances, Tischendorf is found (1869) +to adopt the readings of Reg. 188: in the last four, those of Reg. 186. In +the 1st, 4th, and 5th, he follows neither. + +(iv.) EVAN. 24 (= Reg. 178.) _A most beautifully written fol._ + +Note, that this Codex has been mutilated at p. 70-1; from S. Matth. xxvii. +20 to S. Mark iv. 22 being away. It cannot therefore be ascertained +whether the Commentary on S. Mark was here attributed to Victor or not. +Cramer employed it largely in his edition of Victor (_Catenae_, vol. i. p. +xxix,), as I have explained already at p. 271. Some notices of the present +Codex are given above at p. 228-9. + +(v.) EVAN. 25 (= Reg. 191: anciently numbered Colb. 2259): 1880. _Folio: +grandly written._ + +No Author’s name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of the Evangelist +is given _in extenso_. + +(vi.) EVAN. 34 (= Coisl. 195.) _A grand folio, splendidly written, and in +splendid condition: the paintings as they came from the hand of the +artist._ + +At fol. 172, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR. It will be +found that Coisl. 23 (_infrà_, No. ix.) and Coisl. 195 are derived from a +common original; but Cod. 195 is the more perfect copy, and should have +been employed by Cramer in preference to the other (_suprà_, p. 271.) +There has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the Commentary. + +(vii.) EVAN. 36 (= Coisl. 20.) _A truly sumptuous Codex._ + +Some notices of this Codex have been given already, at p. 229. The +Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name. + +(viii.) EVAN. 37 (= Coisl. 21.) _Fol._ + +The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR at fol. 117. It seems to +be very much the same recension which is exhibited by Coisl. 19 (_infrà_, +No. xviii.) and Coisl. 24 (_infrà_, No. xi.) The Text is given _in +extenso_: the Commentary, in the margin. + +(ix.) EVAN. 39 (= Coisl. 23.) _A grand large fol. The writing singularly +abbreviated._ + +The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR: but is very dissimilar in +its text from that which forms the basis of Cramer’s editions. (See above, +on No. vi.) It is Cramer’s “P.” (See his _Catenae_, vol. i. p. xxviii; and +_vide supra_, p. 271.) + +(x.) EVAN. 40 (= Coisl. 22.) + +No Author’s name is prefixed to the Commentary (fol. 103); which is a +recension resembling Matthaei’s. The Text is _in extenso_: the Commentary, +in the margin. + +(xi.) EVAN. 41 (= Coisl. 24.) _Fol._ + +This is a Commentary, not a Text. It is expressly claimed for VICTOR. The +recension seems to approximate to that published by Matthaei. (See on No. +viii.) One leaf is missing. (See fol. 136 b.) + +(xii.) EVAN. 50 (= Bodl. Laud. Gracc. 33.) 4to. The Commentary here seems +to be claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, but in the same unsatisfactory way +as No. iii and xiv. (See Coxe’s _Cat._ i. 516.) + +(xiii.) EVAN. 299 (= Reg. 177: anciently numbered 22423). + +The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name. +The Text of S. Mark is given _in extenso_: Victor’s Commentary, in the +margin. + +(xiv.) EVAN. 300 (= Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750, and 1882.) _A +noble Codex: but the work of different scribes. It is most beautifully +written._ + +At fol. 94, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, +in the same equivocal manner as above in No. iii and xii. The writer +states in the colophon that he had diversely found it ascribed to Cyril +and to Victor. (ἐπληρώθη σὺν Θεῷ ἡ ἑρμηνεία τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον ἁγίου +εὐαγγελίου ἀπὸ φωνῆς, ἔν τισιν εὗρον Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρέως, ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ +Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρον.) + +See above, the note on Evan. 20 (No. iii),—a MS. which, as already +explained, has been elaborately assimilated to the present. + +(xv.) EVAN. 301 (= Reg. 187: anciently numbered 504, 537 and 1879.) _A +splendid fol. beautifully written throughout._ + +The Commentary on S. Mark is here claimed for VICTOR. + +(xvi.) EVAN. 309 (= Reg. 201: anciently numbered 176 and 2423.) _A very +interesting little fol.: very peculiar in its style. Drawings old and +curious. Beautifully written._ + +The Commentary is here claimed for VICTOR. This is not properly a text of +the Gospel; but parts of the text interwoven with the Commentary. Take a +specimen(530): (S. Mark xvi. 8-20.) + +ΚΑΙ ΕΞΕΛΘΟΥΣΑΙ ΕΦΥΓΟΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΝΗΜΕΙΟΥ. ΕΙΧΕΝ ΔΕ ΑΥΤΑΣ ΤΡΟΜΟΣ ΚΑΙ +ΕΚΣΤΑΣΙΣ. ΕΩΣ ΔΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΕΠΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΝΤΩΝ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΝ. + +Over the text is written ΚΕΙΜ (κειμένον i.e. _Text_) and over the +Commentary ΕΡΜ (ἑρμηνεία, i.e. _Interpretation_.) See the next. + +(xvii.) EVAN. 312 (= Reg. 206: anciently numbered 968, 1058, 2283; and +behind, 1604. Also A. 67.) _A beautiful little fol._ + +Contains only the Commentary, which is expressly assigned to VICTOR. This +Copy of Victor’s Commentary is very nearly indeed a duplicate of Cod. 309, +(No. xvi.) both in its contents and in its method; but it is less +beautifully written. + +(xviii.) EVAN. 329 (= Coisl. 19.) _A very grand fol._ + +The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name. +(See above, on No. viii.) + +(xix.) REG. 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Reg. 2330: also No. +18.) _A grand large 4__to__._ + +The Commentary is here claimed for ORIGEN. Such at least is probably the +intention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of the Prologue:— + + + ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΠΡΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΥ. + + +See on this subject the note at foot of p. 235. + +(xx.) EVAN. 304 ( = Reg. 194. Teller 1892.) The text of S. Mark is hero +interwoven with a Commentary which I do not recognise. But from the +correspondence of a note at the end with what is found in Possinus, pp. +361-3, I am led to suspect that the contents of this MS. will be found to +correspond with what Possinus published and designated as “Tolosanus.” + +(xxi.) EVAN. 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambec. 29.) Victor’s Commentary is here +anonymous. + +(xxii.) EVAN. 92 (which belonged to Faesch of Basle [see Wetstein’s +_Proleg._], and which Haenel [p. 658 _b_] says is now in Basle Library). +Wetstein’s account of this Codex shows that the Commentary on S. Mark is +here distinctly ascribed to Victor. He says,—“Continet Marcum et in eum +_Victoris Antiocheni Commentarios_, foliis 5 mutilos. Item Scholia in +Epistolas Catholicas,” &c. And so Haenel. + +(xxiii.) EVAN. 94 (As before, precisely; except that Haenel’s [inaccurate] +notice is at p. 657 _b_.) This Codex contains VICTOR of Antioch’s +Commentary on S. Mark, (which is evidently hero also assigned to him _by +name_;) and Titus of Bostra on S. Luke. Also several Scholia: among the +rest, I suspect, (from what Haenel says), the Scholia spoken of _suprà_, +p. 47, note (x). + +(xxiv.) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning them, Haenel +says there also exists in the Library at Basle,—“VICTORIS Antiocheni +Scholia in Evang. Marci: chart.”(531) + +(xxv.) EVAN. 108 (Vind. Forlos. d. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225) refers to it +for the Scholion given in the next article. (Append. E.) + +(xxvi.) EVAN. 129 (Vat. 358.) ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ. ΠΓ ΑΝΤΙΟΧ ΕΡΜ ΕΙΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ. The +Commentary is written along the top and bottom and down the side of each +page; and there are references (α, β, γ) inserted in the text to the +paragraphs in the margin,—as in some of the MSS. at Paris. Prefixed is an +exegetical apparatus by Eusebius, &c. + +Note, that of these five MSS. in the Vatican, (358, 756, 757, 1229, 1445), +the 3rd and 4th are without the prefatory section (beginning πολλῶν εἰς τὸ +κατὰ Μ.)—All 5 begin, Μάρκος ὁ εὐαγγελιστής. In all but the 4th, the +second paragraph begins σαφέστερον. + +The third passage begins in all 5, Ἰσοδυναμεῖ τοῦτο. Any one seeking to +understand this by a reference to the editions of Cramer or of Possinus +will recognise the truth of what was stated above, p. 274, line 24 to 27. + +(xxvii.) EVAN. 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358 +(No. xxvi): but no Author’s name is given. + +(xxviii.) EVAN. 138 (Vat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at the +beginning are these words:—ὁ ἀντίγραφος (_sic_) οὗτος ἐστὶν ὁ Πέτρος ὁ τῆς +Λαοδικείας ὅστις προηγεῖται τῶν ἄλλων ἐξηγητῶν ενταῦθα. (Comp. No. xlvii.) +The Commentary and Text are not kept distinct, as in the preceding Codex. +Both are written in an ill-looking, slovenly hand. + +(xxix.) EVAN. 143 (Vat. 1,229.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358 +(No. xxvi), but without the references; and no Author’s name is given. + +(xxx.) EVAN. 181 (Xavier, Cod. Zelada.) Birch was shewn this Codex of the +Four Gospels in the Library of Cardinal Xavier of Zelada (_Prolegomena_, +p. lviii): “Cujus forma est in folio, pp. 596. In margine passim occurrunt +scholia ex Patrum Commentariis exscripta.” + +(xxxi.) EVAN. 186 (Laur. vi. 18.) This Codex is minutely described by +Bandini (_Cat._ i. 130), who gives the Scholion (_infra_, p. 388-9), and +says that the Commentary is without any Author’s name. + +(xxxii.) EVAN. 194 (Laur. vi. 33.) Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας +ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον. (See the description of this Codex +in Bandini’s _Cat._ i. 158.) + +(xxxiii.) EVAN. 195 (Laur. vi. 34.) This Codex seems to correspond in its +contents with No. xxxi. _suprà_: the Commentary containing the Scholion, +and being anonymous. (See Bandini, p. 161.) + +(xxxiv.) EVAN. 197 (Laur. viii. 14.) The Commentary, (which is Victor’s, +but has no Author’s name prefixed,) is defective at the end. (See Bandini, +p. 355.) + +(xxxv.) EVAN. 210 (Venet. 27.) “Conveniunt initio Commentarii eum iis qui +Victori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autem discrepant.” (Theupoli +_Graeca D. Marci Bibl. Codd. MSS._ Venet. 1740.) I infer that the work is +anonymous. + +(xxxvi.) Venet. 495. “VICTORIS ANTIOCHENI Presbyteri expositio in +Evangelium Marci, collecta ex diversis Patribus.” (I obtain this reference +from the Catalogue of Theupolus.) + +(xxxvii.) EVAN. 215 (Venet. 544.) I presume, from the description in the +Catalogue of Theupolus, that this Codex also contains a copy of Victor’s +Commentary. + +(xxxviii.) EVAN. 221 (Vind. Ness. 117, Lambec. 38). Kollar has a long note +(B) [iii. 157] on the Commentary, which has no Author’s name prefixed. +Birch (p. 225) refers to it for the purpose recorded under No. xxv. + +(xxxix.) EVAN. 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Lambec. 39.) The Commentary is +anonymous. Birch refers to it, as before. + +Add the following six MSS. at Moscow, concerning which, see Matthaei’s +Nov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. xii.:— + +(xl.) EVAN. 237 (This is Matthaei’s d or D [described in his _N. T._ ix. +242. Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 137.] “SS. Synod. 42:”) and is one of the MSS. +employed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor.—The Commentary on S. Mark has +no Author’s name prefixed. + +(xli.) EVAN. 238 (Matthaei’s e or E [described in his _N. T._ ix. 200. +Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 141.] “SS. Synod. 48.”) This Codex formed the basis +of Matthaei’s ed. of Victor, [See the _Not. Codd. MSS._ at the end of vol. +ii. p. 123. Also _N. T._ ix. 202.] The Commentary on S. Mark is anonymous. + +(xlii.) EVAN. 253 (Matthaei’s 10 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 234.] It +was lent him by Archbishop Nicephorus.) Matthaei says (p. 236) that it +corresponds with a (_our_ Evan. 259). No Author’s name is prefixed to the +Commentary on S. Mark. + +(xliii.) EVAN. 255 (Matthaei’s 12 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 222. Also +_Vict. Ant._ ii. 133.]) “SS. Synod. 139.” The Scholia on S. Mark are here +entitled ἐξηγητικαὶ ἐκλογαί, and (as in 14) are few in number. For some +unexplained reason, in his edition of Victor of Antioch, Matthaei saw fit +to designate this MS. as “B.” [N.T. ix. 224 _note_.] ... See by all means, +_infrà_, the “Postscript.” + +(xliv.) EVAN. 256 (Matthaei’s 14 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 220.] +“Bibl. Typ. Synod. 3.”) The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to +VICTOR, presbyter of Antioch; but the Scholia are said to be (as in “12” +[No. xxxix]) few in number. + +(xlv.) EVAN. 259 (Matthaei’s a or A [described in his _N. T._ ix. 237. +Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 128.] “SS. Synod. 45.”) This is one of the MSS. +employed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor. No Author’s name is prefixed to +the Commentary. + +(xlvi.) EVAN. 332 (Taurin. xx _b_ iv. 20.) Victor’s Commentary is here +given anonymously. (See the Catalogue of Pasinus, P. i. p. 91.) + +(xlvii.) EVAN. 353 (Ambros. M. 93): with the same Commentary as Evan. 181, +(i.e. No. xxx.) + +(xlviii.) EVAN. 374 (Vat. 1445.) Written continuously in a very minute +character. The Commentary is headed (in a later Greek hand) + ἑρμηνεία +Πέτρου Λαοδικείας εἰς τοὺς δ᾽ αγ [ίους] εὐαγγελιστάς +. This is simply a +mistake. No such work exists: and the Commentary on the second Evangelist +is that of Victor. (See No. xxviii.) + +(xlix.) EVAN. 428 (Monacensis 381. Augsburg 11): said to be duplicate of +Evan. 300 (i.e. of No. xiv.) + +(1.) EVAN. 432 (Monacensis 99.) The Commentary contained in this Codex is +evidently assigned to VICTOR. + +(li.) EVAN. 7pe (ix. 3. 471.) A valuable copy of the Four Gospels, dated +1062; which Edw. de Muralto (in his Catalogue of the Greek MSS. in the +Imperial Library at S. Petersburg) says contains the Commentary of VICTOR +ANT. (See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 178.). + +(lii.) At Toledo, in the “Biblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor,” Haenel [p. 885] +mentions:—“VICTOR ANTIOCHENUS Comm. Graec. in iv. [?] Evangelia saec. xiv. +membr. fol.” + +To this enumeration, (which could certainly be very extensively +increased,) will probably have to be added the following:— + +EVAN. 146 (Palatino Vat. 5.) +EVAN. 233 (Escurial [Upsilon]. ii. 8.) +EVAN. 373 (Vat. 1423.) +EVAN. 379 (Vat. 1769.) +EVAN. 427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.) + +Middle Hill, No. 13,975,—a MS. in the collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps. + +In conclusion, it can scarcely require to be pointed out that VICTOR’S +Commentary,—of which the Church in her palmiest days shewed herself so +careful to multiply copies, and of which there survive to this hour such a +vast number of specimens,—must needs anciently have enjoyed very peculiar +favour. It is evident, in fact, that an Epitome of Chrysostom’s Homilies +on S. Matthew, together with VICTOR’S_ compilation on S. Mark_,—Titus of +Bostra on S. Luke,—and a work in the main derived from Chrysostom’s +Homilies on S. John;—that these four constituted the established +Commentary of ancient Christendom on the fourfold Gospel. Individual +copyists, no doubt, will have been found occasionally to abridge certain +of the Annotations, and to omit others: or else, out of the multitude of +Scholia by various ancient Fathers which were evidently once in +circulation, and must have been held in very high esteem,—(Irenæus, +Origen, Ammonius, Eusebius, Apolinarius, Cyril, Chrysostom, the Gregorys, +Basil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodore of Heraclea,) they will have +introduced extracts according to their individual caprice. In this way, +the general sameness of the several copies is probably to be accounted +for, while their endless discrepancy in matters of detail is perhaps +satisfactorily explained. + +These last remarks are offered in the way of partial elucidation of the +difficulty pointed out above, at pp. 272-4. + + + + + +APPENDIX (E). + + + Text of the concluding Scholion of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH’S Commentary + on S. Mark’s Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to + the genuineness of “the last Twelve Verses.” + + +(Referred to at p. 65.) + +I have thought this very remarkable specimen of the method of an ancient +and (as I think) unjustly neglected Commentator, deserving of +extraordinary attention. Besides presenting the reader, therefore, with +what seems to be a fair approximation to the original text of the passage, +I have subjoined as many various readings as have come to my knowledge. It +is hoped that they are given with tolerable exactness; but I have been too +often obliged to depend on printed books and the testimony of others. I +can at least rely on the readings furnished me from the Vatican. + +The text chiefly followed is that of Coisl. 20, (in the Paris Library,—our +EVAN. 36;) supplemented by several other MSS., which, for convenience, I +have arbitrarily designated by the letters of the alphabet.(532) + +Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ “Ἀναστὰς(533) δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ +Μαγδαληνῇ,” καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς ἐπιφερόμενα, ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ παρὰ(534) +πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται,(535) (ὡς νόθα γὰρ ἐνόμισαν αὐτά τινες +εἶναι(536)) ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων, ὡς ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες +αὐτὰ,(537) κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια, +συντεθείκαμεν(538) καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομόνην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ +τὸ “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ”(539) τούτεστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ “ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ +σαββάτου,” καὶ καθ᾽ ἑξῇς μέχρι τοῦ “διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. +Αμήν.”(540) + +More pains than enough (it will perhaps be thought) have been taken to +exhibit accurately this short Scholion. And yet, it has not been without +design (the reader may be sure) that so many various readings have been +laboriously accumulated. The result, it is thought, is eminently +instructive, and (to the student of Ecclesiastical Antiquity) important +also. + +For it will be perceived by the attentive reader that not more than two or +three of the multitude of various readings afforded by this short Scholion +can have possibly resulted from careless transcription.(541) The rest have +been unmistakably occasioned by the merest licentiousness: every fresh +Copyist evidently considering himself at liberty to take just whatever +liberties he pleased with the words before him. To amputate, or otherwise +to mutilated; to abridge; to amplify; to transpose; to remodel;—this has +been the rule with all. The _types_ (so to speak) are reducible to two, or +at most to three; but the varieties are almost as numerous as the MSS. of +Victor’s work. + +And yet it is impossible to doubt that this Scholion was originally one, +and one only. Irrecoverable perhaps, in some of its minuter details, as +the actual text of Victor may be, it is nevertheless self-evident that _in +the main_ we are in possession of what he actually wrote on this occasion. +In spite of all the needless variations observable in the manner of +stating a certain fact, it is still unmistakably one and the same fact +which is every time stated. It is invariably declared,— + +(1.) That from certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel the last Twelve Verses +had been LEFT OUT; and (2) That this had been done because their +genuineness had been by certain persons suspected: but, (3) That the +Writer, convinced of their genuineness, had restored them to their +rightful place; (4) Because he had found them in accurate copies, and in +the authentic Palestinian copy, which had supplied him with his exemplar. + +It is obvious to suggest that after familiarizing ourselves with this +specimen of what proves to have been the licentious method of the ancient +copyists in respect of the text of an early Father, we are in a position +to approach more intelligently the Commentary of Victor itself; and, to +some extent, to understand how it comes to pass that so many liberties +have been taken with it throughout. The Reader is reminded of what has +been already offered on this subject at pp. 272-3. + + + + + +APPENDIX (F). + + + On the Relative antiquity of the CODEX VATICANUS (B), and the + CODEX SINAITICUS (א). + + +(Referred to at p. 70.) + +I. “Vix differt aetate a Codice Sinaitico,” says Tischendorf, (_ed. 8va_, +1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus (B). Yet does he perpetually +designate his own Sinaitic Codex (א) as “omnium antiquissimus.” Now, + +(1) The (all but unique) sectional division of the Text of Codex +B,—confessedly the oldest scheme of chapters extant, is in itself a +striking note of primitiveness. The author of the Codex knew nothing, +apparently, of the Eusebian method. But I venture further to suggest that +the following peculiarities in Codex א unmistakably indicate for it a +later date than Codex B. + +(2) Cod. א, (like C, and other later MSS.,) is broken up into short +paragraphs throughout. The Vatican Codex, on the contrary, has very few +breaks indeed: e.g. it is without break of any sort from S. Matth. xvii. +24 to xx. 17: whereas, within the same limits, there are in Cod. א as many +as _thirty_ interruptions of the context. From S. Mark xiii. 1 to the end +of the Gospel the text is absolutely continuous in Cod. B, except in _one_ +place: but in Cod. א it is interrupted upwards of _fifty_ times. Again: +from S. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of the Gospel there is but _one_ break +in Cod. B. But it is broken into well nigh _an hundred and fifty_ short +paragraphs in Cod. א. + +There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B, (resembling the +style of the papyrus of _Hyperides_ published by Mr. Babington,) is the +more ancient. The only places where it approximates to the method of Cod. +א, is where the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, &c.), +and where our LORD proclaims the eight Beatitudes (S. Matth. v.) + +(3) Again; Cod. א is prone to exhibit, on extraordinary occasions, _a +single word_ in a line, as at— + +S. MATTH. XV. 30. +ΧΩΛΟΥΣ +ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ +ΚΥΛΛΟΥΣ +ΚΩΦΟΥΣ + +S. MARK X. 29. +Η ΑΔΕΛΦΑΣ +Η ΠΑΤΕΡΑ +Η ΜΗΤΕΡΑ +Η ΤΕΚΝΑ +Η ΑΓΡΟΥΣ + +S. LUKE XIV. 13 +ΠΤΩΧΟΥΣ +ΑΝΑΠΗΡΟΥΣ +ΧΩΛΟΥΣ +ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ + +This became a prevailing fashion in the vith century; e.g. when the Cod. +Laudianus of the Acts (E) was written. The only trace of anything of the +kind in Cod. B is at the Genealogy of our LORD. + +(4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the initial letter in +Cod. א _slightly projects into the margin_,—beyond the left hand edge of +the column; as usual in all later MSS. This characteristic is only not +undiscoverable in Cod. B. Instances of it there are in the earlier Codex; +but they are of exceedingly rare occurrence. + +(5) Further; Cod. א abounds in such contractions as ΑΝΟΣ, ΟΥΝΟΣ (with all +their cases), for ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ, ΟΥΡΑΝΟΣ, &c. Not only ΠΝΑ, ΠΗΡ, ΠΕΡ, ΠΡΑ, ΜΡΑ +(for ΠΝΕΥΜΑ, ΠΑΤΗΡ-ΤΕΡ-ΤΕΡΑ, ΜΗΤΕΡΑ), but also ΣΤΡΘΗ, ΙΗΛ, ΙΗΛΗΜ, for +ΣΤΑΥΡΩΘΗ, ΙΣΡΑΗΛ, ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ. + +But Cod. B, though familiar with ΙΣ, and a few other of the most ordinary +abbreviations, knows nothing of these compendia: which certainly _cannot_ +have existed in the earliest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable +to suppose that their constant occurrence in Cod א indicates for that +Codex a date subsequent to Cod. B. + +(6) The very discrepancy observable between these two Codices in their +method of dealing with “the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel,” +(already adverted to at p. 88,) is a further indication, and as it seems +to the present writer a very striking one, that Cod. B is the older of the +two. Cod. א is evidently _familiar_ with the phenomenon which _astonishes_ +Cod. B by its novelty and strangeness. + +(7) But the most striking feature of difference, after all, is only to be +recognised by one who surveys the Codices themselves with attention. It is +_that_ general air of primitiveness in Cod. B which makes itself at once +_felt_. The even symmetry of the unbroken columns;—the work of the _prima +manus_ everywhere vanishing through sheer antiquity;—the small, even, +_square_ writing, which partly recalls the style of the Herculanean rolls; +partly, the papyrus fragments of the _Oration against Demosthenes_ +(published by Harris in 1848):—all these notes of superior antiquity +infallibly set Cod. B before Cod. א; though it may be impossible to +determine whether by 50, by 75, or by 100 years. + +II. It has been conjectured by one whose words are always entitled to most +respectful attention, that Codex Sinaiticus may have been “one of the +fifty Codices of Holy Scripture which Eusebius prepared A.D. 331, by +Constantine’s direction, for the use of the new Capital.” (Scrivener’s +_Collation of the Cod. Sin._, Introd. p. xxxvii-viii.) + +1. But this, which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave +discrepancy between its readings and those with which Eusebius proves to +have been most familiar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is +without S. Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section numbered +“216” in S. Mark’s Gospel. [Quite in vain has Tischendorf perversely +laboured to throw doubt on this circumstance. It remains altogether +undeniable,—as a far less accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at +a glance. Tischendorf’s only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he might +have added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, _which explains the phenomenon_ in +Cod. M), _against ver._ 29 is set the number, “216,” instead of against +ver. 28. But what then? Has not the number _demonstrably_ lost its place? +And is there not _still_ one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And _which_ +can it _possibly_ have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28?] Again. Cod. א, +(like B, C, L, U, Γ, and some others), gives the piercing of the SAVIOUR’S +side at S. Matth. xxvii. 49: but if Eusebius had read that incident in the +same place, he would have infallibly included S. John xix. 34, 35, with S. +Matth. xxvii. 49, in his viith Canon, where matters are contained which +are common to S. Matthew and S. John,—instead of referring S. John xix. +31-37 to his xth Canon, which specifies things peculiar to each of the +four Evangelists. Eusebius, moreover, in a certain place (_Dem. Evan._ x. +8 [quoted by Tisch.]) has an allusion to the same transaction, and +expressly says that it is recorded _by S. John_. + +2. No inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can be drawn from the +Eusebian notation of Sections in the margin: _that_ notation having been +confessedly added at a subsequent date. + +3. On the other hand, the subdivision of Cod. א into paragraphs, proves to +have been made without any reference to the sectional distribution of +Eusebius. Thus, there are in the Codex thirty distinct paragraphs from S. +Matthew xi. 20 to xii. 34, inclusive; but there are comprised within the +same limits only seventeen Eusebian sections. And yet, of those seventeen +sections only nine correspond with as many paragraphs of the Codex +Sinaiticus. This, in itself, is enough to prove that Eusebius knew nothing +of the present Codex. His record is express:—ἐφ᾽ ἐκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων +εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος κ.τ.λ. + +III. The supposed resemblance of the opened volume to an Egyptian +papyrus,—when eight columns (σελίδες) are exhibited to the eye at once, +side by side,—seems to be a fallacious note of high antiquity. If Cod. א +has four columns in a page,—Cod. B three,—Cod. A two,—Cod. C has only one. +But Cod. C is certainly as old as Cod. A. Again, Cod. D, which is of the +vith century, is written (like Cod. C) across the page: yet was it “copied +from an older model similarly divided in respect to the lines or +verses,”—and therefore similarly written across the page. It is almost +obvious that the size of the skins on which a Codex was written will have +decided whether the columns should be four or only three in a page. + +IV. In fine, nothing doubting the high antiquity of both Codices, (B and +א,) I am nevertheless fully persuaded that an interval of at least half a +century,—if not of a far greater span of years,—is absolutely required to +account for the marked dissimilarity between them. + + + + + +APPENDIX (G). + + + On the so-called “AMMONIAN SECTIONS” and “EUSEBIAN CANONS.” + + +(Referred to at p. 130.) + +I. That the Sections (popularly miscalled “_Ammonian_”) with which +EUSEBIUS [A.D. 320] has made the world thoroughly familiar, and of which +some account was given above (pp. 127-8), cannot be the same which +AMMONIUS of Alexandria [A.D. 220] employed,—but must needs be the +invention of EUSEBIUS himself,—admits of demonstration. On this subject, +external testimony is altogether insecure.(542) The only safe appeal is to +the Sections themselves. + +1. The Call of the Four Apostles is described by the first three +Evangelists, within the following limits of their respective Gospels:—S. +Matthew iv. 18-22: S. Mark i. 16-20: S. Luke (with the attendant +miraculous draught of fishes,) v. 1-11. Now, these three portions of +narrative are observed to be dealt with in the sectional system of +EUSEBIUS after the following extraordinary fashion: (the fourth column +represents the Gospel according to S. John):— + +(1.) § 29, (v. 1-3) +(2.) § 20, (iv. § 9, (i. +17, 18) 14-1/2-16) +(3.) § 30, (v. 4-7) § 219, (xxi. + 1-6) +(4.) § 30 (v. 4-7) § 222, (xxi. + 11) +(5.) § 31, (v. + 8-10-1/2) +(6.) § 21, (iv. § 10, (i. 17, § 32, (v. +19, 20) 18) 10-1/2, 11) +(7.) § 22, (iv. § 11, (i. 19, +21, 22) 20) + +It will be perceived from this, that EUSEBIUS subdivides these three +portions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sections (“§§;”)—of which three +belong to S. Matthew, viz. §§ 20, 21, 22:—three to S. Mark, viz. §§ 9, 10, +11:—four to S. Luke, viz. §§ 29, 30, 31, 32: which ten Sections, EUSEBIUS +distributed over four of his Canons: referring three of there to his IInd +Canon, (which exhibits what S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in +common); four of them to his VIth Canon, (which shews what S. Matthew and +S. Mark have in common); one, to his IXth, (which contains what is common +to S. Luke and S. John); two, to his Xth, (in which is found what is +peculiar to each Evangelist.) + +Now, the design which EUSEBIUS had in breaking up this portion of the +sacred Text, (S. Matth. iv. 18-22, S. Mark i. 16-20, S. Luke v. 1-11,) +after so arbitrary a fashion, into ten portions; divorcing three of those +Sections from S. Matthew’s Gospel, (viz. S. Luke’s §§ 29, 30, 31); and +connecting one of these last three (§ 30) _with two Sections_ (§§ 219, +222) _of S. John;_—is perfectly plain. His object was, (as he himself +explains,) to shew—not only (_a_) what S. Matthew has in common with S. +Mark and S. Luke; but also (_b_) _what S. Luke has in common with S. +John_;—as well as (_c_) what S. Luke has _peculiar to himself_. But, in +the work of AMMONIUS, _as far as we know anything about that work_, all +this would have been simply impossible. (I have already described his +“Diatessaron,” at pp. 126-7.) Intent on exhibiting the Sections of the +other Gospels which correspond with the Sections of _S. Matthew_, AMMONIUS +would not if he could,—(and he could not if he would,)—have dissociated +from its context S. Luke’s account of the first miraculous draught of +fishes in the beginning of our LORD’S Ministry, for the purpose of +establishing its resemblance to S. John’s account of the _second_ +miraculous draught of fishes which took place after the Resurrection, and +is only found in S. John’s Gospel. These Sections therefore are +“EUSEBIAN,” not _Ammonian_. They are _necessary_, according to the scheme +of EUSEBIUS. They are not only unnecessary and even meaningless, but +actually impossible, in the AMMONIAN scheme. + +2. Let me call attention to another, and, as I think, a more convincing +instance. I am content in fact to narrow the whole question to the +following single issue:—Let me be shewn how it is rationally conceivable +that AMMONIUS can have split up S. John xxi. 12, 13, into _three distinct +Sections_; and S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17, into _six?_ and yet, after so many +injudicious disintegrations of the sacred Text, how it is credible that he +can have made but _one_ Section of S. John xxi. 18 to 25,—which +nevertheless, from its very varied contents, confessedly requires even +_repeated_ subdivision?... Why EUSEBIUS did all this, is abundantly plain. +His peculiar plan constrained him to refer the _former_ half of ver. +12,—the _latter_ half of verses 15, 16, 17—to his IXth Canon, where S. +Luke and S. John are brought together; (ἐν ᾧ οἱ δύο τὰ παρακλήσια +εἰρήκασι):—and to consign the _latter_ half of ver. 12,—the _former_ half +of verses 15, 16, 17,—together with the whole of the _last eight verses_ +of S. John’s Gospel, to his Xth (or last) Canon, where what is peculiar to +each of the four Evangelists is set down, (ἐν ᾧ περὶ τίνων ἕκαστος αὐτῶν +ἰδίως ἀνέγραψεν.) But AMMONIUS, because he confessedly _recognised no such +Canons_, was under no such constraint. He had in fact _no such +opportunity_. He therefore simply _cannot_ have adopted the same +extraordinary sectional subdivision. + +3. To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps to exhibit the +argument in a more convincing form:—The Canons of EUSEBIUS, and the +so-called “AMMONIAN _SECTIONS_,”—(by which, confessedly, nothing else +whatever is _meant_ but the Sections of EUSEBIUS,)—are discovered mutually +to imply one another. Those Canons are without meaning or use apart from +the Sections,—for the sake of which they were clearly invented. Those +Sections, whatever convenience they may possess apart from the Canons, +nevertheless are discovered to presuppose the Canons throughout: to be +manifestly subsequent to them in order of time: to depend upon them for +their very existence: in some places to be even unaccountable in the +eccentricity of their arrangement, except when explained by the +requirements of the EUSEBIAN Canons. I say—_That_ particular sectional +subdivision, in other words, to which the epithet “AMMONIAN” is popularly +applied,—(applied however without authority, and in fact by the merest +license,)—proves on careful inspection to have been only capable of being +devised by one _who was already in possession of the Canons of _EUSEBIUS. +In plain terms, they are demonstrably _the work of _EUSEBIUS_ +himself_,—who expressly claims _The Canons_ for his own (κανόνας δέκα τὸν +ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι), and leaves it to be inferred that he is the Author +of the Sections also. Wetstein (_Proleg._ p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the +“Monitum” prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand the +matter; and Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 51) evidently inclines to +the same opinion. + +II. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful inspection of +the Eusebian “Sections,” (for Eusebius himself calls them περικοπαί, not +κεφάλαια,) leads inevitably to the inference that they are only rightly +understood when regarded in the light of “MARGINAL REFERENCES.” This has +been hitherto overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting “Monitum” already +quoted, remarks of the Eusebian Canons,—“quorum haec est utilitas, ut +eorum scilicet ope quivis, nullo labore, Harmoniam sibi quatuor +Evangeliorum possit conficere.” The learned Prelate can never have made +the attempt in this way “Harmoniam sibi conficere,” or he would not have +so written. He evidently did not advert to the fact that Eusebius refers +his readers (in his IIIrd Canon) from S. John’s account of the _Healing of +the Nobleman’s son_ to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the +_Healing of the Centurion’s servant_. It is perfectly plain in fact that +to enable a reader “to construct for himself _a Harmony of the Gospels_,” +was no part of Eusebius’ intention; and quite certain that any one who +shall ever attempt to avail himself of the system of Sections and Canons +before us with that object, will speedily find himself landed in hopeless +confusion.(543) + +But in fact there is no danger of his making much progress in his task. +His first discovery would probably be that S. John’s weighty doctrinal +statements concerning our LORD’S _Eternal _GOD_head_ in chap. i. 1-5: 9, +10: 14, are represented as parallel with the _Human Genealogy_ of our +SAVIOUR as recorded by S. Matthew i. 1-16, and by S. Luke iii. 23-38:—the +next, that the first half of the Visit of the Magi (S. Matthew ii. 1-6) is +exhibited as corresponding with S. John vii. 41, 42.—Two such facts ought +to open the eyes of a reader of ordinary acuteness quite wide to the true +nature of the Canons of Eusebius. They are _Tables of Reference only_. + +Eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing them; +which (he says) was twofold: (1st) To enable a reader to see at a glance, +“_which_ of the Evangelists have said _things of the same kind_,” (τίνες +τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκαςι: the phrase occurs _four times_ in the course of +his short Epistle): and (2ndly), To enable him to find out _where_ they +have severally done so: (τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τόπους, ἐν οἶς +κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν εἰπεῖν; Eusebius uses the phrase _twice_.) But +this, (as all are aware) is precisely the office of (what are called) +“Marginal References.” Accordingly, + +(_a._) Whether referring _from_ S. Matth. x. 40 (§ 98); S. Mark ix. 37 (§ +96); or S. Luke x. 16 (§ 116);—we find ourselves referred _to_ the +following _six_ places of S. John,—v. 23: xii. 44, 45: xiii. 20: xiv. 21: +xiv. 24, 25: xv. 23(544) (= §§ 40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144.) Again, + +(_b._) Whether we refer _from_ S. Matth. xi. 27 (§§ 111, 112,) or S. Luke +x. 22 (§ 119),—we find ourselves referred _to_ the following _eleven_ +places of S. John,—i. 18: iii. 35: v. 37: vi. 46: vii. 28, 29: viii. 19: +x. 15: xiii. 3: xv. 21: xvi. 15: xvii. 25 (§§ 8, 30, 44, 61, 76, 87, 90, +114, 142, 148, 154.) + +(_c._) So also, from S. Matthew’s (xvi. 13-16), S. Mark’s (viii. 27-29), +and S. Luke’s (ix. 18-20) account of S. Peters Confession at Cæsarea +Philippi,—we are referred to S. John i. 42, 43,—a singular reference; and +to S. John vi. 68, 69. + +(_d._) From the mention of the last Passover by the three earlier +Evangelists, (S. Matth. xxvi. 1, 2: S. Mark xiv. 1: S. Luke xxii. 1,) we +are referred to S. John’s mention of the _first_ Passover (ii. 13 = § 20); +and of the _second_ (vi. 4 = § 48); as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = § +96.) + +(_e._) From the words of Consecration at the Last Supper, as recorded by +S. Matth. (xxvi. 16), S. Mark (xiv. 22), and S. Luke (xxii. 19),—we are +referred to the four following Sections of our LORD’S Discourse in the +Synagogue at Capernaum recorded by S. John, which took place a year +before,—S. John vi. 35, 36: 48: 51: 55: (§§ 55, 63, 65, 67). + +(_f._) Nothing but the spirit in which “Marginal References” are made +would warrant a critic in linking together three incidents like the +following,—similar, indeed, yet entirely distinct: viz. S. Matth. xxvii. +34: S. Mark xv. 24: and S. John xix. 28, 29. + +(_g._) I was about to say that scarcely could such an excuse be invented +for referring a Reader from S. Luke xxii. 32, to S. John xxi. 15, and 16, +and 17 (= §§ 227, 228, 229,)—but I perceive that the same three References +stand in the margin of our own Bibles. Not even the margin of the English +Bible, however, sends a Reader (as the IXth Canon of Eusebius does) from +our LORD’S eating “broiled fish and honeycomb,” in the presence of the ten +Apostles at Jerusalem on the evening of the first Easter-Day, (S. Luke +xxiv. 41-43 (= § 341,)) to His feeding the seven Apostles with bread and +fish at the Sea of Galilee many days after. (S. John xxi. 9, 10: 12: 13 = +§§ 221, 223, 224.)—And this may suffice. + +It is at all events certain that the correctest notion of the use and the +value of the Eusebian Sections will be obtained by one who will be at the +pains to substitute for _the Eusebian Numbers_ in the margin of a copy of +the Greek Gospels _the References_ which these numbers severally indicate. +It will then become plain that the system of Sections and Canons which +Eusebius invented,—ingenious, interesting, and useful as it certainly is; +highly important also, as being the known work of an illustrious Father of +the Church, as well as most precious occasionally for critical +purposes,(545)—is nothing else but a clumsy substitute for what is +achieved by an ordinary “Reference Bible”:—participating in every +inconvenience incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which +English readers are familiar,(546) and yet inferior in the following four +respects:— + +(1st.) The references of Eusebius, (except those found in Canon X.), +require in every instance to be _deciphered_, before they can be verified; +and they can only be deciphered by making search, (and sometimes laborious +search,) in another part of the volume. They are not, in fact, (nor do +they pretend to be,) references to the inspired Text at all; but only +_references to the Eusebian Canons_. + +(2ndly.) In their scope, they are of course strictly _confined to the +Gospels_,—which most inconveniently limits their use, as well as +diminishes their value. (Thus, by no possibility is Eusebius able to refer +a reader from S. Luke xxii. 19, 20 to 1 Cor. xi. 23-25.) + +(3rdly.) By the very nature of their constitution, reference even to +_another part of the same Gospel_ is impossible. (Eusebius is unable, for +example, to refer a reader from S. John xix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.) + +But besides the preceding, which are disadvantages inherent in the scheme +and inseparable from it, it will be found (4thly), That Eusebius, while he +introduces not a few wholly undesirable references, (of which some +specimens are supplied above), is observed occasionally to withhold +references which cannot by any means be dispensed with. Thus, he omits to +refer his reader from S. Luke’s account of the visit to the Sepulchre +(chap. xxiv. 12) to S. John’s memorable account of the same transaction +(chap. xx. 3-10): _not_ because he disallowed the verse in S. Luke’s +Gospel,—for in a certain place _he discusses its statements_.(547) + +III. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before that the work of +EUSEBIUS was entirely different in its structure and intention from the +work of AMMONIUS. Enough, in fact, has been said to make it fully apparent +that it is nothing short of impossible that there can have been any +extensive correspondence between the two. According to EUSEBIUS, S. Mark +has 21 Sections(548) _peculiar to his Gospel_: S. Luke, 72: S. John, +97.(549) According to the same EUSEBIUS, 14 Sections(550) are common to S. +Luke and S. Mark _only_: 21, to S. Luke and S. John _only_. But those 225 +Sections can have found _no place_ in the work of AMMONIUS. And if, (in +some unexplained way,) room _was_ found for those parts of the Gospels, +_with what possible motive can _AMMONIUS_ have subdivided them into +exactly 225 portions_? It is nothing else but irrational to assume that he +did so. + +Not unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most judicious living +Critic as a “ground for hesitation before we ascribe the Sections as well +as the Canons to Eusebius, that not a few ancient MSS. contain the former +while they omit the latter.”(551) He considers it to be certainly +indicated thereby “that in the judgment of critics and transcribers, +(whatever that judgment may be deemed worth,) the Ammonian Sections had a +previous existence to the Eusebian Canons, as well as served for an +independent purpose.” But I respectfully demur to the former of the two +proposed inferences. I also learn with surprise that “those who have +studied them most, can the least tell what use the Ammonian Sections can +serve, unless in connection with Canons of Harmony.”(552) + +However irregular and arbitrary these subdivisions of the Evangelical text +are observed to be in their construction, their usefulness is paramount. +They are observed to fulfil _exactly the same office_ as our own actual +division of the Text into 89 Chapters and 3780 Verses. Of course, 1165 +subdivisions are (for certain purposes) somewhat less convenient than +3780;—but on the other hand, a place in the Gospels would be more easily +discovered, I suspect, for the most part, by the employment of such a +single set of consecutive numbers, than by requiring a Reader first to +find the Chapter by its Roman numeral, and then the Verse by its Arabic +figure. Be this as it may, there can be at least only one opinion as to +the _supreme convenience to a Reader_, whether ancient or modern, of +knowing that the copy of the Gospels which he holds in his hands is +subdivided into exactly the same 1165 Sections as every other Greek copy +which is likely to come in his way; and that, in every such copy, he may +depend on finding every one of those sections invariably distinguished by +the self-same number. + +A Greek copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin furnished with +the Eusebian _Sectional_ notation, may be considered to correspond +generally with an English copy merely divided into Chapters and Verses. +The addition of the Eusebian _Canons_ at the beginning, with numerical +references thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but superadd +something analogous to the convenience of our _Marginal References_,—and +may just as reasonably (or just as unreasonably) be dispensed with. + +I think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation of a Codex, it +will have been sometimes judged commercially expedient to leave its +purchaser to decide whether he would or would not submit to the additional +expense (which in the case of illuminated MSS. must have been very +considerable) of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the commencement +of his Book,(553)—without which _the References_ thereto would confessedly +have been of no manner of avail. In this way it will have come to pass, +(as Mr. Scrivener points out,) that “not a few ancient MSS. contain the +_Sections_ but omit the _Canons_.” Whether, however, the omission of +References to the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the +sectional numbers, is to be explained in this way, or not,—AMMONIUS, at +all events, will have had no more to do with either the one or the other, +than with our modern division into Chapters and Verses. It is, in short, +nothing else but a “vulgar error” to designate the Eusebian Sections as +the “Sections of AMMONIUS.” The expression cannot be too soon banished +from our critical terminology. Whether banished or retained, to _reason +about_ the lost work of AMMONIUS from the Sections of EUSEBIUS (as +Tischendorf and the rest habitually do) is an offence against historical +Truth which no one who values his critical reputation will probably +hereafter venture to commit. + +IV. This subject may not be dismissed until a circumstance of considerable +interest has been explained which has already attracted some notice, but +which evidently is not yet understood by Biblical Critics.(554) + +As already remarked, the necessity of resorting to the Eusebian Tables of +Canons in order to make any use of a marginal reference, is a tedious and +a cumbersome process; for which, men must have early sought to devise a +remedy. They were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expedient +would be to note at the foot of every page of a Gospel _the numbers_ of +the Sections of that Gospel contained _in extenso_ on the same page; and, +parallel with those numbers, to exhibit the numbers of the corresponding +Sections in the other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an +apparatus at the foot of the page, are known to exist.(555) For instance, +in Cod. 262 (= Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written in double columns, at +foot of the first page (_fol._ 111) of S. Mark, is found as follows:— + + [[Illustration: Apparatus Table From Cod. 262.]] + +The meaning of this, every one will see who,—(remembering what is +signified by the monograms ΜΡ, ΛΟ, ΙΩ, ΜΘ,(556))—will turn successively to +the IInd, the Ist, the VIth, and the Ist of the Eusebian Canons. +Translated into expressions more familiar to English readers, it evidently +amounts to this: that we are referred, + +(§ 1) From S. Mark i. 1, 2,—to S. Matth. xi. 10: S. Luke vii. 27. +(§ 2) From S. Mark i. 3,—to S. Matth. iii. 3: S. Luke iii. 3-6. +(§ 3) From S. Mark i. 4, 5, 6,—to S. Matth. iii. 4-6. +(§ 4) From S. Mark i. 7, 8,—to S. Matth. iii. 11: S. Luke iii. 16: S. John +i. 15, 26-27, 30-1: iii. 28. + +(I venture to add that any one who will compare the above with the margin +of S. Mark’s Gospel in a common English “reference Bible,” will obtain a +very fair notion of the convenience, and of the inconveniences of the +Eusebian system. But to proceed with our remarks on the apparatus at the +foot of Cod. 262.) + +The owner of such a MS. was able to refer to parallel passages, (as +above,) _by merely turning over the pages of his book_. E.g. The parallel +places to S. Mark’s § 1 (Α) being § 70 of S. Luke (Ο) and § 103 of S. +Matthew (ΡΓ),—it was just as easy for him to find those two places as it +is for us to turn to S. Luke vii. 27 and S. Matth. xi. 10: perhaps easier. + +V. I suspect that this peculiar method of exhibiting the Eusebian +references (Canons as well as Sections) at a glance, was derived to the +Greek Church from the Syrian Christians. What is certain, a precisely +similar expedient for enabling readers to discover _Parallel Passages_ +prevails extensively in the oldest Syriac Evangelia extant. There are in +the British Museum about twelve Syriac Evangelia furnished with such an +apparatus of reference;(557) of which a specimen is subjoined,—derived +however (because it was near at hand) from a MS. in the Bodleian,(558) of +the viith or viiith century. + +From this MS., I select for obvious reasons the last page but one (_fol._ +82) of S. Mark’s Gospel, which contains ch. xvi. 8-18. The Reader will +learn with interest and surprise that in the margin of this page against +ver. 8, is written in vermilion, _by the original scribe_, 281/1: against +ver. 9,—282/10: against ver. 10,—283/1: against ver. 11,—284/8: against +ver. 12:—285/8: against ver. 13,—286/8: against ver. 14,—287/10: against +ver. 15,—288/6: against ver. 16,—289/10: against ver. 19,—290/8. That +these sectional numbers,(559) with references to the Eusebian Canons +subscribed, are no part of the (so-called) “_Ammonian_” system, will be +recognised at a glance. According to _that_ scheme, S. Mark xiv. 8 is +numbered 233/2. But to proceed. + +At the foot of the same page, (which is written in two columns), is found +the following set of rubricated references to parallel places in the other +three Gospels:— + + [[Illustration: Syriac Reference Table.]] + +The exact English counterpart of which,—(I owe it to the kind help of M. +Neubauer, of the Bodleian),—is subjoined. The Reader will scarcely require +to be reminded that the reason why §§ 282, 287, 289 do not appear in this +Table is because those Sections, (belonging to the tenth Canon,) have +nothing parallel to them in the other Gospels. + +_Luke_ _Matthew_ _Mark_ _John_ _Luke_ _Matthew_ _Mark_ +391 ... 286 247 390 421 281 +... 426 288 247 390 421 283 + ... 391 ... 284 + ... 393 ... 285 + +The general intention of this is sufficiently obvious: but the Reader must +be told that on making reference to S. MATTHEW’S Gospel, in this Syriac +Codex, it is found that § 421 = chap, xxviii. 8; and § 426 = chap. xxviii. +19, 20: + +That, in S. LUKE’S Gospel,—§ 390 = chap. xxiv. 8-10: § 391 = chap. xxiv. +11; and § 393 = chap. xxiv. 13-17:(560) + +That, in S. JOHN’S Gospel,—§ 247 = chap. xx. 17 (πορεύου down to Θεὸν +ὑμῶν.) + +So that, exhibited in familiar language, these Syriac _Marginal +References_ are intended to guide a Reader, + +(§ 281) From S. Mark xvi. 8,—to S. Matth. xxviii. 8: S. Luke +From S. Mark xxiv. 8-10: S. John xx. 17 (πορεύου _to the end of the +verse_). +(§ 283) From S. Mark xvi. 10,—to the same three places. +(§ 284) From S. Mark xvi. 11,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11. +(§ 285) From S. Mark xvi. 12,—to S. Luke xxiv. 13-17. +(§ 286) From S. Mark xvi. 13,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11. +(§ 288) From S. Mark xvi. 15,—to S. Matth. xxiv. 19, 20. + +Here then, although the Ten Eusebian Canons are faithfully retained, it is +much to be noted that we are presented with _a different set of Sectional +subdivisions_. This will be best understood by attentively comparing all +the details which precede with the Eusebian references in the inner margin +of a copy of Lloyd’s Greek Testament. + +But the convincing _proof_ that these Syriac Sections are not those with +which we have been hitherto acquainted from Greek MSS., is supplied by the +fact that they are so many more _in number_. The sum of the Sections in +each of the Gospels follows; for which, (the Bodleian Codex being +mutilated,) I am indebted to the learning and obligingness of Dr. +Wright.(561) He quotes from “the beautiful MS. Addit. 7,157, written A.D. +768.”(562) From this, it appears that the Sections in the Gospel according +to,— + +S. MATTHEW, (instead of being from 359 to 355,) are 426: (the last +Section, § 426/6, consisting of ver. 19, 20.) + +S. MARK, (instead of being from 241 to 233,) are 290: (the last Section, § +290/8, consisting of ver. 19, 20.) + +S. LUKE, (instead of being from 349 to 342,) are 402: (the last Section, § +402/10, consisting of ver. 52, 53.) + +S. JOHN, (instead of being 232,) is 271: (the last Section, § 271/10, +consisting of ver. 18-25.) + +The sum of the Sections therefore, in _Syriac_ MSS. instead of being +between 1181 and 1162,(563) is found to be invariably 1389. + +But here, the question arises,—Did the Syrian Christians then retain the +Ten Tables, dressing their contents afresh, so as to adapt them to their +own ampler system of sectional subdivision? or did they merely retain the +elementary principle of referring each Section to one of Ten Canons, but +substitute for the Eusebian Tables a species of harmony, or apparatus of +reference, at the foot of every page? + +The foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a reference to Assemani’s +engraved representation, on xxii Copper Plates, of the X Eusebian Tables +from a superb Syriac Codex (A.D. 586) in the Medicean Library.(564) The +student who inquires for Assemani’s work will find that the numbers in the +last line of each of the X Tables is as follows:— + + _Matthew_ _Mark_ _Luke_ _John_ +Canon i 421 283 390 247 +Canon ii 416 276 383 ... +Canon iii 134 ... 145 178 +Canon iv 394 212 ... 223 +Canon v 319 ... 262 ... +Canon vi 426 288 ... ... +Canon vii 425 ... ... 249 +Canon vii ... 290 401 ... +Canon ix ... ... 399 262 +Canon x 424 289 402 271 + +The Syrian Church, therefore, from a period of the remotest antiquity, not +only subdivided the Gospels into a far greater number of Sections than +were in use among the Greeks, but also habitually employed Eusebian Tables +which—identical as they are in _appearance_ and in _the principle_ of +their arrangement with those with which Greek MSS. have made us +familiar,—yet differ materially from these as to _the numerical details_ +of their contents. + +Let abler men follow up this inquiry to its lawful results. When the +extreme antiquity of the Syriac documents is considered, may it not almost +be made a question whether Eusebius himself put forth the larger or the +smaller number of Sections? But however _that_ may be, more palpably +precarious than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident assertion +of the Critics that, “just as EUSEBIUS found these Verses [S. Mark xvi. +9-20] absent in his day from the best and most numerous [_sic_] copies, +_so was also the case with _AMMONIUS when he formed his Harmony in the +preceding century.”(565)To speak plainly, the statement is purely +mythical. + +VI. Birch [_Varr. Lectt._ p. 226], asserts that in the best Codices, the +Sections of S. Mark’s Gospel are not numbered beyond ch. xvi. 8. +Tischendorf prudently adds, “_or_ ver. 9:” but to introduce _that_ +alternative is to surrender everything. I subjoin the result of an appeal +to 151 Greek Evangelia. There is written opposite to, + +ver. 6, ... § 232, in 3 Codices, (viz. A, U, 286) +ver. 8, ... § 233, in 34 Codices, (including L, S)(566) +ver. 9, (?) § 234, in 41 Codices, (including Γ, Δ, Π)(567) +ver. 10, (?) § 235, in 4 Codices, (viz. 67, 282, 331, 406) +ver. 12, (?) § 236, in 7 Codices, (the number assigned by Suidas)(568) +ver. 14, (?) § 237, in 12 Codices, (including Λ)(569) +ver. 15, ... § 238, in 3 Codices, (viz. Add. 19,387: 27,861, Ti) +ver. 17, ... § 239, in 1 Codex, (viz. G) +ver. 19, ... § 240, in 10 Codices, (including H, M, and the Codices +from which the Hharklensian Revision, A.D. 616, was made)(570) +ver. 20, ... § 241, in 36 Codices, (including C, E, K, V)(571) + +Thus, it is found that 114 Codices sectionize the last Twelve Verses, +against 37 which close the account at ver. 8, or sooner. I infer—(_a_) +That the reckoning which would limit the sections to precisely 233, is +altogether precarious; and—(_b_) That the sum of the Sections assigned to +S. Mark’s Gospel by Suidas and by Stephens (viz. 236) is arbitrary. + +VII. To some, it may not be unacceptable, in conclusion, to be presented +with the very words in which Eusebius explains how he would have his +Sections and Canons used. His language requires attention. He says:— + +Εἰ οὖν ἀναπτύξας ἕν τι τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ὁποιονδήποτε, βουληθείης +ἐπιστῆναι τινι ᾧ βούλει κεφαλαίῳ, καὶ γνῶναι τίνες τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκασι, +καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους ἐν ἑκάστῳ τόπους εὑρεῖν ἐν οἶς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν, +ἧς ἐπέχεις περικοπῆς ἀναλαβὼν τὸν προκείμενον ἀριθμὸν, ἐπιζητήσας τὲ αὐτὸν +ἔνδον ἐν τῷ κανόνι ὄν ἡ διὰ τοῦ κινναβάρεως ὑποσημείωσις ὑποβέβληκεν, εἴσῃ +μὲν εὐθὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐπὶ μετώπου τοῦ κανόνος προγραφῶν, ὁπόσοι καὶ τίνες τὰ +παραπλήσια εἰρήκασιν; ἐπιστήσας δὲ καὶ τοῖς τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμοῖς +τοῖς ἐν τῷ κανόνι ᾧ ἐπέχεις ἀριθμῷ παρακειμένοις, ἐπιζητήσας τὲ αὐτοὺς +ἔνδον ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις ἑκάστου εὐαγγελίου τόποις, τὰ παραπλήσια λέγοντας +εὑρήσεις. + +Jerome,—who is observed sometimes to exhibit the sense of his author very +loosely,—renders this as follows:— + +“Cum igitur aperto Codice, verbi gratia, illud sive illud Capitulum scire +volueris cujus Canonis sit, statim ex subjecto numero doceberis; et +recurrens ad principia, in quibus Canonum est distincta congeries, +eodemque statim Canone ex titulo frontis invento, illum quem quærebas +numerum, ejusdem Evangelistæ, qui et ipse ex inscriptione signatur, +invenies; atque e vicino ceterorum tramitibus inspectis, quos numeros e +regione habeant, annotabis. Et cum scieris, recurres ad volumina +singulorum, et sine mora repertis numeris quos ante signaveras, reperies +et loca in quibus vel eadem, vel vicina dixerunt.” + +This may be a very masterly way of explaining the use of the Eusebian +Canons. But the points of the original are missed. What Eusebius actually +says is this:— + +“If therefore, on opening any one soever of the four Gospels, thou +desirest to study any given Section, and to ascertain which of the +Evangelists have said things of the same kind; as well as to discover the +particular place where each has been led [to speak] of the same +things;—note the number of the Section thou art studying, and seek that +number in the Canon indicated by the numeral subscribed in vermilion. Thou +wilt be made aware, at once, from the heading of each Canon, how many of +the Evangelists, and which of them, have said things of the same kind. +Then, by attending to the parallel numbers relating to the other Gospels +in the same Canon, and by turning to each in its proper place, thou wilt +discover the Evangelists saying things of the same kind.” + + + + + +APPENDIX (H). + + + On the Interpolation of the text of CODEX B and CODEX א at S. + MATTHEW xxvii. 48 or 49. + + +(Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.) + +It is well known that our two oldest Codices, Cod. B and Cod. א, (see +above, p. 80,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvii. 49, as follows. After σωσων +[_Cod. Sinait._ σωσαι] αυτον, they read:— + +(COD. B.) +αλλος δε λαβω +λογχην ενυξεν αυτου +την πνευραν και εξηλ +θεν υδωρ και αιμα + +(COD. א.) +αλλος +δε λαβων λογχη +ενυξεν αυτου ΤΗ +πνευραν και εξηλ +θεν υδωρ και αι +μα + +Then comes, ο δε ΙΣ παλιν κραξας κ.τ.λ. The same is also the reading of +Codd. C, L, U, Γ: and it is known to recur in the following cursives,—5, +48, 67, 115, 127.(572) + +Obvious is it to suspect with Matthaei, (ed. 1803, vol. i. p. 158,) that +it was the Lectionary practice of the Oriental Church which occasioned +this interpolation. In S. John xix. 34 occurs the well-known record,—ἀλλ᾽ +εἶς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα +καὶ ὕδωρ: and it was the established practice of the Easterns, in the +Ecclesiastical lection for Good Friday, (viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 1-61,) _to +interpose S. John_ xix. 31 _to_ 37 between the 54th and the 55th verses of +S. Matthew. This will be found alluded to above, at p. 202 and again at +pp. 218-9. + +After the pages just quoted were in type, while examining Harl. MS. 5647 +in the British Museum, (_our_ Evan. 72,) I alighted on the following +Scholion, which I have since found that Wetstein duly published; but which +has certainly not attracted the attention it deserves, and which is +incorrectly represented as referring to the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. It +is _against ver._ 48 that there is written in the margin,— + +(Η(573) Ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διαδώρου καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ +ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων: τοῦτο πρόσκειται: + +(Η Ἄλλος δὲ λαβών: λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πνευρὰν. καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ +αἷμα: τοῦτο λέγει καὶ ὁ Χρυσόστομος. + +This writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In Chrysostom’s 88th +Homily on S. Matthew’s Gospel, (_Opp._ vii, 825 C: [vol. ii, p. 526, _ed._ +Field.]) is read as follows:—Ἐνόμισαν Ἠλίαν εἶναι, φησὶ, τὸν καλούμενον, +καὶ εὐθέως ἐπότισαν αὐτὸν ὄξος: (which is clearly meant to be a summary of +the contents _of ver._ 48: then follows) ἕτερος δὲ προσελθών λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ +τῆν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε. (Chrysostom quotes no further, but proceeds,—Τί γένοιτ +ἄν τούτων παρανομώτερον, τί δὲ θηριωδέστερον, κ.τ.λ.) + +I find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere to the opinion +I once held, and have partially expressed above, (viz. at p. 202,) that +the Lectionary-practice of the Eastern Church was the occasion of this +corrupt reading in our two oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably +is; and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. B, א, (not to say Codd. C, +L, U, Γ,) must continue to sustain. That Chrysostom and Cyril also +employed Codices disfigured by this self-same blemish, is certain. It is +an interesting and suggestive circumstance. Nor is this all. Severus(574) +relates that between A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had +known this very reading strenuously discussed: whereupon had been produced +a splendid copy of S. Matthew’s Gospel, traditionally said to have been +found with the body of the Apostle Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the +time of the Emperor Zeno (A.D. 474-491); and preserved in the palace with +superstitious veneration in consequence. It contained no record of the +piercing of the SAVIOUR’S side: nor (adds Severus) does any ancient +Interpreter mention the transaction in that place,—except Chrysostom and +_Cyril of Alexandria_; into whose Commentaries it has found its way.—Thus, +to Codices B, א, C and the copy familiarly employed by Chrysostom, has to +be added the copy which Cyril of Alexandria(575) employed; as well as +evidently sundry other Codices extant at Constantinople about A.D. 500. +That the corruption of the text of S. Matthew’s Gospel under review is +ancient therefore, and was once very widely spread, is certain. The +question remains,—and this is the only point to be determined,—How did it +_originate_? + +Now it must be candidly admitted, that if the strange method of the +Lectionaries already explained, (viz. of interposing seven verses of S. +John’s xixth chapter [ver. 31-7] between the 54th and 55th verses of S. +Matth. xxvii,) really were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John +xix. 34 after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49,—two points would seem to call for +explanation which at present remain unexplained: First, (1) Why does _only +that one verse_ find place in the interpolated copies? And next, (2) How +does it come to pass that _that_ one verse is exhibited in so very +depraved and so peculiar a form? + +For, to say nothing of the inverted order of the two principal words, +(which is clearly due to 1 S. John v. 6,) let it be carefully noted that +the substitution of ἄλλος δὲ λαβών λόγχην, for ἀλλ᾽ εἶς τῶν στρατιωτῶν +λόγχῃ of the Evangelist, is a tell-tale circumstance. The turn thus +licentiously given to the narrative clearly proceeded from some one who +was bent on weaving incidents related by different writers into a +connected narrative, and who was sometimes constrained to take liberties +with his Text in consequence. (Thus, S. Matthew having supplied the fact +that “ONE OF THEM ran, and _took a sponge_, and filled it with vinegar, +and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink,” S. John is made to say, “AND +ANOTHER—_took a spear_.”) Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by +Eusebius to have done: viz. “after some fashion of his own, to have +composed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative.”(576) + +When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient Critic who +appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost “Diatessaron” of +Tatian, comes before us with the express declaration that in that famous +monument of the primitive age (A.D. 173), S. John’s record of the piercing +of our SAVIOUR’S side was thrust into S. Matthew’s History of the Passion +in this precise way and in these very terms,—(for, “Note,” he says, “That +into the Evangelical History of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other +holy Fathers, is introduced [here] the following addition: ‘And another +took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water and Blood.’ +This, Chrysostom also says”),—it is even unreasonable to seek for any +other explanation of the vitiated text of our two oldest Codices. Not only +is the testimony to the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the +proposed solution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable, +is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important. For,—May we not +venture to opine that the same καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον,—as this Writer +aptly designates Tatian’s work,—is responsible for not a few of the +_monstra potius quam variae lectiones_(577) which are occasionally met +with in the earliest MSS. of all? And,—Am I not right in suggesting that +the circumstance before us is _the only thing we know for certain_ about +the text of Tatian’s (miscalled) “Harmony?” + +To conclude.—That the “Diatessaron” of Tatian, (for so, according to +Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled it,) has long since +disappeared, no one now doubts.(578) That Eusebius himself, (who lived 150 +years after the probable date of its composition,) had never seen it, may +I suppose be inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it. Jerome does +not so much as mention its existence. Epiphanius, who is very full and +particular concerning the heresy of Tatian, affords no indication that he +was acquainted with his work. On the contrary. “The Diatessaron Gospel,” +(he remarks in passing,) “which some call the Gospel according to the +Hebrews, is said to have been the production of this writer.”(579) The +most interesting notice we have of Tatian’s work is from the pen of +Theodoret. After explaining that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist, +and next a disciple of Justin Martyr [A.D. 150], after Justin’s death +aspired to being a heretical leader,—(statements which are first found in +Irenæus,)—Theodoret enumerates his special tenets. “This man” (he +proceeds) “put together the so-called _Diatessaron Gospel_,—from which he +cut away the genealogies, and whatever else shews that the LORD was born +of the seed of David. The book was used not only by those who favoured +Tatian’s opinions, but by the orthodox as well; who, unaware of the +mischievous spirit in which the work had been executed, in their +simplicity used the book as an epitome. _I myself found upwards of two +hundred such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place_,” +(Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made Bishop, A.D. +423,)—“all of which I collected together, and put aside; substituting the +Gospels of the Four Evangelists in their room.”(580) + +The diocese of Theodoret (he says) contained eight hundred Parishes.(581) +It cannot be thought surprising that a work of which copies had been +multiplied to such an extraordinary extent, and which was evidently once +held in high esteem, should have had _some_ influence on the text of the +earliest Codices; and here, side by side with a categorical statement as +to one of its licentious interpolations, we are furnished with documentary +proof that many an early MS. also was infected with the same taint. To +assume that the two phenomena stand related to one another in the way of +cause and effect, seems to be even an inevitable proceeding. + +I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the “Diodorus” of +whom the unknown author of this scholion speaks: but I suppose it was +_that_ Diodorus who was made Bishop of Tarsus in A.D. 378. He is related +to have been the preceptor of Chrysostom; was a very voluminous writer; +and, among the rest, according to Suidas, wrote a work “on the Four +Gospels.” + +Lastly,—How about the singular introduction _into the Lection for +Good-Friday_ of this incident of the piercing of the REDEEMER’S side? Is +it allowable to conjecture that, indirectly, the Diatessaron of Tatian may +have been the occasion of that circumstance also; as well as of certain +other similar phenomena in the Evangeliaria? + + + + + +POSTSCRIPT. + + +(PROMISED AT p. 51.) + +I proceed to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.—C.F. Matthaei (_Nov. +Test._, 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of the MSS. at Moscow +occurs the following “Scholion of EUSEBIUS:—κατὰ Μάρκον μετὰ τῆν ἀνάστασιν +οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς.” On this, Griesbach remarks (_Comm. Crit._ +ii. 200),—“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset:” +the record in S. Mark xvi. 14, being express,—Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς +τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη. The epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach’s dictum +has recommended it to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourably on +the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel; and to this hour the Scholion of +Matthaei remains unchallenged. + +But to accept the proposed inference from it, is impossible. It ought to +be obvious to every thoughtful person that problems of this class will not +bear to be so handled. It is as if one were to apply the rigid +mathematical method to the ordinary transactions of daily life, for which +it is clearly unsuitable. Before we move a single step, however, we desire +a few more particulars concerning this supposed evidence of Eusebius. + +Accordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the Rev. W. G. +Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain for me _the entire context_ +in which this “Scholion of Eusebius” occurs: little anticipating the +trouble I was about to give him. His task would have been comparatively +easy had I been able to furnish him (which I was not) with the exact +designation of the Codex required. At last by sheer determination and the +display of no small ability, he discovered the place, and sent me a +tracing of the whole page: viz. fol. 286 (the last ten words being +overleaf) of Matthaei’s “12,” (“Synod. 139,”) our EVAN. 255. + +It proves to be the concluding portion of Victor’s Commentary, and to +correspond with what is found at p. 365 of Possinus, and p. 446-7 of +Cramer: except that after the words “ἀποκυλίσειε τὸν λίθον,” and before +the words “ἄλλος δέ φησιν” [Possinus, _line_ 12 _from bottom_: Cramer, +_line_ 3 _from the top_], is read as follows:— + +οχολ εὐσεβίου + +κατὰ Μάρκον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς: κατὰ +Ματθαῖον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ. + +κατὰ Ἰωάννην: ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὁ +Ἰησοῦς μέσος τῶν μαθητῶν μὴ παρόντος τοῦ Θωμᾶ ἔστη; καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας πάλιν +ὀκτὼ συμπαρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ. μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς +θαλασσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος. + +κατὰ Λουκᾶν: ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως: +καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὤφθη τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνηγμένων τῶν +λοιπῶν μαθητῶν: καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι: καὶ πάλιν ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν +καὶ διέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν. + +But surely no one who considers the matter attentively, will conceive that +he is warranted in drawing from this so serious an inference as that +Eusebius disallowed the last Section of S. Mark’s Gospel. + +(1.) In the first place, we have already [_suprà_, p. 44] heard Eusebius +elaborately discuss the Section in question. That he allowed it, is +therefore _certain_. + +(2.) But next, this σχόλιον εὐσεβίου at the utmost can only be regarded as +a general summary of what Eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our +LORD’S appearances after His Resurrection. _As it stands_, it clearly is +not the work of Eusebius. + +(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement cannot be +accepted on my own mere “ipse dixit,” I proceed to subjoin the original +Scholion of which the preceding is evidently only an epitome. It is found +in three of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but without any +Author’s name:— + +Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι συνεχῶς αὐτοῖς +συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον _τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη_ ὁ Κύριος _μετὰ τὴν +ἀνάστασιν;_ οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις +παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφανερώθη τοῖς +μαθηταῖς. _κατὰ_ μὲν γὰρ τὸν _Ματθαῖον,_ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς _ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαιᾳ_ +μόνον; _κατὰ_ δὲ τὸν _Ἰωάννην, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν +κεκλεισμένων, μέσος_ αὐτῶν _ἔστη_ ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, _μὴ παρόντος_ ἐκει +Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, παρόντος καὶ _τοῦ Θωμᾶ,_ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς, +ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. _μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος +ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς,_ ού τοῖς ΙΑ ἀλλὰ μόνοις ζ. _κατὰ_ δὲ _Λουκᾶν ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν +τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς +Ἱερουσαλὴμ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν, ὤφθη Σίμωνι. καὶ πάλιν +ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν,_ ὅτε _καὶ διέστη_ ἀναληφθεὶς _ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν;_ ὡς +ἐκ τοῦτου παρίστασθαι ζ. εἶναι τοὺς μαθητὰς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν γεγονυίας +ὀπτασίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. μίαν μὲν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, τρεῖς +δὲ παρὰ τῷ Ἰώαννῃ, καὶ τρεῖς τῷ Λουκᾷ ὁμοίως.(582) + +(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—the _only_ thing in +fact which I am concerned to point out,—is the notable circumstance that +the supposed dictum of Eusebius,—(“quod scribere non potuisset si +pericopam dubiam agnovisset,”)—_is no longer discoverable_. To say that +“it has disappeared,” would be incorrect. In the original document _it has +no existence_. In plain terms, the famous “σχόλιον εὐσεβίου” proves to be +every way a figment. It is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some +nameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as +I shall presently shew) _cannot_ have been the Author. + +(5.) I may as well point out _why_ the person who wrote the longer +Scholion says nothing about S. Mark’s Gospel. It is because there was +nothing for him to say. He is enumerating our LORD’S _appearances to His +Disciples_ after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these were +exactly seven in number: _one_ being peculiar to S. Matthew,—_three_, to +S. John,—_three_, to S. Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there +exists _no_ record of an appearance to the Disciples _peculiar_ to S. +Mark’s Gospel, the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark +_perforce_.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei can have +overlooked all this: how he can have failed to recognise the identity of +his longer and his shorter Scholion: how he came to say of the latter, +“conjicias ergo Eusebium hunc totum locum repudiasse;” and, of the former, +“ultimam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere:”(583) lastly, how +Tischendorf (1869) can write,—“est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem +evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat:”(584)—I profess myself unable +to understand. + +(6.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his Author,—besides +enumerating _all_ the appearances of our SAVIOUR which S. Luke anywhere +records,—is further convicted of having injudiciously _invented_ the +negative statement about S. Mark’s Gospel which is occasioning us all this +trouble. + +(7.) And yet, by that unlucky sentence of his, he certainly did not mean +what is commonly imagined. I am not concerned to defend him: but it is +only fair to point out that, to suppose he intended _to disallow the end +of S. Mark’s Gospel_, is altogether to misapprehend the gist of his +remarks, and to impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew nothing. +Note, how he throws his first two statements into a separate paragraph; +contrasts, and evidently _balances_ one against the other: thus,— + +κατὰ Μάρκον, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι,—κατὰ Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν +ἀνάστασιν ὤφθη,—τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ. + +Perfectly evident is it that the “plena locutio” so to speak, of the +Writer would have been somewhat as follows:— + +“[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our SAVIOUR’S appearance to +His Disciples _in Galilee_: but] by S. Mark, He is _not_—by S. Matthew, He +_is_—related to have been actually _seen_ by them there. + +“[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances _in Jerusalem_: and] +according to S. John, &c. &c. + +“According to S. Luke,” &c. &c. + +(8.) And on passing the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of Eusebius under review, +I am constrained to admit that the Scholion before us is just such a +clumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed +into, who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance +of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient Father.(585) Its +remote parentage would fully account for its being designated “σχόλιον +εὐσεβίου” all the same. + +(9.) Least of all am I concerned to say anything more about the longer +Scholion; seeing that S. Mark is not so much as mentioned in it. But I may +as well point out that, _as it stands_, Eusebius cannot have been its +Author: the proof being, that whereas the Scholion in question is a note +on S. John xxi. 12, (as Matthaei is careful to inform us,)—its opening +sentence is derived _from Chrysostom’s Commentary on that same verse_ in +his 87th Homily on S. John.(586) + +(10.) And thus, one by one, every imposing statement of the Critics is +observed hopelessly to collapse as soon as it is questioned, and to vanish +into thin air. + +So much has been offered, only because of the deliberate pledge I gave in +p. 51.—Never again, I undertake to say, will the “Scholion of Eusebius” +which has cost my friend at Moscow, his Archimandrites, and me, so much +trouble, be introduced into any discussion of the genuineness of the last +Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. As the oversight of one +(C. F. Matthaei) who was singularly accurate, and towards whom we must all +feel as towards a Benefactor, let it be freely forgiven as well as loyally +forgotten! + + + + + +L’ENVOY + + +As one, escaped the bustling trafficking town, +Worn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill +And thinks it Heaven to see the calm green fields +Mapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet: +Or walks enraptured where the fitful south +Comes past the beans in blossom; and no sight +Or scent or sound but fills his soul with glee:— +So I,—rejoicing once again to stand +Where Siloa’s brook flows softly, and the meads +Are all enamell’d o’er with deathless flowers, +And Angel voices fill the dewy air. +Strife is so hateful to me! most of all +A strife of words about the things of GOD. +Better by far the peasant’s uncouth speech +Meant for the heart’s confession of its hope. +Sweeter by far in village-school the words +But half remembered from the Book of Life, +Or scarce articulate lispings of the Creed. + +And yet, three times that miracle of Spring +The grand old tree that darkens Exeter wall +Hath decked itself with blossoms as with stars, +Since I, like one that striveth unto death, +Find myself early and late and oft all day +Engaged in eager conflict for GOD’S Truth; +GOD’S Truth, to be maintained against Man’s lie. +And lo, my brook which widened out long since +Into a river, threatens now at length +To burst its channel and become a sea. + +O Sister, who ere yet my task is done +Art lying (my loved Sister!) in thy shroud +With a calm placid smile upon thy lips +As thou wert only “taking of rest in sleep,” +Soon to wake up to ministries of love,— +Open those lips, kind Sister, for my sake +In the mysterious place of thy sojourn, +(For thou must needs be with the bless’d,—yea, where +The pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to GOD,) +And tell the Evangelist of thy brother’s toil; +Adding (be sure!) “He found it his reward, +Yet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers, +The blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers, +Sure at the least unceasingly of mine!” + +One other landed on the eternal shore! +One other garnered into perfect peace! +One other hid from hearing and from sight!... +O but the days go heavily, and the toil +Which used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy. +There come no tokens to us from the dead: +Save—it may be—that now and then we reap +Where not we sowed, and _that_ may be from _them_, +Fruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray! +Meantime there comes no message, comes no word: +Day after day no message and no sign: +And the heart droops, and finds that it was Love +Not Fame it longed for, lived for: only Love. + +CANTERBURY. + + + + + +GENERAL INDEX. + + +_Under_ “Codices” _will be found all the Evangelia described or quoted: +under_ “Texts” _all the places of Scripture illustrated or referred to._ + +“Acta Pilati,” p. 25. + +ACTS, p. 199-200. _See_ Texts. + +Addit. _See_ Codices. + +Adler, J. G. C, p. 33-4. + +Alford, Dean, p. 8, 13, 38, 77, 103, 164, 227, 244-5, 259. + +Algasia, p. 52. + +Ambrose, p. 27. + +“Ammonian” Sections, p. 126-32, 295-311; + in the four Gospels, p. 309; + in S. Mark’s Gospel, p. 311. + +Ammonius, p. 125-32. + +ἀνάγνωσις, p. 196. + +ἀνάγνωσμα, p. 45, 196. + +ἀναληφθῆναι, p. 166. + +Andreas of Crete, p. 258. + +Angelic Hymn, p. 257-63. + +ἀντεβλήθη, p. 119. + +ἀπέχει, p. 225, 6. + +ἀφορμή, p. 127, 137. + +Aphraates the Persian, p. 26-7, 258. + +ἀπιστεῖν, p. 158-9. + +Apocrypha, p. 301. + +Apolinarius, p. 275, 277. + +“Apostolical Constitutions,” p. 25, 258. + +ἀρχή, p. 224-5. + +Armenian Version, p. 36, 239. + +Ascension, The, p. 195. + Lessons, p. 204-5, 238-9. + +Assemani, p. 309-10, 315. + +Asterisks, p. 116-8, 218. + +Athanasian Creed, p. 3, 254. + +Athanasius, p. 30, 275; + how he read S. Jo. xvii. 15, 16, p. 74. + +Augustine, p. 28, 198, 200. + +Babington, Rev. C, p. 291. + +Basil, p. 93-9, 275. + +βαςιλίς, p. 275. + +Basle, p. 283. _See_ Codices. + +Bede, Ven., p. 30. + +Bengel, J. A., p. 17, 101-2, 185. + +Benson, Rev. Dr., p. 101. + +Βηθαβαρά and Βηθανία, p. 236. + +_Bibliothèque_ at Paris, p. 228-31, 278-83. + +Birch’s N. T., Andr., p. 5, 116-8, 311. + +Βλάπτειν, p. 160. + +Bobbiensis, Codex, p. 35, 124, 186. + +Bodleian. _See_ Codices. + +Book of Common Prayer, p. 215. + +Bostra, _see_ Titus. + +Bosworth, Rev. Prof., p. 262. + +Broadus, Prof., p. 139, 155, 168, 174. + +Cæsarius, p. 133. + +Canons, p. 127-31, 295-312. _See_ Sections. + +Carpian, Letter to, p. 126-8, 311-2. + +Carthage. _See_ Council. + +Cassian, p. 193. + +Catenaæ, p. 133-5. _See_ Corderius, Cramer, Matthaei, Peltanus, Possinus, + Victor. + +Chrysostom, p. 27, 85, 110, 179, 193, 198-9, 201-4, 223, 258-9, 275-7, + 278, 314-6, 323. + +Church, the Christian, p. 192. + Festivals, p. 203. + +Churton, Rev. W. R., p. 236. + +“Circular,” A, p. 101-5. + +Citations, _see_ Patristic. + +Clemens Alex., p. 30. + +Codices, depraved, p. 80-6, 217-24. + _See_ Corrupt readings, Dated, Syriac. + 151, referred to p. 311. + +CODICES. + Codex א, p. 70-90, 77, 109-13, 218-22, 252, 257, 313; + how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 88-90; + omissions, 73-5, 79, 80; + Ephes. i. 1, 91-109; + interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6; + affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24; + sympathy with B, 78; + not so old as B, 291-4; + _facsimile_, p. ii. + A, p. 220-1, 222, 257-9, 311. + B, p. 70-90, 257, 202, 217-20, 222-3, 313; + how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 86-90; + omissions, 74-5, 79, 80; + Ephes. i. 1, 91-109; + interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6; + affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24; + sympathy with א, 78; + older than א 291-4. + C, p. 218, 221-2, 302, 311; + depraved by the Lectionary practice, p. 220. + D, p. 100, 219-25, 257, 262, 302. + E, p. 305, 311. + F, p. 302. + G, p. 306, 311. + H, p. 302, 306, 311. + K, p. 197, 302, 311. + L, p. 123-5, 218, 225, 311; + _facsimile_, p. 124. + M, p. 197, 305, 306, 311. + P, Q, R, Y, Z, p. 302. + S, V, Δ, Π, p. 311. + Tb, p. 305. + U, p. 218, 311. + Wb, p. 302. + Wd, p. 305. + Γ, p. 218, 224, 311. + Λ, p. 119, 122, 311. + Codex 1, p. 120, 123, 125. + Codex 7, p. 239. + Codex 10, p. 224, 231. + Codex 12, p. 122, 278, 288-9. + Codex 13, p. 226. + Codex 15, p. 119. + Codex 19, p. 240, 278. + Codex 20, p. 118-9 22, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2. + Codex 22, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242. + Codex 23, p. 120. + Codex 24, p. 121-3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 288-9. + Codex 25, p. 225, 280. + Codex 27, p. 239. + Codex 30, p. 231. + Codex 33, p. 123. + Codex 34, p. 66, 120, 121-3, 280. + Codex 36, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9. + Codex 37, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9. + Codex 38, p. 121-3. + Codex 39, p. 120, 121-3, 271, 281. + Codex 40, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9. + Codex 41, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9. + Codex 47, p. 226. + Codex 50, p. 271, 281. + Codex 54, 56 _and_ 61, p. 226. + Codex 63, p. 240-1. + Codex 69, p. 123, 226. + Codex 72, p. 23, 218, 314. + Codex 77, p. 283. + Codex 90, p. 240. + Codex 92 _and_ 94, p. 283. + Codex 108, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. + Codex 113, p. 218. + Codex 117, p. 302. + Codex 124, p. 226. + Codex 129, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. + Codex 137, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9. + Codex 138, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9. + Codex 143, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. + Codex 146, p. 286. + Codex 181 _and_ 186, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. + Codex 194, p. 284. + Codex 195, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. + Codex 197, p. 284. + Codex 199, 206 _and_ 209, p. 120, 1-3, 5. + Codex 210, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. + Codex 215, p. 285. + Codex 221 _and_ 222, p. 121-3, 285, 8-9. + Codex 233, p. 286. + Codex 237 _and_ 238, p. 285, 8-9, 321. + Codex 239, p. 321. + Codex 253, p. 285. + Codex 255, p. 285, 288-9, 319-23. + Codex 256, p. 239, 286. + Codex 259, p. 286, 288-9, 321. + Codex 262, p. 119, 122, 305. + Codex 263, p. 302, 304. + Codex 264, p. 117, 305-6. + Codex 265, p. 225. + Codex 266, p. 238. + Codex 267, p. 216. + Codex 268, p. 231. + Codex 270, p. 224. + Codex 274, p. 124. + Codex 282 _and_ 293, p. 231. + Codex 299, p. 122, 281, 288-9. + Codex 300, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2. + Codex 301, p. 282. + Codex 304, p. 283. + Codex 309, p. 239, 282. + Codex 312, p. 282. + Codex 329, p. 122, 282, 288-9. + Codex 332 _and_ 353, p. 286. + Codex 373, p. 287. + Codex 374, p. 122, 121, 2, 286, 288-9. + Codex 379 _and_ 427, p. 287. + Codex 428 _and_ 432, p. 286. + Codex 436, p. 218. + Codex 439, p. 226. + Addit. 7, 157, p. 309. + Addit. 12,141, p. 215. + Addit. 14,449, p. 215, 306, 309. + Addit. 14,450, p. 215, 306, 310. + Addit. 14,451, p. 306. + Addit. 14,452-4-5, p. 215, 306. + Addit. 14,456, p. 215. + Addit. 14,457-8, p. 215, 306, 309. + Addit. 14,461, p. 215. + Addit. 14,463, p. 215, 306. + Addit. 14,464, p. 215. + Addit. 14,469, p. 306. + Addit. 14,485-8, p. 208. + Addit. 14,492, p. 208. + Addit. 17,113, p. 215, 306. + Addit. 17,114-5-6, p. 215. + Addit. 17,213, p. 310. + Ambros. M. 93, p. 286. + Basil., p. 283, (three Codd.) + Bobbiensis, p. 35, 124, 186. + Bodleian, _see_ Codd. Γ, Λ, 47, 50, 54, Dawkins. + Coisl. 19, p. 122, 282, 8-9. + Coisl. 20, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9. + Coisl. 21, p. 121-3, 281, 8-9. + Coisl. 22, p. 281, 288. + Coisl. 23, p. 271, 281, 288. + Coisl. 24, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9. + Coisl. 195, p. 66, 120, 1-3, 280. + Dawkins 3, p. 306-9. + Escurial Υ, ii. 8, p. 286. + Florence, S. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv. p. 120, 1-3, 5. + Harl. 1, 810, p. 218. + Harl. 5,107, p. 226. + Harl. 5,647, p. 23, 218, 314. + Laur. vi. 18, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. + Laur. vi. 33, p. 284. + Laur. vi. 34, p. 284, 288. + Laur. viii. 14, p. 284. + Matthaei’s a, 286, 288-9, 321. + Matthaei’s d, p. 285, 288-9. + Matthaei’s e, p. 285, 288-9. + Matthaei’s 10, p. 285. + Matthaei’s 12, p. 285, 288, 319-23. + Matthaei’s 14, p. 239, 286. + Meerman 117, p. 218. + Middle Hill 13, 975, p. 287. + Monacen. 99 _and_ 381, p. 286. + Monacen 465, p. 287. + Moscow, _see_ Matthaei. + Reg. 14, p. 123. + Reg. 50, p. 226. + Reg. 53, p. 119, 122, 305. + Reg. 61 p. 302, 304. + Reg. 62, _see_ Codex L. + Reg. 64, p. 119. + Reg. 65, p. 117, 305-6. + Reg. 66, p. 225. + Reg. 67, p. 238. + Reg. 69, p. 216. + Reg. 71, p. 239. + Reg. 72, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242. + Reg. 73, p. 231. + Reg. 75, p. 224. + Reg. 77, p. 120. + Reg. 79, p. 124. + Reg. 90, p. 231. + Reg. 91, p. 224, 231. + Reg. 100, p. 231. + Reg. 115, p. 239. + Reg. 117, p. 231. + Reg. 177, p. 121, 281, 8-9. + Reg. 178, p. 121, 3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 8, 9. + Reg. 186, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2. + Reg. 187, p. 282. + Reg. 188, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2. + Reg. 189, p. 240, 278. + Reg. 191, p. 225, 280. + Reg. 194, p. 283. + Reg. 201, p. 239, 282. + Reg. 206, p. 282. + Reg. 230, p. 122, 278, 288-9. + Reg. 703, p. 282. + 2pe, p. 226. + 7pe, p. 286. + cscr, p. 226. + iscr _and_ sscr, p. 302. + Tb, p. 305. + Taurin. xx b. iv. 20, p. 286. + Toledo, p. 286. + Vat. 358, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. + Vat. 756-7, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9. + Vat. 1,229 p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. + Vat. 1,423, p. 287. + Vat. 1,445, p. 122, 286, 288-9. + Vat. 1,769, p. 287. + Vat. Palat. 5, p. 286. + Venet. 6, 10, p. 120, 121-3, 5. + Venet. 27, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. + Venet. 495, p. 285. + Venet. 544, p. 285. + Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. 121, 3, 283, 288-9. + Vind. Kell. Nep. 114, Lambec. 29, p. 283. + Vind. Kell. 117, Vind. Kell. 38, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9. + Vind. Kill. 118, 31, p. 226. + Vind. Kill. 180, 39, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9. + Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. 311. + Xavier de Zelada, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. + +Cod. Evstt. 47 _and_ 50, p. 197. + Paul, 67, p. 99. + +Collation of MSS. p. vii.-viii., 218. + +Colossians, Ep. to, p. 101, 162. _See_ Texts. + +Commentaries, Ancient, p. 287. + +Common Prayer, _see_ Book. + +Concordance test, p. 173. + +Constantinople, p. 275. + +Conybeare and Howson, p. 103. + +Coptic Version, p. 35. + +Copyists of MSS., p. 262, 273-4, 320-3. + +Corderius, B., p. 44, 134, 270, 4, 7. + +Corrupt readings in MSS., p. 100-1, 112, 262-3. + +Cosmas Indicopleustes, p. 258. + +Council of Carthage, p. 25, 249. + +Cramer, Dr. J. A., p. 44, 60, 271-3. + +Creed of Jerusalem, p. 184-5. + _see_ Athanasian. + +Curetonian Syriac Version, p. 33. + +Cyprian, 25, 249. + +Cyprus, p. 315. + +Cyril of Alex., p. 29, 60, 110, 198, 201, 258, 271, 5, 7, 9, 281, 315. + Cyril of Jer., p. 184-5, 195, 258, 261. + +Cyrus in Syria, p. 317, 8. + +Damascene, John, p. 30. + +Dated MSS., p. 208, 224, 309. + +Davidson. Dr., p. 12, 38, 114, 133-5, 6; 142, 8; 153, 160, 1, 4; 185. + +De Touttée, p. 184, 261. + +δευτεροπρώτῳ, p. 75, 220. + +Diatessaron, p. 126, 314-8. + +Diodorus, p. 314-8. + +Dionysius of Corinth, p. 245. + +Dionysius Syrus, p. 41. + +δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, p. 257-63. + +Easter Lessons, p. 204-6, 238-9. + +Eden, Rev. C. P., p. 3. + +ἐγκύκλιον, p. 104-5. + +ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ and ἀπό, p. 153. + +ἐκεῖνος, p. 166-7. + +ἔκλειψις, p. 86. + +Ellicott, Bishop, p. 9. + +Encyclical, p. 101-5. + +Ephesians, Ep. to, p. 91-109. _See_ Texts. + +ἐπί, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4. + +ἐπιφανία, τὰ, p. 204. + +Epiphanius, p. 95, 132-3, 199, 202-3, 258. + +Epiphany, Festival of, p. 204, 7; + lessons, 199. + +Erizzo, F. M. p. 34. + +Ethiopic Version, p. 36. + +εὐδοκία, p. 257-63. + +Eulogius, p. 258. + +Eusebius, p. 26, 41-51, 43, 61-4, 66, 84, 126-33, 332-8, 240, 249-52, + 265-6, 267-8, 275, 314, 316, 323; + knew nothing of Cod. א, p. 293-4; + was the Author of the “Ammonian” Sections, p. 295; + Eusebian Tables in Syriac MSS., p. 309-10; + Scholion wrongly ascribed to, p. 319-23. + +εὐθέως, p. 168-9. + +Euthymius Zig., p. 30, 68-9. + +Evangelia, _see_ Codices. + +Evangeliaria, p. 195, 197, 214-5. + +Evangelists vary their expressions, p. 147. + +Evidence, Law of, p. 15. + +ἐξελθόντες, p. 188. + +Facsimile of Cod. א, p. ii.; + of Cod. L, p. 124. + +Fathers badly indexed, p. vii, 21, 30, 315: _see_ Patristic. + +Festivals of the Church, p. 203. + +Field’s ed. of Chrysostom, p. 180. + +Florence. _See_ Codices. + +Formulæ of the Lectionaries, p. 215-224, 5. + +Gandell, Rev. Prof., p. 148. + +Garnier, J., p. 101. + +Genesis, when read, p. 201. + +Gennadius, p. 26. + +Georgian Version, p. 36. + +_Gloria in Excelsis_, p. 257-63. + +Gothic Version, p. 35, 262. + +Green, Rev. T. S., p. 13, 137, 153. + +Gregentius, p. 30. + +Gregory of Nazianzus, p. 258. + Gregory of Nyssa, p. 29, 39-41, 66, 267-8. + Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. 180. + Gregory the Great, p. 30. + +Griesbach, D. J. J., p. 4-7, 115-6, 232, 251, 319. + +Harleian. _See_ Codices. + +_Harmonia, &c._, Oxon. 1805, p. 298. + +Harmony of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with the other Gospels, p. 188-90, + Tables of, in Greek MSS., p. 304-6; + in Syriac MSS., p. 306-11. + +Harris, A. C, p. 293. + +Hedibia, p. 51-6. + +Hesychius of Jerusalem, p. 29, 40-1, 57-9, 67, 204, 237, 267-8. + +Heurtley, Rev. Prof., p. 184. + +Hharklensian Revision, p. 33, 124, 315. + +Hierosolymitan Version, p. 34, 199. + +Hippolytus, p. 24-5, 248. + +Hort, Rev. F. J. A., p. 13. + +Huet, P. D., p. 269, 275, 314. + +Hypapante, p. 207. + +Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, p. 165. + +Indices, p. vii-viii, 21, 30, 315. + +Interpolations in B and א p. 80-6; + from the Lectionary practice, p. 217-214. + +Irenæus, p. 23, 246, 8, 260. + +Itala, Vetus, p. 35. + +Jacobus Bar-Salibi, p. 41. + +“Jacobus Nisibenus,” p. 26, 258. + +James’ _Ecloga_, p. 236. + +Jerome, p. 26, 27-8, 34, 42, 49, 51-7, 67, 98, 106, 128, 153, 236, 260, + 295, 312, 314. + +Jerusalem, Version, p. 34, 199. + Copies at, p. 119. + _See_ Creed. + +Jewish Church, p. 192. + +Jewish Lectionary, p. 194. + +JOHN, S. _See_ Texts. + +John Damascene, p. 30. + +Josephus, p. 275. + +Justin Martyr, p. 23, 193. + +καθαρίζων, p. 179-80. + +κανονίζειν, p. 120-1, 125. + +Kay, Rev. Dr. W., p. 140, 183. + +κείμενον, p. 131, 282. + +κεφάλαιον, p. 45, 229, 298. + +Kollar, p. 269. + +κτίσις, p. 161-2, 180. + +Κύριος, p. 165, 185. + +Lachmann, C., p. 8, 259, 263-4 + +Laodiceans, Ep. to, p. 93-107. + +Latinus Latinius, p. 42-44. + +Lectionary System, p. 191-211, 214-5, 217-24, 240, 313-5, 318. + Eastern p. 196-211. + Jewish, p. 192-4. + Syrian, p. 205-8. + the New, p. 200. + +Lections, p. 238-9. _See_ Lectionary System, Syrian Lessons. + +Lessons. _See_ Lections. + +Licentious. _See_ Copyists. + +Liturgical Formulæ, p. 216-25. + +Lloyd, Bishop C, p. 298. + +λόγος, p. 165. + +LUKE, S. _See_ Texts. + +Macknight, p. 105. + +Mai, Card. A., p. 42-4, 242, 265. + +Manuscripts. _See_ CODICES. + +Marcion, p. 93-6, 103, 106-8. + +Marginal references, p. 298-304. + +Marinus, p. 26, 53-6, 249-50. + +Mark, S., p. 161-2. + +MARK, S. (_See_ Texts), p. 167, 176, 7, 9; + Latinisms, 149-51; + style of ch. i. 9-20, p. 143-4; + phraseology of ch. i. 1-12, p. 174-5; + ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 36-73; + structure of ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 181-4. + xvi. 9-20, a Lection in the Ancient Church, p. 204-11. + +Matthaei, C. F., p. 5, 66, 191, 197, 227, 247, 271-3, 319-23. _See_ + Codices. + +MATTHEW, S. _See_ Texts. + +μέγα σάββατον, p. 194. + +Meerman 117, Cod., p. 218. + +Memphitic Version, p. 35. + +Menologium, p. 197. + +Methodius, p. 258. + +Meyer, p. 13, 136, 160. + τῶν σαββάτων, p. 146-51. + +Michaelis, J. D., p. 101. + +Middle Hill, _see_ Codices. + +Middleton, Bp., p. 105. + +Mill, Dr. John, p. 129, 130, 2. + +Modestus, p. 30. + +Montfaucon, B. de, p. 121. + +Moscow, _see_ Codices, Rev. W. G. Penny. + +Munich, _see_ Codices. + +Muratorian fragment, p. 103. + +Nativity, Festival of, p. 199, 204. + +Nazianzus, _see_ Gregory. + +Nestorius, p. 29. + +Neubauer, M., p. 307. + +Nisibenus, _see_ Aphraates. + +Norton, Prof., p. 13, 137, 245. + +Nyssa, _see_ Gregory. + +Omissions in B and א, p. 73-5, 79, 80, 91, &c. + +ὁμοιοτέλευτον, p. 73, 4. + +Order of the Gospels, p. 239-240. + +Oriel College, p. ix, x. + +Origen, p. 47, 66, 85, 93-9, 107, 179, 222, 236, 245, 258, 260-1, 275, + 277, 282; + on S. Mark, 235. + +Palestinian exemplar, p. 64-5, 121, 289. + +πάλιν, p. 168-9. + +Palmer, Sir Roundell, p. v, vi. + Palmer, Rev. W. J., p. v. + +Papias, p. 23. + +παρά, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4. + +Parallel passages. _See_ Tables of Reference. + +παρασκευή, p. 150. + +Paris, MSS. at, p. 228-31, 278-83: + _see_ Codices, Coisl. _and_ Reg. + +Passion-tide Lessons, p. 202, 204. + +“Patres App.,” p. 240. + +Patristic Citations of SS., p. 20-3, 37, 257-63. + +Paul, S., p. 161-2. + +Peltanus, p. 134, 270-3. + +Penny, Rev. W. G., p. 319-23. + +περιγράφειν τὸ τέλος, p. 233-4. + +περικοπή, p. 45, 196, 8, 298. + +Peshito Version, p. 32. + +Peter, S., p. 161-2, 179, 180-1. _See_ Texts. + Peter of Laodicea, p. 284, 286. + +Petersburg. _See_ Rev. A. S. Thompson. + +Petrus junior, p. 315. + +Phillipps, Sir T. _See_ Codices (Middle Hill). + +Philoxenian Version, p. 33, 4. + +Phraseology of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-173, 146. + +Pius IX., p. ii. + +Polycarp, p. 240. + +πορεύεσθαι, p. 153. + +Possevinus, p. 235. + +Possinus, p. 44, 134, 226, 270-4, 277, 290-2. + +Prayer-Book, _see_ Book. + +Proclus, p. 258. + +Proper, see Lessons. + +πρώτη σαββάτου, p. 146-51. + +Reference Bibles, p. 300-1. + ancient Tables of, p. 304-11. + +Revision of Auth. Version, p. 263-4. + Greek Text, p. 263. + Lectionary, p. 200-1. + +Rose, Ven. Archd., p. 27. + Rev. W. F., p. 218. + +Routh, Rev. President, p. ix. + +Rufinus, p. 314. + +S. (G. V.) p. 264. + +σαββατοκυριακαί, p. 194. + +σάββατον—τα, p. 146-51. + +Sahidic Version, p. 36. + +Saturday Lessons, p. 193, 4. + +Scholia, p. 122, 236, 288-9, 314, 319-23. + +Scholz, J. M. A., p. 7, 116-222, 197, 227, 242. + +Scrivener, Rev. F. H., p. vii, viii, 9, 77, 139, 197, 215, 227, 246, + 302-4. + +Sections without Canons in MSS., p. 302; + their use, 303-10. + _see_ Ammonian. + +σελίδες, p. 294. + +Severus of Antioch, p. 40-1, 57-9, 67, 121, 267-8, 315. + +σημείωσις, p. 314. + +Simon, Père, p. 48, 269. + +Sinaiticus, _see_ Codex. + +Sirletus, Card., p. 44. + +Smith, Dean Payne, p. 41, 205-6, 214, 306. + +Stanley, Dean A. P., p. 3. + +Style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-45. + +Subscription of Gospels, p. 230-1. + +Suidas, p. 309, 311. + +Synagogue worship, p. 192-3. + +Synaxarium, p. 197. + +“Synopsis Script. S.,” p. 29. + +Syriac MSS., p. 208, 214-5, 225, 306-11. + +Syrian Lessons, p. 205, 226, 238-9. + +Tables of Reference in MSS, p. 304-11. + +Tait, Abp., p. 2, 3, 189, 314-8. + +Tatian, p. 129, 314-8. + +τέλος, p. 119-20, 224-42. + +Tertullian, p. 30, 93-4, 106. + +Textual Criticism, p. vii-ix, 113. + +TEXTS. + S. MATTHEW i. 10, p. 178; + i. 25, p. 80. + iii. 16, p. 178; + iii. 17, p. 30. + iv. 18-22, p. 295-6. + viii. 9, p. 82; + viii. 13, p. 80, 222. + xi. 19, p. 83; + xi. 20, p. 221. + xii. 9, p. 221. + xiii. 35, p. 81, 110-1; + xiii. 36, p. 221; + xiii. 39, 55, p. 178. + xiv. 14, p. 221; + xiv. 22, p. 216; + xiv. 30, p. 82. + xv. 22, p. 178. + xvi. 10, p. 177; + xvi. 12, p. 178-9; + xvi. 15, p. 162. + xx. 17, p. 223; + xx. 29, p. 178. + xxi. 8, p. 178; + xxi. 31, p. 83. + xxv. 24, p. 82. + xxvi. 34, 75, p. 178; + xxvi. 39, p. 217-8. + xxvii. 32, p. 188; + xxvii. 34, p. 84; + xxvii. 35, p. 75; + xxvii. 48, 49, p. 80, 218, 313-8; + xxvii. 54, 55, p. 315. + xxviii. 2, 3, p. 73; + xxviii. 8, p. 84; + xxviii. 19, 20, p. 178. + S. MARK i. 1, p. 180, 185; + i. 9-20, p. 182; + i. 10, p. 178; + i. 11, 13, p. 30; + i. 16-20, p. 295-6; + i. 28, p. 85. + vi. 3, p. 178. + vii. 3, 4, p. 82; + vii. 19, p. 179; + vii. 26, p. 178. + viii. 10, 15, p. 178. + x. 6, p. 180; + x. 42, p. 82; + x. 46, p. 178. + xi. 8, p. 178. + xiii. 19, p. 180. + xiv. 3, p. 221; + xiv. 30, p. 178; + xiv. 30, 68, 72, p. 84; + xiv. 41, p. 225; + xiv. 58, p. 82; + xiv. 72, p. 177. + xv. 28, p. 301; + xv. 46, p. 82. + xvi. 8 and 9, p. 239; + xvi. 8-20, p. 306; + xvi. 9, p. 152-3, 178-9, 187, 216; + xvi. 9-20, p. 182, 224; + xvi. 10, 14, p. 187, 319; + xvi. 15, p. 180; + xvi. 15, 16, p. 178; + xvi. 19, p. 180, 195. + S. LUKE i. 26, p. 85; + i. 27, p. 82. + ii. 14, p. 257-63; + ii. 37, p. 82. + iii. 22, p. 30, 178; + iii. 23, p. 220. + iv. 5, p. 74; + iv. 16, p. 220; + iv. 44, p. 85. + (S. LUKE) v. 1, p. 82, 220; + i. 1-11, p. 295-6; + i. 17, p. 220. + vi. 1, p. 75, 220; + vi. 37, p. 220; + vi. 48, p. 81. + vii. 1, p. 220; + vii. 31, p. 216. + viii. 2, p. 152, 178. + ix. 57, p. 220. + x. 1, p. 81, 220; + x. 25, p. 220. + xiii. 2, p. 221. + xv. 13, p. 82. + xvi. 6, p. 178; + xvi. 16, p. 74; + xvi. 19, p. 220. + xviii. 15, p. 220. + xix. 45, p. 220. + xx. 1, p. 220. + xxii. 25, p. 82; + xxii. 43, 44, p. 79, 201, 217-8, 301; + xxii. 64, p. 74. + xxiii. 15, p. 83; + xxiii. 34, p. 79, 219; + xxiii. 38, p. 79; + xxiii. 45, p. 85-6. + xxiv. 12, p. 222; + xxiv. 13, p. 85, 236; + xxiv. 16, p. 178-9; + xxiv. 31, p. 73; + xxiv. 36, p. 221; + xxiv. 42, 52, 53, p. 74; + xxiv. 51, p. 195. + S. JOHN i. 3, 4, p. 30, 110; + i. 3, 18, 50, p. 30; + i. 4, p. 81, 109-11; + i. 18, p. 30, 81; + i. 28, p. 236; + i. 29, 44, p. 221; + i. 34, p. 81; + i. 50, p. 30. + ii. 3, p. 80. + iii. 13, p. 80. + vi. 14, p. 221; + vi. 17, 64, p. 82; + vi. 51, p. 111. + vii. 53-viii. 11, p. 219. + viii. 57, p. 82; + viii. 59, p. 80, 222. + ix. 4, 11, p. 81; + ix. 35, p. 82; + ix. 38, p. 79. + x. 14, p. 82; + x. 29, p. 223. + xiii. 3, p. 221; + xiii. 10, p. 111. + xiv. 1, p. 220; + xiv. 31, p. 188. + xvii. 10, p. 82; + xvii. 15, 16, p. 76. + xviii. 1, p. 188. + xix. 13, p. 223; + xix. 17, p. 188; + xix. 34, p. 218, 313-5. + xxi. 1, p. 221, 3; + xxi. 1-6, 11, p. 295-6; + xxi. 12, 13, 15-17, p. 297; + xxi. 18, p. 83; + xxi. 25, p. 79. + ACTS i. 2, 22, 23, p. 180; + i. 9, p. 195. + iv. 12, p. 262. + viii. 5, p. 85. + x. 15, p. 180. + xiii. 15, 27, p. 192. + EPHES. i. 1, p. 91-109. + vi. 21, 2, p. 101. + COLOSS. i. 23, p. 162. + iv. 7, 16, p. 101, 105. + 1 S. PET. ii. 13, p. 180. + iv. 19, p. 180. + 2 S. PET. iii. 4, p. 180. + + ECCLUS. xliii. 11, 12, p. 301. + 1 MACC. iv. 59, p. 301. + +θεᾶσθαι, p. 156-8. + +Thebaic Version, p. 35. + +Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. 275, 7. + +Theodoret, p. 258, 317-8. + +Theodotus of Ancyra, p. 258. + +Theophania, p. 207. + +Theophylact, p. 30, 266. + +θεωρεῖν, p. 157. + +Thompson, Rev. A. S., p. ii, 252. + +Thomson, Abp., p. 13. + +Tischendorf, Dr., p. 8, 9, 10, 38, 77-9, 85-6, 93, 109-14, 123, 125-33, + 137, 153, 222, 7, 242, 4, 251-2, 9, 260-1, 280, 293, 311, 322, + viii-ix. + +Titus of Bostra, p. 258, 275, 283. + +Toledo, _see_ Codices. + +Townson, Rev. Dr., p. 151, 179. + +Tregelles, Dr., p. 9, 10-12, 38, 9, 60, 76, 114, 126-9, 136, 145, 169, + 222-3, 227, 234, 242, 4, 5, 7, 251, 9, 260, 319, viii-ix. + +Turin, _see_ Codices. + +Ulphilas, p. 35, 262. + +Uncial MSS. p. 20, 71. _See_ Codices. + +ὑπόθεσις, p. 274-5. + +ὕστερον, p. 160. + +Vatican, p. 117, 283-4, 288-9: _see_ Codices. + +Vaticanus, _see_ Codex. + +Venice, _see_ Codices. + +Vercellone, C., p. 73. + +Versions, _see_ Armenian, &c. + +Vetus Itala, p. 35. + +Victor of Antioch, p. 29, 59-65, 67, 122, 134, 178, 180, 235, 250, 268, + 269-87; + Codices, 278-87; + Scholion, 288-90. + +Victor of Capua, p. 129. + +Vienna, _see_ Codices. + +Vincentius a Thibari, p. 25. + +Vulgate, p. 34. + +Westcott, Rev. Prof., p. 13, 23. + +Wetstein, J. J., p. 121, 125, 129. + +Wordsworth, Bishop, p. ix, 9. + Wordsworth, Rev. John, p. ix. + +Wright, Prof., p. 27, 33, 206, 8, 214-5, 225, 306, 7, 8, 9, 10. + +Xavier de Zelada, _see_ Codices. + +Xiphilinus, John, p. 44. + +ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ. + + + + + + +FOOTNOTES + + + 1 Abp. Tait’s _Harmony of Revelation and the Sciences_, (1864,) p. 21. + + 2 See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13. + + 3 Abp. Tait is of opinion that it “should not retain its place in the + public Service of the Church:” and Dean Stanley gives sixteen + reasons for the same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that “many + excellent laymen, including King George III., have declined to take + part in the recitation.” (_Final_) _Report of the Ritual + Commission_, 1870, p. viii. and p. xvii. + + 4 In the words of a thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P. + Eden),—“_Condemnatory_ is just what these clauses are not. I + understand myself, in uttering these words, not to condemn a fellow + creature, but to acknowledge a truth of Scripture, GOD’S judgment + namely on the sin of unbelief. The further question,—In whom the sin + of unbelief is found; _that_ awful question I leave entirely in His + hands who is the alone Judge of hearts; who made us, and knows our + infirmities, and whose tender mercies are over all His works.” + + 5 “The Athanasian Creed,” by the Dean of Westminster (_Contemporary + Review_, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159). + +_ 6 Commentarius Criticus_, ii. 197. + +_ 7 Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd. + MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit + Andreas Birch, Havniae_, 1788. A copy of this very rare and + sumptuous folio may be seen in the King’s Library (Brit. Mus.) + +_ 8 Account of the Printed Text_, p. 83. + + 9 See above, p. 3. + + 10 “Eam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant + gravissimae.” + + 11 I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this + amiable and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am + finishing my task. I consign these pages to the press with a sense + of downright reluctance,—(constrained however by the importance of + the subject,)—seeing that _he_ is no longer among us either to + accept or to dispute a single proposition. All I can do is to erase + every word which might have occasioned him the least annoyance; and + indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. An + open grave reminds one of the nothingness of earthly controversy; as + nothing else does, or indeed can do. + + 12 Tischendorf, besides eight editions of his laborious critical + revision of the Greek Text, has edited our English “Authorized + Version” (Tauchnitz, 1869,) with an “Introduction” addressed to + unlearned readers, and the various readings of Codd. א, B and A, set + down in English at the foot of every page.—Tregelles, besides his + edition of the Text of the N. T., is very full on the subject of S. + Mark xvi. 9-20, in his “Account of the Printed Text,” and in his + “Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.” (vol. iv. of + Horne’s _Introd._)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek + Testament, and an abridgment “for the upper forms of Schools and for + passmen at the Universities,” put forth two editions of a “N. T. for + English Readers,” and three editions of “the Authorized Version + newly compared with the original Greek and revised;”—in every one of + which it is stated that these twelve verses are “probably an + addition, placed here in very early times.” + + 13 The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are + honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent + Divine reluctantly admitting that “this portion may not have been + penned by S. Mark himself;” and Bishop Ellicott (_Historical + Lectures_, pp. 26-7) asking “Why may not this portion have been + written by S. Mark at a later period?;”—both alike resolutely insist + on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living + master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I + desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it + stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the + popular outcry against this portion of the Gospel. “Without the + slightest misgiving” he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of + S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (_Introduction_, pp. 7 and 429-32.) + + 14 “Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,” (p. + 320.) “Quæ testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod + conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba αφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ + item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.” (p. + 322.)—I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf’s 8th ed. + (1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the + following addition:—“Quæ quum ita sint, sanæ erga sacrum textum + pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua + a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.” (p. 407.) + +_ 15 Evangelia Apocrypha_, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi. + + 16 Pp. 253, 7-9. + + 17 In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced + it “manifestly untenable” that S. Mark’s Gospel was the last + written; and assigned A.D. 64 as “its most probable” date. In his + second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—“When we consider that _the + Gospel was not written till the second century_, internal evidence + loses much of its force against the authenticity of these + verses.”—_Introduction to N.T._ + + 18 Vol. ii. p. 239. + +_ 19 Developed Criticism_, [1857], p. 53. + + 20 Ed. 1847. i. p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader’s + acceptance in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221. + +_ 21 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels_, p. 311. + +_ 22 Critical and Exegetical Commentary_, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92. + + 23 In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,—“Ei incumbit + probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.” Taylor _on the Law of Evidence_, + 1868, i. p. 369. + + 24 This is freely allowed by all. “Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam + jam in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.” + Tregelles _N.T._ p. 214. + + 25 This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 626) accounts for the + phenomenon:—“Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam + partem scribere differret, et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii + quasi perfectum sequerentur, praesertim quum ea pars cum reliquâ + historiâ evangelicâ minus congruere videretur.” + + 26 It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his + latest edition) S. John xxi. 25. + + 27 Chap. III.-VIII., also Chap. X. + + 28 Chap. IX. + + 29 Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch. _ed._ 8va.) + [ix]: G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective + here,—F (ver. 9-19), H (ver. 9-14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z. + + 30 See Appendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. + + 31 Consider how Ignatius (_ad Smyrn._, c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39; + and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep. _ad Ephes._ c. 17. + + 32 Ἱστορεῖ [sc. Παπίας] ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα + Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονὸς,—evidently a slip of the pen for Βαρσαβᾶν τὸν + ἐπικληθέντα Ἰοῦστον (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately + afterwards,)—ὡς δηλητήριον φάρμακον ἐμπιόντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ + τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν ὑπομείναντος. Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ iii. 39. + +_ 33 Apol._ I. c. 45.—The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the Fragment + _De Resurrectione_ (Westcott and others) are clearly references to + S. Luke xxiv.,—_not_ to S. Mark xvi. + + 34 lib. iii. c. x. _ad fin._ (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). “In fine autem + Evangelii ait Marcus, _et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est + sis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei._” + Accordingly, against S. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 ( = Evan. 72) + occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already + published:—Εἰρηναῖος ὁ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πλησίον, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς + αἱρέσεις γ᾽ λόγῳ τοῦτο ἀνήνεγκεν τὸ ῥητον ὡς Μάρκῳ ειρημένον. + + 35 First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship + has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of + Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the + Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ; and by that name + the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter + of the (so called) “Apostolical Constitutions,” (τὰ μὲν σῦν πρῶτα + τοῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Χαρισμάτων, κ.τ.λ.),—in which singular + monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in + fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the “Apostolical + Constitutions;” of which the ivth chapter is also claimed for + Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such + appears in the last edition of the Father’s collected works, + (_Hippolyti Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce_, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. + 74. + + The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of + the heading,—Διατάξεις τῶν ἀυτῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν, + διὰ Ἱππολύτου,) is part of the “Octateuchus Clementinus,” concerning + which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to his _Reliquiæ + Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimæ_, 1856. The composition in question + extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact + correspondence between the “Octateuchus Clementinus” and the + Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend no further + than the single chapter (the ivth) specified in the text. In the + meantime the fragment περὶ χαρισμάτων (containing S. Mark xvi. 17, + 18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in + Lagarde’s _Reliquiæ_, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there + headed Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων. + +_ 36 Ad fin._ See Routh’s _Opuscula_, i. p. 80. + + 37 For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf’s remark (ed. + 8va. p. 407), “Quod idem [Justinus] Christum ἀνεληλυθόντα εἰς τοὺς + οὐράνους dicit, [_Apol._ I. c. 50?] minus valet.” + + 38 “In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,” (Cyprian Opp. p. + 237 [_Reliqq. Sacr._ iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17, + 18,)—“_In nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus + imponent_ et bene habebunt.” + +_ 39 Responsa ad Episcopos_, c. 44, (_Reliqq._ v. 248.) + +_ 40 Evangelia Apocrypha_, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: also + _Proleg._ p. lvi. + + 41 In _l._ vii. _c._ 7 (_ad fin._),—λαβόντες ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κηρύξαι + τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον: and in _l._ viii. _c._ 1,—ἡμῖν + τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. + Observe, this immediately follows the quotation of verses 17, 18. + +_ 42 Lib._ vi. _c._ 15.—The quotation (at the beginning of _lib._ viii.) + of the 17th and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper + place. _Supra_, p. 24. + + 43 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 421. + +_ 44 Apud_ Hieron. _Opp. ed._ Vallars., ii. 951-4. + + 45 See Dr. Wright’s ed. of “Aphraates,” (4to. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am + entirely indebted to the learned Editor’s _Preface_ for the + information in the text. + + 46 From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose. + + 47 Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver. + 15 and 16: vol. ii. 663 B, C quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A + quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 639 E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver. + 17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes ver. 20. + +_ 48 Opp._ iii. 765 A, B. + + 49 Καὶ μὴν τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρία πρώτῃ [ὤφθη]. + Chrys. _Opp._ ch. 355 B. + + 50 “Cogis” (he says to Pope Damasus) “ut post exemplaria Scripturarum + toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se + variant, quae sint illa quae cum Graecâ consentiant veritate + decernam.—Haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia + ... codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione, sed et veterum.” + + 51 Vol. i. p. 327 C (_ed._ Vallars.) + +_ 52 Contra Pelagianos_, II. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5):—“In quibusdam + exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine + Evangelii scribitur: _Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis + Jesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia + his qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi + satisfaciebant dicentes: Sæculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis + substantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei + apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam._” + + 53 E.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149); Vol. v. 988 C.—Verses 15, + 16, in vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F. + + 54 Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C. + + 55 ἐξελθόντες γάρ, φησι, διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ. τοῦ Κυρίοῦ + συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων + σημειων. Nestorius _c. Orthodoxos_: (Cyril. Alexand. _adv. + Nestorian._ Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,—τῇ παρ᾽ + αὐτοῦ δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι, διεκηρύσσοντο καὶ εἰργάζοντο τὰς + θεοσημείας οἱ θεοπέσιοι μαθηταὶ. (_Ibid._ D.) This quotation was + first noticed by Matthaei (_Enthym. Zig._ i. 161.) + + 56 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένον; Ὁ μὲν οὄν Κύριος—ἐκ + δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii. 415. + + 57 Athanasii _Opp._ vol. ii. p. 181 F, 182 A. See the _Præfat._, pp. + vii., viii. + + 58 In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that + there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have + overlooked. The necessity one is under, on occasions like the + present, of depending to a great extent on “Indices,” is fatal; so + scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be + named. To judge from the Index in Oehler’s edition of Tertullian, + that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times. + According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so + much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no + less than fourteen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to + discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9-20 at all. + + Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf’s new Oxford ed. + of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in + Potter’s ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3 + (or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, l. 8: S. John i. 18, + 50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, l. 26: S. Mark i. 13, + interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7:—are + nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at our SAVIOUR’S + Baptism,—a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, l. 14),—does not appear + in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i. + 11), or S. Luke (iii. 22.)] + + 59 Gregentius _apud_ Galland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in + Evang.)—Modestus _apud_ Photium cod. 275.—Johannis Damasceni _Opp._ + (ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and Theophylact (who quotes _all_ + the verses) and Euthymius _in loc._ + + 60 Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that some more leaves of this Version + have just been recovered. + + 61 By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the last four + verses. + + 62 In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii. 5, Thomas writes,—“_In + tribus codicibus Græcis_, et in uno Syriaco antiquæ versionis, non + inventum est nomen, ‘Nazarenus.’ ”—Cf. ad xxvii. 35.—Adler’s _N. T. + Verss. Syrr._, p. 97. + + 63 That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the + Gospels relegated to the Philoxenian margin, should occur the + worthless supplement which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch. + viii.)—is not at all surprising. Of these 437 readings and notes, 91 + are not found in White’s Edition; while 105 (the supplement in + question being one of them) are found in White only. This creates a + suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must exhibit + traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text. + (So Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of + some of those marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to + refer to Adler’s learned work, (pp. 79-134) and examine the notes on + the following places:—S. Matth. xv. 21: xx. 28 ( = D): xxvi. 7. S. + Mk. i. 16: xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 ( = B D): 42 ( = B א L): xi. 1: 53. + S. Jo. ii. 1 [3] ( = א): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly = B): x. 8, &c. + &c. + + 64 This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, + 1861-4, under the following title:—_Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum + ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit, + Prolegomenis et Glossario adornavit, Comes_ FRANCISCUS MINISCALCHI + ERIZZO. + + 65 It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that + one ancient codex, the “Codex Bobbiensis” (k), which Tregelles + describes as “a revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS. + is discernible,” [_Printed text_, &c. p. 170.] and which therefore + may not be cited in the present controversy,—exhibits after ver. 8 a + Latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in Cod. + L. + + 66 “Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint, + vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.” Mai, _Nova Patt. Bibl._ iv. 256. + +_ 67 Account of the Printed Text_, p. 247. + +_ 68 Gr. Test._ p. 322. + + 69 Ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὺαγγέλιον + μέχρι τοῦ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, ἔχει τὸ τέλος. ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ + ταῦτα ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτων (sic) ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ + Μαγδαληνῇ ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. _Opp._ (ed. 1638) iii, + 411 B. + + 70 Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 248, also in Horne’s _Introd._ iv. + 434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following + Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &c. + +_ 71 Nov. Auct._ i. 743-74.—_Bibl. Vett. PP._ xi. 221-6. + +_ 72 Bibl. Coisl._ pp. 68-75.—_Catena_, i. 243-51. + + 73 Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean + Payne Smith’s _Cat. of Syrr. MSS._ p. 411] who died A.D. 1171) in + his _Exposition of S. Mark’s Gospel_ (published at Dublin by Dudley + Loftus, 1672, 4to.) seems (at p. 59) to give this homily to + Severus.—I have really no independent opinion on the subject. + + 74 Alford, _Greek Test._ i. p. 433. + +_ 75 Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio_, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101. + + 76 At p. 217, (_ed._ 1847), Mai designates it as “Codex Vat. Palat. cxx + pulcherrimus, sæculi ferme x.” At p. 268, he numbers it + rightly,—ccxx. We are there informed that the work of Eusebius + extends from fol. 61 to 96 of the Codex. + + 77 Vol. iv. pp. 219-309. + + 78 See _Nova P. P. Bibliotheca_, iv. 255.—That it was styled “Inquiries + with their Resolutions” (Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσεις), Eusebius leads us to + suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name, + (_Demonstr. Evang. lib._ vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus, + _Mai_, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ + (_Mai_, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so designate + the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual + title is correctly indicated by Jerome,—_De Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ_: + “Edidit” (he says) “de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ,” (_De Scriptt. + Illustt._ c. 81.) Again, Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων, (_Hieron._ in Matth. + i. 16.) Consider also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given + below, p. 44, note (q). “Indicated” by Jerome, I say: for the entire + title was probably, Περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ. + διαφωνίας. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by Cramer (i. + p. 266), quotes an opinion of Eusebius ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον περὶ τῆς + δοκούσης ἐν εὐαγγελίοις περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας: words which + are extracted from the same MS. by Simon, _Hist. Crit. N. T._ p. 89. + + 79 Ἐκλογὴ ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ Εὐσεβίου πρὸς Στέφανον [and + πρὸς Μαρῖνον] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων. + _Ibid._ pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes facing the title + of vol. i. ed. 1825.) + + 80 Σὐσέβιος ... ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἐπὶ ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου πάθους καὶ + τῆς ἀναστάσεως ζητήσεσι καὶ ἐκλύσεσι, κ.τ.λ. I quote the place from + the less known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to + Severus of Antioch: but it occurs also in _Corderii Cat. in Joan._ + p. 436. (See Mai, iv. 299.) + + 81 This passage is too grand to be withheld:—Οὐ γὰρ ἤν ἀξιός τις ἐν τῇ + πόλει Ἰουδαίων, (ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος κεφαλαίωιγ πρὸς Μαρνον,) τὸ κατὰ + τοῦ διαβόλου τρόπαιον τὸν σταυρὸν βαστάσαι; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐξ ἀγροῦ, ὅς + μηδὲν ἐπικεκοινώνηκε τῇ κατὰ χριστο μιαιφονίᾳ. (_Possini Cat. in + Marcum_, p. 343.) + + 82 Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenæ, inasmuch as their compilers are + observed to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently + full of _disjecta membra_ of the work. These are recognisable for + the most part by their form; but sometimes they actually retain the + name of their author. Accordingly, Catenæ have furnished Mai with a + considerable body of additional materials; which (as far as a MS. + Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A. _seu_ Vat. 1611,] enabled + him,) he has edited with considerable industry; throwing them into a + kind of Supplement. (Vol. iv. pp. 268-282, and pp. 283-298.) It is + only surprising that with the stores at his command, Mai has not + contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject. It + would not be difficult to indicate sundry passages which he has + overlooked. Neither indeed can it be denied that the learned + Cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner. He + does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp. + 357-8—262—283—295, is to be found in the _Catena_ of _Corderius_ at + pp. 448-9—449—450—457.—He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of + John Xiphilinus, (_Cod. Vat._ p. 160,) what he might have found in + Possinus; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) He was evidently unacquainted + with Cramer’s work, though it had been published 3 (if not 7) years + before his own,—else, at p. 299, instead of quoting Simon, he would + have quoted Cramer’s _Catenæ_, i. 266.—It was in his power to solve + his own shrewd doubt, (at p. 299,—concerning the text of a passage + in Possinus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus + published was transcribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican. + (Possini _Præfat._ p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found + the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of the _Catena_ of + Possinus. In countless places he might, by such references, have + improved his often manifestly faulty text. + + 83 Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (_Opp._ ii. 116.) to + Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis) “scire te vult in Siciliâ + inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensis _de Evangeliorum + Diaphoniâ_, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.” The letter + is dated 1563. + + I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will + be found that Eusebius digested his “Questions” _under heads_: e.g. + περὶ το τάφου, καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς + δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p. 299.) + + 84 I translate according to the sense,—the text being manifestly + corrupt. Τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν is probably a gloss, + explanatory of τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό. In strictness, the κεφάλαιον + begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end of the Gospel. There + are 48 such κεφάλαια in S. Mark. But this term was often loosely + employed by the Greek Fathers, (as “capitulum” by the Latins,) to + denote _a passage_ of Scripture, and it is evidently so used here. + Περικοπή, on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true + technical meaning, and to denote the liturgical _section_, or + “lesson.” + + 85 Ἀνάγνωσμα (like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to + be here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgical + _section_, or “lectio.” See Suicer, _in voce_. + + 86 The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement + and depravation here. + + 87 Mai, _Bibl. P.P. Nova_, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the + original of this passage is given in the Appendix (B). + + 88 Mai, iv. 257. So far, I have given the substance only of what + Eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity. It follows,—ὥστε τὸν + αὐτὸν σχεδὸν νοεῖσθαι καιρὸν, ἡ τὸν σφόδρα ἐγγὺς, παρὰ τοῖς + εὐαγγελισταῖς διαφόροις ὀνόμασι τετηρημένον. μηδέν τε διαφέρειν + Ματθαῖον ἰρηκότα “ὀψὲ—τάφον” [xxviii. 1.] Ἰωάννου φήσαντος “τῇ δὲ + μιᾷ—ἔτι οὔσης σκοτίας.” [xx. 1.] πλατυκῶς γὰρ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν + δηλοῦσι χρόνον διαφόροις ῥήμασι. [xxviii. 1.]—For the principal + words in the text, see the Appendix (B) _ad fin._ + + 89 I allude to the following places:—Combefis, _Novum Auctarium_, col. + 780.—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei, _Anectt. Græc._ ii. + 62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195 + _fol._ 165.—Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer, _Catt._ i. + 251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4, _fol._ 169.—Cod. Bodl. + Laud. Gr. 33, _fol._ 79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this + subject will do well to begin by reading Simon _Hist. Crit. du N. + T._ p. 89. See Mai’s foot-note, iv. p. 257. + + 90 Ep. cxx. _Opera_, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43. + +_ 91 Ibid._ p. 844. + +_ 92 Ibid._ p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810. + + 93 “Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est. [Τοῦτου διττὴ ἂν εἴν ἡ + λύσεις.] Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris + fertur [σπανίωσ ἔν τισι φερόμενα] Evangeliis, omnibus Græciæ libris + pene hec capitulum [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] in fine non habentibus; [ἐν + τουτῷ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον + εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος]; præsertim cum diversa atque + contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [μάλιστα εἴπερ + ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.] Aut hoc + respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [ἐκατέραν παραδεκτέαν + ὑπάρϗειν ... συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς.] Matthæus, quando Dominus + surrexerit vespere sabbati: Marcus autem, quando tum viderit Maria + Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est, + Cum autem resurrexisset: [μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον Ἀναστὰς δέ:] + et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane + apparuit Mariæ Magdalenæ: [εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες ῥητέον, Πρωι τῇ μιᾷ τῶν + σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta + Matthæum surrexerat, [παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τοτε γὰρ + ἐγήγερατο.] ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Mariæ + Magdalenæ. [προί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] + Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius + diei visum esse demonstrans.” [τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί + καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.] + + For the Latin of the above, see _Hieronymi Opera_, (ed. Vallars.) + vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B). + + 94 ἠρώτας τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται + ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; + [Eusebius _ad Marinum_,(Mai, iv. 255.)] + + Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati + illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane + resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymus _ad + Hedibiam_, (Opp. i. 818-9.)] + + Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν + ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ + μίᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου. [_Ut suprà_, p. 257.] + + Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit + Dominum resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una + sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere? [_Ut suprà_, p. 819.] + + Πῶς, κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης + Μαρίας ἁψαμένη τῶν ποσῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἡ αὐτὴ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ + σαββάτου ἀκούει μή μου ἅπτου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην. [_Ut suprà_, p. + 262.] + + Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ + Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem, + audierit à Domino, Noli me tangere. [_Ut suprà_, p. 821.] + + 95 Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 247. + + 96 See above, p. 28. + + 97 See above, p. 40-1. + + 98 See the Appendix (C) § 2. + + 99 See the Appendix (C) § 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § 2. + + 100 In the _Eccl. Grac. Monumenta_ of Cotelerius, (iii. 1-53,) may be + seen the discussion of 60 problems, headed,—Συναγωγή ἀποριῶν καὶ + ἐπιλύσεων, ἐκλεγεῖσα ἐν ἐπιτομῇ ἐκ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς συμφωνίας τοῦ + ἁγίου Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου Ἱεροσολύμων. From this it appears that + Hesychius, following the example of Eusebius, wrote a work on + “Gospel Harmony,”—of which nothing but an abridgment has come down + to us. + + 101 He says that he writes,—Πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου προβλήματος λύσιν, + καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν ῥητῶν ἀναφουμένων ζητήσεων, + κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss._ Opp._ iii. 400 c. + + 102 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένομ;Ὁ μὲν οῦν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ. + Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii. 415 D.—See above, p. 29, note (g). + + 103 See below, chap. X. + +_ 104 Fasti Romani_, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395-495. + + 105 Vol. i. _Præfat._ p. xxviii. See below, note (p). + + 106 “Victor Antiochenus” (writes Dr. Tregelles in his N. T. vol. i. p. + 214,) “dicit ὅτι νενόθενται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι + φερόμενον.” + + 107 For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and his work, + the studious in such matters are referred to the Appendix (D). + +_ 108 Opp._ vol. vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field’s edition, p. 527, + line 3 to 20. + + 109 Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,—ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος ὁ Καισαρείας ἐν + τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον κ.τ.λ. And at p. 446, line 19,—Εὐσεβιός φησιν ὁ + Καισαρείας κ.τ.λ. + + 110 Compare Cramer’s _Vict. Ant._ i. p. 444, line 6-9, with Field’s + _Chrys._ iii. p. 539, line 7-21. + + 111 Mai, iv. p. 257-8. + + 112 Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4. + + 113 The following is the original of what is given above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν + τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ, “ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ + μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ Μαγδαληνῇ,” δοκεῖ + δὲ τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου εὶρημένῳ, ὲροῦμεν ὡς δυνατὸν μὲν + εἰπεῖν ὅτι νενόθευται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον. + πλὴν ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτοιμον καταφεύγειν, οὔτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα; + “ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, “πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου + ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.” ἵνα [_The extract from_ VICTOR _is + continued below in the right hand column: the left exhibiting the + text of_ EUSEBIUS “_ad Marinum_.”] [Transcriber’s Note: The extracts + will be on alternating paragraphs.] + + (Eusebius.) τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς,” ἀν[απέμψωμεν?] ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ + “ὀψὲ σαββάτων.” (τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας + ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις. + + (Victor.) τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς,” ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ “ὀψὲ + σαββάτων.” (τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας + ὄν διανοίας παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις; + + (Eusebius.) (“πρωί” γὰρ “τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ + Μαγδαληνῇ.”) + + (Victor.) (τὸν γὰρ “ὀψὲ σαββάτων” κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ + “πρωί” ἑωρακέναι Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.) + + (Eusebius.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης “πρωί” καί αὐτὸς “τῇ + μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου” ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας. + + (Victor.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες, “πρωί” καὶ αὐτὸς “τῇ μιᾷ + τῶν σαββάτων” ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας. + + [31 words here omitted.] + + (Eusebius.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς + αναστάσεως τὸν “ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.” τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος + ἐπιφανείας, τὸν “πρωί.” + + (Victor.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς + ἀναστάσεως, τὸν “ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου;” τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος + ἐπιφανείας, τὸ “προί.” + + [EUSEBIUS, _apud Mai_, iv. p. 256.] + + [VICTOR ANTIOCH, _ed. Cramer_, i. p. 444-5: (_with a few slight + emendations of the text from_ Evan. Cod. Reg. 178.)] + + Note, that Victor _twice_ omits the word πρῶτον, and _twice_ reads + τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου), _only because + Eusebius had inadvertently_ (three times) _done the same thing_ in + the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai. _Nova P. P. Bibl._ + iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5. + + 114 οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δἐ ὡς διαφόρους ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί φασιν οἱ τὴν δοκοῦσαν + διαφωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες. Vict. Ant. _ed. Cramer_, vol. i. p. + 445, l. 23-5: referring to what Eusebius says _apud Mai_, iv. 264 + and 265 (§ iiii): 287-290 (§§ v, vi, vii.) + + 115 e.g. in the passage last quoted. + + 116 For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred + to the Appendix (E). + + 117 How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,—“Scholia + certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omnia _ex uno + fonte promanarunt_. Ex eodem fonte Hieronymum etiam hausisse + intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.—Similiter + Scholiastæ omnes in principio hujus Evangelii in disputatione de + lectione ἐν ἡσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτη ex uno pendent. _Fortasse Origenes + auctor est hujus dubitationis._” (N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)—The reader + is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47 (line 23.) + + 118 It is not often, I think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually + inserted after Ἀναστάς δέ. Such a point is found, however, in Cod. + 34 ( = Coisl. 195,) and Cod. 22 ( = Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many + other copies. + + 119 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 47, 125, 431. + + 120 Φασὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἐνταῦθα συμπληροῦσθαι τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον + εὐαγγέλιον; τὰ δὲ ἐφεξῆς προσθήκην εἶναι μεταγενεστέραν. Χρὴ δὲ καὶ + ταύτην ἑρμηνεῦσαι μηδὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ λυμαινομένην.—Euthym. Zig. (_ed._ + Matthaei, 1792), _in loc._ + + 121 For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to the + Appendix (F). + + 122 Viz. A, C [v]; D [vi]; E, L [viii]; F, K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π + [ix]; G, H, X, S, U [ix, x]. + + 123 Vercellone,—_Del antichissimo Codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca_, + Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.) + +_ 124 Dublin Univ. Mag._ (Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93. + + 125 ὁμοιοτέλευτον. + + 126 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_ to his ed. of the Codex Bezæ, p. + xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface + to the 2nd ed. of his _Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus_.—Add to his + instances, this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:— + + ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ Ε + ΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕ + Η ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣ + ΑΣΤΡΑΠΗ + + It is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The + next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:— + + ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗ + ΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙ + ΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟ + ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝ + ΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ + + Hence the omission of και επεγνωσαν αυτον in א.—The following + explains the omission from א (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke + xxiv. 52:— + + ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝ + ΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ + ΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥ + ΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙ + + The next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke + xxii. 64:— + + ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕ + ΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε + [ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟ + ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ] + ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟ + + The next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are + absent in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:— + + ΕΥΑΓΓΕ + ΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣ + ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙ + ΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩ + ΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ + + 127 In this way, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt + reading of Cod. B (ινα τηρησης αυτους εκ του κοσμου)—which, however, + was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (_Opp._ p. 1035: _al. + ed._ p. 825)—is explained:— + + ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ. + ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥ + ΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣ + + Thus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious + clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42:— + + ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ + [ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙ + ΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ] + ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ + + And why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S. + Luke xxiv. 53:— + + ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝ + ΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟ + ΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝ + + And why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of + the Temptation (S. Luke iv. 5) :— + + ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥ + ΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗ + ΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ + + 128 In this way the famous omission (א, B, L) of the word δευτεροπρώτῳ, + in S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the least) capable of being explained:— + + ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘ + ΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟ + ΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕ + + and of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:— + + ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ + [ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ] + ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ + + 129 He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii. (1 Cor. v. 7.) + + 130 In this way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. א in S. Mark xv. + 47—xvi. 1:—19 words in S. Mark i. 32-4:—20 words in S. John xx. 5, + 6:—39 words in S. John xix. 20, 21. + + 131 Scrivener’s _Full Collation_, &c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles’ N. T. + Part II. page ii. + + 132 See Chap. IV. p. 37. + + 133 Scrivener’s _Introduction to Con. Bezae_, p. liv. + + 134 e.g. in S. John i. 42 (meaning only א, B, L): iv. 42 (א, B, C): v. + 12 (א, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, B, L), &c. + + 135 e.g. S. Matth. x. 25; xii. 24, 27: S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19 + (βεεζεβουλ).—1 Cor. xiii. 3 (καυχησωμαι).—S. James i. 17 + (αποσκιασματος).—Acts i. 5 (εν πν. βαπ. αγ.).—S. Mark vi. 20 + (ηπορει).—S. Matth. xiv. 30 (ισχυρον).—S. Luke iii. 32 (ἰωβηλ).—Acts + i. 19 (ἰδίᾳ omitted).—S. Matth. xxv. 27 (τα αργυρια).—S. Matth. + xvii. 22 (συστρεφομενων).—S. Luke vi. 1 (δευτεροπρῶτῳ omitted).—See + more in Tischendorf’s _Prolegomena_ to his 4to. reprint of the _Cod. + Sin._ p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to + Scrivener’s very interesting _Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus_, + Introduction, p. xliii. _seq._ + + 136 See Tischendorf’s note in his reprint of the Cod. Sin., _Prolegg._ + p. lix. + + 137 Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος—καταβαίνοντα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44. + + 138 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς—τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 34):—γράμμασιν Ἐλληνικοῖς καὶ + Ῥωμαῖκοῖς καὶ Ἐβραῖκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.) + + 139 αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και + αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this! + +_ 140 Coll. of the Cod. Sin._, p. xlvii. + + 141 So, in the margin of the Hharklensian revision. + + 142 Note, that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to + claim the _Latin_ versions as allies. Ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ἄνθρωπος + λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κ.τ.λ. is not “Respondit, Ille homo qui dicitur + Jesus,” (as both Tischendorf and Tregelles assume;) but “_Respondit + ille_, Homo,” &c.,—as in verses 25 and 36. + + 143 This reading will be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the end of + Chap. VII.,—p. 110. + + 144 The following may be added from Cod. א:—μεγάλοι αὐτῶν (in S. Mark x. + 42) changed into βασιλεις: ειπεν (in S. Mark xiv. 58) substituted + for ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτου λέγοντος: εβδομηκοντα τεσσαρων (in S. Lu. + ii. 37) for ὀγδοηκ: and εωρακεν σε (in S. Jo. viii. 57) for + ἑώρακας:—in all which four readings Cod. א is without support. + [Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. li.] The epithet μεγαν, introduced + (in the same codex) before λίθον in S. Mark xv. 46; and και πατριας + inserted into the phrase ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ in S. Lu. i. 27,—are two + more specimens of mistaken officiousness. In the same infelicitous + spirit, Cod. B and Cod. א concur in omitting ἰσχυρόν (S. Matt. xiv. + 30), and in substituting πυκνα for πυγμῇ, and ραντισωνται for + βαπτίσωνται in S. Mark vii. 3 and 4:—while the interpolation of + τασσομενος after ἐξουσίαν in S. Matth. viii. 9, because of the + parallel place in S. Luke’s Gospel; and the substitution of ανθρωπος + αυστηρος ει (from S. Luke xix. 21) for σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος in S. + Matth. xxv. 24, are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting + influence has been here at work besides those which have been + already specified. + + 145 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xlvii. + + 146 Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for ἐξελθ. Chrys.^834 + (twice,) (also quoted in Cramer’s _Cat._ 241). The mistake adverted + to in the text is at least as old as the time of Eusebius, (Mai, iv. + p. 264 = 287), who asks,—Πῶς παρά τῷ Ματθάιῳ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία μετὰ + τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἔξω τοῦ μνήματος ἑώρακεν τὸν ἕνα ἄγγελον + ἐπικαθήμενον τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ μνήματος, κ.τ.λ. + + 147 Tischendorf accordingly _is forced_, for once, to reject the reading + of his oracle א,—witnessed to though it be by Origen and Eusebius. + His discussion of the text in this place is instructive and even + diverting. How is it that such an instance as the present does not + open the eyes of Prejudice itself to the danger of pinning its faith + to the consentient testimony even of Origen, of Eusebius, and of + Cod. א?... The reader is reminded of what was offered above, in the + lower part of p. 49. + + 148 A similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S. Luke + iv. 44, (cf. the parallel place, S. Matth. iv. 23: S. Mark i. 89). + It does not mend the matter to find א supported this time by Codd. + B, C, L, Q, R. + + 149 S. Lu. xxiii. 45:—ὅπερ οὐδέποτε πρότερον συνέβη, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν Αἰγύπτω + μόνον, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα τελεῖσθαι ἔμελλε; καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα τούτων τύπος + ἦν. (Chrys. vii. 824 c.) + + 150 ὅπως δὲ μὴ εἰπωσί τινες ἔκλειψιν εἶναι τὸ γεγενημένον, ἐν τῇ + τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη ἡμέρᾳ τῆς σελήνης γἐγονε τὸ σκότος:—ὅτε ἔκλειψιν + συμβῆναι ἀμήχανον. So Victor of Antioch, in his Catena on S. Mark + (ed. Possin.) He makes the remark twice: first (p. 351) in the midst + of an abridgment of the beginning of Chrysostom’s 88th Homily on S. + Matthew: next (p. 352) more fully, after quoting “the great + Dionysius” of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on the + same subject in Cramer’s _Catena in Matth._ i. p. 237,—from whom + derived, I know not; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note, + that the 10 lines ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου, beginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys. + vii. 824, D, E.) The very next words in Chrysostom’s published + Homily (p. 825 A.) are as follows:—Ὅτε γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ἔκλειψις, αλλ᾽ + ὀργή τε καὶ ἀγανάκτησις, οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ + τοῦ καιροῦ; τρεῖς γἀρ ὥρας παρέμεινεν, ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ γίνεται + καιροῦ ῥοπῇ.—Anyone who would investigate this matter further should + by all means read Matthaei’s long note on S. Luke xxiii. 45. + + 151 See above, p. 70, and the Appendix (F). + + 152 Tischendorf’s “_Introduction_” to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the + English N.T., 1869,—p. xiii. + + 153 “Epistola quam nos ‘ad Ephesios’ præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero + ’ad Laodicenos.” _Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.) + + 154 “ ‘Titulum’ enim ‘_ad Laodicenos_’ ut addidisse accusatur a + Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba ἐν Ἐφέσῳ omnino non legisse + censendus est.” (N. T. _in loc._) + + 155 “Ecclesiæ quidem veritate Epistolam istam ‘ad Ephesios’ habemus + emissam, non ‘ad Laodicenos;’ sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando + interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.” + _Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.) + + 156 ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἰκανῶν. (Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 310 c.) + + 157 He describes its structure minutely at vol. i. pp. 309-310, and from + pp. 312-7; 318-321. [Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has + crept into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321 D: pointed out + long since by Jones, _On the Canon_, ii. 38.] His plan is excellent. + Marcion had rejected every Gospel except S. Luke’s, and of S. Paul’s + Epistles had retained only ten,—viz. (1st) Galatians, (2nd and 3rd) + I and II Corinthians, (4th) Romans, (5th and 6th) I and II + Thessalonians, (7th) _Ephesians_, (8th) Colossians, (9th) Philemon, + (10th) Philippians. Even these he had mutilated and depraved. And + yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78 + passages, (pp. 312-7), and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40 + passages more (pp. 318-21); by means of which 118 texts he + undertakes to refute the heresy of Marcion. (pp. 322-50: 350-74.) + [It will be perceived that Tertullian goes over Marcion’s work in + much the same way.] Very beautiful, and well worthy of the student’s + attention, (though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form,) + is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy of GOD’S + Word, even when dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape. + “Ὅλου γὰρ τοῦ σώματος ζῶντος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τῆς θείας γραφῆς, ποῖον + ηὕρισκε (sc. Marcion) μέλος νεκρὸν κατὰ τῆν αὐτοῦ γνώμην, ἵνα + παρεισαγάγη ψεῦδος κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας; ... παρέκοψε πολλὰ τῶν μελῶν, + κατέσχε δὲ ἔνιά τινα παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ; καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ κατασχεθέντα ἔτι + ζῶντα οὐ δύναται νεκροῦσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ ζωτικὸν τῆς ἐμφάσεως, + κᾴν τε μυρίως παρ᾽ αὐτῷ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἀποτμηθείν.” (p. 375 B.) He + seems to say of Marcion,— + + Fool! to suppose thy shallow wits + Could quench a fire like that. Go, learn + That cut into ten thousand bits + Yet every bit would breathe and burn! + + 158 He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius, + _Opp._ i. p. 318 and 371-2.) + +_ 159 Ibid._ p. 318 C ( = 371 B), and 319 A ( = 374 A.) + +_ 160 Ibid._ p. 319 and 374. But note, that through error in the copies, + or else through inadvertence in the Editor, the depravation + commented on at p. 374 B, C, is lost sight of at p. 319 B. + + 161 See below, at the end of the next note. + + 162 Προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Ἀποστολικῷ καλουμένῳ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πρὸς + Λαοδικέας:—“Εῖς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα, εἶς Χριστὸς, εἶς + Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.” + (Epiphan. _Opp._ vol i. p. 374.) Here is obviously a hint of τριῶν + ἀνάρχων ἀρχῶν διαφορὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἐξουσῶν: [Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ + ματαιόφρονος δίδαγμα, εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς μοναρχίας τομὴν καὶ + διαίρεσιν. Athanas. i. 231 E.] but, (says Epiphanius), οὐχ οὕτως + ἔχει ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀποστόλου ὑπόθεσις καὶ ἠσφαλισμένον κήρυγμα. ἀλλὰ + ἄλλως παρὰ τὸ σὸν ποιήτευμα. Then he contrasts with the + “fabrication” of Marcion, the inspired verity,—Eph. iv. 5: declaring + ἕνα Θεὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων,—τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ ἐν + πᾶσι, κ.τ.λ.—p. 374 C. + + Epiphanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained materials ἐκτὸς + τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου; οὐ γὰρ ἔδοξε τῷ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ + Μαρκίωνι ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν λέγειν, (sc. the + words quoted above,) ἀλλὰ τῆς πρὸς Λαοδικέας, τῆς μὴ οὔσης ἐν τῷ + Ἀποστόλῳ (p. 375 A.) (Epiphanius here uses Ἀπόστολος in its + technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with S. Paul’s Epistles.) + + 163 “Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—”Ἐπὶ μόνων Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ “τοῖς + ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;” καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ + “τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,” τί δύναται σημαίνειν; ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ + ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδω ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεί τὸ ὬΝ οὕτως οἱ + μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται “ὄντες.” καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ + εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι. “ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,” φησὶν ὁ + αὐτὸς Παῦλος, “ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση.”—Cramer’s _Catena in Ephes._ + i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102. + + 164 Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: xii. 14, &c. + + 165 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽ + ἐπιγνώσεως, “ὄντας” αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών: “τοῖς ἀγίοις + τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.” οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν + παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. + Note also what immediately follows. (Basil _Opp._ i. p. 254 E, 255 + A.) + + 166 See the places quoted by Scrivener, _Introd._ pp. 381-91; + particularly p. 385. + + 167 Hieron. _Opp._ vol. vii. p. 543:—“Illud quoque in Præfatione + commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam + conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.” + + 168 “Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum + est ‘Haec dices filiis Israel, QUI EST misit me,’ etiam eos qui + Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf. ‘qui sunt Ephesi,’ _Vulg._] sancti et + fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... ab EO ‘qui est,’ hi + ‘qui sunt’ appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, non ad eos ‘qui + sint,’ sed ‘qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint’ scriptum + arbitrantur.” Hieron. _Opp._ vii. p. 545 A, B. + + 169 The cursive “Cod. No. 67” (or “672”) is improperly quoted as + “omitting” (Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the + Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our + Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who + says of it (p. 496),—“_cod. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat_.” ... The MS. + must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in his + _Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece_, &c. Havn. 1773, pp. + 62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in his _Libellus Criticus de indole Cod. + MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv._ &c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have + been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. B itself. + + 170 So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener’s _Collation_, p. + xlix. + + 171 Scrivener’s _Introduction to Codex Bezae_, p. liv. + + 172 Scrivener, _Coll. of Cod. Sin._ p. xlv. + + 173 Eph. vi. 21, 22. + + 174 Coloss. iv. 7, 16. + +_ 175 Ubi suprà_. + +_ 176 Gnomon_, in Ephes. i. 1, _ad init._ + + 177 See above, pp. 93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (_ad + Ephes._ c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner, + vol. ii. + + 178 Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for + accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and א, that nothing + whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their + ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in + question remain, by their own admission, _defective_. + + Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses + alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1) _To leave + a blank space_ after τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2) _To let the words_ ἐν + Ἐφέσῳ _stand_,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they + can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (_Life and Letters of S. + Paul_, ii. 491), to eject the words “at Ephesus” from the text of + Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words “in + Laodicea,”—is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational + criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff) + have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford + (vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp. 13-8); who infers, “in accordance with the + prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle was + _veritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus_, and _to no other + Church_.”] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity; + viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (“carta + bianca”) copy of the Epistle looked with “the space after τοῖς οὔσι + left utterly void:” in the latter, they will be representing the + archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus. + But by printing the text thus,—τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσω] καὶ + πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., they are acting on an entirely different theory. + They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS. + in the world except Codd. B and א. This is clearly to forsake the + “Encyclical” hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the + same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be + named. + + 179 Ἐγκύκλιον ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii + interpretantur _literas circulares_: ego cum viris doctis malim + _Epistolas_ vel _literas publicas_, ad omnes fideles pertinentes, + quas Græci aliàs vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicer _in voce_. + + 180 Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicer _in voce_, + Ἐγκύκλιος. + + 181 Routh’s _Reliquiæ_, vol. iii. p. 266.—“Tum ex Conciliis, tum ex + aliis Patrum scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiao Patres + acta et decreta Conciliorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere + per epistolas, quas non uni privatim dicârunt, sed publice describi + ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulgari, atque cum omnibus populis + communicari voluerunt. Hac igitur epistolae ἐγκύκλιοι vocatae sunt, + quia κυκλόσε, quoquò versum et in omnem partem mittebantur.”—Suicer + _in voc._ + + 182 “On the whole,” says Bishop Middleton, (_Doctrine of the Greek Art._ + p. 355) “I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on + Col. iv. 16,)—‘that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus, + who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans; + with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.’ ”—This + suggestion is intended to meet _another_ difficulty, and leaves the + question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only + to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is + found in Col. iv. 16. + + Macknight’s suggestion, though it has found favour with many + subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S. + Paul is found not to have sent _the Colossians_ “word by Tychicus, + who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.” + He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the + Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of + achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this + roundabout method of communication, were not _the Ephesians_ + ordered,—if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a + copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the + Colossians charged to read publicly τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, which (by the + hypothesis) would have been only a copy,—instead of τὴν ἐξ Ἐφέσου, + which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay, + why is it not designated by S. Paul, τὴν πρὸς Ἐφεσίους,—(if indeed + it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of + τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; which would hardly be an intelligible way of + indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered + to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of + the _Ephesians_ also, which had been originally addressed by S. + Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their + own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the + Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the + Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the + Colossians! + + 183 Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 311 D. + + 184 “Marcion exerte et palam machæra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad + materiam suam cædem Scripturarum confecit.” (Tertullian _Præscript. + Hær._ c. 38, p. 50.) “Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas + totas plerumque subducat.” (_Adv. Marcion._ lib. v, c. xvii, p. + 455.) + + 185 See above p. 95, and see note (f) p. 94. + + 186 See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp. + 13-15. + + 187 p. xiv.—See above, pp. 8, 9, note (f). + + 188 One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly + represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the + largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of + statement. The facts are these:— + + (1) Valentt. (_apud_ Irenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus + (_apud_ Clem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens + Alex., and (3) Theodotus (_apud_ Clem.) _also_ read ἦν. These + testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also + has _both_ readings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but + Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is “perhaps not an improbable + reading,”) reads ἦν _ten or eleven times_. Ἦν is also the reading of + Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the + Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian + Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact of _all the MSS. in the + world_, except of א and D. + + All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and + Cureton’s Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin. + + And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that + it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings + must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a + question of authority, and reason from _the evidence_,—declining to + import into the argument what may be called _logical_ + considerations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I + suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age + of reading the place after the following strange fashion,—ὁ γέγονεν + ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril + in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3, + 4. And to substitute ἐστί (for ἦν) in such a sentence as _that_, was + obvious.... Chrysostom’s opinion is well known, “Let us beware of + putting the full stop” (he says) “at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as do the + heretics.” [He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig. _Opp._ i. + 130), and to Theodotus (_apud_ Clem. Alex.). But it must be + confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (_Routh, Opusc._ i. 68), Clemens + Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D. 269, _Routh_ iii. 293), + Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the + Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (_Routh_ iii. 459), and + Augustine,—point the place in the same way. “It is worth our + observation,” (says Pearson,) “that Eusebius citing the place of S. + John to prove that the HOLY GHOST was made by the SON, leaves out + those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute + that heresy of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.”] + + Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out that THE SPIRIT is a + creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the + Evangelist’s language is made unintelligible.” (_Opp._ viii. + 40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not + by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson’s note, + referred to _infrà_), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the + sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson’s _note_ + (_z_), ART. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh’s _Opusc._ i. + 88-9. + + 189 It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous + Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself + chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of + the Codex Sinaiticus:— + + (1.) S. JOHN i. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.) S. MATTH. xiii. 35: το + ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.) S. JOHN xiii. 10: ο λελουμενος + ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.) S. JOHN vi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του + εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του + κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to + be “indubitably correct.”) + + On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might + have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the + private property of the single Codex א. The last three are + absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to + reject them: the second (of which Jerome says something _very_ + different from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more + of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired + Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the + third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness + of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) he has + _dropped a line_: thus:— + + ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙ + ΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙ + ΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ + + The first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p. + 110. + + 190 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves + careful study. + + 191 Deut. xvi. 19. + +_ 192 Printed Text_, p. 254. + + 193 Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, + 138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222. + + 194 Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his + reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan. + 15, 19, 299 (?) respectively. + +_ 195 Variae Lectiones_, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358, + 756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181): + Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89, + Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (_leg._ 5 ?) S. Mariæ Bened. + Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.) + +_ 196 Nov. Test._ vol. i. p. 199. + + 197 Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138. + + 198 Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua + Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam + dubias notarent.—_Variae Lectiones_, &c. p. 225. + + 199 In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, + + occurs at xi. 12, xii. 38, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such + sign occurs at the _pericope de adulterá_. + + 200 Further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in the + Appendix (D). + + 201 Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our + 36,) against S. Mark xvi. 9, is this sign [symbol: inverse or open + x]. It is intended (like an asterisk in a modern book) to refer the + reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as + occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occur in the + margin of the Paris MS. also. + + 202 ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς + ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188, + 186.) + + 203 See more concerning this matter in the Appendix (D), _ad fin._ + + 204 At the end of S. Matthew’s Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is + found,— + + εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις + παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδ + + and at the end of S. Mark’s, (at fol. 147 _b_)— + + εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν + ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξ + + This second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20. + _Both_ reappear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an interesting + variety in the former of the two) in [what I suppose is the first + half of] the uncial Codex Λ. See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 125. + + 205 = Paris 72, _fol._ 107 _b_. He might have added, (for Wetstein had + pointed it out 79 years before,) that _the same note precisely_ is + found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,) _fol._ 98 + _b_. + + 206 See more at the very end of Chap. XI. + + 207 Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10) + contain as follows:— + + ἔν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς, ἕως οἱ + καὶ Ἐυσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν; ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ ταῦτα φέρεται; + ἀναστὰς, κ.τ.λ. + + But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [_lege_ + 5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has + only this:— + + ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα. + + 208 It originated in this way. At the end of S. Matthew’s Gospel, in + both Codices, are found those large extracts from the “2nd Hom. on + the Resurrection” which Montfaucon published in the _Bibl. Coisl._ + (pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since reprinted at the end of his + _Catena in S. Matth._ (i. 243-251.) In Codd. 34 and 39 they are + ascribed to “Severus of Antioch.” See above (p. 40.) See also pp. 39 + and 57. + + 209 See above, pp. 64, 65. + + 210 22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20. + + 211 viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 208, 209:—20, 300:—15, 22. + + 212 Cod. Λ, 20, 262, 300. + + 213 Evan. 374. + + 214 viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137, + 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (Birch _Varr. Lectt_. p. + 225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the + Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by Matthaei. + + 215 2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding + note) = 24. + + 216 Paris 62, _olim,_ 2861 and 1558. + + 217 See the facsimile.—The original, (which knows nothing of + Tischendorf’s crosses,) reads as follows:— + + ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥ + ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ + + ΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗ + ΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣ + ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝ + + ΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗ + ΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑ + ΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡ + Ο ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ + ΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣ + ἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙ + ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ + ΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗ + ΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩ + ΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣ + + ΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ + ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟ + ΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟ + ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ + + ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙ + ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩ + + _i.e._—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα + + Πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τον Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήλλειλαν: + μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως + ἐξαπέστειλεν δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου + σωτηρίας. + + Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. + + Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου. + + 218 As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two + Æthiopic MSS.—I am unable to understand what Scholz and his copyists + have said concerning Cod. 274. I was assured again and again at + Paris that they knew of no such codex as “Reg, 79a,” which is + Scholz’ designation (_Prolegg._ p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which, + after him, we number “274.” + + 219 Nec AMMONII Sectionibus, nec EUSEBII Canonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi + versus.—Tisch. _Nov. Test._ (_ed. 8va_), p. 406. + +_ 220 Printed Text_, p. 248. + + 221 The reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for + himself:—Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν + καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν + εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν + περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὥς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν + τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὅφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως. + + 222 Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ, + εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τό πους, ἐν οἷς + κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν φιλαληθῶς εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ + προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμὰς, καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας + δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. + + 223 This seems to represent _exactly_ what Eusebius means in this place. + The nearest English equivalent to ἀφορμή is “a hint.” Consider + Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ v. 27. Also the following:—πολλὰς λαβόντες + ἀφορμάς. (Andreas, _Proleg. in Apocalyps._).—λαβόντες τὰς ἀφρμάς. + (Anastasius Sin., _Routh’s Rell._ i. 15.) + + 224 κανόνας ... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This at least is + decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome + says of Ammonius,—“_Evangelicos canones excogitavit_ quos postea + secutus est Eusebius Cæsariensis,” (_De Viris Illust._ c. lv. vol. + ii. p. 881,) we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand + gain statements of this Father are entitled. + + What else can be inferred from the account which Eusebius gives of + the present sectional division of the Gospels but that it was also + his own?—Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τὼν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις: ἡ δὲ + σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων + ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα + δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προιὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους + τοῦ βιβλίου. He proceeds to explain how the sections thus numbered + are to be referred to his X Canons:—καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν + ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρόκειται, δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα + κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει. + + 225 “Frustra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Quæ + supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.” + (Tischendorf _on S. Mark_ xvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he + assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to + light in the vith century, and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was + the lost work of Ammonius, (_Proleg._ p. 63, § 660,)—was of course + warranted in appealing to the authority of Ammonius _in support_ of + the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But in truth Mill’s + assumption cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has + convincingly shewn. (_Proleg._ p. 68.) Any one may easily satisfy + himself of the fact who will be at the pains to examine a few of the + chapters with attention, bearing in mind what Eusebius has said + concerning the work of Ammonius. Cap. lxxiv, for instance, contains + as follows:—Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. 33. Mtt. xiii. 34, 35: 10, + 11. Mk. iv. 34. Mtt. xiii. 13 to 17. But here it is _S. Matthew’s + Gospel_ which is dislocated,—for verses 10, 11, and 13 to 17 of ch. + xiii. come _after_ verses 33-35; while ver. 12 has altogether + disappeared. + + The most convenient edition for reference is Schmeller’s,—_Ammonii + Alexandrini quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum_. (Vienna, + 1841.) + + 226 Only by the merest license of interpretation can εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς be + assumed to mean that Eusebius had found the four Gospels ready + divided to his hand by Ammonius into exactly 1165 sections,—every + one of which he had simply adopted for his own. Mill, (who + nevertheless held this strange opinion,) was obliged to invent the + wild hypothesis that Eusebius, _besides_ the work of Ammonius which + he describes, must have found in the library at Cæsarea the private + copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ammonius,—an unique volume, in + which the last-named Father (as he assumes) will have numbered the + Sections and made them exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss + such a notion. We are dealing with facts,—not with fictions. + + 227 For proofs of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks + on the (so-called) “Ammonian” Sections, the reader is referred to + the Appendix (G). + + 228 See above, p. 128, note (f). + + 229 See above, p. 125. + + 230 As a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are noted + _without_ the Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in the + Appendix (G). + + 231 τέσσαρα εἰσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξηκονταδύο. The + words are most unexpectedly, (may I not say _suspiciously_?), found + in Epiphanius, _Ancor._ 50, (_Opp._ ii. 54 B.) + + 232 By Tischendorf, copying Mill’s _Proleg._ p. 63, § 662:—the fontal + source, by the way, of the twin references to “Epiphanius and + Cæsarius.” + + 233 Comp. Epiph. (_Ancor._ 50,) _Opp._ ii. 53 C to 55 A, with Galland. + _Bibl._ vi. 26 C to 27 A. + + 234 Galland. _Bibl._ vi. 147 A. + + 235 Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112).—It it only fair to add that Davidson is not + alone in this statement. In substance, it has become one of the + common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of S. + Mark’s Gospel is spurious. + + 236 See Possini _Cat._ p. 363. + + 237 Ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. [= ver. 9] ταύτην Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς + πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἑτέραν λέγει Μαρίαν παρὰ τὴν θεασαμένην τὸν νεανίσκον. + ἥ καὶ ἀμφότεραι ἐκ τῆς Μαγδαληνῆς ἢσαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν + περιπατοῦσι. καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς [= ver. 12.] τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Κλέοπαν, καθὼς ὁ + Λουκᾶς ἱστορεῖ, (Possini sini _Cat._ p. 364):—Where it will be seen + that _Text_ (κείμενον) and _Interpretation_ (ἑρμηνεία) are + confusedly thrown together. “Anonymus [Vaticanus]” also quotes S. + Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109, _ad fin._—Matthaei (N.T. ii. + 269),—overlooking the fact that “_Anonymus Vaticanus_” (or simply + “_Anonymus_”) and “_Anonymus Tolosanus_” (or simply “_Tolosanus_”) + denote two distinct Codices,—falls into a mistake himself while + contradicting our learned countryman Mill, who says,—“Certe Victor + Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. ver. 8] nec ultra + commentantur.”—Scholz’ dictum is,—“Commentatorum qui in catenis SS. + Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ + exhibetur.” + + 238 See above pp. 62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such + Collections as the _Magna Bibliotheca Vett. PP._ (1618,) vol. iv. p. + 330, col. 2 E, F.—For the Greek, see Possini _Catena_, pp. 359-61. + + 239 See above, pp. 64-5, and Appendix (E). + + 240 Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20. + +_ 241 Introduction_, &c. ii. p. 113. + +_ 242 Nov. Test._ Ed. 8va i. p. 406. + +_ 243 Developed Crit._ pp. 51-2. + + 244 ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist. _Eth. + Nic._ I. iii. + + 245 To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener be it said, that _he_ at + least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all “to the + argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged + difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.” See by all means + his remarks on this subject. (_Introduction_, pp. 431-2.)—One would + have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English + Poem,—which some able men were confident _might_ have been written + by Milton, while others were just as confident that it could not + possibly be his,—ought to have opened the eyes of all to the + precarious nature of such Criticism. + + 246 Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—“Professor of + Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist + Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,”—the author of an able and + convincing paper entitled “Exegetical Studies” in “_The Baptist + Quarterly_” for July, 1869 (Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which “the + words and phrases” contained in S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively + examined. + + If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor’s + hands, he will perceive that I must have written the present Chapter + _before_ I knew of his labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr. + Scrivener’s kindness:) my treatment of the subject and his own being + so entirely different. But it is only due to Professor Broadus to + acknowledge the interest and advantage with which I have compared my + lucubrations with his, and the sincere satisfaction with which I + have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at + precisely the same result. + + 247 Dr. Kay’s _Crisis Hupfeldiana_, p. 34,—the most masterly and + instructive exposure of Bp. Colenso’s incompetence and presumption + which has ever appeared. Intended specially of _his_ handling of the + writings of Moses, the remarks in the text are equally applicable to + much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end + of S. Mark’s Gospel. + + 248 S. Matth. viii. 1 (καταβάντι αὐτῷ):—5 (εἰσελθόντι τω Ἰ.):—23 + (ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ):—28 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ):—ix. 27 (παράγοντι τῷ Ἰ.):—28 + (ἐλθόντι):—xxi. 23 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ). + +_ 249 On the Creed_, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.) + + 250 τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ + διαφωνεῖ τὰληθές. Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ I. c. vi. + + 251 Davidson’s _Introduction_, &c. i. 170. + + 252 And yet, if it were ever so “sententious,” ever so “abrupt;” and if + his “brief notices” were over so “loosely linked together;”—these, + _according to Dr. Davidson_, would only be indications that S. Mark + actually _was_ their Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark’s + “characteristics,” at p. 151:—“In the consecution of his narrations, + Mark _puts them together very loosely_.” “Mark is also characterised + by a _conciseness_ and apparent incompleteness of delineation which + are allied to the obscure.” “The _abrupt_ introduction” of many of + his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, and + illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common + sense, is the value of such criticism as this? What is to be thought + of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath: denying at + p. 170 the genuineness of a certain portion of Scripture _because_ + it exhibits the very peculiarities which at p. 151 he had + volunteered the information are _characteristic_ of its reputed + Author? + + 253 N.T. vol. i. _Prolegg._ p. 38. + + 254 It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words + and expressions about to be considered:— + + (i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (_ver._ 9.)—See above. + + (ii.) ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνθα (_ver._ 9.)—See p. 152. + + (iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (_ver._ 9.)—See p. 153. + + (iv.) πορεύεσθαι (_vers._ 10, 12, 15.)—_Ibid._ + + (v.) οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι (_ver._ 10.)—See p. 155. + + (vi.) θεᾶσθαι (_ver._ 11 and 14.)—See p. 156. + + (vii.) θεαθῆναι (_ver._ 11.)—See p. 158. + + (viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (_ver._ 11 and 16.)—_Ibid._ + + (ix.) μετὰ ταῦτα (_ver._ 12.)—See p. 159. + + (x.) ἕτερος (_ver._ 12.)—See p. 160. + + (xi) ὅστερον (_ver._ 14.)—_Ibid._ + + (xii.) βλάπτειν (_ver._ 18.)—_Ibid._ + + (xiii.) πανταχοῦ (_ver._ 20.)—See p. 161. + + (xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν—βεβαιοῦν (_ver._ 20.)—_Ibid._ + + (xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (_ver._ 15.)—_Ibid._ + + (xvii.) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (_ver._ 17.)—See p. 162. + + (xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (_ver._ 17 and 19.)—See + p. 163. + + (xx.) χεῖρας ἐπιθεῖναι ἐρί τινα (_ver._ 18.)—See p. 164. + + (xxi. and xxii.) μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (_ver._ 19 and 20.)—_Ibid._ + + (xxiii.) ἀναληφθῆναι (_ver._ 19.)—See p. 166. + + (xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (_verses_ 10, 11 [and + 13?].)—_Ibid._ + + (xxv.) “Verses without a copulative,” (_verses_ 10 and 14.)—_Ibid._ + + (xxvi. and xxvii.) Absence of εὐθέως and πάλιν.—See p. 168. + + 255 S. Luke vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9: xiii. 10, 14, 15, 16. S. Luke has, in + fact, all the four different designations for the Sabbath which are + found in the Septuagint version of the O. T. Scriptures: for, in the + Acts (xiii. 14: xvi. 13), he twice calls it ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων. + + 256 S. Matth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12. + + 257 It occurs in S. Matth. xxviii. 1. S. Mark xvi. 2. S. Luke xxiv. 1. + S. John xx. i. 19. Besides, only in Acts xx. 7. + +_ 258 Introduction_, &c. i. 169. + + 259 See the foregoing note. + + 260 See Buxtorf’s _Lexicon Talmudicum_, p. 2323. + + 261 Lightfoot (on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul’s phrase + κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων,—“תבשב דהב [_b’had b’shabbath_,] ‘_In the first_ + [lit. _one_] _of the Sabbath_,’ would the Talmudists say.”—Professor + Gandell writes,—“in Syriac, the days of the week are similarly + named. See Bernstein [lit. _one in the Sabbath_, _two in the + Sabbath_, _three in the Sabbath._]” + + 262 S. Mark xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12. + + 263 The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably תבש + (_shabbath_): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more nearly + than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש + (_shabbatha:_) the final א (_a_) being added for emphasis, as in + Abb_a_, Aceldam_a_, Bethesd_a_, Ceph_a_, Pasch_a_, _&c_.: and this + form,—(I owe the information to my friend Professor + Gandell,)—because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine, + (who spoke Aramaic,) _gave rise to another form of the Greek name + for the Sabbath_,—viz. σάββατα: which, naturally enough, attracted + the article (τό) into agreement with its own (apparently) plural + form. By the Greek-speaking population of Judæa, the Sabbath day was + therefore indifferently called το σαββατον and τα σαββατα: sometimes + again, η ημερα του σαββατου, and sometimes η ημερα των σαββατων. + + Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. + (Accordingly, it is _invariably_ rendered “_Sabbatum_” in the + Vulgate.) Thus, in Exod. xvi. 23,—σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις ἁγία τῷ Κυρίῳ: + and 25,—ἔστι γὰρ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις τῷ Κυρίῳ. Again,—τῇ δὲ ἡμέρα τῇ + ἑβδόμη σάββατα. (Exod. xvi. 26: xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in + the Gospel, what took place on _one definite Sabbath-day_, is said + to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10. S. Mark xii. 1.) + + It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form ἐν τοῖς + σάββασι is strictly equivalent to ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ; and was adopted for + convenience in contradistinction to ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις (1 Chron. + xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where Sabbath _days_ are spoken of. + + It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for + “weeks;” though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough) + there rendered the word ἑβδομάδας. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same + word occurs twice,) it is once rendered ἀναπαύσεις; once, ἑβδομάδες. + Quite distinct is עובש (_shavooa_) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any + substitution of the one word for the other. But inasmuch as the + recurrence of the _Sabbath-day_ was what constituted _a week_; in + other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish + division of time, was the recurrence of the Jewish day of rest;—τὸ + σάββατον or τὰ σάββατα, the Hebrew name for _the day of rest_, + became transferred to _the week_. The former designation, (as + explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark, once by S. Luke; + while the phrase μία τῶν σαββάτων occurs in the N.T., in all, six + times. + + 264 So Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._ ii. 15), and Jerome (_De Viris Illust._ + ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also + Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ vi. 14.—The colophon in the Syriac Version + shews that the same traditional belief prevailed in the Eastern + Church. It also finds record in the _Synopsis Scripturæ_ (wrongly) + ascribed to Athanasius. + + 265 παρασκευὴ, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον.—Our E. V. “preparation” is from + Augustine,—“Parasceue Latine præparatio est.”—See Pearson’s + interesting note on the word. + + 266 Consider Rom. xvi. 13. + + 267 Townson’s _Discourses_, i. 172. + +_ 268 Ibid._ + + 269 See the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark xvi. 2 and of S. John xx. 19. In + the same version, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered + “_una sabbati_.” + + 270 Davidson’s _Introduction_, &c. i. 169, _ed._ 1848: (ii. 113, _ed._ + 1868.) + + 271 “Maria Magdalene ipsa est ‘a quâ septem dæmonia expulerat’: _ut ubi + abundaverat peccatum, superabundant gratiæ_.” (Hieron. _Opp._ i. + 327.) + + 272 So Tischendorf,—“Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽ + ἦσ ἐκβεβλήκει ε. δ.” (p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same + remark reiterated by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p. + 52. + +_ 273 Introduction_, &c. vol. i. p. 169. + + 274 viz. in chap. vii. 26. + + 275 Professor Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject. + + 276 Consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion + alluded to, in Acts i. 13, 14. Note also what is clearly implied by + ver. 21-6, as to the persons who were _habitually_ present at such + gatherings. + + 277 S. Luke (v. 27) has ἐθεασατο τελώνην. S. Matthew (ix. 9) and S. Mark + (ii. 14) have preferred εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον (Λευίν τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου) + καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον. + + 278 See S. Matth. ix. 9. + + 279 One is reminded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefully + _reserves_ the verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the + contemplation of the SAVIOUR’S Cross and of the SAVIOUR’S Sepulchre. + + 280 S. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 5. S. Mark xvi. 11. + + 281 Πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, (vi. 1); and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, (xxiii. 5). + + 282 S. Luke xii. 4. + + 283 S. Matth. x. 28. + + 284 S. Mark iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9. + + 285 Professor Broadus, _ubi suprà_. + + 286 Col i. 15, 23. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13. + + 287 παραβάλλειν [I quote from the Textus Receptus of S. Mark iv. + 30,—confirmed as it is by the Peshito and the Philoxenian, the Vetus + and the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Armenian versions,—besides Codd. + A and D, and all the other uncials (except B, L, Δ, א,) and almost + every cursive Codex. The evidence of Cod. C and of Origen is + doubtful. _Who_ would subscribe to the different reading adopted on + countless similar occasions by the most recent Editors of the + N.T.?]: παραγγέλλειν: παράγειν: παραγίνεσθαι: παραδιδόναι: + παραλαμβάνειν: παρατηρεῖν: παρατιθέναι: παραφέρειν: παρέρχεσθαι: + παρέχειν: παριστάνει.—ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι: ἐπαισχύνεσθαι: ἐπανίστασθαι: + ἐπερωτᾷν: ἐπιβάλλειν: ἐπιγινώσκειν: ἐπιγράφειν: ἐπιζητεῖν: + ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι: ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι: ἐπιλύειν: ἐπιπίπτειν: ἐπιρράπτειν: + ἐπισκιάζειν: ἐπιστρέφειν: ἐπισυνάγειν: ἐπισυντρέχειν: ἐπιτάσσειν: + ἐπιτιθέναι: ἐπιτιμᾷν: ἐπιτρέπειν. + + 288 S. Mark v. 23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23. + + 289 S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix. 13, 15. + + 290 See below, pp. 184-6. + + 291 See Pearson _on the Creed_, (ed. Burton), vol. i. p. 151. + +_ 292 Ibid._ p. 183,—at the beginning of the exposition of “_Our _LORD.” + + 293 S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2. + + 294 Alford. + + 295 Davidson. + + 296 Exactly so Professor Broadus:—“Now it will not do to say that while + no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be + foreign to Mark, the whole of them combined will do so. It is very + true that the multiplication of _littles_ may amount to much; but + not so the multiplication of _nothings_. And how many of the + expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our + examination, to retain the slightest real force as proving + difference of authorship? Is it not true that most of them, and + those the most important, are reduced to absolutely nothing, while + the remainder possess scarcely any appreciable significance?”—p. + 360, (see above, p. 139, note g.) + + 297 S. John has πάλιν (47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times). + And yet, πάλιν is not met with in the iind, or the iiird, or the + vth, or the viith, or the xvth, or the xviith chapter of S. John’s + Gospel. + +_ 298 Printed Text_, p. 256. + + 299 It will be found that of the former class (1) are the + following:—Article iii: vii: ix: x: xi: xii: xiii: xiv: xv: xxi: + xxiv: xxv: xxvi: xxvii. Of the latter (2):—Art. i: ii: iv: v: vi: + viii: xvi: xvii: xviii: xix: xx: xxii: xxiii. + + 300 Ch. xiii. 16,—ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ὤν: and ch. xv. 21,—ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ + ἀγροῦ,—an expression which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the + corresponding place of his Gospel, viz. in ch. xxiii. 26. + + 301 See above, p. 146. + + 302 The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in + the pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded + to:—“It occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses, + (xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by a curious coincidence, the words and + expressions not elsewhere employed by Mark, footed up precisely the + same number, seventeen. Those noticed are the following (text of + Tregelles):—ver. 44, τέθηκεν (elsewhere ἀποθνήσκο):—ver. 45, γνοὺς + ἀπό, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament: also + ἐδωρήσατο and πτῶμα: ver. 46, ἐνείλησεν, λελατομημένον, πέτρας, + προσεκύλισεν:—chap. xvi. ver. 1, διαγενομένου, and ἀρώματα: ver. 2, + μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων:—ver. 3, ἀποκυλίσει:—ver. 4, ἀνεκεκύλισται. Also, + σφόδρα, (Mark’s word is λίαν.) Ver. 5, ἀν τοῖς δεξιοῖς is a + construction not found in Mark, or the other Gospels, though the + word δεξιός occurs frequently:—ver. 8, εἶχεν, in this particular + sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament: τρόμος. + + “This list is perhaps not complete, for it was prepared in a few + hours—about as much time, it may be said, without disrespect, as + Fritsche and Meyer appear to have given to their collections of + examples from the other passage. It is not proposed to discuss the + list, though some of the instances are curious. It is not claimed + that they are all important, but that they are all real. And as + regards the single question of the _number_ of peculiarities, they + certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford + has laid stress.”—p. 361. + + 303 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. + + 304 S. Mark i. 9: 14: 20. + + 305 The same word is found also in S. Luke’s narrative of the same + event, ch. xxiv. 13. + + 306 On which, Victor of Antioch (if indeed it be he) finely + remarks,—Σχίζονται δὲ οἱ οὐρονοὶ, ἢ κατὰ Ματθαον ἀνοίγονται, ἵνα + τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀποδοθῇ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἁγιασμὸς, καὶ συναφθῇ τος + ἐπιγείοις τὰ οὐράνια.—(Cramer i. p. 271.) + + 307 Disc. v. Sect. ii. + + 308 This appears to be the true reading. + + 309 So Chrysostom:—ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι “καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα,” ταῦτα + ἔλεγεν. [vii. 526 a].—He seems to have derived that remark from + Origen [_in Matth._ ed. Huet. i. 249 D]:—κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα + ὁ Σωτὴρ “καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.”—From the same source, I + suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen’s disciple), Bp. of Neocæsarea + in Pontus, A.D. 261, [_Routh_, iii. 257] derived the following:—καὶ + ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁ “πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα” οὐ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ, + κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον.—See, by all means, + Field’s most interesting _Adnotationes in Chrys._, vol. iii. p. + 112.... Εντευθεν (finely says Victor of Antioch) ὁ καινὸς ἄρχεται + νόμος ὁ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα. (_Cramer_ i. 335.) + + 310 Acts x. 15. + + 311 Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. 2,—ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ... ἀνελήφθη. + + 312 S. Mark x. 6: xiii. 19.—2 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.) + + 313 Is. lxvi. 2. + + 314 See above, p. 143-5. + + 315 See above, p. 174-5. + + 316 My attention was first drawn to this by my friend, the Rev. W. Kay, + D.D. + + 317 The Creed itself, (“ex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis + collectum,”) may be seen at p. 84 of De Touttée’s ed. of Cyril. Let + the following be compared:— + + ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi. + 19.) + + ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ + (ART. VI.) This may be seen _in situ_ at p. 224 C of Cyril. + + βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ch. i. 4.) + + ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (ART. X.) This may be seen at + p. 295 C of Cyril. + + The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in + Professor Heurtley’s little work _De Fide et Symbolo_, 1869, p. 9. + + 318 See above,—p. 165-6. + +_ 319 Cod. Bobbiensis_ (k): which however for “illis” has “et:” for + “Petro,” “puero:” and for “occidentem,” “orientem.” It also repeats + “usque.” I have ventured to alter “ab orientem” into “ab + oriente.”—Compare what is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given + by White and Adler. + + 320 See above (Art. II.) p. 152-3. + + 321 Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14. + + 322 S. Matth. xxvi. 14, 29, 47.—S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 35: x. 32: + xi. 11: xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.—S. Luke viii. 1: ix. 1, 12: xviii. 31: + xxii. 8, 47.—S. John vi. 37, 70, 71: xx. 24. + + 323 Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. John xviii. 1,—where the + moment of departure _from the city_ is marked: (for observe, they + had left the house and the upper chamber at ch. xiv. 31). See also + ch. xix. 17,—where the going _without the gate_ is indicated: (for + ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider + S. Luke xxi. 37. + + 324 S. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 4. + + 325 See above, p. 2. + + 326 The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is + supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate + Matthaei, made in a place where it was almost safe to escape + attention; viz. in a footnote at the very end of his _Nov. Test._ + (ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.—“Haec lectio in Evangeliariis et + Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus. + Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur κυριακῇ + τῶν μυροφόρων, εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον. Secundo, τῷ ὄρθρῳ τῆς ἀναλήψεως. + Tertio, ut ἑωθινὸν ἀναστάσιμον γ᾽. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis + temporibus nullo modo dubitavit Ecclesia.”—Matthaei had slightly + anticipated this in his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267. + + 327 Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων διαδοχάς,—are _the first words_ of the + Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius. + + 328 See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorised Version. + + 329 See Bingham’s _Origines_, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4. + + 330 Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἥ ἀγροὺς μενόντων + ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν + ἀποστόλων, ἤ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται, μέχρις + ἐγχωρεῖ. Then came the Sermon,—then, all stood and prayed,—then + followed Holy Communion.—_Apol._ i. c. 67, (_ed_. Otto, i. 158.) + + 331 ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ, τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν + σήμερον διέλχθη, καὶ περὶ τίνων;—(_Opp._ ix. p. 697 E. Field’s + text.) + + 332 Cassian writes,—“Venerabilis Patrum senatus ... decrevit hunc + numerum [sc. duodecim Orationum] tam in Vespertinis quam in + Nocturnis conventiculis custodiri; quibus lectiones geminas + adjungentes, id est, unam Veteris et aliam Novi Testamenti.... In + die vero Sabbati vel Dominico utrasque de Novo recitant Testamento; + id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apostolorum, et aliam de + Evangeliis. Quod etiam totis Quinquagesimae diebus faciunt hi, + quibus lectio curae est, seu memoria Scripturarum.”—_Instit._ lib. + ii. c. 6. (_ed_.1733, p. 18.) + +_ 333 Constitutiones Apostolicae_, lib. ii. c. 57, 59: v. 19: viii. 5. + + 334 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 74, and the reff. in note (k) + overleaf. + + 335 English readers may be referred to Horne’s _Introduction_, &c. + (_ed._ 1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps + aware of the importance of the preface to Van der Hooght’s _Hebrew + Bible_, (_ed._ 1705) § 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p. + 352 _b._ + + 336 Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγου is “Quinquagesima Sunday;” but _the + week_ of “the cheese-eater” is the week _previous_. + + 337 See Suicer’s _Thesaurus_, vol. ii. 920. + + 338 “Apud Rabbinos, לודגח תבש _Sabbathum Magnum_. Sic vocatur Sabbathum + proximum ante Pascha.”—Buxtorf, _Lexicon Talmud._ p. 2323. + + 339 Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀκολουθία τῆς διδασκαλίας [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7] + τῆς πίστεως προέτρεπεν εἰπεῖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως: ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ + Θεοῦ χάρις ᾠκονόμησε πληρέστατά σε ἀκοῦσαι, κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν + ἀσθένειαν, τῇ χθὲς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τῆν Κυριακήν: κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν τῆς + θείας χάριτος, ἐν τῇ Συνάξει τῆς τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ἀκολουθίας τὰ περὶ + τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν περιεχούσης: ἐλέγετο δὲ τὰ + λεγόμενα, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ πάντας, καὶ διὰ τὸ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμοῦ πλῆθος: + ἐξαιρέτως δὲ διά σε: ζητεῖται δὲ εἰ προσέσχες τοῖς λεγομένοις. Οἶδας + γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀκολουθία τῆς Πίστεως διδάσκει σε πιστεύειν εἰς ΤΟΝ + ἈΝΑΣΤΑΝΤΑ ΤΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ: ΚΑΙ ἈΝΕΛΘΟΝΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣ, ΚΑΙ + ΚΑΘΙΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ—μάλιστα μὲν οὖν μνημονεύειν σε νομίζω + τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. πλὴν ἐν παραδρομῇ καὶ νῦν ὑπομιμνήσκω σε τῶν + εἰρημένων. (Cyril. Hier. _Cat._ xiv. c. 24. _Opp._ p. 217 C, D.)—Of + that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again reminds his auditory. + Μέμνησο δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων μοι πολλάκις περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ + πατρος καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν,—he says, _ibid._ p. 219 B. A little + lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων + περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱόν.—_Ibid._ D. + + From this it becomes plain _why Cyril nowhere quotes S. Mark_ xvi. + 19,—_or S. Luke_ xxiv. 51,—_or Acts_ i. 9. He must needs have + enlarged upon those three _inevitable_ places of Scripture, the day + before. + + 340 See above, p. 193 and p. 194. + + 341 Ὥστε δὲ εὐμαθέστερον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, δεόμεθα καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν, + ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων γραφῶν πεποιήκαμεν, προλαμβάνειν, τὴν + περικοπὴν τῆς γραφῆς ἦν ἆν μέλλωμεν ἐξηνεῖσθαι.—In Matth. _Hom._ i. + (_Opp._ vii. 13 B.)—Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, ἥ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον, τὴν + μέλλουσαν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀναγνωσθήσεσθαι τῶν εὐαγγελίων περικοπὴν, ταύτην + πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν μετὰ χεῖρας λαμβάνων ἕκαστος οἴκοι καθήμενος + ἀναγινωσκέτω.—In Joann. _Hom._ ix, (_Opp._ viii. 62 B.) + + 342 It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching. “Sed quia nunc + interposita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex + Evangelio lectiones oportet in Ecclesiâ recitari, quae ita sunt + annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo ille quem susceperamus + necessitate pauliulum intermissus est, non amissus.”—(_Opp._ vol. + iii. P. ii. p. 825, _Prol._) + + 343 The place will be found quoted below, p. 202, note (o). + + 344 See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more full and + satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve + attention, (_Nov. Test._ vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above, + p. 45, notes (r) and (s). + + 345 At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of his _Nov. + Test._ (Riga, 1788) Matthaei has laboriously _edited_ the “Lectiones + Ecclesiasticæ” of the Greek Church. See also his Appendices,—viz. + vol. ii. pp. 272-318 and 322-363. His 2nd ed. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is + distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the + Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of an ancient MS.; + and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His Συναχάρια (i. + 723-68 and iii. 1-24) though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary + readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he + designates “B” and “H,” but which are _our_ “Evstt. 47 and + 50,”—uncial Evangelistaria of the viiith century (See Scrivener’s + _Introd._ p. 214.) + + Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full + the “Synaxarium” and “Menologium” of Codd. K and M, (viiith or ixth + century.) See also his vol. ii. pp. 456-69. Unfortunately, (as + Scrivener recognises, p. 110,) all here is carelessly done,—as usual + with this Editor; and therefore to a great extent useless. His + slovenliness is extraordinary. The “Gospels of the Passion” (τῶν + ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472); and so + throughout. + + Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the most + intelligible account of this matter, by exhibiting _in English_ the + Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (“gathered chiefly from + Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and + Christ’s Coll. Camb.”); and supplying the references to Scripture in + the ordinary way. See, by all means, his _Introduction_, pp. 62-65: + also, pp. 211-225. + + 346 Consider the following:—Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ + πάντα ἀναγινώσκομεν. ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πάλιν, ὅτι παρεδόθη + ἡμῶν ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη, ὅτι ἀπέθανε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅτι ἐτάφη: + τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν καὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐ μετὰ τὴν + πεντηκοστὴν ἀναγινώσκομεν, ὅτε καὶ ἐγένοντο, καὶ ἀρχὴν + ἔλαβον;—Chrys. _Opp._ iii. 88. + + Again:—εἰ γὰρ τότε ἥρξαντο ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἤγουν μετὰ + τὴν κυρίου ἀνάστασιν, τότε ἔδει καὶ τὸ βιβλίον ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῦτο. + ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σταυροῦ ἀναγινώσκομεν, καὶ + τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει ὁμοίως, καὶ τὰ ἐν ἐκάστῃ ἑορτῇ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῇ + πάλιν ἀναγινώσκομεν, οὕτως ἔδει καὶ τὰ θαύματα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ ἐν ταῖς + ἡμέραις τῶν ἀποστολικῶν σημείων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι.—_Ibid._ p. 89 D. + +_ 347 Opp._ ii. 454 B, D. + +_ 348 Opp._ ii. 290 B. + +_ 349 Opp._ ii. 357 E. + + 350 “Meminit sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine + lectionum nos solere tractare.” (_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 825 _Prol._) + + 351 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 246. + + 352 Chrysostom _Opp._ ii. 369 b, c.—Compare Scrivener, _ubi supra_, p. + 75. + +_ 353 Ed._ Mabillon, p. 116. + +_ 354 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 85 B: 88 A:—τίνος ἕνεκεν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ + πεντηκοστῇ τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν.—τίνος + ἕνεκεν τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς + πεντηκοστῆς ἀναγινώσκεται. + + 355 “Anniversariâ sollemnitate post passionem Domini nostis illum librum + recitari.” _Opp._ iii. (P. ii.) p. 337 G. + + 356 I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my + deliberate conviction that the Lectionary which, last year, was + hurried with such indecent haste through Convocation,—passed in a + half-empty House by the casting vote of the Prolocutor,—and rudely + pressed upon the Church’s acceptance by the Legislature in the + course of its present session,—is the gravest calamity which has + befallen the Church of England for a long time past. + + Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered. + + Appointed (in 1867) for an _entirely_ different purpose, (viz. the + Ornaments and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and + 15 Lay) found themselves further instructed “to suggest and report + _whether any and what alterations and amendments may be + advantageously made_ in the selection of Lessons to be read at the + time of Divine Service.” + + Thereupon, these individuals,—(the Liturgical attainments of + nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself + to characterise truthfully,)—at once imposed upon themselves the + duty of inventing _an entirely new Lectionary for the Church of + England_. + + So to mutilate the Word of GOD that it shall henceforth be quite + impossible to understand a single Bible story, or discover the + sequence of a single connected portion of narrative,—seems to have + been the guiding principle of their deliberations. With reckless + eclecticism,—entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor + brother,—strange disregard for Catholic Tradition and the claims of + immemorial antiquity;—these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious of + their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have given us a + Lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of + novelty,—the impatient,—and the enemies of Divine Truth. + + That the blame, _the guilt_ lies at the door of _our Bishops_, is + certain; but the Church has no one but herself to thank for the + injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her. She has + suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without + resistance; without remonstrance; without (in her corporate + capacity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction. _Can_ it be + right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their + lawful inheritance?... I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at + what is taking place. At least, (as on other occasions,) _liberavi + animam meam_. + + 357 A trace of this remains in the old Gallican Liturgy,—pp. 137-8. + + 358 Bingham, xiv. iii. 3. + +_ 359 Opp._ vol. vii. p. 791 B. + + 360 See Dean Payne Smith’s Translation, p. 863. + + 361 κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα ἀναγινώσκεται.—Chrys. + _Opp._ vii. 818 C. + + 362 “Passio autem, quia uno die legitur, non solet legi nisi secundum + Matthæum. Voluerain aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes + Evangelistas etiam Passio legeretur. Factum est. Non audierunt + homines quod consueverant, et perturbati sunt.”—_Opp._ vol. v. p. + 980 E. + +_ 363 Ed._ Mabillon, pp. 130-5. + + 364 Epiph. _Opp._ ii. 152-3. + + 365 Chrys. _Opp._ i. 497 C. + + 366 Epiph. _Opp._ ii. 285-6. + + 367 The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the + perusal of both passages. Chrysostom declares that Christmas-Day is + the greatest of Festivals; since all the others are but consequences + of the Incarnation. + + Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning + solemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to + the human body. + +_ 368 Constt. Apostt._ lib. viii. c. 33. After the week of the Passion + and the week of (1) the Resurrection,—(2) Ascension-Day is + mentioned;—(3) Pentecost;—(4) Nativity;—(5) Epiphany. [Note this + clear indication that this viiith Book of the Constitutions was + written or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly + assigned to the work.] + + 369 Bingham’s _Origines_, B. xx. c. iv. § 2. + + 370 Chrys. _Opp._ ii. 355. (See the _Monitum_, p. 352.) + + 371 Chrys. _Opp._ ii. 369 D. + + 372 Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. LI, c. xvi. (_Opp._ i. 439 A.) + + 373 See above, pp. 58-9 and 67. + +_ 374 Opp._ iii. 102 B. See Bingham on this entire subject,—B. xiv, c. + iii. + + 375 “Illa quae non scriptu, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto + terrarum orbe observantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, + vel plenariis Conciliis quorum in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, + commendata atque statuta retineri. Sicut quod Domini Passio, et + Resurrectio, et Ascensio in cœlis, ut Adventus de cœlo Spiritus + Sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur.”—_Ep._ ad Januarium, + (_Opp._ ii. 124 B, C). + + 376 “Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos, + ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in Euchar. lect. sext. + Resurrect.”—But “Lect. γ Resurrectionis” is “Marc. xvi. 9-20:” + “Lect. σ,” “Luc. xxiv. 36-53.”—See Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogus + Codd. Syrr._ (1864) pp. 116, 127. + + 377 See above, p. 34, note (e). + + 378 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 148. + +_ 379 Hieronymi Comes_, (_ed_. Pamel. ii. 31.)—But it is not the + Gallican. (ed. Mabillon, p. 155.) ... It strikes me as just possible + that a clue may be in this way supplied to the singular phenomenon + noted above at p. 118, line 22-8. + + 380 Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά. See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 72, + and R. P. Smith’s Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer’s _Thes. + Eccl._ i. 1229. + + 381 Dr. Wright’s _Catal._ p. 70, No. cx. (Addit. 14,464: _fol._ 61_ b._) + +_ 382 Ibid._ No. lxx (_fol._ 92 _b_), and lxxii (_fol._ 87 _b_). + + 383 “Quae titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.” (R. Payne Smith’s + _Catal._ p. 116.)—In the “Synaxarium” of Matthaei (_Nov. Test._ + 1803, i. p. 731) it is styled Κ. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου. + + 384 Adler’s _N. T. Verss. Syrr._ p. 71. + + 385 Dean Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146. + +_ 386 Ed._ Mabillon, pp. 144-5. + + 387 “Resurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis diebus + [Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.” (_Opp._ v. 977 + C)—“Quoniam hoc moris est ... _Marci Evangelium_ est quod modo, cum + legeretur, audivimus.” “Quid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?” And he + subjoins a quotation from S. Mark xvi. 12.—_Ibid._ 997 F, 998 B. + +_ 388 Hieron. Comes_ (_ed._ Pamel. ii. 27.) + + 389 So Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 75.—Little stress, however, is to + be laid on Saint’s Day lessons. In Matthaei’s “Menologium” (_Nov. + Test._ 1803, i. p. 765), I find that S. Luke viii. 1-4, or else S. + John xx. 11-18 was the appointed Lection. See his note (5) at p. + 750. + + 390 Note, (in addition to all that has gone before,) that the Festivals + are actually designated by their _Greek_ names in the earliest Latin + Service Books: not only “Theophania,” “Epiphania,” “Pascha,” + “Pentecostes,” (the second, third and fourth of which appellations + survive in the Church of the West, _in memoriam_, to the present + hour;) but “Hypapante,” which was the title bestowed by the + Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of + the Purification, or Presentation of CHRIST in the Temple,) from the + “Meeting” of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκευή, was + called “_Parasceve_” in the West. (Mab. _Lit. Gall._ p. 129.) So + entire was the sympathy of the East with the West in such matters in + very early times, that when Rome decided to celebrate the Nativity + on the 25th December, Chrysostom (as we have been reminded) publicly + announced the fact at Constantinople; and it was determined that in + this matter East and West would walk by the same rule. + + 391 From Professor Wright’s _Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British + Museum_ (1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is + dated A.D. 824; the oldest Nestorian, A.D. 862; the oldest Malkite, + A.D. 1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; 14,492; + and 14,488.—See his _Catalogue_, Part I. pp. 146, 178, 194. + + 392 It is exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus + (A.) + + 393 The reader is requested to refer back to p. 45, and the note + there.—The actual words of Eusebius are given in Appendix (B). + + 394 See the enumeration of Greek Service-Books in Scrivener’s + _Introduction_, &c. pp. 211-25. For the Syriac Lectionaries, see + Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogue_, (1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also + Professor Wright’s _Catalogue_, (1870) pp. 146 to 203.—I avail + myself of this opportunity to thank both those learned Scholars for + their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered. + + 395 “Evangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut + decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.” Tischendorf, quoted by + Scrivener, [_Introduction to Cod. Augiensis_,—80 pages which have + been separately published and are _well_ deserving of study,—p. 48,] + who adds,—“I cannot even conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be + thought of less value than another MS. of the same age.”—See also + Scrivener’s _Introduction_, &c. p. 211. + + 396 e.g. _Addit. MSS._ 12,141: 14,449: 14,450-2-4-5-6-7-8: 14,461-3: + 17,113-4-5-6:--(= 15 Codd. in all:) from p. 45 to p. 66 of Professor + Wright’s _Catalogue_. + +_ 397 Addit._ MS. 14,464. (See Dr. Wright’s _Catalogue_, p. 70.) + + 398 Add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of + C. P., (_Introduction_, p. 11), the following:—Gospels for + Quinquagesima, 2nd S. after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity, + Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p. 220), + All Saints. + + 399 Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke vii. 31) _which introduce + an Ecclesiastical Lection_ (Friday in the iiird week of S. Luke,) + inasmuch as the words are found in _no_ uncial MS., and are omitted + besides by the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must + needs be regarded as a liturgical interpolation.—The same is to be + said of ὁ Ἰησοῦς in S. Matth. xiv. 22,—words which Origen and + Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly + owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in + the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the + Gospel for the ixth Sunday after Pentecost _begins at that + place_.—It will be kindred to the present inquiry that I should + point out that in S. Mark xvi. 9, Ἀναστάς ὁ Ἰησοῦς is constantly met + with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the Vulgate; and yet + there can be _no_ doubt that here also the Holy Name is an + interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the + preceding. The fact is singularly illustrated by the insertion of “Ο + ΙΣ” in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,) _rubro_ above _the same contraction_ + (for ὁ Ἰησους) in the text. + + 400 Not, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of + regarding Codex B, (to which, if Cod. L. and Codd. 1, 33 and 69 are + added, it is _only because they agree with B_), as an all but + infallible guide in settling the text of Scripture; and quietly + taking it for granted that _all the other MSS. in existence_ have + entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind. Until this most + uncritical method, this most unphilosophical theory, is + unconditionally abandoned, progress in this department of sacred + Science is simply impossible. + + 401 See Matthaei’s note on S. Luke xxii. 43, (_Nov. Test. ed._ 1803.) + + 402 This will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In + Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions + are given as follows. After τὸ σὸν γενέσθω (i.e. the last words of + ver. 42), is written ὑπέρβα εἰς τὸ τῆς γ᾽. Then, at the end of ver. + 44, is written—ἄρχου τῆς γ᾽, after which follows the text καὶ + ἀναστὰς, &c. + + In S. Matthew’s Gospel, at chap, xxvi, which contains the Liturgical + section for Thursday in Holy Week (τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλη έ), my Codex + has been only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to + quote from Harl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84, + at the end of S. Matth. xxvi. 39, reads as follows, immediately + after the words,—αλλ᾽ ὡς συ:—Π/Υ, [Cross] (i.e. ὑπάντα.) But in + order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated word and sign + are repeated at foot, as follows:—[Cross] ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκὰν + ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ΡΘ. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῳ ἄγγελος: εἶτα στραφεὶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν, + λέγε: καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς—which are the first words of S. + Matth. xxvi. 40. + + Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after + S. Luke xxii. 42, _besides_ the rubric already quoted, has the + following: ἄρξου τῆς μεγάλης έ. Then come the two famous verses + (ver. 43, 44); and, after the words ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς, the + following rubric occurs: ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ τῆς μεγάλης έ Ματθ. ἔρχεται + πρὸς τοῦς μαθητάς. + + [With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. F. Rose, Curate of Holy + Trinity, Windsor,) I have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its + text most nearly resembles the Rev. F. H. Scrivener’s l, m, n.] + + 403 See by all means Matthaei’s _Nov. Test._ (ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and + 492. + + 404 See above, p. 75, note (h). + + 405 For the 5th Sunday of S. Luke. + + 406 Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual accuracy, + points out several: e.g. _Nov. Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 19 (_note_ + 26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10 (_note_ 12), p. 14 (_notes_ 14 and 15), + &c. + + 407 SS. Philip and James. + + 408 viz. σαββάτῳ θ: i.e. the ixth Saturday in S. Luke.—Note that Cod. A + also reads ἐγένετο δέ in S. Lu. xi. 1. + + 409 viz. Monday in the vth, Thursday in the vith week after Pentecost, + and the viiith Sunday after Pentecost. + + 410 viz. S. Luke xiii. 2: xxiv. 36. S. John i. 29 (ὁ Ἰωάννης): 44: vi. + 14: xiii. 3,—to which should perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, א, A, + C (not D) read Ἰησοῦς. + + 411 See by all means Matthaei’s interesting note on the place,—_Nov. + Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 113-4. It should be mentioned that Cod. C + (and four other uncials), together with the Philoxenian and + Hierosolymitan versions, concur in exhibiting the same spurious + clause. Matthaei remarks,—“Origenes (iv. 171 D) hanc pericopam haud + adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in γενηθήτω σοι.” Will not + the disturbing _Lectionary-practice_ of his day sufficiently explain + Origen’s omission? + + 412 I recall S. John x. 29: xix. 13: xxi. 1;—but the attentive student + will be able to multiply such references almost indefinitely. In + these and similar places, while the phraseology is exceedingly + simple, the variations which the text exhibits are so exceeding + numerous,—that when it is discovered that _a Church Lesson begins in + those places_, we may be sure that we have been put in possession of + the name of the disturbing force. + + 413 Viz. K and M. (Field’s _Chrys._ p. 251.)—How is it that the readings + of Chrysostom are made so little account of? By Tregelles, for + example, why are they overlooked entirely? + + 414 See above, p. 197 to 204. + + 415 e.g. in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270. + + 416 In some cursive MSS. also, (which have been probably transcribed + from ancient originals), the same phenomenon is observed. Thus, in + Evan. 265 ( = Reg. 66), ΤΕΛ only occurs, in S. Mark, at ix. 9 and + 41: xv. 32 and 41: xvi. 8. ΑΡΧ at xvi. 1. It is striking to observe + that so little were these ecclesiastical notes (embedded in the + text) understood by the possessor of the MS., that in the margin, + over against ch. xv. 41, (where “ΤΕΛ:” stands _in the text_,) a + somewhat later hand has written,—ΤΕ[λος] Τ[ης] ΩΡ[ας]. A similar + liturgical note may be seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere. + Cod. 25 (= Reg. 191), at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, has _only two_ + notes of liturgical endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42. + + 417 Among the _Syriac_ Evangelia, as explained above (p. 215), instances + occur of far more ancient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by + the original scribe. Even here, however, (as may be learned from Dr. + Wright’s _Catalogue_, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been only + _irregularly_ inserted in the oldest copies. + + 418 Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have + exhibited the text thus,—ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΗΛΘΕΝ Η ΩΡΑ.—which is the + reading of Cod. 13 ( = Reg. 50.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order + to improve the sense, substituted for ἦλθεν the word καί. Note the + scholion [_Anon. Vat._] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι, + πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ. + + Besides the said Cod. 13, the same reading is found in 47 and 54 (in + the Bodl.): 56 (at Linc. Coll.): 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.): 69 (i.e. + Cod. Leicestr.): 124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): csecr (i.e. + Lambeth, 1177): 2pe (i.e. the 2nd of Muralt’s S. Petersburg Codd.); + and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107). All these eleven MSS. + read ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος at S. Mark xiv. 41. + + 419 So Scholz (i. 200):—“Pericopa hæc _casu quodam_ forsan exciderat a + codice quodam Alexandrino; unde defectus iste in alios libros + transiit. Nec mirum hunc defectum multis, immo in certis regionibus + plerisque scribis arrisisse: confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione + Marcum Matthæo repugnare. Cf. maxima Eusebium ad Marinum,” &c. + + 420 περιττὰ ὰν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν + εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai, _Bibl. P.P. Nova_, vol. iv. p. 256.) + + 421 Alford’s N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (_ed_. 1868.)—And so Tischendorf, (ed. + 8va. pp. 406-7.) “Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere + mutilandum adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus + incredibile est, nec ullo probari potest exemplo.”—Tregelles is of + the same opinion. (_Printed Text_, pp. 255-6.)—Matthaei, a competent + judge, seems to have thought differently. “Una autem causa cur hic + locus omitteretur fuit quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur + Evangelistis.” The general observation which follows is true + enough:—“Quæ ergo vel obscura, vel repugnantia, vel parum decora + quorundam opinione habebantur, ca olim ab Criticis et interpretibus + nonnullis vel sublata, vel in dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis + sanctorum Evangeliorum intelligitur.” (_Nov. Test._ 1788, vol. ii. + p. 266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)—“In summâ. Videtur unus et item + alter ex interpretibus, qui hæc cæteris evangeliis repugnare + opinebatur, in dubium vocasse. Hunc deinde plures temere secuti + sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus.” Dr. Davidson says + the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,) + Mr. Scrivener also. (_Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xliv.) + + 422 I have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M. + de Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department. + + 423 See above, p. 224. + + 424 Whereas in the course of S. Matthew’s Gospel, only two examples of + + ΤΕΛΟΣ + occur, (viz. at ch. xxvi. 35 and xxvii. 2,)—in the former + case the note has entirely lost its way in the process of + transcription; standing where it has no business to appear. _No_ + Liturgical section ends thereabouts. I suspect that the transition + (ὑπέρβασις) anciently made at ver. 39, was the thing to which the + scribe desired to call attention. + + 425 = Coisl. 20. This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for + Church purposes, appears to me to be the work of the same scribe who + produced Reg. 178, (the codex described above); but it exhibits a + different text. Bound up with it are some leaves of the LXX of about + the viiith century. + + 426 End of the Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany. + + 427 In S. Matthew’s Gospel, I could find ΤΕΛΟΣ so written only + twice,—viz. at ch. ii. 23 and xxvi. 75: in S. Luke only once,—viz. + at ch. viii. 39. These, in all three instances, are the concluding + verses of famous Lessons,—viz. the Sunday after Christmas Day, the + iiird Gospel of the Passion, the vith Sunday of S. Luke. + + 428 This has already come before us in a different connection: (see p. + 119): but it must needs be reproduced here; and _this_ time, it + shall be exhibited as faithfully as my notes permit. + + 429 (1) In Evan. 282 (written A.D. 1176),—a codex which _has been + adapted_ to Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to + say, _is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Mark_ xv. 47 + _and_ xvi. 8. + + (2) Evan. 268, (a truly superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the + pictures of the Evangelists only sketched in ink,) was never + prepared for Lectionary purposes; which makes it the more remarkable + that, between ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and ἀναστάς, should be found inserted + into the body of the text, τὲ. in gold. + + (3) I have often met with copies of S. Matthew’s, or of S. Luke’s, + or of S. John’s Gospel, unfurnished with a subscription in which + ΤΕΛΟΣ occurs: but scarcely ever have I seen an instance of a Codex + where the Gospel _according to S. Mark_ was one of two, or of three + from which it was wanting; much less where it stood alone in that + respect. On the other hand, in the following Codices,—Evan. 10: 22: + 30: 293,—S. Mark’s is _the only Gospel of the Four_ which is + furnished with the subscription, + τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου + [cross] or simply + τέλος + .... In Evan. 282, S. Matthew’s Gospel + shares this peculiarity with S. Mark’s. + + 430 “Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae filum + ineptissime abrupisse verbis—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”—Griesbach _Comment. + Crit._ (ii. 197.) So, in fact, _uno ore_ all the Critics. + + 431 Chap. V. See above, pp. 66-7. + + 432 The English reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness if + he will refer back, and read from the last line of p. 44 to the + ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in two places, for “the + end,”—“THE END”.... The entire context of the Greek is given in the + Appendix (B). + + 433 τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον + αὐτό,) I suspect must be an explanatory gloss. + + 434 “This then is clear,” (is Dr. Tregelles’ comment,) “that the greater + part of the Greek copies had not the verses in question.”—_Printed + Text_, p. 247. + + 435 Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in this place of Eusebius + consists entirely in his introduction of the words τὸ τέλος. Had he + merely said τὰ ἀκριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον + περιγράφει ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. ... Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι + τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις περιγέγραπται τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον,—there + would have been nothing extraordinary in the mode of expression. We + should have been reminded of such places as the following in the + writings of Eusebius himself:—Ὁ Κλήμης ... εἰς τὴν Κομόδου τελευτὴν + περιγράφει τοὺς χρόνους, (_Hist. Eccl._ lib. vi. c. 6.)—Ἱππόλυτος + ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτοπος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει, + (_Ibid._ c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)—Or this, + referred to by Stephanus (_in voce_),—Ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἔτι μνησθεὶς περιγράψω + τὸν λόγον, (_Praep. Evang._ lib. vi. c. 10, [p. 280 c, _ed._ 1628].) + But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον wants explaining; + and can be only satisfactorily explained in one way. + + 436 See above, p. 66 and p. 67. + + 437 Πάρειμι νῦν ... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα + [_sic_].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255. + + 438 “Consentit autem nobis ad _tractatum quem fecimus de scripturâ_ + Marci.”—Origen. (_Opp._ iii. 929 B.) _Tractat._ xxxv. in _Matth._ [I + owe the reference to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the + vigilance of Huet.]—This serves to explain why Victor of Antioch’s + Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origen: as + in Paris Cod. 703, [_olim_ 2330, 958, and 1048: also 18.] where is + read (at fol. 247), Ὠριγένους πρόλογος εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ κατὰ + Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvith cent.) + counterpart of the preceding; which has been transcribed [xviiith + cent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40. + + Possevinus [_Apparat. Sac._ ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet, _Origeniana_, + p. 274) states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a + Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel by Origen. The source of this + misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the Rev. W. R. + Churton. James, in his “Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,” (1600, lib. i. p. + 49,) mentions “_Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae_, Stabat ad + monumentum.”—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe, “Cat. Codd. MSS. + C.C.C.;” [No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—“Origenis presb. Hom. in istud + Johannis, _Maria stabat ad monumentum_,” &c. But what actually led + Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James’s consummation of his own + blunder in lib. ii. p. 49,—which Possevinus has simply appropriated. + + 439 So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά. + + Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, + but also that _apud Heracleonem_, (who wrote within 50 years of S. + John’s death,) he found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved by + _geographical_ considerations, however, (as he explains,) for + Βηθανία, Origen proposes to read Βηθαβαρά.—Chrysostom (viii. 96 d), + after noticing the former reading, declares,—ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων + ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει ἐν Βηθαβαρά φησιν: but he goes on _to reproduce + Origen’s reasoning_;—thereby betraying himself.—The author of the + _Catena in Matth._ (Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces + Chrysostom:—χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν + Βηθαβαρὰ περιέχει. And so, other Scholia; until at last what was + only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, became generally + received as the reading of the “more accurate copies.” + + A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the + true reading of that place is not “60” but “160,”—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ + ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις. + Accordingly, _Eusebius_ also reads the place in the same erroneous + way. + + 440 Jerome says of himself (_Opp._ vii. 537,)—“Non digne Græca in + Latinum transfero: aut Græcos lege (si ejusdem linguae habes + scientiam) aut si tantum Latinus es, noli de gratuito munere + judicare, et, ut vulgare proverbium est: _equi dentes inspicere + donati_.” + + 441 See above, pp. 57-9: also Appendix (C), § 2. + + 442 See above, pp. 225-6. + + 443 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 116. + + 444 See Adler’s N. T. _Verss. Syrr._, p. 70. + + 445 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146. + + 446 See p. 206, also note (k). + + 447 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 117. + + 448 Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark + xvi. 8 (_fol_. 125), as follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then, _rubro_,] + τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then + the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver. 20, (at _fol_. 126 of the + same Codex) is found the following concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽ + ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου. + + In the same place, (viz. at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel,) is found + in another Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following + rubric:—τέλος τοῦ τρίτου τοῦ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τοῦ ὄρθρου τῆς ἀναλήψεως. + + 449 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146. + + 450 Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is + written continuously throughout: and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh + paragraph is observed to commence. + + Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies + of the Armenian version. “The Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab, + separates the concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel.... + Many of the oldest MSS., after the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, put the + final Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, and then give the additional verses + with a new superscription.” (Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 253).... + We are now in a position to _understand_ the Armenian evidence, + which has been described above, at p. 36, as well as to estimate its + exact value. + + 451 Euseb. apud Mai, iv. p. 264 = p. 287. Again at p. 289-90.—So also + the author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurr. (Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii. + 411-2.)—And see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp. + _Patres Apostol._, (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515. + + 452 I believe this will be found to be the _invariable_ order of the + Gospels _in the Lectionaries_. + + 453 This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). See _fol._ 98 + _b_. + + 454 I allude of course to Matthaei’s Cod. g. (See the note in his _N. + T._ vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the learned critic was right in + his conjecture “aliquot folia excidisse,” matters nothing. _The left + hand page ends at the words_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Now, if τελος had + followed, how obvious would have been the inference that the Gospel + itself of S. Mark had come to an end there! + + Note, that in the Codex Bezæ (D), S. Mark’s Gospel ends at ver. 15: + in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (_a_) + proves to be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (_b_) from xiii. + 24; Cod. Brix. (_f_) from xiv. 70. + + 455 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. lix. + + 456 See p. 227. + + 457 See above, p. 226. + + 458 So Scholz:—“hic [sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,” + &c.—Tischendorf,—“Testantur scholia ... _Marci Evangelium_ ... versu + 9 _finem habuisse_. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22 + habet: ἐφοβουντο γαρ + τελος. εν τισι,” &c.—Tregelles appeals to + copies, “sometimes with τέλος interposed after ver. 8,” (p. + 254.)—Mai (iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,—“Codex + Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum + versum _habet quidem_ vocem τέλος, ut alibi interdum observatum + fuit; _sed tamen_ ibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum + progredientibus sectionum notis.” + + 459 Chap. I. and II. + + 460 Chap. IV, VI-X. + + 461 Chap. III, V, and VIII. + + 462 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. + + 463 Tregelles, Alford. + + 464 Alford. + + 465 “Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.”—See the + rest of Tischendorf’s verdict, _suprà_, p. 10; and opposite, p. 245. + + 466 Tregelles’ _Account of the Printed Text_, p. 259. + + 467 Alford’s _New Test._ vol. i. _Proleg._ [p. 38] and p. 437. + + 468 So Norton, Tregelles, and others. + + 469 This suggestion, which was originally Griesbach’s, is found in + Alford’s _New Test._ vol. i. p. 433, (_ed._ 1868.)—See above, p. 12. + The italics are not mine. + + 470 Vide _suprà_, p. 10. + +_ 471 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 671. + + 472 Eusebius _Eccl. Hist._ iv. 28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19. + + 473 Note the remarkable adjuration of Irenæus, _Opp._ i. 821, preserved + by Eusebius, _lib._ v. 20.—See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 383-4. + Consider the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp’s + martyrdom, _PP. App._ ii. 614-6. + + 474 Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus; + especially to the work of Marcion. + + 475 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 381-391. + + 476 See Chap. VI. + + 477 Chap. IX. + + 478 “Ad defendendum hunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus Codicum + consensus in vocabulis et loquendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis + παρεγγράπτοις, etiam multo brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, eo + plures quoque sunt varietates. Comparetur modo Act. xv. 18, Matth. + viii. 13, et loca similia.”—C. F. Matthaei’s _Nov. Test._ (1788) + vol. ii. p. 271. + + 479 Speaking of the abrupt termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8, + Dr. Tregelles asks,—“Would this have been transmitted as a fact by + good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds for regarding it + to be true?”—(_Printed Text_, p. 257.) Certainly not, we answer. But + _where_ are the “good witnesses” of the “transmitted fact?” _There + is not so much as one._ + + 480 See above, pp. 86-90. + + 481 See Chap. III. + + 482 See above, Chap. III. and IV. + + 483 “Habent periocham hanc Codices Græci, si unum b excipias, omnes.” + (Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p. 70. + + 484 See above, Chap. X. + + 485 See above, pp. 66-68. + + 486 See above, pp. 41 to 51: also Appendix (B). + + 487 The reader is referred to Mai’s _Nov. PP. Bibl._ vol. iv. p. 262, + line 12: p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8. + + 488 See above, p. 64-5: also Appendix (E). + + 489 P. 68 and note (d); p. 119 and note (m). + + 490 P. 51-7. + + 491 P. 57-9. + + 492 P. 59-66. + + 493 P. 114-125. + + 494 P. 68-9. + + 495 Chap. VI. + + 496 See above, pp. 86 to 88. + + 497 Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejects _that_ + verse also as spurious; and brings the fourth Gospel to an end at + ver. 24, as he brings the second Gospel to an end at ver. 8? For my + own part,—having (through the kindness and liberality of the Keeper + of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, aided by the good offices of + my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at S. Petersburg,) + obtained a photograph of the last page of S. John’s Gospel,—I must + be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr. + Tischendorf’s judgment in this particular. The utmost which can be + allowed is that the Scribe may have possibly changed his pen, or + been called away from his task, just before bringing the fourth + Gospel to a close. + + 498 See Chap. IX. + + 499 Chapter X. + + 500 Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, and Marius + Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration. + + 501 Codex A,—ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of the Psalms. + + 502 The old Latin Interpreter of Origen’s Commentary on S. Matthew seems + to have found in Origen’s text a quotation from S. Luke ii. 14 which + is _not represented in the extant Greek text of Origen_. Here also + we are presented with “hominibus _bonae voluntatis_.” (_Opp._ iii. + 537 C). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence. + + 503 Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. (_Suprà_, + pp. 96-99.) + + 504 From the Rev. Professor Bosworth. + +_ 505 Vid. suprà_, p. 233. + + 506 P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage from + THEOPHYLACT (A.D. 1077) which should have obtained notice in a much + earlier page:—Ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς; ἐνταῦθα στίξον, εἶτα εἱπέ; πρωί + πρώτῇ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. οὐ γὰρ ἀνέστη πρωί (τίς γὰρ + οἴδε πότε ἀνέστη;) ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάνη πρωί κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (αὔτη γὰρ ἡ πρώτη + τοῦ σαββάτου, τουτέστι, τῆς ἑβδομάδος,) ἥν ἄνω ἐκάλεσε μίαν + σαββάτων; [_Opp._ vol. i. p. 263 C. + + It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like + Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing Eusebius. + See above, p. 66, note (c). + + 507 Kollar, (editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same + opinion.—Huet (_Origeniana_, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) has a brief + and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject; but he arrives + at a far shrewder conclusion. + + 508 The copies which I have seen, are headed,—ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ (sometimes + ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ) ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ + ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no + Author’s name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril, + Origen, &c.—_Vide infrà_, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, No. + xlvii (comp, xxviii.) + +_ 509 Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in + Evangelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem + editi, nunc vero studio et operâ Theodori Peltani luce simul et + Latinitate donati._ Ingolstadt. 1580, 8vo. pp. 510. + + 510 “Ex hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde + annulos formavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis + aptatos, inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem + producerem, quo, si possem consequi, sancto Evangelistae Marco decus + et ornamentum adderetur.”—_Præfatio_: from which the particulars in + the text are obtained. + + 511 ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων + ἐξήσησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit + C. F. Matthæi, Mosquae, 1775. + + 512 P. xxvii-xxviii. + + 513 To understand what is alluded to, the reader should compare the + upper and the lower half of p. 442 in Cramer: noting that he has one + and the same annotation before him; but diversely exhibited. (The + lower part of the page is taken from Cod. 178.) Besides transposing + the sentences, the author of Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference + to Chrysostom, and omitted the name of Apolinarius in line 10. + (Compare Field’s ed. of _Chrys._ iii. 529, top of the page.) + + 514 Thus the two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to agree with + the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. 527. See also _infrà_, p. 289. + + 515 Let any one, with Mai’s edition of the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of + Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged, + mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p. + 257 with Cramer’s “Catenae,” i. p. 251-2; and this again with the + “Catena in Joannem” of Corderius, p. 448-9. + + 516 With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree. + + 517 p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p. 4. + + 518 Eusebius is again quoted at p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line + 23-5). See especially p. 446. + + 519 What is found at p. 314 (on S. Mark v. 1,) is a famous place. (Cf. + Huet’s ed. ii. 131.) Compare also Victor’s first note on i. 7 with + the same edit. of Origen, ii. 125 C, D,—which Victor is found to + have abridged. Compare the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284 A. + Note, that ἄλλος δέ φησι, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf. + Possinus, p. 324. + + 520 See pp. 408, 418, 442. + + 521 e.g. the first note on p. 311; (comp. Possinus, p. 95): and the last + note on p. 323; (comp. Poss. p. 123.) Compare also Cramer, p. 395 + (line 16-22) with Poss. p. 249.—I observe that part of a note on p. + 315 is ascribed by Possinus (p. 102) to Athanasius: while a scholium + at p. 321 and p. 359, has no owner. + + 522 e.g. p. 408, 411 (twice). + + 523 In p. 418,—ὁ τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος Ἰωάννης. For instances + of quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 with Chrys. pp. + 398-9: p. 376 with Chrys. pp. 227-8: p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c. + + 524 Take for example Victor’s Commentary on the stilling of the storm + (pp. 312-3), which is merely an abridged version of the first part + of Chrysostom’s 28th Homily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8); about 45 + lines being left out. Observe Victor’s method however. Chrysostom + begins as follows:—Ὁ μὲν οὖν Λουκᾶς, ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ + ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν. (Then follows S. Luke + viii. 22.) καὶ ὁ Μάρκος ὁμοίως. Οὗτος δὲ οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ + ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ. Victor, because he had S. Mark (not S. + Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus:—Ὁ μὲν Μάρκος ἀπαλλάττων + ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ὁμοίως δὲ + καὶ ὁ Λοῦκας; ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα + διατηρεῖ. + + 525 e.g. V. A. p. 422 (from ὁ μέν φησιν to ἄλλος δέ φησιν) = Chrys. p. + 460. Observe the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, ἄλλος + φησιν.—So again, V. A. pp. 426-7 = Chrys. pp. 473-6: where ἄλλος δέ + φησι, at the foot of p. 427 introduces a quotation from Origen, as + appears from Possinus, p. 324—See also p. 209, line 1,—which is from + Chrys. p. 130,—ἤ ὡς ὁ ἄλλος being the next words.—The first three + lines in p. 316 = Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, ἄλλος δέ φησιν. See + also pp. 392: 407 (φασί τινες—ἕτερος δέ φησιν): pp. 415 and 433. + After quoting Eusebius by name (p. 446-7), Victor says (line 3) + ἅλλος δέ φησιν. + + 526 e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which = Chrys. p. 447. + + 527 e.g. Theod. Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Reg. + 201:—Basil, (p. 370) whose name Possinus does not seem to have + read:—Cyril’s name, which Possinus found in a certain place (p. + 311), is not mentioned in _Laud._ Gr. 33 _fol._ 100 _b_, at top, &c. + + 528 So in the _Catena_ of Corderius, in _S. Joannem_, p. 302. + + 529 I believe it will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 corresponds _exactly_ + with Cod. Reg. 188: also that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201 + correspond with those of Cod. Reg. 206; to which last two, I believe + is to be added Cod. Reg. 187. + + 530 Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384 + in the _Syr. Cat._ + +_ 531 Catalogue Librorum MSS._ Lips. 1830, 4to. p. 656 _b_. + +_ 532 Reg._ 177 = A: 178 = B: 230 = C.—_Coisl._ 19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F: + 22 = G: 24 = H.—_Matthaei’s_ d _or_ D = I: _his_ e _or_ E = J: _his_ + 12 = K: _his_ a _or_ A = L.—_Vat._ 358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O: 1229 = + P: 1446 = Q.—_Vind. Koll._ 4 _Forlos._ 5 = R.—_Xav. de Zelada_ = + S.—_Laur._ 18 = T: 34 = U.—_Venet._ 27 = V.—_Vind. Lamb._ 38 = W : + 39 = X. + + 533 So B-E (which I chiefly follow) begins,—Το δε αναστας. + + 534 B begins thus,—Ει δε και το αναστας δε πρωι μετα τα επιφερομενα + παρα. It is at this word (παρα) that most copies of the present + scholion (A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, + V, W, X) begin. + + 535 So far (except in its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, + M, N, O, P, T, begin,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ου κεινται [I, ου + κειται: J, ουκ ην δε] ταυτα τα [M, O, T om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [D, + F, H om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον [B, εν τω παροντι] ευαγγελιῳ. + + 536 So I, J, K, L, and H. P proceeds,—ως νοθα νομισθεντα τισιν ειναι. + But B, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, O, T exhibit,—ως νοθα νομισαντες αυτα + τινες [B om. τινες] ειναι. On the other hand, A and Q begin and + proceed as follows,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ταυτα τα [Q om. τα] + επιφερομενα εν [A om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιῳ ως νοθα + νομισαντες τινες [Q, τινας (a clerical error): A om. τινες] ουκ + εθηκαν. + + 537 So B, except that it omits ως. So also, A, D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, + O, P, Q, T, except that they begin the sentence, ημεις δε. + + 538 So D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, T: also B and Q, except that they + prefix και to κατα το Π. B is peculiar in reading,—ως εχει η αληθεια + Μαρκου (transposing Μαρκου): while C and P read,—ομως ημεις εξ + ακριβων αντιγραφων και πλειστων ου μην αλλα και εν τῳ Παλαιστιναιῳ + ευαγγελιῳ Μαρκου ευροντες αυτα ως εχει η αληθεια συντεθεικαμεν. + + 539 So all, apparently: except that P reads εμφερομενην for + επιφερομενην; and M, after αναστασιν inserts εδηλωσαμεν, with a + point (.) before μετα: while C and P (after ανασταςιν,) proceed,—και + την [C, ειτα] αναληψιν και καθεδραν εκ δεξιων του Πατρος ῳ πρεπει η + δοξα και η τιμη νυν και εις τους αιωνας. αμην. But J [and I think, + H] (after γαρ) proceeds,—διο δοξαν αναπεμψωμεν τῳ ανασταντι εκ + νεκρων Χριστῳ τῳ Θεῳ ημων αμα τῳ αναρχῳ Πατρι και ζωοποιῳ Πνευματι + νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων. αμην. + + 540 So B. All, except B, C, H, J, P seem to end at εφοβουντο γαρ. + + 541 e.g. οὐκ ἦν δέ for οὐ κεῖνται. + + 542 Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author of _the + Canons_ as well:—“Canones quos _Eusebius_ Caesariensis Episcopus + _Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium_ in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in + Graeco habentur expressimus.” (_Ad Papam Damasum. Epist._) And + again: “_Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavit_ quos postea + secutus est Eusebius Caesariensis.” (_De Viris Illustr._ c. 55 + [_Opp._ ii. 881.])—See above, p. 128. + + 543 There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome + quarto volume (pp. 216) entitled _Harmonia quatuor Evangeliorum + juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones_. It is merely the + contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printed _in extenso_,—and of + course is no “Harmony” at all. It would have been a really useful + book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has + omitted to number the sections. + + 544 This last § according to _Tischendorf’s_ ed. of the Eusebian Canons. + + 545 Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have + been recognised at least _by Eusebius_. Our LORD’S Agony in the + Garden for instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by + him numbered § 283: and that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28, + he certainly numbered § 216,—whatever Tischendorf may say to the + contrary. (See p. 203.) + + 546 It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References + follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in + the order of their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the + matter in hand:—and that, (2) actual Quotations, and even Allusions + to other parts of Scripture when they are undeniable, should be + referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also certain that, (3) + to a far greater extent than at present, _sets_ of References might + be kept _together_; not scattered about in small parcels over the + whole Book.—Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present + occasion,) (4) it is to be wished that _strictly parallel places_ in + the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative + only, or are merely recalled by their similarity of subject or + expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful + illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,—Why is it no longer + possible to purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha? _Who_ + does not miss the reference to “Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12” at Gen. ix. + 14? _Who_ can afford to do without the reference to “1 Macc. iv. 59” + at S. John x. 22? + + 547 Mai, vol. iv. p. 287. See also p. 293. + + 548 Tischendorf says 19 only. + + 549 Tischendorf says 96 only. + + 550 Tischendorf says 13 only. + + 551 Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I, P, Q, R, W6, Y, + Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, iscr, sscr. Also D and K. (_Cod. Bezæ_, p. + xx, and _Introd._ pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I think _not_ + 263.) + + 552 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 51 and 52: _Cod. Bezæ_, p. xx. note + [2.] + + 553 Evan. 263, for instance, has certainly _blank_ Eusebian Tables at + the beginning: the _frame_ only. + + 554 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 51 (note 2),—where Tregelles (in + Horne’s _Introd._ iv. 200) is quoted. + + 555 e.g. Codd. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one other at Paris, but I + have not preserved a record of the number.) To these, Tregelles adds + E; (Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W, + and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener’s _Cod. Bezae_, p. xx.) + + 556 The _order_ of these monograms requires explanation. + + 557 Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450, and 1, and 2, and 4, and 6, and 7, and + 8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright’s _Catalogue,_ 4to. 1870.) + Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler, + p. 52-3: also p. 63. + + 558 “Dawkins 3.” See Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogue_, p. 72. + + 559 It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, _every + verse_ of S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes + an independent section (§§ 281-288): ver. 16-18 another (§ 289); and + verr. 19-20, another (§ 290), which is the last. The Greek scheme, + as a rule, makes independent sections of verr. 8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but + throws together ver. 10-11: 12-13: 15-16: 17-18. (_Vide infrà_, p. + 311.) + + 560 Note that § 392/9 = S. Luke xxiv. 12: § 394/10 = ver. 18-34: § 395/8 + = ver. 35: § 396/9 is incomplete. [Dr. Wright supplies the lacune + for me, thus: § 396/9 = ver. 36-41 (down to θαυμαζόντων): § 397/9 = + εἶπεν αὐτοῖς down to the end of ver. 41: § 398/9 = ver. 42: § 399/9 + = ver. 43: § 400/10 = ver. 44-50: § 401/8 = 51: § 402/10 = ver. 52, + 3. + + Critical readers will be interested in comparing, or rather + contrasting, the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which + prevails in all Greek Codices. S. John’s § 248/1 = xx. 18: his § + 249/9 = ver. 19 to εἰρήνη ὑμῖν in ver. 21: his $ 250/7 = ver. 21 + (καθώς to the end of the verse): his § 251/10 = ver. 22: his § 252/7 + = ver. 23: his § 253/[10] = ver. 24-5: his § 254/[9] = ver. 26-7: + his § 255/10 = ver. 28 to the end of xxi. 4: his § 256/9 = xxi. 5: + his § 257/9 = xxi. 6 (to εὑρήσετε): his § 258/9 = ver. 6, (ἔβαλον to + the end): his § 259/[10] = ver. 7, 8: his § 260/[9] = ver. 9: his § + 261/[10] = ver. 10: his § 262/9 = ver. 11: his § 263/9 = first half + of ver. 12: his § 264/10 is incomplete. + + [But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently + the correcter ones, 263/10 stands opposite the middle of ver. 12 + [οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα], and 264/9 opposite ver. 13 [ἔρχεται οὖν],) proceeds + to supply the lacune for me, thus: § 264/9 = ver. 13: § 265/10 = + ver. 14-5 (down to φιλῶ σε; λέγει αυτῷ): § 266/9 = βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία + μου, (end of ver. 15): § 267/10 = ver. 16 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 268/9 + = λέγει αὐτῷ, Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατα μου (end of ver. 16): § 269/10 = + ver. 17 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 270/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ., β. τὰ π. μου + (end of ver. 17): § 271/10 = ver. 18 to 25. + + 561 “I have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and + 7,157. The first three are Nos. lxix, lxx, and lxxi, in my own + Catalogue: the last, a Nestorian MS., is No. xiii in the old + Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen (London, 1838). All four agree in + their numeration.” + + 562 See the preceding note.—Availing myself of the reference given me by + my learned correspondent, I read as follows in the Catalogue:—“Inter + ipsa textus verba, numeris viridi colore pictis, notatur Canon + harmoniae Eusebianae, ad quem quaevis sectio referenda est. Sic, + [glyph] [i.e. 1] indicat canonem in quo omnes Evangelistae + concurrunt,” &c. &c. + + 563 Suidas [A.D. 980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke, + makes the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171. + + 564 This sheet was all but out of the printer’s hands when the place in + vol. i. of Assemani’s Bibliotheca Medicea, (fol. 1742,) was shewn me + by my learned friend, P. E. Pusey, Esq., of Ch. Ch.—Dr. Wright had + already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from + the mutilated fragments of the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to + Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and 14,450. + + 565 Dr. Tregelles. (_Vide suprà_, pp. 125-6.) And so, Tischendorf. + + 566 The others are 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 32, 37, 40, 45, 52, 98, 113, 115, + 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 169, 186, 188, 193, 195, 265, 269, + 276, 371. Add. 18,211, Cromwell 15, Wake 12 _and_ 27. + + 567 The others are 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 54 [more §§ ?], 65, 68, + 111, 112, 114, 118, 157, 183, 190, 202, 263, 268, 270, 273, 277, + 278, 284, 287, 294, 414, 438, 439. Rich 7,141. Add. 17,741 _and_ + 17,982. Cromw. 16. Canonici 36 _and_ 112. Wake 21. + + 568 Viz. 184, 192, 264, hscr, Add. 11,836. Ti. Wake 29. + + 569 The others are 10, 20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl. + 141. + +_ 570 Vide suprà_, p. 33. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p. 53.) + The others are 8, 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36. + + 571 The others are 7, 27, 34, 38, 39, 46, 74, 89, 105, 116, 117, 135, + 179, 185, 194, 198, 207, 212, 260, 261, 267, 275, 279, 293, 301, + 445, kscr. Add. 22,740. Wake 22, 24, 30; _and_ 31 in which, ver. 20 + is numbered CMB. + + 572 But Cod. U inserts ευθεως before εξηλθεν; and (at least two of the + other Codices, viz.) 48, 67 read αιμα και υσωρ. + + 573 Σημείωσις is what we call an “Annotation.” [On the sign in the text, + see the Catalogue of MSS. in the Turin Library, P. i. p. 93.] On the + word, and on σημειοῦσθαι, (consider 2 Thess. iii. 14,) see the + interesting remarks of Huet, _Origeniana_, iii. § i. 4. (at the end + of vol. iv. of Origen’s _Opp._ p. 292-3.)—Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ v. + 20) uses σημείωσις in this sense. (See the note of Valesius.) But it + is plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinus (_subscriptio_), + that it often denoted a “signature,” or signing of the name. + Eusebius so employs the word in _lib._ v. 19 _ad fin._ + + 574 He was Patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 512-9.—The extract (made by Petrus + junior, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 578,) purports to be + derived from the 26th Epistle, (Book 9,) which Severus addressed to + Thomas Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani, _Bibl. + Orient._ vol. ii. pp. 81-2. + + 575 I cannot find the place in Cyril. I suppose it occurs in a lost + Commentary of this Father,—whose Works by the way are miserably + indexed. + + 576 Ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν [viz. the sect of the Severiani] ἀρχηγὸς + ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων + συνθεὶς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν. Ὁ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι + νῦν φέρεται. The next words are every way suggestive. Τοῦ δὲ + ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς, ὡς + ἐπιδιωρθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν.—Eusebius, _Hist. + Eccl._ iv. 29, § 4. + + 577 See, for example, the readings of B or א, or both, specified from p. + 80 to p. 86. + +_ 578 Vid. suprà_, p. 129, note (g.) + +_ 579 Opp._ vol. i. p. 391 D. + +_ 580 Haeret. Fab._ lib. i. c. xx. (_Opp._ iv. 208.) + + 581 Clinton, F. R. ii. _Appendix_, p. 473, quoting Theodoret’s “Ep. 113, + p. 1190. [_al._ vol. iii. p. 986-7].” + +_ 582 Quoted by Matthaei, N. T._ (1788) vol. ix. p. 228, _from_ g, a, d. + +_ 583 Ibid_., ii. 69, and ix. 228. + +_ 584 Nov. Test._ (1869), p. 404. + + 585 Let the reader examine his “Quaestio ix,” (Mai, vol. iv. p. 293-5): + his “Quaestio x,” (p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296, line + 29-32. + + 586 See Chrys. _Opp._ vol. viii. p. 522 _c_:—ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς + ἐπεχωρίαζεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε + ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν. + + + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK*** + + + +CREDITS + + +July 27, 2008 + + Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1 + Produced by Colin Bell, Daniel J. Mount, Dave Morgan, David + King. and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at + <http://www.pgdp.net/>. + + + +A WORD FROM PROJECT GUTENBERG + + +This file should be named 26134-0.txt or 26134-0.zip. + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + + + http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/6/1/3/26134/ + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one — the old editions will be +renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one +owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and +you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission +and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the +General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and +distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the Project +Gutenberg™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered +trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you +receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of +this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away +— you may do practically _anything_ with public domain eBooks. +Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE + + +_Please read this before you distribute or use this work._ + +To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or +any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), +you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ +License (available with this file or online at +http://www.gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. + + +General Terms of Use & Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works + + +1.A. + + +By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, +you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the +terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) +agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this +agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of +Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee +for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work +and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may +obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set +forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + + +1.B. + + +“Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or +associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be +bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can +do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying +with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are +a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you +follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to +Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + + +1.C. + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or +PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual +work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in +the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, +distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on +the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of +course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of +promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project +Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for +keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can +easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you +share it without charge with others. + + +1.D. + + +The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you +can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant +state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of +your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before +downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating +derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. +The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of +any work in any country outside the United States. + + +1.E. + + +Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + + +1.E.1. + + +The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access +to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever +any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase +“Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” +is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or +distributed: + + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with + almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away + or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License + included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org + + +1.E.2. + + +If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from the +public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with +permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and +distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or +charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the +phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you +must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 +or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + + +1.E.3. + + +If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the +permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply +with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed +by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project +Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the +copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + + +1.E.4. + + +Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License +terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any +other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. + + +1.E.5. + + +Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic +work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying +the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate +access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License. + + +1.E.6. + + +You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, +marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word +processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than +“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted +on the official Project Gutenberg™ web site (http://www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. +Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as +specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + + +1.E.7. + + +Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, +copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply +with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + + +1.E.8. + + +You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or +distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that + + - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to + the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to + donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 + days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally + required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments + should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, + “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary + Archive Foundation.” + + You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. + You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the + works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and + all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. + + You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + + You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. + + +1.E.9. + + +If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic +work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this +agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the +Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in +Section 3 below. + + +1.F. + + +1.F.1. + + +Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to +identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain +works in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these +efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they +may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, +incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright +or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk +or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot +be read by your equipment. + + +1.F.2. + + +LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES — Except for the “Right of +Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ +trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ +electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for +damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE +NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH +OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE +FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT +WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, +PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY +OF SUCH DAMAGE. + + +1.F.3. + + +LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND — If you discover a defect in this +electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund +of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to +the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a +physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. +The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect +to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the +work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose +to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in +lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a +refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. + + +1.F.4. + + +Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in +paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ’AS-IS,’ WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + + +1.F.5. + + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the +exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or +limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state +applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make +the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state +law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement +shall not void the remaining provisions. + + +1.F.6. + + +INDEMNITY — You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark +owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of +Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and +any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution +of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs +and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from +any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of +this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect +you cause. + + +Section 2. + + + Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ + + +Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic +works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including +obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the +efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks +of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance +they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring +that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for +generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for +Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations +can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at +http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. + + + Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of +Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. +The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. +Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. Contributions to the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full +extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. + +The Foundation’s principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. +S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North +1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact information +can be found at the Foundation’s web site and official page at +http://www.pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. + + + Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive + Foundation + + +Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread +public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the +number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed +in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment +including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are +particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. +Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable +effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these +requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not +received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or +determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have +not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against +accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us +with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any +statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the +United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods +and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including +checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please +visit: http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. + + + General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. + + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with +anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ +eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, +all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright +notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance +with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook’s eBook +number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, compressed +(zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected _editions_ of our eBooks replace the old file and take over the +old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +_Versions_ based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + + http://www.gutenberg.org + + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how +to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, +how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email +newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + + + + + +***FINIS*** +
\ No newline at end of file |