CORNELL
U_N I V ERS ITésY
LIBRARY
The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz
Book Endowment for the Humanities
Class of 1924
3 1924 088 200 096
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924088200096
THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK
ΤΗΕ
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 5. MARY-THE-VIRGIN’S, FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE,
AND GRESHAM LECTURER IN DIVINITY.
WITH FACSIMILES OF CODEX 8 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, sit”
Conversation of the late Presipext Rovtu.
Oxford and London:
JAMES PARKER AN} CO.
1871.
On the opposite page is exhibited an exact Fuc-simile, ob-
tained by Photography, of fol. 28 J of the Copex Sixaiticus
at 5. Petersburg, (Tischendorf’s ΒΝ) : shewing the abrupt ter-
mination of 8. Mark’s Gospel at the words ἘΦΟΒΟΥ͂ΝΤΟ ΓᾺΡ
(chap. xvi. 8), as explained at p. 70, and pp. 86—S. The
original Photograph, which is here reproduced on a dimi-
nisbed scale, measures in height full fourteen inches and
one-eighth; in breadth, full thirteen inches. It was pro-
cured for me through the fricndly and zealous offices of the
English Chaplain at S. Petersburg, the Rev. A. 5. 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 Copex Vaticaxus, B,
(N°. 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 ap-
prove itself to his Holiness, Pore Pius IX., let me be per-
mitted 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 Copex B (it is numbered
fol. 1303,) which exhibits the abrupt termination of the
Gospel according to S. Mark.
J W.B.
Oxg1EL CoLLE@E, OxPorD,
June 14, 1871.
ROD? cht ρα
το STRAIN CRRR ATS
ἔτ ΧΙ ETT O:
CTO eS NTA
STOYHAIOY::
SMICAR DON TIPOC:
ERY TA-COTICAM OK,
MCDA MIN πρῶ
NOONEKTHCOY>
PCToOyMNHMed.
OY KAA) PRE
CAPE ECD ΡΟΎΘΙ ὅτι
MIAKGICY ALE en-
"TOA KLOON HN PAP
MErkCexpBApy
<APEICEROOY EAIEL¢
JOMNIAM Crone).
ROM μι ελρωσκά >
KAQH MENONEKRO
JoIcAezrioscneyzi
BE BRAN entrees
iS MEALS IKEDA KAT
NEC AA. ENGH?>-
a cnr
“t OKRCAETHIAY TAG
bab eee ΞΕ)...
ὙΞΞΙ Ὑ ει’
ἰὸν ὦκα ne ες »
prohesisen ufer
GN Ghee τα μεν
BAe thew por:
το) FO Hans
Ly Ao.
AY MAPK E TE ET
sD RET EC IR
SHA Sy Foy
FANT ew Pre spo
OF PNT G Nee ry "»
MANE] PO bs! TA
ACURSERED CIEE
Ayr oriod rcae
{newer pjrenr
Tr Ayam
PRS eFeRour iy ΩΣ ᾿
ΣῪ τ Ar τοῦς
55: ΥΤΕΙ bt ero:
1 GE} IDF ΤΥ}
Σρέόκεσε: ies ketal ἥντα
LUAP KON.
CTAC 1 σιν»
£
BENIOYACHIED?
MON Exton B07; ae!
: Tray: |
Psa ae
coae Ayre πο I πϑο δένει
ἜΝ,
CATT Eten
> RX TAR od KAN>
ENEIAH NUEPFIOAmM
ETVO KEN? HHOAN AND
TAZACEAININTHCIN
ΕἸ} ΤῸΝ ΠΕΤΙΆΗ'
ογζημεν DA.
EN κα ΜῈ ΓΜ Χτ-
KASWOTTASEAOCAN
HMINOIAITAYANICAT
TONTAIKAIY TIS
TAITENOSMENO!
AOTOYEROSE AMOI
TIA H ΚΟΛΟΎΘΗ ΚΕ ΤΙ
ΤΕ Ε ἘΈΕΓΡΕΡ ἐΡΙΚῚ
εκ τ λϑοεσης:
WyA MIS ATER.
Se ee abet
es CON KATHI
AOTUDNITHN cpm
ALAS: CrEnELOEN
Ὑ5ι ΘΚ» θέλω»
LOY AGIAECIC FAC
Tor pareey acca bad Se :ΓΙ"
ὄνομ LAS SYD
ey: HIE PIACABIA
KAT τευ
στ τῶν Ing: ay PUT ETS )-:
hi “Pia KAQTEOO
RYRAY TH CEA CART
DMASATCRIO] AL
pers FOFENANTION
id io owes
ἀδλ νά! ΧΟ) CT IAG
βρῆς μάν RICK ioe
Pee URES
ET POI KAOYRA”
RPT ERNE oe!
OVAMNHGAEIC
SFEYPRAIIME
JEPOITtPORERN
TRECENT Seen Me
AY TONS ae
ι: pyr DEEN ΟΕ
Tey ENR FONE:
Pop berniced Hn
Μεγ λολητογε ne
TION VOY BY KATA
Teo0oc yep. Ti
Meerarrayey Μιὰς
=
CATEICEAO ONE’
TON NAON TOY KY:
KNTIAN TOT UAHOO?e
HNTOYAxcoynfocy
XSOMGHONEZDMTHD
PATO YOY(HMIAMKEs
COGIOHAERY TODAY
X cKyY ECTWCERKRM
ae ye yes
pray Ey Mian
"Jor KAIG Axew
ZK piracy. DN RA
funckenenecen
Tord tts:
CHIGNAEITFOG yn
OAVTEAOCMHD BY
AIRDPIALIOTTEMH
haoycenHHAeHngyc?
ΤΟΥ KAIHTYNHC-Y
EAGICHRE HIN
CEeiylonedy KATO
JE CCHCTOOT BPs
"fOYIORN HI KAY
CTA INN HCI KAA
FRANIREICROUNION
Vole HaeNece
NY TROY AH CON GI
CCTAIYAa Perce
NCDP aKs ἐξ ISS
NONEATARERAOY 7
MTR AE
OyTANCOHCETAE
TIEKKOIAI Xcess 1 7-
a MIACART-
ICM
Le ELSI KIT
OWA TDK AVS D9
“Por poere TAY
HOT
ENTIN ΚΣ ΝΑ
ΑΜ ΚΩ͂Ν
a jes PSIG
lose
ee ie Socks j
δ Ar aa
WOU AAROSY κῃ. a
tho.) δε τε ACN
τ ΕἸΠΕ DOSY Ie
ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν,
€ws ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ eepaits καὶ ἡ γῆ,
ἰῶτα ἐν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου
2
ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.
» ,
evenings δέ ἐστι
τὸν οὐ
ρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν,
ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.
€ » ἣ;
ὃ o in yn
upavos καὶ ἡ γῇ 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 ξωῆς,
καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας,
La , ᾽ δ
Kal τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ..
e
a)
TO
SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, Q.C., ILP.,
&c., &e., &ec.
Dear Sir Rovnxve11,
1 do myself the honour of inseribing this volume to you. Per-
mit me to explain the reason why.
It is not merely that I may give expression to a sentiment of
prirate friendship which dates back from the pleasant time when
1 teas Curate to your Father,—ihose memory I never recal
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
vou set us on arecent 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 8. Mark.
It is because I desire supremely to submit the argument con-
tained in the ensuing pages to a practised judicial intellect of the
lortiest stamp. Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that
The Critics, almost
Popular Preju-
these “last Twelve Verses” are not genuine.
to a man, acow themselves of the same opinion.
dice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side.
Iam as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the
truth. It is not even τὶ ἢ meas it is ecith certain learned
Friends of mine, who, admitting the adversary’s premisses, con-
tent themselves with denying the validity of his inference. Hovw-
eter 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 con-
vi DEDICATION.
trary, that the Evidence relied on is untrusticorthy,—untrust-
worthy in every particular.
Tow, 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 sceure for mysely 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, (achich 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, er not,
it shall content me to hare shewn in this manner the confidence
with which I advocate my cause; the kind of test to which I
propose to bring my reasonings. 17 I may be allowed to say 80,
—S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a
subject of dispute among men. J 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
shen, from considerations achich have been hitherto overlooked,
that its genuineness must needs be reckoned among the things
that are absolutely certain.
Tam, with sincere regard and respect,
Dear Sir Roundell,
Very faithfully yours,
JOHN W. BURGON.
Or1z1,
July, 1871.
PREFACE.
IIS volume is my contribution towards the bene
understanding of a subject which is destined,
when it shall have grown into a Scicnee, ὦ vindi-
cate for itself a mighty province, and to enjoy pe
mount 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 Ὁ, yet
only imperfectly understood. The reason 15 obvious.
It is because the very foundations have not yet ine
laid, (except to a wholly inadequate extent,) on
the future superstructure is to rise. A careful colla-
tion of every extant Codex, (executed after the led
ner of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener’s labours int tits de-
partment, ) is the first indispensable preliminary :
any real progress. Another, is a revised ek ey 0
εὖν a more exact knowledge, of the oldest ἃ pl
Scareely of inferior importance would be nag Ἷ
correct editions of the Fathers of the Chaten ; an
these must by all means be furnished with far com-
pleter Indices of Texts than have ever yet been a
tempted.—There is not a single Baliier to be ane
whose Works have been hitherto furnished with
a tolerably complete Index of the places in which he
-
“a PREFACE.
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 satisfactoril
collated. Strange to relate, we are to this hour ote
out so much as a satisfactory Catalogue of the Copi
which are known to be extant. ° we
But when all this has been done,—(and the Science
deserves, and requires, a little more public encourage-
ment than has hitherto been bestowed on the a
and—let me not be ashamed to add the word—uanre-
aiuinena tite labour of Textual Criticism, )—it will be
Giseonered 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 ὅν,
rally reversed.
I am not of course losing sight of what has been
amendy achieved in this department of Sacred Learn-
ing. While our knowledge of the uncial MSS. has been
rendered tolerably exact and complete, an excel-
lent beginning has been made, (chiefly by the Rev.
F. H. Scrivener, the most judicious living Master
of Textual Criticism,) in acquainting us with the con-
tents 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 Tre-
gelles as Zerts are wholly inadmissible, yet is it
equally certain that by the conscientious diligence
with which those distinguished Scholars have respec-
PREFACE. ix
tively laboured, they have erected monuments of their
learning and ability which will endure for ever. Their
Editions of the New Testament will not be super-
seded 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 pre-
cious materials for future study. All honour to them !
If in the warmth of controversy 1 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, 1 will very humbly beg
their pardon also.
In conclusion, I desire to offer my thanks to the
Rey. John Wordsworth, late Fellow of Brasenose Col-
lege, 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,—
((1 sce 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
x PREFACE,
more than half a thousand years old,) as Collegium
Scholarium in Sacra Theologid studentium,—perpetuis
‘temporibus duraturum. Indebted, under Gop, 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
estent “employed my advantages,” — (the expres-
Sion 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. 8.
OgIEL,
July, 1871.
CONTENTS.
DEDICATION ὃ ὲ ; , : . : . pili
PREFACE. i : : : : : : . pv
CHAPTER I.
THE CASE OF THE Last TweELve Versrs oF S. Mark’s Gosret,
STATED.
These Verses generally suspected at the present tine. The popularity of
this opinion accounted for . 5 ἃ 3 : - pl
CHAPTER II.
TOE HOSTILE VERDICT OF ΒΙΒΙΙΟΑΙ, CEITIcs SHEWN ΤῸ BE QUITE OF
RECENT DATE.
Griesbach the first to deny the genuincness of these Verses (p. 6).—Lach-
mann’s fatal principle (p. 8) the clue to the unfacourable cerdict of
Tischendorf (p.9), of Tregelles (p. 10), of Alford (p. 12); which has
been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and Diviues (p.13).—
The nature of the present inguiry explained (p.15). : . p.d
CHAPTER III.
Tuer EARLY FaTHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOUR-
ABLE WITNESS TO THESE VERSES.
Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p.20).—The in-
portance of such evidence explained (p.21).—Nineteen Patristic witnesses
to these Verses, produced (p. 23).—Sumuary (p. 30). ‘ . }.19
CHAPTER IV.
ΠΕ EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING
TFSTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.
Lhe Peshito,—the Curctonian Syriac,—and the Recension of Thomas of
Hharkel (p. 33).—The Vulgate (p.34)—and the Vetus Hala (p.35),—
the Gothic (p.35)—and the Egyptian Versions (p.35).—Reciere of the
Evidence up to this point (p. 36). : , 4 . p32
xu CONTENTS.
CHAYPTER V.
TaE a oat. fe
ALLEGED HOST WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY Fates
EC OSTILI 3
PROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF TOE Critics
The mistak BA ᾿ ᾿
᾿ "τε mie Gregory of Nyssa (p.39).—The misconception eo
raing Eusebius (p.41).—The oversight o 7 ᾿
: | sight concerning Jerome ;
concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, (or else Soe of ae. Ἦν
and the mis-statenent conceruing Victor of Antioch ip 59) . ne
. 59). Ρ.
CHAPTER VI.
Mastscr : ‘
λ CRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR
OF THESE VERSES.—Panr I.
S. Mark xvi, 9—20, contained in ever i
Prrational aes to Infallibility set ἐρῶ Δι. pei
aan (p. 15).—These tico Codices shewn to be full of gross pate
a ),-—Interpolations (p.80),—Corruptions of the Text (p. 81),—and
ercerstons of the Truth (p. 83).—The testimony of Cod. B to 8 Mark
xvi. 9—20, shewn to be farourable, notiithstanding (p. 86). p-70
CHAPTER VII.
ManNTSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR
OF THESE VERSES.—Paarrt II,
The aide chief peculiarity of Codices B and (viz. the omission of the word:
ἐν Ἐφέσῳ Srom Ephes. i. 1) considered.— Antiquity unfacourable mere
omission of those words (p. 93).—The Moderns infelicitous in th :
attempts to account for their omission (p. 100).—Marcion probabl: he
author of this corruption of the Tert of Scripture (p. 106) pe τς
liarities of Coder 8 disposed of, and shein to be errors (p. 109) τς aii
CHAPTER VIII.
THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA AND NoTEs In MSS. on THE
SUBJECT OP THESE VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHA
COMMONLY SUPPOSED. ; _
Later Editors of the New Testament the rictins of their predecessors i:
accuracies. — Birch’s unfortunate mistake (p. 117). — Scholz’ ae
blunders (ρ. 119. and pp. 120-1).—Griesbach’s sweeping aie
(pp. 121-2).—The grave misapprehension which has resulted fron ᾿ va
inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3). vas
CONTENTS. xiii
Codex Li (p.123).—-Aamonins aot the author of the so-called “ Ammouian”
Sretions (p.123).— Epiphanins (p.182).—“ Caesarius,? @ wisnomer.—
«The Catena” misreprescuted (p. 133). p. 114
CHAPTER IX.
INTERNAL EvipENCE DEMONSTRATED Τὸ RE THE VERY BEVERSE OP
UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.
The “ Style” and © Phrasculogy” of these Terses declared by Critics tu be
not S.Afurk’s.—Insecurity of such Crificiea (p.140).—The “ Style” of
chap. xvi. 9—20 shewn fo be the sane as the style of chap. i. 9—20
(p. 142).—The “ Phraseology” eraiined in tirenty-serent particulars, and
shewn to be suspicious in none (p. 145),—ut in licenty-serca 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 iost probably geauine (p- 175). p. 180
CHAPTER X.
Tye TRSTIMONY OF THE LECIIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY
DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES. ᾿
The Lectionary of the Eust shewn to be a work of extraordinary aatiquity
(p- 195).—Prored to be older than aay extant MS. of the Gospels, by an
appeal to the Futhers (p.198).—Jn this Lectionary, (and also in the Lec-
tionary of the West,) the last Twelce Verses of S. Mark's Gospel hare,
Srom the first, occupied @ most cunspicusus, as well as most honourable
place (p. 201).—Now, this becones the testiuony of ante-Nicene Chris-
tendom in their favour, and is therefore decisire (p. 209). p- 191
CHAPTER XI.
THE oMIssiON OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT Copies
oF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.
The Tert of our fice oldest Uncials proved, by an induction of instances, to
hace suffered depracation throughout by the operation of the ancient
Lectionary system of the Church (p.217).—The omission of S. Mark’s
“last Tecelve Verses,” (constituting an integral Ecclesiastical Lection,)
sheicn by an appeal to ancient MSS. to be probably only one more eranple
of the sane depraving influence (p. 224).
This solution of the problem corroborated by the language of Eusebius and
of Hesychins (p. 932) ; as tcell as facoured by the “ Western” order of
the Gospels (p. 389). . . Ἴ Ἴ 3 p- 212
KV
, NIENTS.
ca ᾿ς CONTENTS, GONE
APPENDIX (6).
ran”? xs ard on the EU6EBIAN CANONS :
the (so-called) “ AXMONIAN Srct109 Ἂν
᾿ pees With some accowat of the Tables of Reference occasion
ally found in Greek and Syriac MSS. (p.299)-
CHAPTER XII.
GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE;
AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT.
This discussion narrowed to a single tssue (p.244).—That 5. Mark's Gospel
ENDIX (Ε-.
was vaperfect from the cery first, a thing altogether incredible (p. 246) -— AELE! (
ἶ 3 αἱ 8. Matthew
But that at sone very remote period Copies hare suffered mutilation, On the Interpolation of the Text of Codex B aud Codex δὰ, ἃ
a supposition probable tn the highest degree (p. 248).—Conseguences of xxvii. 45 o7 49 (p. 315).
this admission (p. 252).— Parting words (p. 254). ὃ .- Ρ.248
POSTSCRIPT (p. 319).
LENToy.
APPENDIX (A).
On the Importance of attending ta Patristic Citations of Scripture.— Zhe GENERAL INDEX.
correct Tert of 8. LUKE ii. 14, established (p. 257).
APPENDIX (B).
comes immediately before the Title, and
Evsrsivus “ad Marinum” concerning the reconcilement of 5. Mark xvi. 9 The Facsimile of CopEx NS
with 8. Matthew xxviii. 1 (p. 265). aces the page describing it. = 4,
᾿ , ae ΤΥ τῶν of Copex L, with its page of description, comes imme
‘ iate} age 124.
APPENDIX (C). 1 diately after page
Proof that HEsycuius is a Copyist only in what he says concerning the end
of 5. Mark’s Gospel (p. 267).
APPENDIX (D).
Some account of Victor oF Axtiocn’s Commentary on S.Mark’s Gospel ;
together with a descriptice enumeration of MSS. which contain Fictor’s
Work (p. 269).
APPENDIX (E).
Text of the concluding Scholion of Victor oF ANTIOCH’s Commentary on
5. Mark’s Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic Testinony to the
Genuineness of “the last Twelce Verses” (p.288). F
APPENDIX (F).
On the relative antiquity of the CopEX Vaticaxts (B), and the CopEx
Srxarticvs (Ν) (p. 291).
Subjoincd, for conrenience, are “the Last Twelve Verses.”
᾿Αναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτον
ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ,
ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.
ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽
αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαί-
ουσι. κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ζῇ καὶ
ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἠπίστησαν.
Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν
περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ
μορφῇ, πορενομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν. κἀ-
κεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς
λοιποῖς᾽ οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν.
Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς
ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισε τὴν
Β , ae. ,
ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν,
ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερ-
, ᾿
μένον οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν. Καὶ εἶπεν
αὐτοῖς, ‘‘ Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον
΄ , ro ἢ
ἅπαντα, κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ
το , ΄ +
τῇ κτίσει. ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισ-
᾿ , ν ν᾿ ,
θεὶς σωθήσεται᾿ ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατα-
κριθήσεται. σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεύ-
σασι ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει" ἐν τῷ
διὰ ᾿ , 2 an
ὀνόματί pou δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσι"
γλώσσαις λαλήσουσι καιναῖς᾽ ὄφεις
2. -~ a , ΄ ΄ >
dpovaw κἂν θανάσιμόν τι πίωσιν, οὐ
μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψει ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους
χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσι, καὶ καλῶς ἔξου-
”
ow.
hs Ξ
Ὃ μὲν οὖν Κύριος, μετὰ τὸ λαλῆ-
σαι αὐτοῖς, ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν,
καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ"
ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρνξαν srav-
ταχοῦ, τοῦ Kupiov συνεργοῦντος, καὶ
τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπα-
κολουθούντων σημείων. ᾿Αμήν.
(9) Now when Jests was risen
early the first day of the week,
He appeared first to Mary Mag-
dalene, out of whom He had cast
seven devils. (10) And she went
and told them that had been with
Him, as they mourned and wept.
(11) And they, when they had
heard that He was alive, and had
been seen of her, believed not.
(12) After that He appeared
in another form unto two of
them, as they walked, and went
into the country. (13) And they
went and told it unto the residue:
neither believed they them.
(14) Afterward He appeared
unto the eleven as they sat at
meat, and upbraided them with
their unbelief and hardness of
heart, because they believed not
them which had seen Him after
He was risen. (15) And He said
unto them, ‘‘Go ye into all the
world, and preach the Gospel to
every creature. (16) He that
belicveth and is baptized shall
be eaved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned. (17) And
these signs shall follow them that
believe; In My Name shall they
cast out devils ; they shall speak
with new tongues; (18) they
shall take up serpents; and if
they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them; they shall
lay hands on the sick, and they
shall recover.”
(19) So then after the Lorp
had spoken unto them, He was
received up into Heaven, and
sat on the Right Hand of Gop.
(20) And they went forth, and
preached every where, the Lozp
working with them, and confirm-
ing the word with signs follow-
ing. Amen.
THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK.
ai σΞ - σοι
CHAPTER I.
TIE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES
OF 8. MARK’S GOSPEL, STATED.
These Verses generaliy suspected at the present time. The popularity
of this opinion accounted for.
i lve
the fashion to speak of the last Twe
ae rding to S. Mark, as if it were
ἷ the Gospel acco :
pee i erses constitute no integral
scertained fact that those Ὁ
ate of de Gospel. It seems to be generally supposed, (1)
That the evidence of MSS. is altogether fatal to their Αἰ μῶν
(2) That “ the early Fathers” witness plainly Bene " ἐν
genuinencss ; (3) That, from considerations eee
evidence” they must certainly be given up. It sha es
endeavour in the ensuing pages to shew, on the con κὰν
That manuscript evidence is 60 overwhelmingly mn eat
favour that no room is left for doubt or eee ΞΡ Ξ
there is not so much as ove of the Fathers, early or ales
who gives it as his opinion that these verses are ame we ᾿
and, That the argument derived from Eire pale
tions proves on inquiry to be baseless and unsubstan
ἃ dream. shall succeed in doing more. Jt shall
But I hope that I i
be my endeavour to shew not only that there really is no
reason whatever for culling in question the anal ᾿
this portion of Holy Writ, but also that. there exis . ‘a
fecling confident that it must needs
\ as much as it is possible for me
B
cient reasons for
genuine. This is clearl
2 Different gromuts of Doubt [cuar.
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 ἢ
At the two different periods, (I answer,) for widely different
reusons.
(1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief
of Christendom that the Word of Gop must needs be con-
sistent 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 bring-
ing certain statements in S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses into
harmony with certain statements of the other Evangclists,
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 8. 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 four-
fold narrative even of the life of the Redeemer*.” There
has arisen in these last days a singular impatience of Dog-
matic 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
* Abp. Tuit’s Harmony of Revelation und the Sciences, (1864,) p. 21.
ee tna ee aed
ΕΟ POR ata
ms
1.7 in Ancient and in Moder Times. 3
of the ancients; and which, 2 sae a 1300 years and
e deservedly sunk into oblivion.
Bete ae that “most divine eapucation of the
chiefest articles of our Christian belief, ἐπε το λον
Creed >, is made the object of incessant apealts A bien cae
it is remembered that statements quite as “unc " ΕἿΣ
as any which this Creed contains are found in the ᾿
verse οἵ S. Mark’s concluding chapter; are m fact the sae 8
of Him whose very Name is Love. The precious ta ws
clause, 1 say, (miscalled “ damnatory a) which an sli i-
nent officiousness is for glossing with a rubric and abe ie
ing with an apology, proceeded from Divine lips,—at eas
if these concluding verses be genuine. How shall this ie
yenient circumstance be more effectually dealt with πος
by accepting the suggestion of the most recent yee ha
S. Mark’s concluding verses are an unauthorised addition
to his Gospel? “If it be acknowledged that τ ἀμφ
bus 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 be-
yond doubt, that it is not a part of 5. Mark's Gospel, but
τ addition by another hand; of which the weakness in the
external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in
proving its later origin ©.” ns i τα
Modern prejudice, then,—added to a singularly exage
rated estimate of the critical importance of the testimony
Boss as i. 11—13.
© Soe by all means Hooker, E. P., v- xlii. 11 - ; ;
€ "Ἢ 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
game opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that ‘many excellent ae spo
eluding King George IIL, have declined to take Ῥατί in the τεοῖ jon.
(Final) Report of the Ritual Commission, 1870, na p- ee
i Rev. C. P. Eden),—“ Con
ὁ In the words of a thoughtful friend, ( ; —
5 derstand mysclf, in uttering these
is just what these clauses are not. I un Σ ᾿ i
ek not to condenin a fellow creature, but to pen ae ate als
᾿ j 4 » sin of unbelief. ne er question,—
ture, Gon’s judgment namely on the sin 0 ᾿ : sass
1 whom ne τὰ of unbelief is found; ἐλαΐ awful question I leave ieee
Nis hands who is the alone Judge of hearts Bee aa ὅν and know
i ities, al whose tender mercies are over all Tis wot 8.
ἜΠΗ Ficusen Creed,” by the Dean of Westminster (Contemporary
Reriew, Aug., 1870, pp- 158, 159).
B2
4 ᾿ Obrivns Questions. (cHar. 1.
of our two oldest Codices, (another of the “discoveries of
later times,” concerning which I shall have more tg say
by-and-by,)—must explain why the opinion is even popular
that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious ap-
pendix 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'.” 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 sup-
posed 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, what-
ever 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.
* Commentarius Criticus, ii, 197,
Seems ee aa
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- em
Lackhmann'’s fatal principle (p. 8) the clue to the deg :
verdict of Tischendorf (p. 9), of Tregelles (p. 10), eee
(p. 12); echich has been generally adopted by subsequent le
and Divines (p. 13).— The nature of the present inguiry explaine
(p. 15.)
Ir is only since the appearance of Griesbach’s second ent
tion [1796—1806] that Critics of the New Testament μον
permitted themselves to handle the last twelve verses 0
S. Mark's Gospel with disrespect. Previous critical econ
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 evi-
dence (as far as he was acquainted with it) foe and against.
Twenty-seven years later, appeared Bengel’s edition of the
New Testament (1734); and. Wetstein, at the end of another
seventeen years (1731-2), 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 5", (suspicious as the latter ee
dently 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 pene
suffrage. He had been for upwards of fourteen years a la-
borious 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,
* Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a tertu lectionibus rae
MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, ete. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit An ἀεὶ
‘Birch, Ηατηῖαε, 1788. A copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may
seen in the King’s Library (Brit. Mus.)
0 Griesbach’s wild Theory [cHap
that with no ordinary w
insisted on their a : προ μμμ ad
“With Griesbach,” (remarks Dr. Tregelles",) “Τοχίβ which
be called really critical begin ;” and Griesbach i th
ape Ba the comes g verses of S. Mark are ei
not suppose the second Gospe
ee at ste 8, we have seen already °. 2 Ἢ εὐ καὶ ἢ
pes lige Ἐπ sk some very remote period, the siiginal
lie Epa ora cons eid in ca ct ea
Sy a : i
by some one substituted in its place.’’ Ee eacte
ea the following elaborate and extraordinary hypothesis
0 poe for the existence of δ. Mark xvi. 9—20
ee Pe Nati πον πὰ to believe that when, (before the
nee Lane century,) the four Evangelical narratives
eee τς ce a Nolonie and dignified with the title of
Ἢ pe 2S. Mark 8. narrative was furnished by some
lie individual with its actual termination in order to
a y i: manifest incompleteness; and that this volume
Mie standard of the Alexandrine recension of the
pa ee ἢ γε became the fontal source of a mighty
δ 8 fl SS. by Griesbach designated as ‘“‘ Alexandrine.”
ut there will have been here and there in existence isolated
at ᾿ one or more of the Gospels; and in all of these
tel arian (by the hypothesis,) will have ended
y e eighth verse. These copies of single Gos-
pels, when collected together, are presumed by Griesbach
to have constituted “the Western recension.” If, in codic
of this family also, the self-same termination is OW all -
He ae found, the fact is to be accounted for (Gries.
rte reli by the natural desire which pousessors of the
spels will have experienced to supplement their imperfect
copies ἈΒ best they might. “Let this conjecture be ac-
cepted,” proceeds the learned veteran,—(unconscious appa-
rently that he has been demanding acceptance for at leat
half-a-dozen wholly unsupported as well as entirely gratui-
tous conjectures,)—‘‘and every difficulty disappears; and
> Account of the Printed Text, p. 83. © See above, p. 3
p. 3.
ee ee en ee
mean |
1. concerning these Twelve Verses. τ
it becomes perfectly intelligible how there has crept into
almost every codex which has been written, from the second
century downwards, ἃ section quite different from the ori-
ginal and genuine ending of §.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 disap-
peared 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, inas-
much 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 πὶ had not yet
been discovered,)—had been already claimed by Griesbach
asa 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 cov-
taincd it. How was that inconvenicnt fact to be got over ?
Griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note that Codex B.
“jas aplinity with the Eastern family of MSS.”—The mis-
fortune of being saddled with a worthless theory was surely
never more apparent. By the time we have reached this
int in the investigation, we are reminded of nothing 50
much as of the weary traveller who, having patiently pur-
sued 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 sen-
tence which their illustrious predecessor had passed on the
concluding portion of S. Mark’s Gospel. The latter even
8
Lachmann the Originator of [cnaP
sees vindicated its genuineness*, But with Lachma
πον τον ra a text of the Gospels el is
τ a ων : new principle of Textual Revision;
Sys vt ; ay Υ, of paying exclusive and shvoluts
cee e estaitony of a few arbitrarily selected
ΩΣ eae no regard being paid to “others of
bates or of yet higher antiquity. This is not the
ght place for discussing this plausible and certain]
convenient scheme of textual revision. That it heee
conclusions little short of irrational, is certain Ἵ a ri
my ee it supplies the clue to the result ar eey e
᾿ ᾿ a5 ΧΥΪ, 9—20 is concerned, has been since arrived
"ἢ ale aga Dr. Tregelles, and Dean Alford *,—
atest cri ᾿ ᾿
costes oe have formally undertaken to
ἕ ἰὸν agree in assuring their readers that the genuine
Gospe of S. Mark extends no further than ch. xvi 8
in other words, that all that follows the wards ἐφ Boi
γάρ is an unauthorized addition by some later cand ἐὰ
in. ae Pamir ge urs from the rest of the Gospel oe
by interna evidence than by exte esti , i
verdict becomes the more sie ane ae Ξ ᾿"
men of undoubted earnestness and high ability ; who ὁ ae
be suspected of being either unacquainted with the tee
ἘΝ ae the ad in dispute rests, nor inexperienced in
ἦ ᾿ weighing such evidence. Moreover, their verdict
as been independently reached; is unanimous; is unhesi
tating ; has been eagerly proclaimed by all three on ἡ
different occasions as well asin many different places an
3
aac .
Ἵ re a eee raliones iuternae et externae probant gravissimae.”
Penni se say what distress the sudden removal of this amiable
ane ὀρῶν olar occasions me, just as I am finishing my task.
(constrained how ΤΡ 7 ses press with a sense of downright reluctance,—
longer among i ὐκιε ἀν ΑΣ a a eal is no
do is to erase every word which might ἀπε Sie He cue
noyance; and indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his res νὴ ae ca
An open grave reminds one of the Lothingness of earth] as me
nothing else does, or indeed can do. ye eer
€ Tischendor!, besides eight editions of his laborious critical reviai
Greek Text, has edited our English “ Authorized Version” reaeinite, ταν
τὰ pp a ON fe ἐν} ME a
al
-.---
¥
ΒΝ
:
1.) a fatal principle of Tertual Revision. 9
may be said to be at present in all but undisputed possession
of the ficld®. The first-named Editor enjoys 8 vast reputa-
tion, and has been generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, “ the
first Biblical Critic in Europe.” The other two have pro-
duced 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 Tis-
chendorf and Tregelles are wrong in this particular, it fol-
lows 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,”
earned readers, and the various read-
with an “ Introduction ’ addressed to unl
English at the foot of every page.—
ings of Codd. πὰ, B and A, set down in
Tregelles, besides bis edition of the Text of the N.T., is very full on the
subject of 5. 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 Greck Testament, and an
abridgment “for the upper forms of Schools and for passmen at the Univer-
sities,” put forth two editions of a “ON, 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.”
« The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, aud Bp. Wordsworth, are honour-
able exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent Divine reluctantly
admitting that “this portion mey not have been penned by 8. 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 reso-
lutely 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 hus never at any time given the Jesst sanction to the popular outcry against
this portion of the Gospel.“ Without the slightest misgiving” he has uni-
formly maintained the genuineness of 8. Mark xvi. 9—20. (Introduction,
pp. 7 and 429—82.)
10 Dr. Tischendorf’s verdict. [cHAP.
(he says,) ‘admits of satisfactory proof.” THe then recites
in detail the adverse external testimony which his prede-
ecssors had accumulated; remarking, that it is abundantly
confirmed by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a soli-
tary sawcple; but declares that the whole passage is “ab-
horrent”’ to 5. 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®.” 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 evi-
dence in farour 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 evi-
dence, (such as it is,) against the genuineness of a consider-
able 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'.”
2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this
subject in bis ‘“ 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 Afark
. himself extends no further than ἐφοβοῦντο yap.” He is the
+ «Hec non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,” (p. 320.)
“Qu testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod conlatis prioribus
versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ. item quod singula multi-
fariam a Marci ratione abborrent.’’ (p. 322.)—I1 quote from the 7th Leipsic
ed.; bat in Tischendorf’s 8th ed. (1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is
repeated, with the following addition:—“Quz quum ita sint, sane erga
sacrum textumn pietati adversari videutur qui pro apostolicis venditare per-
gunt que a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.” (p. 407.)
Evangelia Apocrypha, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.
u.] The verdict of Dr. Tregelltes. 11
only critic I have met with to whom it does not seem in-
credible that 5. Mark did actually conclude his Gospel in
this abrupt way: observing that ‘perhaps we do not know
cnough of the circumstances of S. Mark when he wrote his
Gospel to say whether he did or did not leave it with a com-
plete termination.” In this modest suggestion at least Dr.
Tregelles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing
whatever about “the circumstances of 8. Mark,” (or of any
other Evangelist,) “when he wrote his Gospel:” neither
indeed are we quite sure teho S. Mark was. But when he
goes on to declare, notwithstanding, “that the remaining
twelve verses, by whomsocver 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 Gon, and that it
is as much His as were the Commandments of the Law
written by His own finger on the tables of stone * ;”—the
learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the question
ut issuc, which we are least of all prepared to encounter in
such o quarter. We admire his piety but it is at the ex-
pense of his critical sagacity. For the question is not at all
one of avthorship, but only one of genrineness. 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 spu-
rious. 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 un-
authorized addition to it. If they belong to the post-apo-
stolic age it is idle to insist on their Inspiration, and to
claim that this “authentic anonymous addition to what
Mark bimeclf wrote down” is as much the work of Gop
‘as were the Ten Commandments written by His own
+ pp. 253, 7-9.
12 The opinion of Dean Alford. [cHap.
finger on the tables of stone.” On the other hand, if they
“ought as much to be reccived 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 KATA MAPKON
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 Scrip-
ture, 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!.
3. Dean Alford went a little further than any of his pre-
decessors. He says that this passage “‘ was placed as a com-
pletion 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 Gries-
bach’s) are not mine. The internal evidence (declares the
same learned writer) ‘ preponderates vastly against the au-
thorsbip of Mark ;” or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against
“its genuineness as a work of the Evangelist.” Accord-
ingly, in his Prolegomena, (p. 38) he describes it as “ the
reniarkable fragment at the end of the Gospel.” After this,
we are the less astonished to find that he closes the second
Gospel at rer. 8; introduces the Subscription there; and en-
closes the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets.
Thus, whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman
' In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced it “ mani-
festly untenable” that S. Mark’s Gospel was the last written; and assigned
a.D. 64 as “its most probable” dute. In bis second (1868, vol. ii. p.117), he
savs:— When we consider that the Gospel toas not written till the second
century, internal evidence loses much of its force against the authenticity of
these verses.” —Infroduction to N. T.
11. Thomson, Green, Norton, Westcott, Meyer. 13
Mill (1707), the editors of the N. T. have cither 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 Gries-
bach’s adverse sentence pronounced fifty years ago, and to
load the blessed Evangelist with bonds.
It might have been foreseen that when Critics so con-
epicuous permit themselves thus to handle the precious
deposit, others would take courage to hurl their thunder-
bolts 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 ™.””—The
Rev. T. §. Green®, (an able scholar, never to be mentioned
without respect,) considers that “the hypothesis of very
carly interpolation satisfies the body of facts in evidence,” —
which “point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious
origin.’—“In respect of Mark’s Gospe ,” (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 °.”—
Professor Westcott—who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A. Hort,
nnnounces a revised Text—assures us that “the original
text, from whatever cause it may have happened, terminated
ubruptly after the account of the Angelic vision.” The rest
“was added at another time, and probably by another hand.”
“Jt 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 P.””—Meyer insists that
this is an “apocryphal fragment,” and reproduces all the
arguments, external and internal, which have ever been
»" Vol. ii. p. 239. » Developed Criticism, [1857], p. 53.
© Ed. 1847, i. p.17. He recommends this view to his reader’s acceptance
in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.
® Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 311.
11 Grounds of the hostile verdict, [cuar.
arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving. The
“note” with which he takes leave of the subject is even
insolent®. 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 Lorp after His Resurrection, and concerning His
Ascension. (‘Hast thou killed, and also taken possession ἢ)
Such, then, is the hostile verdict concerning these last
twelve verses which I venture to dispute, and which I trust
T-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 au-
thenticity ;” 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 ἃ 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
4 Critical and Eregetical Commentary, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186—92.
we μάν
ἀρ neat FW:
π᾿ iges
11.] The rege ved Evidence. 15
that the former alternative is the correct one. Our oppo-
nents maintain that these verses did not form part of the
original autograph of the Evangelist. But 10 18 a know n
rule in the Law of Evidence that the burthen of proay hes on
the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue’. We have
therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the sup-
posed proof is exactly worth ; remembering always that ᾧ
this subject-matter a high degree of probability is the only
kind of proof which is attainable. When, for exemple, it 18
contended that the famous words in S. John’s first Epistle
(1 5. 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 saree 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
eer 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 Lorp ἃ webly to ihe
young ruler (S. Matt. xix. 17) was not Ti pe λέγεις ἀγαθόν;
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ Ocos,—it is at the same time in-
sisted that if was Ti pe ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ; εἷς ἐστὶν
ὁ ἀγαθύς. It is proposed to omit the former words only be-
cause 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 xv. 28, for example,
(καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα, Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλο-
γἰσθη,) or the Doxology in S. Matth. vi. 13,—18 ἀνὰ ἐν
all that is pretended is that certain words are an unautho-
rized 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 charye of interpolation which can be named. If bs
celebrated ‘‘pericopa de adultera,” for instance, be indee
' In the Roman Jaw this principle is thus expressed, τ Ei incumbit ἊΝ
batio qui dicit, non qui negat.” Taylor on the Law of Evidence, 1868, i. p. 369.
16 5 The peculiar nature of [cHaP.
not genuine, we have but to Icave out those twelve verses
of Κ΄. 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 us it came from the hands of its in-
spired Author. Nor, (it must be admitted), is any difficulty
whatever occasioned thereby ; for there is no reason assign-
able why the two last-named verses should no? cohere ; (there
is no internal improbability, I mean, in the supposition ;)
neither does there exist any d priori reason why a consider-
able portion of narrative should be looked for in that par-
ticular 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 nof mean that S. Mark himself, with
design, brought his Gospel to a close at the words ἐφοβοῦντο
ydp. 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.
(o.) 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 ori-
ginal 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 pro-
cured,— (a view which is found to have recommended itself
to Griesbach ;)—in which case it will have once had a dif-
ferent termination from at present ; which termination how-
ever, by the hypothesis, has since been irrecoverably lost ;—
(and to one of these two wild hypotheses the critics are
τα ἀβερι: aces
u.] the required Evidence. 17
logically reduced ;)—this we are not certainly told. The
critics are only agreed in assuming that S. Mark’s Gospel
tas at first without the verses which at present conclude it.
But this assumption, (that a work which has becn 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 assump-
tion, are confronted in /imine 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 5. Mark has. been !
furnished with its present termination ever since the second |
egntury of the Christian zra*. In default, therefore, of dis-
tinct historical evidence or definite documentary proof that
at some earlier period than that it terminated abruptly, no-
thing short of the utter unfitness of the verses which at pre-
sent 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 in-
ternal evidence of the most unequivocal character; or else
with external testimony of a direct and definite kind, if we
are to admit that th2 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 genera’ 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 supposi-
tion 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‘.
* This is freely allowed by all. “Certiores facti sumus hane pericopam jam
in secundo sweulo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.” Tregelles
N.T. p.214.
* This in fuct is how Bengel (NX. T. p. 526) accounts for the phenomenon :—
“Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam partem scribere differret,
c
--
18 Tnconsistency of the Critics. [CHAP. τι.
I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully
at the outsct; not in order to prejudge the question, (for
that could auswer 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 conclud-
ing verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unautho-
rized supplement to his Gospel, or not γ᾽ That is the ques-
tion 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 wof genuine, they ought
(if they would be consistent) fo Lanish them from the text”.
Conversely, since they do not banish them from the text, they
have no right to pass a fatal sentence upon them; to desig-
nate 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 in-
consistency 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.
et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii quasi perfectum sequerentur, praeser-
tim quum ea pars cum reliqua historia evangelicé minus congruere videretur.”
υ It is tbus that Tischendurf treats 5. Luke xxiv. 12, aud (in his latest edi-
tion) S. John xxi. 25,
CHAPTER ITI.
THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED
TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.
Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p. 20).—The
tmportance of such evidence explained (p.21).—Nineteen Patristic
acitnesses to these Verses, produced (p.23).—Swamary (p. 80).
, Tue present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds
of Evidence, external and internal. For the full considera-
tion of the former, seven Chapters will be necessary *: for
a discussion of the latter, one seventh of that space will
suffice’, 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. (2.) on Manuscriprs,—(2.) on VERsIOoNS,—
(3.) on Fatuers. And it is even self-evident that the most
ancient MSS.,—the earliest Versions,—the oldest of the Fa-
thers, will probably be in every instance the most trust-
worthy 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 pos-
sibly 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: — («.) Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not
licentiously ; and sometimes allude only when they seem to
guote. (b.) They appear to have too often depended on their
memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inac-
* Chap. HIIL—VIIL, also Chap. X.
c2
& Chap. 1X.
20 Patristic citations supplement [crap.
curate 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 cmployed by an Evangelist, their precise form and
exact seyuence,—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 con-
veniently 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 evi-
dence. But then unhappily nothing of the kind is the case.
The facts admit of being stated within the compass of a few
lines. We have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is thought
to belong to the first half of the iv century ; and another,
the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, Ν)
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 con-
sidered by competent judges to be the depository of a re-
cension of the text as ancient as any of the others. Not-
withstanding 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 con-
cerned,) to 2 uncial MSS. of the viiit® century,—7 of the
ix't,—4 of the ix'® or xt*¢, while cursives of the xit* and xiith
© Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, Γ, δ, A (quere), Π (Tisch. ed. 8va.) [ix]:
G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following ancials are defective here,—F (ver. 9—19),
H (ver. 9—14), I, N, Ο, P,Q R, T, W, Y, 2.
1Π.7 our seanty ALS. evidence. 2]
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 fire
in number at the utmost. And of these it has never been
pretended that the oldest is to be referred to an earlier date
than the beginning of the iv’ century, while it is thought
by competent judges that the last named may very possibly
have been written quite late in the vi".
5. Are we then reduced to this fourfold, (or at most five-
fold,) evidence concerning the text of the Gospels,—on evi-
dence of not quite certain date, and yet (as we all believe) not
reaching further back than to the iv” century of our era ?
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. Τ᾿: while between
αν. 300 and a.p. 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 de-
scribed as rare and unsatisfactory. But what then? From
the three hundred, make a liberal reduction; and an hun-
dred 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. 8 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 tose. two Codices. Quite surprising is it to discover '
to what an extent Patristic quotations from the New Testa-
ment 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
enjoved: but I shall content myself with citing a single
instance ; and for this, (in order not to distract the reader’s
Ke . eye . ἃ
22 Importance of Patristic citations. [cHar.
attention), I shall refer him to the Appendix. What is at
least beyond the limits of controversy, whenever the genuine-
ness of a considerable passage of Scripture is the point in dis-
pute, the testimony of Fathers who undoubtedly recognise
_ that passage, is beyond comparison the most valuable testi-
mony 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 assur-
ance that the passage in question was found in that copy of
the Gospels which he was accustomed himself to employ;
the uncial codez, (it has long since perished) thich 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 enter-
tained 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 Ecclesi-
astical 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
4 See Appendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14.
Ws Papias,—JTustin Martyr,—Irena us. 23
that their memory is in fault, as their judgment,—in that
they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to
recast, to reconstruct °.
1. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that Parias
refers to S. Mark xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous
tradition concerning “Justus surnamed Barsabas,” ‘“ how
that after drinking noxious poison, through the Lorp’s grace:
he experienced no evil consequence τ He does not give
the words of the Evangelist. It is even surprising how com-
pletely he passes them by ; and yet the allusion to the place
just cited is manifest. Now, Papias is a writer who lived £0
near the time of the Apostles that he made it his delight
to collect their traditional sayings. Jlis date (according to
Clinton) is a.p. 100.
"11. Jusrix Marryr, the date of whose first Apology 18
a.v.151, is observed to say concerning the Apostles that,
after our Lorp’s Ascension,—éFerOdvtes πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυ-
ξαν: which is nothing else but a quotation from the last
verse of S. Mark’s Gospel,—exeivor 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 Inexus, in his third Book against Heresies,
deliberately quotes and remarks upon the 19th verse of the
last chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel", we are put in possession of
* Consider how Ignatius (ad Smyrn., c. 3) quotes ΘΙ Luke xxiv. 39; and
how be refers to 8. John xii. 3 in his Ep. ad Ephes. c. 17.
Ἢ Ἱστορεῖ [se. Παπίας] ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ ᾿Ιοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Bape
Bas yeyords,—evidently a slip of the pen for Βαρσαβᾶν τὸν cle iris Ἰοῦστον
(sex Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately afterwards,)—és δηλητήριον
φά;μακον ἐμπιόντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίον χάριν ὑπομείναντος.
Ευξεὺ. Hist. Ecel. iii. 89.
© Apol. 1. ς. 45.—The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the Fragment De
Reeurrectione (Westcott and others) are clearly references to S. Luke xxiv.,—
ποί to 5. Mark xvi. τ
b lib. iii. c. x. ad jin. (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). “In fine autem Evangelii -
Murcus, ef guidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptna est is
caclos, εἰ sedet ad derteram Dei.” Accordingly, against 5. Mark xvi. 19 in
HarL MS. 5647 (= Evan. 72) occurs the following marginal scholium, which
Cramer hus already published :—Elpyvaios ὁ τῶν "AnogtéAwy πλησίον; ἐν τῷ
apis τὰς αἱρέσεις γ' λόγῳ τοῦτο ἀνήνεγκεν τὸ ῥητὸν ὡς Μάρκῳ εἰρημένον.
[
24 Trenaus,—Hippolytus,—rii® Council [cHaP.
the certain fact that the entire passage now under consi-
deration was extant in a copy of the Gospels which was
used by the Bishop of the Church of Lyons sometime about
the year a.p. 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 68
written by one who lived immediately after his time —Who
secs not that this single piece of evidence is in itself suffi-
cient 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 Irenaus is to all intents and pur-
poses 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. Hirpotytus, Bishop of Portus near
Rome (190—227), a contemporary of Irenzus, quotes the
17th and 18th verses in his fragment Περὶ Xapiopatov'.
1 First publisbed 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,—MNEPI
ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ ; and by that name the fragment in question is actually de-
signated in the third chapter of the (so called) “ Apostolical Constitutions,”
(τὰ μὲν οὖν πρῶτα τυῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Xapioparwy, «.7.A.),—in
which singulur monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It
is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the “ Apostolical Consti-
tutions ;” of which the iv chapter is also cluimed for Hippolytus, (though
with evidently far less reason,) and as such appears in the last edition of the
Father’s collected works, (Hippolyti Romani que feruntur omnia Grace,
ed. Lagarde, 165S,)—p. 74. ;
The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of the
heading,—Acardteis τῶν αὐτῶν ἁγίων ᾿Αποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν, διὰ Ἵππο-
λύτον,) is part of the “ Octateuchus Clementinas,” concerning which Lagarde
has several rewarks in the preface to his Religuia Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquis-
sima, 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 ex-
ae?
24
mi.) οΓ Carthage,—Acta Pilati,—Ap. Constitutions. 25
Also in his Homily on the heresy of Noetus*, 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, Curisr is incariably spoken of as
ἀνελθόντα : in the Scriptures, tnrariably as avarnpbevra'.
So that when Hippolytus says of Him, ἀναλαμβάνεται εἰς
οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἐκ δεξιῶν Πατρὸς καθίξεται, the reference must
needs be to S. Mark xvi. 19.
V. At the Seventh Covnem or CantHace held under
Cyprian, a.p. 256, (on the baptizing of Heretics,) Vincen-
tius, 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 ™; and Augus-
fine, about a century and a half later, in his reply, recited
the words afresh".
VI. The Apocryphal Acra Pizati (sometimes called the
“Gospel of Nicodemus”) Tischendorf assigns without hesi-
tation to the iii century; whether rightly or wrongly
I have no means of ascertaining. It is at all events 8 very
ancient forgery, and it contains the 15th, 16th, 1ith and
18th verses of this chapter “,
VII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver.
15 is clearly alluded to in two places of the (so-called) “ΑΡο-
stoiicat, Constitutions? ;” and that verse 16 is quoted (with
tend no further than the single chapter (the iv') 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 Reliquia, ex-
tending from p. 1 to p. 4, aud is there headed Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων ᾿Αποστόλων
περὶ χαρισμάτων.
\ Ad fin, See Routh’s Opuscula, i. p. 80.
' For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf’s remark (ed. Bye,
p. 407), “Quod idem [Justinus) Christum ἀνεληλυθότα els τοὺς οὐράνους dicit,
[4pol. 1. c. 50?] minus valet.” ; ;
= “Jn nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,” (Cyprian Opp.
p- 237 [Religg. Sacr. iii. p. 124,] quoting 5. Mark xvi. 17, 18,)—‘‘ In noes
meo daemonia ejicient .... super egrotos manus imponent et bene habebunt.
» Responsa ad Episcopos, c. 44, (Religg. v. 248.) ᾿
ὁ Erangelia Apocrypha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: also
Proleg. p. Ἰνὶ. :
ν In Ll. vile. 7 (ad fin.),—AaBdrres ἐντολὴν wap’ αὑτοῦ κηρύξαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
᾿
20 Evvsebius,— Marinus,—Aphraates. [cHar
no variety of reading from the Zertus receptus 9) in an earlier
part of the sume ancient work. The ‘ Constitutions”
assigned to the iii" or the iv" century "δ. : "
ὙΠ] and 1X. It will be shewn in Chapter V. that Evse-
bits, the Ecclesiastical Historian, was profoundly well ab:
quainted with these verses. He discusses them largely, and
Hs I me prove in the chapter referred to) was by = τοϑῆς
isposcd to question thei i i i
de ante τῶν ᾿ ΕΣ genuineness. lis Church History
Manrinvs also, (whoever that individual may have been,)
a contemporary of Eusebius,—inasmuch as he is infroduded
to our notice by Eusebius himself as asking a question con-
cerning 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 Nisi-
benus 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 meation of Jacob of Nisibis,—a famous Syrian Bishop
who was present at the Council of Niczea, a.p. 325. Gen-
nadius of Marseille, (who carried on Jerome’s list to the
year 495) asserts that the reason of this omission was Je-
rome’s ignorance of the Syriac language; and explains that
Jacob was the author of twenty-two Syriac Homilies’. Of
these, there exists a very ancient Armenian translation ;
which was accordingly edited as the work of Jacobus Nise
benus with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1756. Gallandius
reprinted both the Armenian and the Latin; and to Gallan-
dius (vol. v.) we are referred whenever “ Jacobus Nisibenus”
is quoted.
els ὅλον τὸν κόσμον : and in 1. viii. c. 1,--τἡμῖν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσέι. Observe, this immedi 3
the quotation of verses 17, 18. Earp ῥόον
4 Lib. vi. c.15.—The quotation (at the beginning of Jib. viii.) of the 17th
and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper place. Supra, p. 24
¥ Scrivener’s Introduction, p. 421. mo
* Aped Hieron. Opp. ed. Vallars., ii. 951-4.
wg heck Pte ποῖαυ
uid Ambrose,—Chayrostom,—derome. 27
But the proposed attribution of the Homilies in question,
—though it has been acquiesced in for nearly 1400 years,—
«incorrect. Quite lately the Syriac originals have come to
light, and they prove to be the work of Aphraates, “the
Jersian Sage,” —a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of
the Syrian Church. In the first Homily, (which bears date
a.p, 337), verses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are quoted ',—
yet not from the version known as the Curetonian Syriac,
nor yet from the Peshito exactly "—Ilere, 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 &.
ΧΙ Annnose, Archbishop of Milan (4.D. 374397) frecly
quotes this portion of the Gospel,—citing ver. 15 four
times: verses 16, 17 and 18, each three times: ver. 20,
once *.
XII. The testimony of CurysosTom (a.p. 400) has been
all but overlooked. In part of a Homily claimed for him
by his Benedictine Editors, he points out that S. Luke
ulone of the Evangelists describes the Ascension: S. Mat-
thew and S. John not speaking of it, —S. Mark recording
Then he quotes verses 14, 20. “This”
(he adds) “15. the end of the Gospel. Mark makes no ex-
tended mention of the Ascension?.” Elsewhere he has an
unmistakable reference to 3. Mark xvi. 97.
XIII. Jerome, on a point like this, is entitled to more
attention than any other Father of the Church. Living
ut a very carly 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 event only.
* See Dr. Wright’s ed. of “ Aphraates,” (4'°. 1869,) i. p. 21. Tam entirely
indebted to the learned Editor’s Preface for the information in the text.
© From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose.
» Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 Ὁ quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver. 15 and
1G: vol. ii. G63 B, C quotes ver. 15 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A quotes ver. 16 to 18.
Vol. i. 63 E and vol. ii, 400 A quote ver. 17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes
ver. 20.
Opp. iii. 765 A, B.
> Kal μὴν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρίᾳ πρώτῃ [ὥφθη].
Chrys, Opp. x. 855 Β.
-
28 Terome,—Augustine,— Nestorius. (cap.
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". He familiarly quotes
the 9th verse in one place of his writings; 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 *.” 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 re-
mains, 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 AucusTINE would
quote these verses: but he more than quotes them. He
brings them forward again and again 4,—discusses them as
the work of 5. Mark,—remarks that ‘in diebus Pascha-
libus,” 5. Mark’s narrative of the Resurrection was publicly
* «Cogis” (he says to Pope Damasus) “ut post exemplaria Scripturarum
toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedcam ; et quia inter se variant, quae
sint illa quae cum Graccaé consentiaut veritate decernam.—Haec praesens
praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia ....codicum Graecorum emen-
data conlatione, sed et veterum.”
> Vol. i. p. 327 C (ed. Vallars.)
* Contra Pelagianos, 11. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5) :—“ In quibusdam exemplaribus
et maxime in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in-fine Evangelii scribitur :
Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis Jesus, et exrprobracit incre-
dulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem,
non crediderunt. Et {ΠῚ satisfaciebant dicentes : Saculum istud iniquitatis
et incredulitatis substantia est, quae non sinit per tmmundos spiritus veram
Dei apprehendi virtutem : idcirco jam nune revela justitiam tuam.”
4 eg. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149); Vol. ν. 988 C.—Verses 15, 16, in
vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F.
WJ Cyril, — Victor, —Hesychiusy— Synopsis. 29
read in the Church *. All this is noteworthy. Augustine
i 0.
Ce i eet very important testimony to the
genuineness of the concluding part of 5. hee oan eer
furnished by the unhesitating manner in which 3 aanueat
the heresiarch, quotes ver. 20; and CyriL oF eae ee
accepts his quotation, adding a few words of oe : ε
it be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the mene y
of two dated codices containing the last twelve uglier
S, Mark,—and that date anterior (it is impossible to say by
ν᾿ years) to A.D. 430.
ee oF ANTIOCH, (concerning whom ra
have to speak very largely in Chapter ὃ ..) flourished a a
ap. 425. The critical testimony which he bears οἱ ᾿
genuineness of these verses is more emphatic than : ο be
met with in the pages of any other ancient Father. t ae
be characterized as the most conclusive testimony which 1
-as in his power to render.
"-" Hiesxcnitt of Jerusalem, by a singular oversight,
has been reckoned among the impugners of these verses.
He is on the contrary their eager advocate and psa ee
It seems to have escaped observation that towards the c ἘΝ
of his “Ilomily on the Resurrection, (published ae .
works of Gregory of Nyssa, and erroneously ascribe
that Father,) Hesychius appeals to the 19th verse, and quotes
it as S.Mark’s at length®. The date of Hesychius is un-
certain; but he may, I suppose, be considered to oe to
the vit century. His evidence is discussed in Chapter :
XIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a re a
ence to the Synopsis SCRIPTURAE SACRAE,—an ancient wor
¢ Vol. v. F, 998 B, C. : 4 ;
f ae φησι, διεκήρυσσον σὺν λόγον πανταχοῦ. TOU pe oe
γοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων Ae Eee
rius ο. Orthudoxos : (Cyril. Alexand. ade. Nestorian. One: vol. vi. : a τὸ
which, Cyril replies, — τῇ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δυναστείᾳ ἘΠ ΠΡ ΕΝ ὕλη
εἰργάζοντο τὰς θεοσημείας οἱ θεσπέσιοι μαθηταί. (Ibid. D.) is q
first noticed by Matthaei (Enthym. Zig. i. 161.)
© ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένον"
τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 415.
Ὁ μὲν οὖν Κύριος---ἐκ δεξιῶν
90 Inacewrate Ludices of Terts.—Simanary ([cHap,
ascribed to Athanasius", 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 con-
tents of 5. Mark xvi. 9—20i.
- It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic
authorities ; as, by appealing to Gregentius in the τὴ century,
and to Gregory the Great, and Modestus, patriarch of Con-
stantinople in the vii" ;—to Ven. Bede and John Damascene
in the viii" ;—to Theophylact in the xi;—to Euthymius
in the xii™*: but I forbear. It would add no strength to my
_ argument that 1 should by such evidence support it; as the
reader will admit when he has read my X" chapter.
It will be observed then that t/ce competent Patristic
| witnesses of the 1158 century,—/our of the iii™,—sir of the
iv'"',—four of the v'",—and two (of uncertain date, but pro-
bably) of the vi",—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 con-
trary, from every part of the ancient Church: Antioch and
» Athanasii Opp. vol. ii. p.181 F, 182 A. See the Prafat., pp. vii., viii.
Ὁ In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that there
must exist many more Patristic citations which I have overlooked. The neces-
sity 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 Oebler’s edition of
Tertullian, that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than cight 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 four-
teen 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. 85. Jolin i. 8 (or 4), so remarkably
quoted in vol. iii. 433, 1. 8: 5. John i. 18, 50, memorably represented in vol. iii.
412, 1.26: 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, 1.14),—does not appcar in the
Index of quotations from 5. Matthew (iii, 17), S.Mark (i. 11), or S. Luke
(iii. 22.)
* Gregentius apud Galland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (How. xxix. in Evang.)
—Modestus apud Photium cod. 275.—Johannis Damasceni Opp. (ed. 1712)
vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, snd Theophylact (who quotes all the verses) and Euthy-
mius in loc.
1. | of the Patristte Evidence. 31
Constantinople,—Iierapolis, Czsarea and Edessa,—Carthage,
Alexandria and Hippo,—Rome and Portus. And thus, ae
wards of nineteen early codexes have been to all intents an
n various lands by unprejudiced
es inspected for us i
i ae t least of more ancient date than
witnesses,—scren of them a
t.
the oldest copy of the Gospels estan
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. 85)—the Gothic (p. 35)\—and the Egyptian Versions (Ὁ. 35).—
Review of the Evidence up to this point, (p. 36).
Ir 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 Pa-
tristic citations, the third. But it was explained that when-
ever (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 import-
ance. 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 ap-
proximate date of the principal ancient Versions of the New
Testament :—().) 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 Transla-
tions. 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.
1. “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 be-
fore the great schism had its beginning, in the native land
v.] The “ Curctonian” and Philocenian Syriac. 33
of the blessed Gospel.” The Peshito 15 referred by common
consent to the ii™ century of our ara ; and is found to con-
i verses in question.
a ee is not all. Within the last thirty years,
fragments of another very ancient Syriac eee aa
Gospels, (called from the name of its discoverer THE URE-
TONIAN SyR1ac,”) bave come to light*: and in this transla-
tion also the verses in question are found». This frag-
mentary codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the v'"
century. At what earlier date the Translation may have
been exccuted,—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 genuine-
ness of the text now under consideration ;—a witness (like
the last) vastly more ancient than either the Vatican
Codex B, or the Sinaitic Codex 8; more ancient, therefore,
than any Greek copy of the Gospels in existence. We shall
not be thought rash if we claim it for the iii" century.
IIL 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 (Hiera-
polis) 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* approved and accurate Greek
manuscripts, this revised version of Polycarp was again re-
vised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the monastery of Antonia
at Alexandria, a.p.616. The Hharklensian Revision, (com-
monly called the “ ῬΗΠΟΧΈΝΙΑΚ,)) is therefore an extra-
ordinary monument of ecclesiastical antiquity indeed: for,
being the Revision of a revised Translation of the New
Testament known to have been executed from MSS. which
must have been at least as old as the v™ century, it ex-
* Dr. Wright informs we (1871) that some more leaves of this Version have
just been recovered.
Ὁ By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the Jast four
VeTses,
© In the wargin, against §. Matth. xxviii. δ, Thomas writes,—‘ Zn tribus
codicibus Gracis, et in vno Syriaco antique versionis, non inventum est
homen, ‘ Naxerenns? "—Cf. ad sxvii. 35.—Adler’s W. Τ᾿ Verss. Syrr. p- 97.
D
34 The Jerusalem Syviae-—The Vulgate. [ciTAP.
hibits 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. IJere, then, is a singularly important accumu-
lation 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 4.
To these, if I do not add the “ Jerusalem version,’—(as
an independent Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sec-
tions, perhaps of the y'* century, is called °,)—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.
1V. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (a.p.
382), was the author of that famous Latin version of the
Scriptures called Tue Vuicate, 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 Manu-
scripts to which a competent scholar had access in the
middle of the fourth century,—(and Jerome assures us that
4 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 ove 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. M atth.
xv. 21: xx.28(=D): χστὶ. 7. S.Mk.i16: xii. 42. S.Lu.x.17(=B D):
42(=BNL): xi.1: 53. S.Jo. ii. 1 [3] (=N): iit 26: vii. 39 (partly
=B): x. 8, ἄς. ἄς.
_© This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, 1861-4,
under the following title :—Erangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vati-
cano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit, Prolegomenis et Glossario
adornavit, Comes FRaxciscts ΔΙΤΚΊΒΟΔΙΟΗΙ ER1zzo.
v.] The old Latin, the Gothic, and the Egyptian. 35
he consulted several,)—we learn to eurvey 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 indecd.
V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much
vlder translation, generally known as the Vetus Iraua.
This Old Latin, which is of African origin and of almost
Apostolic antiquity, (supposed of the ii"? century,) conspires
with the Vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the
genuineness of the end of S. Mark’s Gospel‘ :—an emphatic
witness that in the African province, from the earliest time,
no doubt whatever was entertained concerning the genuine-
ness of these last twelve verses.
VJ. The next place may well be given to the venerable
version of the Gothic Bishop Ulphilas,—a.p. 850. Himself
a Cappadocian, Ulphilas probably derived his copies from
Asin 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 un-
impeachable, and must be regarded as important in the
highest degrec®& The oldest extant copy of the Gormec of
Ulphilus is assigned to the v™ or early in the vi century :
and the verses in question are there also met with.
VI]. and VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next
for notice: their testimony being so exceedingly ancient
und respectable.. The Mempurtic, or dialect of Lower
Egypt, (less properly called the “Coptic” version), which
is assigned to the iv or v'* century, contains S. Mark xvi.
9—20.—Fragments of the ΤΉΕΒΑΙΟ, or dialect of Upper
Egypt, (a distinct version and of considerably earlier date,
‘It docs not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that one
aucient codex, the ‘Codex Bobbiensis” (k), which Tregelles describes as
“aw revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS. is discernible,”
[Printed tert, ἃς. p. 170.] and which therefore may not be cited in the present
cuntroversy,—exhibits after ver. 8 a Latin translation of the spurious words
which ure also found in Cod. L.
* “(Quod Gothicum testimonium baud scio an critici satis agnoverint, vel
pro dignitute uestimaverint.” Mai, Nora Patt. Bibl. iv. 256.
p2
90 The Armonian, the Ethiopic, the Georgian. (παρ.
less properly called the ‘‘Sahidic,”) survive in MSS. of
very nearly the same antiquity: and one of these frag-
ments happily contains the last verse of the Gospel accord-
ing to 8. Mark. The Thebaic version is referred to the
iii"? 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, (εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ
Mapxov,) and then giving the additional verses with a new
subscription: others going on without any break to the
end. This version may be as old as the v'® 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 testi-
mony. The two last-named versions, whatever their dis-
advantages 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, —s0 various, so weighty, so multitudinous, 50
venerable,—in support of this disputed portion of the Gos-
pel, that it might well be deemed in itself decisive.
2, For these Versions do not so much shew what indi-
viduals 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 ἃ
Thibari at the vii Carthaginian Council is sufficiently in-
exact to make it unsafe to build upon it. The “Acta Pi-
lati” and the ‘“ Apostolical Constitutions,” since their date
is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the iv” century
only, and not for the iii’, And now, how will the evi-
dence stand for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel ?
1v.] Review of the Evidence up to this point. 37
(x) In the v" century, to which Codex A and Codex ©
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.
(1) In the iv™ century, (to which Codex B and Codex 8
probably belong, five Greck writers, one Syriac, and two
Latin Fathers,—besides the Vulgate, Gothic and Mem-
phitie Versions,—(cleren authorities in all,)—testify to fami-
liar acquaintance with this portion of 5. Mark’s Gospel.
(Ὁ) In the ni? 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 free distinct provinces
of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever attached
to these verses. Lastly,—
(7) In the iim century, Trenzus, the Peshito, and the
Italic Version as plainly attest that in Gaul, in Meso-
potamia and in the African province, the same verses
were uphesitatingly received within a century (more or
less) of the date of the inspired autograph of the Evan-
gelist himself. |
4. Thus, we are in possession of the testimony of at least
six independent witnesses, of a date considerably anterior to
the carliest extant Codex of the Gospels. They are all of
the best class. They deliver themselves in the most un-
equivocal way. And their testimony to the genuineness of
these Verses is unfaltering.
δ. 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? τ
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 PROV Ὶ
Seige ED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF
The anes concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p.89).—The miscon
sc ton concerning Eusebius (p.41).—The oversight concerning
rate ᾿ pote concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, (or else
us of Antioch . 57) s— nee ᾿ ᾿ I
ne ) (2. 57) s—and concerning Victor of Antioch
. Ir would naturally follow to shew that manuscript evi-
ence confirms the evidence of the ancient Fathers and of
the early Versions of Scripture. But it will be more satis-
factory that I should proceed to examine without m
delay the testimony, which, (as it is alleged,) is borne ty
a cloud of ancient Fathers against the last ἐρεῖν verses
5. Mark. “The absence of this portion from some Baa
many, or from most copies of his Gospel, or that it wri not
written by S. Mark himself,” (says Dr. Tregelles,) “is Ν
tested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor a Λαΐίοοι,
Severus of Antioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especial]
Greeks*.” The same Fathers are appealed to by ‘Dr David.
son, who adds to the list Euthymius; and by Tischendorf aiid
Alford, who add the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem. The
also refer to “many ancient Scholia.” “These cone
(says Tischendorf ) “are not recognised by the sections of
Ammonius nor by the Canons of Eusebius : Epiphanius and
Czsarius bear witness to the fact.” “In the Catenz on
Bion? (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 anes
which others have made also; as if it were a καρ δίας cir
cumstance that Clement of Alexandria, who appears He ee
no reference to the last chapter of S. Afatthew’s Gospel, should
4 Account of the Printed Text, p. 247. > Gr. Test. p. 322
cuar. ν Twelre alleged hostile Witnesses. ΠΗ)
he also without any reference to the last chapter of S. Afari’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 8. Mark’s Gospel af all. .-- The alacrity displayed by
learned writers in accumulating hostile evidence, is certainly
worthy of a Letter cause. Strange, that their united industry
should have been attended with such very unequal success
when their object was to exhibit the evidence in farour 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 accom-
plished critics just quoted,— Doctors Tischendorf, Tregelles,
and Davidson, really mean to tell us that “1 is attested” by
these seven Fathers that the concluding section of 5. Mark’s -
Gospel “ was not written by S. Mark himself?” Why, there
is not one of them who says 80: 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) Epi-
phanius, aud (10) Cwsarius,—to say nothing of (11) the
anonymous authors of Catenx, and (12) “later writers, es-
pecially 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,
Grecory oF Nyssa.
This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself
as follows in his second “ Homily on the Resurrection * :”—
“In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark
has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, how-
ever, 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.’”
τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον μέχρι
© Ey μὲν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις
ρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα ἀναστὰς δὲ
τοῦ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, ἔχει τὺ τέλος. ἐν δέ τισι π
πρωΐ πρώτῃ σαββάτων (sic) ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ ag’ ἧς ἐκβεβλή-
κει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. Opp. (ed. 1638) iii. 411 B.
ae auistane concerning Gregory of Nyssa. [παρ΄
That this testimony should have been so often appealed
to as procecding from Gregory of Nyssa‘, is little to the
credit of modern scholarship. One would bave 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 in-
duced 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 duc 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 iii'! 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 Hesy-
chius, and vindicated to that Father, respectively in 1648
and 1776*. Now, if critic chooses to risk his own reputa-
tion 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 Coisli-
- niana” (1715), and by Cramer in his “Catena®” (1844),—
although it may very reasonably become a question among
critics whether Hesychius of Jerusalem or Severus of An-
4 Tregelles, Printed Tert, p. 248, also in Horne’s Introd. iv. 434-6. So Nor-
ton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &.
* Nov. Auct.i. 743-74.—Bibl. Vett. PP. xi. 221-6.
© Bibl. Coisl. pp. 6S-75.— Catena, i. 243-51.
ν The Evidence of Euscbiw. 41
tioch was the actual author of the Homily in question ἡ yet
it is plain that critics must make their election between the
two names; and not bring them both forward. ἂν oue,
] say, has any right to go on quoting ‘i Severus” and “ Hesy-
chius,”—as Tischendorf and Dr. Davidson are observed to
do:—“Gregory of Nyssa” aid “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 Iomily. To whichever of the three
we assign it,—(and competent judges have declared that
there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Iesychius rather
than to Severus,—while xo ove is found to suppose that
Gregory of Nyssa was its author,)—wo 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
curate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its en
at ‘for they were afraid,’ ig found in a Homily which
μας probably written by Hesychius, presbyter of eat
arriter of the vi century. T shall have to recur to his wor
by-and-by. The next name is
᾿ Evsesivs,
1. With respect to whom the case is altogether aif-
ferent. What that learned Father has delivered concerning
the conclusion of 8. 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 1s about to be vas
85 {o say at once that if any one supposes that eee ἊΣ
anywhere plainly “ stated that it is wanted in many MSS. ,
—hie is mistaken. Eusebius nowhere says 80. The reader’s
attention is invited to a plain tale.
It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by
6 Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus BarsSaltht i lceidecn a
Smith's Cat. of Syrr. ASS. p- 411] who died a.p. 1111) in ses εἰ. ion be
5. Mark’s Gospel (published at Dublin by Dudley Loftus, τοῦς ᾿ς ᾿ς
(at γ. 59) to give this homily to Severus.—I have really no in ἘΠ I
nion on the subject. s Alford, Greek Test. i. p- ὶ
42 The lost work by Eusebius of “ Questiones — [cnar.
Cardinal Angelo Mai® with a few fragmentary specimens
of a lost work of Eusebius on the (so-called) Inconsistencies
in the Gospels, from a MS. in the Vaticani, These, the
learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in
his “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca*;” and hither we are in-
variably referred by those who cite Euscbius as a witness
against the genuineness of the concluding verses of the
sccond 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! The
Author’s plan, (as usual in such works), was, first, to set
forth a difficulty in the form of a Question ; and straight-
way, 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 speci-
men of these “ Inquiries and Resolutions” exactly as it came
from the pen of Eusebius, may reasonably be doubted. That
> Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1—101.
"Αἱ p. 217, (ed. 1847), Mai designates it as “Codex Vat. Palat. cxx pul-
cherrimas, seculi ferme x.” At p. 268, he numbers it rightly,—cexx. We
are there informed that the work of Eusebius extends from fol. 61 to 96 of
the Codex.
* Vol. iv. pp. 219—309.
' See Nora P. P. Bibliotheca, iv. 255.—That it was styled “ Inquiries with
their Resolutions” (Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσει:), 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, 2fai, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also
observed to employ (4fai, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so
@vsignate the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual
title is correctly indicated by Jerome,—De Evangeliorum Diaphonié : “ Edi-
dit” (he says) “de Evangeliorum Diaphonia,” (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 eay: for the entire title was probably, Περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν τοῖς
εὐαγγελίοις κιτιλ. διαφωνίας. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by
Crawer (i. p. 266), quotes an opinion of Euscbius ἐν τῷ πρὸς Mapivov περὶ τῆς
δοκούσης ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας : words which are
extracted from the same MS. by Simon, Hist. Crit. N. Τ' p. 89.
i ”
v.] ad Stephanwn” and “ ad Martiaon. 43
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™.” Only some of the original Ques-
tions, 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 pro-
bably 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 re-
presented by IV. more, “to Marinus,”—of which, the first
relates to our Lorp’s appearing to Mary Magdalene after
His Resurrection. Now, since the work which Eusebius ad-
dressed to Marinus is found to have contained “ Inquiries,
with their Resolutions, concerning our Saviour’s Death and
Resurrection®,’—while a quotation professing to be de-
rived from “the thirteenth chapter” relates to Simon the
Cyrenian bearing our Saviour’s Cross ° ;—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’. It is absolutely neces-
Ὁ *ExAoyh ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ Εὐσεβίον πρὸς Bde dena [and
πρὸς Mapivov] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ὀπτημάτων καὶ ἀνσεῶν» eo
pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes facing the ttle a sph ed. 1825.)
π Εὐσέβιος .. -. ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Mapivoy ἐπὶ ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείον πάθους καὶ τῆς
ἀναστάσεως ζητήσεσι καὶ ἐκλύσεσι, καιλ. I quote the place from {86 less
known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to Severus of Antioch :
but it occurs also in Corderii Caf. in Joan. p. 436. (See Mai, iv. 299.)
© This passage is too grand to be withheld :—Ob γὰρ ἦν ἄξιός μὰ ἐν τῇ πόλει
"Ιουδαίων, (ὡς φησιν Εὐσέβιυς κεφαλαίῳ sy’ πρὸς Μαρῖνο»,) τὸ κατὰ τοῦ διαθόλον
τρόπαιον τὺν σταυρὸν βαστάσαι: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐξ ἀγροῦ, ὃς μηδὲν ἐπικεκοινώνηκε τῇ
κατὰ Χριστοῦ μιαιφονίᾳ. (Possini Cat. in Marcum, P- 343.) ;
P Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenz, inasmuch as their compilers are observed
to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently full of ἀἰ θέα mem-
tra of the work. These are recognisable for the most part by ὑμεῖς form ; but
sometimes they actually retain the name of their author. Accordingly, Citene
have furnished Mai with a considerable body of additional materials; which (as
far as a MS. Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A. ser Vat. 1611,] gene
him,) he has edited with considerable industry ; throwing them aes a ane :
Supplement. (Vol. iv. pp. 268—282, and pp. 283—29S.) It is only surp g
ποτα . “τ
Ἢ How Eusebius proposed to reconcile [ CHAP.
sary 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 scems to be no
reason for supposing that whenever the lost work of Euse
bius comes to light, (and it has been seen within about
300 years’) 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 fol-
lowing 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 dav of the
week’ f”’— Eusebius answers,
“ This difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for
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 sun-
dry 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 nt pp. 448-9 —449—450—457.
—He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of John Xiphilinus, (Cod. Tat.
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 pub-
lished 3 (if not 7) years before his own,—else, at p. 299, instead of quoting
Simon, he would have quoted Cramer’s Catene, i. 266.—It was in his power to
solve his own shrewd doubt, (at p.299,—concerning the text of a passage in
Possiuus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus published was tran-
scribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican. (Possini Prafat. p.ii.) In
the Vatican, too, he might bave found the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from
p- 364 of the Cafena of Possinus. In countless places he wight, by such refer-
ences, bave improved his often manifestly faulty text.
9. Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latiuius (Opp. ii. 116.) to Andreas
Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis) ‘scire te vult io Sicilid inventos esse... libros
tres Eusebii Casariensis de Evangeliorum Diaphonid, 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 bis “ Questions” under heads: e.g. περὶ τοῦ τάφου, καὶ
τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως δια-
φωνίας. (p. 299.)
v.] 5. Matthew xrvii. 1 aud 5. Mark xvi. ὃ. 45
patting rid of the entire passage’, will say that it is not met
with in αὐ the copies of Mark’s Gospel : the accurate ae
at all events, making the end of Mark’s narrative come aiter
the words of the young man who appeared iG the women
and said, ‘Fear not ye! Ye seck Jesus of Nazareth, &e. :
to which the Evangelist adds,—' And when they heard it,
they fied, 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 scldom, [and only] in some copies, cer-
tainly not in all,) might be dispensed with ; especially if it
diogld prove to contradict the record of the other Eaupe®
lists. his, then, is what a person will say who is [0]
evading and entirely getting rid ofa 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 read-
ings, (as is so often the case elsewhere i) and that both are to
be reecived,—inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, this
reading is not held to be genuine rather than ‘haf ; nor that
- 3)
nae ail be best to exhibit the whole of what Eusebius has
written on this subject,—as far as we are permitted to know
i{—continuously. Ile proceeds :—
᾿μ Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our
business 15 to interpret the sense of the passage *. And cer-
tainly, if I divide the meaning into two, we shall find that
it is not opposed to what Matthew says of our patie 5
having risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath.’ For Mark’s ex-
γ 1 translate according to the sense,—the text being ἘΠ peas
τὴν τοῦτυ φάσκυνσαν περικοπήν is probably a gloss, explanatory Οἱ : Ak as
αὐτό. Inetrictness, the κεφάλαιον begins at ah xv. 42, and exten 3 : e a
of the Gospel, There are 48 such κεφάλαια in een ane τ
often loosely employed by the Greek Pathers, {as ἀνε : Σ - i κ᾿
to denote a passage of Scripture, and it is codently 50 ὕϑ here. Περι "
on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true technical meaning, and to
denote the liturgical section, or “ lesson.” wee
. Avdyrwopa (like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) see pear
here used in its technical senee, and to designate the liturgical section,
“‘Yectio.” See Suicer, in voce.
0 ὶ age
46 The critical suggestions of (cHAP
pression, (‘Now when 116 was risen early the first day of th
wees) we shall read with a pause, putting a comma aft ;
Now when Tle was riscn,’—the sense of thie words cach
follow being kept separate. Thereby, we shall refer [ Mark’
‘when Ile was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of the § Ἷ
bath, (for it was ¢/en that He rose); and all ce ae
after, expressive as it is of a distinct notion, we shall can:
nect uae what follows; (for it was ‘early, the first day tthe
see bee tas se to Mury Migtatovek This is in
act what John also declares ; for
‘early,’ ‘the first day of the ea ia
the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also says that He ὴ
peared to her early: not that He rose early but lon bef τι
(according to that of Matthew, ‘in the cnet the Sues
for though He vose then, He did not appear to Mary then, -
2
but ‘early.”) Ina word, two distinct seasons are set befor
us by these words : first, the season of the Resurrecti ἈΞ
which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath ;’ cece dly the es
of our Saviour’s Appearing,—which was ‘ earl? The ‘f -
mer ‘, Mark writes of when he says, (it néquiines to be αἰ
with a pause,)—‘ Now, when He was risen.’ Then we
a comma, what follows is to be spoken,—‘ Early the ‘6 =
day of the week, He appeared to Mary Mapdslene bal
whom He had cast seven devils ".’”’—Such isthe ei ee ;
sage. Little did the learned writer anticipate what ifle
fruit his words were destined to bear ! ὕω
᾿ εἰ Let it be freely admitted that what precedes is caleu-
a = es ae eight to occasion nothing but surprise and
sigue F or, in the first place, there really is no problem
ὁ solve. The discrepancy suggested by “‘ Marinus” at th
outset, is plainly imaginary, the result (chiefly) of a str: :
misconception of the meaning of the Evangelist’s Greek,
tke ᾿ fat no one was ever better aware than Bneebins
neelf. These places of the Gospels would never ha
| occasioned any difficulty,” he writes in the very next ae
᾽
* The text of Eusebius seems to hav i
aud depravation here. a
° Mai, Bibl. P.P. Nova, iv. 255-7. For pur
. ; » AV. ve ses of ἜΞΩ
of this passage is given in the Appendix (By Her Reese
v.] Enshins, ronarked upon. 47
(but it is the commencement of his reply to the second ques-
tion of Marinus,)—“ if people would but abstain from as-
suming 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 *.” Tie pro-
ceeds:—‘“ 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 be-
tween 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 dif-
ferent 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 extraordi-
nary, the more I think of the matter, recommends itself to my
acceptance the more. I suspect, then, that the discussion
we have just becn listening to, is, essentially, not an original
production: but that Eusebius, having met with the sugges-
tion 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 ἃ full and sufficient answer,—the proper answer
in fact,—to the proposed difficulty : and it is 8 memorable
circumstance that the ancients generally were 60 sensible
of this, that they are found to have invariably * substituted
So far, i have given the substance enly of what Eusebius
It follows,—dote τὸν αὐτὸν σχεδὸν νοεῖσ-
θαι καιρὸν, ἣ τὸν σφόδρα eyyis, rapa τοῖς eva) ελισταῖς διαφόρυις ὀνόμασι τετηρη-
μένον. μηδέν τε διαφέρειν Ματθαῖον ἰρηκότα “ ὀψὲ--τάφον᾽ [χαν]]]. 1.7 ἸΙωάννον
“πῇ δὲ μιᾷ---ἔτι οὔσης σκοτίας." [xx. 1.] πλατυκῶς yap ἕνα καὶ τὸν
For the principal words in the text,
* Mai, iv. 257.
delivers with wearisome prolixity.
φήσαντος
αὐτὸν δηλοῦσι χρόνον διαφόροις ῥήμασι.---
see the Appendix (Β) ad fin.
® 1 allude to the following places :—Combefis, Novum Auctarium, col. 780.
48 The strangeness of rhat Eusebius [cnapr.
what Euscbius 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 advo-
cated 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 sects 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 ton-
text: 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 Casarea
really suppose that a comma judiciously thrown into the
empty scale might at any time suffice to restore the equili-
brium, 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, s0
long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted, render all
further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory ? As
before, 1 really cannot tell,—except on the hypothesis which
has been already hazarded.
3. Note also, (for this is not the least extraordinary fea-
ture of the case.) what vague and random statements those
are which we have been listening to. The entire section
—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaci, Anectt. Grac. 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
nore 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.
7
v.] has suagested concerning these Verses. 49
(S. Mark xvi. 9—20,) “ἐδ πού met with in all the copies :”” at
all events not ‘in the acewrate” ones. Nay, it 18 ᾿ met with
seldom? ΤᾺ fact, it is absent from “ almost all” copies. But,
__Which of these four statements is to stand P The first is
comparatively unimportant. Not so the second. The last
two, on the contrary, would be absolutely fatal,—if trust-
worthy? But are they trastworthy ?
To this question only one answer can be returned. The
exaggeration is so gross that it refutes itself. 14 it been
merely asserted that the verses in question were wanting in
many of the copies,—even bad it been insisted that the best
copics 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,—1s palpably untrue.
What had become then of the MSS. from which the Syriac,
the Latin, αἰ the ancient Versions were made? How is the
contradictory evidence of erery copy of the Gospels in exist- +
ence but tico to be accounted for? With Treneus and Hip-
polytus, 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 Hine the tne
reading in S. Luke xxiv. 13 is not “three-score” but oan
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 ἐν
ἑξήκοντα is altogether impossible. ᾿ Apud nos mixta a
omnia,” is Jerome’s way of adverting to an evil which,
serious as it was, was yet not nearly 80 great as he repre-
scuts; viz. the unauthorized introduction into one ee
of what belongs of right to another. And go in a multitude
of other’ instances. The Fathers are, in fact, constantly ob-
served to make critical remarks about the ancient copies
which simply cannot be correct.
E
δ0 Eusebius not adverse to S. Mark avi. 9—20. [cHAP.
And yct the author of the exaggeration under review, be it
observed, is clearly nof Eusebius. It is evident that he has
nothing to say against the genuinencss of the conclusion of
5. 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 re-
jected 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 faith-
ful 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 de-
ceive those who are unable to verify the quotation for
themselves.
It has been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have re-
cognised the verses in question as genuine, because a scho-
lium 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 “18 not recorded to have
appeared to His Disciples after His Resurrection :” whereas
in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is plainly recorded that “ Afterwards
v.] The Testimony of Jerome. 51
IIe appeared unto the Eleven as they sat at meat.” May
I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the pro-
posed 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 ob-
taining 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 pro-
minence in the passage under discussion? By no mcans.
The mutilated state of S. Mark’s Gospel in the Vatican
Codex (B) and especially in the Sinaitic Codex (x) suffi-
ciently 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
8. 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 Eusehius,—to induce us to believe that they are
ἃ spurious addition to 8. 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 em-
phatically 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 in-
duce us to form an entirely different estimate of its prac-
tical 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 numed Hedibia, inhabiting the furthest
E2
52 Terome’s account of his usual method. [cHar.
extremity of Gaul, and known to Jerome only by the ardour
of her picty, had sent to prove him with hard questions.
Hie resolves her difficulties from Bethlehem*: 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'. Once, when a single mes-
senger had conveyed to him out of the African province
a quantity of similar interrogatories, Jerome sent two Egyp-
tian 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 argu-
ments by which they have recommended their opinions.
My own authority, (who am but nothing,) is vastly inferior
to that of our predecessors in the Lorn.” Then, after spe-
cial 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
stedfast 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*.” We are not surprised,
after this straightforward avowal of what was the method
y Ep. exx. Opera, (ed. Vallara.) vol. i pp. 811— 43.
* Ibid. p. 844.
® Ibid. p.793—810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.
ν. He is shewn to be here a Copyist of Eusebius. 53
on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover that,
instead of hearing Jerome addressing TTedibia, — (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
clse, we shall reply that both Evangelists state what is true :
Matthew, when he says that our Lorp rose ‘late in the
seek’ 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,—Himeelf,
carly 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 ap-
peared.”—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».
δ «Hyjus questionis duplex solutio est. [Τούτου διττὴ by εἴη ἡ λύσις.) Aut
enim nen rcipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur [σπανίως ἔν τισι
φιρόμενα, Evungeliis, omnibus Greecie libris pene hoe capitulum [τὸ κεφάλαιον
αὐτὸ in fine non habentibus; [ἐν τουτῷ γὰρ σχεδὺν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοι5
τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίον περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος]; preesertim cum diversa
utque contrarin Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν
ἀντιλογία τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.) Aut hoc respondendum,
quod uterque verum dixerit [ἑκατέραν παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρχειν... .σνγχωρουμένον
δὲ Medibia's questions to Jerome [cuar
Pearce Si not by any meuns the strangest feature of
ee τς should have availed himself ever so
ea ores i erials which he found ready to his hand in
ae τὰ pee cannot be regarded as at all extra-
ee τ ἀρὰν Si Aceaie ΠΣ go from himself of his
: ceeding. It would of cou :
ee ἐφ᾿ gravest doubts as to whether a = ΣΝ
ἦδὴ αν τὴ ες aie mage of this Father, or not;
een all. at are we to think, how-
ever, of the fact that Hedibia’s question to Jer a
inspection to be nothing more than a tran τὰ I ie. ; ἐς
ae which Marinus had long before ee meen
ee ae on, perplexed at the coincidence; and apeadily
e the notable discovery that her next question, and h
a are also translations word for word of the ποχὲ two of
sear For the proof of this statement the reader is again
red to the foot of the page’. It is at least decisive:
Ta ἃ; ῦ
: re aime nacre quando Dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati: Mar-
πόσαι _ o tum viderit Maria Magdalena, id est, mane prima gabbeti
φρουροὶ: Ἰβευεηάναι est, Cum autem resurrexisset: [μετὰ διαστολῆς ἕνα:
Lied sehen δέ :7]) et, paramper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima
ce aii ey eae Μαρἀα]εμε : [εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες ῥητέον, Πρωϊ τῇ
oe site φάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta
-ooapaciteis ain ae Ματθαίῳ, ὀψὲ σαββάτων" tore yap ἐγήγερτο.
abbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Marie M
ee Paints: pram agdalenz. [πρωΐ
Lai ar seared ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Quod quidem ᾿ To.
significat, mane Eum alterius diei vi
iia tine oe ; δα τὴς esse demonstrans.””
εὐείμεινος nae: ὡάννης πρωΐ καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι
F i 7 ;
Ἢ a ee of the above, see Hieronymi Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i
pt Α : or the Greek, with its conteat, see Appendix (B) "
᾿ a OE ἢ a τῶ i
onal een τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωϊ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ; [Eusebius
Primu wris, ixeri
ie ae ain Matthaus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente
ee minum τεβαττεχίεϑα ; et Murcus mane resurrectionem ejus
= ses : memorat. [Breronynvas ad Hedibiam, (Opp. i. 818-9.) ]
-- τὰ asset ὀψὲ σαββάτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν ἀνάστασιν,
στῶσα «λ' ὰ τῷ ἢ μιᾷ τοῦ β
Verna Goa «λαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ TH μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου.
Quomodo, justa Matthaum, ves i
nodo, , vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidi i
non resurgentem ; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam pes 2 εὐνῇ
juxta sepulcrum δέτε ? [Ut supra, p. 819.) ening
——
v.] shown to belong to the region of fable. 55
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 con-
cerned. Whether IIedibia was an actual personage or not,
‘ot those decide who have considered more attentively than
st 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 investi-
gate 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 és 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 diffi-
culties 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 con-
cerned 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 ἃ critic to pretend that it
τὰ Tov Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββάτων ἣ Μαγδαληνὴ μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας
Πῶς, κα
πρωϊ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἀκούει μή μον
ἁψαμένη τῶν ποδῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἧ αὐτὴ
Exrou, κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην. [Ut supra, p- 262.)
juxta Matthzam, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterd
Qvuondo,
audierit ἃ
Maria advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joanuem,
Domino, Noli me tangere. ut supra, Ὁ. 821.
56 Jerome not adverse to 5. Mark xvi. 9—20. — [cnar.
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 copicd from their predecessors, were wat
competent to transmit the record of a fact 4,’’—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 ΤῊΝ
biting 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 acritten
in the pages of Eusebius ; and then resolves them one by one
m the very language of the same Father :—such a writer has
clearly conducted us into a region where his individual re-
sponsibility quite disappears from sight. We must hear no
more about Jerome, therefore, as a witness against the genu-
ineness 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 ‘‘a/most all the Greck 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 Futhers
who, because he found the expression “ without a cater
(e¢x},—S. Matth. v. 22,) only “in certain of his codices,” but
not ‘in the true ones,” omitted it from the Vulgate. Bassuee
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 how-
ever, is found both in the Codex Vaticanus and the Colles
Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press the matter
further. . It is an additional proof that Jerome accepted the
4 Tregelles, Printed Text, p. 247.
v.] Severus of Antioch, or Hesychius of Jorusleni. 57
conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel that he actually quotes it,
and on more than one occasion : but to prove this, is to prove
inore than is here required®. 1 am concerned only to demo-
lish 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.
TV. and V. But now, while the remarks of Eusebius are
vet fresh in the memory, the reader is invited to recal for
an moment what the author of the “Jomily on the Resur-
rection,” contained in the works of Gregory of Nyssa (above,
p. 39), has delivered on the same. subject. It will be re-
membered that we saw reason for suspecting that not
SevERUS OF ANTIOCH, but
Hesycuits OF JERUSALEM,
(both of them writers of the τὴν century,) has the better
claim to the authorship of the Homily in question ,—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 ac-
cording 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 weck, 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.” *—I presume it
would be to abuse a reader’s patience to offer any remarks
on all this. Ifa careful perusal of the foregoing passage
* See above, p. 28. 6 See above, p. 40-1. # See the Appendix (C) § 2.
ξ : ἢ ᾿
δᾺ Hesychius also copies Eusebius. [cHap.
does not convince him that Hesychius is here only reproduc-
ing what he had read in Eusebius, nothing that I can say
will persuade him of the fact. The tcords indeed are by
no means the same; but the sense is altogether identical.
He scems to have also known the work of Victor of Antioch.
However, to remove all doubt from the reader’s mind that
the work of Euscbius was in the hands of Hesychius while
he wrote, I have printed in two parallel columns and trans-
ferred to the Appendix what must needs be conclusive; 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 8. Matthew’s ὀψὲ τῶν σαβ-
βάτων with the πρωΐ 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 ,) 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‘; 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 Lorp rose from the dead. I need not enter more par-
ticularly into an examination of this (so-called) ‘Homily’:
but I must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author
ε See the Appendix (C) § 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § 2.
b In the Eccl. Grac. Afonumenta of Cotelerius, (iii. 1—53,) may be seen the
dis-ussion of 60 problems, headed,—Zuvayuyh ἀποριῶν καὶ ἐπιλύσεων, ἐκλεγεῖσα
ἐν ἐπιτομῇ ἐκ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς συμφωνίας τοῦ aylov Ἣσυχίον πρεσβντέρον
Ἱεροσολύμων. From this it appears that Hesychius, following the example of
Eusebius, wrote a work on “Gospel Harmony,”—of which nothing but an
abridgment bas come down to us.
' He says that he writes,—MIpbs τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένον προβλήματος λύσιν, καὶ
τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν ῥητῶν ἀναφνομένων ζητήσεων, K.7.A.
Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 400 c.
v.] Victor of Antioch. 59
at all events cannot be thought to have repudiated the con-
cluding verses of S. Mark: for at the end of his discourse,
he quotes the 19th verse entire, without hesitation, in con-
firmation of one of his statements, and declares that the
words are written by S. Mark *.
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 oa the same subject, as
if it exhibited his own individual teaching. It is demon-
strable! that he is not bearing testimony to the condition of
the MSS. of S. Mark’s Gospel in his own age: neither, in-
deed, is he bearing testimony αἱ αἰ. 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 vit" 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 con-
cerned ;—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
Vicror or 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
“4p, 401,” it might be supposed that “ Victor of Antioch”
is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely a Com-
mentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known.
Clinton (who enumerates ccexxii “ Ecclesiastical Authors”
from a.p. 70 to A.D. 685™) does not even record his name.
The recent “Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography”
is just os silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest editor)
κ᾿ ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένον" Ὁ μὲν οὖν Κύριος, κιτ.λ.
Greg. Ν γεν. Opp. iii. 415 D.—Sce above, p. 29, note (g)-
' See below, chap. X.
™ Fasti Romani, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395—195.
0 "i
6 Victor of Antioch, and his (cHar.
calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute
his Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria® Not
to delay the reader necdlessly,—Vietor of Antioch is si in
Pelee and unjustly neglected Father of the Ghaahs
: sion Maa as he apparently quotes souetinive
rom Cyril of Alexandria who died a.n. 444, and yet seems
to have written soon after the death of Chrysostom which
oe place a.v. 407), may be assigned to the first half of the
: hare πεῖν, ἴοι Α.Ὁ. 425—450. And in citing him
eee gh ioe to the best (and most easily κορόνα δ] οὶ
not arty ica ae of Cramer (1840) in the first
But a far graver charge is behind. From the confident
τι in which Victor’s authority is appealed to by those who
deem the last twelve verses of 8. Mark’s Gospel spurious
a of course be inferred that his evidence sheaths
oe . Bia σι whereas his evidence to their
seer ᾿ e most emphatic and extraordinary on
: . Dr. Tregelles asserts that “his testimony to the
absence of these twelve verses from some or many copi
stands in contrast to his own opinion on the subject.” ‘But
Victor delivers xo “opinion :” and his "παν πῃ » is th
ee of what Dr. Tregelles asserts it to ‘be This
oe ἐὰν εἶν i ai critic has strangely misapprehended
Pesta ees ᾿ brief in this place. I shall therefore
sd J o those facts concerning “Victor of Antioch,”
er concerning his work, which are necessary for th
purpose in hand P, aac
7 ear : serra on ᾿ Mark’s Gospel,—as all must
ains to examine it,—i
ous a compilation. The same eae haan | ἐὴν
: apes 2 some extent, of almost every ancient Commentary
ence. But I mean, concerning this particular work,
: fe ; acs p. xxviii. See below, note (p)
ictor Antiochenus” (writes Dr. Tr i
a - Tregelles in his N. T. i
a ὅτι oo τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελενταῖον ἕν τισι aoe mare
! ‘or 3 tional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and hi Y
studious in such matters are referred to the Appendix (D). eae
v.). Catena on S. Mark's Gospel. 61
that it proves to have been the author’s plan not 60 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 acknow-
Iedgment, to transcribe largely (but with great license)
from one or other of these writers. Thus, the whole of his
note on 5. Mark xv. 38, 39, is taken, without any hint that
it is not original, (much of it, word for word,) from Chry-
sostom’s 88th Homily on S. Matthew’s Gospel?. 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” con-
cerning 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,
—espccially of those Resolutions of hard Questions “ concern-
ing 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 /as? page also contains
a quotation from it, (also by nae), has been already pointed
out’. Attention is now invited to what is found concerning
S. Mark xvi. 9—20 in the Jast page but one (p. 444) of
4. Opp. vol. vii. P- 895 E—826 B: or, in Field’s edition, p. 527, line 3 to 20.
τ Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,—és φησιν Εὐσέβιος ὁ Καισαρείας ἐν τῷ πρὸς
Μαρῖνον κιτιλ. And αἵ p. 446, line 19,--Εὐσεβιός φησιν ὃ Καισαρείας κιτ.λ.
62 Victor of Antioch also shewn [cnar.
Victor’s work. Tt shall be given in English; because I will
convince unlearned as well as learned readers. Victor, (after
quoting four lines from the 89t* Homily of Chrysostom’),
reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to do') the notes
of time contained severally in 5. Matth. xxviii. 1, 8. Mark
xvi. 2, 8S. Luke xxiv. 1, and 8. John σχ. 1. After which,
he proceeds as follows :—
“In certain copies of Mark’s Gospel, next comes,—‘ Now
when [JxEsvs] was risen early the first day of the week, He
appeared to Mary Magdalene ;’—a statement which scems
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 secn by Mary Magdalene ‘early.’
This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has re-
corded that ‘early,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ [Jzsus]
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 ¥.’”
No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate
to admit that he is here listening to Eusebius “ad Mari-
num” 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,
* Compare Cramer’s ict. Ant. i p. 444, line 6—9, with Field's Chrys. iii.
p- 539, line 7—21.
ι Mai, iv. p. 257-8.
υ Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4.
—.
1 to le a Copyet of Eusebius. 63
νι:
surveying the originals
i πίον is here noth
himself that Victor is
the work in which Eusebius reconciles
with attention, may easily convince
ig else but « copyist *. That
“seeming discrepan-
¢ = a y y en
e n 1Ves; g Ρ
cles In the Evang lical arrat ve was actuall ] in oO
before Victor while be wro
He is observed in his
i cebius ag iis author.
i ο mention Eusebius το Ὁ
oe a significant allusion to Eusebius :
the present note he has
i is given aliov
The following is the original of what 15. ΕἸΝ en aly
w πρόσκειται TE παρόντι C377 eAly, ἀνα Πρ
ΠΝ 9) Μαρίᾳ τί, Maybadnin, δοκεῖ δὲ τὸ 4
τῶν ἀντιγρά '
βάτου πρωΐ, ἐφάνη (see below
ἰρημέ ὕμεν ὡς δινα : :
ia baddest pee oh Ta ph δόξωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτοιμον κατα
Μάρκῳ τελενταῖον ἕν τισι φερόμενον. ἦ
φεύγειν, οὕτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα᾽ “" senda
τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαβθάτον ἐφάνη Μαριᾷ τῇ
(EvsEBIts.) ;
τὸ μὲν “ ἀναστὰς," ἀνζαπέρψωμεν Ὁ
ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ “ove se
βάτων." (τότε zap ἐγήγιρτοῦ τὸ .
ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὃν διανοίας ὑτοστατικὸν,
συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοιτ-
(i mput” γὰρ “ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτον
ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαλη»ῇ .")
τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης
“«πρωϊ" καὶ αὐτὸς “τῇ μιᾷ τον σαβ-
βάτου" ὦφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαλη
μαρτυρήσας.
[31 words are here omitted.] ;
ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς
δύο" τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τὸν
“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτον." τὸν δὲ τῆς τον
« ἜΣ
Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν “πραὶϊ.
[Eusenits, apud fai, iv. p- 256.)
* Note, that Victor ticice omits the word τρῶτον,
Note,
(instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτον), only ὃ
eh Vic:
the same thing in the place from which Vit
p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 297 line 4 and 5.
ccause Ἐν
te, is ascertained beyond dispute.
next ensuing Comment to quote from
At the end of
eo: Ἐπειδὴ be ἕν τισι
“ ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τον σαβ-
ih .
τὸν μὲν εἰπεῖν ὅτι νενόθευται τὸ παρα
Be,” καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, “ πρωϊ
Μμαγδαληνῇ." ἵνα (The extract τὸν
Victor ἐδ continued below in {λε right
Rand column: the left exhibiting the
tert of EUSEBIUS ‘ ad Marinum.’}
(VicToR.)
τὸ μὲν “ ἀναστὰς," ἀναπέμψωμεν =
τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ “ ὀψὲ σαββάτων.
(τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πίστενος
μεν.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας by διανοίας
πταραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν TOS ἐπιλεγο-
Bre zap “ ὀψὲ σαββάτων" κατὰ Ματ-
βεῖον ἐγηγερμένον ἱστορεῖ “ πρωΐ" ἕω-
ρακέναι Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.) :
τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ epee
“put? καὶ αὐτὸς “τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαβ-
βάτων᾽ ὦφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῃ
μαρτυρήσας.
&s παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις Καιροῦ!
δύο" τὸν μὲν τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τὸν ὀψὲ
τοῦ σαββάτον" τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος
ἐπιφανείας, τὺ “ πρωΐ." ᾿
“Victor ANTIOCH., ed. Cramer, }. P-
~ $44.5: (with a few slight cae
tions of the tert from Evan. Cod.
Reg. 178.)]
and ficice reads τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτον,
done
δια had inadvertently (three aa
Ot is copying. See Mai Nora P.P- 5
6: Memorable Testonony of Victor [cuap
“T know very well,” ]
\ »᾿ he says, “what has been sugges
‘ sted
oe ie are ae the pains to remove the apparent ai
: his places.” But when writing on S. Mark xvi. 9 20,
= does more. | After abridging, (as his manner fs) shat
baa explains with such tedious emphasis ἐλ ίη th
Ἂ stance of five columns in about three times as a
oe ae adopts the exact expressions of Eusebius follows
im in his very mistakes,—and finall fbes He
transcribes hi
The reader is therefor ΐ fe atk
e requested to bear in mind th
there ἷ at what
ΝΣ been listening tois not the testimony of Victor at all:
' ὺ he testimony of Euscbius. This is but one more sche
erefore of a passage of which we are all beginning by this
le = a weary ; 80 exceedingly rash are the statements
Ἢ which it is introduced, so utterly |
Y preposterous the pro-
posed method of remedying a difficulty which proves ἢ:
al] to be purcly imaginary. ;
bite then ts the testimony of Victor? Does he offer an
ee statement on the question in dispute from
᾿ his own private opinion (though nowhere sisted) ma
e lawfully inferred? Yes indeed. Victor, though
ΠΡΈΠΟΙ a Transcriber only, is observed every now and then
ae forward in his own person, and deliver his in-
ae Ἣπ πε λον 7, But nowhere throughout his work
oes he deliver such remarkable testi in thi
oe estimony as in this place.
᾿ ᾿ Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present
tospel, the passage beginning, ‘Now when [Jesvs] was risen
ἌΝ ΠΡ ic day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Ma
dalene, be not found,— (certain tndividuals having supposed it "
be spurious,)\—yet WE, AT ALL EVENTS, INASMUCH AS IN VERY
MANY WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE, OUT OF ACCU
RATE COPIES, SUBJOINED ALSO THE ACCOUNT τ our Lor
ASCENSION, (FOLLOWING THE WORDS ‘FOR THEY WERE cen
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR OF Marx
Σ οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δὲ ὡς διαφό ὁ
[ οἱ pous ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί ἱ τὴ Hy
φωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες. Vict. Ant. ed. aie Ka ee τ
referring to what Eusebius says apud Afai, iv. 264 and 265 ( silly at sr
Seat ait) § iii): 287—290
* e.g. in the passage last quoted.
v.] to the yenuinencss ΟΥ̓ these Verses. 65
WHICH EXHIBITS 111E Gospel, VERITY: THAT TS TO SAY, FROM
wns [Jesus] Was RISEN FARLY THE
‘WITH SIGNS FOL-
ane worps, ‘Now
EInST DAY OF THE WEEK,’ &C., DOWN TO
Low1xG. AMEN *-—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 intel-
ligent Father, writing in the first half of the yth century,—
(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of 8. Mark
are absent from some ancient copies of his Gospel is because
they hare been de Tiberately omitted by Copryists :
(2.) That the ground for such omission was the subjective
judgment of individuals,—nof 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, bad 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 en-
joyed the reputation of “ exhibiting the genuine text of
S. Mark,” contained the Verses in dispute—To Opinion,
therefore, Victor opposes Authority. We 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 Pales-
tinian Exemplar, he had from accurate copies furnished his
own tcork with the Twelve Verses in dispute ;—which is a cate-
gorical 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 pro-
gress 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 5. Mark's Gospel ; and they have been
* For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred to tho
Appendix (F).
F
66 The (supposed) hostile evidence of [cnap.
easily reduced to onc. Three of them, (Hesychius, Jerome
Victor,) prove to be echocs, not voices. The remaining tio,
(Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices aoe
echoes, but merely namics: Grecory oF Nyssa having reall
no more to do with this discussion than Philip of Rgeadon
and “Severus” and “ Hesychius” representing one and the
same individual. Only by a Critic secking 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’. But,
I. Evsenius, (as we have seen), instead of proclaiming his
distrust of this portion of the Gospel, enters upon an elabo-
rate proof that its contents are not inconsistent with what
is found in the Gospels of 5. Matthew and 8. John. His
testimony is reducible to two innocuous and wholly uncon-
nected propositions: the first,—That there existed in his
day a vast number of copies in which the last chapter of
8. 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 ’Avacras.
8. Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with 8S. ΔΙ atth.
xxviii. 1c,....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 Suepired Author,
or was mutilated before it came abroad; at all events, th t
the last Twelve Verses are spurious. τος
. How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,— Scholia
certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omnia ex ἀπὸ fente pro-
elon a code fonte Hieronrmum etiam hausisse intelligitur ex ejus
τ 4 : au ον Wetst: Bd ver. 9.—Similiter Scholiastee omnes in principio
ujas Evangelii in disputatione de lectione ἐν ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ex uno pen-
oe koi? Origenes auctor est hujus dulliiatisaie? (N. T. τοὶ. ii. p. cee
ee te er is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47
€ It is not often, ] think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually inserted
after ’Avacras δέ. Such a point is found, however, in Cod. 34 (= Cols! τὸ
and Cod. 22 (= Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many other copies. ἢ ᾿
v.] Sir Fathers of the Church, rericued. GT
II. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been
adopted, and in part transcribed, by an unknown writer of
the vi® century,—whether Hesrcnius or Severus is not cer-
tainly known: but if it were Hesychius, then it was not
Severus; if Severus, then not Hesychius. This writer, how-
ever, (whoever he may have been,) is careful to convince us
that individually he entertained no doubt whaterer 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 eilence their (imaginary) doubts. Nay, he
freely quotes the rerses 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 ‘ Ifesychius
of Jerusalem” or ‘ Severus of Antioch,”)}—*s a hostile wit-
ness, 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 respon-
sible 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, Vicror or 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 har-
monizing 5. Mark xvi. 9 sith the narrative of 5. Matthew,
—is observed to cite the statements of Eusebius concerning
the last Tuelce Terses 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 be-
half were probably identical ;) but statement he meets with
counter-statement,—fact he confronts with fact. Scarcely
F2
68 The Patriotic ceri ywe dismissed, wih [πᾶν
can anything be imagived 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 v™ century, who
crpressly witnesses to te gensincness of the Verses in dispute.
116 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 avtt-
γράφων.) 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 Je-
rusalem, or else to Caesarea; had inquired for those venerable
records which had once belonged to Origen and Pamphilus¢;
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 in-
spired 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,—yicld a particle of support to that mon-
strous fancy. The notion is an invention, a pure imagina-
tion of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach.
It remains to be scen whether the MSS. will prove some-
what less unaccommodating.
VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of
the discussion, to appeal to
Evturmits ZIGABENUS,
the Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compi-
lation on the Gospels, assigned to a.p. 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
4 Scrivener’s Introduction, pp. 47, 125, 431.
rus Zigubens 69
v.] a reference to Euthymirs Aigahens. )
not unfavourable. He says,—‘ Some of the Commentators
state that kere,” (viz. at ver. 8) “the Gospel according to
Mark finiskes; and that what follows is a spurious addi-
tion.” (Which clearly is his version of the statements of one
or more of the four Fathers whose testimony has already
occupied s> large a share of our attention.) «This aes we
must also interpret, however,” (Euthymius procetlss since
there ig nothing in it prejudicial to the truth ©.’—But it 1s
idle to linger over such a writer. One might almost as well
quote © Poli Synopsis,” and then procecd to discuss It. The
cause must indeed be desperate which secks support from
a quarter like this. What possible sanction can an Eccle- -
sjastic of the sii century be supposed to yield to the hypo-
thesis that $. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the hands of its in-
spired Author, was an unfinished work τ Σ
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 vulue of the most ancient
Manuserip: testimony available, shall be scrupulously m-
vestigated in the next two Chapters.
νταῦθα συμπτληροῦσθαι τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγ-
αγειεστέμαν. Χρὴ δὲ καὶ ταύτην
Enuthym. Zig. (ed. Matthaei, 1792),
© Φασὶ δὲ toes τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἐ
τὰ δὲ ἐφείῆς προσθήκην εἶναι pet
γελιον" ἢ
εαὐοι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ λυμαινομενην.-τ
ἑρμηνεῖσε:
tn loc.
CHAPTER VI.
MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELM-
INGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE VERSES.—Pant I.
8. Mark xvi. 9—20, contained in every MS. in the world except two.—
Lrrational Claim to Infallibility set up on behalf of Cod. B (p. 73)
and Cod. αὶ (p.75).—These two Codices shewn to be Sull of gross
Omissions (p. 18),—Interpolatiois (p. 80),—Corruptions of the
Text (p. 81),—and Perversions of the Truth (p. 83).—The testi-
mony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9—20, shewn to be favorable,
notwithstanding (p. 80).
ΤῊΣ two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the
famous Codex in the Vatican Library at Rome, known as
‘‘Codes B ;” and the Codex which Tischendorf brought from
Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by the first let-
ter of the Hebrew alphabet (s). These two manuscripts are
probably not of equal antiquity*, An interval of fifty years
at least seems to be required to account for the marked dif-
ference between them. If the first belongs to the beginning,
the second may be referred to the middle or latter part of
the iv century. But the two Manuscripts agree in this, —
that they are without the last tuwelee verses of S. Mark’s Gospel.
Τὰ both, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (ver. 8), comes the subscription:
in Cod. B,—xKaTa ΜΆΡΚΟΝ + in Cod. §,—EYArreAION KATA
MAPKON.
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. Manu-
scripts, Fathers, and Versions alike, are only not unanimous
in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness
* For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to the Ap-
pendix (F).
fe
: ene: es ae
cu. vi.) USS. only not unanimous concerning these Verses, 71
of the MSS. is even extraordinary. With the exception of
the two uncial MSS. which have just been named, there is
not oie Codex in existence, uncial or cuneinee= (and we are
acquainted with, at least, eighteen other uncials , and about
εἰσ hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)—which leaves out
the last twelve verses of 8. 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 Pari-
sian 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 i
and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of
those vencrable monuments to the proposed omission of this
part of the sacred text. 116 discovers that the Codex Bezae
(D), the only remaining very ancient MS. authority,—not-
withstauding that it is observed on most occasions to exhibit
an extraordinary sympathy with the Vatican (B),—here sides
with A and C against B ands. He inquires after all the
other uncials and all the cursive MSS. in existence, (some
of them dating from the x“ century,) and requests to have it
explained to him why it is to be supposed that all these
many witnesscs,—belonging to so many different patriarch-
ates, provinces, ages of the Church, — have pee as
a grand conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of es
magnitude and importance? But he obtains no intelligib e
answer to this question. How, then, is an δὴ ἡ, ate
student to draw any inference but one from the premisses ἢ
That single peculiarity (be tells himself) of bringing the
second Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse of the
xvi" chapter, is absolutely fatal to the two Codices in ques-
tion. It is useless to din into his ears that those Codices
are probably both of the iv century,—unless mee pre-
pared to add the assurance that a Codex of the iv' century
is of necessity a more trustworthy witness to the text of the
Gospels. than a Codex of the νυν. The omission of these
twelve verses, I repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in
> Viz. A, C[v]; D[vi]; E, L [viii]; Ὁ, Κὶ, M,V, Γ, 4, Δ (quere), Π [ix];
G, H, X,8, U [ix, x].
72 Character of Codd, Band xs to be ascertained. [cHap.
Cod. B and Cod. κι: for it is obvious that a copy of the Gos-
pels which hes 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 be-
cause 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 becn freely ac-
corded, on no intelligible principle can more be claimed for
any two MSS. in the world.
The rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious. Mistrust WV
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. x, after demonstration that those tico Codices exhibit
a mutilated tert 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. "Dywnéed
we to examine the evidence borne by these two witnesses
on certain other occasions which admit of xo difference of
opinion ; or next to none. Let us endeavour, I say, to as-
certain the character of the Witnesses by a patient and unpre-
judiced examination of their Evidence,—not in one place
or in two, or in three; but on several important oceasious,
and throughout. If we find it invariably consentient a
invariably truthful, then of course a mighty presumption
will have been established, the very strongest possible, that
their adverse testimony in respect of the enelien of
5. 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 trust-
worthy kind can be procured to confront them: above all
if some one ancient witness of unimpeachable veracity δὴ
be found who shall bear contradictory evidence: what other
τι] General Character of Coder B. τ
alternative will be left us but to reject their testimony in
respect of S. Mark xvi. 9—20 with something like indigna-
tion; and to acquiesce in the belief of universal Christen-
dom for cighteen hundred years that these twelve verses arc
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 omis-
sions, of one, two, or three words; but sometimes of half
a yerse, a whole verse, or even of several verses... - T hesi-
tate not to assert that it would be easier to find a folio con-
taining three or four such omissions than to light on one
which should be without any®” In the Gospels alone,
Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than
1,491 times’: of which by far the largest proportion is
found in 8. Mark’s Gospel. Many of these, no doubt, are
to be accounted for by the proximity of a “like ending *.”
The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic‘) was originally de-
© Verecllone, — Del antichissimo Codice Faticano della Bibtia Greca,
Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)
4 Dublin Univ. Afag. (Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.
© ὁμοιοτέλευτον.
( See Scrivener’s Introduction to his ed. of the Codex Bezz, p. xxiii. The
passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface to the 2ud ed. of his
Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus.—Add to his instances, this from 5. Matth.
xxviii, 2, 3:—
KAI €KAQHTO €
πανῶ ATTOT [HN δὲ
HEIAEA ATTOT] &C
ACTPATIH
It is plain why the scribe of δὲ wrote ἐπανὼ αὐτοῦ ὡς aotpary.—The next
is from 5. Luke xxiv. 31 τς
ΔΙΗΝΎΓΗ
CAN ΟἹ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙ
74 The pla of Infallibility recently [cuar.
rived from an older Codex which contained about twelve
or thirteen letters in a line®. And it will be found that
some of its omissions which have given rise to prolonged
KAI [EMEFNWCAN ΑΥ̓ΤΟ
KAI} ATTOC ΑΦΑΝ
TOC ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ
Hence the omission of καὶ ἐπεγνωσαν αὐτὸν in 8.—The following explains
the’ omission from jy (and D) of the Ascension at 5. Luke xxiv. 52 :—
AM AYTWN KAI [AN
€@EPETO €1C TON
OTPANON KAI] AT
TOI TIPOCKTNHCA
The next explains why δὲ reads περικαλυψαντες emnpwrwy αὐτὸν in 8. Luke
xxii. 64 :--
AEPONTEC KAI ΠΕ
PIKAATYWANTEC €
[TTNTON ΑΥ̓ΤΟΥ TO
NIPOC@NON KAI €]
NHP@TWN ΑΥ̓ΤΟ
The next explains why the words καὶ was εἰς avrny βιαζεται are absent
in δα (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:—
E€TATTE
AIZETAI [KAI TAC
€IC ATTHN BI
AZETAI] EYKONW
ΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ECTIN Τὸ
ε In this way, (at S.Johu xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt reading of
Cod. B (va τηρησης avrovs εκ tov xocpov)—which, however, was the reading
of the copy used by Athanasius (Opp. p. 1035: al. ed. p.825)—is explained :—
ΕΚ TOT [NONHPOY.
€K ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΟΜΟΥ
OTK €ICIN KAOWC
Thus also is explained why B (with δὲ, A, D, L) omits a precious clause in
S. Luke xxiv. 42 :—
ONTOT MEPOC KAI
[AMO MEAICCI
OT ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ]
AABON ἘΝΏΠΙΟΝ
And why the same MSS. (all bat A) omit an important clause in 5. Luke
xxiv. 63 :—
€N τῶ 1€PG) [AIN
OTNTEC KAI] €TAO
TOTNTEC TON ΘΝ
Aod why B (with §, L) omits an important clause in the history of the Temp-
tation (5. Luke iv. 5) :—
= ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ AT
ΤΟΝ [εἰὸ OPOC ΥΨΗ
AON] E€A1ZEN ATTW
vi] set up for Codd. Bands, uareasonadle. ἢ
discussion are probably to be referred to nothing else but the
oscitancy of a transcriber with such a codex before him :
without having recourse to any more abstruse hypothesis ;
without any imputation of bad faith ;— certainly without
supposing that the words omitted did not exist m 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
+s 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 ΒΡ 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 ἫΝ
tion, chiefly in conformity with the readings of his late y
discovered MS. And yet the Codex in question abounds
with ‘errors of the eye and pen, to an extent not un-
paralleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-
rate importance.” On many occasions, 10, ee a 40 τς
are dropped through very carelessness ἢ. Letters au
words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice
h In this way the famous omission (δὲ, B, 1) of the word δευτεροπρώτῳ, in
S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the Jeust) capable of being explained :-—
ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ A € EN CAB
BAT@ A[€TTEPO
πρωτῶ AJIAMOPETE
CeAl
Δ) in 5. Matth. xavii. 35 :— ©
and of νιον Bapaxiou (i) ecaraene ΤΕ ΒΉΡῚ
(rior BAPAXIOT }
ON €SONETCATE é Ἶ
5 as reached the 480th page of vol. ii. (1 Cor. v. 7. : τις.
k " μι way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. S Hi eee ee
xvi. 1:—19 words in S. Mark i. 32-4:—20 words in S. John xx. 5, 6:
in 5. John xix. 20, 21.
τὸ : ; : ;
The claim to co-ordinate Primacy recently [τὰν
over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while thut :
blunder ... Whereby a clause is omitted because it ha au
end in the same words as the clause preceding a :
than 115 times in the New Testament. Tysadlles ἯΙ fi ἣν
pronounced that ‘the state of the text, as τ τς fro :
the first scribe, muy be regarded as rery eoughe But
when “the first seribe” and his “very rough” oh ᾿
have been thus uneeremoniously disposed. ae che ποτα
like to be informed what remains to comrennnid res ee
Codex SP Is, then, manuscript authority to be poe Ὧν ded
with editorial caprice,—exercising itself upon the corr οἰ :
of Ἕ at least ten different revisers,” who, from the a wale
xii™ century, have been endeavouring to lick into sh τ
a text which its original author left “ ei rough 2” ad
The co-ordinate primacy, (us 1 must needs call it,) which
within the last few years, has been claimed for Cod ς B
and Codex 8, threatens to grow into a species of nee
from which I venture to predict there will come vibe eal
an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil. It behoves us, th :
fore, to look closely into this matter, and to require ᾿ ἐπι
for what is being done. The text of the sacred deposit is
far too precious a thing to be sacrificed to an iveational or
at least a superstitious devotion to two MSS.,—simply be
cause they may possibly be older by a Himidred years than
any other which we possess. ‘‘Id verius quod prius ” is an
axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual θυ εἴας as
in Dogmatic Truth. But on that principle, (as I have heen
shewn,) the last twelve verses of 5. Mark’s Gospel are fi iy
established™; and by consequence, the credit of Cold. 3
and Ν sustains a severe shock. Again, ‘Id verius vied
prius ;’? but it does not of course follow that a Codex f
the iv" century shall exhibit a more correct text of Scrip
tare than one written in the v", or even than one τ ἢ
in the x". For the proof οἵ this statement, (if it can be su
posed to require proof,) it is enough to appeal to Gules D.
That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the vit centunss
1 Scrivener’s Full Collation, &., p.xv.; quoting ‘Tregeiles’ N. T. Part 1
page ii.)
™ See Chap. IV. p. 37.
ga ee
vie] set up on behalf of Cod. 8, unreasonable. ra
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, σ
ands. 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 fertus receptus much in the same way that one of the
best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testa-
ment: 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 themscl ves
as genuine by even ἃ semblance of internal probability dd
Where, then, is the a priori probability that two MSS. of the
iv century shall have not only a superior claim io 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 8,—not unfrequently in defiance of the
evidence of all other MSS., and sometimes to the serious
detriment of the deposit,— would admit of striking illustra-
tion were this place for such details. Tischendorf’s English
« New Testament,?—" with various readings from the three
most celebrated manuscripts of the Greck 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 Gop in its integrity. Dean Alford’s constant appeal
in his revision of the ‘Authorized Version (1870) to “ the
oldest MSS.,” (meaning thereby generally Codd. 8 and B
with one or two others °), is an abler endeavour to fami-
liarize 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
» Scrivener’s Introduction to Con. Bezae, p. liv.
° eg. in S. John i. 42 (meaning oaly γὼ B, L): iv. 42 (& B, C): v.12
(ss, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, Β, L), &e.
78 Samples of the Omissions [cHAP.
opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that it is
easier to find tice consecutive verses in echich the to 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 casily 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 speak-
ing the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I con-
fess that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B
and §,—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross
ones,—altogether destroy my confidence in either P
(ὁ) On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of
these two MSS. is throughout, they vet, strange to say,
conspire every here and there in exhibiting minute cor-
ruptions 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 s0 extra-
ordinary 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 P.
(c) Further, it is evident that both alike have been sub-
jected, 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 isthe omission of the end of 5. Mark’s
Gospel which has given rise to the present discussion, it
becomes a highly significant circumstance that the original
Peg. 8. Matth. x. 25; xii. 24, 27: S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19 (BeefeBova).—
1 Cor. xiii. 3 (xavynowpai).—S. James i. 17 (awooxmopatos).—Acts i. 5 (εν πν.
Bax. ay.).—S. Mark vi. 20 (nzope:).—S. Matth. xiv. 30 (s¢xvpov).—S. Luke iii.
32 (IwAnd).—Acts i. 19 (ἰδίᾳ omitted).—S. Matth. xxv. 27 (τα apyvpia).—
S. Matth. xvii. 22 (cvorpepoperwy).—S. Luke vi. 1 (δευτεροπρώτῳ omitted).—
See more in Tischendorf’s Prolegumena to his 41ο. reprint of the Cod. Sin.
p.xxxvi. On this head the reader is nlso referred to Scrivener’s very inter-
esting Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus, Introduction, p. xliii. seg.
eae ee - π᾿
vi] in Coder Band Coder #. 79
scribe of Cod. s had a/so omitted the end of the Gospel accord-
ing to S.John4. In this suppression of ver. 25, Cod. s 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.s,
and bring the last chapter of 5. John’s Gospel to a close
at ver. 24!
Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two
solemn verses wherein 5. Luke describes our Lorn’s “‘ Agony
and bloody Sweat,” together with the act of the ministering
Angel'. As to the genuintness of those verses, recognised
as they are by Justin Martyr, Irenzeus, Hippolytus, Epipha-
nius, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Theo-
doret, by all the oldest versions, and by almost every MS.
in existence, including Cod. 8,—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 be-
fore us.”
Cod. B (not Cod. Ν) 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, for-
give them; for they know not what they do.” It also with-
holds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was
“in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew*.” Cod x, on
the other hand, omits the confession of the man born blind
(ὁ δὲ ἔφη, πιστεύω κύριε' καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ) in 5. John
ix. 38.—Both Cod. s and Cod. B retain nothing but the
4 See Tischendorf's note in his reprint of the Cod. Sin., Prolegg. p. lix.
τ ἤΏφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος---καταβαίνοντα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. 8. Luke xxii. 48, 44.
© ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς---τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 84) .---γράμμασιν Ἑλληνικοῖς Kal 'Ρωμαϊκοῖς
καὶ Ἑβραϊκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.)
ν᾽
80 Samples of the Interpolations [eaP.
word νἱόν of the expression τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον,
in 8. Matth. i. 25; ond suppress altogether the important
doctrinal statement 6 ὧν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in 5. John iii. 18:
as well as the clause διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν" καὶ παρῆγεν
οὕτως, in 5. John viii. 59. Concerning all of which, let it
be observed that I am neither imputing motives nor pre-
tending to explain the design with which these several serious
omissions were made. All that is asserted is, that they can-
not 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. Ναὶ, its absenee is to be ac-
counted for by assuming that it was also absent from the
mnapired autograph of the Evangelist.
2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where
the text of B or of yy, or of both, has clearly been interpolated.
There does not exist in the whole compass of the New Testa-
ment a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished
by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our Re-
deemer’s side from S.John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in
Cod. B and Cod. δ, where it is introduced at the end of
ver. 49,—in defiance of reason as well as of authority‘.
“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 ¥.””
Another singularly gross specimen of interpolation, in my
judgment, is supplied by the purely apocryphal statement
which is met with in Cod. 8, at the end of S. Matthew’s ac-
count of the healing of the Centurion’s servant,—xa: v7o-
otpevas ο εκατονταρχος €ls TOV OLKOV αὐτου εν αυτη τῇ wpa,
ευρεν τον παιδα υγιαινοντα (viii. 13.}—Nor can anything
well be weaker than the substitution (for ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου,
in 5. John ii. 3) of the following, which is found on/y in
Cod. :—orvoy οὐκ εἰχον, ors συνετελεσθη © owos του γαμου.
τ αλλος Se λαβὼν λογχῆν evutey αὐτου THY wAEvpas, Kai ἐξηλθεν vdwp και cima.
Yet B, C, L and N contain this! ἡ Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xlvii.
* So, in the margin of the Hharklensian revision.
ee ee μερταρν ᾿ μιιμόμοθοα ἀὐμμόνονσε. ἐἀπακτξε
v1] in Coder B and Coder νὰ. 81
But the inspired text has been depraved in the same
licentious way throughout, by the responsible authors of
Cod. B and Cod. x, although such corruptions have attracted
little notice from their comparative unimportance. Thus,
the reading (in ΝΜ) ἡμᾶς See epyater Bar τα epya τοῦ πεμψαν-
τος nuas (8. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient
condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by
B’s substitution of pe for the second mas.—Instead of τεθε-
μελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (S. Luke vi. 48), Β and Ν'ὶ pre-
sent us with the insipid gloss, δια τὸ καλως οἰκοδομεισθαι
autnv.— In the last-named codex, we find the name of
“Tsaiah” (noatov) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance
of authority and of fact—Can I be wrong in asserting that
the reading o povoyerns θεὸς (for υἱός) in 8. John i. 18,
(a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. κα alike,) is undeserving
of serious attention —May it not also be confidently de-
clared that, in the face of all MS. evidence, no future
Editors of the New Testament will be found to accept the
highly improbable reading ὁ ἀνθρωπος o λεγόμενος ἴησους,
in 5. John is. 11, although the same two Codices conspire
in exhibiting it f—or, on the authority of one of them (ns),
to read ev αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἐστιν" (for ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν) in S. John
3. 4?—Certain at least it is that no one will crer be found
to read (with B) εβδομηκοντα δυο in S. Luke x, Lt
(with s) 0 ἐκλεκτὸς Tou 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 criti-
cal depravations of the inspired Text, or else unwarrantable
interpolations. They cannot have resulted from careless
transcription.
3. Nota few of the foregoing instances are in fact ofa kind
# Note, tbat it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to eli the
Latin versions as allies. ᾿Απεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, "AvOpwxas λεγόμενον Ἰησοῦς εὐθὴς
js not “ Nespondit, Ie homo qui dicitur Jesus,” (as beth Sasha
Tregelles assume ἢ) but “ Respondit ille, Homo,” &c.,—#s in verses εἰ an : .
y This reading will be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the on
Chap. V11..—p- 110.
G
82 The tert of Codex B and Codex 3s [cuar.
to convince me that the text with which Cod. B and Cod. καὶ
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 in-
felicitous) is not of serious importance; as when, (to give
examples from Cod. δ.) for τὸν ὄχλον ἐπικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ (in
S. Luke v. 1) we are presented with συναχθηναι Tov οχλον :—
when for ζῶν ἀσώτως (in 5. Luke xv. 13) we read εἰς χωραν
paxpav; and for of ἐξουσιάζοντες αὐτῶν (in 5. Luke xxii. 25),
we find οἱ apyovres των [εθνων] εξουσιαζουσιν αντων, και,
(which is only a weak reproduction of 5. Matth. xx. 28) :-
when again, for σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει (in 5. John vi. 17), we
are shewn κατέλαβεν δὲ avtovs ἡ σκοτια: and when, for
καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν (in S. Jolin vi. 64) we are
invited to accept καὶ τις nv o μέλλων avtoy παραδιδοναιἥ.
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 Hoty Ose if he believes
ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν tov Θεοῦ (S. John. ix. 35), we are by no means
willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute, τὸν νιον τον
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 pe ta ena. Still less is
και ἐμοι avtous εδωκας any equivalent at all for καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ
πάντα od ἐστι, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά, in S. John xvii. 10: or, αλλοι
1 The following may be added from Cod. S :—peydAu αὐτῶν (in 5. Mark x.
42) changed into βασιλεῖς : εἰπεν (in S. Mark xiv. 58) substituted for ἡμεῖς
ἠκούσαμεν αὐτον λέγοντος : εβδομηκοντα τεσσαρων (in S. Lu. ii. 37) for ὀγδοηκ :
and ewpaxey σε (in S. Jo. viii. 57) for ἑώρακα :—in all which four readings
Cod. S is without support. [Scrivener, Coll. Cod. Sin. p.li.] The epithet
μέγαν, introduced (in the same codex) before λίθον in S. Mark xv. 46; and καὶ
πατρίας inserted into the phrase ἐξ οἴκον Δαβίδ in S. Lu. i. 27,—are two more
specimens of mistaken officiousness. In the same infelicitous spirit, Cod. B
and Cod. δὲ concur in omitting ἰσχυρόν (5. Matt. xiv. 30), and in substituting
πυκνὰ for πυγμῇ, and pavricwrrat for βαπτίσωρται in 5. Mark vii. 8 and 4:—
while the interpolution of τασσομενος after ἐξουσίαν in S. Matth. viii. 9, because
of the parallel place in 5. Luke's Gospel; and the substitution of ἀνθρωπος
avornpos e:(from 5. Luke xix. 21) for σκληρὺς εἶ ἄνθρωπος in 5. Matth. xxv. 24,
are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting influence has been here at work
besides those which have been already specified.
— no =:
νι. has been seriously corrupted. 83
ζωσοισιν σε, και ποιησουσιν σοι OGG ον Gerets, for ἄλλος σε
ξώσει. καὶ οἴσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεικ, in 5. John xxi. 18. Indeed,
even when our Lorp 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. s conspire in substituting
for ἀνέπεμψα γὰρ ὑμᾶς πρὸς αὐτόν,---ανεπεμψεν yap avtov
προς nuas; 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 spe-
cified. Mindful, I suppose, of S. James’ explanation “how
that by orks a man is justified,” the author of the text of
Codices B and καὶ has ventured to alter our Lorp’s assertion
(in 8. Matth. si. 19,) “ Wisdom is justified of her children,”
into “ Wisdom is justified by her torks ;? and, in the case
of Cod. κα, bis zeal is observed to have s0 entirely carried
him away, that he has actually substituted epywy for τέκνων
in the parallel place of δ. Luke’s Gospel.—The other ex-
ample of error (5. Matth. xxi. 31) is calculated to provoke
asmile. Finding that our Saviour, in describing the con-
duct οἵ the two sons in the parable, says of the one,—
ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν, and of the other,—«at
οὐκ ἀττῆλθεν; 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 iden-
tifying the son who “ afterwards repented and went,” would
be to designate him as ὁ ὕστερος. Accordingly, in reply to
the question,—ris ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πα-
tpos; we are presented (but only in Cod. B) with the as-
tonishing information,—Aeyovaly 0 vaTEpos. And yet, see-
ing clearly that this made nonsense of the parable, some
subsequent critic is found to have transposed the order of the
fo sins: 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 tamper-
ing with the test of the Gospels are, it must be confessed,
verry serious. But it is a yet more fatal circumstance 10
connexion with Cod. B and Cod. x that they ure convicted
G2
84 The text of Codd. B and xs convicted [cHar.
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. x, 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. x, Sis is omitted in ver. 830," -- ἐκ δευτέρον
and δίς in ver. 72,—‘‘and καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε in ver. 68:
the last change being countenanced by B*.”) 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 x.
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 ex-
hibit.
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 απέλθουσαι. I
recognise in that substitution of avo for ἔξ the hand of one
who was not aware that the women, when addressed by the
Angel, were tnside the scpulchre; but who accepted the be-
lief (it is found to bave been as common in ancient as in
modern times) that they beheld him “ sitting on the stone.”
—In consequence of a similar misconception, both Codices
are observed to present us with the word “ wine” instead of
“cinegar” in ὃ. Matthew’s phrase ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγ-
μένον: which results from a mistaken endeavour on the
part of some ancient critic to bring S. Matth. xxvii. 34 into
*® Scrivener, Coll. Cod. Sin. p. xvii.
» Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for ἐξελθ. Chrys. 83 (twice,)
(also quoted in Cramer's Cat.2"), The mistake adverted to in the text is at
Jeast as old as the time of Eusebius, (Mai, iv. p. 264 = 287), who asks,—Mas
παρά τῷ Ματθάιῳ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἔξω τοῦ μνήματος
ἑώρακεν τὸν ἕνα ἄγγελον ἐπικαθήμενον τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ μνήματος, K.TA.
νι of deliberate depravation. &5
harmony with S. Mark xv. 23. The man did not perceive
that the cruel insult of the “vinegar and gall” (which the
Saviocr 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 8. Luke xxiv. 13 into
harmony with a supposed fact of geography that Cod. 8
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 accu-
rate” copies,—notwithstanding the physical impossibility
which is involved by the statement °.—Another geographical
misconception under which the scribe of Cod. s is found to
have laboured was that Nazareth (S. Luke i. 26) and Caper-
naum (S. Mark i. 28) were tn Judea. Accordingly he has
altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his
privste notion*.—A yet more striking specimen of the pre-
posterous method of the same scribe is supplied by his sub-
stitution of Katoapias for Σαμαρείας in Acts vill. 5,—
evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi. 8.
—Agsin, it must have been with a view of bringing Reve-
lation into harmony with the (supposed) facts of physical
Sciexce that for the highly significant Theological record
καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη 6 ἥλιος at the Crucifixion *, has been sub-
stituted both in B and x, τον ἥλιου exArmrovTos,—a state-
© Tischendorf accordingly és forced, for once, to reject the reading of his
orsci: p.— 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 irsance as the present does not open the eyes of Prejudice itself to the
of pinaing its faith to the consentient testimony eveu of Origen, of
s, aud of Cod. ?.... The reader is reminded of what was offered
above. iz the lower part of p. 49.
4 similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S. Luke iv. 44,
(cf. xz parallel place, 5. Matth. iv. 23: 8. Mark i. 39). It does not mend the
mavier to fird py supported this time by Codd. B, C, L, Q, R.
© S Lu απ 48 --τοῦπερ οὐδέποτε πρότερον συνέβη, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μόνον,
ὅτε τὴ πάσχα τελεῖσθαι ἔμελλε" καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα τούτων τύπος ἦν. (Chrys. vii.824 C.)
80 The Vatican Conlex B recognises [cHAP.
ment which (as the ancients were perfectly well aware‘)
introduces into the narrative an astronomical contradiction
πεν may be worth adding, that Tischendorf with singular
inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contra-
diction, while he rejects the geographical impossibility.—
And this may suffice concerning the text of Cadives B
and &
ΠῚ. 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 Ν᾽ are the very reverse of infallible guides. Their de:
ficctions from the Truth of Scripture are more constant, as
well as more licentious by far, than those of their aun er
brethren : their unauthorized omissions from the sacred a
are not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also
And yet the main matter before us,—their omission of the a
tielve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel,—when rightly understood
proves to be an entirely different phenomenon from what μι
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 un-
questionably the oldest we possess, S. Mark’s Gospel ends
abruptly at the 8th verse of the xvit" chapter, and that the
: trent μὴ εἴπωσί τινες ἔκλειψιν εἶναι τὸ γεγενημένον, ἐν τῇ τεσσαρεσκαιδε
κάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς σελήνης γέγονε τὸ σκότος :---ῦτε Ere ἢ ἀ :
So Victor of Autioch, in bis Catena on S. Mark (ed. Pay ae nie bs
remark twice: first (p. 351) in the midst of an abridgment of the beginoin of
Chryaabioni's 88th Howily on S. Matthew: next (p. 352) more fully, after : t
ing “the great Dionysius” of Alexandria. See also an interesting aust ᾿ Ἢ
ihe same subject in Cramer’s Catena in Matth. i. p. oir hen wine ἐν
rived, I know ποῦ ; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note, that the
10 lines ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφον, beginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys. vii. 824 D, E.)
The very next words in Chrysostom’s published Homily (p. 825 4.) ee as fol:
Jows:—%Ore γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ἔκλειψις, GAA’ ὀργή τε καὶ ἀγανάκτητις, οὐκ ἐντεῦθε
μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ" τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινεν, ἣ δὲ ἔκλειψ :
ἐν μιᾷ γίνεται καιροῦ porj.—Anyone who would investigate this matter ia
should by all means read Matthaei’s long note on S. Luke xxiii. 45.
τι. the Conclusion of 5. Mark’s Gos? RF
customary subscription (KATA ΜΑΡΚΟΝ) follows,—is true; but
it is far from being the πλοῖο 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
colunn in the whole manuscript ;—a blank space abundantly
sufticient to contain the tirelee verses which he nevertheless iith-
held. 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 de-
gree significant, and admits of only one interpretation. The
older ALS. from which Cod. B was copied must have infallibly
contained the twelve verses in dispute. The coprist was in-
structed to leave them out,—and he obeyed: but he pru-
dently left a blank space i” memoriam vei. 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 tes-
timony 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
xerses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of
fifteen centuries and a half, a more ancient toitness 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 unsus-
pected 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.
Ic will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting
88 Cod. Band Cod. here contradict cach other, [cHap,
that the scribe of Cod. B. may have copied from a MS. which
exhibited the same phenomenon which he has himself re.
produced. This, by shifting the question a little further
back, does but make the case against Cod. s the stronger.
But in truth, after the revelation which has been already
elicited from Cod. B, the evidence of Cod. x 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&. 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 re-
duced 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. w are at vari-
ance on the main point. They contradict one another concern-
ing the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. For
While Cod. x refuses to know anything at all about those
verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by vo-
lunteering the statement that they were found in the older
codex, of which it is in every other respect a faithful repre-
sentative. The older and the better manuscript (B), there-
fore, refutes its junior (ss). 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 testi-
mony: and,— Though without the Twelve Verses concern-
ing which you are s0 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
8 See above, p. 70, and the Appendix (F).
v1] The Evidence up to this point reriecd. 89
the four oldest Codices of the Gospels extant,—B, 8, A, C,—
two (B and &) are «zithont these twelve verses: two (A and C)
are with them. Are these twelve verses then an unautho-
rized addition to A and C? or are they an unwarrantable
omission from Band 8? Β 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 8
these verses are away, in proof that “S. Mark’s Gospel was
at first without the verses which at present conclude it ἢ
Let others decide, therefore, whether the present discus-
sion has not already reached a stage at which an unpre-
judiced 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 un-
authorized addition to the second Gospel; a spurious ap-
pendix, 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 ren-
ders 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 hos-
tile, prove on investigation to be reducible to one, viz. Euse-
bius: and Eusebius, as we have seen, does "οἱ 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 1158
century. : —
(0) “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.
τ ΚΤ have ἐν questioned the elder of those two MSS. ;
and it has volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than
90 The Verdict anticipated. {cHar. τι.
itself—the Codex from schich it was copicd—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 frivo-
lous? 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 hap.
pened 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 auto-
graph of the Evangelist himself they were also away. Sup-
posing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the 1158 or
iii"! century could be found who quoted them: even 60, it
would not follow that there existed no such verses for a pri-
mitive Father to quote. The earliest of the Versions might
in addition yield faltering testimony ; but even 80, 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 ac-
count 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 ἢ
(1) The earliest of the Fathers,—(2) the most venerable of
the Versions,—(3) the oldest MS. of which we can obtain
any tidings,—a// are observed to recognise 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 ydp:’—with Griesbach that ‘the Jast leaf of the
original Gospel was probably torn amay.’... It is high time,
I say, that this case were dismissed. But there are also costs
to be paid. Cod. B and Cod. = are convicted of being ‘two
false witnesses,’ and must be held to go forth from this in-
quiry 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 VIL.
MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SIIEWN TO BE eer
INGLY IN FAVOUR OF TILESE VERSES.—Pant 11.
The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and δὰ (viz. the pei
words ἂν ᾿Εφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1) considered. eee
favourable to the omission of those tcords (P- 93).— he δ} Ἢ
infelicitous in their attempts to account Jor their sae ἊΨ Ὁ αὶ
Marcion probably the author of this corruption of the ae ne
ture (p. 106).— Other peculiarities of Coder 8 disposed of (Pp.
THE subject which exclusively occupied our ee
throughout the foregoing chapter admits of apt an ΙΝ se
ful illustration. Its vast importance will be ee oS
apology for the particular disquisition which τὰ τὰν τὰ
might have been spared, but for the plain challenge ὁ
famous Critic to be named immediately.
ings,” (s i τῇ,
«There are two remarkable readings,” (says Tischendorf,
addressing English readers on this subject in 1868,) “ which
are very instructive towards determining bine age of -
manuscripts [Nand B), and their authority.’ He proceeds
to adduce,—
1. The absence from bot
S. Mark’s Gospel,—concerning W or
thinks that by this time he has heard. enough. oes
2, He appeals to their omission. of the words ἐν ᾿} φέσῳ
from the first verse of S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians,—
another peculiarity, τη which Codd. νὰ
among MSS.
I ‘Here is an extraordinary note 7 ὙΠ ὦ mei
eo indeed. ogethe
two copies of the New Testament 10 5 iq
is it: aaa that it powerfully corroborates the general opinion
bh, of the last Twelve Verses of
hich, the reader probably
and B stand quite alone
92 Omission from the tert of Ephes. 1.1. [cHar.
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 Tert, which these two
MSS. concur in exhibiting? for that is the question which
has to be considered,—the on/y question. The ancientness of
a reading is one thing: its genuineness, (as I have explained
elsewhere,) quite another. The questions are entirely dis-
tinct. 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. 8 and B were written in the beginning of the iv
century, or in the beginning of the v'": whereas it matters
much, or rather it matters ererything, whether they exhibit
the Word of Gop faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous
license. How far the reading which results from the sup-
pression of the last two words in the phrase τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς
οὖσιν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, 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 allP Is it any way
credible that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as
follows :--- Παῦλος ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος
Θεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦϑ...
If it be eagerly declared in reply that the thing is simply
incredible: that the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ 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 Manu-
scripts will have been appealed to as crucial proofs of the
trustworthiness of the Tert 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 uniar-
rantable.—If, however, on the contrary, it be maintained that
the words ἐν ᾿Ε φέσῳ 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
yi.) Evidence for the on ssion stated. 93
to be shewn the evidence on the strength of which
opinion is maintained, in order that we may ascertain wha
iti iscly worth.
“ Tietcaibel = he illustrious discoverer and champion of
Codex &, and who is accustomed to appeal pul einer
τς omission of the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ as the other conc ἘΣ
proof of the trustworthiness of its text,—may be presume a
be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as we
as the man best acquainted with what is to be ae in ἧι
support. From him, we learn that the een "ἢ
omission of the words in question 18 as follows ἢ ; i ah
beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we ee a
saints which are at Ephesus;’ but Marcion (A.D. ΣΝ ),
did not find the words ‘at Ephesus ” in his copy. : πὰς
is true of Origen (A.D. 185—254); and Basil the Ἢ
(who died A.D. 379), affirmed that those words were νὰ ue
in old copies. And this omission accords τ we τὰν
the encyclical or general character of the eae 6. ΠΣ
present day, our ancient Greek MSS., and al aa a
sions, contain the words ‘at Ephesus ;’ yea (sie), even ἐν Ἢ:
knew no copy with a different reading. eae on ἜΝ i
Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with aus He ak A
Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion*. —? τ.
the sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine }
shat in detail.
" ἽΝ first, I take leave to point out that se eae
writer is absolutely without authority for his iui ᾿
“Marcion did not find the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his copy
S. Paul’s Epistle to the See eee ae a
tence for saying so is Tertu jan’s state
heres Αἰ τρίτα he specifies by name,) " πον ἘΝ
S. Paul’s “ Epistle to the Ephesians” the Sa aes Aer
of “Epistle fo the Laodiceans>.” This, aia neni Ay
Marcion could not have done had he found ἐν ee in "
first verse’. But the proposed inference 18 clearly invalid.
* Tischendorf’s “ Introduction” to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the English
N. T., 1869,—p. xiii.
b « Epistola quam nos ‘ad Ep
‘ad Laodicenos.’" Adv. Marcion. :
© «eTtulum’ enim ‘ad Laodicenos
hesios’ prascriptam habemus, heretici vero
lib. v. ¢. xi, p. 309 (ed. Ochiler.)
ut addidisse accusatar 8 Terlulliano,
91 The mistake of supporting that Mareion [cnap,
For, with what show of reason can Marcion,—whom Ter-
tullian taxes with having dared “ tifulon interpolare” in the
case of S. Puul’s “ Epistle to the Ephesians,”—be therefore,
assumed to have read the first verse differently from our-
selves? Rather is the directly opposite inference sug-
gested by the very language in which Tertullian (who
was all but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the
circumstance 4.
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
Tater. This Father had for many years made Marcion’s
work his special study‘, and has elaborately described it,
as well as presented us with copious extracts from it’ And
ita in salutatione verba ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ omnino non legisse censendas est.” (N. T.
in loc.)
4 «Ecclesia quidem veritate Epistolam istam ‘ad Ephesios’ habemus emis-
sam, non ‘ad Laodicenos;’ sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare ges-
tiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.” Adv. Marcion. lib. τ. ¢. xvii,
pp- 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)
© ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἱκανῶν. (Epiphan. Opp. i. 310 c.)
€ 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 11 Corinthians, (4th) Romans,
(5th and 6th) I and 11 Thessalonians, (7th) Ephesians, (Sth) 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 refu'e the heresy of
Marcion. (pp. 822—50: 850—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 Epipbanius concerning the living energy of Gop’s Word,
even when dismembered aud eahibited in a fragmentary shape. Ὅλον γὰρ τοῦ
σώματος ζῶντος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τῆς θείας γραφῆς, ποῖον ηὕρισκε (sc. Marcion) μέλος
νεκρὸν κατὰ τῆν αὐτοῦ γνώμην, ἵνα παρεισαγάγῃ ψεῦδος: κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας; . . « .
παρέκοψε πολλὰ τῶν μελῶν, κατέσχε δὲ Evid τινα παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ" καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ
κατασχεθέντα ἔτι ζῶντα οὐ δύναται νεκροῦσθαι, GAA’ ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ ξωτικὸν τῆς
ἐμφάσεως, κᾷν τε μυρίως wap’ αὐτῷ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἀποτμηθείη. (p. 375 B.)
vu] did not find the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in his copy. 95
the account in Epiphanius proves that Tischendorf is mis-
taken in the statement which he addresses to the English
reader, (quoted above ;) and that he would have better con:
sulted 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. Τὰ his “ Apostolicon,” or collection of
the (mutilated) Apostolical Epistles, the “ Epistle to the
Ephesians,” (identified by the considerable quotations which
Epiphanius makes from it®,) stood (he says) ean
order; while the (so called) “ Epistle to the Laodiceans, —
a distinct composition therefore, —had the cleventh, that is, the
last place assigned to it*. That this latter Epistle contained
a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epi-
phanius records the fact in two places'. But then it is to
be borne in mind that he charges Marcion with having
derived that quotation from the Apocryphal Epistle to the
instead of taking it, as he ought to have done,
Laotdiceans* ;
The passage,
from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians.
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 inter-
polated form, might seem to favour!.—I have entered into
lle seems to say of Marcion,—
Fool! to suppose thy shallow wits
Could quench a life like that. Go, learn
That cut into ten thousard bits
Yet every bit would breathe and burn !
6 He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12,13, 14: v. 14: v. 31 (See Epiphanius,
Opp. i. p. 818 and 371-2.) ᾿
hid p. 318 ¢ (= 371 8), and 319 4 (= 3744.)
' Ibid. p. 319 and 374. But note, that through error in the copies, or else
through jnndvertence in the Editor, the depravation commented on at p. 374
», ὦ is lost sight of at p. 319 B.
b Sce below, at the end of the nest note. ; ᾿ --
1 προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ ᾿Αποστολικῷ καλθυμενῳ καὶ τῆς ἐμ τὶ 2 Ἐν
Λαοδικέας :---“ Els Κύριος, μία τίστις, ἕν βάττισμα, ds Reis εἰ ε ᾿ μὰ εἰ ;
Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πόντων καὶ διὰ πάντων xe) ἂν πδσιν- ( ἊΝ 1 : ἽΝ
vol. i. p. 371.) Here is obviously a hint of τριῶν ἀνάρχων ἀρχῶν 1apopas πρ
96 The Evidence of Origen considered, (cHar.
this whole question more in detail perhaps than was ne-
cessary: but I was determined to prove that Tischendorf’s
statement that “ Marcion (4.p. 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 on/y Father who so expresses himself as to war-
rant the inference that the words ἐν "Edéom were absent
from his copy, is Origen, in the beginning of the third cen-
tury. “Only in the case of the Ephesians,” (he writes),
“do we meet with the expression ‘the Saints which are τ᾿
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™”’—If Origen had
read τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ 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,
ἀλλήλας ἐχουσῶν: [Μαρκίωνος yap τοῦ ματαιόφρονος δίδαγμα, εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς
τῆς μοναρχίας τομὴν καὶ διαίρεσιν. Athanas. i. 231 E.] but, (says Epipbanius),
οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει ἣ τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Αποστύλον ὑπόθεσις καὶ ἠσφαλισμένον κήρυγμα.
ἀλλὰ ἄλλω: 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, K.7.A.—p. 374 C.
Epipbanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained materiale ἐκτὸς τοῦ
Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλον' οὐ γὰρ ἔδυξε TE ἐλεεινοτάτῳ Μαρκίωνι ἀπὸ τῆς
πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν λέγειν, (sc. the words quoted above,) ἀλλὰ
τῆς πρὸς Λαοδικέας, τῆς μὴ οὔσης ἐν τῷ ᾿Αποστόλῳ. (p. 375 4.) (Epiphanius
here uses ᾿Απόστολος in its technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with 8. Paul’s
Epistles.)
™ "Apryerns 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 ᾿Εἰόδῳ ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ
χρηματίξων Μωσεῖ τὸ "ON οὕτω: οἱ μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται “ bres,” καλού-
μένοι οἷονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι εἰς τὸ εἶναι. “ ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,"
φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος, " ἵνα τὰ ὄντα Katapyjop.”—Cramer’s Catena in Ephes.
i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.
vi] The Evid nce of Basil considered. a7
unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Mi-
chaelis before him,—veasoning howerer only from the place in
Basil, (to be quoted immediately,)—are unwilling to allow
that the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ were ever away from the text. It
must be admitted as the obvious inference from what Jerome
has delivered on this subject (ii/rd, p. 98 note (s)) that he, too,
seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be
called) of Codd. B and &
(3) The influence which Origen’s writings exercised over
his own and the immediately succeeding ages of the Church,
was prodigious. Basil, bishop of Czsarea in Cappadocia,
writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150 years
later,—although he read ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in his own copy of
S. Paul’s Epistles,—thought fit to avail himself of Origen’s
suggestion. It suited his purpose. He was } roving the
eternal existence of the Sox of Gov. Even not to know Gop
(he remarks) is πού fo be: in proof of which, he quotes
S. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. i. 28:—‘“ Things which are not,
hath Gop chosen.” “Nay,” (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul,
“in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he is address-
ing persons who by intimate knowledge were truly joined
to Him who ‘1s,’ designates them specially as ‘those which
are τ᾿ saying,—‘ To the Saints which are, and faithful in
Curist Jests’” 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
ig evident. He had found it, he says,—(an asseveration in-
dispensable to the validity of his argument,)—but only after
he had made scarch*,—‘“ in the old copies®.” 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 muti-
lated text which alone suggested it to Origen’s fervid ima-
© Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 85: xii. 14, ἄς.
ὁ ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τυῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐτιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽ ἐπι-
γνώσεως, “brtas” αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών" “ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,
καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ." υὗὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν
τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. Note also what immediately follows.
(Busil Opp. i. p. 254 E, 255 A)
H
98 What Jerome says on this subject. [clap.
gination.—But what there is in all this to induce us to
suspect that Origen’s reading was after all the sight one,
and ours the wrong, 1 profess myself wholly at a loss to
discover. Origen himself complains bitterly of the depraved
state of the copies in bis time; and attributes it (1) to the
carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of correctors
of the text: (8) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopt-
ing some of these corrections and rejecting others, according
to their own private caprice % |
(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: : but
he does not seem to have apprehended that Origen’s text
was without the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ. If he was acquainted with
Origen’s tert, (of which, however, his writings afford no indi-
cation,) it is plain that he disapproved of it. Others, he says,
understand 8. Paul to say not “the Saints which are 2” but,
—“the Saints and faithful which are at Ephesus ὩΣ
(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit
that there has been elicited from their united evidence no-
thing at all calculated to shake our confidence in the uni-
versally received reading of Ephesians i. 1. The facts of the
case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully stated
in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the iv century, (ex-
hibiting in other respects several striking notes of vicious
sympatby,) 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
4 See the places quoted by Scrivener, Introd. pp. 381—91 ; particularly
p- 385. - Hieron. Opp. vol. vii. p. 543 :-—* Ilud quoque in Prefatione
commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hance Epistolam conscripsisse,
quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.”
. “Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum est
* Hlaec dices filiis Israel, Qui EST misit me,’ etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt [Note
this. - Cf. “qui sunt Epbesi,” Tulg.] sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nup-
cupatos: ub... ab Eo ‘qui eet,’ hi ‘qui sunt’ appellentur.... Alii vero sim-
pliciter, non ad eos ‘qui sint,’ sed ‘qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint’ scriptum
arbitrantur.” Hieron. Opp. vii. p. 545 4, B.
vu] Summary of the ancient Evidence. 99
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 ¢le fact that the words ἐν
᾿Εφέσῳ were omitted from some copies of the iii™ century
just as Codd. B and x witness to the same fact in the ivi
But what then? Origen is known occasionally to go uit
of his way to notice readings confessedly worthless; and
why not here’ For not only is the text all but ae
intelligible if the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ be omitted: but (what is
far more to the purpose) the direct evidence of all the copies
whether uncial or cursive',—and of αἱ the Versions ar
against the omission. In the face of this overwhelming ries
of unfaltering evidence to insist that Codd. B and Ν must
yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity wrong
is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect οἵ
this nonsensical reading, of two MSS. confessedly untrust-
worthy in countless other places,—against all the MSS.—
all the Versions,—is nothing else but an act of vulgar pre-
judice. 1 venture to declare,—(and with this I shall close
the discussion and dismiss the subject,)—/¢hat there does not
exist ove single instance in the achole of the New Testament of
a reading even probably correct in which the four following
notes of spurious origin concur,—-which nevertheless are ob-
served 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
wo.
2. The adverse testimony of all, or very nearly all, the
cursive MSS.
; Ὁ The cursive “Cod. N°. 67 **” (or “ 67°”) is improperly quoted as “ omit-
ting ” (Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the Imperial Library
at Vienna, (Neséel 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
Punctig natal” 66... The MS. must have a curious history. H. Treschow de-
idea! it in his Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece, ὅς. Havn.
1773, pp. 62—73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in his Libellus Criticus de indole Cod.
MS. Gracci N. T. Lambec. zrziv. &c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have been
corrected by seme Critic,—perlaps from Cod. B itself.
H2
100 The Moderns infelicitous in their [cuap.
3. Tho adverse testimony of all the Versions, without ex-
ception.
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
Jor 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 dis-
covering 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 oze take
up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod. B shews
marvellous sympathy ",) 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 “re-
produces 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 expound-
ing the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom
recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of
internal probability*.” Our business as Critics is not fo
invent theories to account for the errors of Copyists; but
rather to ascertain where they have erred, where not. What N
with the inexcusable depravations of early Heretics,—the
preposterous emendations of ancient Critics,—the injudicious
assiduity of Harmonizers,—the licentious caprice of indi-
viduals ;—what with errors resulting from the inopportune
recollection of similar or paratiel 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
® So indeed does Cod. § occasionally. See Scrivener’s Collation, p. xlix.
® Scrivener’s Introduction to Codex Bezae, p. liv.
vu] attempts to account for this Omission. 10]
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. Gucesses only
they are at best.
Thus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the sugges-
tion of Ussher,—(which, however, found favour with Gar-
nier (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. Scrivencr’s distinct approval ;)—that the Epistle
to the Ephesians “ was @ 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 οὖσιν left utterly roids.” 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 un-
sanctioned by the known facts of the case; and (what is
most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I humbly think, demon-
strably crroneous. I demur to it,—
(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability : for (α) when
S Paul sent his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that
Tychicus, the bearer of itt, was charged with a distinct
Epistle to the Colossians*: an Epistle nevertheless so singu-
larly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is scarcely
credible S$. Paul would have written those two several Epis-
tles to two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only
a duplicate of one of them, (iat to the Ephesians,) furnished
with a different address, to so large and important a place
as Laodicea, for example. (ὦ) 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 Colos-
¥ Scrivener, Coll. of Cod. Sin. p. xlv.
* Eph. vi. 21, 22. * Coloss. iv. 7, 10."
102 The improbability that 5. Paul left a blank [σηαρ.
sians in like manner were to read the Epistle,—(to whom
addressed, we know not),—which S. Paul describes as τὴν ἐκ
Aaodixeias >. Tf then it had been §. Paul’s desire that the
Laodiccans (suppose) should read publicly in their Churches
his Epistle to the Ephesians, surely, he would have charged
the Ephesians to procure that dis Epistle to them should be
read in the Church of the Laodiceans. Why should the
Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultancously
adopted one method with the Churches of Colosse and ee
dicea,—another with the Churches of Ep/esus and Laodicea
—in respect of his epistolary communications ἢ
(2) (a) But even supposing, for argument’s sake, that
5. Paul did send duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ἐρ δ:
sians to certain of the principal Churches of Asia Minor,—
why should he have left the salutation b/ank, (“carta ianies μὰ
88 Bengel phrases it‘,) for Tychicus to fill up when he pat
into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short
of this would account for the reading of Codd. B and s
(Ὁ) Let the full extent of the demand which is rude 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
τ Epistle to the Ephesians” sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul
with a blank address; i.e. “with the space after τοῖς οὖσιν
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 co
became the fontal source of the copy seen by Origen =
(5) Of the “old copies” seen by Basil; as well as (6) Of
Codd. Bandy. And even this is not all. The same hypo-
thesis 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 ἘΠῚ
a marvellous structure of hypothesis,—of which the top stor
overhangs and overbalances all the rest of the edifice ἢ The
thing which puzzles us in Codd. B and ¥ is not that we find
the name of another City in the salutation of 8. Paul’s “Epis-
» Ubi supra. © Gnomon, in Epbes. i. 1, ad init.
7
oo me -
vit] in some copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians. 103
tle to the Ephesians,” but that we find the name of no city
at all; nor meet with any vacant space there.
(ὁ On the other hand, supposing that 5. Paul actually did
address to different Churches copies of the present Epistle,
and was scrupulous (as of course be was) to fill in the ad-
dresses himself befove 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 ἢ unac-
countable, 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 αἱ the
most ancient writers, without exception,—(Marcion himself
[a.p.140°], the “Muratorian” fragment [a.p. 170 or earlier],
Jrenzus [A.D.175], Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen,
Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Eusebius,)—and all copies
wheresocver found, give one unvarying, unfaltering witness.
Even in Cod. B. and Cod. x, (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 respect-
fully 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 *?
ὁ Se above, pp. 93—6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (ad Ephes.
ς. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner, vol. ii.
© Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for account-
ing for the state of the text of Codd. B. and δὲ, 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 re-
mains open to them in editing the text: either (1) To leave a blank space after
ποῖς οὖσιν τ or else, (2) To let the words ἐν ᾿Ἐφέσῳ stand,—which Y 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 Epbes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words “in
Lacdicea,”—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
‘sufBeiently disposed of by Dean Alford (vol. iii. Prolegg. pp- 13-8); who infers,
t belief of the Church in all nges, that this
“ip aceordance with the prevalen
s in Ephesus, and to πὸ other
Epistle was verilably addressed to the Saint
104 What the Ancients called an “ Encyclical” — [enar.
(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, essen-
tially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the sugges-
tion before us is only another instance of the fatal misappre-
hension 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, be-
cause 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 ',”
An “ Encyclical,’ (and that is the word which has been
imported into the present discussion), was quite a different
document from what we call “ἃ 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 “Encyclicals.” So is the well-known Canonical
Epistle which Gregory, Bp. of Neoczsarza in Pontus, in the
middle of the third century, sent to the Bishops of his
province’, As for “a blank circular,” to be filled up with
Church.”] In the former case, they will be exbibiting 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 οὖσι left utterly void:” in the latter,
they will be representing the archetypal copy which was sent to the Metro-
politan see of Ephesus. But by printing the text thus,—rovs ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν
[ἐν ᾿Εφέσᾳ] καὶ πιστοῖς «.7.A., 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. Band 8. This is clearly to forsake the “ Encyclical” bypothesis
altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed
text of Scripture which can be named.
§ ᾿Εγκύκλιον ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christopborsouus et alii inter-
pretantur liferas circulares : ego cum viris doctis malim Epistolas vel literas
publicas, ad omnes fideles pertinentes, quas Greci alids vocant ἐπιστολὰς
xabodwKkds.—Suicer in voce.
© Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὗται, οἱονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι.---ϑθε Suicer in voce, ᾿Ἐγκύκλιος.
4 Routh’s Reliquia, vol. iii. p. 200.--“ Tum ex Conciliis, tum ex aliis Patrum
scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiae Patres acta et decreta Conci-
liorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere per epistolus, quas non uni
vit] is not what the Moderns call a “ Circular.” 105
the words “in Ephesus,” “in Laodicea,” &c.,—its like (I re-
peat) 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 sccond century,—that is, from the
very dawn of Mfistorical evidence, — has been known as
“the Epistle to the Ephesians,” was an “ Encyclical,” “Ca-
tholic” or “General Epistle,’—addresscd τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς
οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ There does not live
the man who will accept so irrational a supposition. The
suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to ac-
count for the absence of the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ 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’. It is observed to collapse
before every test which can be applied to it.
privatim dicirunt, eed publice describi ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulani,
atque cum ownibus populis communicari volucrunt. Hac igitur epistolac
ἐγκύκλιοι vocatac sunt, quia κυκλόσε, quoqud versum ct in omnem partem
mittebantar.”—Suicer in coc.
1 “On the whole,” says Bishop Middleton, (Doctrine of the Greek Art.
p. 355) “I sce 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 com-
municate it to the Colossians.’ ”—This suggestion is intended to meet another
difficulty, and leaves the question of the reading of Epbes. 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 subseqaent
Divines, appeurs 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 ecnd
a copy of it to the Laodiccans.” He charged them, himself, to do s0. Why,
at the same instant, is the Apostle to be thought to have adopted two euch
diferent 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 8. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a copy of
106 Marcion the Herctic probably the (crap.
III. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me,—
if men must necds account for the omission of the words
ἐν ’Egeow from this place,—thut 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.p. 140) is distinctly charged by
Tertullian (4.0. 200), and by Jerome a century and a half
later, with having abundantly mutilated the text of Scrip-
ture, and of S. Paul’s Epistles in particular. Epipbanius
compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to
a moth-eaten coat*. “Instead of a stylus,” (says Tertul-
lian,) “ Marcion employed a knife.” ‘ What wonder if he
owits syllables, since often he omits whole pages'?” 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 δ. Paul’s Epistles to
“the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Colos-
their Epistle to Colosse direct P 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 ᾿Εφέσου, which, (by the same bypothesis,) would
have been the original? Nay, why is it not designated by 5. Paul, τὴν πρὸς
*Egectous,—(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 docomeut ? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered to com-
wunicate 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 5. Paul had at the same time written to the
Colossians !
κ᾿ Epipban. Opp. i. 311 p.
1 “ Marcion exerte et palam machzra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad mate-
riam suam cedem Scripturarum confecit.” (Tertullian Prascript. Her. c. 38,
p. 50.) “Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginus totas plerumque sub-
ducat.” (4dr. Marcion. lib. v, c. xvii, p. 455.)
vit] Author of this depravation of Ephes. i. 1. 107
sians, Philippians. All this has been fully explained in
a preceding page Ὁ,
But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as 5. Paul’s
another Epistle,—of which all we know for certain is, that it
contained portions of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and pur-
ported 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 carcer prefix
a new heading to certain copies of the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, but also that some of his followers industriously erased
from certain other copies the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ 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. § 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". That,
—joined to a singular absence of identifying allusion,—suf-
ficiently explains why Marcion selected this particular Epis-
tle for the subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this cir-
cumstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Uni-
versal, and in defiance of its very Title, that the Epistle is
= See above p. 95, and sce note (f) p. 94.
κ See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. Prolegg. pp. 13—15.
108 There can be no doubt that the cominon [cHar.
‘Encyclical,’ in the technical sense of that word; and to go
on to urge this charactcristic as an argument in support of
the omission of the words év’Eg¢éow,—is clearly the device of
an eager Advocate; not the method of a calm and unpre-
judiced 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 mat-
ter 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 cer-
tain of the other neighbouring Churches in his mind while
he wrote. But all this is wholly foreign to the question
before us: the one on/y question being ¢iis,—Which of the
three following addresses represents what S. Paul must be
considered to have actually written in the first yerse of his
“ Epistle to the Ephesians ” ?—
(1) τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν X.’I.
(2) τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν. ..... καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν X. "1.
(8) τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ.᾽1.
What I have been saying amounts to this: that it is abso-
lutely 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 ᾿Εφέσῳ from
S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have under
their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of
the ii"4 century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, “ pre-
sumed 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 ᾿Εφέσῳ are an unauthorized
vin] reading of Ephes. 1. 1 ts the true reading. 109
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 esta-
blished 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 ow the words ἐν ᾿Ε φέσῳ 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 Tlowson, and so many
more,) to suspect their genuineness and enclose them in
brackets? Is it credible that the words ἐν ᾽Ε φέσῳ are a spu-
rious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph
of the Apostle?...We have already, as I think, obtained
ἃ 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 8
are even most conspicuously at fault.
IV. Lut if these two Codices are thus convicted of error
in respect of the one remaining text which their chief up-
holders 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 bas 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 καὶ to which he triumphantly
appeals: promising to dismiss them all with a single remark.
He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his “ Introduc-
tion” to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament °:—
“To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen
says on John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, ‘in
Him jis life, for ‘in Him was life.’ This is a reading which
ὁ. p. xiv.—See above, pp. 8, 9, note (f).
110 The truc reading of 5. John i. 4.— Other [cuar,
we find in sundry quotations before the time of Origen?;
but now, umong all known Greck MSS. it is on/y in the
Sinaitic, and the famous old Codex Bezac, 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. 85, Jerome ob-
P Onc is rather surpriscd 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 Irenwum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apud
Clem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenaeus 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. "Hy is also the read-
ing 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 ἐμοῦ of all the ASS, in the world, except of 8 and Ὁ,
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 85 8 question of authority, and
reason from the eridence,—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,— γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ (wh ἦν, was
what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril in his Commentary [heading of
lib. i, ¢. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3, 4. And to substitute ἐστί (for qv) in such
a sentence as that, was obvious... . Clrysostom’s opinion is well known, “ Let
us beware of putting the full stop” (he says) “α the words οὐδὲ €:,—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 Irenxus, Hippo-
lytus (Routh, Opuse. i. 6S), 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. ‘Jt is worth our observation,” (says Pear-
s0n,) “that Eusebius citing the place of S. Jobn to prove that the Hoty GuosT
was made by the Sox, leaves out those words twice togetber by which the
Catholics used to refute thut heresy of the Arians, viz. ὃ γέγονεν."
Chrysostom proceeds,—‘ In order to make out that THE Spinir is a crea-
ture, they read “O γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the Evangelist’s
language is made unintelligible.” (Opp. viii. 40.)—This punctuntion is never-
theless adopted by Tregellcs,—but not by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epipha-
nius (quoted in Pearson’s note, referred to fra), Cyprian, Jerome and the
Vulgate divide the sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pear-
son’s note (z), ART. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh’s Opuse. i. 88-9.
νη peculiar readings in Coder ps, disposed of. 111
serves 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 ts not a solitary crample containing the name of Esaias in
the tert 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 sercral ancient Latin USS. 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 diffi-
cult to scttle, the Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies in-
dubitably 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 4.”
Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to
4 It may not be altogether uscless that 1 should follow this famous Critic
of the text of the XN. T. over the ground which he has himself chosen. He
challenges attention for the four following readings of the Codex Sinaiticus :—
(1.) S. Jouy i. 4: ἐν αυτω Cun eorw.—(2.) 5. ΜΙΆΤΤΗ. xiii. 35: τὸ ρηθεν δια
noatou τον προφητου.---(3.) S. JOHN xiii. 10: 0 λελουμενος οὐχ Ext χρειαν νιψασ-
@at.—(4.) 8. JOHN vi. 51: av τις payn ex τον Epou aptou, ζήσει εἰς TOY atwya'—
Ὁ apros ov eyw Swou νπερ rns Tov κοσμον ζωῆς ἡ capt pov ἐστιν. (And this,
Dr. Tischendorf asserts to be “ indubitably correct.”)
On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might have been
auticipated from the atnouncement that they are almost the private property
of the single Codex 8. The last three are ubsolutely worthless. They stand
self-condemned. To examine is to reject them: the second (of which Jerome
says something tery different from what Tiscb. pretends) and fourth being only
two more of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired
Text, of which this Codex contains 80 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 :—
ΟΥ̓Χ €X1 XPE€IAN [€1
MH TOTC NOAAC] NI
YWAC@AI AAAA €CTIN
The first, 1 have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p. 110.
112 Readings not true b-cause they are old. [cnap.
exist in the mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless con-
fusion between the antiquity of a Codex and the ralue 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 ancicnt 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 Tischen-
dorf thinks it enough in a// the preceding passages to assure
his reader that a given reading in Cod. καὶ 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 ‘psissima cerba 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 Irenzus 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’.” 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 unsuspect-
ing reader. Without offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must be
allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been con-
sidering, he shews himself far more bent on glorifying the
“Codex Sinaiticus” than in establishing the Truth of the
pure Word of Gop. He convinces me that to have found
τ Scrivener’s Introduction, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves careful study.
“Η ΕΟ ΦΙΑΆΑΒ Cobden ὁ
IN IRE hd τ ON
Ney es aw N-1T9
ESTA βυναλέν νης:
ἩΓΈΡ ΛΗ ει Γ
WA fm LAF OT OTTO
OI OYE rh HICAN AN
Aras ivan Η
Preamenawéit
δ
a
ἢ a
€
es ΄
ΤΕΙΡΙ ΜΈ ΕΙΣ On
CN ES ΚΎΕΙ ZH
ΤῸΝ AAAA TATE ΓΓΊΛΑΝ -- META
ΤΕΡΙΠΑ͂ΤΙ O1CKAA ALTA’ TA ICAIA'
rb Hr ΑἸ Αννα oy ΚΑ bib) ATIOANAT SAH
TWiT pW OTE ICALA FAVCEWE
ΠΡΆΤΤΕΙ PRAAL tit Pat ον
ἩΝΙΓΑΛΙΛΑΙΑΝ’ AVNTWHT OIE ON:
Ficeraymmons ἐλ FL ISAT ett a
rhe * ic arte we ἐπί pyran HOA
γαῖν sate
[τὸ λει ae Ξ
Yronanomoy > 6£F
ἜΗΝ “Ἢ. ΣΡΑΥΤΑ
XEN AEN aie *MAGNAM E TATO:
τῶν emattit: 2CPOBOYNT %
SUE Ait r2eR AR ...
EIT Oe FOB ON ie
TOA ) MAC TAC AE wip t
43 23
es pyraead,
Πριν ΠΗ ΓΑΕΕ ΠῚ re:
Tne opposite page exhibits an eract Fuc-simile, obtained by
Photography, of fol. 113 of Evan. Con. L, (‘ Codex Regius,”
No. 62,) at Paris; containing 8. Mark xvi. 6 to 9 ;—as ex-
plained at pp. 123-4. The Text of that MS. has been pub-
lished by Dr. Tischendorf in his “ Monumenta Sacra Inedita,”’
(1846, pp. 57—3899.) See p. 206.
The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the
obliging permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the
Manuscript Department of the “ Bibliothéque.” 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.
vu] A prediction concerning Codices Band s. 113
an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal us to have “taken
a gift.” Verily, “tt doth blind the eycs of the wise.”
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 pre-
sent only in its infancy, comes to be better understood ; (and
a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New Testa-
ment 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 read-
ings which at present are received with unquestioning sub-
mission, chiefly on the authority of Codex 1} and Codex x.
On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that no future colla-
lions, no future discoveries, will ever make it credible that
the la:t Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are a spurious
supplemeni to the Evangelical Narrative; or that the
words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ are an unauthorized interpolation of the
inspired Text.
And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex Ν.
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 re-
main to be considered certain ancient ‘ Scholia” and “Notes,”
and indecd whatever else. results from the critical inspection
of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this
may reasounbly claim one entire Chapter to itself.
* Deut. xvi. 19.
CHAPTER VIII.
TITE 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’
tnaccuracies.—Birch's wifortunate mistake (p.117).— Scholz’ seri-
ous blunders (p.119 and pp. 120-1).—Griesbach’s sweeping mis-
statement (pp. 121-2).—TZhe grave misapprehension which has re-
sulted from all this inaceuracy of detail (pp. 122-3).
Codex L (p.123).—Ammonius not the author of the so-called ‘ Am-
monian” Sections (p. 125).—Epiphanius (p. 132).—** Caesarsus,”
a misnomer.— The Catenae,” misrepresented (p. 133).
Ix 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. 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 ex-
istence with the exception of Codices Bands. 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*.” 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 asser-
tion by appealing to seven MSS. in particular,—and refer-
ring 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 de-
partment of the Evidence would become deserving of serious
* Printed Text, p. 254.
—
me re -..
CHAP, ὙΠ]. * Editor. ret i
Pp. vii.) Later Editors the tictims of their predecessors, 115
attention. But I simply deny the fact, 1 entirely deny th
the “ Note or Scholion” which these learned persons aff ᾿
be of such frequent occurrence has any existence hue es
—except in their own imaginations. On the other ae
I assert that notes or scholia which state the exact r. "τῇ ;
(viz. that “in the older” or “‘the more accurate co fei ἐν
last twelve verses of 8. Mark’s Gospel are vie - :
even perpetually. The plain truth is this :—These cine
persons have taken their information at std band
partly from Griesbach, partly from Scholz,—without ΤΣ
picion and without inquiry. But then they have sli μὴν
uusrepresented Scholz; and Scholz (1830) slightly stoi :
stood Griesbach ; and Griesbach (1796) took Iberties: sth
Wetstein; and Wetstein (1751) made a few serious a
takes. The consequence might have been anticipated The
Truth, once thrust out of sight, certain erroneous statenie ts
have usurped its place,—which every succeeding Critic ie :
reproduces, evidently to his own entire satisfaction; tho oh
not, 1t must be declared, altogether to his own event L
me be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred ἜΝ
2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly Gann
plan of setting down al! the twenty-five MSS.° and a// ths
five Patristic authorities which up to his time had be :
cited as bearing on the genuineness of S. Mark xvi 0.55;
giving the former in numerical order, and stating seneil
concerning them that in one or other of those putlieniries
it would be found recorded “that the verses in auestions
Were anciently wanting in some, or in most, or in inet
all the Greck copies, or in the most accurate ones :—or εἰν
that they were found in a few, or in the more pias
Copies, or in many, or in most of them, specially in the
Palestinian Gospel.” The learned writer (who had mad
up his mind long before that the verses in question are to
be rejected) no doubt perccived 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
* Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36
: _L, 2, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,—108, 129, 137
143, 181, 186, 195, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222. es
12
116 History of the evrors in Scholz note (2). {cHar.
a hundred years. A very little study of the subject would
have shewn them that Griesbach derived the first eleven of
his references from Wetstcin ¢, the last fourteen from Birch ἃ,
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 1
concerning the MS. evidence for this part of 8. Mark's
Gospel; subsequent critics having been content to adopt his
statements without acknowledgment and without examina-
tion. 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 “ (=)*”, with which prac-
tically all that has since been delivered on this subject
by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is iden-
tical.
(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two
MSS. in the Vatican Library ‘ 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®. From that day to this,
the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been reli-
giously reproduced by every Critic in turn; and it is uni-
versally taken for granted that they represent two ancient
© Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of "
reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242 ἢ) which = Evan. 15, 19,
espectively.
a a Lectiones, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358, ων
457, 1229 (ΞΞ ους 129, 187, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181): Laur. vi. Ἐν
(ΞΞ 180, 195): Ven. 27 (ΞΞ 210) : Vind. Lamb. 38, 39, Kol. 4 — ἴ ca
108): Cod. iv. (leg. 5?) 5. Maria Bened. Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6,
(= 206, 209.)
© Nor. Test. vol. i. p. 199.
1 Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.
ε on Scare censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua Eeangelsiera?
narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam dubins notarcnt. he
Variae Lectiones, ἄς. p. 225.
ee ee
1
1
vin.) Bireh’s unfortunate mistake. 117
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.*) has of necessity
no such signification. And even if it docs sometimes in-
dicate 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 in-
decd every one else against me,—I got a learned friend at
Rome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and inspect the
two Codices jn question*. That he would find Birch right
in his facts, 1 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 prores to be no asterisk at all,—cither in Cod. 756,
or in Cod. 757.
On the contrary. After ἐφοβοῦντο γά p, the former Codex
has, in the text of S. Mark xvi. 9 (fol. 150 ὃ), a plain cross,
—(not an asterisk, thus + or >< or >< or 3%, but a cross,
thus +),—the intention of which is to refer the reader to
an annotation on fol. 151 6, (marked, of course, with a cross
also,) to the effect that S. Mark zrri. 9—20 is tundoubtedly
* In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at 8. Mk. xvi. 9, XX occurs
at xi. 12, xii. 88, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such sign occurs at the
Pericope de adulterd, * Further obligations to the same
friend are acknowledged in the Appendix (D).
118 Details concerning Codices 20 and 800. [cHar.
genuine', The evidence, therefore, not only breaks hope-
lessly 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. Jn the ancient copies, howerer, it all
JSorms part of the tert*.” 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 cir-
cumstance 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! that the
foregoing rubrical annotation appears in the trong 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,’ 8. Mark
xvi. 9—20 “formed part of the text.”
‘ Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our 36,)
against S. Mark xvi. 9, ie this sign 5¢ It is intended (like an asterisk in 8
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.
- a Se ' »
* ἐντεῦθεν foc τοῦ τέλους iv τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ov
κεῖται: ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται.
—(Codd. 2U and 3UU = Paris 1838, 186.)
1 See more concerning this matter in the Appendix (D), ad fin.
vin] Scholz’ serious m isapprehensions. 119
(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™.” What need to
point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in conjunc-
tion 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 out-
weighing the bare statement (next to be noticcd) of the un-
deniable historical fact that, “in some copies,” S. Mark ends
at rer, 8,—but “in many does not” ?
(4.) Scholz proceeds :—“ In Cod. 22, after ἐφοβοῦντο rap
Ἔ τέλος is read the following rubric :’—
ἔν τισι TOV ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ εὐαγιελισ-
τής’ ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται",
And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by
all subsequent Critics and Editors,—cross, and “ TéAoc,” and
all,—as an additional ancient attestation to the fact that
“ The End” (τέλοο) 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 “+éaoc” in this
place merely denotes that here a well-known Ecclesiastical sec-
tion comes toan end!... As far, therefore, as the present dis-
cussion is concerned, the circumstance is purely irrelevant ° ;
» At the end of 5. Matthew’s Gospel in Cod. 800 (at fol. 89) is found,—
εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λλατθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ
τῶν “Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδ
and at the end of S. Mark’s, (at fol. 147 5)—
elarréAiov κατὰ Mdpkov ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως
ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις APs κεφαλαίοις CAE.
Tuis second colophon (though not the first) is tound im Cod. 20. Both reap-
pear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an iuteresting variety in the former
of the two) in [what I suppose is the first half of] the uncial Codex A. See
Scrivener’s Introduction, p. 125.
» = Paris 72, fol. 107 ὁ. He might have added, (for Wetstein had pointed
it out 79 yours before,) that the same note precisely is found between verses 8
and 9 in Cod. 16 ( = Paris 64,) fol. 98 ὃ.
* See more at the very end of Chap. XI.
120 Scholz’ serious tissue of mistakes. ([cHaP.
and, (as I propose to shew in Chapter XJ,) the less said
about it by the opposité party, the better.
(5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,)
other Codices very nearly the same colophon as the preced-
ing 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". And then
comes the rest of 8. 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 im-
posing statement which follows. Codd. 28, 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 jis own
Ῥ Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet.6 and 10) contain
as follows :—
“ ᾿ “~ e ᾿ - « “- ε ᾿
ἵν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων tac ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ Εὐαγ-
iy ΄ - Qo , c # : ἢ ἢ ᾿
γελιστὴς, ἕως οὗ Kai’ Ευσδέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν" ἐν
ἄλλοις δὲ ταῦτα φέρεται: ἀναστὰς, κ.τ.λ.
But Cod. 199 (which = 8. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. 1V. [lege 5], accord-
ing to Birch (p. 226) who supplies tbe quotation, hns only this :—
s a 2 , s a a
ἕν τισι TOV ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [7] ταῦτα.
vt] Grieshach’s sicceping misstatements. 12]
23” with “ Cois/. 23,” but “Coisl. 23” is his ‘39,’—of
which by-and-by. This reference therefore has to be can-
celled.) —Cod. 41 contains a echolion 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 Gos-
pel to the last, does there exist any ‘“scholion of Screrus
of Antioch” ahaterer. Scholz, ina word, has inadvertently
made a gross misstatement *; 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 relutes, 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 '.)
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 " undisposed of
have been scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite
4 It originated in this way. At the end of 5. Matthew’s Gospel, in both
Codices, are found those large extracts from the “2nd Hom. on the Resurree-
tion” which Montfaucon published in the Bibl. Cutsl. (pp. 68—75), and which
Cramer has since reprinted at the end of his Catena in 8. Matth, (i. 243—
251.) In Codd. 84 and 39 they are ascribed to “Severus of Antioch.” See
above (p. 40.) Sce also pp. 39 and 57.
τ See ubove, pp. 61, 65. 5 22—3 (199, 206, 200) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20.
122 The foregoing evidence altogether favourable. [cHar.
different from what is commonly supposed. One of them
(N°. 38) has been cited in error: while the remaining nine-
teen are nothing else but copics of Victor of Antioch’s com-
mentary on δ. Mark,—no less than sirteen of which contain
the famous attestation that in most of the accurate copies, and
in particular the authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelre
rerses of S. Mark’s Gospel WERE FotxpD. (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 Codicest are observed to contain a note to
. the effect that the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, though want-
ing “in some,” was yet found “in others,”’—“in many,”
— in the ancient copies.”
(Ὁ) Next, four Codices* contain eubscriptions vouching
for the genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by de-
claring that those four Codices had been collated with ap-
proved copies preserved at Jerusalem.
(c) Lastly, sixteen Codices, — (to which, besides that
already mentioned by Scholz", I am able to add at least
five others, making twenty-two in all *,)—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
hate 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 80
much as one single Codex which contains such a scholion;
* viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 206, 209 :—20, 300 :—15, 22.
* Cod. A, 20, 262, 300.
= Evan. 374,
x viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 187, 138,
148, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (Birch Varr. Lectt. p. 225.) Add Evan.
874 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the Moscow Codex (qu. Evan.
253?) employed by Matthaei. :
vil.) Sune account of Codex L. 123
while twenty-four® of those commonly enumerated etate
the cxract revvrsc—We may now advance a step: but the
candid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the sup-
posed hostile evidence is on the contrary entirely in furour
of the verses under discussion. (“I called thee to curse
mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed them
these three times.”)
11. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.* This
is the designation of an uncial MS. of the viiit® or ixt®
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 deter-
mine 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 THI8 EFFECT
15 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 Jests Himself send forth by their means
the holy and incorruptible message of eternal Salvation.
“ΒΤ THIS ALSO IS MET WITH AFTER
THE WORDS, ‘ FOR THEY WERE AFRAID.”
“‘Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the
week ",” ἄς.
τ 2(viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding note)
= * Paris 62, olim, 2861 and 1558.
* Sec the facsimile.—The original, (which knows nothing of Tischendorf’s
crosses,) rends as follows :—
; @€PETE ΠΟΥ
: ΚΑῚ TATTA -
Ast δὲ TA ΠΑΡΗ
Ir€AMENA ΤΟΙ͂Ο
ΠΕΡῚ TON ΠΕΤΡΟΝ
194 Account of Coder 7.,, continued. [cuar,
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.p. 616), and in a few other’
quarters of less importance *.—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 viiit® or ix
century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious text,—is to
CYNTOMW@C €=H
ΓΓΙΛΑΝ - META
δὲ TATTA καὶ ATTOC
ὁ JC, ἈΠῸ ANATOAHC
καὶ ἈΧΡῚ ATCEWC
‘€ZATIECTIAEN ΔΙῚ
ATTWN TO JEPON
KAi ‘A®OAPTON KH
ΡΥΓΜΑ - THC αἰῶ
NIOT CWTHPIAC -
: €CTHN ΔΕ ΚΑΙ
: ΤΑΥ͂ΤΑ ΦΕΡΟ
ἘΜΕΝΑ META TO
ἢ €60BOTNTO
ΠΡΩΤΗ CABBATS -
fe :—pépetal πον καὶ ταῦτα.
Πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν' μετὰ δὲ
ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ
ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρνγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας.
Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.
᾿Αναστὰς δὲ πρωΐ πρώτῃ σαββάτου.
* As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two
Zthiopic MSS.—I am uuable to understand what Scholz and his copyists have
said concerning Cod. 274. Iwas assured again and again at Paris that they
knew of no such codex as “ Reg, 79, which is Scholz’ designation (Prolegg-
p- Ixxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which, after him, we number “ 274.”
τας ee.
ee
ew Geren Ἔν
vin.] © Aninionios” cited as an Authority. 125
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 Gos-
pel 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 5. Mark’s Gospel when it left
the hands of its inspired Author was in a mutilated con-
dition. The copyist chews 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 x centary, (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 ov Εὐσέβιος 6 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 pro-
position : 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 Tiscbendorf. “ Neither by
the sections of Ammonius nor yet by the canons of Euse-
bius are these last verses recognised®.” “Thus it is seen,”
© Noe AMMONII Sectionibus, nee Evsrait Canonibus, agnoscuntur ultini
versus.—Tisch, Noe. Test. (ed. Sra), p. 406.
120 The lost “ Diatessaron” of [ctuar.
proceeds Dr, Tregelles, “that just as Eusebius found these
verses absent in his day from the best and most nume-
rous copies (sic), so arus also the case with Ammonius when
he formed his Harmony in the preceding century °.”
A new and independent authority therefore is appealed
to,—one of high antiquity and evidently very great im-
‘portance, —Ammonius of Alexandria, aw. 220. But Ammo-
nius has left behind him no hnown 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, how-
ever, it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing what-
ever 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 Evan-
gelical Harmony ; the peculiarity of which was, that, re-
taining 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 in-
evitable inconvenience; that the sequence of the narrative,
in the case of the three last Gospels, was interrupted
throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed ἢ,
The “ Diatessaron” of Ammonius, (so Eusebius styles it),
has long since disappeared; but it is plain from the fore-
going account of it by a competent witness that it must
© Printed Text, p. 248.
4 The fender is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for himself :—
᾿Αμμώνιος μὲν ὃ ᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηο-
Ν ae
χὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς
ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι
‘adv τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἰρμὸν τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὕφει τῆς ava- _
γνώσεωτ.
. neares; Fuzglish equivalent to ἀφορμή is “8 hint.”
vit.) Ammonius of Alerandria, A.D. 220. 127
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 8. John: in short, for
anything which was not capable of being brought into some
kind of agreement, harmony, or correspondence with some-
thing 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 supplicd by the very imperfect
labours of his predecessor, devised an entircly different ex-
pedient, whereby he extended to the Gospels of 8. Mark,
S, Luke and S. John all the advantages, (and more than all,)
which Ammonius had made the distinctive property of the
first Gospel®. His plan was to retain the Four Gospels in
their integrity ; and, besides enabling a reader to ascertain
at a glance the places which ΚΒ. 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 eshibited by the work of Ammonius,)—to shew
which places 5. Luke has in common with 85. Mark,—which
with 8. 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 la-
bours of Ammonius had “ suggested to hin” his own*. 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
Gos ls. But then, whereas Ammonius had placed along-
side of S. Matthew the dislocated sections themselves of the
ε Ἴνο δὲ σεζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν 30 ὅλον σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ, εἰδέναι
ἔχοις τοὺ» οἰκείους ἑκάστον εὐαγγελιστοῦ τό πους, ἐν οἷς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχ-
θησω" φ-λαληδῶς εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρημένον ἀνδρὺς εἰληφὼς ἀφορ-
μὰς, καθ᾿ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτε-
Tayperors.
@ This seems to represent exactly what Eusebius means in this place. The
Consider Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
ν. 97. Also the following :—wodAas λαβόντες ἀφορμάς. (Andreas, Proleg. in
Apocatsps.).—AaBartes τὰς ἀφορμάς. (Anastasius Sin., Routh’s Rell. i. 15.)
128 The Canons of Eusebius. ([cHap.
other three Evangelists which are of corresponding purport,
Eusebius conccived the idea of accomplishing the same
object by means of a system of double numerical references.
Ile 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‘. (If the section was unique, it belonged to his last
or ΧΙ Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew’s account of the
Title on the Cross, is written + but in the Is Canon
(which contains the places common to all four Evangelists)
parallel with 335, is found,—214, 324, 199: and the Sec-
tions of 5. Mark, 5. 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 introduc-
tion in this place calls for apology. The extraordinary
method of the opposite party constrains me however to
estublish thus clearly the true relation in which the fami-
liar labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of
Ammonius.
§ wavdvas.... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This at least is decisive
as tothe authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome says of Ammo-
nius,—“‘ Erangelicos canones excogitarit quos postea secutus est Euscbius
Cwm-sariensis,” (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 ὃ--- Αὕτη
μὲν οὖν ἡ τὼν ὑποτιταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις᾽ ἡ δὲ σαφὴς αἰτῶν διήγησι5,
ἔστιν ἥδε. ᾿Εφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ
μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα δευτέρον, καὶ τρίτοι,, καὶ καθεξῆς προϊὼν
δι᾽ ὅλον μέχρι ταῦ τέλον; τοῦ βιβλίον. He proceeds to explain how the sections
thus numbered are to be referred to bis X Cunons :—xaé’ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν
ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεω: πρόκειται, δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα κανόνων κεί-
μένος ὃ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.
Secs
- «'».
vit] “ The Sections of Aimmonius” ,—ihat ? 19.
For if that earlier production be lost indeed &,—if its pre-
cise 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 Am-
nignius,’ as to a known document? Why above all do
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim “ Am-
monius” 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 Catenz) what Ammonius thought
about any single verse in any of the four Gospels? At every
stage of this discussion, I am constrained to ask mysclf,—
Do then the recent Editors of the Text of the New Testa-
ment really suppose that their statements will werer be ex-
amined? their references never verified? or is it thought
that they enjoy a mouopoly of the learning (such as it is)
which enables a man to form an opinion io this department
of sacred Science? For,
(1Ξ Where then and «hat are those “Sections of Am-
mouius” to which Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently
appealf It is even notorious that when they say the “ Sec-
tions of Ammonius,” what they mcan are the ‘“Scctions of
Euscbius2’—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
ε “Frostra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Qua
supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.” (Tis-
cbendarf on δ. Mark xvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he assumed that the
avonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to light im the vit’ century,
and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was the loat work of Ammonius, (Proleg.
p. 63, § 660,)—was of course warranted in appexling to the authority of Am-
monizs in swpport of the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But in truth
Mill's assumption cannot be maintaimed for a moment, as Wetstein has con-
viacnzly 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 hus said concerning the work of Ammonius.
Cap. Lxxiv, for instance, contains as follows :—Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. 33.
Mrt. xiii 34,35: 10,11. Mkiv. 34 Mtt. xiii. 18 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 disappt ared.
The most convenient edition for reference is Schtkeller’s,—Ammonii Aler-
andrini qua εἰ Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum. (Vienna, 1841.)
κ
180 The “ Ammanian” Sections, the work of Eusebius. [cnay.
without proof that so much as one of the Sections of Am-
monius corresponded with one of those of Eusebius ; and yet,
(3dly.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of Ammonius
and those of Euscbius can be proved to have corresponded
throughout, the name of Ammonius has no business what-
ever to be introduced into such a discussion as the present ἢ
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®,)—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
ornot. It is demonstrable that they cannot have been s0;
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 wse,)—except on the theory
that those Canons were already in existence’, Now the
Canons are confessedly the invention of Eusebius. He dis-
tinctly claims them). Thus much then concerning the sup-
posed testimony of Ammonius. It is ni/—And now for
what is alleged concerning the evidence of Eusebius.
The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by Te-
marking), is the following memorandum found in certain
ancient MSS.:— Thus far did Eusebius canonize * 3” which
* 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 Ammonins into exactly 1165 sections,—every one of which he hed
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 be describes, must μεν found in the library at Ceesarea the
private copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ammouius,—an unique volame,
in which the last-named Father (as he assumes) will have numbered the Sections
and made them exactly 1163. It is not necessary to discuss such a notion.
We are dealing with facts,—not with fictions.
5 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)-
J See above, p. 128, note (f). * See above, p. 125.
Sea
- Saas eee “402.::.:::...
4
vu] Futility of the present argumentation. 131
means cither: (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 raiged the following
precarious superstructure. It is assumed,
(Ist.) That the Section of S. Mark’s Gospel which Eusebius
numbers “ 233,” and which begins at our ver. 8, cannot hare
extended beyond ver. 8 ;—whereas it may have extended, and
probubly did extend, down to the end of ver. 11.
(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Euscbian
Canons of any sectional τιον" in S. Mark’s Gospel sub-
sequent to § 233, no Scetion (with, or without, such a sub-
sequent number) can have existed :—whereas there may
have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly num-
bered'. 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 sce 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 re-
mark that one way of shelving a certain awkward pro-
blem 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 correla-
' As a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are noted eith-
out the Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in the Appendix (6).
k 2
132 The appeal to Epiphanius and to (cHar.
tive of the old one; and since it was Eusebius who was the
voucher for that, what additional probability do we esta-
blish 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
᾿ς left out altogether? (See above, pp. 44-6.)
So that really I am at a loss to see that one atom of pro-
gress is made in this discussion by the further discovery
that, (in a work written about a.p. 373,)
EpipHaNius
states casually that “the four Gospels contain 1162 sec-
tions™.”’ From this it is argued™ that since 355 of these
are commonly assigned to S. Matthew, 342 to 8. 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 him-
self 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 Casarius 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 τέσσαρά εἶσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξηκονταδύο. The words
are most unexpectedly, (may I not say suspiciously 3), found in Epipbanius,
Ancor. 60, (Opp. ii. 54 B.)
"= By Tischendorf, copying Mill’s Proleg. p. 63, § 662:—the fovtal source, _.
by the way, of the twin references to “ Epiphanius and Casarius.”
.---.-- oe
eine See MD
re.
Vil.) Casarius, shewn to be worthless, 133
(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either
as to the “Sections of Ammonius” or to “ Canons of Euse-
bius,” Tischendorf is perfectly well aware. So is my reader.
(3.) His appeal to
Cxsarius
is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate
the younger brother of Gregory of Nazianzus ; an eminent
physician of Constantinople, who died a.p. 368; and who,
(as far as is known,) never scrote anything. A work called
Πεύσεις, (which in the xt century was attributed to Casa-
rius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known ex-
cept that Cesarius was certainly not its author,) is the com-
position to which Tischendorf refers. Even the approxi- .
mate date of this performance, however, has never becn
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®
Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of AMMONIUs,
of EripHantus, and of Cxsanius on the subject of the last
Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. It is exactly οἷ. In
fact Pseudo-Czsarius, so far from “ bearing witness to the
fact” that the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are
spurious, actually quotes the 16th terse as genuine?.
(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 nllude
to the evidence of
THe CaTenz.
“In the Catena on Mark,” (crisply declares Dr. David-
son,) “ there is no explanation of this section.”
° Comp. Epiph. (Ancor. 60,) Opp. ii. 53 c to 55 a, with Galland. Bibl. vi.
26 c to 27 a. » Galland. Bibl. vi. 147 a.
9 Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112)—It is 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 undertuke to prove that the end of S. Mark’s Gospel is spurious.
134 Dr. Duridson’s dictuun concerning [cHap.
“The Catenz on Mark :” as if they were quite common
things,—“ plenty, as blackberrics!” But,— Which of “the
Catenx” may the Icarned Critic be supposed to have ex-
amined ὃ
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’.
2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the
Vatican Library and communicated to Possinus; because
in ¢hat Catena the 9th and 12th verses are distinctly com-
mented on *.
3. Still lesscan 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; inas-
much as it contains, (as I have already largely shewn, and,
in fact, as every one may see,) ἃ long and elaborate disser-
tation on the best way of reconciling the language of S. Mark
in ver. 9 with the language of the other Evangelists ‘.
4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic
has inspected either of the last two editions of the same
τ See Possini Cat. p. 363.
* Ἐφάνη πρῶταν Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαλητῇ. [= ver. 9.] ταύτην Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς
πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἑτέραν λέγει Μαρίαν παρὰ τὴν θεασαμένην τὸν νεανίσκον. 4 καὶ
ἀμφότεραι ἐκ τῆς Μαγδαληνῆς ἦσαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσι.
καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς [ΞΞ ver. 12.] τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Κλέοπαν, καθὼς ὁ Λουκᾶς ἱστορεῖ, (Por
sini Cat. p.364):—Where it will be seen that Text (κείμενον) and Interpreta-
tion (ἑρμηνεία) are confusedly thrown together. ‘ Anonymus [Vaticanusy”
also quotes S. Mark xvi. 9 at p.109, ad fin.—Matthaei (N. T. ii. 269),—over-
looking the fact that “ Anonymus Vaticanus” (or simply “Anonymus”) asd
*« 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 Tolosanus μᾶς usque [ec
ver. 8] nec ultra commentantur.”—Scholz’ dictum is,—“ Commentatorum qui
in catenis SS. Patram ad Marcum Jaudantur, nulla explicatio hujus perioope
exhibetur.”
See above pp.62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may bescen in euch Collections
as the Magna BiWiotheca Vett. PP. (1618,) vol. iv. p. 330, col. 2 Ε, ¥.—For
the Greck, sce Possini Catena, pp. 359— 61.
ere
vin. | “the Cutene on Mark,” characterised, 135
Catcna: viz. that of Mattbaei, (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 scen), in these is contained the famous
passage which categorically asserts the genuineness of the
last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel ".
Now this exhausts the subject.
To which, then, of “the Catenze on Mark,” I must again
inquire, docs this learned writer allude ?—I will venture to
answer the question mysclf; 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 fur-
bished up afresh, and paraded before an impatient generation
and an unlearned age, whenever (fanguam tile corpus) the
writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed, or the
Faith of the Church of Curist is to be unsettled and under-
mined.
V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to
Ῥ. 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 cither an imperfect or an unfinished work. Whether
there have not emerged certain considerations which render
such a supposition in the highest degree unlikely,—I am
quite content that my Reader shall decide.
Dismissing the external testimony, therefore, proceed we
now to review those internal evidences, which are con-
fidently appealed to as proving that the concluding Verses
of S. Mark’s Gospel cannot be regarded as really the work
of the Evangelist.
υ See above, pp. 64-5, and Appendix (E).
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 δ. 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. 1. 9—20 (p. 142).—The “ Phraseclogy” 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 pro-
bably genuine (p. 175).
A ῬΙΒΤΙΝΟῚ 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 de-
rived from considerations of internal evidence. In the judg-
ment 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*.” They are therefore “an addition to the narra-
tive,’—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 phrascology 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 con-
trary, terms and expressions,” “ phrases and words, are in-
troduced which Mark never uses; or terms for which he
employs others >.” —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 bald-
* Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9—20. > Introduction, ἄς. ii. p. 113.
eee Bee
cu. 1x.) “Style” and“ Phrascology” of 5. Mark xvi. 9—20. 137
ness and lack of clearness which mark a compiler ;) while in
single expressions, it is altogether contrary to Mark’s man-
ner.”’—“ 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 sub-
ject than Tischendorf.” “ Singula” (he says) “ multifariam a
Marci ratione abhorrent®.”... 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 5. Mark’s “ characteristic
peculiarities.” I suppose, however, that all may be brought
under two heads,—(I.) Sry e, and (II.) PorasEoLocy: mean-
ing by “Style” whatever belongs to the Evangelist’s man-
ner; 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®) at last put up with them. The wisest
however reproduce them under protest, and with apology.
The names of Tischendorf aud Tregelles, Meyer and David-
son, command attention. It seems to be thought incredible
that they can all be entirely in the wrong. They impose
upon leurned and unlearned readers alike. ‘‘ Even Barnabas
© Norv, Test. Ed. 8" i. p. 406. 4 Developed Crit. pp. 51-2.
[cHAP.
Tie has
1388 The effect of a popular outery.
has been carried away with their dissimulation.”
(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 ;
ind 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 8. Mark’s Gospel. In this way I have seen
the last Chapter of 5. John once and again accounted for.—
To which, it ought to be a sufficient answer to point out
that there is no appearance whaterer of any such interval
having been interposed between 3. Mark xvi. 8 and 9: that
it is highly improbable that any such interval occurred:
and that until the “ verbal peculiarities” have been ascer-
tained 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,” “ sup-
plements,” “appendices,” and “second editions” when the
everlasting Gospel of Jesus Curist 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 pre-
sent occasion. It had better perhaps be discussed at another
opportunity. But φίλοι ἄνδρες" will forgive my freedom in
having already made my personal sentiment on the subject
sufficiently plain.
(Ὁ) 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, s0, 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
8. Mark but some one else wrote the end of S. Mark's Gos-
pel, we shall be perfectly willing to acquiesce in the new
fact:—but not til? then.
© ἀμφοῖν yap ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.---Αὐἰδῦ. Eth. Nic.
1. iii.
ἀβαώ;.
1x.] Rev. F. I. Serivener.—Professor Broadus, 139
2. Truc indeed it is that here and there a voice has been
lifted up in the way of protest! against the proposed in-
ference from the familiar premisses; (for the self-same state-
ments have now been so often reproduced, that the eye grows
weary at last of the ever-recurring string of offending voca-
bles :)—but, with one honorable exception δ, 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
apy 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 dic-
tion” of the present section of the Gospel. But I do more.
T entirely deny the accuracy of almost erery tndividual state-
ment from which the unfavourable induction is made, and the
hostile inference drawn. Even ¢his will not nearly satisfy
To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivencr be it said, that Ae 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. (Zutroduction,
pp. 431-2.)—One would have thought that a recent controversy concerning
a short English Pocm,—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 Criticiem.
® Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—“ Profe:sor of In-
terpretation 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. 855—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 pre-ent Chapter before I knew of bis
labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr. Scrivencr’s kindness :) my treat-
ment 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 1 have compared my lucubrations with his, and the sinccre satisfuc-
tion with which I have discovered that we bave everywhere independently
arrived at precisely the same result.
110 Fallaciousness of judging from [cHar.
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 8S. Mark is most cer-
tainly its Author.
3. Let me however distinctly declare beforchand that
remarks on “the style” of an Evangelist are singularly
apt to be fallacious, especially when (as here) it is proposed
to apply them toa very limited portion of the sacred narra-
tive. 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 exceed-
ingly dissimilar m 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 ‘formule’ within the range of which
he must work. He must in each chapter employ these
formulz, 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 >.”
4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation to
b Dr. Kay's Crisis Hupfeldiana, p. 34,—the most masterly and instructive
exposure of Bp.Colenso’s incompetence and presumption which has ever ΒΡ’
peared. Intended specially of Ais handling of the writings of Moses, the
remarks in the text are equaliy applicable to much which has been put forth
concerning the authorship of the end of 5. Mark’s Gospel. '
ῃ
wee cher ἄς, ae
-- em eee ..,.
1x.] “the Style” of teelve verses of Scripture. 141
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. Mutthew’s
Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is siz times
repcated in his viiit® and ix‘ chapters is perhaps only once
met with besides in his Gospel,—viz. in his xxi" chapter '.
The “style” of the 17th verse of his i* 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. §.John also in his five opening verses scems to
me to have adopted a mcthod which is not recognisable
anywhere else in his writings; “rising strangely by de-
grees,” (as Bp. Pearson expresses it*,) “making the last
word of the former sentence the first of that which fol-
loweth.”—“ He knoweth that he saith true,” is the language
of the same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35.
But, “te 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 sup-
posed that S. Matthew, S. Luke, 5, 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 spuri-
ousness 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 pro-
posed 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’. And we all desire
nothing but the Truth.
1S. Matth. viii. 1 (καταβάντι αὐτῷ) :--ῦ (εἰσελθόντι τῷ 1.) :—23 (ἐμβάντι
αὐτῷ) :—2S (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ) :—ix. 27 (παράγοντι τῷ 1):--28 (ἐλθόντι) :—xxi. 23
(ἐλθόντι αὑτῷ).
τα ΟΝ the Creed, Art. ii. (vol. i. p.155.)
1 τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα συνάδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ διαφωνεῖ
τἀληθές. Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1. c. vi.
112 The ‘Style and Manner’ of 5. Mark i, 9—20, — [ertar.
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™.” Surely if this be so, the only lawful
inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, has ‘“ex-
tracted 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 gra-
tuitous assumption,) the preceding acccunt of the matter
is probably not far from the correct one. Of S. Mark’s
practice of making ‘“‘crtracts,” 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 par-
ticle 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 di-
vinely guided in this place to handle, in the briefest manner,
some of the chiefest things which took place after our Loxp’s
Resurrection,—is simply undeniable. And without at all
admitting that the style of the Evangelist is in consequence
either “abrupt” or “sententious",” I yet recognise the
™ Davidson’s Introduction, ἃς. i. 170.
> And yet, if it were ever so “sententious,” ever so “abrupt;” and if his
“brief noticcs’”’ were ever 60 “loosely linked together ;”—these, according to
Dr. Dacidson, would only be indications that S. Mark actually was their
Author. Hear him discussing 3. Mark’s “characteristics,” at p. 151 :—“Io
the consecution of his narrations, Mark puts them together very loosely.”
“Mark is also characterised by a conciseness and apparent incompletencss of
delineation which are allied to the obscure.” “The abrupt introductiov”
of many of his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, aud
illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common senses
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
1x.] and of δ. Mark xvi. 9—20, the very same. 143
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 sof ob-
served to be doing the same thing P
8. But wherever in his Gospel 5. Mark 18 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 verscs in his first chapter, as an example.
Between 5. Mark xvi. 9—20 and 8. Mark i. 9—20, 1 profess
myself unable to discern any real difference of style. I pro-
ceed to transcribe the passage which I deliberately propose
for comparison; the teelre corresponding verses, namely, in
S. Mark’s girst chapter, which are to be compared with the
twelve verses already under discussion, from his (ust; and
they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as
in Greck :—
(5. Marx i. 9—20.)
(ver. 9.) “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesvs
“ came from Nazarcth of Galilee, and was baptized of John
“in Jordan, (10) And straightway coming up out of the
“water, Ile saw the heavens opened, and the Srinir like
“a dove descending upon Him: (11.) and there came a
“ voice from heaven saying, Thou art My beloved Son, in
“hom I am well pleased. (12.) And immediately the
« Spinit 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,
“ Jests came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the
“kingdom of Gop, (15.) and saying, The time is fulfilled,
“and the Kingdom of Gop is at hand: repent ye, and be-
“lieve the Gospel. (16.) Now, as He walked by the sea
“ of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting
“9 net into the sea: for they were fishers. (17.) And Jesus
of a certain portion of Scripture because it exhibits the very peculiaritics
which at p.151 be had volunteered the information are characteristic of
its reputed Author ὃ
1.4 “ Style and Manner” of S. Mark i. 9—20. — [enar.
“said unto them, Come ye after Mc, and I will make you
“to become fishers of men. (18.) And straightway they
“ forsook their nets, and followed Him. (19.) And when
“ Te had gone a little farther thence, He saw James the
“gon 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
- §. 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 Temp-
tation, 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 Apo-
stles,—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 8. 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°.” 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, de-
tailed description” tnrariably characterise the second Gospel.
S. Mark is quite as remarkable for his practice of occa-
sionally 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 preach-
°N. T. vol. i. Prolegg. p. 38.
oe ae er
1x.] The argument from “ Words” and “Phrases.” 140
ing (i. 1—8) is the shortest of all. Very concise is his ac-
count of our Saviour’s Baptism (ver. 9—11). The brevity
of his description of our Lorp’s Temptation is even extra-
ordinary (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 Verscs, which seem to
have been hitherto generally overlooked.
II. Nothing more true, therefore, than Dr. Tregelles’ ad-
mission “that arguments on sty/e are often very fallacious, and
that ly themselves they prove very little. But”? (he proceeds)
“when there does exist external evidence; and when in-
ternal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and con-
nection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of
forming a judgment; then, these internal considerations pos-
sess very great weight.”
I have already shewn that there exists "0 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 suffer-
ing 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; assert-
ing 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 toemploy. 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 thit
L
110 The expression πρώτη σαββάτον considered, [cnar.
a certain Word or Phrase,—(there are about twenty-four
such words and phrases in all?,)—“‘ occurs nowhere in the
Gospel of Mark ;” with probably the alurming asseyeration
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 :—
(1) The expression πρώτη σαββάτου, for the “ first day of
the week” (in ver. 9) “is remarkable” (he says) ‘as occur-
ring so soon after” pia 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 caBBatov,—twice, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ σαββάτον, ---
P It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words and
expressions about to be considered :—
(i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (cer. 9.)—See above.
(ii) dg? hs ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια (ver. 9.)—Sce p. 152.
(iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (ver. 9.)—See p. 153.
(iv.) πορεύεσθαι (vers. 10, 12, 15.)—Ibid.
(v.) of per’ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι (ver. 10.)—Scc p. 155.
(vi.) θεᾶσθαι (rer. 11 and 14.)—See p. 156.
(vii) θεαθῆναι ὑπό (ver. 11.)—See p. 158.
(Viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (ver. 11 and 16.)}—Zbid.
(ix.) pera ταῦτα (rer. 12.)—Sce p. 159.
(x.) ἕτερος (cer. 12.)—See p. 160. ,
(xi) ὕστερον (cer. 14.)—Ibid.
(xii.) Baderew (cer. 18.)—Idid.
(siii.) πανταχοῦ (rer. 20.)—Sce p. 161.
(xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν---βεβαιοῦν (ver. 20.)—Lbid.
(xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (ver. 15.)---ἰὐϊά.
(xvii.) ἐν τᾷ ὀνόματί μον (ver. 17.)—See Ρ. 162.
(xviii. and six.) παρακολουθεῖν---ἐπακολουθεῖν (ver. 17 and 19.)—Sce p. 163.
(xx.) χεῖρας ἐκιθεῖναι ἐπί 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 18 ?).)—Ibid.
(xxv.) “ Verses without a copulative,” (verses 10 and 14.)—Ibid.
§z5vi. and xxvii.) Absence of εὐθέως and wdAw.—See p. 168.
1x. The Evangelists prone to vary their phrase. 141
and once, τὰ σάββατα". Or again, that S. Matthew should
in one and the same chapter five times call the Sabbath, τὰ
σάββατα, and three times, τὸ σάββατον". Attentive readers
will have observed that the Evangelists seem to have been
fond in this way of varying their phrase; suddenly intro-
ducing a new expression for something which they had de-
signated 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, 8. Matthew, (in his uecount
of our Lorn’s Temptation,—chap. iv.,) has ὁ διάβολος in
ver. 1, and ὁ πειράξων in ver. 3, for him whom our Saviour
calls Σατανᾶς in ver. 10.—S. Mark, in chap. v. 2, has τὰ
punpeta,—but in ver. 5, ta μνήματα.----, Luke, in xxiv.], has
τὸ μνῆμα; but in the next verse, τὸ μνημεῖον.--- Evi with an
accusntive twice in S. Matth. xxv. 21, 23, is twice exchanged
for ἐπί with a genitive in the same two verses: and ἔριφοι
(in ver. 32) is exchanged for ἐρίφια in ver. 33.—Instead of
ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς (in 8. Luke viii. 41) we read, in ver. 49,
ἀρχισυνάγωγος : and for of ἀπόστολοι (in ix. 10) we find
οἱ δώδεκα in ver. 12.—Ods in 5. Luke xxii. 50 is exchanged for
ὠτίον in the next verse.—In like manner, those whom S$. Luke
calls of νεώτεροι in Acts v. 6, he calls vearicxor in ver. 10....
Allsuch matters strike me as highly interesting, but not in
the least as suspicious. It surprises me a little, of course,
that 5. Mark should present me with πρώτη σαββάτον (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 cach of the Four Gospels*. 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
aS. Luke vi. 3, 2, 5, 6, 7,9: xiii. 10, 14, 15,16. ΚΞ. Luke has, in fact, all
the four different designations for the Sabbath which are found in the Sep-
tuagint version of the O. T. Scriptures: for, in the Acts (xiii. 14: avi. 18), he
twice calls it ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων.
τ S. Matth. xii. 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12.
* It occurs in 5. Matth. xxviii. 1. 5. Mark xvi. 2. 5. Luke xxiv.1. 5. John
xx. i.19. Besides, only in Acts xx. 7.
L2
“ὦ
ond
148
T 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 : Jew. It
betrays a Gentile author!” Am I to reason thus ’...1 pro-
pose 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 esta-
blished method of indicating “the first day of the week,” is
plain, not only from the fact that the day of the Resurrec-
tion is so designated by each of the Four Evangelists in
The forns σάββατον and σάββατα [cuar.
turn"; (S. John has the expression twice ;) but also from |
S. Paul’s use of the phrase in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. It proves,
indecd, to have been the ordinary Hellenistic way of exhi-
biting the vernacular idiom of Palestine*. The cardinal
(μία) for the ordinal (πρώτη) in this phrase was ἃ known
Talmudic expression, which obtained also in Syriac’. Σάβ-
βατον and odfSata,—designations in strictness of the Sab-
Lath-day,—had come to be also used as designations of the
neck. 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 note (*) establishes it concerning
σάββατα. To see how indifferently the two forms (σάβ-
βατον and σάββατα) were employed, one has but to notice
that 5. Matthew, in the course of one and the same chapter, five
times designates the Sabbath as τὰ σάββατα, and three
times as τὸ σάββατον". The origin and history of both
words will be found explained in a note at the foot of the
page*.
* Introduction, ἄς. i. 169. ® Sce the foregoing note (6).
2 Sec Buxtorf’s Lexicon Talmudicum, p. 2323. a
Υ Lightfoot (on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning 5. Paul’s phrase κατὰ an
σαββάτων, --- “ΤΏΔΕ ἽΓΙΣ [δ᾽ λαά b’shabbath,] ‘ In the first [lit. wal
Sabbath, would the Talmudists say.”—Professor Gandell writes,—“in Symac
the days of the week are similarly named. See Bernstein 6, v. κι.
. Βα» JRAL; boas ceil» laa qs [lit. one in the Sabbath, two és
the Savbuth, turee im the Suvyath. γ᾽
. 2S, Mark xii 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12. ; : ;
© The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably N2W ee
a word which the Grecks could not exhibit more nearly than by the ea :
σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is Naw (shabbatha :)
peers ΞΕ
ae ὦ
1x.]
(2.) Confessedly, then, a double Hebraism is before us,
which must have been simply unintelligible to Gentile readers.
Mia τῶν σαββάτων sounded as enigmatical to an ordinary
Greck ear, as “tna sabbatorum” to a Roman. A convine-
ing proof, (if proof were necded,) how abhorrent to a Latin
reader was the last-named expression, is afforded by the old
Latin versions of S. Matthew xxviii. 1; where dye σαβ-
βάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων is invariably
rendered, “ Vespere sallati, que 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 af Ztome,) varies, in ver. 9, the phrase
explained, and accounted for. 149
final S (a) being added for emphasis, as in Abba, Acellama, Bethesda,
Cepha, Pascha, &e. : and this form,—(I owe the info: mation 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 agree-
ment with its own (apparently) plural form. By the Greck-speaking popula-
tion of Judwa, the Sabbath day was therefore iudifferently called τὸ σάββα-
tov and τὰ σάββατα : sometimes again, 7 ἡμέρα τοῦ σαββάτου, and sometimes
ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων.
Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. (Ac-
cordingly, it is invariably rendered “ Sallatum”’ in the Vulgate.) Thus, in
Exod. xvi. 28, --τσάββατα ἀνάπαυσις ἁγία τῷ Kuply: and 25,—éor γὰρ σάββατα
ἀνάπαυσις τῷ Κνρίῳ. Αγαΐῃ, ---τῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ σάββατα. (Exod. xvi.
20: xxxi. 14, Levit. xxiii. 8.) And in the Gospel, what tock place on one
definite Sabbath-day, is said to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (8. Luke xiii. 10.
8. Mark xii. 1.)
It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form ἐν τοῖς σάββασι is strictly
cquivalent to ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ; and was adopted for convenience in contradis-
tinction to ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις (1 Chron. xxiii, 81 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where
Sabbath days are spoken of.
It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 nminsy is put for “weeks ;”
though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough) there rendcred the
word ἑβδομάδας. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same word occurs twice,) it is
once rendered ἀναπαύσεις ; once, ἑβδυμάδες. Quite distinct is paw (shaecoa)
ic. ἑβδομάς ; nor is there any substitution of the one word for the other. But
inasmuch as the recurrence of the Sablath-day was what constituted @ week ;
in other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish division of
time, was the recarrence of the Jewish day of rest ;—7d σάββατον or τὰ odB-
Bara, the Hebrew name for the day of rest, became transferred to the tweek.
The former designation, (as explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark,
once by 5. Luke; while the phrase pla τῶν σαββάτων occurs in the N.T., in
all, six times,
© So Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. ii. 15), and Jerome (De Viris Iilvst. ii. 827), on
150 The expression πρώτη σαββάτου, a striking [cHar.
he had employed in ver. 2, he docs 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 exam-
ple sct him by 5. Matthew (xxviii. 1) in adopting the enig-
matical 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
Jor the Latin “ prina sabbati ;” viz. πρώτη σαββάτου. How
strictly equivalent the two modes of expression were felt to
- be by those who were best qualificd 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 “ Judma,” is “a country,”
(ἡ ᾿Ιουδαία ywpa,)—and “Jordan,” “a river,” (ὁ ᾿Ιορδάνης
ποταμό9) P—Is not this the very man who explained to his
readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar Jewish designa-
tion for “Friday,” ἡ παρασκενή, denotes “the day Ucfore
the Sabbath® ?”—and who was so minute in informing us (in
chap. vii. 8, 4) about certain ceremonial practices of ‘‘ the
Pharisees and all the Jews?” Yet more,—lIs not the self-
sae writer clearly recognisable in this xvit® chapter, who
in chap. vi. 87 presented us with σπεκουλάτωρ (the Latin
spiculator) for “an executioner ῥ᾽ and who, in chap. xv. 39,
for “a centurion,” wrote—not ἑκατόνταρχος, but—xevTu-
ρίων ?—and, in chap. xii. 42, explained that the two λεπτά
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
Scripture (wrongly) ascribed to Athanasius.
* παρασκενὴ, ὃ ἐστι προσάββατον.---Ουτ E. V. “preparation” is from Augus-
tine,—“Parasceue Latine praparatio est.’—Sce Pearson’s interesting note
on the word.
ee σαν Ὁ
i
ted. ὦ
1X. ] indication of the genuin ness of these Verses. 151
which the poor widow cast into the Treasury were cquiva-
lent to κοδράντης, the Latin guadrans ?—and in chap. vii.
4, 8, introduced the Roman measure sertarius, (ξέστης) ἢ
—and who volunteered the information (in chap. xv. 16) that
αὐλή is only another designation of πραιτώριον (Preto-
riwn)?—Yes. 8. Mark,—who, alone of the four Evangelists,
(in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the Cyrenian
was “the father of Alexander aid Rufus,” evidently for the
sake of his Latin readers*: 85. Mark,—who alone ventures
to write in Greek letters (ovd,—chap. xv. 29,) the Latin in-
terjection “Vah !”—obviously because he was writing where
that exclamation was most familiar, and the force of it best
understood ἃ ; 5. Mark,—who attends to the Roman division
of the day, in relating our Lorn’s prophecy to 5. Peter ¢:—
8. 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 “ wna sabba-
forum {,”’) 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 “ wnfarourable to its au-
thenticity,” (by which, I presume, the learned writer means
its genuineness), is rather corroborative of the Church’s con-
stant belief that the present section of S. Mark’s Gospel is,
equally with the rest of it, the production of 5. Mark. “Not
only was the document intended for Gentile converts :”
(remarks Dr. Davidson, p. 149,) “but there are also appear-
ances 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.—F or the moment, I pass on.
* Consider Rom. xvi. 13. 4 Townson’s Discourses, i. 172. © Ibid.
1 See the Vulgate transl. of 8. Mark xvi. 2 and of S. John xx.19. In the
same version, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered “ wa sabbati.
- times before without such appendix.
152 The expression, ad’ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει [cHar.
(II.) Less excusable is the coarseness of critical percep-
tion betrayed by the nest remark. It has been pointed out
as a suspicious circumstance that in ver. 9, “the phrase
ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια is attached to the name of
Mary Magdalene, although she had been mentioned three
It seems to have been
taken from Luke viii. 2&”—Strange perversity, and yet
stranger blindness !
α) The phrase cannot have been taken from 8. Luke;
because 8. Luke’s Gospel was written after S. Mark’s. It
was not taken from 8. Luke; because there "ἢ ἧς δαιμόνια
ἑπτὰ €£edyAvOer,—here, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ 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, ecithout such appendix.”
Well but,—What tien 5. 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. --- ΤΆΘ
veyed Disciple having mentioned himself without any
“appendix” in §. 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 ᾿Ιακώβονυ τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ ᾿Ιωσῆ μήτηρ;
is mentioned with one half of that “appendix,” (Mapia ἡ
᾿Ιωσῆ) in ver. 47, and in the very next verse, with the other
half (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ ’IaxdéBov.)—I see no reason why the
Traitor, who, in 8. Luke vi. 16, is called ᾽Ιούδας Ἰσκαριώτης,
should be designated as ᾿Ιούδαν τὸν ἐπικαλούμενον ’Ioxa-
ριώτην in §. Luke xxii. 3.—I am not saying that such ‘‘ap-
pendices” 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 ex-
pression that a different author is recognisable, i is abhorrent
to the spirit of intelligent Criticism.
(3.) But in the case before us, the hostile suggestion is pe-
culiarly infelicitous. There is even inexpressible tenderness
and beauty, the deepest Gospel significancy, in the reserva-
& Davidson’s Introduction, ἄς. i. 169, ed. 1848: (ii. 118, ed. 1863.)
δὰ πα προ,
1Χ.} πτὰ δαιμόνια, considered, 133
tion of the clause “out of whom 116 had cast seven devils,”?
for this place. The reason, I say, is even obvious why an
“appendis,” 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 Saviovr. Jerome (I rejoice to find) has been
beforehand with me in suggesting that it was done, in order
to convey by an cxample the tacit assurance that “where
Sin had abounded, there did Grace much more abound "ἢ
Are we to be cheated of our birthright by Critics! who,
entirely overlooking a solution of the difficulty (if difficulty
it be) Divine as this, can sce in the circumstance grounds
only for suspicion and cavil f "Ἄπαγε.
(111.) Take the next example.—The very form of the
“appendix” which we have been considering (ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ-
λήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια) breeds offence. “ Instead of ἐκβάλλειν
ἀπό," (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) ‘ Mark has ἐκβάλ-
recy ἐκ *.”
Nothing of the sort, I answer. S. Mark once has ἐκβάλ-
Ae é€x', 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?
ho sces not that such Criticism is simply nugatory F
(1V.) We are next favoured with the notable picce of
information that the word πορεύεσθαι, “never used by
8. Mark, is three times contained in this passage ;” (viz. in
verses 10, 12 and 135.)
(1.) Yes. The uncompounded verb, never used c/seihere
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, cup-ropeved Bar, παρα-πορεύεσθαι,
oftener than all the other three Evangelists put together,—viz.
twenty-four times against their nineteen: while the com-
4 «Marin Magdalene ipsa est ‘a qua septem dawmonia expulerat’: wf abi
abundarcrat peccatun, superabundaret gratia.” (Hieron. Opp. i. 327.)
1 So Tischendorf,—“ Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽ ἧς
ἐκβεβλήκει ἑ. 8.” (p. 322.) 1 81 astonished to find the same remark reiterated
Ly most of the Critics : e.g. Rev. T. &. Green, p. 52.
* Introduction, ἄς, vol. i. p. 169. ' viz. in chap. vii. 26.
154 S. Marl?s use of πορεύεσθαι, considered. ({cnap.
pound προσπορεύεσθαι is peculiar to his Gospel—I am there-
fore inclined to suggest thut the presence of the verb πορεύ-
εσθαι 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 Evan-
gelists, is by him used four times; yet are all those four
instances found in one and the same chapter. 8. Luke alone
has χαρίζεσθαι, and he has it three times: but all three
cases are met with tz one and the same chapter. S. John
alone has λύπη, and he has it four times: but all the four
instances occur 7n 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 ἀνισ-
τάναι 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 «hich of the ordinary compounds
of πορεύομαι 8. Mark could possit’y have employed for the
uncompounded verb, in the three places which have sug-
gested the present inquiry, viz. :— ᾿
ver. 10:--ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλε τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ
γενομένοις.
ver. 12 :--δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν. .. πορενομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν.
ver. 18 :--πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα, 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,—zropevopévors 10
IN.) The expression, of μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι, considered. 5h
ver. 12,..-- πορευθέντες in ver. 15,—also “admit of no sub-
stitute in the places where they severally occur ;”” and there-
fore, since the verb itself is one of 8. Mark’s favourite verbs,
not only are these three places above suspicion, but they
may be fairly adduced as indications that the sane hand was
at work here which wrote all the rest of his Gospel ™.
(V.) Then further,—the phrase τοῖς per’ αὐτοῦ γενομέ-
vots (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 of μετ’ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι occurs nowhere
in the Acts or in the Gospels, ercept dere. But,—Why
should it appear elsewhere? or rather,—How coul/ it? Now,
if the expression be (as it is) an ordinary, easy, and obvious
one,—wanted in this place, where it és met with; but sof
met with elsewhere, simply because elsewhere it is nof
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 per’ αὐτοῦ. (The aorist participle of γίνομαι is added of
necessity to mark the persons spoken of. In no other, (cer-
tainly in no simpler, more obvious, or more precise) way
could the followers of the risen Saviour have been desig-
nated at such a time. For had Te not just now “ overcome
the sharpness of Death” Ὁ) But this expression, which occurs
four times in 5. Matthew and four times in S. Luke, occurs
also four times in S. Mark: viz. in chap. 1. 86; 11. 25; v. 40,
and here. This, therefore, is a slightly corroborative circum-
stance,—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) 1 answer :—He does not mention τοὺς μαθητάς nearly
so often as S. Matthew; while S.John notices them twice
as often as he does.
(0) Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them
five hundred times, because he had occasion five hundred
"© Professor Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject.
160 The expression οἱ per’ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι, considcred. [cuar.
times to speak of them ;—what reason would that be for his
mentioning them here, where he is nof speaking of them ἢ
(0) It must be evident to any one reading the Gospel
with attention that besides of μαθηταί,---(Ὀγ which expres-
sion &. Mark always designates the Twelve Apostles,)—there
was a considerable company of believers assembled together
throughout the first Easter Day" 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 fo 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 Jeru-
salem, “found the Eleven gathered together, and them thal
were with them.” (xxiv. 83) But this was at least as well
known to 8. Mark as it was to 5. 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 unmis-
takably 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 bas to be proved? If the learned writer had said
instead, that the verb θεᾶσθαι, here twice employed by
S. Mark, occurs nowhere cise 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
* Consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion alluded
to, in Acts i. 18,14. Note also what is clearly implied by ver. 21—6, 08 to
the persons who were Aavitually present at such gatherings.
1X.] δ. Varl?s use of the verb θεᾶσθαι, considered. 157
verse: neither word being used on any other occasion cith sr
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 5. Luke: of ἀνιστάναι
and Cwrrdvat in §. John. But who ever dreamed of in-
sinuating that the circumstance is suspicious ?
(2.) As for θεᾶσθαι, we should have reminded our Critic
that this verb, which is used seven times by 8. John, and
four times by 8. Matthew, is used only three times by
§. Luke, and only twice by S.Mark. And we should have re-
spectfully 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
becn employed by S. Mark in chap. ii. 14 °%—It is, 1 presume,
sufficient to point out that 8, Matthew, at all events, was
not of Dr. Davidson’s opinion: and I respectfully submit
that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here
writing about hinself, must be allowed, just for once, to be
the better judge.
(4.) In the meantime,—Is it not perecived that θεᾶσθαι
is the very word specially required in these two places,—
though nowhere else in S. Mark's Gospel 4? The occasion is
on¢,—viz. the ‘beholding’ of the person of the risen Saviour.
Does not even natural picty 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 occur-
rence? The occasion cries aloud for this very verb θεᾶσθαι;
and I can hardly conceive a more apt illustration of a
darkened cye,—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 mani-
festly designed for their edification.
© S$. Luke (v. 27) has ἐθεάσατο τελώνην. S. Matthew (ix. 9) and S. Mark
(ii. 14) have preferred εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον (Acuty τὸν τοῦ ᾿Αλφαίου) καθήμενον ἐπὶ
τὸ τελώτιον. P See S. Matth. ix. 9.
4 One is reminded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefully reserres the
verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the contemplation of the Saviovn’s
Cross and of the Saviowr’s Sepulchre.
158 The expression ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ abtiis,—and [enap,
(VIT.) But,—(it is urged by a Critic of a very different
stamp,)—eOedOn ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (ver. 11) “is ἃ 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 ¢hice tines in the New Testament in αἶα. Ὁ. Matthew, on
the fico occasions when he employs the word, connects it with
a dative’. What is there suspicious in the circumstance that
θεᾶσθαι ὑπό should be the construction preferred by 5. Mark ?
The phenomenon is not nearly so remarkable as that S. Luke,
on one solitary occasion, exhibits the phrase μὴ φοβεῖσθε
do *,—instead of making the verb govern the accusative, as
he does three times in the very next rerse ; and, indeed, eleven
times in the course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in
this instance is but copying S. Matthew, who a/so has μὴ
φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ once'; 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 sii. 4.
(2.) In like manner, the phrase ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν
will be found to occur once, and once on/y, in S. Mark,—
once, and once only, in 8. Luke"; 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 50 little conversant with such inquiries will pre-
tend that they are in the least degree suspicious.—I pass on.
(VIIT.) It is next noted as a suspicious circumstance that
ἀπιστεῖν occurs in ver. 1] and in ver. 16; but nowhere else
in the Gospels,—except in 5. 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 else-
where, to remark upon its introduction in this place, there tt
aS. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 56. 8. Mark xvi. 11.
¥ Πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, (vi. 1); and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, xxiii. δ).
* S. Luke xii. 4. ' S, Matth, x. 28, υ §. Mark iv. 41. 5. Luke ii. 9-
1Χ.}] 5. Mark’s use of the verb ἀπιστεῖν, considered. 159
coull scarcely be dispensed with, as a ground of suspicion, is
eimply irrational. It might just as well be held to be a eus-
picious circumstance, in respect of verses 3 and 4, that the
verb ἀποκυλίξειν 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, 8. Mark and 5. Luke, were an unique,
or even an exceedingly rare phenomenon, it might have been
held to be a somewhat suspicious circumstance that the phe-
nomenon presented itself in the present section. But nothing
of the sort is the fact. There are no fewer than forty-five
verbs erelusively used by S. Mark and 5. Luke. And why
should not ἀπιστεῖν be, (as it is,) one of them ?
(3.) Note, next, that this word is wsed 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 circum-
stance in the case of the third Evangelist, a should it in
the case of the second ?
(4.) But, lastly, the noun ἀπιστία (which occurs in 5. 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 necd to add another
word? Do not many of these supposed suspicious circum-
stances,—this one for example,—prove rather, on closer in-
spection, to be confirmatory facts ?
(IX.) We are next assured that μετὰ ταῦτα (ver. 12) “
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.”)
100 μετὰ ταῦτα, --- ἔτερος,--- ὕστερον, considered, [ear.
But what is the obvious inference from the facts of the ease,
as stated by the learned Critic, except that the blessed Evan-
gclist mast be presnmed to hace been uncousctous of any desire
to infroduce the expression wuuder consideration on any other oc-
casion except the present ?
(2.) Then, further, it is worth observing that while the
phrase μετὰ ταῦτα occurs five times in δ. Luke’s Gospel, it is
‘found only twice in the Acts; while 5. Matthew never em-
ploys it at all. Why, then,—I would respectfully inquire—
why need §. Mark introduce the phrase move than once ? Why,
.especially, is his solitary use of the expression to be repre-
sented 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 uscd it?’ (Meyer’s phrase here*.)”’
(X.) Another objection awaits us.—’Erepos also “is un-
known 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 8. 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 ῦ---“Ὑὕστερον, a word which
is twice employed by S. Luke, occurs only once in S. Mark
and ouce in 8. John.— That would be the true way of stating
the facts of the casc. 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.
(AII.) The same thing he says of βλάπτειν (inv ver. 18).
But what is the fact? The word occurs only twice in the
Gospels,—viz, in 5. Mark xvi. 18 and S. Luke iv. 35. It is
one of the eighty-four words which are peculiar to S. Mark
5 Professor Broadus, ubi supra.
1Xx.] πανταχοῦ---συνεργεῖν--- βεβαιοῦν--- κτίσις. 10]
and 5. Luke. What possible significancy would Dr. David-
son attach to the circumstance ἢ
(AIII.) Once more.—“ πανταχοῦ" eae Dr. David-
son) “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 a/so occurs
in 5. Mark i. 28. I respectfully differ from them in opinion :
but when it has been pointed out that the word ts only used
besides in δ. Luke ix. 6, what can be said of such Criticism but
that it is simply frivolous ?
(ALY. and XV.) Yet again :—cuvepyeiv 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 sus-
picious 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?
(AVI.) “ 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 ex-
pression as well as 5. Paul’.
(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 5. Mark x. 6 and xiii. 19; and
that it is a word which 5. Mark alone of the Evangelists uses ?
Its occurrence, therefore, in this pluce is a circumstance the
very reverse of suspicious.
(4.) But lnstly, inasmuch as the opening. words of our
7 Col. i. 15, 28. 1 5. Pet. ii. 18.
M
102 A Coincidence and a Conjecture. (car.
Lorw’s Ministerial Commission to the Apostles are these,—
κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει (ver. 15):
inasmuch, too, as 5. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians
(i. 23) almost reproduces those very words ; speaking of the
Hope τοῦ ebayyeriou... τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ev πάσῃ
[τῇ] κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν ν"---ἰ8 it not an allowable
conjecture that @ 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 Lorp’s commands in his Lorp’s
own words as recorded by the Evangelist S. Mark? ;
1 desire to be understood to deliver this only as a conjec-
ture. But secing that S. Mark’s Gospel is commonly thought
(0 have been written at Rome, and under the eye of S. Peter;
ond that 8. Peter (and therefore 5. Mark) must have been at
Rome before S. Paul visited that city in A.D. G1 ;—seeing,
too, that it was in a.p. 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 unrea-
sonable in the speculation. If, however, it be well founded,
—(and it is impossible to deny that the coincidence of ex-
pression may be such as I have suggested,)—then, what δι
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 recog-
nised 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 “ al
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 neces-
sary) for what immediately goes before. :
Avi) Next,—év τῷ ὀνόματί pov (ver. 17) is none
another suspicious peculiarity. The phrase is supposed to eis
only in this place of 8. Mark’s Gospel ; the Evangelist €
1Xx.] ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι---παρ- and ἐπ- ἀκολουθεῖν. 103
where employing the preposition éz/:—(viz. in ix. 87: ix. 39:
xiii. 6.)
(1.) Now really, if it were 60, the reasoning would be nu-
gatory. 5. Luke also once, and once only, has ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί
gov: his usage clsewhere being, (like 8. Mark’s) to use ἐπέ
Nay, in two conscculive verses of ch. ix, ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί pov
—oov 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 5. Luke x. 17?
(2.) But, in fact, the objection is an oversight of the
learned (and generally accurute) objector. The phrase recurs
in 8. Mark ix. 38,—as the text of that place has been revised
by Tischendorf, by Tregelles and by himself. This is there-
fore a slightly corroborative, not a suspicious circumstance.
(AVIII. and XIX.) We are further assured that παρακο-
λουθεῖν (in ver. 17) and ἐπακολουθεῖν (in ver. 20) “ are both
Jorcign 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 5. Mark τ. 87. He can-
not mean that παρακολονθεῖν, because the Evangelist uses
it only once, is suspicious ; for that would be to cast a slur
on 5. Luke i. 3. He cannot mean generally that verbs com-
pounded 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 8. 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 be-
fore us,) occur in his sixteen chapters *. What, then, I must
* wapaBdéddcuw[I quote fromthe Textus Receptus of 5. 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 (execpt 1}, L, A, xs.) and almost every cursive Codex. The evidence of
Cod. C and of Urigen is doubtful. 7#”2o would subscribe to the different read-
ing adopted on countless similar occasions by the most recent Editors of the
N.T.?] : παραγγέλλειν : παράγειν : παραγίνεσθαι : παραδιδόναι : παραλαμβάνειν :
M2
104 The phrase χεῖρας ἐπιτίθεναι ἐπί--- [cHAP.
really ask, can the learned Critic possibly mean ?—I re-
spectfully pause for an answer.
(2.) In the meantime, I claim that as far as such evidence
gocs,—(and it certainly goes a very little way, yet, as far as
it gocs,)—it is a note of 5. 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 cir-
cumstance, that (in ver. 18) the phrase χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι
ἐπί τινα occurs ; “instead of χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι tev.”
. (1.) But on the contrary, the phrase “is in Mark's man-
ner,” 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 *.)
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 illus-
tration 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.) §. Matthew has the latter phrase once; the former,
twice’, Who will not admit that all this (so-called) Cr iti-
cism 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.” Task leave to examine these two charges
separately.
παρατηρεῖν : παρατιθέναι : παραφέρειν : παρέρχεσθαι : παρέχειν : ξαῤίδηδιαστ
ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι : ἐκαισχύνεσθαι : ἐπανίστασθαι : ἐπερωτᾷν : ἐπιβάλλειν : ἐπιγινώ
σκειν : ἐπιγράφειν : ἐπιζητεῖν : ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι : ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι : ἐπιλύειν ξ oe
πίπτειν : ἐπιῤῥάπτειν : ἐπισκιάζειν : ἐπιστρέφειν : ἐπισυνάγειν : ἐπισυντρέχει :
ἐπιτάσσειν : ἐπιτιθέναι : ἐπιτιμᾷν : ἐπιτρέπειν.
. 9. Mark ν. 23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23.
S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix. 18, 15.
1x.] μὲν obv—6 Κύριος, considered. 165
(1.) μὲν οὖν occurs only once in S. Mark’s Gospel, truly :
but then if occurs ouly once in S. Luke (iii. 18) j—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 Aptos being “ forciqn to the diction of Mark
in speaking of the Lorn,”—I really do not know what
the learned Critic can possibly mean ; except that he finds
our Lorp nowhere called ὁ Κύριος by S. Mark, except in this
place.
But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither docs
he find our Loxp anywhere called by 8. Mark “ Jesvs
Cuuist,” 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 :) 8 reason is assign-
able for the use of that expressicn in chap. i. 1. And s0,
I venture to reply, there is a fully sufficient reason assign-
able for the use of this expression in chap. xvi. 19°,
(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our Lorp
is called ᾿Ιησοῦς Xpiotds,—but only in the first Chapter of
their respective Gospels. By 5. Luke nowhere. The ap-
pellation may,—or may not,—be thought “ foreign to the
diction” of those Evangelists. But surcly 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 cerse of his Jirst Chapter
designates the Eternal Son by the extraordinary title 6
Aoyos; but norchere else in his Gospel, (except once in ver.
14,) does that Name recur. Would it be reasonable to re-
present ¢his as a suspicious circumstance? Is not the Divine
fitness of that sublime appellation generally recognised and
admitted *P—Surely, we come to Scripture to be learners
only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to
have spoken about Gop! When will men Jearn that “the
© See hidlow, pp. 184-6.
4 Sco Pearson on the Creed, (ed. Burton), vol. i. p. 151.
100 ἀναληφθῆναι--- ἐκεῖνος, considered, (car.
Scripture-phrase, or language of the Holy Ghost®” is as
much above them as IIcaven is above Earth ?
(XXIII) Another complaint :—dvarngpOjvar, 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 Gospcls:” and this hap-
pens to be one of them? What possible inconvenience can
be supposed to follow from that circumstance ἢ
(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. ᾿Αναληφθῆναι and
ἀνάληψις are words proper to the Ascension of our Lorn tnto
Heaven. The two Evangelists who do not describe that
event, are without these words: the two Evangelists who do
describe it, have them‘, Surely, these are marks of genuine-
ness, not grounds for suspicion !
It is high time to conclude this discussion—Much has
been suid about two other minute points :—
(XXIV.) It is declared that ἐκεῖνος “is nowhere found
absolutely uscd by S. Mark :” (the same thing may be said |
of 85. Matthew and of 8. Luke also:) “but always empha-
tically: whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely used 8.”
Another writer says,—‘‘ The use of ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11,
and 13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with ὁ δέ, is
peculiar.”
(1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not very, that
an Evangelist who employs an ordinary word in the ordi-
nary way about thirty times in all, should use it “ absolutely”
in two consecutive verses.
(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among them-
selves as to which are precisely the offending instances,—
(for it is evidently ἃ moot point whether ἐκεῖνος be em-
phatic in ver. 18, or not,)—we may be excused from a pro-
longed discussion of such ἃ 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 copula-
© Ibid. p. 183,—at the beginning of the exposition of “ Our Lor.”
! §. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2.
© Alford. * Davidson.
-..-------. tee
1x.] A Sentence without a copulative. 167
tive: whereas Mark always has the copulative in euch cascs,
particularly καί. But then,—
(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other
sections of 5. Mark’s Gospel resembling the present,—(I mean,
passages in which 8. Mark summarizes many disconneetcd
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 ὕστερον δέ: and the reading
is not impossible. So that the complaint is really re-
duced to this,—That in ver. 10 the Evangelist begins
᾿Εκείνη πορευθεῖσα, instead of saying Kai ἐκείνη πορευ-
θεῖσα. 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 8. 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 ‘at turn of phrase.
I derived it from Simon Peter’s lips. I have always sus-
pected 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 Magda-
lene on the morning of the Resurrection.” And then we
should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth
Gospel :—
γύναι τί κλαίεις ; τίνα ζητεῖς; ’EKEINH δοκοῦσα xK.T.X.
After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all
strange, even though it bc “ without a copulative :”—
ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. ’EKEINH πορευθεῖσα κ.τ.λ.
(4.) For after all, the on/y question to be asked is,—Will
any one pretend that such a circumstance as this is δι 8-
picious 3 Unless that be asserted, I see not what is gained by
raking together,—(as one casily might do in any section of any
of the Gospcls,)—every minute peculiarity of form or expres-
sion which ean possibly be found within the space of these
twelve verses. It is an evidence of nothing so much as
an incoriigible coarseness of critical fibre, that every slight
variety of manner or language should be thus pounced upon
108 The aggregate of nothings, is nothing. [crar.
and represented as a note of spuriousness,—in the face of
(a) the unfaltering tradition of the Church universal that
the document has nerer been hitherto suspected: and
(0) 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 suc-
cessfully the foregoing objections may secm 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 AXV Articles, a slight residuum of
suspiciousness, ἔλθη of course the aggregate of so many frac-
tions 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 alto-
gether different. The sum of ten thousand nothings is still
nothing !, 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,---(Ὀο0}} 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 inaca of rery frequent
occurrence in 8. Mark’s Gospel. And yet its absence from
Δ 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 Nark,
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 furce as proving difference of author-
ship? Is it not true tbat most of them, and those the most important, are
reduced to absolutely nothing, while the remainder possess scarcely ony 8)”
preciable significance ἢ "περ. 360, (sec. above, p. 139, note g-)
emesis ees
x}, S. Marl’s ws of εὐθέως and πάλιν. 169
chap. xvi is proved to be in no degree a suspicious circum-
stance, from the discovery that though it occurs as many as
12 times in chap. i;
and 6 chap. v;
and ὃ » chap. iv, vi;
and 3 3 chap. ii, ix, xiv;
and 2 » ebap. vii, x1;
it yet occurs only 1 τ chap. iii, viii, x, xv;
while it occurs 0 τὶ chap. xii, xiii, xvi.
(Ὁ) In hike manner, πάλιν, which occurs as often as
G times in chap. xiv;
andd _,, chap. x;
and ὃ, chap. viii, xv ;
and 2 ___,, chap. ii, iti, vii, xi, xii;
and 1 - chap. iv, v;
occurs 0 =» cbap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi. *
(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
(2.) Again. Since εὐθέως is not found in the xii or the
xiii" chapters of this same Gospel,—nor πάλιν in the i*, vit,
ix'4, or xiii" chapter,—(for the sufficient reason that acither
word is taunted in any of those places,)—what possible “ sus-
piciousness” can be supposed to result from the absence of
both words from the xvit® chapter also, where a/so neither
of them is wanted? JWiy is the xvi'> 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 them-
selves they prove very little: but when there does exist ex-
ternal 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 !.”—For all
k §. John has πάλιν (47 times) much oftener than 5, Mark (29 times). And
yet, πάλιν is not met with in the i°4, or the iii, or the v¥, or the vii'®, or
the.xw!!, or the xvii'® chapter of S. John’s Gospel.
Y Printed Tevt, yp. 256.
170 ©The Tables turned? ayainst the Critics. [cHar.
rejoinder, the respected writer is asked, — (a) But when
there docs not exist any such external evidence: what then?
Next, he is reminded (J) That whether there does, or docs
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 precarious-
ness 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 becn found out to
be every one of them mistakes ;—being either, (1) demon-
strably without argumentative cogency of any kind ;—or
else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory circum-
stances: indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by
S. Mark,—zof 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 ¢hirtcen, more or
less clearly witnessing in favour of the section ™.
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 in-
dications of S. Mark’s undoubted manner. Such is the refer-
ence 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 pov (in ver. 17),—and
of the phrase χεῖρας ἐπιτιθέναι ἐπί τινα (in ver. 18) :—of the
Evangelical term for our Lorv’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.) ᾿Ανίσταναι, for rising from the dead; which is one
= It will be found that of the former class (1) are the following :—Article iii:
Viis ix: x: oxi: xii: xiii: xiv: xv: xxi: xxiv: xxv: xxviz: xxvii. Of ἔν
latter (2):—Art. i: ii: iv: vs vis wili: xvis xvii: xviii: xix: xx: xxii: x20
Notes of identity of Authorship.
of S. Mark’s words. Taking into account the shortness of
his Gospel, he has it thrice as often as S. Luke; trelve timcs
as often as S. Matthew or S. John.
(xv.) The idiomatic expression πορευομένοις eis ἀγρόν,
of which S. Matthew does not present a single specimen ;
but which occurs three times in the short Gospel of S. Mark",
—of which ver. 12 is one.
(xvi.) The expression πρωΐ (in ver. 9,)—of which S. Mark
avails himsclf six times: ic. (if the length of the present
Gospel be taken into account) almost five times as often as
either 5. Matthew or S.John,—S. Luke never using the word
at all. In bis first chapter (ver. 35), and here in his last
(ver. 2), S. Mark uses λίαν in connexion with πρωΐ.
(xvii.) The phrase κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (in ver. 15) is
another of S. Mark’s phrases. Like 5. Matthew, he employs
it four times (i. 14: xiii. 10: xiv. 9: xvi. 15): but it occurs
neither in S. Luke’s nor in 8. John’s Gospel.
(xviii) The same «words singly are characteristic of his
Gospel. Tuking 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 8. Luke.
(xix.) εὐαγγέλιον,---ἃ word which occurs only in the first
two Gospels,—is found twice as often in 5. 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 onc.
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 φανεροῦσθαι 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 us in ch. iv. 22.
(xxi.) They would have also pointed out that oxAnpoxap-
δία is another of 5. Mark’s words: being employed neither by
S. Luke nor by 5. John,—by S. Matthew only once,—but
by S. Mark on tio occasions ; of which ch. xvi. 14 is one.
1x. 171
” Ch. xiii. 16,—6 εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν Sy: and ch. χν. 21,--- ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ dypov,—
an exprersion which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the corresponding p'ace
of his Gospel, viz. in ch. xxiii, 26.
172 Twenty-scren particalars indicative [cuar.
(xxii.) In the same spirit, they would have bade us ob-
serve that πανταχοῦ (ver. 20}—unknown to S. Matthew and
S.John, and employed only once by 8. Luke,—is ¢iice used
by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present section.
Nor would it have becn altogether unfair if they had
added that the precisely similar word πανταχόθεν (or rdv--
τοθεν) 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 nar-
ratives is taken into account,) more than twice as often in
8. Mark’s as in 8. John’s Gospel,—just three times as often
as in the Gospel of 8. Matthew and 8. Luke.
(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observa-
tion 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: 1]. 17: v. 23: vi. 55:
xvi. 18.) Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account,
be employs this idiom twice as often as S. Matthew ;—three
times as often as δ. 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, 18, and here in ver.18. S. Matthew
has it only once. S. Luke and 8S. Jobn 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
ἀλαλάξοντας in ch. v. 38: θορυβεῖσθε καὶ κλαίετε in the
very next verse. As for πενθεῖν, it is one of the 123 words
common to S. Matthew and 8. Mark, and peculiar to their.
two Gospels.
(xxvii.) Lastly, “ κατακρίνω (in ver. 16), instead of κρίνω,
is Mark’s word, (comp. x. 83: xiv. 64).” The simple verb
which is used four times by S. Matthew, five times by
5. 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 5. Luke or 5. John.
IN. ] af identity of Authorship, specified. 1τὸ
Strange,—that there should be exactly “xxvii” notes of
genuineness discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of
“XXVII” grounds of suspicion !
But cnough of all this. Here, we may with anaes
review the progress hitherto made in this inquiry.
I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those im-
posing assertions respecting the “ Sty le” and “ Phraseology”’
of this section of the Gospel which were rehearsed at the
ontset °,—are destitute of foundation. But from this dis-
covery alone there results a settled conviction which it will
be found difficult henceforth to disturb. A page of Scrip-
ture 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 syste-
matically; done it with a will; done it for a hundred ycars.
But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the
case in respect of the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel. Some-
thing 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 intel-
ligible a designation as can be devised for the purely mecha-
nical 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
© See above, p. 146.
174 The fallaciousness of such Remarks [cuar,
devised. By means of this clumsy and vulgar instrument,
especially when applicd, (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 sus-
picious character as tle /ast?. 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 Curisr:” and (ii.) that”
“ εὐαγγέλιον ᾿Ιησοῦ Xpiotod” is “ Pauline.’ —We should be
reminded (iii) that this Evangelist nowhere introduces any
of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of
“Tsaiah*” (in ver. 2) isa suspicious circumstance :—(iv.) that
a quotation from the Old Testament is “foreign to his man-
ner,”—(for writers of this class would not hesitate to assume
that S. Mark xy. 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 8. Mark three times
calls Judwa by its usual name (Ἰουδαία, viz. in iii. 7: x. 1:
xiii. 14), the wnigue designation, ἡ ᾿Ιουδαία χώρα (in ver. 5)
would be pronounced decisive against “the authorship of
Mark.”—(vii.) The same thing would be said of the wnigue
Ρ The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in tbe
pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 189 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
fullowing (teat of Tregelles) :—ver. 44, τέθνηκεν (elsewhere ἀποθνήσκω) :—
ver. 45, γνοὺς ard, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament :
nlso ἐδωρήσατο and πτῶμα: ver. 46, ἐνείλησεν, λέλατομημένον, πέτρας, προσε-
xvAcoev:—chap. xvi. τεσ. 1, διαγενομένου, and ἀρώματα: ver. 2, μιᾷ τῶν σαβ-
βάτων :—ver. 8, ἀποκυλίσει :-τνοτ. 4, ἀνεκεκύλισται. Also, σφόδρα, (Mark’s
word is λίαν.) Ver. ὅ, ἐν 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 perbaps 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 bave 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. * Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.
i
1x.] shewn, by applying them to 5. Mark i, 9—20. 175
expression, ἐν ᾿Ιορδάνῃ ποταμῷ, which is found in ver. 5,—
secing that this Evangelist three times designates Jordan
simply as ᾿Ιορδάνης (i. 9: 1]. 8: x. 1).—(viii.) That entire
expression in ver. 7 (wrigue, it must be confessed, in the Gos-
pel,) οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανός --ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ, would be pro-
nounced ‘abhorrent to the style of Mark.”—(ix.) τὸ Πνεῦμα
trcice, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we should be told is never
used by the Evangelist absolutely for the Hory Guosr: but
always τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Ayov (as in ch. iii. 39: χ 36:
xiii. 11).—(x.) The same would be said of οἱ ἹΙεροσολυμῖται
(in ver. 5) for “the inhabitants of Jerusalem :” we should
be assured that 8. Mark’s phrase would rather be of ἀπὸ
“Ἱεροσολύμων,---ἃ8. in ch. iii. 8 and 22.—And (xi.) the ex-
pression πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (ver. 15), we should be
informed ‘cannot be Mark’s ;”—who either employs εἰς and
the accusative (as ia ch. ix. 92), or else makes the verb take
a dative (as in ch. xi. 31: xvi. 13, 14.)—We should also pro-
bably be told that the ten following words are all “‘ unknown
to Mark ᾿Ξ (ἢ) tpixes,—(xiii.) Seppativy,—(xiv.) ὀσφύς,--
(xv.) dxpid_es,{xvi.) pert, —(xvii.) ἄγριος, (six instances in
a single verse (ver. 6): a highly suspicious airsumstanee !),—
(xviii.) κύπτειν,---(χἰχ) ipds,—(xx.) ὑποδήματα, (all three
instances in ver. 7 !) —(xxi.) ebdoxeiv,—(xxii.) καὶ ἐγένετο ..
ἦλθεν (ver. 9),—unique in 8. Mark !—(aaiii.) βαπτίζεσθαι
εἰς (ver 9), another unique phrase !—(xxiv.) of οὐρανοί ficice,
(viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when δ. Mark speaks
of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41: vii. 34: vill. 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. Ὁ
V. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philo-
sophical, more real test than the coarse, uncritical expedient
176 A more delicate and real Test at haud. [cHap.
which has been hitherto considered of ascertaining by refer-
ence to the pages of a Greck 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 5. Mark’s manner :—Thus,
(i.) Though he is the Author of the shortest of the Gos-
pels, and though to all appearance he often merely repro-
duces what S. Matthew has said before him, or else antici-
pates something, which is afterwards delivered by 8S. 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 man-
ner which is susceptible of memorable illustration from the
section before us.
How many and how considerable are the new circumstances
which 8. 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 mes-
sage,—(4) who not only did not believe Aer 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 Gop is recorded. ...So many,
_ and such precious incidents, showered into the Gospel Trea-
sury 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. ΟἹ, 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 Evan-
gelist is his love of picturesque, or at least of striking details,
—his proneness to introduce exceedingly minute particulars,
1x.] δ. Mark's characteristics recognisable here. 177
often of the profonndest significancy, and always of con-
siderable interest. Not to look beyond the Twelve Verses
(chap. i. 9—20) which were originally proposed for com-
parison,—We are reminded (a) that in describing our Sa-
viour’s Baptism, it is only 8. Mark who relates that “Te
came from Nazareth” to be baptized.—(l) In his highly
elliptical account of our Lorv’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, 5. Mark alone
it is who, (notwithstanding the close resemblance of his
account to what is found in S,Matthew,) records that the
father of 5. James and §. John was left “in the ship with
the hired servants %.”—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 Lorn’s Resurrection, she found
them overwhelmed with sorrow,—“ mourning and weeping.”
(δ) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is re-
corded only there.
(c) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disci-
ples were “ going into the country,” (πορενόμενοι εἰς ἀγρόν",
ver. 12,) Jesus also “went with them’—(cuv-eropeverto, as
8. Luke relates ;)—but that it was as they actually “walked”
along (περιπατοῦσιν) that this manifestation took place.
(4) 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” ?
(ili) Next,—all have been struck, I suppose, with 5. 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 lan-
guage entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude,
for instance, to his substitution of ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (xiv. 72)
4 S.Mark 1.9: 14: 20. t The same word is found also
in S. Luke’s narrative of the same event, ch. xxiv. 13.
N
178 The characteristics of S. Mark (chiar.
for δ. Matthew’s ἔκλαυσε πικρῶς (xxvi.75) ;—and of ὁ τέκτων
(vi. 8) for 6 τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός (S. Matth. xiii. 55).—The
“woman of Canaan” in 5. Matthew’s Gospel (γυνὴ Xava-
vaia, ch. xv. 22), is called ‘a Greck, a Syrophenician by
nation” in §.Mark’s (EAAnvis, Συροφοίνισσα τῷ γένει,
ch. vii. 26).—At the Baptism, ‘instead of the ‘ opened”
heavens of 5. Matthew (ἀνεῴχθησαν, ch. iii. 16) and S. Luke
(ἀνεῳχθῆναι, ch. iii. 22), we are presented by 8. Mark with
the striking image of the heavens “cleaving” or “being rent
asunder” (σχιζομένους *, ch. i. 10)—What 8, Matthew calls
τὰ ὅρια Μαγδαλά (ch. xv. 39), S. Mark designates as τὰ
᾿ μέρη Aadpavovéd (ch. viii. 10.)\—In place of S. Matthew’s
ζύμη Σαδδουκαίων (ch. xvi. 6), 5. Mark has ζύμη ‘Hpwdov
(ch. viii. 15.)—In describing the visit to Jericho, for the δύο
τυφλοί of ὅδ. Matthew (ch. xx. 29), 5. Mark gives υἱὸς Tipatov
Βαρτίμαιος ὁ τυφλὸς... προσαιτῶν (ch. x. 40.)—For the
κλάδους of 8. Matth. xxi. 8, S. Mark (ch. xi. 8) has στοι-
Adéas; and for the other’s πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (xxvi.
84), he has πρὶν 4 δίς (xiv. 30.)—It is 80 throughout.
Accordingly,— (as we have already more than once had occa-
sion to remark,)—whercas the rest say only ἡ pia τῶν σαβ-
βάτων, 8. Mark says πρώτη σαββάτον (in ver. 9).— Whereas
S. Luke (viii. 2) says ag’ 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 5. Luke’s Gospel had appeared, would have
ventured so to paraphrase 8. Luke’s statement? And yet,
let the consistent truthfulness of either expression be cure-
fully noted. Both are historically accurate, but they pro-
ceed from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly
side, (Gop’s side), the Disciples’ “eyes” (of course) “were
* On which, Victor of Antioch (if inded it be he) fincly remarks,—Zyiforras
δὲ οἱ οὐρανοὶ, ἣ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἀνοίγονται, ἵνα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀποδοθῇ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ
ὁ ἁγιασμὸ:, καὶ συναφθῇ τοῖς ἐπιγείοις τὰ obpdiie.—(Cramer i. p. 271.)
Sicha ἀν ρῥυρμμονκο ρα ροθυνμο τὰ fame ae aca cs!
1χ.} recognisable in these Verses. 179
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 αὐ Rome he wrote it; and that it was
with an immediate view to Latin readers that it was pub-
lished. Twelve such expressions were cnumerated above
(at p. 150-1); and such, it was also there shewn, most un-
mistakably 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 cquivalent, 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 ge-
nuineness 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 con-
stant 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* in a work which deserves
to be in the hands of every student of Sacred Science. In-
stead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to
illustrate my meaning, I will mention one which has per-
haps never been mentioned in this connexion before.
(a) Reference is made to our Lorp’s sayings in S. Mark vii,
and specially to what is found in ver. 19. That expression,
“purging all meats” (καθαρίζων ' 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 ".
* Disc. v. Sect. ii. ' Thie appeara to be the true reading.
« So Chrysostom :---ὖὮ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι “"'καθαρίξων τὰ βρώματα," ταῦτα
ὅλεγεν, [vii. 626 41.--- He ecoms to hare derived that remark from Origen [ἐν
n2
180 δι Mark's Gos connceted with S. Petr. [ewar.
Our Saviour (he explains) by that discourse of His—ipso
facto—“ made all meats clan.” Tow doubly striking a state-
-ment, when it is remembered that probably Simon Peter
himsclf was the actual author of it ;—the same who, on the
house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that ‘Gon
had made clean” (ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε ") all Tis creatures !
(0) 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
Lorp Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the
Baptism of John, unto that same day that He zas taken up
(ἀνελήφθη) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness
with us of His Resurrection’.” Does not S. Peter thereby
define the precise limits of our Saviour’s Ministry,—shew-
ing it to have “begun” (ἀρξάμενος) ‘from the Baptism of
John,”’—and closed with the Day of our Lorn’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 az’ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως". S. Mark
has besides κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισε ὁ Θεός (ch. xiii. 19); while
S. Peter alone styles the ΑἸ μι ΘΗτΥ, from Ilis work of Crea-
tion, ὁ κτίστης (1S. Pet. iv. 19).
VI. But besides, and over and above such considerations -
Matth. ed. Huet. i. 249 }] :---κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτὴρ “ καθαρίζων
πάντα τὰ Apépara.”?—From the same source, I suspect, Gregory “haumaturgus
(Origen’s disciple), Bp. of Neocesarea in Pontus, a.D. 261, [Routh, iii. 257)
derived the following :—xal ὁ Σωτὴρ & “πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα" οὗ τὸ
εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ, κοιιοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορενόμενον.---ϑεὺ, by all
means, Field’s most interesting Adnofationes in Chrys., vol. iii. p. 112... +>
Ἐντεῦθεν (finely snys Victor of Antioch) ὅ καινὸς ἄρχεται νόμος 6 κατὰ τὸ
πνεῦμα. (Cramer i. 335.) * Acts x. 15. ᾿
7 Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. 5,--ἔχρι ἧς ἡμέρας... ἀνελήφθη.
* ΘΟ Mark x. 6: xiii. 19.—2 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 5. Pet. ii. 13.)
Sears ees) ewe a ae ee eee ear dl,
1X.) Probability that these Verses would be provided for. 181
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 Gon’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.
Tt was even to have been expected, from what is found
to have been universally the method in other parts of Scrip-
ture,— (for it was of course foreseen by ALwicHTy Gop
from the beginning that this portion of His Word would
be, like its Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, re-
viled, hated, rejected, denied,)—that the Sririt would not
leave Himself without witness in this place. It was to have
been anticipated, I say, that Eternal Wisdom would care-
fully—(I trust there is no irreverence in so speaking of Gop
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,—un-
mistakable 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 Gov’s Word*.” Or, (if the
Reader prefers the image,) the indications of a Divine Ori-
ginal 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 dark-
ness must now see them, and admit that of a truth “the
Lorp 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
* Is, Ixvi. 2.
182 Verbal coincidences beticeen i. 9-20 & xvi. 9-20, [cttar.
the S/yle of S. Mark xvi. 9—20 be indeed as utterly dis-
cordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as is commonly
represented. We found, instead, the most striking resem-
blance’. 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 rerbal doubts
as the diction of the other: and so we found it*.—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 /ast
chapter (ver. 9—20) which are the subject of the present
volume.
Now betweer 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 argumenta-
tive weight and significancy. I allude to the following :—
(a) [βαπτίζων, βάπτισμα (i.4)— (4) βαπτισθείς (XVI. 16)
καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο (i. 8)---ἐβάπ-
tia, βαπτίσει (i. 8)]—xai ἐβ-
απτίσθη (i. 9)
(4) [κηρύσσων, ἐκήρυσσε (i. 7)]
(band δ) κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
(8) ἐκήρυξαν (xvi. 20)
(6) κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (xvi.
(i. 14)—[dpy} τοῦ εὐαγγελίον 15)
ἃ. 1]
(ο and 4) πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγ-
γελίῳ ((.ὄ 1) |
(4) ἠπίστησαν (Xvi. 11 }—ot8é
ἐπίστευσαν (xvi. 18) — τὴν
ἀπιστίαν, οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν (xvi.
14)—4 πιστεύσας, 6 ἀπιστήσας
(xvi. 10) --- τοῖς πιστεύσασε
(xvi. 17.)
Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an
unmistakable relation of sympathy between the first page of
» See above, p. 143-5. © See above, p. 174-5.
--
ace feleainan eS ὥρας
1X.J and similarity of essential slructure. 183
S. Mark’s Gospel and the last. The same doctrinal phrase-
ology *,—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 Lonp, one Faith, one Baptism:’’)—Is not his 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 ex-
tremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether
the fabric be identical or not, it were discovered that those
extremities are even meant fo clasp !
(2.) But the essential parallelism between S, Mark xvi. 9
—20 and S. Mark i. 9—20 is a profounder phenomenon aud
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,—
(4) in ch. 1. 9 to 11:—Our Lorp’s (a) tn ch. xvi. 9 ἐο 11:—Our
Manifestation to the World Lorv’s appearance to Mary
(ἐπιφανεία) on His ‘‘ coming Magdalene (ἐφάνη) after His
up (ἀναβαίνων) out of the Resurrection (ἀναστάς) from
water” of Jordan: (having Death: (of which Gop had
been “buried by Baptism,” said, ‘Thou art My Soy, this
asthe Apostle speaks :) when day have I begotten Thee.”
the Voice from Heaven pro- —— 12 to 14 :—Two other
claimced,—‘‘ Thou art My be- Manifestations (ἐφανερώθη) to
loved Sox in whom I am Disciples.
well pleased.”
12, 13:—Cuntst’s (8)
victory over Satan ; (where-
by is fulfilled the promise
τ «Thou shalt tread upon the
lion and adder: the young
lion and the dragon shalt
Thon trample under feet.’’)
17, 18 :—Crnrst’s
promise that “ they that be-
lieve”’ “‘shall cast out devils”
and “shall takeupserpents:”
(as [in S. Luke x. 19] He had
given the Seventy “power
to tread on serpents and scor-
pions, and over all the power
of the Enemy.”’) -
[(c) —~—— 8 :—The Pentecos- (c) ———— 17:— The chie
tal Gift foretold: ‘‘ He shall Pentecostal Gift specified:
baptize you with the Horr “ They shall speak with new
Guost.""] tongues.”
© My attention was first drawn to this by ms friend, the Bev. W. Kay, D.D,
(2)
184
(ν) a choi, 14, 15:— Comisr
“comes into Galilee, preach-
ing the Gospel... . and say-
ing .... Repent ye, and be-
lieve the Gospel.”
— 15: His announce-
ment, that “The time is ful-
filled, and the Kingdom of
Gop is at hand.”
()
᾿
16 £020 :—The four
Apostles’ Call to the Minis.
try: (which [S. Luke v. 8, 9]
is miraculously attested.)
Tico Articles in the Creed of Jerusalem.
[cuar.
(p) in ch. xvi. 15, 16 :—He com-
mands His Apostles to “ go
into all the world and preach
the Gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is bap-
tized shall be saved.”
19:—S. Mark’s re.
cord concerning Him, that
“Ἐς was received up into
Heaven, and sat on the right
hand of Gop :” (where He
must reign till He hath put
all enemies under His feet.””)
20:—The Apostles’
Ministry, which is every-
where miraculously attested,
—The Lorp working with
(z)
(F)
them, and confirming the
word by the signs that
followed.”
It is surely not an unmeaning circumstance, a mere acci-
dent, that the Evangelist should at the very outset and at
the very conclusion of his Gospel, so express himself! If, how- .
ever, it should seem to the Reader a mere matter of course,
8 phenomenon witbout 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*, If it be a purely for-
4 The Creed itself, (“ex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis collectum,”)
ere seen at p. 84 of De Touttée’s ed. of Cyril. Let the following be com-
ared :—
ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi. 19.)
᾿ΑΝΈΛΘόντα ΕἸΣ ΤΟΙ͂Σ OfPANOTz, καὶ KA@{ZANTA ἘΚ AEZIAN
ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ (ART. VI.) This may be seen in situ at p. 224 ὁ of Cyril.
βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ch. i. 4.)
ΒΆΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ Elz "ἌΦΕΣΙΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΙΩ͂Ν (Anr. X.) This may
be seen at p. 295 ὁ of Cyril.
The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in Professor
Heurtley’s little work De Fide εἰ Symbolo, 1869, p. 9.
-“““.-. ΘΟ. .«5..........ϑ.
-ααπκοι»..-σὦ
a
1x.] The title ὁ Κύριος reserved for this place. 185
tuitous circumstance, that two cardinal verities like these,—
(viz. “He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right
Hand of Gov,” —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 re-
markable 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 ¢he firet verse
(S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title “’Incods”
and “ Xpiotés,’—here, in the last two verses (5. Mark xvi.
19, 20) is styled for the first and for the last time, “‘o κΊριοσ᾽"
—the Torp*.
And why? Because He who at His Circumcision was
named ‘ Jesus,” (a Name which was given Him from His
Birth, yca, and before His Birth); He who at His Baptism
became “ the Curisr,” (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 Gop,—when (as we know) “all power had
been given unto Him in Heaven and in Earth” (8. Matth.
xxviii. 18),—is designated by His Name of Dominion ; ‘ the
Lorp” JEHovaH ... “ Magnifica et opportuna appellatio !”
—as Bengel well remarks.
But I take leave to point out that all this 18 what never
either would or could have entered into the mind of a fabri-
cator 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 Hory
Guosr 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
sec it!
* See above,—p. 165-6.
180 Four more singular notes of [ciap,
(ὁ) Next, as a matter of fact, we dave a spurious Supple-
ment to the Gospel,—the same which was exhibited above
at p. 123-4; and which may here be with advantage repro-
‘duced in its Latin form :—‘ Omnia autem quaecumque prae-
cepta 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 praedi-
cationem salutis acternae. Amen ‘,”—Another apocryphal
termination is found in certain copies of the Thebaic version.
It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as follows :—“Ex-
euntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evange-
lium in mundo toto, Curisro operante cum iis in verbo con-
firmationem 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 ha-
rum quae exsistunt ab oriente ad occasum.” It will be seen
that the Title of Dominion (ὁ Kvptos—the Lorp) is found
in neither of these fabricated passages; but the Names of
Nativity and of Baptism [Ἰησοῦς and Xpiotos—Jesus and
Curist) occur instead.
(ii.) Then further: —It is an extraordinary note of
genuineness that such a vast number of minute but im-
portant facts should be found accumulated within the nar-
row 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 plauts 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 P even seems purposely to break away from
their guidance, and to adventure some extraordinary state-
‘ Cod. Bobbiensis (k): which however for “‘illis” has “et :” for “Petro,”
“‘puero:” and for “occidentem,” ‘“‘orieutem.” It also repeats “usque.”
1 have ventured to alter “ab orientem” into “ ab oriente."—Compare what
is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given by White and Adler.
1x.] genuineness and veraciousness. 187
ment of his own,—which nevertheless carries the true Gos-
pel 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 σαββάτον) has occasioned
general offence: I mean, the designation of Mary Magdalene
as one “out of whom” the Lorp “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 sig-
nificancy, — 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 δ.
(iv.) It bas also been pointed out, (but the circumstance
must be by all means here insisted upon afresh,) that the desig-
nation (found in ver. 10) of the little company of our Lorp’s
followers,— τοῖς per’? αὐτοῦ γενομένοις," -ἰδ 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, uncon-
scious 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
§.Mark, (or such an one as he"), would have familiarly desig-
nated the Apostolic body as “ αὐτοῖς τοῖς évSexa,” in ver. 14.
The phrase of δώδεκα, he uses in proportion far oftener than
any other two of the Evangelists'. And it is evident that
the phrase of ἕνδεκα soon became an equally recognised de-
signation 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
ε See above (Art. II.) p. 152-3.
» Consider 5. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14.
1 §. Matth. xxvi 14, 29, 47.—S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 85: x. 32: xi. 11:
xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.—S. Luke viii. 1: ix, 1, 12: xviii. 31: xxii. 8, 47.—
S. John vi. 87, 70, 71: xx. 24.
188 One more note of genuineness. (cHap.
looked for, or at least what one is fully prepared to meet
with, i Aim.
(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. 1 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*. And
tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein contained a re-
collection of our Saviotr’s command to His Apostles, tyrice
expressly recorded by S. Luke, “that they should not depart
from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the FaTHrr.”
“Behold,” (said He,) “I send the promise of My Faruer
upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be
endued with power from on high!”’... After many days
“they went forth,” or “ out.’ S. Mark, (or perhaps it is
rather 5. Peter,) expressly says 50,---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 de-
rived from Internal considerations. But lest it should here-
after be reckoned as an omission, and imputed to me as
a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged Incon-
sistency 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 τὴν I am silent on this head.
1. I cannot see for whom I should ke writing; in other
Κ᾿ Compare S. Luke sxii. 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. 82, Consider S. Luke xxi. 37.
' S. Luke xsiv. 49. Acts i. 4.
1x.} Swiposed Inconsistencies not noticed:—and why, 189
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 ticon-
sistency whatever between anything which 8. Mark here says,
and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should have
proved that,— (assuming the ofher 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 ly whom is such proof required ?
(a) Not by the men who insist that errors ure occasionally
to be met with in the Evangelical narratives. In their esti-
mation, the genuineness of an inspired ariting is a thing not
in the least degree rendered suspicious by the erroncousness |
of its statements. According to them, the narrative may
exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may yet be the
work of 5. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but “trifling,”
and the inaccuracies “ minute,’’—these “ sound Theologians,”
(for so they style themselves™,) “have no dread whatever
of acknowledging” their existence. Be it so. Then would
it be a gratuitous task to set about convincing tiem that
no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable within the
compass of these Twelve concluding Verses.
(Ὁ) But neither is such proof required by fuithful 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 prim facie discrepancy, though it does not fail to
strike, —yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them.
Consciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with them-
selves somewhat as follows :—‘‘Gon’s Word, like all Gop’s
other Works, (and I am taught to regard Gop’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 investi-
gation. Can I seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill
were brought to bear on the highly elliptical portion of nar-
rative contained in these Twelve Verses, it would present no
= See above, p. 2.
190 Review of the foregoing Chapter. [cHap. 1x.
exception toa 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 dis-
cussion 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,”
(im itself a highly fallacious test,) disappears under inves-
tigation.
It has been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the
style of S. Mark xvi. 9—20 is excecdingly 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 circum-
stances 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 te be a work of extraordinary an-
tiguity (p. 195).—Proved to be oider than any extant MS. of the
Gospees, 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 hare, from the first, occupied a most conspicuous,
as tcell as most honourable place, (p. 203.)—Nove, this becomes the
testiniony of ante-Nicene Christendom in their farour (p. 209.)
I wave reserved for the last the testimony of THE Lrc-
tioxartgs, which has been hitherto all but entircly over-
looked * ;—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 ren-
dered 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 wnited testimony of all
the Churches. It is therefore the evidence borne by a ‘goodly
fellowship of Prophets,’ a ‘noble army of Martyrs’ in-
deed; as well as by ASS. innumerable which have long since
perished, but which must of necessity once have been. And
£0, it comes to us like the voice of many waters: dates, (as
I shall shew by-and-by,) from a period of altogether imme-
morial antiquity : is endorsed by the sanction of all the suc-
ceeding ages: admits of neither doubt nor evasion. This
subject, in order that it may be intelligibly handled, will be
* The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is sup-
Plied 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. Zest. (ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.—“ Haec lectio in
Evangeliactis et Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus
temporibcs. Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur
κυριακῇ τῶν μυρυφόρων, els τὸν ὕρθρον. Secundo, τῷ ὄρθρῳ τῆς ἀναλήψεως.
Τοστῖο, ut ἐωξιὺν ἀναστάσιμον γ΄. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis temporibus
nullo moi) dubitavit Ecclesia."—Matthaei had slightly anticipated this in
his ed. of 1758, vol. ii. 267.
192 The Christian Church the continuation of the Jewish. [cuar,
most conveniently approached by some remarks which chal
rehearse the matter from the beginning.
The Christian Church succeeded to the Jewish. The
younger socicty inherited the traditions of the elder, not less
us a measure of necessity than as a matter of right; and by
a kind of sacred instinct conformed itself from the very be-
ginning in countless particulars to its divinely-appointed
model. The same general Order of Service went on un-
broken,—conducted by a Priesthood whose spiritual succes-
sion was at least as jealously guarded as had been the natural
descent from Aaron in the Church of the Circumcision”. It
was found that “the Sacraments of the Jews are [but] types
of ours®.’ Still were David’s Psalms antiphonally recited,
and the voices of “ Moses and the Prophets” were heard in
the sacred assemblies of Gov’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 re-
deemed. Unconsciously perhaps, the very method of the
one became adopted by the other: as, for example, the me-
thod of beginning a festival from the “Eve” of the pre-
ceding 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 ques-
tion, a controversy rather, whether Easter should or should
not be celebrated with the Jews ἃ,
But it is the faithful handing on to the Christian commu-
nity of the Lectionary practice of the Synagogue to which the
reader’s attention is now exclusively invited. That the Chris-
tian Church inherited from the Jewish the practice of read-
ing a first and a second Lesson in its public assemblies, "
demonstrable. What the Synagogue practice wus in the
time of the Apostles is known from Acts xiii. 15, 27.
> Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων Siaboxds,—are the first words of the Ecclesis#
tical History of Eusebius.
© See the headizg of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorized Version.
¢ Sce Bingham’s Origines, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4.
Justin -
x.] Lectionary-practice of the primitive Church, 19:3
Martyr, (A.D. 150) describes the Christian practice in his
time as precisely similar®: only that for “the Law,” there
is found to have been at once substituted ‘the Gospel.” He
speaks of the writings of “the Apostics” and of “the Pro-
phets.” Chrysostom has the same expression (for the two
Lessons) in one of his Homilies" Cassian (a.p. 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*. 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 car-
rving 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.”
It is, in fact, universally received that the Eastern Church
has, from a period of even Apostolic antiquity, enjoyed a Lec-
tionary, —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 Gon’s ancient people, the Jews: for it com-
mences, as theirs did, ἐπ the autumn, (in September‘); and
© Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἤ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ
αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἣ τὰ συγγράμ-
ματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται, μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ, Then came the Sermon,—
then, all stood and prayed,—then followed Holy Communion.—Apol. i. e. 67,
(ed. Otto, i. 158.)
" ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ, τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν σήμερον
διελέχθη, καὶ περὶ τίνων ;—(Opp. ix. p. 697 Ε. Field’s text.)
© Cassian writes,—‘ Venerabilis Patrum senntus .... decrevit bunc nume-
Tum [sc. duodecim Orationum] tam in Vespertinis quam in Nocturnis conven-
ticulis custodiri; quibus lectiopes geminas adjungentes, id est, uaam Veteris
et aliam Novi Testamenti....In die vero Sabbati vel Dominico utrasque
de Novo recitant Testamento; id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apos-
tolorum, et alinm 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.)
© Constitutiones Apostolicae, lib. ii. c. 57,59: v.19: viii. δ.
δ See Scrivener’s Introduction, p.74, and the reff. in note (k) overleaf.
oO
191 Antiquity of the Lectionary system [cirar.
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 as-
signed to “the Law and the Prophets*,” was henceforth
enjoyed by the Gospels and the Apostolic writings. ‘“ Satur-
day-Sunday” lections—(caBBartoxupiaxai, for so these Lec-
tions 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 !, 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, whici from the earliest period to
this day has been called “ μέγα σάββατον τ, is discovered
to have borne the self-same appellation in the Church of the .
Circumcision".—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 de-
tails would be irrelevant to my present purpose; which is
only to call attention to the three following facts :
(1) 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 re-
ceived 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
* 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 connexiom
with which, see vol. ii. p. 352 ὃ.
' Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγον is “Quinquagesima Sunday ;” but the
toeek of “ the cheese-eater ” is the week previous.
- See Suicer’s Thesaurus, vol. ii. 920.
" “Apud Rabbinos, Dian naw Sablathum Magnum. Sic vocatur Sab-
bathom proximum ante Pascha.”—Buxtorf, Lericon Talmud. p. 2323.
x.] established by an appeal to the Fathers, 195
Church), nor “ Evangelistarium,” (i.e. Book containing the
Ecclesiastical Lections in extenso), of higher antiquity than
the viii'® century,—yet that the scheme itself, as exhibited
by those monuments,—certainly in every essential particu-
lar,—is older than any known Greek MS. which contains
it, by at least four, in fact by full fire 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 through-
out the present pages are observed inrariably 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 iv century (if not
long before) there existed a known Lectionary system, alike
in the Church of the East and of the West. Cyril of Jeru-
salem (A.D. 348,) having to speak about our Lorp’s Ascen-
sion, remarks that by a providential coincidence, on the
previous day, which was Sunday, the event had formed the
subject of the appointed lessons®; and that he had availed
himself of the occasion to discourse largely on the subject.—
Chrysostom, preaching at Antioch, makes it plain that, in
© Kal ἣ μὲν ἀκολουθία τῆς διδασκαλίαε (cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7] τῆς πίστεως
προέτρετεν εἰπεῖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς ᾿Αναλήψεωτ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις φκονόμησε
πληρέστατά σε ἀκοῦσαι, κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀσθένειαν, τῇ χθὲς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τῆν
Κυριακήν" war’ οἰκονομίαν τῆς θείας χάριτος, ἐν τῇ Συνάξει τῆς τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων
ἀκολουθίας τὰ περὶ τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν περιεχούσητ' ἐλέγετο
δὲ τὰ λεγόμενα, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ πάντας, καὶ διὰ τὸ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμοῦ πλῆθοτ"
ἐξαιρέτως δὲ διά σε" ζητεῖται δὲ εἰ προσέσχες τοῖς λεγομένοις. Οἶδας γὰρ ὅτι ἡ
ἀκολουθία τῆς Πίστεως διδάσκει σε πιστεύειν εἰς ΤῸΝ ANAZTANTA TH τρίτη
HMEPA: καὶ "ANEA@ONTA Elz TOTS OTPANOTZ, καὶ κΚαθίσαντα ἘΚ
AEZIAN TOT πατρόσ--- μάλιστα μὲν οὖν μνημονεύειν σε νομίζω τῆς ἐξηγήσεως.
πλὴν ἐν παραδρομῇ καὶ νῦν ὑπομιμνήσκω σε τῶν εἰρημένων. (Cyril. Hier. Cat.
xiv. ο. 24, Opp. p. 217 €, p.)—Of that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again
reminds his auditory. Μέμνησο δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων μοι πολλάκις περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ
δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν Tidv,—he says, ilid. p. 219 B. A little lower
down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ
δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέξεσθαι τὸν Ὑἱόν.--- 7 δά. Ὁ.
From this it becomes plain why Cyril nowhere quotes 8. Mark xvi. 19,—or
8. Luke xxiv. 61,—or Acts i.9. He must needs have enlarged upon those
three inecitable places of Scripture, the day before.
02
190 The Fathers generally appealed to. [cHar.
the latter part of the iv century, the order of the lessons
which were publicly read in the Church on Saturdays and
Sundays? 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 *.—Augustine is express in
recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for
Festival days"; and that an innovation which he had at-
tempted on Good Friday had given general offence*—Now
by these few notices, to look no further, it is rendered cer-
tain 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,
k, 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 (πε-
ρικοπή, ἀνάγνωσις, ἀνάγνωσμα,) remind us that the Lec-
tionary practice of the East was already established in
their days‘.
II. The Oriental Lectionary consists of ‘ Synaxarion”
and “Eclogadion,” (or Tables of Proper Lessons from the
Gospels and Apostolic writings daily throughout the year ;)
» See above, p. 193 and p. 194.
4 Ὥστε δὲ εὐμαθέστερον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, δεόμεθα καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν, ὅπερ
καὶ ἐπεὶ τῶν ἄλλων γραφῶν πεποιήκαμεν, προλαμβάνειν, τὴν περικοπὴν THS
γραφῆς ἣν ἂν μέλλωμεν ἐξηνεῖσθαι. ----ἴπ Matth. Hom. i. (Opp. vii. 13 Β}-
Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, ἣ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον, τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀναγνωσθήσεσθαι
τῶν εὐαγγελίων περικοπὴν, ταύτην πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν μετὰ χεῖρας λαμ-
βάνων ἕκαστος οἴκοι καθήμενος ἀναγινωσκέτω." --- Τὰ Joann. Hom. ix, (Opp-
viii. 62 8) ;
τ It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching. ‘Sed quia nunc inter-
posita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas cx Evangelio lectiones
oportet in Ecclesia recitari, quae ita sunt annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo
ille quem susceperamus necessitate paullulum intermissus est, non amissus.”—
(Opp. vol. iii. P. ii. p. 825, Prol.)
® The place will be found quoted below, p. 202, note (0).
* See Snicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more full and satisfactory
than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve attention, (Nor. Test. vol. i,
Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above, p.45, notes (r) and (s).
x] Difficulty of discovering particular proofs. 197
together with ‘ Menologion,” (or Calendar of immovable
Festivals and Saints’ Days.) That we are thoroughly ac-
quuinted with all of these, as exhibited in Codices of the
viii, ix” and x'® centuries, —is a familiar fact; in illus-
tration of which it is enough to refer the reader to the
works cited at the foot of the page. But it is no less cer-
tain 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. 10 will be perceived,
on reflection, that even when the occasion of a Homily (sup-
pose) is actually recorded, the Scripture references which
it contains. apart from the Author’s statement that what
he quotes jad? 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,
Ὁ At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of his Nor. Test. (Niga,
1788) Matthaci has laboriously edited the * Lectiones Ecclesiastica ” of the
Greek Church. Sve also his Appendices,—viz. vol. ii. pp. 272—318 and 322—
363. His 2nd cd. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is distinguished by the valuable pecu-
liarity of indicating the Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of
an ancient MS.; and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His Συνα-
ξάρια (i. 723—G3 and iii, 1—24) thongh not intelligible perhaps to ordinary
readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he desig-
nates “ B” and “H,” but which are our “ Evstt. 47 and 50,”—uncial Evange-
listaria of the viiit® 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 “Sy-
naxarium ” and “Menologium ” of Codd. K and M, (viiit® or ix century.)
See also his vol. ii. pp. 456—69. Unfortunately, (as Scrivener recognises,
p- 110,) all hero 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 πάθω»), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472) ;
and so throughout.
Mr. Scrivener (Introduction, pp. 68—75,) has given by far the most in-
telligible account of this mutter, by exhibiting in English the Lectionary of
the Eastern Church, (“gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 647, Parham
18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and Christ’s Coll. Camb.’’) ; and supplying the re-
ferences to Scripture in the ordinary way. See, by all means, bis Iatruduc-
tion, pp. 62—G5 : also, pp. 21]1—225.
198 The Eastern Lectionary with which weare — [enar,
the employment of certain passages of Scripture is, in
a manner, inevituble*, and may on no account be pressed.
2. Thus, when Chrysostom’ and when Epiphanius'’, preach-
ing 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%; 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 dis-
covered 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 5. Matth. xxv. 31, ie. 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.p. 416) says expressly that he
had handled S. John’s Gospel in precisely the same way”.
—All this is significant in a high degree.
* Consider the following :—’Ev τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ
᾿ πάντα ἀναγινώσκομεν. ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πάλιν, ὅτι παρεδόθη ἡμῶν ὃ
Κύριος, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη, ὅτι ἀπέθανε τὺ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅτι ἐτάφη" τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν καὶ
τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων οὗ μετὰ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν ἀναγινώσκομεν, ὅτε καὶ
ἐγένοντο, καὶ ἀρχὴν ἔλαβον ;—Chrys. Opp. iii. 88.
Again :—ei γὰρ τότε ἤρξαντο 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, κοὶ τὰ ἐν ἑκάστῃ ἑορτῇ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῇ πάλιν ἀναγινώσκομεν, οὕτως
ἔδει καὶ τὰ θαύματα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν ἀποστολικῶν σημείων
ἀναγινώσκεσθαι.--- 114. p. 89 ν.
y Opp. ii. 454 B, D. * Opp. ii. 290 B. * Opp. ii. 357 B.
& “Meminit sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannem ex ordine lve-
finmam unc enlore tractare.” (Opp. iii. P. 11. 825 Prol.)
come πὰ. vepeny
a ὦ
x.] acquainted, known to Chrysostom and Epiphanius. 199
4. I proceed, however, to adduce a few distinct proofs that
the existing Lectionary of the great Eastern Church,—as it
is exhibited by Matthaei, by Scholz, and by Scrivener from
MSS. of the viii century,—and which is contained in Syriac
MSS. of the vit? and viit—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 18
only because I will never knowingly admit what may prove
to be untrustworthy materials into my foundations.
(a) “Every one is aware,” (says Chrysostom in a sermon
on our Saviour’s Baptism, preached at Antioch, a.v. 387,)
“that this is called the Festival of the Epiphany. Two
manifestations are thereby intended: concerning both of
which you have heard this day 5. Paul discourse in his Epistle
to Titus’? 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, 18 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‘, the affinities of which with the
rell known.
ay Ὁ (speaking of the Feasts of the Church)
says, that at the Nativity, a Star shewed that the W ORD
had become incarnate: at the “ Theophania” (our “ Epi-
phany”’) John cried, “ Behold the Lamb of Gop,” &c., and
a Voice from Heaven proclaimed Him at His Baptism. Ac-
cordingly, 8. Matth. ii. 1—12 is found to be the ancient
lection for Christmas Day: 8. Mark 1. 9—11 and 5. Matth.
iii. 1317 the lections for Epiphany. On the morrow, was
John i, 29—34.
ee 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
ς Εν ᾿ tion, p. 246.
3 Snap te B, pad ee Scrivener, wbi supra, P-
¢ Ed. Mubillon, p. 116.
75.
200 The proposed New Luglish Lectionary. [cuap.
liturgical arrangement of a yet carlier age "—After such an
announcement, it becumes a very striking circumstance that
Augustine also (4.p. 412) should be found to bear witness to
‘the prevalence of the same liturgical arrangement in the
African Church δ, 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 fis link also which bound the Church
of England to the practice of Primitive Christendom, has
been unhappily broken; ‘his note of Catholicity also has
been effaced».
Ἢ Opp. vol. iii. p. 85 B: 88.Α :-- τίνος ἕνεκεν of πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ πεντη-
κοστῇ τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν.---τίνος ἕνεκεν τὸ
βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς: πεντηκοστῆς ἀναγινώ-
σκεται.
© “ Anniversarid sollemnitate post passionem Domini nostis illum libram
recitari.”” Opp. iii. (P. ii.) p. 337 ὁ.
» I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my deliberate con-
viction that the Lectionary which, last year, was burried with such indceent
haste through Convocation,—passed in a half-empty House by the casting vole
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) foand
themselves further instructed “to suggest aud report whether any nad bel
alterations and amendments may be advantageously made in the sclection of
Lessons to be read at the time of Divine Service.”
Thereupon, these individuals,—(the Liturgical attainmente of nine-tentbe
of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself to characler*
truthfully,}—at once imposed upon themselves the duty of inventing 45 Laie
tirely new Lectionary for the Church of England. ᾿ :
So to mutilate the Word of Gop that it shall henceforth be quite impomitte
to understand a single Bible story, or discover the sequence of [ὶ single eom-
nected portion of narrative,—seems to have been the guidiog principle of tees
deliberations. With reckless eclecticism,—eutire forgetfulness οἵ the require
ments of the poor brother,—strange disregard for Catholic Tradi
abet we.
tion and the
+
x.] Great antquity of the Eustern Lectionary. 201
(4) The purely arbitrary arrangement, (as Mr. Scrivener
phrases it), by which the Book of Genesis, instead of the
Gospel, is appointed to be read! 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*.
(ὁ) It will be seen in the nest 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,
5. Luke’s account (ch. xxii. $8, 44) of our Lorn’s “ Agony
and bloody Sweat,” tmediately after 5. 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!;
which shews that the Lectionary system of the Eastern
Church in this respect is at least as old as the iv" century.
(f) The same two verses used to be /cft out on the Tuesday
after Sexagesima (τῇ ¥ τῆς τυροφάγου) for which day S. Luke
xxii, 89—xxiil. 1, is the appointed lection. And this ex-
plains why Cyril (4.p. 425) in his Homilies on S. Luke,
passes them by in silence ™.
But we can carry back the witness to the Lectionary prac-
tice of omitting these verses, at least a hundred years; for
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 impaticut,
—and the enemies of Divine Truth.
That the blume, the guilt lies at the door of our Bishops, is certain; but
the Cburch has no one but berself 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) 60 much as a word of andible dissatisfaction. Can it be
right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their lawful in-
heritance?... 1 am amazed and grieved beyond measure at what is taking
place. At least, (as on other occasions,) liberavi animam meam.
' A trace of this remains in the old Gallican Liturgy,—pp. 137-8.
* Bingham, XIV. iii 8. Opp. vol. vii. p. 791 B.
™ See Denn Payne Smith’s Translation, p. 868.
202 Great antiquity of the Eastern Lectionary. ἴσμπαν.
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 iiité century.
. (9) It will be found suggested in the next chapter (page
218) that the piercing of our Lorp’s side, (S. John xix. 34)
—thrust into Codd. B and 3 immediately after S. Matth.
xxvil. 49,—is probably indebted for its place in those ἐπὸ
MSS. to the Eastern Lectionary practice. If this sugges-
tion be well founded, a fresh proof is obtained that the Lec-
tionary of the East was fully established in the beginning
of the iv’ century. But see Appendix (Η).
(Δ) 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—6] )
should be there appointed to be read alone on the erent
of Good Friday. Chrysostom clearly alludes to this prac-
tice» ; which Augustine expressly states was also the prac-
tice in his own day®. Traces of the same method are
discoverable in the old Gallican Lectionary P,
(Ὁ 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*. Now §.John xi. 1—45 is the lection for the
antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries.
(4) 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 primi-
tive 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
5 κατὰ τὴν» μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα dvayweéonerat.—Chrye.
Opp. vii. 818 c.
6.1 Passio autem, quin uno die legitur, non solet legi nisi secundum Mat-
theum. Volueram aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes Evange-
listas etiam Passio legeretur. Factum est. Non audicrunt homines quod cun-
sueverant, et perturbati sunt.”— Opp. vol. v. p. 980 Ε.
» Ed. Matillon, pp. 130-5. “ Ep'ph. Opp. ii. 152-3.
x.] Great Festivals of the Church. 203
ancient than Cod. B or Cod. x, (which are referred to the
beginning of the iv‘ century), but it must be older than
Origen in the iii"! century, or the Vetus Itala and the Syriac
in the πὰ And thus it is demonstrated, (Ist) That fixed
Lessons were read in the Churches of the East in the im-
mediately 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 τὴ and vii'® 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 hare been established tery long before. It is
as when we read of three British Bishops attending the
Council at Arles, a.p. 314. The Church (we say) which
could send out those three Bishops must have been fully
organised 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.v. 386) to be the five follow-
ing:—(1) Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3) Pascha: (4)
Ascension: (5) Pentecost". Epiphanius, his contemporary,
(Bishop of Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the
same enumeration’, in a Homily on the Ascension‘. In
the Apostolical Constitutions, the same five Festivals are
enumerated*. Let me state a few Liturgical facts in con-
nexion with each of these.
τ Chrys. Opp. i. 497 Ὁ. . Epiph. Opp. ii. 285-6.
' The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the perusal of
both passages. Chrysystom declares that Christmas-Day is the greatest
of Festivals; eince all the others are but consequences of the Incarnation.
Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning 50-
lemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to the human body.
= Constt. Apostt. lib. viii. ς. 33. After the week of the Passion and the
week of (1) the Resurrection,—(2) Ascension-Day is mentioned i—@) Pente-
cost ;—(4) Nativity ;—(5) Epiphany. [Note this clear indication that this
viii’ Buok of the Constitutions was written or interpolated at a subsequent
date to that commonly assigned to the work.)
204 Conspicuous place occupied by (cnar.
It is plain that the preceding enumeration could not have
been made at any carlier period: for the Epiphany of our
Saviour and Ilis Nativity were originally but one Festivals,
Morcover, the circumstances are well known under which
Chrysostom (a.p. 886) announced to his Eastern auditory
that in conformity with what had been correctly ascertained
at Rome, the ancieut Festival was henceforth to be disin-
tegrated’. But this is not material to the present inquiry.
We know that, as a matter of fact, “the Epiphanies” (for
τὰ émgavia is the name of the Festival) became in con-
sequence distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5: our Lonn’s
' Baptism being the event chiefly commemorated on the latter |
anniversary *,—which used to be chiefly observed in honour
of His Birth*—Concerning the Lessons for Passion-tide and
Faster, as well as concerning those for the Ν᾽ ativity and Epi-
phany, something has been offered already ; to which may
be added that Iesychius, in the opening sentences of that
“Homily” which has already engaged so much of our atten-
tion 5, 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 ,—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 Fes-
tivals of the Church. Augustine, in a well-known passage,
hints that it may have been of Apostolical origin®; so ex-
y Bingham’s Origines, B. xx. c. iv. § 2.
* Chrys. Opp. ii. 355. (See the Monitum, p. 352.)
* Chrye. Opp. ii. 369 Ὁ. > Epiphaniue, Adv. Hacr. 11, ς. 353.
(Opp. i. 489 a.) © See above, pp. 58-9 and 67.
4 Opp. iii. 102 B. Sce Bingham on this entire subject, —B. xiv, c. iii.
¢ “Tila quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarom
orbe observantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis Conciliis
quorum in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, commendata atque statuta reti-
δον, Sicut quod Domini Passio, et Resurrectio, et Asccusio in cwlis, ut Adven-
— “ἀ
en tered
x.] S. Mark xvi. 9—20 in the Eastern Lectionary. 00
ceedingly 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. J 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 Verscs,—neither more nor
less,—of 8. 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.
(Ὁ) The same lection precisely was adopted among the
Syrians by the Melchite Churches ‘,—(the party, viz. which
maintained the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon ): and it
is found appointed also in the “ Evangeliarium Hierosolymi-
tanumf.” 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 «ven verses of S. Mark’s Gospel (ch. xvi. 14—20)
were read at the Liturgy®. Strange, that the self-same Gos-
pel should have been adopted at a remote age by some of
the Churches of the West!, 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
tus de calo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria sollemnitate cclebrantur.’—Ep. ad
Januariam, (Opp. ii. 124 B, 6).
€ “Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adscensionis Dni in caelos, ad mat.
eadem ac Ject. tert. Resurrect.; in Euchar. lect. sext. Resurrect.”—But “ Lect.
+ Resurrectionis” is “ Marc. xvi. 9—20:” “Lect. ¢,” “ Luc. xxiv. 36—53.”
—See Dean Payne Smith’s Catalogus Codd. Syrr. (1864) pp. 116, 127.
ε See above, p. 34, note (e). * R. Payne Smith’s Catal. p. 148.
1 Hieronyi Comes, (ed. Pamel. ii. 31.)—Bat 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.
206 5. Mark xvi. 9—20 read at Easter. [cnar.
esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian*), and
were read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the
year; as well as daily throughout Easter week.
(?) A rubricated copy of S. Mark’s Gospel in Syriac*, cer-
tainly older than a.p. 583, attests that S. Mark xvi. 9—20 was
the “‘Lection for the great First Day of the week,” (μεγάλη
xuptaxn, i.e. Easter Day). Other copies almost as ancient t
add that it was used “at the end of the Service at the dawn.”
(0) 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 Nicode-
mus!” §o also in the “ Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.”’
(/) Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark
xvi. 9—18 (or 9—20") was also read at Matins on Easter-
Tuesday. 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°.
Augustine says that in Africa also these concluding verses
of S. Mark’s Gospel used to be publicly read at Easter tide’.
The same verses (beginning with ver. 9) are indicated in the
oldest extant Lectionary of the Roman Church 4.
(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 pvpogdpos), July 22".
* Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά. Sce Scrivener’s Introduction, p. 72, and
R. P. Smith’s Catal. p.127. See by all means, Suicer’s Zhes. Eccl. i. 1229.
* Dr. Wright’s Catal. p. 70, N°, cx. (Addit. 14,464: Sol. 61 8.)
t Ibid. Ne. rxx (fol. 92 ὃ), and rxx01 (fol. 87 ὃ).
' “ Quae titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.” (ΒΕ. Payne Smith’s Catal:
p. 116.)—In the “Synaxariam” of Matthaei (Nov. Test. 1803, i. p. 731) it
is styled K. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίον. ™ Adler's Ν΄. Τ᾿ Verss. Syrr. p. 71.
" Dean Payne Smith’s Catal. p. 146. ° Ed. Mabillon, pp. 144-5.
» “ Resurrectio Domini nostri I.C. ex more legitor bis dicbus [Paschalibus]
ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.” (Opp. v. 977 ¢)—‘‘ Quoniam hoc moris et
«+ Marci Evangelium est quod modo, cum legeretur, audivimus.” “ Quid
ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?” And he subjoins a quotation frame
8. Mark xvi. 12.—Ibid. 997 ¥, 9988, “ _Hieron. Comes (ed. Pamel. ii, 27.)
* So Scrivener’s Introduction, p.75.—Little etress, however, is to be hid oo
Saint’s Day leesons. In Muttbaei's “ Menologium” (Nov. Test. 1808, i. p. 765),
I find that 8. Luke viii. 1—4, or else S, John xx. 11—18 was the appointed
Lection. Sec his note (6) at p. 750.
son ened he
x] Review of the last fourteen pages. 207
Hv 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 /cast as early as the
fourth century,—has been shewn to be a plain historical
fact. Cyril, at Jerusalem,—(and by implication, his name-
sake at Alexandria,)—Chrysostom, at Antioch and at Constun-
tinople,—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 essentiully one and the same in the West* 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 frora a period anterior to the age of
* 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 sarvive in the Church of the West, in me-
moriam, 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 CuRist in the Temple,) from the “ Meeting”
of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκενή, was called “ Parascere” in
the West. (Mub. Lif, 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 me have been
reminded) publicly announced the fact at Constantinople; and it was deter-
wined that in this matter East and West would walk by the same rule.
208 Documents alone fail us in this Inquiry. [cnar.
Eusebius,—tchich is the age of Codices B and ¥,—at least
admits of no controversy.
(2.) Next,—Documents of the τὴν century put us in pos-
session 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 Greck and in Syriact, have survived the
accidents of full a thousand years: and rubricated copies
of the Gospels carry us back three centuries further. The
entire agreement which is observed to prevail among these
several documents,—added to the fact that when tested by
the allusions incidentally made by Greek Fathers of the iv
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 believ-
ing, (in the absence of testimony of any sort to the con-
trary,) that the Lectionary we speak of differs in no es-
sential respect from that system of Lections with which’
the Church of the iv century was universally acquainted.
Nothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in
the course of the present inquiry than the fact, that docu-
ments alone are wanting to make that altogether demon-
strable 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 vii and even of the vit" 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.p. 464°. Should an Evangelium of similar date
* From Professor Wright’s Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Muscam
(1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is dated a.p. 824; the
oldest Nestorian, ap. 862; the oldest Malkite, ap. 1023. The respective
numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; 14,492; and 14,488.—See his Cafalogee,
Part 1. pp. 146, 178, 194.
* It is exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus (A.)
x.] These Verses constitute one mtegral Lection. 209
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. Ac-
ceptable 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 1ν and even in the
ii century. It is not enough to insist that inasmuch as
the Liturgical method of Christendom was at least fully
established in the East and in the West at the close of the
iv century, it therefore must have had its beginuing at
a far remoter period. Our two oldest Codices (B and w)
bear witness throughout to the corrupting influence of a svs-
tem which was evidently in full operation before the time
of Eusebius. And even this is not all. The readizes in
Origen, and of the earliest versions of the Gospel, (the oid
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 con-
viction 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,
80 consistent in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,
—“the Last TweLtveE 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
P
210 The ante-Nicene Testimony to these Verses [evay.
“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. Notso. Al
the Twele Verses in dispute are found in every known copy
of the venerable Lectionary of the East. Those same Tirelee
Verses,—neither more nor less,—are observed to constitute
one integral Leetion.
But even this is not all. The most important fact seems
to Le 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 tiro of the
Church’s greatest Festivals,—Easter and Ascension. A more
weighty or a more significant circumstance can scarcely be
imagined. To suppcse that a portion of Scripture singled
out for such extraordinary honour by the Church universal
is a spurious addition to the Gospel, is purcly 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, pluced 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 tmpos-
sible. 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 perivopa
de adulterd) 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 15
ἃ 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 evi-
dence which has now been sct forth so much in detail i
“TIave the Critics then, (we ask) utterly taken leave of their
x.] unequivocal and decisite. 211
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 genuine-
ness of these Verses, though it has been generally overlooked,
is the most. important of any: admitting, as it docs, of πὸ
evasion: being simply, as it is, decisive. I have now fully
explained the grounds of that assertion. I have sct the
Verses, which 1 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 Hastern Church in her corporate capacity, has
never been of their opinion. They may doubt. The anti-
Nicene Fithers at least never doubted. If “the last Twelve
Verses” of S. Mark were deserzed/y omitted from certain
Copies of his Gospel in the iv'* century, utterly incredible
is it that these same TwWELvE Verses should have been dis-
seminated, by their authority, throughout Christendom ;—
read, by their command, in all the Churches ;—sclected, 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.
Ρ
CHAPTER ΣΙ.
THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN
ANCIENT COPIES OF TIIE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND
ACCOUNTED FOR.
The Text of our fire oldest Uncials proved, by an induction of in-
stances, to have suffered depravation throughout by the operation of
the ancient Lectionary system of the Church (p. 217).—The omts-
ston 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).
Iam 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 re-
quires 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 him-
self, 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 *” 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 ivt® century (Codd. Β and x),
mutilated in thie precise way, testify to the truth of bis
statement.
2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Verses,
—neither more nor less,—anciently constituted an integral
* The reader is requested to refer back to p. 45, and the note there.—The
actual words of Eusebiue are given in Appendix (B).
CHAP. ΧΙ] These Twelve Verses, why anciently omitted, 243
Ecclesiastical Lection; which lection,—inasmuch 85 it is found
to have established itself in every part of Christendom at
the earlicst 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), desig-
nates the portion of Scripture in dispute by its technical
name,—xepadarov or περικοπή; (for so an Ecclesiastical lec-
tion 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 interdependint ? Will not the omission
of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark from certaiu
ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way occa-
sioned by the fact that those same twelve verses constituted an
integral Church Lection? How is it possible to avoid sus-
pecting that the phenomenon to which Eusebius invites
attention, (viz. that certain copies of 5. 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 fuct fo be explained, and in a word accounted for,—
by the circumstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark’s xvi
chapter, one ancient Lection eame fo an end, and another
ancient Lection began ?
Somewhat thus, (I venture to think,) must every unpre-
judiced 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. Iam 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
214 Copies of the Gospels uscd anciently to be (citar.
Evidence ; and I am much mistaken if even he will not be
observed to Iet 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 evi-
dence on which it immediately rests,—mieht no doubt be
exhibited within exceedingly narrow imils: Set down
abruptly, however, its weight and value would inevitably
fail to be recognised, even by those who already enjoy some
fuiliarity with these studies, Very few of the considera-
tions which I shall have to rehearse are in fact unknown
to Critics: yet is it evident that their bearing on the pro-
blem before us has hitherto altogether escaped their notice.
On the other hand, by one entirely a novice to this depart-
ment 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 pro-
mise shall not be tedious, and which I trust will not be
found altogether without interest either. If they are any-
where 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 Eccle-
siastical authority, publicly before the Congregation. In
process of time, as was natural, the sections so Fequifeed for
public use were collected into separate volumes: Lections
from the Gospels being written out in a Book which was
called “ Erangelistarium,” (evayyedtotdprov,)—from the Acts
and Epistles, in a book called “ Praxapostolus,” (πραξαπό-
στολο5). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and Syriac,
are yet extant in great numbers», and (I may remark in
® See the enumeration of Greek Service-Books in Scrivener’s Introduction,
ἄς. pp. 211—25. For the Syriac Lectionarics, see Dean Payne Smith’s, Ca/a-
logue, (1804) 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 rendercd.
δυυκιεςς
χιἢ adapted to Lectionary purposes, 215
passing) deserve a far greater amount of attention than has
hitherto been bestowed upon them‘.
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 viii
century, proves nothing. Codices in daily use, (like the
Bibles used in our Churches,) must of necessity have been
of exceptionally brief duration ; and Lectionarics, more even
than Biblical MSS. were liable to injury and decay.
IJ. But it is to be observed,—(and to explain this, is much
more to my present purpose,)—that besides transcribing the
Ecelesiustical lections into separate books, it became the
practice at a very early period fo adapt copies of the Gospels
to lectionary purposes. I suspect that this practice began in
the Churches of Syria; for Syriac copies of the Gospels (at
least of the vii century) abound, which have the Lections
more or less systematically rubricated in the Text’. There
is in the British Museum a copy of 5. Mark’s Gospel ac-
cording 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*. As a rule, in all later cursive Greek
MSS., (I mean those of the xiit* to the xv" 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 cluborately
inserted ; prefaced probably by a rubricated statement (not
always very easy to decipher) of the occasion erhen the en-
suing portion of Scripture was to be read. The ancients, to
a fur greater extent than ourselves‘, were accustomed,—
¢ “ Evangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut deeet
in usum crilicum conversi sunt.” Tischendorf, quoted by Scrivener, [Jnfro-
duction tv Cod, Augiensis,—80 pages which have been scpirately published
and are tell deserving of study,—p. 48,] who adds,—‘“ 1 cannot even conjec-
ture why an Evangelistarium should be thought of less value than another
MS. of the sane age.”’—See also Scrivener'’s Introduction, ἃς. p. 211.
4 eg. Addit. ALSS.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.
e Addit. MS.14,464. (See Dr. Wright’s Catalogue, p. 70.)
‘ add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our 1} 0 Κ
of C.P., (Introduction, p. 11), the following :— Gospels for Quinquagesima,
216 The Lectionary System has led to the (CHa.
(in fact, they made it @ rule,)—to prefix unauthorized for-
mult to their public Lections ; and these are sometimes found
to have established themselves 0 firmly, that at last they
became as it were ineradicable; and later copyists of the
fourfold Gospel are observed to introduce them unsuspi-
ciously into the inspired text®, All that belongs to this
subject deserves particular attention 3 because it is ‘dis which
‘explains not a few of the perturbations (so to express one-
self) which the text of the New Testament has experienced.
We are made to understand how, what was originally in-
tended only as a Ziturgical 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 un-
authorized into the text of Scripture,—at another, the omis-
sion of certain inspired words, to the mazifest 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 x" century,)—yet will persons engaged in the public
Services of Gov’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
2nd 8. after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity, Whitsunday, Ascension
Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p. 220), All Saints.
® Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke vii. 31) which introduce an
Ecclesiastical Lection (Friday in the iiit¢ week of 8. Luke,) inasmuch as the
words are found in no uncial MS., and are omitted besides by the Syriac, Vul-
gate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must needs be regarded as a liturgical inter-
polation.—The same is to be said of ὁ "Ingots 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, inthe Textus Receptus, in the
Vulgate and some copies of the vld Latin, to the fact tbat the Gospel for the
ix! Sunday after Pentecost egins at that place.—It will be kindred to the
present inquiry that I should point out that in S. Mark xvi. 9, ᾿Αναστάς ὁ
᾿Ιησοῦς 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 eame cause as the preceding. The
fuct is. singularly illustrated by the insertion of “6 ἴδ᾽ in Cod. 267
= Reg. 69,) rubro above the same contraction (for ὃ "Incous) iu the text.
ΧΙ. depravation of Codd. B, 3s, A, C, D. 217
the text of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail to
add, that by a judicious, and above all by an wnprejudiced
use of the materials at our disposal, it may, even at this
distance of time, in every such particular, be successfully
restored ἢ,
III. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances,
that even in the oldest copies in existence, I mean in Codd. 1},
sy 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 primd facie improbability will have been satisfuctorily
disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such
a disturbing force and depraving influence, af /ast as far
back as the beginning of the iv 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 conclu-
sion, 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 Lorn’s “Agony and Bloody
Sweat,” (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44,) are missing. The same two
verses arc absent also from a few other important MSS., as
well as from both the Egyptian versions ; but I desire to fus-
ten attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place
of Codex B. ‘ Confessedly erring,” I say ; for the genuine-
ness 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,) 5. Matth. xxvi.
39, and are read as a regular part of the lesson for the
Thursday in Holy Week‘. Of course they are also omitted
in the same Evangelistaria from the lesson for the Tuesday
» Not, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of regard-
ing 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 takivg it for granted that all the other MSS. in exist-
ence have entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive maukind. Until this
most uncritical method, this most unphilosophical theory, is unconditionally
abandoned, progress in this department of sacred Science is simply impossible.
εἰ See Matthuei’s note on S. Luke xxii. 43, (Nov. Test. ed. 1803.)
218 Tort of Codd. By, Δ, C, D depraved [cnar.
after Sexagesima, (τῇ y τῆς τυροφάγου, as the Easterns eall
that day,) when 5. Luke xxii. 89—xxiii. 1 used to be read
Morcover, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have
been accommodated to ecclesiastical use, the reader of S. Luke
xxib. ts invariably dirceted by a marginal note to leave out those
tivo verses, and to proceed per salfum from ver. 42 to ver. 45%,
What more obvious therefore than that the removal of the
paragraph from its proper place in 8S. Luke’s Gospel is to be
uttributed to nothing else but the Lectionary practice of the
primitive Church? Quite unreasonable is it to impute he-
retical motives, or to invent any other unsupported theory
while this plain solution of the difficulty is at hand. as
(2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. x, 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.
xxvil.49. Now, I only do not insist that this must needs
be the result of the singular Lectionary practice already de-
scribed 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
‘ 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 (1.6. the last words of ver. 42), is writ-
ten ὑπέρβα eis τὸ τῆς y. Then, at the end of ver. 44, is written—&ptou τῆς 7,
after which follows the text καὶ ἀναστὰς, &c.
In S. Matthew's Gospel, at chap. xxvi, which contains the Liturgical scction
for Thursday in Holy Week (γῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ €), my Codex has been
only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be ullowed to quote from Harl.
MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84, at the end of S. Matth.
xxvi. 89, reads as follows, immediately after the words,—éAA’ ὡς ov τῇ, x
(ic. ὑπάντα.) But in order to explain what is meant, the above rabricated
word and sign are repeated at foot, as follows :—>X ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκὰν
ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ρθ. ὥφθη δὲ αὐὑτῳ ἄγγελος : εἶτα στραφεὶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν, λέγε" καὶ
ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς padntds—which are the first words of 5. Matth. xxvi. 40.
Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after
S. Luke xxii. 42, Lesides the rubric already quoted, has the following: ἄρξον
τῆς μεγάλης ἐ. Then come the two famous verses (ver. 43, 44); and, after the
words ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς, the following rubric occurs: ὑπάντα eis τὸ
τῆς μεγάλης € Maré, 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 1, m, n.)
ewe, -
x1] by the operation of the Lectionary System. 219
πλευρὰν" καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα. (Chrysostom’s codex was
evidently vitiated in precisely the same way.) This interpola-
tion therefore may have resulted from the corrupting influence
of Tatian’s (so-called) “IIarmony.” See Appendix (1).
(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 xsiii. 34, our Lonn’s supplication on behalf of
Ilis murderers, (ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἔλεγε, Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς" ov
γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσι). They are not quite singular in 60
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 of abruptly, immediately before these very
words,—to recommence at ver. 44),
(4.) Note, that at ver. 32, the eighth “ Gospel of the Pas-
sion” begins,—which is the reason why Codd. B ands (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 ᾿]ησοῦ) at
the same juncture.
(If I du not here insist that the absence of the famous
pericopa de adultera (S. John vii. 538—viii. 11,) from 80
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. 1 am con-
vinced, 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 vill. 12, Leaving out the tielve verses in question.
Those verses, from the nature of their contents, (as Augus-
tine declares,) easily came to be viewed with dislike or sus-
picion. 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.)
1 See by all means Matthaei’s Nov. Test. (ed. 1803,) i. p. 491, and 492.
220 Text of Codd. By, A, αν depraved [cnar.
(.) The two oldest Codices in existence,—B and x,—
stand all but alone in omitting from 5. 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 ca8S8aor,—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™,) 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 8. Luke xvi. 19, Cod. D introduces the Parable of
Lazarus with the formula,—eizey 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 Jiturgical
introduction of a Church-lesson® which afterwards began εἶπεν
ὁ Κύριος τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην".
(7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv.
begin with the liturgical formula,—(it survives in our Book of
Common Prayer* to this very hour!)—x«al 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, 28: iv. 16 (and xix. 45): v. 1 and 17: vi. 87 (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,
™ See above, p. 75, note (b). ® For the 5th Sunday of 5. Luke.
° Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual accarsty,
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), ἄς. * 58. Philip and James.
x1.) by the operation of the Lectionary System. 22]
reads ἐγένετο S¢,—which is the reading of the Textus Recep-
tus. 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 Eccksiastival lection begins here?. 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 eure MSS. of the old Latin, in reading ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς at the
beginning of 8. Matth. xi. 20. That the words have no busi-
ness there, is universally admitted. So also is the cause of
their interpolation generally recognized. The Ecclesiastical
lection for Wednesday in the iv week after Pentecost begins
at that place; and begins with the formula,—év τῷ καίρῳ
ἐκείνῳ, ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Τησοῦς ὀνειδίζειν. 7
(10.) Similarly, in 5. Matth. xii. 9, xiii. 36, and xiv. 14,
Cod. C inserts ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ; ἃ reading which on all three occa-
sions 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 Eccle-
siastical lections begin at those places®, that the Holy Name
is i there.
" ee 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'. 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
aren and copies of the old Latin and Egyptian ver-
sions also read τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, (instead of αὐτοῦ,) in S. Mark
xiv. 8; which is only because a Church lessoit begins there.
P viz. σαββάτῳ @: i.e. the ἔχ Saturday in 5. Luke.—Note that Cod. A also
ads φγένετο δέ in ΒΞ. Lu, xi. 1. ; ;
: : Se eine in tbe v's, Thursday in the vit® week after Pentecost, ant
the vitit= Sunday after Pentecost. ; sein seibtegeaccaine
᾿ με: ς Luke aiii. 2: xxiv.36. 5. John i. 29 (ὁ ledvvns): 44s vie V4: xii,
2
222 Trzt of B, s, A, C, D [πὰρ
12. i
ro ) The same Cod. D is all but unique in leaving out
ig es verse in 5. Luke’s Gospel (xxiv. 12), i
A [ ᾽ oe ae ᾿ pee
: ie 8. Peter's visit to the Sepulchre of our risen ai
cre ees mention. It is only because that verse was
aimed both as the conclusion of the iv'
mee he | iv" and also as the
“ἢ οἵ ihe vw" Gospel of the Resurrection: so that fhe
iturgica note ἀρχή stands at the beginning,—7ér ;
end of it. Accordingly, D i bi < a
ee a y, D is kept in countenance here only
erusalem Lectionary and some copi c
{ : ζ pies of the old
ce a ssa : be thought of the editorial judgment
i regelles) encloses this verse withi
( in brackets;
"ὺ Tischendorf) rejects it from the tect altogether 3
ine " oe ᾿ and D are alone among MSS. in omit-
g the clause διελθὼν διὰ μέσον αὐτῶν" καὶ παρῆ ὕ
αρῆγεν οὕτως
sie: end of the 59th verse of 8. John viii, The ΕΝ
is to be accounted for by the fact that just there the Church-
lesson for T i
uesday in th week
y the v® week after Easter came fo.
an end,
(1) Again. It is not at all an unusual thing to find
in cursive MSS., at the end of S. Matth. viii. 13 (with se
ral vartetice), the spurious and _ tasteless appendix ae
ὑποστρέψας ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ ;
ὥρᾳ εὗρεν τὸν παῖδα ὑγιαίνοντα : a clause which δὴν Ἰὼ
ene solely to the practice of ending the lection for the
iv Sunday after Pentecost in that unauthorized manner *
But it is not only in cursive MSS. that these words ate
found. They are met with also in the Codex Sinaiticus (8):
a witness at once to the inveteracy of Liturgical usage ἴῃ
the iv" century of our τὰ, and to the éoeraptions which
the “ Codex omnium antiquissimus” will no doubt have i
herited from a yet older copy than itself. etre
—to which should xi Y
ed perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, 8 A, C (not D) read
προ a means Matthaei’s interesting note on the place,—Nor. Test.
ὕ δὰ 4 at i. p. 113-4. It should be mentioned that Cod. C (and four other
: τῶν Ε), together with the Philoxenian and Hierosolymitan versions, concur
in exhibiting the same spurious clause. Matthaei remarks, — “ Origenes
εἰς D) Hane Lares haud adeo diligenter recensena terminat eum in
νηθήτω σοι. ill not the disturbing Lectionary-practi i ; oul:
ficiently explain Origen’s omission ? aca a
x1] depraved by Litnryical fornatac. 2253
(15.1 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‘.
Thus when instead of καὶ ἀναβαίνων ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς “Iepo-
σόλυμα (8. Matth. xx. 17), Cod. B reads, (and, is almost
unique in reading,) Μέλλων δὲ ἀναβαίνειν ὁ ᾿Ι]ησοῦς ; 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 attr ἹἹεροσόλυμα : when, lastly, two of Field’s
MSS.*, and one of Matthaci’s, (and I dare say a great many
more, if the truth were known,) omit the words ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς
entirely :—irho sees not that the true disturbing force in
this place, from the πὰ century of our zra downwards, has
been thr Lectionary practice of the primitive Church ?—the
fact that there the lection for the Thursday after the vii
Sunday after Pentecost began P—And this may suffice.
IV. It has been proved then, in what gocs before, more
effectually even than in a preceding page“, not only that
Ecclesiastical Lections ‘corresponding with those indicated
in the “Synaxaria” were fully established in the imme-
diately post-Apostolic age, but ulso 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 tis is the only point
I am now concerned to establish), that ow fire oldest. Copics
of the Gospels,—-B and # as well as A, C and D,—exhibit
Ὁ 1 reeal S. John x. 20: xix. 13: xxi. 1 ;—but the attentive student will be
s almost indefinitely. In these and similar
edingly simple, the variations which the
—that when it is discovered that
y be sure that we have been put
alle to multiply such reference
places. while the phraseology is exce:
text exhibits ure 50 exceeding namerous,
ἃ Church Lesson begins in those places, we MA
in possession of the name of the disturbing force. ἢ
«Viz. K and M. (Field's Chrys. p- 251.)—How is it that the readings of
Carysxstow ave made s0 little account of? By Tregelles, for example, why
- ΩΣ
are they overluoked entirely ? * Sce above, p. 197 to 20}.
“5 USS. furnished with Liturgical directions. — [cnar.
not a few traces of the mischievous agency alluded to;
errors, and especially onissions, 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 regu-
larly indicated throughout, in the text or in the margin.
A familiar contraction, executed probably in vermillion Χ
,
ap, indicates the ‘‘beginning”’ (ἀρχή) of each lection : a corre-
sponding contraction = ᾿ ae τὲ, τεῦ, indicates its “end”
(τέλος.) Generally, these rubrical directions, (for they are
nothing else,) are inserted for convenience into the body of
the iext,—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 gene-
rally—(in order the better to attract his attention,)—in-
serted in the margin of the Codex, the note where he is to
leave off, (in order the more effectually to arrest his pro-
gress,) is as a rule introduced into the body of the text*. In
uncial MSS., however, all such symbols are not only rare,
but (what is much to be noted) they are exceedingly ir-
regular in their occurrence. Thus in Codex I, in the Bod-
leian Library, (a recently acquired uncial MS. of the Gos-
pels, written a.p. 844), there occurs no indication of the
“end” of a single lection in 8. Luke’s Gospel, until chap.
2 e.g. in Cod. Evan, 10 and 270.
x1] “reaoc” or “ΤΟ TEAOC” in Grech Evangelia, 225
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: —. 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:. In the
cllest uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even in
the Codex Beza, (vi century,) not a single liturgical direc-
tion cocral with the HS. is anywhere to be found.
VI. And yet, although the practice of thus indicating the
beginning and the end of a liturgical scction, docs not seem
to have come into general use until about the xii century ;
and although, previous to the ix” century, systematic litur-
gical directions are probably unknown’; the sd of them
must have been experienced by one standing up to read be-
fore the congregation, long before. The want of some re-
minder 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 in-
dications that, occasionally, teAoc (or τὸ TeAOC) was written
in the margin of Copies of the Gospels at an excecdingly
remote epoch. One memorable example of this practice is
supplied by the Codex Beze (D): where in S. Mark xiv. 41,
instead of ἀπέχει. ἦλθεν ἡ Spa,—we meet with the un-
intelligible aneyet To τελος Kat η wpa. Now, nothing
else has here happened but that a marginal note, designed
originally to indicate the end (τὸ teAoc) of the lesson for
1 In some cursive MSS. also, (which have been probably transcribed from
ancient originals), the same phenomenon is observed. Thus, in Evan. 265
(= Rog. 66), TEA only occurs, in S. Mark, at ix. 9 and 41]: xv. 32 and 41:
Ivi. 8. Apx ut xvi. 1. It ic striking to observe that 60 little were these eccle-
siasticul notes (embedded in the text) understood by the possessor of the MIS.,
that in the margin, over against ch. xv. 41, (where “TEN: stands ia the
text,) a somewhat later hand has written,— TE_Aos]} Tins] cp as). A simi-
lar liturgical note may be seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere. Cod. 25
(=Reg. 191), at the end of 5. Mark’s Gospel, has only two notes of liturgical
endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.
? Among the Syriac Evangelia, as explained above (p. 215), imstauces 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, yp. 46
—66,) such Rubrics have been only irregularly inserted in the oldest cupies.
Q
226 The mutilation accoimted for [ctar.
the third day of the iim? week of the Carnival, has lost its
way from the end of ver. 42, and got thrust into the text
of ver. 41,—1to the manifest destruction of the sense*, I find
D’s error here is shared (a) by the Peshito Syriac, (1) by
the old Latin, and (¢) by the Philoxenian: venerable part-
ners in error, truly! for the first two probably carry back
this false reading to the second century of our era; and 80,
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 (τὸ TeAOc) occurring at
8. Mark xvi. 8, (which ts “the end” of the Church-lection
for the ii? Sunday after Easter,) should have unhappily
suggested to some copyist,—xadrArypadgias quam vel Critice
Sacre vel rerum Lituryicarum peritior,—the notion that the
entire “Gospel according to S. Mark,’ came to on end at
verse 82. ... 1 see no more probable account of the matter,
I say, than this:—That the mutilation of the last chapter
of 5. Mark has resulted from the fact, that some very ancient
scribe misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note
Τέλος (or ΤΟ TeAoc) 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 acknow-
ledge 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,
5 Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have exhibited
the text thus,—ameyet TO TeAOC HAGEV H @pc.—which is the read-
ing of Cod. 13 (= Reg. 60.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order to im-
prove the sense, substituted for ἦλθεν the word «af, Note the scholion [Ason.
Fat.Jin Possinus, p. 321 i—dméyxet, τουτέστι, πετλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ.
Besides the said Cod. 18, the same reading is found in 47 and 64 (in the
Bodl.): 56 (at Line. Coll.) : 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.) : 69 (i.e. Cod. Leicestr.):
124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): c** (ie. Lambeth, 1177): 2P¢ (i.e. the 2nd
of Muralt’s 5. Petersburg Codd.) ; and Cod, 439 (i.c. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107).
All these cleven MSS. read ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος at S. Mark xiv. 41.
τσ
κ.
χι. of Codd. Band κι, αἱ 5. Murk xvi. 8. 227
fo 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 mul-
tiply copies of the Gospel so mutilated ; (critics or commen-
tators intent on nothing so much as reconciling.the apparent
discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives:)—appcars to
me not at all unlikely». 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 if should appear that their testimony
is at variance with that of the other Evang lists®.” (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 ἃ,
(1) First, because there really was no need to withhold more
than three,—at the utmost, five of them,—if ¢/is had been
the reason of the omission. (2) Next, because it would have
> So Scholz (i. 200) :—“ Pericopa hive casu quodam forsan exciderat a codice
quodam Alexandrino; unde defectus iste in alios libros transit. Nee mirum
hune defectum maltis, immo in certis regionibus plerisque scribis arrisisse :
confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione Marcum Matthxo repugnare. Cf.
maxime Eusebium ad Marinum,” δα.
© περιττὰ ἂν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγε-
λιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai, Bibl. P.P. Nova, vol. iv. p. 256.)
4 Alford’s N. T. vol. i. p. 433, (ed. 1868.)—And εο Tischendorf, (ed. 8va. pp.
406-7.) ‘“Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere mutilandum ad-
duxisse_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.)—Matthaci, a competent judge, seems to have thought dif-
ferently. ‘Una autem causa cur hic locus omitteretur fuit quod Marcus in
his repugnare ceteris videtur Evangelistis.” The general observation which
follows is true cnough :—“ Que ergo vel obscura, vel repugnantia, vel parom
decora quorundam opinione habebantur, ea olim ab Criticis et interpretibus
nomunullis vel sublata, vel in dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis sanctorum
Evangeliorum intelligitur.” (Nov. Test. 1788, vol. ii. p. 266.) Presently, (at
p. 270,)—“1n summa. Videtur unus et item alter ex interpretibus, qui hc
emteris evangeliis repugnare opivebatur, in dubiam vocassc. Hune deinde
plures temere secuti sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus.” Dr.
Davidson says the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more im-
portance,) Mr. Scrivener also. (Coll. Cod. Sin. p. xliv.)
a2
228 The USS. themselves are discorcred ({cuar.
been easicr far to introduce some critical correction of any
supposed discrepancy, than to swecp away the whole of the
unoffending context. (3) Lastly, because nothing clearly
was gained by causing the Gospel to end so abruptly that
evcry one must sce at a glance that it had been mutilated.
No. The omission having originated in a mistake, was per-
petuated for a brief period (let us suppose) only through
infirmity of judgment: or, (as I prefer to belicve), 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.
1X. When this solution of the problem first occurred to
me, (and it occurred to me long before I was aware of the
memorable reading to teAoc in the Codex Bez, already
adyerted to,) I reasoned with myself as follows :—But if the
mutilation of the second Gospel came about in this parti-
cular 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 8. 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 ἢ
X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every
copy of the Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris*; and
devoted seventy hours exactly, with unflagging delight, to
the task. The success of the experiment astonished me.
1. I began with ows Cod. 24 (= Reg. 178) of the Gospels:
turned to the last page of S. Mark: and beheld, in a Codex
of the xi Century wholly devoid of the Lectionary ap-
paratus which is sometimes found in MSS. of a similar
date‘, at fol. 104, the word + τελος + conspicuously written
by the original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as
41 have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M. de
Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.
' See above, p. 224.
ae eo
x1.] to confirit US in ΟΜ)" Οὐ) ἴον. 229
well as at the close of the Gospel. Jt ocenrred besides only
at ch. ix. 9, (the end of the lesson for the Transfiguration.)
And yet there are af least seventy occasions in the course
of 5. Mark’s Gospel where, in MSS. which have becn ac-
commodated 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 soli-
tary in a MS. of this date, are to be accounted for only in
one way. They infallibly represent a corresponding pecu-
liarity in some far more ancient document. The fact that
the word teAoc is here (a) set down unabbreviated, (U) 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 15. rendered certain by a circum-
stance which shall be specified at foot ®.
3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. 36. The
sign + tedoc +, (which occurs punctually at S. Mark xvi. 8
and again ut v. 20,) is found besides in S. Mark’s Gospel
only at chap. 1. 8!; at chap. xiv. 31; and (+ TeAoc τοὺ
κεφαλ)) at chap. xv. 24 ;—being on every occasion incor-
porated with the Text. Now, when it is perceived that in
the second and third of these places, teAoc 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 xi‘
century) if it was not actually transcribed from,—must at
least exhibit at second hand,—a far more ancient Codex *.
& Whereas in tbe course of S. Matthew’s Gospel, only two cxamples of
+ TEAOC + occur, (viz. at ch. xxvi. 35 and xxvii, 2,)—in the former case the
note hus entirely Jost its way in the process of transcription ; standing where
it has no business toappear. No Liturgical section ends thercabouts. 1 sus
pect that the transition (ὑπέρβασις) anciently made at ver. 39, was the thing
to which the scribe desired to call attention.
b —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 pro-
duced Reg. 178, (the codex described above) ; but it exhibits a anys text.
Bound up with it are some leaves of the LXX of about the viii" century.
' End of tho Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany.
k In 5. Matthew's Gospel, 1 could find TEAOC 60 written only twice,—viz.
230 Further confirmation fron MSS. [cuar.
4. Only once more.—Codex 22 (= Reg. 72) was never
prepared for Church purposes. A rough hand has indecd
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 5. Mark xvi. 8, how-
ever, we are presented (as before) with the solitary note
Ὁ 1edoc +—, incorporated with the text. Immediately after
which, (in writing of the same size,) comes a memorable
statement' in red letters. The whole stands thus:—
φοβοῦντο rap + tedoc+—
& ἕν Tict TON ἀντιγράφων,
ἕως ὧλε πληροῦται ὁ év
αγγελιςτής : ἐν πολλοῖς
δε. καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται +—
᾿Αναοστὰσ δὲ. πρωΐ πρώτη σαββάτων.
And then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of
which, the sign + tedoc + is again repeated,—which sign,
however, occurs nowhere elsein 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 teAoc not
only occurring in the wholly exceptional way of which wo
have already seen examples, but actually followed by the
admission that “In certain copies, the Evangelist proceeds no
Juther”” The two circumstances so brought together seem
exactly to bridge over the chasm between Codd. B and 8 on
the one hand,—and Codd. 24 and 36 on the other; and to
supply us with precisely the link of evidence which we re-
quire. For observe :—During the first six centuries of our
era, no single instance is known of a codex in which τελος
is written at the end of a Gospel. The subscription of
at ch. ii. 23 and xxvi. 75: in 8. Luke only once,—viz. at ch. viii. 39. These,
in all three instances, are the conclading verses of famous Lessons,—viz. the
Sunday after Christmas Day, the iii? Gospel of the Passion, the vi'> Sunday
of S. Luke. 7
! This has already come before us ina different connection : (see Pp. 119):
but it must needs be reproduced here; and this time, it shall be exhibited δα
faithfully as my motes permit.
peihare ον ween. ἘΞ.
ΝΌΟΝ TS
~
δ
of the accuracy of our opinion. 931
x1.]
S. Mark for instance is inrariably cither KATA MAPKON,—
(as in B and x): or else ΓὙΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ KATA MAPKON,—
(as in A and C, and the other older uncials) : werer τελος.
But here is a Scribe who first copies the liturgical note tedoc,
_and then volunteers the critical observation that ‘in some
copics of S. Mark’s Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no fur-
ther!” 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 ex-
planation 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 cu-
mulative force is unquestionably great,—which an examina-
tion of 99 MSS. of the Gospels brought to light ™. Enough
_ has been said already to shew,
(Ist.) That it must have been a customary thing, at
a very remote age, to write the word teAoc against S. Mark
xvi. 8, even when the same note was withheld from the
close of almost every other ecclesiastical lection in the
Gospel.
Qudly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt
πν (1) In Evan. 282 (written 4.D. 1176),—a codex which has been adapted to
Lectionary purposes,—the sign τεῦ and ¢, strange to say, is inserted into the
Lody of the Test, 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 eketched in ink,) was never prepared for Lectionary
purposes ; which makes it the more remarkable that, between ἐφ θοῦθητὸ γάρ
and ἀναστάς, should be found inserted into the body of the text, τὲ. in gold.
(3) 1 have often met with copies of &. Matthew’s, or of S. Luke’s, or of
S. John’s Gospel, unfurnisbed with a subscription in which τέλος occurs: us
scarcely ever have 1 scen 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 Tess
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 KS the Four
which is furnished with the subscription, + τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου τ
or simply + τέλος + .--- In Evan. 282, S. Matthew’s Gospel shares this
peculiarity with S. Mark’s.
232 Eusebius invited to [cttar.
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 5. Mark’s
Gospel which did come to an end at this very place.
that the Erangelist left off there, no one can believe™. Why,
then, did the Scribe leave off? But the Reader is already
in possession of the reason why. A eufficient explanation of
the difficulty has been elicited from the very MSS. then-
selves. 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 lelongs to
the lock ; is, in fact, the only instrument by which the chest
may lawfully be opened.
AI. 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 whaterer 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 defec-
tive from the 8th verse onwards some vestige may be dis-
coverable of the forgotten truth. Now, it has been already
fully shewn that it is a mistake to introduce into this discus-
sion any other name but that of Eusebius®. Do, then, the
terms in which Eusebius alludes to this matter lend us any
assistance P Let us have the original indictment read over
to us once more: and fhis time we are bound to listen to
every word of it with the utmost possible attention.
Now,
» “Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae filum ineptis-
sime abrupisse verbis—époSodvro ydp.”—Griesbach Comment. Crit. (ii. 197.)
So, in fact, uno ere all the Critics. ° Chap. V. See above, pp. 66-7.
Remees Gees Giese:
4
ΣΙ] resyllable his evidence. 233
1. A problem is proposed for solution. There are two
ways of solving it,” (Eusebius begins) t=O μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφά-
λαιον αὐτὸ] τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, sides a
μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτὴν φέρεσθαι pols avaeypa pels τοῦ ἴω
Μάρκον εὐαγγελίον' τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ ἯΙ ΛΟΣ
περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἱαπορίας οἱ τοῖς ἀρῆθες
κι Td. οἷς ἐπιλέγει, “ καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.
Ἔν τούτῳ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατά Mapxov
εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ TEAOZ?... . Let us halt here
for one moment.
2, Surcly, a new and unexpected light already begins ᾿
dawn upon this subject ! How is it that we paid 80 litt ο
attention before to the terms in which this ancicnt Father
dclivers his evidence, that we overlooked the import of an
expression of his which from the first must have struck us 88
peculiar, but which now we perceive to be of paramount sig-
“nificancy ? Eusebius is pointing out that one way for ἃ man
(so minded) to get rid of the apparent inconsistency between
S. Mark xvi. 9 and 8. Matth. xxvin. 1, would be for him a
‘reject the entire “ Ecclesiastical Leetion® in which S. me
xvi. 9 occurs, Any one adopting this course, (he procce 5)
and it is much to be noted that Eusebius 1s throughout dcli-
yering the imaginary sentiments of another,—not his own :)
Such an one (be says) “ will say that it is nof mef ecith inall
the copies of S. Mark's Gospel. The accurate copies, at a
events,’—and then follows an expression in which t is
ancient Critic is observed ingeniously to accommodate his
language to the phenomenon which he has to describe, τὴ as
covertly to insinuate something else. Eusebius employs .
idiom (it ig found elsewhere in his writings) ee y
colourless to have hitherto foiled to arouse attention ; bu
of which it is impossible to overlook the actual ce
and import, after all that has gone before. He Ἢ πὶ y
recognises the very phenomenon to achich I have been calling
P The English reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness a sl
refer back, und read from the last line of p.44 to the net ἀκ οἱ are
taking oat to sec, in two places, for “the end,’—‘‘ THE END «+++
lect : is given i dix (B).
tthe Greck is given in the Appen ; .
sha ee φάσκουσαν περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον
τὴν
αὐτό,}} suspect must be an explanatory gloss.
234 Eusebius observed to sanction our vier. (cHAP.
attention within the last two pages, and which I necd not
further insist upon or explain: viz. that the words To Teaoc
tccre in some very ancient (“ the accurate”) copies found writ-
ten 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 cvidence in a novel and unsuspected light. From the
τ days of Jerome, it has been customary to assume that Euse-
bius roundly states that, in his time almost all the Greek
copies were without our “last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark’s
Gospel’: whereas Eusebius really dors nowhere say so. Ho
expresses himsclf enigmatically, resorting to a somewhat un-
usual phrase* which perhaps admits of no exact English coun-
terpart: but what he says clearly amounts to no more than
this,—that “the accurate copies, at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,
circumscribe THE END (To TeAoc) 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
docs not say that there “is circumscribed the Gospel.” As
for the twelve verses which follow, he merely declares that
they were “not met eith in ail the copies ;᾽ 1.6. that some
copies did not contain them. But this, so far from being
τ: “This then is clear,” (is Dr. Tregelles’ comment,) “that the greater part
of the Greek copics bad not the verses in question.”—Printed Tert, p. 247.
* Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in this place of Eusebius consists
entircly in his introduction of the words τὸ τέλος. Had he merely said σὰ
ἀκριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον περιγράφει ἐν τοῖς λόγοις
κι το λέν νον Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις περιγέγραπται τὸ
κατὰ Μάρκον ebay éArov,—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:—‘O Κλήμης ... εἰς τὴν Kopddou
τελευτὴν περιγράφει τοὺς χρόνους, (Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. e. 6.)--Ἱππόλυτο: - - -
ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτορος ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει, (Ibid.
c. 22. 806 the note of Valcsius on the place.)—Or this, referred to by Ste-
phanus (in coce),—Evds δ᾽ ἔτι μνησθεὶς περιγράψω τὸν λόγον, (Pracp. Evang.
lib. vi. ς. 10, [p. 280 ς, ed. 1628].) But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for τὸ εἰαγ-
γέλιον wants explaining ; and can be only satisfactorily explained in onc way.
ΣΙ. Origen suspected, 235
a startling statement, is no more than what Codd. B and ws in
themselves are sufficient to establish. In other words, Euse-
bius, (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 con-
sistent testimony to the two following modest propositions ;
which, however, are not adduced by him as reasons for re-
jecting 5. Mark xvi. 9—20, but only as samples of «hat
might be urged by one desirous of shelving a difficulty sug-
gested by their contents ;—
(151) That from some ancient copies of S. Mark’s Gospel
these last Twelve Verses were away.
(2nd.) That in almost all the copics,—(whether mutilated
or not, he does not state,)—the words To τέλος 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 Euscbius until
I have recorded my own entire conviction that this Father is
no more an original authority here than Jerome, or Hesy-
chius, or Victor. Ie 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 the questions ‘for ever mooted by every body ¥.”
I suspect (with Matthaci, [swprd, p. 66,]) that Origen is the
true author of all this confusion. He certainly relates of him-
self that among his voluminous exegetical writings was a frea-
tise on S. Mark’s Gospel*. To Origen’s works, Eusebius, (his
* See above, ἢ. 66 and p. 67. " Πέρειμι νῦν... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν
αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα [sic ].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.
* “Consentit autem nobis ad tractatum quem fecimus de scripturé Marci.”
—Origen. (Opp. iii. 929 B.) Tractat.xxxv. in Afatth. [lowe the reference
to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the vigilance of Huct.J—This serves
to explain why Vietor 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), ‘Mpryévous πρόλογος εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ κατὰ
Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου, Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvi'* cent.) counterpart of the
preceding ; which bas been transcribed [xviii'® cent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.
Possevinus [Apparat, Sac. ii. 642,1 (quoted by Huet, Origeniana, p. 274)
states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a Commentary on s.
Mark’s Guspel by Origen. The source of this misstatement has been acutely
290 Origen suspected to be the author [cHar.
apologist and admirer,) is known to have habitually re-
sorted ; 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”. The more attentively the language of Euse-
bius 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 over-
looked. THe certainly does ot say, as Jerome, from his
loose translation of the passage *, evidently imagined,—‘‘ om-
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 Evan-
gelio Marcae, Stabat ad monumentum.”—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O.
Coxe, “Cat. Codd. MSS. C.C.C.;” [N°. 142, 4,]) as follows :—“ Origenis
presb. Hom. in istud Johannis, Maria stalat ad monumentum,” &. 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.
* 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 8. John’s death,) he
found Βηθανία written in Κι John i. 28. Moved by geographical considerations,
however, (as be explains,) for Βηθανία, Origen proposes to read Βηθαβαρά.
—Chrysostom (viii. 96D), after noticing the former reading, declares,—doa δὲ
τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει ἐν Βηθαβαρά φησιν: but he goes on to repro-
duce Origen’s reasoning ;—thereby betraying himself.—The author of the
Catena in BMatth. (Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reprodaces Chrysostom :—xp δὲ
γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρὰ περιέχει. And so, other
Scholia; unti) 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 5. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the true read-
ing of that place is not “60” but “100," --οὕτως γὰρ τὰ ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἢ
᾿Ωριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας BeBalwors. Accordingly, Eusebius also reads the place
in the same erroneous way.
® Jerome says of himself (Opp. vii. 537,)—“ Non digne Graca in Latinum
transfero: aut Gracos lege (si cjusdem linguac babes scientiam) aut si tantum
x1] of all the mischief —Hesychius. 237
nibus Graccin libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habeutibus :”
but only,—‘ non in omnibus Evangelit exremplaribus hoe capi-
fulun inceniri;? which is an entirely different thing. Euse-
bius adds,—‘ Accuratiora saltem exemplaria FINEM narra-
tionis secundum Marcum circumscribunt in verbis ἐφοβοῦντο
ydp;”—and, “ In hoe, ferein omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii
secundum Marcum, FINEM circumscribi.”—The point, how-
ever, of greatest interest is, that Euscbius 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. 1115 testimony is a mar-
yellous corroboration of what we learn from Cod. 22, (sce
above, p. 230,) and, rightly understood, docs 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 yap,” ἔχει τὸ Téaoc,
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 ex-
hibited the Liturgical hint, (το TEAOC,) conspicuously written
against 83. 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 differ-
ence,?—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 To Teaoc most inopportunely occurs at chap. xiv.
41¢,)—will have become the progenitor of several other
copies (as Codd. B and δ); and some of these, it is pretty
evident, were familiarly known to Eusebius.
Latinus es, ncli de gratuito munere judicare, et, ut vulgare proverbium est :
equi dentes inspicere donati.”
> See above. pp. 57-9: also Appendix (C), § 2. © See above, pp. 225-6.
238 The reason why τέλος is 80 often [ciap.
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
5. Mark xvi. 9—20. Every link in my argument will re-
main undisturbed, and the conclusion will be stil] preciscly
the same, whether the mistaken Criticism before us origi-
nated with another or with himself.
XII. But why, (it may reasonably be asked,)— Why should
there have been anything exceptional in the way of indi-
eating the end of this particular Lection? Why should
τέλος be so constantly found written after S. Mark xvi. 8 ἢ
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 y' τῶν pupo-
φόρων, 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 4,)
8. Mark xvi. 9—20. The severance, therefore, was at ver. 8.
(8) In certain of the Syrian Churches the liturgical section
for Easter Day was S. Mark xvi 2—8°¢: in the Churches of
the Jacobite, or Monophysite Christians, the Eucharistic
lesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1—8'. (4) The second matin
lesson of the Resurrection (xvi. 1—8) also ends,—and (δ)
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®. (6) That same third matin lesson of the Resurrec-
tion was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; 88
well in the Syrian® as in the Greek! Churches. (7) With
4 R. Payne Smith’s Catal. p. 116. © See Adler’s N. T. Verss.
Syrr., p. 70. * R. Payne Smith’s Catal. p. 146.
& See p. 206, also note (k). 4 R, Payne Smith’s Catal. p. 117.
' Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at 8. Mark
xvi. 8 (fol. 125), as follows :--- φοβοῦντο γάρ. [then, rudro,] τέλος τοῦ B’ ἑωθίνου,
καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μνροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then the text:]’Avaords #7.A.-+°
After ver. 20, (at fol. 136 of the same Codex) is found the following con-
cluding rubric :—1édos τοῦ Γ΄ ἑωθίνον εὐαγγελίου.
‘In the same place, (viz. at the end of 8, Mark’s Gospel,) is found in another
x1] Sound written after 8. Mark xvi. 8. 239
the Monophysite Christians, the lection “feriae tertiae in
albis, ad primam vesperam,” (i.e. for the Tuesday in Easter-
Week) was S. Mark xv. 87—xvi. 8: and (8) on the same
day, at Matins, ch. xvi. 9—18*.—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 (ὦ) “the last twelve” [ch. xvi. 9—20] verses. Can it
be deemed a strange thing that it should have been found
tulispoisable to mark, with altogether exceptional emphasis,
—to make it unmistakably plain,—whcere the former Lection
came to an end, and where the latter Lection began !?
XIII. One more circumstance, and but one, remains to
be adverted to in the way of evidence; and one more sug-
gestion 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
Jrequently 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.p. 360): in both of which MSS., the order
of the Gospels is (1) 8. Matthew, (2) 5. John, (3) 5. Luke,
(4) 5. Mark. This is in fact the usual Western order. Accord-
ingly it is thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. Vercel-
lensis (a), Veronensis (0), Palatinus (6), Brixianus (7) of the
old Latin version. But this order is not exclusircly Western.
It is found in Cod. 309. It is also observed in Matthaei’s
Codd. 13, 14, (which last is owr Evan. 256), at Moscow. And
Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following rubric :—réAos τοῦ τρίτου τοῦ
defivov, καὶ τοῦ ὕρθρον τῆς ἀναλήψεως. * R. Payne Smith’s Catal. p. 146.
' Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is written
continuously thronghout: and yet at 8. Mark xvi.9 a fresh paragraph is
observed to cominence. ᾿
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 Μάρκυν, and then
give the additional verses with a new superscription.” (Tregelles, Printed
Text, p. 253)... We are now in a position to wuderstand the Armenian evi-
dence, which has been described above, at p. 36, as well as to estimate its
exact value.
2.0 In some Codd, 5. Marl’s Gospel stands last. [enar,
in the same order Eusebius and others of the ancients™ 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 tho
order of the three antecedent Gospels is (1) 8. John, (2) 8.
Matthew, (3) 8. Luke* ; in the latter, (1) S.Jobn, (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 Lottom of the left hand page of a MS.» And
.we have but to suppose that in the case of one such Codex
the next leaf, which would have been the dast, was missing,
—(the very thing which has happened in respect of one of the
Cotlices at Moscow °)—and what else cou/d result when a
copyist reached the words,
E®OBOYNTO FAP. TO TEAOC
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 Wets-
tein, 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
™ 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.
* 1 believe this will be found to be the invariable order of the Gospels ἐπ
the Lectionaries.
» This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). Sce fol. 98 ὁ.
° Tallnde of course to Matthaei’s Cod. g. (Sce the note in his WV. 7. vol.
ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the Jearned critic was right in bis conjecture
“aliquot folia excidisse,” matters nothing. The left hand page ends at the
cords ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Now, if τέλος had followed, how obvious would base
been the inference that the Gospel itself of S. Mark’ had come to an end there!
Note, that in the Codex Bez (D), S. Mark’s Gospel ends at ver, 15: iu the
Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (a) proves to be imper-
fect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (2) from xiii, 24; Cod. Brix.(f) from xiv. 70.
x1] The sum of the matter, 241
lust haf of Cod. 63,—on which the last verse of S. John’s
Gospel was demonstrably once written,—has been lost 9.
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 τὸ τέλος written after
ver. 8: he assumed that it was the Subscription, or at least
that it denoted “the End,” of the Goywl.
2. Whether certain ancient Critics, because it was acccpt-
able to them, were not found to promote this mistake,—
it is uscless to inquire. That there may have arisen some
old harmonizer of the Gospels, who, (in the words of Euse-
bius,) was disposed to ‘regard what followed as super-
fluous from its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of
the other Evangelists" ;’—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 «ould hare 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 10 τελος at ver. 8, so near the end of
the Gospel, would be quite enough to occasion it, And we
have scen that in very ancient times the word τέλος fre-
quently 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 ili™ cen-
tury, because he read the words τὸ τελος at 5. Mark xvi. 8,
can have been beguiled thereby into the supposition that
those words indicated “the End” of S. Mari’s Gospel ?—
Shall I be told that, even if one can have so entirely over-
looked the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer it
to insinuate itself into his text‘, it is névartlidlers so im-
4 Scrivener, Cull. Cod. Sin. p. lix. See p. 227. * See above, p. 226.
R
242 Modern Critics caught in the old trap. [cttar. xa.
probable 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, mis-
nalerstood 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 ninetcenth, delibe-
rately 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 mis-
led 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, aud therefore
fully on their guard against delusiont? 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 + tédos,”—(for which they are so careful
to refer us to “Cod. 22,”)—is an indication that there, by
rights, comes the “ Env”? of the Gospel according to S. Mark.
They have failed to perceive that τέλος 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.
* So Scholz :—* hic [sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,” &e.
—Tischendorf,—“ Testantur scholia . .. Bfarci Evangelium ... versu 9 fisem
habuisse. Ita, ut de 80 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22 habet: epoBourre
yep + redos. ev τισι," &c.—Tregelles appeals to copies, “ sometimes with τέλη
interposed after ver. 8,” (p. 254.)—Mai (iv. 256) in the same epirit remarks,—
“Codex Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octavom®
versum abet quidem vorem τέλος, ut alibi interdum observatum fuit ; anf
tamen ibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum progredientibor
ecctionum notis.”
CHAPTER XII.
GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF
THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE
SUBJECT.
This discussion narrowed toa single tssue (p. 244).—That 5. Marl’s
Gospel was imperfect from the very first, a thing altogether incre-
dible (p. 246):—But that at some very remote period Copics hare
suffered mutilation, a supposition probable in the highest degree
(p. 248).— Consequences of this admission (ρ. 252). ---- Parting
words (p. 254.)
Tus Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem
was fully explained at the outset*. All the known evidence
has since been produced’, every Witness examined ἡ, Counsel
has been heard on both sides. A just Sentence will assuredly
follow. But it may not be improper that I should in con-
clusion 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
iv'" century, there must have existed Copies of the Gos-
pels in which the last chapter of S. Mark extended no
further than ver. 8, the Question arises,—Hov is this phe-
nomenon 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 unsus-
pected way. ᾿
But tho most recent Editors of the text of the New Testa-
ment, declinivg to entertain so much as the possibility that
certain copies of the second Gospel had experienced mutila-
tion in very carly times in respect of these Twelve concluding
» Chap. 1V, VI-X.
n 2
* Chap. 1. and UI. * Chap. 111, V,and ὙΠ].
244 Unrcasonablencss of assuming that S. Mark — [cnar.
Verses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather with con-
jectures 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 pheno-
menon than that the Evangelist himself put forth a Gospel
ahich (for some unexplained reason) feruiiniated abruptly at
the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (chap. xvi. 8),—they have un-
"happily 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 reason-
able:
First,—That the Gospel according to 5. 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. καὶ are the alove
surviving Manuscript witnesses? ... or,
Secondly,—That certain copies of 5. Mark’s Gospel having
suffered mutilation in respect of their Twelve concluding
Verses in the post-Apostolic age, Cod. B and Cod. » 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 4:—(?)
to introduce after ver. 8, the subscription “ΚΑΤᾺ MAPKON*:”
—(ec) to shut up verses 9—20 within brackets’. Regarding
them as ‘no integral part of the Gospel #,”—“ as an au-
thentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote
down ",”” —a “ remarkable Fragment,” “placed as a com-
pletion of the Gospel in very early times! ;”—they consider
themselves at liberty to go on to suggest that “the Evan-
gelist may have been interrupted in his work :” at any rate,
4 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.
© Tregelles, Alford. ' Alford.
& “He non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.”—See tbe
rest of Tischendort’s verdict, supra, p.10; and opposite, p. 245.
» Tregelles’ Account of the Printed Tezt, p. 259.
' Alford’s New Test. vol. i. Proleg. [p. 38} and p. 437.
ΧΙ. left his Gospel in an unfinished state. 245
that ‘‘something may have occurred, (as the death of
5. Peter,) to cause him to leave it unfinished *«.” But “the
most probable supposition” (we are assured) “is, that the
last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away"?
We listen with astonishment; contenting ourselves with
modestly suggesting that surely it will be time to conjecture
why ὅδ. Mark’s Gospel was left by its Divinely inspired
Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has been esta-
blished that it probably was so left. In the meantime, we
request to be furnished with some evidence of that fuct.
But not a particle of Evidence is fortheoming. It is not
even pretended that any such evidence exists. Instead, we
are mugisterially informed by “the first Biblical Critic in
Europe,” —(I desire to speak of him with gratitude and re-
spect, but S. Mark’s Gospel is a vast deal more precious to
me than Dr. Tischendorf’s reputation,)—that “a healthy picty
reclaims against the endeavours of those iho are for palming
of'as Mark’s what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn [where ?]
to have known nothing at all about ™.”’ In the meanwhile, it
is assumed to be a more reasonable supposition,—(a) That
S. Mark published an imperfect Gospel; and that the Twelve
Verses with which his Gospel concludes were the fabrica-
tion of a subsequent age; than,—(8) That some ancient
Scribe having with design or by accident left out these
Twelve concluding Verses, copies of the second Gospel so
mutilated become multiplied, and in the beginning of the
iv" 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.p. 185—254)
complains of the licentious tampering with the Scriptures
which prevailed in his day. ‘“ Men add to them,” (he says)
“or /eare out,—as seems good to themselves*.” Dionysius
of Corinth, yet earlier, (Α.Ὁ. 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 Gop
κ So Norton, Tregelles, and others.
This suggestion, which was originally Griesbach’s, is found in Alford’s Neto
Test. vol. i. p. 433, (ed. 1868.)—See above, p. 12. The italics are not mine.
™ Vide supra, p. 10. = Opp. vol. iii. p. 671.
240 Unreasonableness of assuming that S. Mark fcnar.
in the same manner°, Trenxus, his contemporary, (living
within seventy years of S. John’s death,) complains of a cor-
rupted Text’. We are able to go back yet half a century,
and the depravations of Holy Writ become avowed and
flagrant’. A competent authority has declared it “no
less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the torat
corruptions to which the New Testament has been ever gub-
Jected originated within a hundred years after it was com-
posed τ. Above all, it is demonstrable that Cod. B and
Cod. 8 abound in unwarrantable omissions very like the pre-
sent*; 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 ob-
served to appeal with triumphant complacency, has been
alrealy made the subject of distinct investigation. I am
much mistaken if it has not been shewn in my VII" chapter,
that the omission of the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ from Ephes. i. 1,
is just as unauthorized,—quite as serious ἃ 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,
(Ist.) It is plain from internal considerations that the
improbability of the hypothesis is excessive 3 “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 pre-
sumption of their genuineness.” No fabricator of a supple-
ment to S. Mark’s Gospel would have ventured on intro-
ducing so many minute seeming discrepancies: and cer-
° Eusebius Eccl. Hist. iv. 28. Consider Rev. xxii 18, 19.
» Note the remarkable adjuration of Ireneus, Opp. i. 821, preserved by Euse-
bius, Zid. v. 20.—See Scrivener’s Introduction, p. 353-4. Consider the attesta-
tions at the end of the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom, PP. App. ii. 614-6.
4 Allusion is made to the Gnostics Busilides and Valentinus ; especially to
the work of Marcion.
γ΄ Scrivener’s Introduction, pp.881—391, * Cee Chap. VI.
=
xu] kft his Gospel in an unfinished state. 947
tainly “his contemporarics 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 *. 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'. Were this a de-
servedly 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 Twelre Verses exhibit would be considerably
fecer than those which attach to the last twelve verses of
‘any of the other three Gospels.
(8rd.) 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®. 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 Pres-
byter,—Justin Martyr, or Hegesippus, or one of the “ Seni-
ores apud Irenzum,’—Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian,
or Hippolytus,—if not Origen, yet at least Eusebius,—if not
* Chap. 1X. ; :
t “ Ad defendendum hbunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus Codicum con-
sensus in vocabnlis et loquendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis παρεγγράπτοι»,
etiam multo brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, eo plures quoque Sunt varie:
tates. Comparetur modo Act. xv. 18, Matth. viii. 13, et loca similia.”—
C. F. Matthaei’s Nov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. 271.
5" Spenking of the abrupt termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8, Dr.
Tregellcs asks,—‘ Would this have been transmitted as 8 fact by good uli
nesses, if there bad not been real grounds for regarding it to be ue Ῥ--
(Printed Text, p. 351.) Certainly not, we answer. But there are the ‘good
witnesses” of the “transmitted fact?” There is not so much as one.
248 = Reasonablencss of supposing that certain copics [car
Eusebius, yet certainly Jerome,—some early Writer, 1 aay
must ccrfainiy have recorded the tradition that 5. Mark's
Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired author αν
an incomplete or unfinished work. The silence of the
Ancients, joined to the inherent improbability of the conjcc
ture,—(that silence so profound, this improbability so ake ἣ
—is enough, I submit, in the entire absence of Evidence on the
other side, to establish the rery contradictory of the alternative
which recent Critics are so strenuous in recommending to
our acceptance.
(4th.) But on the contrary. We have indirect yet convine-
, ing testimony that the oldest copies of all did contain the
Verses in question*: 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 recog-
nised termination of S. Mark’s Gospel’.
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 whaterer, no record of any sort, until
the beginning of the fourth century.
(i.) And the facts which now meet us on the very thresh-
old, are in a manner conclusive: for if Papias and Justin
Martyr [a.p. 150] do not refer to, yet certainly Irenzus
[A.D. 185] and Hippolytus [a.p. 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 18
* See above, pp. 86—90. ’ See Chap. III.
—a~- «»
a
xij of 8. Mark’s Gospel suffered mutilation. 249
earlicr by full a hundred years than the carliest record that
the verses in question were ever absent from ancient MSS.
At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as Cyprian relates,)
[a.p. 256] Vinceatius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven
African Bishops there assembled, quoted the 17th verse in
the presence of the Council.
(1) Nor is this 115. Besides the Gothic and Egyptian
versions in the iv century ; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alex-
andria, Jerome, and Augustine in the v'¥, to say nothing of
Codices A and C ;—-the Lectionary of the Church universal,
probably from the sccond century of our era, is found to bestow
its solemn and emphatic sanction on crery one of these Twelve
Verses. They are met with i every MS. of the Gospels in
existence, uncial and cursive,—except two”; they are found 7
every Version ; and are contained besides in every known Lee-
tionary, where they are appointed to be read at Easter and
on Ascension Day”.
(iii.) Early in the iv century, however, we are encoun-
tered by a famous place in the writings of Eusebius [A.D.
300—340], who, (as I have elsewhere explained‘,) is the on/y
Father who delivers any independent testimony on this sub-
ject at all What he says has been strangely misrepre-
sented. Itis simply as follows :—
(a) One, “ Marinus,” is introduced guoting this part of
8. Mark’s Gospel without suspicion, and enquiring, How its
opening statement is to be reconciled with 5. 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 3. 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
depowérwv,)—he adopts the hypothesis that the text is genuine.
Kai δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, he
begins: and he enters at once without hesitation on an ela-
2 See above, Chap. UL and IV.
« “Habent periocham hance Codices Greci, δὶ unum B excipias, omnes.”
(Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p. 70.
> Sec above, Chap. X. * See above, pp- 66—68.
250 Reasonableness of supposing that certain copies [πὰρ
borate discussion to shew how the tio places may be recon-
ciled4, 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®. On the other hand, the ex-
press statement of Victor of Antioch [a.p. 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!,—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 judg-
ment the original Test of 5. Mark was without them. Ifhe
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.
(0) 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 ob-
served to have rapidly propagated itself in the congenial soil
of the v'" century. And even if it could be shewn that Euse-
bius 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 bis friend
4 See above, pp. 41 to 61: also Appendix (B).
¢ 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.
Γ See above, p.64-5: aleo Appendix (E).
--- “οὐ...
Ae
x11] of S. Marl’s Gospr? suffered mutilation. 251
Pamphilus at Cesarea, to which the ancients habitually re-
ferred, recognised it as genuine®,—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 5. Mark in the matilated condition of Cod. B or
Cod. s. His words were translated by Jerome"; adopted by
Hesychius'; referred to by Victor); reproduced “ with a dif-
ference” in more than one ancient scholion*. But they are
found to have died away into a very faint echo when Eu-
thymius Zigabenus' rehearsed them for the last time in his
Commentary on the Gospels, a.p. 1116. Exaggerated and
misunderstood, behold them resuscitated after an interval: of
seven centuries by Griesbach, and Tischendorf, and Tre-
gelles and the rest: again destined to fall into ἃ conge-
nial, though very differently prepared soil; aud again des-
tined (I venture to predict) to die out and soon to be for-
gotten for ever.
(iv.) After all that has gone before, our two oldest Codices
(Cod. B and Cod. s) which alone witness to the truth of
Eusebius’ testimony as to the state of certain copies of the
Gospels in his own day, need not detain us long. They are
thought to be as old as the iv century: they are certainly
without the concluding section of S. Mark’s Gospel. But
it may not be forgotten that both Codices alike are dis-
figured throughout by errors, interpolations and omissions
without number; that their testimony is continually di-
vergent; and that it often happens that where they both
agree they are both demonstrably in error™. Moreover, it is
a highly significant circumstance that the Vatican Codex
(B), which is the more ancient of the two, exhibits a eacant
column at the end of 5. Mark’s Gospel,—the only cacant 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": while the
1 P. 57-9.
ΤΡ, 68-9.
s P.GS and note (d); p.119 and note (m). ΒΡ, 51-7.
ἘΡ, 59—66. ΚΡ. 114—125.
= Chop. VI. " See above, pp. 86 to 88.
252 The practical issue.— What results from ({cnar.
original Scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus (3) is declared by
Tischendorf to have actually omitted the concluding verse of
S. John’s Gosyel,—in which unenviable peculiarity it stands
alone among MSS.°.
(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 copics
of S. Mark's Gospel in the beginning of the fourth century ;
of which, Cod. B and Cod. 8 are the two solitary surviving
specimens,— Eusebius, the one historical witness. We have
sto decide, I mean, between the evidence for this Jact,—(namely,
that within the first two centuries and a-half of our era, the
Gospel according to 8. 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 thoaght to
have written them?,)—I submit that it is simply irrational
to persist in asseverating that the reason why those verses
are not found in our two Codexes of the iv 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 evi-
dence of MSS., of Versions, of Fathers, (Versions and
Fathers much older than the iv century:) is rendered
in the highest degree improbable by every internal, every
° Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejects ¢Aat 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,—baving (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. 8. Thompson, Chaplain at
8. Petersburg,) obtained a photograph of the last page of S. John’s Gospel,—!
must be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr. Tiscben-
dorf’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. » See Chap. IX.
wna
----.
-τ τὰν
ae:
xu] the ve-establishment of S. Mark xvi, 9—20. 253
external consideration: is condemned by the deliberate gurly-
nicut oF the universal Church,—which, in its corporate capa-
city, for eighteen hundred years, in all places, has not only
eolemuly accepted the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gos-
pel as genuine, but has even singled them out for special
honour 9.
(II.) Let it be asked in conclusion,—(for this prolonged
discussion is now happily at an end,)—Are any inconve-
niences 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 reason-
ably 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 incon-
veniences whatever likely to supervene ?
No reasons whatever are assignable, I reply; neither are
there avy inconvenient consequences of any sort to be anti-
cipated,—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. s must be henceforth allowed
to be ὧι 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
δι Mark xvi. 9—20, will have to undergo serious revision :
in every important particular, will have to be uncondition-
ally withdrawn.
(8rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Tes-
tament. these “Twelve Verses” will have to be restored to
their rightful honours: never more appearing disfigured
with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished from their
4 Chapter X.
254 Parting Words. [cnar. xin,
context, or molested "with notes of suspicion. On the cun-
trary. A few words of caution against the resuscitation
of what has been proved to be a “vulgar error,” will bave
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 wil-
fully 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 con-
fidently 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.”
TO TEAOC.
“a mses
APPENDIX.
CONTENTS.
(A.) On the Importance of attending to Patristic Citations
of Scripture.—TZhe correct Tert of S. Luxe ii. 14, esta-
blished .
(B.) Evsesrcs ‘ad Marinum” concerning the reconcile-
ment of S. Mark xvi. 9 with 5. Matthew xxviii. 1
(C.) Proof that Hesycurvs ts a Copyist only in that he says
concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel aS ἢ
(D.) Some account of Victor or Anxtiocn’s Commentary on
S. Mark's Gospel ; together with a descriptive enumeration
of MSS. which contain Victor's Work
(E.) Zert 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” i Ὁ, τῇ
(F.) On the relative antiquity of the Copex Varicanus ee
and the Copex S1xarricus (js) τ ‘
(G.) On the (so-called) “ Axmontan” Sections and on the
Evsepsian Canons: a Dissertation, With some account
of the Tables of Reference re ates in Greek
and Syriac MSS. ὃ ὡς ἢ
(H.) On the Interpolation of the Text of Codex B and
Codex ss, at S. Matthew xxvii. 48 ο» 49.
Postsckirr .
DT'exror,
GENERAL IxpEx
p. 257
p. 265
p. 267
p. 269
p. 288
p. 291
p. 295
p. 313
p. 319
p. 325
ewe
po
ieee
APPENDIX (A).
On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture.—-
The correct Text of 5. Luxe ii. 14, established.
(Referred to at p, 22.)
In Chapter ITI. the importance of attending to: Patristic
citations of Scripture bas been largely insisted upon. The
controverted reading of S. Luke ii. 14 supplies an apt illus-
tration of the position there maintained, viz. that this sub-
ject 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, Tregellcs
and Alford present us with ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. Their
authority for this reading is the conséntient testimony of
THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. wuicn contain ὅδ. Luke ii. 14 (viz.
B, x, A, D): THE Latin Versions generally (“in homi-
nibus bonae voluntatis”) ; and THE Gotruic. Against these are
to be set, Cop. A (in the Hymn at the end of the Psalms) ;
ALL THE OTHER Unciats; together with EVERY KNOWN CUR-
sive MS.; and EVERY OTHER ANCIENT VERSION in existence.
So far, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposcd
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
adrocates of the popular Theory ask,—But «ἦν 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, exery other MS. and erery other
Version in the world should read εὐδοκία, if εὐδοκία be wrong ὃ
But the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited.
I proceed to set it forth in detail.
e
258 Testimony of Early Fathers to [are,
It is found then, that whereas εὐδοκίας is read by none,
εὐδοκία is read by all the following Fathers :-—
(1) OnricEeN, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 p:
ii. T14 Bw: iv. 15 B,K—a.p. 240.]
(2) The ApostoLicaL Constirutions, twice, [vil. 47: viii.
12 ad fin.,—IIT" cent.)
(9) Mrruoptvus, [ Galland. iii. 809 B,—a.p. 290.)
(4) Eusenius, twice, [Dem. Ev. 163 c: 342 B,—a.p. 320.)
(5) APHRAATES THE Persian, (for whose name [«uprd,
pp. 26-7] that of ‘Jacobus of Nisibis’ has been erroneously
substituted), twice, [i. 180 and 385,—a.p. 337.]
(0) Titus oF Bosrra, twice, [in /oc., but especially in
S. Luc. xix. 29 (Cramer, ii. 141, dine 20),—a.p. 350.]
(7) Grecory oF Nazianzus, [i. 845 c,—a.p. 360.]
(8) Cyriv oF JERusALEN, [A.D, 370], as will be found ex-
plained below.
(9) Erirnasius, [i. 154 p,—a.v. 375.]
(10) Curysosro, four times, [vii.311 B: 674 c: viii. poe
xi. 874 B expressly,—a.v. 400.]
(11) Cyriz or ALEXANDRIA, in three places, [Comm. on
5. Luke, pp. 12 and 16. Also Opp. ii. 593 4: vi. 398 ¢,—
A.D. 420.
(12) TuEoporer, [tx Coloss. i. 20,—a.p. 430.]
(13) THEopotus oF ANcyrA, [Galland. x. 446 B,—a.D. 430.)
(14) Procius, Abp. of Constantinople, [G@al/. x. 629 ἌΡ:
A.D. 434.]
To which may be added the evidence of
(15) Cosmas Inpicopieustes, four times repeated, [Coll.
Nor. PP., (Montfaucon,) ii. 152 a, 160 p, 247 £, 269 c,—
A.D. 886.
(16) Eutocius, Abp. of Alexandria, (Gall, xii. 308 E,—
A.D. 581.)
(17) Anpreas of Crete, twice, [Gall. xiii. 100 », 123¢,
—a.D. 635.)
Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers
of the Church® all concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn
as our own Textus Receptus exhibits it,—(viz. ἐν ἀνθρώποις
edSoxia,)—who does not see that the four oldest uncial autho-
» Pscudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo- Basil, Patricius, and Marius Mer-
cator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.
ra the true Reading of 8. Luke ii. 14. 259
rities for εὐδοκίας are hopelessly outvoted by authorities
yet older than themsclves? Here is, to all intents and
purposes, ἃ record of what was once found in fico Codices of
the iiir? century; in nine of the iv’; in three of the vt ;—
added to the testimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the
Ethiopic, and the Armenian versions. In this instance there-
fore the evidence of Antiquity is even overwhelming.
Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form
in which ¢he Churches of the East preserved the Angelic
Hymn in their private, as well as their solemn public Devo-
tions. Take it, from a document of the v'" century :—
ΔΟΞΑ EN TYICTOIC C€W
ΚΑΊ ἐΠῚ THC €1PHNH
ΕΝ ANOP@MOIC ETAOKIA?.
But the text of this Hymn, as a Liturgical document,
at a yet carlier period is unequivocally established by the
combined testimony of the Apostolical Constitutions (already
quoted,) and of Chrysostom, who says expressly :--- ἪΕὐχαρισ-
τοῦντες λέγομεν, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη,
ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. [Ορ. xi. 347 8.) Now this incon-
testably proves that the Church’s established way of reciting the
Angelic Hymn in the iv 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 ante-
rior to a.p. 400, which have long since perished.
To insist upon this, however, is not at all my pre-
sent purpose. About the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14,
(which is not the reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tre-
gelles, 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 achich contain S. Luke ii. 14
(B, 8, A, ἢ, a.p. 820—520), and two of the oldest Ver-
sions, conspire in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn incorrectly.
(2) That we are indebted to fourteen of the Fathers (a.v.
> Codex Α,-- ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of the Psalms.
8 2
200 The Evidence of Ircneus, of Origen, [arr
240—434), and to the rest of the ancient Versions, for the
true reading of that memorable place of Scripture.
II. Aguinst all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,—
1. Inenzus 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, Irenzus, having quoted
the place in conformity with the Vulgate reading (iii. ς, x.
§ 41,—“ Gloria in excelsis Deo ct in terra pax hominibus bonar
roluntatis,”) presently adds,—“In eo quod dicuut, Gloria in
altissimis Dzo 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 exhi-
bits the place in the Latin form most familiar to himself:
(consider his substitution of “excelsis” for “altissimis.”)
2. Next, OricEn 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 paz, 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 Tre-
gelles,) “it is plain that Origen regarded εὐδοκίας as the
true reading ; not edSoxta—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 D0-
thing of the insecurity of building on a Latin Translation ‘,
© The old Latin Interpreter of Origen’s Commentary on 8. Matthew seem#
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 preseD
with “hominibus Jonge voluntatis.” (Opp. iii. 537.c). We can say nothing
to such second-hand evidence.
atlem sie. oot
----«“.... Se eee
A] and of Cyril, not liftient, 201
especially in such a matter as the present,)—How can testi-
mony like this be considered to outweigh the three distinct
places in the original writings of this Father, where he
reads not εὐδοκίας but evdoxia? Again. Why is a doubt
insinuated concerning the trustworthiness of those three
places, (‘ut ine reperitur,”) where there really is no doubt ?
HIow is Truth ever to be attained if investigations like the
present are to be conducted in the spirit of an eager par-
tisan, 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 in-
ference is inadmissible. Origen is supposing some one to
ask the following question :—‘‘Since Angels on the night
when Curist was born proclaimed ‘on earth Peace,’—why
docs our Savior say, ‘I am sof come to send Peace upon
earth, but a sword?.... Consider,” (he proceeds) “ whe-
ther the answer may not be this:’—and then comes the
extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with collo-
quial truthfuluess,) is at his old tricks. He is evidently ac-
quainted 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: hjs proposal
to take the words εἰρήνη εὐδοκίας together, being simply
preposterous,—as no one ever knew better than Origen
himself ¢.
3. Lastly, Cyrit or JERUSALEM is invariably cited by the
latest Critics as favouring the reading εὐδοκίας. Those
learned persons have evidently overlooked the candid ac-
knowledgment of De Touttée, Cyril’s editor, (p. 180, ef.
bottom of p. 162,) that though the MSS. of Cyril exhibit
εὐδοκία, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured fo print
εὐδοκίας. This therefore is one more Patristic attestation
to the trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of
8. 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 in-
stance fo rerify their references ?)
4 Consider his exactly similar method concerning Epb. i. 1. (Supra, pp. 96—99.)
202 History of the reading,—ed8oxlas. [arr
ΤΙ. The history of this corruption of the Text is not hard
to discover. It is interesting and instructive also,
(.) In the immediately post-A postolic age,—if not earlicr
still,—some Copyist will have omitted the ἐν before ἀνθρώ-
mots. The resemblance of the letters and the similarity
of the sound (εν, AN,) misled him :-— :
ENANOPWITOIC
Every one must sce 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 cur-
sive MSS. read avOpémors,—being countenanced therein by
the Latin Versions generally, and by them only.)
(2.) The result however—(Soka ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ
ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις evdoxia)—was obviously an impos-
sible 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 Jorce a meaning into the words, some
one with the best intentions will have put the sign of the
genitive (c) 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:—Goria in altissimis Dzo, et in terra pax hominibus
bonae voluntatis..... It is evident, by the way, (if the quo-
tation from Irenzus, given above, is to be depended upon,)
that Ireneus must have so read the place: (viz. εἰρήνη
ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.)
(3.) To restore the preposition (εν) which had been acci-
dentally thrust out, and to obliterate the sign of the geni-
tive (c) which had been without authority thrust in, was an
obvious proceeding. Accordingly, every Greck Evangelium
ertant exhibits ἐν ἀνθρώποις : while all but Jour (B, δ, A, ἢ)
read εὐδοκία. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vul-
gate (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 ver-
sion.—The Gothie represents a copy which exhibited ἐν av-
θρώποις εὐδοκίας “.
© From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.
a
~~ em
A.] A Revisicn of the Grek Text, required. 263
The consequence is that a well-nigh untranslatable cx-
pression retains its place in the Vulgate to the present hour.
Whether (with Origen) we connect εὐδοκίας with εἰρήνη, τοῦ
(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 unquestion-
ably correct. The reading of the latest Editors is as cer-
tainly 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 bollowness
of the theory on which it has been recently proposed by
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest to recon-
struct the text of the New Testament.
To some, it may perhaps scem 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,—W/Zat is important, if not the
utterance of Heaven, when, at the laying of the corner-stone
of the New Creation, “the Morning Stars sang togcther,
and all the Sons of Gop 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 neces-
sary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the
more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise
the Greck 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 eppointed to revise α Translation are competent at
a moment’s notice, as every fresh difficulty presents itself, to
develope 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 ofher
201 Revision, the work of the Church. {arr.a
Science is one of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists &-re
will find it necessary altogether to disabuse their minds of
the Theory of Textual Criticism which is at present the do
minant 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 accept-
ance at the hands of the Church,—it will be found neces-
sary that the work should be confided to Churchnen. The
Church may never abdicate her function of being ‘a Wit-
ness and a Keeper of Holy Writ.” Neither can she, with-
out flagrani 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 Gophead of her Lorp.
That the individual alluded to has shewn any peculiar apti-
tude 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 deli-
berate insult to the Majesty of Heaven in the Divine Person
οὐ Him who is alike the Object of the nee Gospel,
and its Author P
APPENDIX (B).
Evsenits ‘ad Marinum” concerning the reconcilement of 5. Mark
avi. 9 tcith 8. Matthew xxviii. 1.
(Referred to at pp. 46, 47, 54, and 233.)
Subso1xep is the original text of Evsenius, taken from
ce “Qumstiones ad Marinum” published by Card. Mai,
in his “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca” (Romac, 1847,) vol. iv.
pp. 255-7.
I. Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ dye σαββάτων φαίνεται
ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωὶ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν
σαββάτων.
Τούτου διττὴ ἂν εἴη ἡ λύσις" ὁ μὲν γὰρ [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ
Ἔ ins ͵ ᾿ 6 a » 4 \ 2
del.* Ὁ] τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπὴν ἀθετῶν, εἴποι ἂν μὴ ἐν
ν »ν , θ a 3 ΄ a \ Μά
ἅπασιν αὐτὴν φέρεσθαι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον
εὐαγγελίου" τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ τέλος περι-
“ὦ € , nw Lal
γράφει τῆς κατὰ tov Mapxov ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ
ὀφθέντος νεανίσκου ταῖς γυναιξὶ καὶ εἰρηκότος αὐταῖς “ μὴ
φοβεῖσθε, ᾿Ιησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναξαρηνόν.᾽" καὶ τοῖς ἐξῆς, οἷς
᾽ ‘ . 66 A > ΄ 8 , x ὐδ Α ὑδὲ “4 Ὁ
ἐπιλέγει" “Kal ἀκούσασαι ἔφνγον, καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον,
sy a 4 3) ) tA \ δὸ 2 ῳᾧῳ a»
ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ." Ἐν τούτῳ yap σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντι-
γράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλον"
AY ν τὲ δ y Ἰλλ᾽ ᾽ > a ,
τὰ δὲ ἑξῆς σπανίως Ev τισιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσι φερόμενα πε-
ριττὰ ἂν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν
ie > a , a ἢ . » »
λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν εἴποι ἄν τις
ὕ .“- Ν > eA
παραιτούμενος καὶ πάντη ἀναιρῶν περιττὸν ἐρώτημα. “Aros
δέ τις οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν
a : ἡ αὶ
εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ φερομένων, διπλῆν εἶναί φησι τὴν ἀναγ-
nw 4
yoo, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις πολλοῖς, ἑκατέραν τε παραδεκτέαν
ὑπάρχειν, τῷ μὴ μᾶλλον ταύτην ἐκείνης, ἢ ἐκείνην ταύτης,
-~ 3 t
παρὰ τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ εὐλαβέσιν ἐγκρίνεσθαι.
Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς,
προσήκει τὸν νοῦν διερμηνεύειν τοῦ ἀναγνώσματος"' εἰ γοῦν
a ᾽
διέλοιμεν τὴν τοῦ λόγου διάνοιαν, οὐκ ἂν εὕροιμεν αὐτὴν
~ ΄“ ᾽ ἐ ,
ἐναντίαν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Mar@alov ὀψὲ σαββάτων ἐγηγέρθαι
- ἰς \ hola -
τὸν Σωτῆρα λελεγμένοις᾽ τὸ yap “ ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ τῇ μιᾷ
© Vid. supra, p. 233.
—
266 Evcsepits “ad Marinum.” [arr. 8
a , ” Q Ν τὰ x tes
zou aaBBdtov” κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον, μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνω.
. \ N Yoo Q Le Ὁ , «i
σόμεθα: καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀναστὰς δὲ; ὑποστίξομεν"" καὶ τὴν διά-
’ , “2 tees ᾽ , “
μοιαν ἀφορίξζομεν τῶν ἑξῆς ἐπιλεγομένων. εἶτα τὸ μὲν ἀνασ.-
. Y, on = , Sg ἢ ’
aus ἂν, ἐπὶ τὴν Tapa τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψέ σαββάτων. τότε γὰρ
5) ᾿ « δινμα ἐν Ω
ἐγήγερτο᾽" τὸ δὲ ἐξῆς ἑτέρας ὃν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψω.-
“ιν , . A a a
μεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις" πρωὶ γὰρ TH μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφίίνη
, a a a a Os
Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε kal ὁ ᾿Ιωάννην
A \ Ἧς a δεν νι , 4 ΓΑΒ, ἢ a
πρωὶ καὶ αὐτὸς TH μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτον ὦφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ May-
a ‘ ς lel
δαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας. οὕτως οὖν καὶ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωὶ
ape a A ᾽ Δι» \ > \ \ ’ ἡ ὃ ᾧ
ἐφάνη αὐτῇ. οὐ πρωὶ ἀναστὰς, ἀλλὰ πολὺ πρότερον κατὰ τὸν
a ἘΣ ~ ’
Ματθαῖον ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτον. τότε γὰρ ἀναστὰς ἐφάνη τῇ
, > Lj AC ΄ #
Μαρίᾳ, οὐ τότε ἀλλὰ πρωὶ. ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις
‘\ ὃ La Ν ‘A A fol > ΄ Ἂν > ν ~
καιροὺς δύο. τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τὸν ὀψὲ τοῦ σαβ-
βάτου, τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν πρωὶ, ὃν
» « is γ᾽ ‘\ a ‘ ‘\ na >
ἔγραψεν ὁ Μάρκος εἰπὼν (ὃ καὶ μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωσ-
τέον) ἀναστὰς δέ εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες, τὸ EES ῥητέον, πρωὶ
τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτον ἐφάνη Mapia τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ᾽ ἧς
BT ΄ e ‘A ,
ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. ὃ
11. Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον ὀψὲ σαββάτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ
τεθεαμένη τὴν ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα
᾿ PA Pah. eae Ἐάν
κλαίει Tapa τῷ μνημείῳ TH μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου.
td
Οὐδὲν ἂν ζητηθείη κατὰ τοὺς τόπους, εἰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων
μὴ τὴν ἑσπερινὴν ὥραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτον
᾿
λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν, ὥς τινες ὑπειλήφασιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ
“ἊΨ + lol Ἂ a A ν ,
καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς νυκτὸς τῆς μετὰ τὸ σάββατον, κ.τ.λ.
* PS. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce
a passage from THEOPHYLACT (4.D. 1077) which should have
obtained notice in a much earlier page:—’Avagras δὲ ὁ
᾿Ιησοῦς" ἐνταῦθα στίξον, εἶτα εἰπέξ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτον
ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ λ1αγδαληνῇ. οὐ γὰρ ἀνέστη πρωΐ (τίς γὰρ
olde πότε dvéotn;) ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάνη πρωϊ κυριακῇ. ἡμέρᾳ (αὕτη
γὰρ ἡ πρώτη τοῦ σαββάτου, τουτέστι, τῆς ἑβδομάδος,) ἣν ἄνω
ἐκάλεσε μίαν σαββάτων" [Opp. vol. i. p. 268 ο.]
It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,
—like Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only repro-
ducing Eusebius. Sce above, p. 66, note (c).
APPENDIX (C).
Procf that Hesycures is a copyist only tn what he says concerning
the end of 5. Mark's Gospel.
(Referred to at pp. 57-58.)
§ 1. It was confidently stated above (at p. 58) that Hesy-
ciivs, discussing the consistency of S. Matthew’s ὀψὲ τῶν
σαββάτων (chap. xxviil. 1), with the πρωὶ of 3. Mark (chap.
xvi. 9), is @ copyist only; and that he copies from the
“ Quaestiones ad Marinum”’ of Eusrsivs. The proof of that
statement is subjoined. It should perhaps be explaincd that
the extracts in the right-hand column have becn dislocated
in order to shew their close resemblance to what is set down
in the left-hand column from Eusebius :—
(Ersenivs.) (Hesrcutvs, or Severus.)
τὸ ὀψὲ σαββάτων μὴ τὴν ἑσπερινὴν τὸ δὲ ὀψὲ σαββάτων οὐ τὴν ἐσπέ-
ὥραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαβ- ραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν δύσιν τοῦ ἡλίου
βάτον λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοιμεν . . . + δηλοί.....
ἀλλὰ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς νυκτὸς. ἀλλὰ. ... τὸ βράδιον καὶ πολὺ
διεστηκὸς. ...
οἴτω γὰρ καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας εἰώθα- καὶ γὰρ Του αὶ οὕτως ἡμῖν σύνη-
μὲν λέγειν, καὶ ὀψὲ τοῦ καιροῦ, καὶ θες λέγειν; howe καιροῦ παραγέγο-
ὀψὲ τῆς χρείας" οὐ τὴν ἑσπέραν δη- vas’ ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας, ὀψὲ τῆς χρείας"
λοῖντες, οὐδὲ τὸν μετὰ ἡλίου δυσμὰς οὐχὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν, καὶ τὸν μετὰ ἡλίον
χρόνον, τὸ δὲ σφόδρα βράδιον τούτῳ δυσμὰς χρόνον δηλοῦσι ἀλλὰ a
σημαίνοντες τῷ τρόπῳ" βράδιον, cee τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον
μηνύουσι.
δθεν ὥσπερ διερμηνεύων αὐτὸς ὁ Ματθαῖος .... ὥσπερ ἑρμηνεύων
ἑαντὸν ὁ Ματθαῖος μετὰ τὸ ὀψὲ σαβ- ἑαυτὸν, ἐπήγαγε τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς
βάτων, ἐπήγαγε τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εὶς μίαν σαββάτων.
μίαν σαββάτων.
“Ἔθος δὲ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα σάβ-
βατον καλεῖν.
λέγεται γοῖν παρὰ τοῖς Εὐαγγελισ-
ταῖς τί μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων"
ἂν δὲ τῇ σινηθείᾳ, δευτέρα σαβ-
βάτων, καί τρίτη σαββάτων.
σάββατον δὲ τὴν πᾶσαν ἑβδομάδα
καλεῖν 'Εβραίοις ἔθος.
αὐτίκα γοῦν οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ τῇ
μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων φασί;
οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ κεκ-
χρήμεθα, δευτέραν σαββάτων, καὶ
τρίτην σαββάτων.
(Gree. Nyss. (e7d. supra, p. 39
(Evsesirs ad Marinum, apud
to 41.] Opp. vol. ili. p. 402.
Mai, vol. iv. p. 257-8.)
208 Hesreures, a Copyist only. [arr. c.
§ 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original
text of the passage of Hesycmus exhibited in English at
p.57. The intention of setting down the parallel διάξειν
from Evsesivs, and from Vicror of Antioch, is in onder: to
shew the sources from which Hesychius obtuined his mate
rials,—as explained at p. 08 :— ᾿
ἜΝ (Ersrnice.) (Hesycuics, or Severus.)
Τὰ: your ἀκριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντι-
Τὸ τέλος περιγράφει τῆς κατὰ τὸν γράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον
Μάρκον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κιτιλ. μεχρὶ τοῦ “ ἐφοβοῦντο yap,” ἔχει
οἷς ἐπιλέγει" .. . “ καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν, τὸ τέλος. as
εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο yap.”
(Evsrnivs ad Marinum, apud
Mai, iv. p. 255.)
(Victor oF Axtiocu.)
ee ee
ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι... πρό
oe ὑσκειται i Η 5 v
᾿ ρ ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα.
aa
++ “Avaoras” κι τι λ. δοκεῖ δὲ
τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου
εἰρημένῳ...
ow . » "
Αναστὰς᾿ κιτιᾺ. τοῦτο δὲ ἐναν-
ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένα"
[τῆς γὰρ ὥρας τῆς νυκτὸς ἀγνώστου
τυγχανούσης καθ᾽ ἣν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνέστη,
πῶς ἐνταῦθα ἀναστῆναι ““ πρωὶ" γί-
γραπται; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐναντίον φανήσε-
᾿ , ται τὸ ῥητὸν, ef]
ees ἀναγνωσόμεθα" “"Avactas μετ᾽ ἐπιστήμης ἀναγνωσόμεθα" καὶ
δὲ, καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, “πρωὶ γὰρ ὑποστῖξαι δεῖ συνετῶς" “᾽Ανασ-
τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σοββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τὰς 8é,” κὰι οὕτως ἐπαγάγειν, “ πρωΐ
ee ἵνα τὸ μὲν “ dvac- πρώτῃ σαββάτων ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ
: τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ." ἵνα τὸ μὲν “ dvac-
(Victor Anniocn., ed. Cramer, tas”
vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to line 27.) [ἔχῃ τὴν ἀναφορὰν συμφώνως τῷ
Ματθαίῳ, πρὸς τὸν προλαβόντα και-
piv, τὸ δὲ “ πρωὶ" πρὸς τὴν τῆς
Μαρίας γενομένην ἐπιφάνειαν ἀπο-
δοθείη.
(Grec. Nygs. Opp. vol. iii. p.
411, 5, 0) 5: which may be also
seen in Cramer's Catenae, [vol.i.
Pp. 250, line 21 to line 33,] as-
cribed to “Srvenrs, Archbishop
of Antioch,” [Zbid, p. 243.])
1, Ν
τίωσίν τινα δοκεῖ ἔχειν πρὸς τὰ
APPENDIX (D).
Saae account of Victor or Antiocn'’s Commentary on δι Marks
Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain
Victor's Work.
(Referred to at p. 60.)
“ APRES avoir examiné avec soin les MSS. de la Biblio-
théque du Roi,” (says the Pére Simon in his Hist. Crit.
du N. T. p.79,) “j'ai réconnu que cet ouvrage”’ (he is
speaking of the Commentary on 8. 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 Péres, dont on a
margué les noms dans quelques exemplaires; et si ces noms
ne se trouvent point dans d’autres, cela est assez ordinaire
ices recueils, qu’on appelle chaines*.” It will be seen from
the notices of the work in question already offered, (supra,
p. 59 to p. 65,) that I am able to yicld only a limited acqui-
escence in this learned writer’s verdict. That the materials
out of which Vicror or 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
Crril, is entirely to misrepresent the case and hopelessly to
perplex the question.
Concerning Vicror 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 observa-
tions with which I was unwilling before to encumber the
* Kollar, (editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same opinion.—
Haet (Origeniana, lib. iii. c. 4, pp.274-5,) has a brief and unsatisfactory disser-
tation on the same subject; but he arrives at a far shrewder conclusion.
270 Peltanus, Possinus, Matthaei, [arr.
text; holding it to be a species of duty for those who have
given any time and attcntion 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
T shall have inadvertently fallen into error.
1. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark’s Gospel,
which generally claims on its front ‘“ Vicror, PrEesByTER
or Antiocn,” for its Author>’. A Latin translation of this
work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the first instance,
published at Ingolstadt in 1580‘, by Theodore Peltanus.
His Latin version found its way at once into “ Bibliothecz,”
(or Collections of Writings of the Futhers,) and has been
again and again reprinted.
2. The Greek text of Victor was first published at Rome
by Feter 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 anony-
mous 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 anony-
mous) which he had obtained from the Library of Charles
de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse. These three transcripts Pos-
sinus 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®. Still, the dis-
ν The copies which I have seen, are headed,— BIKTOPOC (sometimes BIK-
TWPOC) MPECBYTEPOT ANTIOXEIAC €PMHNEIA €1C TO KATA MAPKON
ETAITEAION ; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no Autbor’s
name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril, Origen, &e.—
Vide infra, N°. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii, Also, N°. xlvii (comp. xxviii.)
© Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in Ecan-
gelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunguam in lucem editi, nuse
vero studio et opera Theodori Peltani luce simul et Latinitate donati. In-
golstad. 1580, 8το. pp. 510.
4 “Ex hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde annulos for-
mavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis aptatos, inter seque mors
ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem producerem, quo, 8i possem consequ},
sancto Evangelistae Marco decus ct ornamentum adderctur.”—Prafatio : from
which the particulars in the text are obtained.
p.] and Cramer, edit Vicror. 271
located 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.
8. 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 “:
the text of which is based on four of the Aloscow 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 [ἐμ ὦ, 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 satisfuctory 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 ac-
complished a scholar, be altogether unaccountable. More-
over, he is incorrect in what he says about them‘: while
his reasons for proposing to assign the work of Victor
of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are undeserving of seri-
ous attention.
On a comparison of these four Editions of the same work,
it is discovered that the Latin version of Peltanus (1580),
* ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ πρεσβυτέρου ᾿Αντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐξήσησις
εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκυν ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Afosqg. edidit C.F. Matthzi,
Mosquae, 1775. ΠΡ xxvii—xxviii.
21 The Four Editions of Victor, compared. [arr.
represents the same Greck text which Possinus gave to the
world in 1673. Peltanus translates very loosely; in fact
he paraphrases rather than translates his author, and con-
fesses 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 Matthaci 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 Pos-
sinus. Cramer’s edition, therefore, is by far the most complete
which bas hitherto appeared. And though it cries aloud
for revision throughout; though many important correc-
tions 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-
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 10
the Paris Library; and all but invariably found that Cra-
mer’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 edi-
tion. 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. ὴ
For it must be stated, once for all, that an immense, ἢ
I must add, a most unaccountable discrepancy 18 observable
between the several extant copies of Victor: yet not τ
much in respect of various readings, or serious orga
of his text; (though the transpositions are very a
and often very mischievous ® ;) as resulting from the boup
£ To understand what is alluded to, the reader should ames
and the lower half of p. 442 in Cramer: noting that he has one 6D ae
annotation before him; but diversely exhibited. (The lower part 0
D.] Liberties taleen by Copyists and Editors. 273
less 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 pas-
sage: 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 whe-
ther there exist in Europe three manuscripts of Victor
which correspond entirely throughout. The result is per-
plexing 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®, Meanwhile,
as if to render the work of collation (in a manner) impos-
siblex— (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 licentious-
ness on the part of Victor’s ancient transcribers is this:—
They must have known perfectly well, (in fact it is ob-
vious,) 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 (Chryso-
stom chiefly) from whom he obtained his materials. We
are to remember also, I suppose, the labour which tran-
scription 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’. JV/y, for example, remodel the struc-
is taken from Cod. 178.) Besides transposing the sentences, the author of
Cod. 178 bas suppressed the reference to Chrysostom, and omitted the name
of Apolinarius in Hine 10. (Compare Field’s ed. of Chrys. iii. 529, top of
the page.)
.> Thus the two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to agree with the
Note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. 627. Sce also infra, p. 289.
‘ Let any one, with Mai’s edition of the “ Quaestiones ad Marizam” of Eu-
T
274 i Ὶ
Some account of Victor’s compilation [arr
fire of a sentence and necdlessly vary its ph
Never I think in my life have I oe τὰ Sa: ἐΐ
fused than in the Bibliotheque, while attemptin to ς late
certain copics of Victor of Antioch. ἀρῶν
I dismiss this feature of the case by saying that if any
person desires a sample of the process I have been describ
ing, he cannot do better than bestow a little attention on
the “Preface” (ὑπόθεσι5) at the beginning of Victor’s Com
mentary. It consists of thirty-eight lines in Cranior's
edition: of which Possinus omits eleven; and Matthaci
also, eleven;—but not the same eleven. On the other hand
Matthaei! prolongs the Preface by eight lines. Strange to
relate, the MS. from which Cramer professes to publish oe
on differently. If I may depend on my hasty pencilltn
after ἐκκλησίαις [Cramer, i. p. 264, line 13,71 Evan ny
{= Reg. 186, Jol. 93, line 16 from bottom] proceeds, KR
μης ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων, (thirty-one lines, ending)
χαρακτὴρ ἐγένετο. : ᾿
On metering to the work of Possinus, “ Anonymus Vati-
canus a found to exhibit so admirable a condensation (7)
of the ὑπόθεσις in question, that it is difficult to divest dies
self 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 sorresponderioe:
As for the Work,—(for I must now divest myself of the
perplexing recollections which the hurried collation of s0
many MSS. left behind; and plainly state that, in spite of
all, I yet distinctly ascertained, and om fully persuaded
that the original work was one,—the production, no doubt,
of “Victor, Presbyter of Aztioch,” 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
sebius before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged, mutilated, ampu-
tated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p. 257 with oak
sf Catense,” i. p. 251-2; and this again with the “Catena in Joannem” of Cor-
derius, p. 448-9, 2 With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.
".7 from Origen, Eusebius, and Chrysostom. 275
failed to discover any scparate exposition of S. Mark’s Gos-
pel, he had determined to construct one, by collecting the
occasional notices scattered up and down the writings of
Fathers of the Church *. 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
vit [vii ?] tome of Origen’s Exegetics on 5. John’s Gospel.”
We are thus presented at the outset with to of Victor’s
favorite authorities. The work of Eusebius just named he
was evidently thoroughly familiar with!, 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™: and his
words on two or three occasions seem to shew that he had
recourse besides habitually to the exegetical labours of Apo-
linarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Titus of Bostra®. Pas-
sages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met with ° ;
and once at least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil.
The historian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name ?.
But the Father to whom Victor is chiefly indebted is
Chrysostom,—whom he styles “ the blessed John, Bishop of
the Royal City ;” (meaning Constantinople?). Not that
κι p, 263, line 8 to 13, and in Possinus, p. 4.
1 Eusebius is again quoted at p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line 23-5).
See especially p- 410.
» What is found at p. 814 (on 5. Mark τ. 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 ¢, p,—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.
5 Sce pp. 408, 418, 442.
° eg. the first note on p. 311; (comp. Possinus, p. 95): and the last note
on p. 823; (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 Pos-
sinus (p. 102) to Athanasius: while ἃ scholium at p. 321 and p. 359, has no
owner.
P c.g. p. 403, 411 (twice).
4 Inp. 418,—4 τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ᾿Ιωάννης. For instances of
τῷ
276 Some account of Victor of Antioch’s [arr.
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. 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 docs: and if it were not for the
occasional introduction of the phrase ὁ μέν φησι or ἄλλος δὲ
φησι", ἃ reader of Victor’s Commentary might almost mis-
take 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, ἄς, The result is that
it is often impossible to know to echose sentiments we are
listening. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that
aucient 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
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, ἄς.
* 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 Chryso-
stom’s 28t* Homily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8) ; about 45 lines being left oat.
Observe Victor's method however. Chrysostom begins as follows:—'O μὲν
οὖν Λουκᾶς, ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὔτι
εἶπεν. (Then follows S. Luke viii. 22.) καὶ ὁ Μάρκος ὁμοίως. Οὗτος δὲ etx
οὕτωτ᾽ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ. Victor, becanse he had 8. Mark
(not 5. Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus :—'O μὲν Μάρκος ἀπαλλάττων
ἑαντὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ Λοῦκατ'
ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος οὐχ οὕτως" ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ.
"eg. 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.---80 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—Se?
also p. 269, line 1,—which is from Chrys. p. 130,—# ὡς ὁ ἄλλος being the next
words.—The first three lines in p.316= Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, ἄλλος δέ
gnaw. See also pp. 392: 407 (φασί rives—Erepos δέ φησιν): pp. 415 and 433.
After quoting Eusebius by name (p.446-7), Victor says (line 8) ἄλλο: af
φησιν.
τ eg. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which Ξε Chrys. p. 447.
p] Conmentary on 5. Marl?s Gospel. 207
the name of its author. This would account for the ex-
tremely 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". 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 toa passage from a Father the name of its Author ;
—above all, seeing that sometimes, at all events, he is ori-
ginal, 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. 116 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 onc and the same seems to be spoken of; not however
by S. John, but another famous person,—the sister of La-
zarus. This is what is said by John, the Bishop of the
Royal City.—Origen on the other hand says that she who,
in 8. 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 fect in the house of the Pharisee.—Apolinarius* and
Theodorus say that all the Evangelists mention one and the
same person; but that John rehearses the story more ac-
curately than the others. It is plain, however, that Mat-
thew, Mark, and John speak of the same individual; for
they relate that Bethany was the scene of the transaction ;
and this is a tillage ; whereas Luke [viii. 37] speaks of some
one else; for, ‘Behold,’ (saith he) ‘a woman in fhe city
which was a sinner?” &c., &e.
® 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 ὃ, at top, δε.
α So in the Catena of Corderius, in 8. Joannem, p. 802.
278 Approximate date of Victor. [arr
But the most important instance by far of i
and sound judgment is supplied by τῶι δ ety
graph, already quoted and largely remarked upon Ἶ ᾿
0:8; in which, after rehearsing all that had be ἐν
against the concluding verses of 5. Mark’s Gospel, Vict
vindicates their genuineness by appealing in his own aie :
to the best and the most authentic copies. The Reader is
referred to Victor’s Text, which is given below, at p. 288.
a only remains to point out, that since Chrysostom, (whom
Victor speaks of as ὁ ἀν ἁγίοις, [p.408,] and ὁ jiakapane
[p. 442,]) died in a.v. 407, it cannot be right to quote “ 401"
as the date of Victor’s work. Rather would a.p. 450 be
Δ more reasonable suggestion : seeing that extracts from
Cyril, who lived on till a.p. 444, are found here and thero
in Victor’s pages. We shall not perhaps materially err
if we assign a.p. 430—450 as Victor of Antioch’s approxi-
mate 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 un-
Interesting to the critical student. An enumeration of all
the extant Codices with which I am acquainted which con-
tain Victor oF Antiocn’s Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel,
follows :—
(i.) Evan, 12 (= Reg. 230) a most beautiful WS.
The Commentary on §. Mark is here assigned to Victor by
name ; being a recension very like that which Matthaci has pub-
lished. §. Mark’s text is given 7 extenso,
(ii.) Evar, 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
Seripture all in gold. ᾿
Here also the Commentary on §.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.
tee
ewe amen”
r.] Cod. Rig. 186 and Cod. Reg. 188. 279
(iil.) Evan, 20 (= Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.) 4 aplen-
4.1 folio,—the work of several hands and beautifully written.
Victor’s Commentary on 8. Mark’s Gospel is gencrally consi-
dered to be claimed for Crrit of Arexanpria by the following
words :
TNOOECIC EIC TO KATA MAPKON ATION EYAITEAION
EK THC EIC ATTON EPMHNEIAC TOT EN ATIOIC
KTPIAAOT AAEZANAPEIAC.
The correspondence between Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 [anfra,
N*. xiv], (= Reg. 188 and 186), is extraordinary ¥. In 8. Mark's
Gospel, (which alone I examined,) erery page begins with the same
eyllable, 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 Ict-
ters 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 sccm, therefore, in some mysterious
way referable to a common original. The saered Text of these two
MSS., originally very dissimilar, has been made identical through-
out; 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
ef the possessor of Reg. 188, exhibits the purer text. But how
then docs 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 sce 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 :—
(Cop. Rec. 186.) (Cop. Rec. 188.)
(1) Matth.xxvi. 70. αὐτῶν λέγων | αὐτῶν πάντων λέγων
(2) Mk. i. 2. ὡς κάθως
(3) , 11. ᾧ σοι
(4) ,, 16. βάλλοντας ἀμφί- ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον
βληστρον
¥ I believe it will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 corresponds exactly with Cod.
Rog. 183: 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.
280 SS. containing Vietor’s Commentary [arpe.
(Con. Rec. 186.) (Con. Rec. 188.)
(5) Mk.ii.21. παλαιῷ᾽ εἰ δὲ μή ye | παλαιῷ εἰ δὲ μή, αἴρει τὸ πλήρωμα
αἱρεῖ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ αὐτοῦ
πλήρωμα
(6) ,, 1|.10. ἐθεράπευεν
(7) ” 17. τοῦ ᾿Ἰακώβον
(8) ,, 18. καὶ Ματθαῖον καὶ ©. | καί M. τὸν τελώνην καὶ Θ.
(9) ,, Vi. 9. μὴ ἐνδύσησθε ἐνδέδυσθαι
(10), 10. μένετε μείνατε
> by
ἐθεράπευσεν
᾿Ιακώϑου.
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 Ist, 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
8. Matth. xxvii. 20 to δ: Mark iv. 22 being away. It cannot there-
fore be ascertaincd whether the Commentary on §. Mark was here
attributed to Victor or not. Cramer employed it largely in his
edition of Victor (Catenac, 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:
ἰδεῖς Folio: grandly written.
3
No Author’s name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of
the Evangelist is given in extenso.
(vi.) Evan. 84 (=Coisl. 195.) 4 grand folio, splendidly writ-
ten, 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 (infra, N°. ix.) and Coisl. 195 are
derived from a common original; but Cod.195 is the more per-
fect copy, and should have been employed by Cramer in prefer-
ence to the other (supra, p. 271.) There has been an older and
a more recent hand employed on the Commentary.
(vii.) Evan. 36 ( =Coisl. 20.) 4 truly sumptuous Codex.
Some notices of this Codex have been given already, at p. 229-
The Commentary on 5. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any
Author’s name.
v.J in the Bibliothéque at Paris. 281
(viii.) Eva, 37 (= Coisl. 21.) Fol.
The Commentary on 8. Mark is claimed for Vicror at fol. 117.
It seems to be very much the same recension which is exhibited by
Coisl. 19 (infra, Ne. sviti.) and Coisl. 24 (¢nfra, Ke. xi.) The Text
is given in cxtenso: the Commentary, in the margin.
(ix.) Eva, 39 (= Coisl. 23.) A grand large fol. The writing
singularly abbreviated.
The Commentary on 8. 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 Ne. vi.) It is Cramer’s “P.”” (Sec his
Catenae, vol. i. p. xxviii; and ride supra, Pp. 271.)
(x.) Evax. 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
Matthaci. (See on N°. viii.) One leaf is missing. (Sce fol. 136 Ὁ.)
(sii.) Evax. 50 (=Bodl. Laud. Grace. 33.) dto. The Com-
mentary here scems to be claimed for Cyrtm oF ALEXANDRIA, but
in the same unsatisfactory way as N°. iii and xiv. (Sce Coxe’s
Cat. i. 516.)
(xiii.) Evax. 299 (= Reg. 177: anciently numbered 2242).
The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any
Author’sname. The Text of S. Mark is given ἐπ extenso: Victor's
Commentary, in the margin.
(xiv.) Evay. 300 (= Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750,
and 1882.) «4 noble Codex: but the «τονὲ of different scribes. It ts
ifully written.
a. ee Commentary on §. Mark is claimed for Cram oF
Axexaxpria, in the same equivocal manner as above in N°. iii
and xii, The writer etates in the colophon that he had di-
versely found it ascribed to Cyril and to Victor. (ἐπληρώθη σὺν
᾿Θεῷ ἡ ἑρμηνεία τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον ἁγίου εὐαγγελίον ἀπὸ φωνῆς, ἕν τισιν
εὗρον Κυρίλλον ᾿Αλεξανδρέως, ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρον.)
282 YS. copies of Victor’s Commentary [arr.
See above, the note on Evan. 20 (N°. iii),—a MS. which, as
already explained, has been claborately assimilated to the present.
(xv.) Evan. 301 (= Reg. 187: anciently numbered 504, 537
and 1879.) 4 splendid fol. beautifully written throughout,
The Commentary on S. Mark is here claimed for Vicron.
(xvi.) Evan. 809 (= Reg. 201: ancicntly numbered 176 and
2423.) A very interesting little fol.: very peculiar in its atyle.
Draicings old and curious. Beautifully written.
The Commentary is here claimed for Vicror. This is not pro-
perly a text of the Gospel; but parts of the text interwoven with
the Commentary. Take a specimen?: (S. Mark xvi. 8—20.) ὁ
Kat εξελθουοαι EPUFOV ἀπὸ TOU μνημειου. εἰχεν δε avtuc
TPOMOC και EKGTAGIC.
μειων.
ewe δια τῶν επακολουθουντῶν οη-
Over the text is written Kel (κειμένον i.e. Zext) and over the
Commentary ep (ἑρμηνεία, i.e. Interpretation.) Sce the next.
(xvii.) Evan. 312 (= Reg. 206: anciently numbered 968, 1058,
2283; and behind, 1604. Also A. 67.) «4 beautiful little fol.
Contains only the Commentary, which is expressly assigned to
Vicror. This Copy of Victor’s Commentary is very nearly indeed
a duplicate of Cod. 309, (N°. xvi.) both in its contents and in its
method ; but it is less beautifully written.
(xviii.) Evan. 329 (= Coisl. 19.) 4 very grand fol.
The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any
Author’s name. (See above, on N°. viii.)
(xix.) Rec. 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Reg.
2330: also Νο. 18.) «44 grand large 4".
The Commentary is here claimed for Ortcex. Such at least is
probably the intention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of
the Prologue :—
NPIFENOTC ΠΡΟΛΟΓΟΟ EIC THN EPMHNEIAN TOT
KATA MAPKON ETAITEAIOT.
See on this subject the note at foot of p. 235.
® Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384 15
the Syr. Cat. . “<=
‘ Sa
p.] at Paris, Busle, Vienna, Rome. 283
(xs.) Evay. 304 (=Reg. 194. Teller 1892.)
The text of S. Mark is here 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
euspect that the contents of this MS. will be found to torrespond
with what Possinus published and designated as ‘ Tolosanus.
(xxi.) Evas. 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambec. 29.) Victor's Com-
mentary is here anonymous.
(xxii.) Eva. 92 (which belonged to Facsch of Basle [sec γα:
stein’s Proleg.], and which Hacnel [p. 658 δ] says 15 now in Basle
Library). Wetstein’s account of this Codex shews that the Com-
mentary on §. Mark is here distinctly ascribed to ἡ TOR: He says,
—“Continct Marcum et in eum Vietoris Antiochent Commentariss,
foliis 5 mutilos. Item Scholia in Epistolas Catholicas,” &c. And
so Hacnel.
(xsiii.) Evax. 94 (As before, precisely ; except that soul
[inaccurate] notice is at p. 657 δ.) This Codex contains VICToE 6
Antioch’s Commentary on 8. Mark, (which is evidently Here also .
signed to him by nane;) and Titus of Bostra on S. Luke. A 7
several Scholia: among the rest, I suspect, (from what Hacne
says), the Scholia spoken of supra, p. 47, note (x).
(xxiv.) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning
them, Hacnel says there also exists in the Library at Basle,—
; 2 . . »
fe acronis Antiocheni Scholia in Evang. Maret: chart *.
(xsv.) Evax. 108 (Vind. Forlos. 5. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225)
refers to it for the Scholion given in the next article. (Append. E.)
(xsvi.) Evax. 129 (Vat. 358.) BIKOPOC. tr ANTIO €P €1C KATA
MAPKON. The Commentary is written along the top and pone
and down the side of each page ; and there are references («', β΄, )
inserted in the text to the paragraphs in the margin,—as in ius
of the MSS. at Paris. Prefixed is an exegetical apparatus by
ius, ἄς. ᾿
τον ‘that of these five MSS. in the Vatican, (358, 756, 151,
1229, 1445), the ϑτὰ and 4th are without the pretatony ge
(beginning πολλῶν εἰς τὸ κατὰ M.)—All 5 begin, Μάρκος 6 εὐαγγε ισ-
τής. In all but the 4th, the second paragraph begins σαφέστερον.
* Catalogus Librorum MSS. Lips. 1830, 4to, p 636 ὃ.
284 MS. copies of Victor’s Commentary at Rome, [arr.
The third passage begins in all 5, ᾿Ισοδυναμεῖ τοῦτο; Any one με.
ing 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.
(xxuii.) Evay. 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is written os
in Vat. 858 (N°. xxvi): but no Author’s name is given.
(xxviii.) Evay. 138 (Yat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at
the beginning are these words :—6é ἀντίγραφος (sic) otros ἐστὶν ὁ
Πέτρος ὁ τῆς Aao‘ixeias ὅστις προηγεῖται τῶν ἄλλων ἐξηγητῶν ἐνταῖθα.
(Comp. N°. xlvii.) The Commentary and Text are not kept dis.
tinct, as in the preceding Codex. Both are written io an ill-looking,
slovenly hand. .
(axix.) Evan. 143 (Vat. 1,229.) The Commentary is written as
in Vat. 358 (N°. xxvi), but without the references ; and no Author's
name is givcn.
(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
cxscripta.”
(xxxi.) Evan. 186 (Laur. vi. 18.) This Codex is minutely de-
scribed by Bandini (Cat. i. 130), who gives the Scholion (tnfra,
p. 388-9), and says that the Commentary is without any Author's
name.
(xxxii.) Evan. 194 (Laur. vi. 33.) Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρου ᾽Αντιο-
xelas 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 cor-
respond in its contents with N°. xxxi. supra: 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. (Sec Bandini, p. 355.)
(xxxv.) Evan. 210 (Venet.27.) ‘‘Conveniunt initio Commen-
ν] Florence, Venice, Vienna, Moscow. 285
(πὶ cum iis qui Victori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autem
discrepant.” (Theupoli Graeca D. Marci Bibl. Codd. ASS. Venct.
1140.) 1 infer that the work is anonymous.
‘xsxvi.) Venet. 495. ‘* Vicroris AxtiocuExI Presbyteri expo-
sitio in Evangclium Marci, collecta ex diversis Patribus.” (I obtaia
this reference from the Catalogue of Theupolus.)
(xxxvil.) Evan. 215 (Venet. 544.) I presume, from the descrip-
tion in the Catalogue of Theupolus, that this Codex also contains
a copy of Victor's Commentary.
(xxsviii.) Evay. 221 (Vind. Ness. 117, Lambcc. 38). Kollar has
ἃ long note () [iii 157] on the Commentary, which has no
Author's name prefixed. Birch (p. 225) refers to it for the purposc
recorded under N°. xxv.
(xssix.) Evan. 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Lambe. 39.) The Commen-
tary is anonymous. Birch refers to it, as before.
Ada the following six MSS. at Moscow, concerning which, sce
Matthaci’s Nov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. xii. —
(sl.) Evan. 237 (This is Matthaci’s d or D [deserited in his
N. Ti ix. 242. Also Vict. Ant. ti. 1817 “SS. Synod. io *) and
isone of the MSS. employed by Matthaei in his cd. of Victor.—
The Commentary on S. Mark has no Author’s name prefixed.
(sli.) Evan. 238 (Matthaci’s e or E {described in his N. T. ix.
200. Also Viet. Ant. 11. 141.] “SS. Synod. 48.”) This Codex
formed the basis of Matthaci’s ed. of Victor, [See the Not. Codd.
MSS. at the end of vol. ii. p. 123. Also W. 7. ix. 202.] The
Commentary on S. Mark is anonymous.
(slii.) Evax. 253 (Matthaei’s 10 [described in his NW. 7. is.
2347 It was lent him by Archbishop Nicephorus.) Matthaci
says (p. 936) that it corresponds with a (our Evan. 259). No
Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary on 8. Mark.
(sliii.) Evas. 255 (Matthaei’s 12 [described in his N.T. iz. 222,
Also Tict. Ant. ii, 183.) “SS. Synod. 139.” The Scholia on
8. Mark are here entitled ἐξηγητικαὶ ἐκλογαί, and (as in 14) a
in number. For some unexplained reason, in his eition of Victor
of Antioch, Matthaei saw fit to designate this MS. as ‘ 2 [a T.
ix. 224 note.].... See by all means, infra, the ‘ Postscript.
98 hes
6 Copies of Victor's Commentary,—chich was
᾿ ἐπὶ Ἐταν. 256 (Matthaci’s 14 [described in his Ν, Τ' ix 220
‘ Bibl. Typ. Synod. 3.”) The Commentary on S. Mark is hi ῃ :
signed to Victor, presbyter of Antioch ; but the Scholia ar ne
be (as in “12” [No, xxxix]) few in number, Carne
πεν, Evan, 259 (Matthaci’s a or a [described in his W. 7;
᾿ Vict. Ant. ii, 128.} “SS. Synod. 15.) This : ta
eM! S. employed by Matthaci in his ed. of Victor. No Author’
name is prefixed to the Commentary. sia
(xlvi.) Evay. 332 (Taurin. xx ὃ iy. 20.) Victor's Commentary
is here given ᾿
Ὕψαν ) anonymously. (Sce the Catalogue of Pasinus,
(xlvii.) Evan. 353 (Ambros. M. 93 :
: .- Al. : with
_ tary as Evan. 181, (ic, No xxx.) 1 the same Commen-
(xlviii.) Evan. 374 (Vat. 1445.) Written continuously in a ve
See character. The Commentary is headed (in a later Greek
“ἐνῷ ἑρμηνεία Πέτρου Λαοδικείας εἰς τοὺς δ΄ dy [ious] εὐαγγελιστάς +.
118. 1s simply a mistake. No such Work exists: and the
Comment rae
si aay on the second Evangelist is that of Victor. (See
(xlix.) Evax. 428 (Monacensis 381 i
: . Augsburg 11):
duplicate of Evan. 300 (i.e. of N°. xiv.) prare agesteee:
(1.) Evan, 432 (Monacensis 99.) The Commentary contained
in this Codex is evidently assigned to Vicror.
(li.) Evan, 7° (ix. 3.471.) A valuable copy of the Four Gos-
pels, dated 1062 ; which Edw. de Muralto (in his Catalogue of the
Greck MSS, in the Imperial Library at S. Petersburg) Bays contains
τ ἀπ) of Vicron Ant. (See Scrivener’s Introduction,
(lii.) At Toledo, in the “ Biblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor,” Haencl
[p. 885] mentions :—“ Victor Antiocuexvs Comm. Graec. in iv. (?)
Evangelia sacc. 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 y. ii. 8.)
[arr,
v.} a standard work with the early Church. 287
Eva. 873 (Vat. 1423.)
Eva. 379 (Vat. 1769.)
Evay. 427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.)
Middle Hill, Ne, 13,975,—a MS. in the collection of Sir Thomas
Philipps.
In conclusion, it can scarcely require to be pointed out
that Vicror’s Commentary,—of which the Church in her
palmiest days shewed herself so careful to multiply copics,
and of which there survive to this hour such a vast number
-of specimens,—must needs anciently have enjoyed very pecu-
liar favour. It is evident, in fact, that an Epitome of Chry-
sostom’s Homilies on 8. Matthew, together with Vicror’s
compilation on S, Mark, —Titus of Bostra on 5. Luke,—and
a work in the main derived frou: Chrysostom’s Homilies on
S. John ;—that these four constituted the established Com-
mentary of ancient Christendom on the fourfold Gospel. In-
dividual 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,—(Irenzus, Origen,
Ammonius, Eusebius, Apolinarius, Cyril, Chrysostom, the
Gregorys, Basil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodore
of Heraclea,) they will have introduced extracts accord-
ing 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 elu-
cidation of the difficulty pointed out above, at pp. 272—4.
APPENDIX (E).
Text of the concluding Scholion of Vicron or Antiocn’s Commentary
on S. Mark's Gospel ; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to
the geunineness of ‘the last Twelve Verses.”
(Referred to at p. 65.)
I uave thought this very remarkable specimen of the me-
thod of an ancient and (as I think) unjustly neglected Com-
mentator, deserving of extraordinary attention. Besides
presenting the readcr, 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 as under ".
Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ “'Αναστὰς ὃ δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτον ἐφάνη
πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ,᾽ καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς ἐπιφερόμενα,
ἐν τῷ i Μά Ἷ λί 1° πλεί ἀ pois
ᾧ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ παρὰ " πλείστοις ἀντιγράφ
᾽ a d e , \ 2 4 > 4 ε- ἀλλ᾽
οὐ κεῖνται ἃ, (ὡς νόθα γὰρ ἐνόμισαν αὐτά τινες εἶναι “) ἁ
* Reg. 177 =A: 178=B: 230=C.—Coisl. 19 =D: 20=E: 21=F:
22=G: 2—= H—Matthaei’s ἃ or D=1: hise or E=J: his12=K: Aus
aor A=L—Vat. 358—=M: 756=N: 7δ7 Ξε Ο: 1229—P: 1445=Q—
Vind. Koll. 4 Forlos.6 =R.—Xav. de Zelada =S8.—Laur. 18 =T: 34=
U.—Venet. 27 = V.— Vind. Lamb. 88 = W: 39 = X.
* So B—E (which I chiefly follow) begins,—To δὲ avacras.
© B begins thus,—E: δὲ καὶ To avaoras δε mpwi peta Ta 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, 5, T, U, V, W, X) begin. -
4 So far (except in its opening phrase) E, But C, Ὁ, F, H, J, J, K, L, M.
N, O, P, T, begin,—MNapa πλείστοις αντιγραφοις ov κεινται [I, ov κειται: J, ove
nv δε] ravra sa [M, O, T om. ta] επιφερομενα ev [D, F, H om. εν} τῷ κατα
Μαρκον [Β, εν τω παροντι] εναγγελίῳ.
© Sol, J, K, L,and H. P proceeds,—ws νοθα νομισθεντα τισιν εἰναι. But
me aes
APP. E.] Victor of Autioch’s Schotion. Qsy
ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων, ὡς ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ!,
κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλή-
θεια, συντεθείκαμενξ καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομόνην δεσπο-
τικὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ τὸ “ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ" τούτεστιν ἀπὸ
τοῦ “ ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτον," καὶ καθ᾽ ἑξῆς μέχρι
τοῦ “διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων. ᾿Α μήν."
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 s0 many various readings have been laboriously
accumulated. The result, it is thought, 15 eminently-instruc-
tive, and (to the student of Ecclesiastical Antiquity) impor-
tant also.
For it will be perceived by the attentive reader that not
more than two or three of the multitude of various read-
ings afforded by this short Scholion can have possibly re-
sulted from careless transcription*. The rest have been un-
mistakably occasioned by the merest licentiousness: every
fresh Copyist evidently considering himself at liberty to take
just whatever liberties he pleased with the words before
B, C, D, E, F, G, M,N, O, T exhibit,—ws vo8a νομισαντές avira τινες [B om.
τινες} εἰναι. On the other hand, A and Q begin and proceed as fullows,—Mapa
πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ταυτα τα (Q om. τα] επιφερομενα ἐν is om. εν} τῷ κατα
Μαρκον εὐαγγελίῳ ὡς νοθα νομισαντες Τινές (Q, τινὰς (a clerical error): A om.
τινες] οὐκ εθηκαν.
" ᾿ B, ΒΔ that it omits ws. 80 αἷξο, A, D, E, F, 6, H, J, M,N, 0, YP,
Q, T, except that they begin the sentence, ques δε.
«SoD, Ε, F,G, Ἡ, J, M,N, Ο, P, T: also B and Q, excep: that they prefix
και to κατα to Π. B is peculiar in reading,—os exer ἢ αληθεια Mapkou (trans-
posing Ma;xov): while C and P read,—opes nue εξ axpiBur αντιγραφὼν και
πλειστων ov μην αλλα και ev TH Παλαιστιναιῳ ευαγγελιῳφ Μαρκοὺυ εἐνροντες arta
ws exer αληθεια συντεθεικαμεν.
b So all, apparently: except that P reads ἐμφερομενὴν for exig-epoperny 5 and
M, after αναστασιν inserts ἐδηλώσαμεν, with a point (.) before wera: while C
and P (after avacraci,) proceed,—xai την [C, εἰτα] αναληψιν και καθεδραν ex
δεξιων τον Πατρος ῳ πρέπει ἢ δοξα και ἡ τιμὴ νυν και εἰς τους αἰωνας, ἀμὴν. But
J (and I think, H] (after yap) proceeds,—8:0 δοξαν αναπεμψωμεν τῳ ἀγασταντι
ex νεκρων Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῳ ἡμων apa τῷ αναρχῷ Πατρι και ζωοποις Πνευματι vuy
καὶ get και εἰς TOUS αἰωνας των αιἰωνῶν. αμην,
+ So B. All, except B, C,H, J, P seem to end at ἐφυβουντο %cp.
* eg. οὐκ ἦν δέ for ob κεῖνται.
υ
290 Victor of Antioch’s Scholion. [arr. κα
him. To amputate, or otherwise to mutilate; to abridge ;
amplify ; to transpose ; to remodel ;—this has been the an
with all. The ¢ypes (so to speak) are reducible to two ᾿
at most to three; but the varictics are almost as satis
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 Vittor
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 man-
ner 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 ovT; 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 intelli-
gently the Commentary of Victor itself; and, to some ἐσ -
tent, to understand how it comes to pass that so many liber-
ties 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 Copex Vaticaxcs (B;, aud the Copes
Sinaiticts (ss).
(Referred to at p. 70.)
I. “Vix differt actate a Codice Sinaitico,” says Tischen-
dorf, (ed. 8ra, 1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus
(B). Yet does he perpetually designate his own Sinaitic
Codex (x) 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 itsclf a striking note of primitiveness. The author of
the Codex knew nothing, apparently, of the Euscbian method.
But I venture further to suggest that the following pecu-
liarities in Codex 8 unmistakably indicate for it a later date
than Codex B.
(2) Cod. κ, (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. s as many as (hirty
interruptions of the context. From 5. Mark xiii. 1 to the
end of the Gospel the text is absolutely continuous in Cod. B,
except in one place: but in Cod. Ναὶ it is interrupted upwards
of fifty times. Again: from 8. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of
the Gospel there is but onc break in Cod. B. But it is
broken into well nigh aa hundred and fifty short paragraphs
in Cod. ΜΒ.
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. &, is where
the Commandments are briefly recited (5. Matth. xix. 18,
&c.), and where our Lorp proclaims the eight Beatitudes
(S. Matth. v.)
v2
292 Cod. B more ancient than Cod. κα. [arr.
(3) Again; Cod. is prone to exhibit, on extraordinary
occasions, @ single word in a line, as at—
S. Matin. xy. 30. S. Mark x. 29. 8. Luke xiv. 13.
X@WAOTC H ASEASAC NT@XOTC
TYPAOTC H NATEPA ANATHPOTC
KTAAOTC H MHTEPA XWAOTC
K@40TC H TEKNA ΤΥΦΛΟΥΟ
Η ArPOTC
This became a prevailing fashion in the vi" century ; c.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 Ge
nealogy of our Lorp.
(4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the
initial letter in Cod. ~ slightly projects into the margin,—
beyond the left hand edge of the column; as usual in all
latcr MSS. This characteristic is only not undiscoverable
in Cod. B. Instances of it there ave in the earlier Codex;
but they are of exceedingly rare occurrence.
(5) Further; Cod. x abounds in such contractions as ANoc,
ornoc (with all their cases), for ἀνθρώπου, OrPANoc, &c. Not
only ΠΝΑ, ΠΗΡ, “ΠΕΡ, MPA, MPA (for ΠΝΕΥ͂ΜΑ, MIATHP-TEP-TEPA,
MHTEPA), but also CTPOH, iHa, IHAHM, for CTATPWOH, ICPAHA,
1€POTCAAHM.,
But Cod. B, though familiar-with 10, and a few other of
the most ordinary abbreviations, knows nothing of these
compendia: which certainly cannot have existed in the ear-
liest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable to sup-
pose that their constant occurrence in Cod jy 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. 8 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 primi-. -------
¥.J Eusebius knew nothing of Cod. κα, 293
tiveness in Cod. B which makes itsclf at once fet. 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 recals the style
of the Herculanean rolls; partly, the papyrus fragments
of the Oration against Demosth:nes (published by Harris in
1848) :—all these notes of superior antiquity infallibly set
Cod. B before Cod. κι; though it may be impossible to deter-
mine whether by 50, by 75, or by 100 years.
II. It has been conjectured by one whose words are al-
ways entitled to most respectful attention, that Codex Sinai-
ticus may have been “one of the fifty Codices of Holy Serip-
ture which Eusebius prepared a.v. 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 fa-
miliar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is with-
out S. Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section
numbered “216” in Κ΄. Mark’s Gospel. [Quite in vain has
Tischendorf perversely laboured to throw doubt on this cir-
cumstance. 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. ἈΠ), against rer. 29 is set the number,
(‘«216,”) instead of against ver. 28. But whatthen? Has
not the number demonstrably lost its place? And is there
not stil? one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And echich
can it possibly have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28 ?]
Again. Cod., (like B, C, L, U, I’, and some others), gives the
piercing of the Savioun’s side at 5. Matth. xxvii. 49: but if
Eusebius had read that incident in the same place, he would
have infallibly included S. John six. 34, 35, with 8. Matth.
xxvii. 49, in his vii Canon, where matters are contained
which are common to ὃ. Matthew and S. John, — instead
of referring S. John xix. 31—d7 to his xt Canon, which
Evscbius knew nothiig of Cod. Ss [a
. LD ῬΡ.γ.
specifi ines :
ee ee
ἀρ Ἢ ee ny as : ster place (Dem. Evan. ᾿ 8
a εἰψον says that it is eine John eee
ae σίτωι ἢ as to the antiquity of this Codex can be
Aetna 8 usebian notation of Sections in the m
otation having been confessedly added Ἵ:
quent date. y added at a sub-
ἮΝ ἢ other hand, the subdivision of Cod. » into para-
es it ie to have been made without any reference to
cei ν᾽ ; eos of Eusebius. Thus, there are in
PRE ρθουν φς Ue done ite ean err δΝ
sume ἽΝ ee but there are comprised within ne
those acme ἐπεὶ δ θεέ ene sections. And yet, of
only nine correspo i a
par - Codex Sinaiticus. ta ere
His ae ἜΠΟΣ ae nothing of the present Coder.
γελίων ἀριθμό exp Tess t= eg ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγ-
TIL ae τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος K.T-r.
i ai upposed resemblance of the opened volume to
seiriadiis ries rus,—when eight columns (σελίδες) are
lacious not Ν coe ut ek side by side,—seems to be ἃ fal-
ae ᾿ me antiquity. If Cod. καὶ has four columns
one. But C 1. σ three, —-Cod. A two,—Cod. C has only
a ea ro ea rege mR φὰς Wy A. Again,
pa ; δι 15: of the vit century, is written (like Cod. C)
eae a yet was it “copied from an older model
vhierafone me Aan ae ect to the lines or verses,”—and
ee ΤῊΝ arly written across the page. It is almost
as ee i size of the skins on which a Codex wss
ae a res decided whether the columns should be
TV. In fine, nothing doubti
Codices, (B ee doubting the high antiquity of both
oy ᾿ re am nevertheless fully persuaded that
aud yas greeny a century,—if not of a far greater
marked dastmn larity core ee Sea
ee ΨΡΟ δλιυνηδ BL Breve σειν 5 i
=
APPENDIX (G).
On the so-called “' AMMONIAN Srctioxs” and ‘ Evse,isn Caxons.”
(Referred to at p- 130.)
1. Tat the Sections (popularly miscalled “ Ammonian »)
with which Evsenius [a.p. 930] has made the world tho-
roughly familiar, and of which some account was given
above (pp. 127-8), cannot be the same which Aumontus of
Alexandria [4.». 220) employed, — but must needs be the
invention of EvsEntus himself,—admits of demonstration.
On this subject, external testimony is altogether insecure*.
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 re-
spective Gospels :—S. Matthew iv. 18—22: S. Mark i. 16— .
90: 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
Evusrmus after the following extraordinary fashion: (the
fourth column represents the Gospel according to §. John) :—
§ 29, (τ. 1—3)
Lap BA EAS Soetoro
eet
17, 18) 16) :
Gy. acorn pe rien 'g 30, (τ. 4—7) § 219, (xxi. 1-6)
cS aaa oe bec : § 30 (τ. 4—7) [8 222, (xxi. 11)
ee ee eames lg gi, (τ. 8—
| 103)
(6.) § 21, (iv. § 10, (i. 17,18) 5.82, (v. 10},
19, 20) "11
(7.) 8 22, (τ. 811, (i. 19, 20)
21, 22)
® Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author of the Canons
as well πον Canones 4005 Eusebius Caesariensis Episcopus Alerandrinum
em numerds ordinavit, sicut in Graeco habentur cx-
pressinius.” (4d Papam Damasum. Epist.) And again: “ Ammonius oo
tarit quos poster secutus est Eusebius Cacsa-
881.])—See above, P- 128.
secultts Ammonium in dec
Evangelicos Canones excegi
» (De Viris Illustr. ο. 55 [OpP- ii.
ricnsis.
290
Euschius must neels have been [
arr,
It wi .
ican oe perseies from this, that Evsenrus subdivid
ee ree ee of the sacred Narrative into ten Sen
£8 90 ᾿ ams which three belong to S. Matthew pee
ee ee πον Taps
oe §§ 29, 30, 31, 32: which ten Sections, Ev 3
of geal ᾿ τα Ἀν ον four of his Canons: veferring i
ae ee ae eas (which exhibits what S. Matthew
ie i : ae have in common) ; four of them i
ee pices (which shews what S. Matthew and S. Mark
Spine ye a one, to his IX, (which contains what
ΠΤ ᾿ Ξ Luke and §. John); two, to his Xt, (in
cae see what is peculiar to each Evangelist.)
Pee ἡ: a which Evsesscs had in breaking up this
επΞ νὴ Text, (S. Matth. iv. 18—22, 5. Mark
ee Ἀπ αν δ, " 1—11,) after so arbitrary a fashion,
S. Matthew’s G Re three of those Sections from
connecting on ae (viz. S. Luke’s §§ 29, 30, 31) ; and
(ξᾷ 219 999) δε ee last three (§ 30) «ith tero Sections
was las he oe en tes perfectly plain. His object
M4 nr ae imself explains,) to shew—not only (a) what
also (2) ae ᾿ in common with S. Mark and S. Luke; but
a whee a uke has in common with S. John ;—as well
ge ae uke has peculiar to himself. But, in the
work, al thts ae as far as we know anything about that
sas oe ᾿ 4 have been simply impossible. (1 have
a er sri ed his : Diatessaron,” at pp. 126-7.) Intent
acid ieee - Sections of the other Gospels which corre-
if he could e Sections of S. Matther, AmMoyius would not
ade ae he could not if he would,)—have dis-
ed from its context S. Luke’s secant of the first
mi :
iraculous draught of fishes in the beginning of our Toute”
oe bb the purpose of establishing its resemblance to
hh tock ss of the second miraculous draught of fishes
in 8. John’s Gos nee the Resurrection, and is only found
BIAN,” not ae . These Sections therefore are “ Eust-
scheme of Er NIN. They are necessary, according to the
UsEBIUs. They are not only unnecessary and
even meaningless, b :
gless, but actual ; - ae
hanie: ly impossible, in the AMMONIAN
207
G.J the intentor of “he “οἱ mmonian? Sections.
to another, and, 88 1 think,
ἃ more convincing instance. I am content in fact to narrow
the whole question to the following single issue :—Let me
Ny conceivable that AMMOXIUS
be shewn how it is rationa
can have split up S.J ohn σαὶ. 12, 13, into tree distinct Sce-
tions ; and 8. John xxi. 15, 16, 17, into sic 2? and yet, after
sintegrations of the sacred Text, how
Section of
2. Let me call attention
go many injudicioys di
st is credible that he can have made but one
S, John xxi. 18 to 25,—which nevertheless, from its very
varied contents, confessedly requires even repeated subdivi-
εἷοπ ἢ. .«.. Wye Ses did all this, is abundantly plain.
His peculiar plan constrained him to refer the former half
of ver. 12,—the latter balf of verses 15, 16, 17—to his Lx™
Canon, where S, Luke and 5. John are brought together ;
(ἐν ᾧ οἱ δύο τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκασι) -—and to consign the
latter half of ver. 12,—the former half of verses 15, 16, 17,
—together with the whole of the /ast eight verses of 5. John’s
Gospel, to his Χ (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 recognisdl uO such Canons, was under no such
He had in fact no such opportunity. He there-
constraint.
have adopted the same extraordinary
fore simply ¢@ not
sectional subdivision.
4, To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps
to exhibit the argument in a more convincing form :—The
Canons of Ecsesivs, and the so-called ‘ AMMONIAN SEc-
τιον, —(by which, confessedly, nothing else whatever is
but the Sections of Ecsesivs,)—are discovered mu-
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 tbe Canons, never-
theless 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 ar-
rangement, except when explained by the requirements of
the Evsenian Canons. 1 say— That particular sectional sub-
meant
tually to imply one
298 The (so-called) “ Ammonian” Sections reps
division, in other words, to which the epithet “‘ Ammoniay ”
is popularly applied,—(applied however without authorit :
and in fact by the merest license,)—proves on careful in.
spection to have been only capable of being devised by re
cho was already in possession of the Canons erated In
plain terms, they are demonstrably the eon of co
himself,—who expressly claims The Canons for his own (xa.
vévas δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι), and leaves it to be
inferred that he is the Author of the Sections also. Wet-
stein (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 tho
inference that they are only rightly understood when re-
garded in the light of “ Marcixat Rererences.” 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 be
would not have so written. He evidently did not advert to
the fact that Eusebius refers his readers (in his III"? 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 Har-
mony 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 hope-
less confusion *.
4 There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome quarto
volume (pp. 216) entitled Harmonia quatuor Evangeliorum jurta Sectivnes
Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones. It is merely the contents of the X Canons
G.] correspoud with our “ Marginal References.” 299
Bat in fact there is no danger of his making much pro-
gress in his task. Tis first discovery would probably be
that 8. John’s weighty doctrinal statements concerning our
Lorn’s Eternal Gopvhead in chap. i. 1—5: 9, 10: 14, are
represented as parallel with the Hwan 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 correspond-
ing 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 Τα]
of Riferenee only.
Eusebius has in fact himsclf explained his object in con-
structing them; which (he says) was twofold: (1") To en-
able ἃ reader to see at a glance, “‘ihich of the Evangelists
have said things of the same hind,” (tives τὰ παραπλήσια
εἰρήκασι : the phrase occurs four times in the course of his
short Epistle): and (2°"*), To enable him to find out «here
they have severally done so: (τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου evay-
γελιστοῦ τόπους, ἐν ols κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν εἰπεῖν ;
Euscbius uses the phrase ¢iice.) But this, (as all are aware)
is precisely the office of (what are called) “ Marginal Refer-
ences.” Accordingly,
(a.) Whether referring from 8. Matth. x. 40 (ἢ 98); 5.
Mark ix. 37 (ἢ 96); or S. Luke x. 16 (§ 116) ;—we find our-
selves referred fo the following sir places of S. John,—v. 23:
xii. 44,45: xili. 20: xiv. 21: xiv. 24, 25: xv. 23° (= §§
40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144°.) Again,
().) Whether we refer from 8. Matth. xi. 27 (§§ 111, 112,)
or S. Luke x. 22 (ἢ 119),—we find ourselves referred to the
following eleren places of S. John,—i. 18: iii. 85: v. 37:
νἱ 46: vit 28,29: viii 19: x. 15: xiii. 3: xv. 21: xvi.15:
xvii. 25 (ἐκ 8, 30, 44, 61, 76, 87, 90, 114, 142, 148, 154.)
(c.) So also, from S. Matthew’s (xvi. 13-16), 5. Mark’s
(viii, 27 —29), and S. Luke’s (ix. 18—20) account of 5.
of Euschius printed in erfenso,—and of course is no “Harmony ” at all. It
would have been a really useful book, notwithstanding; but that the editor,
strange τὸ say, has omitted to number the sections.
> This last § according to Tischendorf’s ed. of the Eusebian Canons.
300 The (so called) “ Ammonian” Sections [arr
τω: oo at Caxsarea Philippi, — we ara referred
0 S.John i, 42, 43,—a sine ;
ee 3,—a singular reference ; and to δ. Juha
(4) From the mention of the last P
Ἷ ε assover by th
earlier Evangelists, (5. Matth. xxvi, 1, 2: 5. Mark sae
S. Luke xxii. 1,) we are referred to S. John’s mention of the
Jirst Passover (ii. 13 = § 20); and of the second (vi 4 --
§ oO as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = § 96.)
¢.) From the words of Consecration at the
he Last 5
. recorded by S. Matth. (xxvi. 16), 8. Mark (xiv. 92)" bind
᾿ Luke (xxii. 19),—we are referred to the four following
ections of our Lorp’s Discourse in the Synagogue at Caper-
naum recorded by S. John, which took place a year before
—S. John vi. 85, 86: 48: 51: 55: (§§ 55, 63, 65, 67).
(*) Nothing but the spirit in which “ Marginal Refer-
ences " are made would warrant a critic in linking together
i Pea like the following,—similar, indeed yet en-
Irely distinct: viz. S. Matth. li. 34: x
pa cae atth. xxvii. 34: S,Mark xv. 24:
(9) I was about to say that scarcely could such an excuse
be invented for referring a Reader from 5. 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: Ἐπ
margin of our own Bibles. Not even the margin of the
English Bible, however, sends a Reader (as the IX" Canon
of Eusebius does) from our Lorp’s eating “broiled fish and
honeycomb,” in the presence of the ten Apostles at Jeru-
salem 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: 18 -- §§ 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 Eusrbian
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 -
a) ae
οὐ less useful than our Marginal References. 301
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*,—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, and yet inferior in the follow-
ing four respects :—
(Ist.) 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 pre-
tend 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, 283—25.)
(3rdly.) By the very nature of their constitution, reference
even to another part of the same Gospel is impossible. (Euse-
© Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have been re-.
cognised at least by Eusebius. Our Lorp’s Agony in the Garden for instance,
(S. Luke xsii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by him numbered ὃ 283: and
that often rejected verse, 5. Mark xv. 28, he certainly numbered § 216,—
whatever Tischendorf may say to the contrary. (See p. 293.)
ὁ Jt 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 Quotatious, 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, sefs of References
might be kept together ; not scattered aboutein small parcels over the whole
Book.—Abvve 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 distin-
guished from those which are illustrative only, or are mercly 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
docs not miss the reference to “ Ecclus. xliii. 11,12” at Gen. ix.14? Who
can aflont to do without the reference to “1 Mace. iv. 59” at δ. John x 22?
302 The work of Eusebius quite different from that [arr
bius is unable, for example, to refer a reader from 8. John
xix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.) ,
But besides the preceding, which are disadvantages inhe-
rent 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 sup-
plicd above), is observed occasionally to withhold eee :
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 ac-
count of the same transaction (chap. xx. 3—10): nof because
he disallowed the verse in S. Luke’s Gospel,—for in a certain
place he discusses its statements®.
III. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before
that the work of EusEstus was entirely different in its struc-
ture and intention from the work of AmMonIvs. 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
Evsenius, 8. Mark has 21 Sections peculiar to his Gospel ;
8. Luke, 72: S. John, 978. According to the same Evcsrmus,
14 Sections are common to S. Luke and S. Mark only: 21,
to S. Luke and 8. John on/y. But those 225 Sections can
have found no place in the work of Ammonius. And if, (in
some unexplained way,) room zas found for thosé parts of
the Gospels, «ith what possible motive can Aumonics have sub-
dicided 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
jedicious 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‘.” He considers it to be certainly indicated
thereby “that in the judgment of critics and transcribers,
* Mai, vol. iv. p. 257. See ulso p. 293. . Tischendorf says 19 only.
& Tischendorf says 96 only. » Tischendorf says 13 only.
δ Scrivener specifies the following Codd. C,F, H, I, P, Q, R, W4 Y, Ζ, 5h,
59, 60, 68, 440, it, s**'. Also D and K. (Cod. Beza, p. x%, and Introd.
pp. 51,2.) Add Evan. 1217: (but 1 think not 263.) ia
611 of Ammonius.— Tis Sectional division very uscfal. 802
(whatever that judgment may be deemed worth,) the Ammo-
nian 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 infer-
ences. I also learn with surprise that ‘those who have
studied them most, can the least tell what usc the Ammo-
nian Scctions can serve, unless in connection with Canons
of Harmony *.”’
However irregular and arbitrary these subdivisions of the
Evangelical text are observed to be in their construction,
their uscfulness is paramount. They are observed to fulfil
πον the same office a8 our own actual division of the Text
into 89 Chapters and 3780 Verses. Of course, 1165 sub-
divisions are (for certain purposes) somewhat 1088 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 num-
bers, 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 ns 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 sclf-same number.
A Greck copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin
furnished with the Eusebian Sectional notation, may be con-
sidered to correspond generally with an English copy merely
divided into Chapters and Verses. The addition of the
Eusebian Canons at the beginning, with numerical refer-
ences 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
* Scrivener’s Introduction, pp. 51 and 62: Cod. Beza, p. xx. note [2.]
902 The ancient Sectional Apparatus [arr.
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 consideruble)
of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the commencement
of his Book*,—without which the Refcrences 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 Scctions but omit the
Canons.’ Whether, however, the omission of References to
the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the sec-
tional numbers, is to be explained in this way, or not,—
Auwyosics, 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 Aaryonrcs.” The expression cannot be too
soon: banished from our critical terminology. Whether
banished or retained, fo reason about the lost work of Amuo-
nus from the Sections of Eusenius (as Tischendorf and the
rest habitually do) is an offence against ‘historical Truth
which no one who yalues his critical reputation will probably
hereafter venture to commit.
IV. This subject may not be dismissed until a circum-
stance of considerable interest has been explained which has
already attracted some notice, but which evidently is not yet
understood by Biblical Critics'.
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 5
for which, men must have early sought to devise a remedy.
They were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expe-
dient would be to note at the foot of every page of a Gospel
the numbers of the Sections of that Gospel contained ὧν ¢-_
fenso on the same page; and, parallel with those numbers, to
exhibit the numbers of the corresponding Sections iu the
* Evan. 263, for instance, has certainly lank Euscbian Tables at the begin-
ning: the frame only. 1 See Scrivener’s Zutroduetion, p. 51 (uote 2),
—where Tregelles (in Horne’s Introd. iv. 200) is quoted. be BARS
G.] at the foot of the Gospels, explained. 305
other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an ap-
paratus at the foot of the page, are known to exist™. For
instance, in Cod. 262 ( = Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written
in double columns, at foot of the first page (fo/. 111) of
S. Mark, is found as follows :—
Ah L δὰ m>aALM
A oO Pr Γ
B ΖΙ ἢ A IS IA
-ο- ΙΒ
ΙΔ
ΚΗ
The meaning ot this, every one will see who,—(remember-
ing what is signified by the monograms MP, Ao, Ἰώ, mo,)—will
turn successively to the 115, the I*, the VI, and the I* of
the Euscbian Canons. Translated into expressions more
familiar to English readers, it evidently amounts to this:
that we are referred,
(§ 1) From 5. Mark i. 1, 2,—to8. Matth. xi. 10: 5. Luke vii. 27.
(§ 2) ees i. 3,—to 8. Matth. iii. 3: 5. Luke iii. 3—6.
(88) -..: i. 4, δ, 6,—to 5. Matth. iii. 4---ὅ.
(§4) ...- i. 7, 8, —to 8. Matth. iii. 11: 5. Luke iii. 16:
S. John i, 15, 26-27, 80-1: iii. 28.
(I venture to add that any one who will compare the
above with the margin of §. 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 pas-
sages, (as above,) by merely turning over the pages of his book.
E.g. The parallel places to 8. Mark’s § 1 (A) being § 70 of
© eg. 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; (Scri-
vener's Infroduction, p. 51, note [?].) Scrivener adds W‘, and Tischendorf
Tr, (Scrivener’s Cod. Bezae, p. xx.)
® The order of these monograms requires explanation.
x
306 Syriac Evangelia, the source of these [arr.
'§. Luke (O) and ὁ 103 of 5. Matthew (P [),—it wos just as
easy for him to find those two places as it is for us to tum
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 Chris-
tians. What is certain, a precisely similar expedient for
enabling readers to discover Parallel Passages prevails exten-
sively in the oldest Syriac Evangelia extant. There are in
the British Museum about twelve Syriac Evangelia furnished
with such an apparatus of reference®; of which a specimen
is subjoined,—derived however (because it was near at band)
from a MS. in the Bodleian °, of the viit* or viii 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 eur-
prise that in the margin of this page against ver. 8, is
written in vermilion, by the original scribe, ae against
ver. ὅτ Ὁ : against ver. τ.
ee against ver. 1s against ver. ᾿ς τ against
ver. ae against ver. i against ver. 16,—
ie against ver. 19
with references to the Eusebian Canons subscribed, are D0
part of the (so-called) “ Ammonian” system, will be re-
cognised at a glance. According to that scheme, 5. Mark
xiv. 8 is numbered oe But to proceed.
: against ver. 11,—
. That these sectional numbers’,
ὁ Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450, and 1, and 2, and 4, and δ, and 7, and 8:
14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright’s Catalogue, 4to. 1870.) Also Rich. 7,187.
The reader is referred to Asscmani; and to Adler, p. 62-8: also p. 63.
- P “Dawkins 3.” See Dean Payne Smith’s Catalogue, p. 72.
4 It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme,
S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes an independent eec-
tion (§§ 281—288) : ver. 16—18 another (§ 289); and verr. 19—20, anotber
(§ 290), which is the last. The Greck scheme, as a rule, makes }
sections of verr. 8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but throws together ver. 10—11: 1
ess
every eerse of
2—13:
ndependaut —
G.] Tables of Sectional References. 807
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 :—
renal ,hov want awa real ho wantin
Ret .... ant OT gt ah -οαἱ
ash re ee st ah ASt
| ose Xct ὦ ἃ cast
The exact English counterpart of which,—(I owe it to
the kind help of M. Neubauer, of the Bodleian),—is sub-
joined. The Reader will scarcely require to be reminded
that the reason why 88 282, 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 Inke | Matthew, Mark
391 ae 286 247 390 421 281
ie 426 288 247 390 421 283
ANG: 391 Le. | 284
393 wo. L285
The gencral intention of this is sufficiently obvious: but
the Reader must be told that on making reference toS. Mat-
THEW’s Gospel, in this Syriac Codex, it is found that § 421
= chap. xxviii. 8; and § 426 = chap. xxviii. 19, 20:
That, in 8. Luke’s Gospel,—§ 390 = chap. xxiv. 8—10:
§ 891 = chap. xxiv. 11; and § 393 = chap. xxiv. 13—17':
That, in 5. Jonn’s Gospel,—§ 247 = chap. xx. 17 (πορεύου
down to Θεὸν ὑμῶν")
© Note that § 90 —S. Luke axiv. 12: § Ἐν = ver. 18—34: § “δ, =ver.
85: 8 = isincomplete. {Dr. Wright supplics the lacune for me, thus: § aes
= ver. 86—41 (down to θαυμαζόντων): ὃ ae = εἶπεν αὐτοῖς down to the end
, ;
of ver. 41: g 808 = ver. 42: a =ver. 43: § ao = ver. 44—50: ὃ ἘΠ
ΞΕδ]: 8 = ver. 62, 8.1
Critical rendcre will be interested in comparing, or rather contrasting,
the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which prevails in all Greck
x2
308 The Syriac Seetional System different [arr
.So that, exhibited in familiar language, these Syrinc
Marginal References are intended to guide a Reader,
(§ 281) From’S, Mark xvi. 8,—to 5. Matth. xxvil. 8: 8. Luke
xxiv. 8—10: S. John xx. 17 (wo-
ρεύου to the end of the verse).
(§ 283) ....., - Xvi. 10,—to the same three places,
(§ 284) ......2, xvi. 11,—to 5. Luke xxiv. 11.
(§ 285) .....0, xvi. 12,—to 5. Luke xxiv. 13—17,
(§ 286) τς τς xvi. 13,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11.
(§ 288) ......, Xvi. 15,—to 8. Matth. xxiv, 19, 20.
Here then, although the Ten Euscbian Canons are faith-
fully retained, it is much to be noted that we are presented
with @ 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
Codices. S. John’s § “18s xs. 18: his § 289 ver. 19 to εἰρήνη ὑμῖν io
ver. 21: his § mD ver. 21 (καθώς to the end of the verse): his ὃ fh
= ver. 22: his § ες = ver. 23: his § fio} = ver. 24-5: his § ἮΙ = ver.
26-7: his § “5 — ver. 28 tothe end of xxi. 4: hie § 756 _ axi.5; his § cy
= 21. 6 (to εὑρήσετε): his § 258 — ver, 6, (ἔβαλον to the end): his 50)
ΞΞ ver. 7, 8: his § fo) = ver. 9: his § = = ver.10: his § on = ver. 11:
« » 263
his § 9 = first half of ver. 12: his § en is incomplete.
(But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently the
263 : ;
correcter ones, 10 Stands opposite the middle of ver.12 [οὐδεὶς δὲ ἐτόλμα], and
261 Ἷ Ἴ
g Opposite ver. 18 [ἔρχεται vdy],) proceeds to supply the lacune for me,
264
thus: ὃ g =ver.13: cc = ver. 14-5 (down to φιλῶ ae λέγει αὐτῷ): ὃ τῷ
= βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου, (endof ver.15): § 207 — ver, 16 (down ἰοφιλῶ σ): § Ὅν
Ξε λέγει αὐτῷ, Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου (end of ver. 16): g 25) = ver. 1
270
“- ΄ > ~ ὃ 271
(down to φιλῶ ce): ὃ g “λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ1., β. ram. μου (end of ver.17): § 10. - --
= τεσ. 18 to 25.)
G.] Jrom that found in Greck MSS. 309
more in nwnber. The sum of the Sections in each of the
Gospels follows; for which, (the Bodleian Codex being muti-
lated,) I am indebted to the learning and obligingness of
Dr. Wright'. He quotes from ‘the beautiful MS. Addit.
7,157, written a.p. 7684,” From this, it appears that the
Sections in the Gospel according to,—
8. Marrnew, (instead of being from (are 426: (the last Section, § a,
ae 855) consisting of ver. 19, 20.)
S.Marz,(..... 241 to 233,). . 290: (the last Section, 972%
consisting of τὸν 19, 20.)
S.Lurr, (..... 849 to 342,). . 402: (the last Section, 840?
consisting of ver. 52, 53.)
Sdour, ts ds το κων 232,). . 271: (the last Section, 937)
consisting of ver. 18—25.)
The sum of the Sections therefore, in Syriac MSS. instead of
being between 1181 and 1162", 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 prin-
ciple of referring each Section to one of Ten Canons, but
substitute for the Eusebian Tables a epecies of harmony, or
apparatus of reference, at the foot of every page?
The foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a refer-
ence to Assemani’s engraved representation, on xxii Copper
Plates, of the X Eusebian Tables from a superb Syriac Codex
(a.p. 586) in the Medicean Library *. The student who
t « JT have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and
97,157. The first three are No. Ixix, lxx, acd Ixxi, in my own Catalogue: the
last, a Nestorian MS., is N°. xiii in the old Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen
(London, 1838). All four agree in their nc=eration.”
« See the preceding note.—Availing myself of the reference given me by
my learned correspondent, I read as follow: in the Catalogue :—“ Inter ipsa
textus verba, numeris viridi colore pictis, no-atur Canon harmoniae Eusebianae,
ad quem qunevis sectio referenda est. Bic, | [ie. 1] indicat canonem in quo
omnes Evangelistae concurrunt,” ἄς. ἄς.
τ Suidas [4.D. 980], by giving 236 to §. Mark and 348 to 5. Luke, makes
the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171.
¥ This shect was all but out of the prsx-ers hands when the place in vol. i.
310 The Eusebian Tables Sound in Syriac MSS. [arr.
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 42) 283 390 247
— ii 416 276 383 ἜΝ
— ili 134 oer 145 178
iv 394 212 oS ῳ 223
— iv 319 ute 262
— vi 426 288 stone: Rta
— vii 425 a oes 249
2 — vii ... 290 | 401 | ...
- ix ὦ ἌΡ 899 262
— <x 424 289 402 271
The Syrian Church, therefore, from a period of the re-
motest 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 resulta.
When the extreme antiquity of the Syriac documents is con-
sidered, 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 pre-
carious than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident
assertion of the Critics that, “ just as Evsesrus found these
Verses [S. Mark xvi. 9—20] absent in hia day from the best
and most numerous [sic] copies, 80 was also the case with Am-
-4onrus when he formed his Harmony in the preceding cen-
tury”. 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:””
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 oblig-
ingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from the mutilated fragments of
the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to Carpiaius in Add. 17,218 and 14,450.
* Dr. Tregelles. (Vide supra, Pp. 125-6.) And so, Tischendorf.
ο.] “ Ammonian” Sections tu Greck Evangelia. 311
but to introduce ¢/af 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)
— 6,..§233,..34...... (including L, 8)
— 9, (2) § 234,..41...... (including r, Δ, Π)"
— τὸ, (ἢ) 8.285,.. 4. «ννον (iz. 67, 282, 881, 406).
— 12, (Ὁ) § 236,.. 7....(the number assigned by Suidas)*
— 14, (?) § 237,..12...... (including Δ)"
— 15,..§238,.. 3...... (viz. Add. 19,387: 27,861, Ti)
— 17,..§239,.. 1...... (viz. 6) ᾿
19, ..§ 240,..10.... (including H, M, and the Codices
from which the Hharklensian Revision,
4.D. 616, was made) ¢
— 20,..§241,..36...... (including C, E, K, V)4
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—(J) That the sum of the Sections assigned to 8. 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 ex-
plains how he would have his Sections and Canons used.
His language requires attention. He says :—
a ’ > ΄ e
Ei οὖν ἀναπτύξας ἕν τι τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ὁποιον-
ie} Ψ ,
δήποτε, βουληθείης ἐπιστῆναί τινι ᾧ βούλει κεφαλαίῳ, καὶ
XN δ ΄
γνῶναι τίνες τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκασι, καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους ἐν
7 The others are 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 82, 37, 40, 45, 52, 98, 118, 115, 127,
129, 182, 188, 184, 187, 169, 186, 188, 193, 195, 265, 269, 276,871. Add.
18,211, Cromwell 15, Wake 12 and 27.
* The others are 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 64 [more 88 P], 65, 68, 111, 112,
114, 118, 167, 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 aed
112. Wake 21. * Viz. 184, 192, 264, hb’, Add. 11,836. Tit, Wake 29.
> The others are 10, 20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl. 141.
« Vide supra, p. 33. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p.53.) The
others are ὃ, 26, 72, 299, 417. Bodl. Miscell.17. Wake 86.
4 The others are 7, 27, 34, 38, 89, 46, 74, 89, 105, 116, 117, 185, 179, 185,
194, 198, 207, 212, 260, 261, 267, 276, 279, 293, 301, 445, kee", Add. 22,740,
Wake 22, 24, 30; and 8] in which, ver. 20 is numbered carp.
“12 Jerome translates Eusebius ad Carpianum. — [app. ο.
ἑκάστῳ τόπους εὑρεῖν ἐν ols κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν, ἧς
ἐπέχεις περικοπῆς ἀναλαβὼν τὸν προκείμενον ἀριθμὸν, ἐπιζη-
τήσας τὲ αὐτὸν ἔνδον ἐν τῷ κανόνι ὃν ἡ διὰ τοῦ κινναβάρεως
ὑποσημείωσις ὑποβέβληκεν, εἴσῃ μὲν εὐθὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐπὶ μετώ-
που 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 εὐαγ-
γελίου 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 sub-
jecto numero doceberis ; et recurrens ad principia, in quibus
Canonum est distincta congeries, eodemque statim Canone
ex titulo frontis invento, illum quem querebas numerum,
ejusdem Evangelista, qui et ipse ex inscriptione signatur, in-
venies ; atque e vicino ceterorum tramitibus inspectis, quos
numeros e regione habeant, annotabis. Et cum scieris, re-
curres ad volumina singulorum, et sine mora repertis nu-
meris 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 Gos-
pels, 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 attend-
ing to the parallel numbers relating to the other Gospels 10
the same Canon, and by turning to each in its proper place,
thou wilt discover the Evangelists saying things of the - -
same kind.” ξ
APPENDIX (H).
On the Interpolation of the text of CODES B and Copex δὶ at
S. Matruew xxvii. 48 or 49.
(Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.)
Ir is well known that our two oldest Codices, Cod. B
and Cod. &, (see above, p. 80,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvii. 49,
as follows. After σωσων [Cod. Sinait. σωσαι] avtoy, they
read :—
(Con. B.) (Cop. .)
αλλος
αλλος δε λαβὼῶ de λαβὼν AoryH
λόγχην ενυξεν αὐτοῦ ενυξεν αὐτου TH
την πλευρᾶν και εξηλ πλευραν Kat εξηλ
θεν υδωρ και αι
μα
θεν υδωρ και GING
Then comes, o δὲ ts παλιν Kpakas x.T.). 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°.
Obvious is it to suspect with Matthaei, (ed. 1803, vol. 1.
Ῥ. 158,) that it was the Lectionary practice of the Orien-
tal Church which occasioned this interpolation. In 8. John
xix. 34 occurs the well-known record,—aAn’ els τῶν. expe
τιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ THY “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 Soth verses of 5. Matthew.
This will bo found alluded to above, at p. 202 and again at
ῬΡ. 218-9.
© But Cod. U inserts evfews before εξηλθεν ; and (at least two of the other
Codices, viz.) 48, 67 read αἱμα καὶ vdwp.
314 Remarkable Scholion in Eran. 72, [arp.
After the pages just quoted were in type, while examining
Harl. MS. 5647 in the British Museum, (our Evan. 72,) 1
alighted on the following Scholion, which I have since
found that Wetstein duly published; but which has cer-
tainly not attracted the attention it deserves, and which is
incorrectly represented as referring to the end of S. Matth.
xxvii. 49. It is against rer. 48 that there is written in the
margin,—
Cub “On εἰς τὸ Kae’ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διαδώρου καὶ
Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἀγίων πατέρων: τοῦτο
;
πρόσκειται :
(ὦ Αλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν.
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 ὁ: [vol. ii, p. 526, ed. Field.]) is read as follows :—
"Evopicay ᾿Ηλίαν εἶναι, φησὶ, tov καλούμενον, καὶ εὐθέως
ἐπότισαν αὐτὸν ὄξος: (which is clearly meant to be a sum-
mary of the contents of ver. 48 : then follows) ἕτερος δὲ προσ-
Mav λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε. (Chrysostom quotes
no further, but proceeds,—Ti γένοιτ᾽ ἂν τούτων παρανομώ-
τερον, 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 tio oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably is;
and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. B, Ν, (not to say Codd.
> 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 re-
marks of Huct, Origeniana, iii. § i. 4. (at the end of vol. iv. of Origen’s Opp.
p. 292-3.)—Enusebius (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 c0 employs the word in Jib. τ. 19 ad fin.
H.] guoting the lost Diatessaron of Tatian. 315
C, L, Ὁ, I) 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 cir-
cumstance. Nor is this all. Severus‘ 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, tradition-
ally said to have been found with the body of the Apostle
Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the time of the Em-
peror 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 trans-
action in that place,—except Chrysostom and Cyril of Alex-
andria; into whose Commentaries it has found its way.—
Thus, to Codices B, 8, C and the copy familiarly employed
by Chrysostom, has to be added the copy which Cyril of
Alexandria employed; as well as evidently sundry other
Codices extant at Constantinople about a.p. 500. That the
corruption of the text of 8. 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 inter-
posing seven verses of S. John’s xix‘® chapter [ver. 31—7]
between the 54th and 55th verses of 3, Matth. xxvii,) really
were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John xix. 34
after 5. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49,—two points would seem to
call for explanation which at present remain unexplained :
First, (1) Why does on/y that one verse find place in the in-
terpolated copies P And next, (2) How does it come to pass
¢ He was Patriarch of Antioch, a.D. 512-9.—The extract (made by
Petrus junior, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, Α.Ὁ. 578,) purports to be
derived from the 26:5 Epistle, (Book 9,) which Severos addressed to Thomas
Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani, Bibl. Orient. vol. ii.
pp. 81-2.
* I cannot find the place in Cyril. 1 suppose it occurs in a lost Commentary
of this Father,—whose Works by the way are miserably indexed.
816 The tnterpolation of Codd. Bands accounted for. (arp.
that ‘hat one verse is exhibited in 60 very depraved and s0
peculiar a form?
For, to say nothing of the inverted order of the tno
principal words, (which is clearly due to 1 S.John τ. 6,)
let it be carefully noted that the substitution of ἄλλος δὲ
λαβὼν λόγχην, for ἀλλ᾽ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ οἵ the
Evangelist, is a tell-tale circumstance. The turn thus li-
centiously 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 “ΟΝῈ oF THEM ran, and fook 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—fook a spear.)
Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by Eusebius to
have done: viz. “after some fashion of his own, to have com-
posed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative °.”
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.p. 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 un-
reasonable 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,
ε Ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν [viz. the sect of the Severiani] ἀρχηγὸς 4
Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς, τὸ
διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν. “Ὃ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. The
next words are every way suggestive. Τοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινὰς
αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς, ὡς ἐπιδιωρθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν.-- rere
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iv. 29, § 4.
H. | Th:odoret on the lost Diatessaron of Tatian. 317
is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important.
For,—May we not venture to opine that the same καθ᾽ ioto-
ρίαν εὐαγγέλιον͵,---5 this Writer aptly designates Tatian’s
work,—is responsible for not a few of the monstra potius
quam tariae kctiones' which are occasionally met with in
the earliest MSS. of all? And,—Am I not right in sug-
gesting that the circumstance before us is the only thing
we know for certain about the text of Tatian’s (miscalled)
“Harmony f”
To conclude.—That the “ Diatessaron”’ of Tatian, (for 60,
according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled
it,) has long since disappeared, no one now doubts®. 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 ac-
cording to the Hebrews, is said to have been the production
of this writer®.” The most interesting notice we have of
Tatian’s work is from the pen of Theodoret. After explain-
ing that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist, and next
a disciple of Justin Martyr [a.p. 150], after Justin’s death
aspired to being a heretical leader,—(statements which are
first found in Irenaus,)—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 Lorp 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. J myse/f found upicards of two hundred
such copes honourably preserved in the Churches of this place,”
(Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made
' See, for example, the readings of B or δὴ, or both, s,ecified from ἢ. 80 to
p. 86. & Fid. supra, p. 129, note (v.) © Opp. vol. i. p. 391 "Ὁ.
818 Theodoret.—Diodorus.— A suggestion. [arr. w
Bishop, a.p. 423,)—* all of which I collected together, and
put ‘aside ; substituting the Gospels of the Four Ey angcliste
in their room },”
The diocese of Theodorct (he says) contained eight hundred
Parishes*. 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 earlicst
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 phe-
nomena stand related to one another in the way of causo
᾿ 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 ¢hat Diodorus who was made
Bishop of Tarsus in a.p. 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 thia 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?
' Haeret. Fab. lib. i. c. xx. (Opp. iv. 208.)
‘ Clinton, F.R. ii. Appendix, p. 473, quoting Theodoret’s “ Ep.113, p. 1190.
(al. vol. iii. p. 986-7].””
POSTSCRIPT.
(Promisep aT p. 51.)
I procreD to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.—C. F. Mat-
thaei (Nor. Test., 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of
the MSS. at Moscow occurs the following “Scholion of Evsr-
Bius:—xata Μάρκον peta τῆν ἀνάστασιν ov λέγεται ὦφθαι
τοῖς μαθηταῖς.᾽ On this, Griesbach remarks (Comm. Crit. ii.
200),—‘‘ quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam
agnovisset :ἢ the record in 5. Mark xvi. 14, being express,
—Torepov ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη. The
epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach’s dictum has recom-
mended it to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourably
on the conclusion of 8. Mark’s Gospel; and to this hour the
Scholion of Matthaei remains unchallenged.
But to accept the proposed inference from it, is impos-
sible. 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 me-
thod 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 deter-
mination 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 Com-
mentary, and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of
h
oxo’
€UGE
βίου
890 POSTSCRIPT.
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 :—
κατὲ Madpkov) μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι
τοῖς μαθηταῖς: κατὰ Λλατθαῖον. μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῖς
μαθηταῖς ὦφθη ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαία :- “
κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην' ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν
ϑυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς μέσος τῶν μαθητῶν μὴ
παρόντος τοῦ Θωμᾶ ἔστη. καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας πάλιν ὀκτὼ
ουμπαρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ. μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἐφάνη
αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς θαλασσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος :- a
κατὰ Λουκᾶν ὥφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ αὐτῇ
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως: καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς
“Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὥφθη τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρα συνηγμένων τῶν λοιπῶκ
μαθητῶν: καὶ ὥφθη 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 [suprd, p. 44)
heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question.
That he allowed it, is therefore certain.
(2.) But next, this cyoAvoy evoeBiov at the utmost can
only be regarded as a general summary of what Eusebius
has somewhere delivered concerning our Lorp’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 state-
ment cannot be accepted on my own mere ‘ ipse dixit,’ I
proceed to subjoin the original Scholion of which the pre-
ceding 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 :—
POSTSCRIPT. 321
Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οἰκέτι συνεχῶς
Ἂ ιν» »
αὐτοῖς συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον TOLS μαθηταῖς ὠφθη ὁ Κύριος
μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν" οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ
τοῖς ἄλλοις παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφα-
νερώθη τοῖς μαθηταῖς. κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὥφθη αὐτοῖς
im , ‘ ‘ en, Pat ΝΣ ΄ a
ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ μόνον: κατὰ δὲ τὸν ᾿Ιωαννὴην, ἐν αὐτῇ
~ ¢ , lel , ΄ fol “ ἣν»
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων,
a” ᾿ e Al ‘ , ᾿
μέσος αὐτῶν ἔστη, ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, μὴ παρόντος ἐκει
a Ν ΄ Ἢ € , > s ‘ Q
Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτω, παρόντος καὶ
ee αν Se ee i 5 ε “A “
TOU Oona, ὥφθη αὐτοῖς, ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. μετὰ TAVTA
ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς,
οὐ τοῖς ia ἀλλὰ μόνοις (. κατὰ δὲ Λουκᾶν ὠφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν
τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. καὶ
πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς ἹΙερουσαλὴμ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ,
4 “ lal ” ’ Ν td
συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητών, ὠφθη Σίμωνι. Kai παλιν
ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν, ὅτε καὶ διέστη ἀναληφθεὶς
ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν" os ἐκ τοῦτον παρίστασθαι ζ. εἶναι τὰς εἰς τοὺς μαθητὰς
μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν γεγονυίας ὀπτασίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
μίαν μὲν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, τρεῖς δὲ παρὰ τῷ ᾿Ιῴώαννῃ, καὶ τρεῖς τῷ Λουκᾷ
ὁμοίως *.
(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—
the on/y thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,—
is the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of
Euscbius,—(“ quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam du-
biam agnovisset,”)—?s no longer discoverable. To say that
‘it has disappeared,’ would be incorrect. In the original
document. tt has no existence. In plain terms, the famous
“gyddov evoeBiov” 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.
ἃ Quoted by Matthaei, N. T. (1788) vol. ix. p. 228, from g, a, a.
δ
322 POSTSCRIPT.
He is enumerating our Loxn’s appearances to Hix Dir
ciples after His Resurrection ; and he discovers that these
were exactly seven in number: one being peculiar to S. Mat-
thew,-—three, to .S. John,—three, to 8. Luke. But because,
(as every one is aware), there exists xo record of an appear.
ance to the Disciples peculiar to S. Mark’s Gospel, the Au-
thor of the Scholion is silent concerning 8. Mark perforee.
.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaci
can have overlooked all this: how he can have failed to re-
cognise the identity of his longer and his shorter Scholion:
how he came to say of the latter, ‘‘conjicias ergo Euscbium
hunc totum locum repudiasse;” and, of the former, “ ulti-
mam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere*:” lastly,
how Tischendorf (1869) can write,—“ est enim ejusmodi ut
ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, exclu-
dat > :”’—I profess myself unable to understand.
(6) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his
Author,—besides enumerating a// the appearances of our
Saviour which Κ᾿. Luke anywhere records,—is further con-
victed of having injudiciously ineented the negative state-
ment 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 con-
cerned to defend him: but it is only fair to point out that,
to suppose he intended fo 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 no-
thing. Note, how he throws his first two statements into
a separate paragraph ; contrasts, and evidently Ja/ances one
against the other: thus,—
κατὰ Mdpkov, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι,--
κατὰ ΛΛατθαῖον μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ὦφθη,--- τοῖς μαθηταῖς
ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαία.
Vertectly 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 Sa-
viour’s appearance to His Disciples in Galilee: but] by
* Ibid., ii. 69, and ix, 228. υ Noo. Test. (1869), p. 401.
POSTSCRIPT, 323
5. Mark, He is of—by S., Matthew, He i:—related to have
been actually seen by them there. ‘
‘[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances 7»
Jerusalem : and] according to 8. John, &c. &e.
‘ According to S. Luke,’ &c. &c.
(8.) And on passing the “Quaestiones ad Marinum ἢ
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 sbort sentences the sub-
stance of more than onc tedious disquisition of this ancient
Father®. 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 ; sceing that S. Mark is not so
much as mentioned in it. But I may as well point out that
as τί stands, Eusebius cannot have been its Author: the
proof being, that whereas the Scholion in question is a note
on 5. John xxi. 12, (as Matthaei is careful to inform us )-
its opening sentence is derived from Chrysostom’ s Cbitrnen:
tary on that same verse in his 87% Homily on S. John @,
(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 sa
will the “Scholion of Eusebius” which has cost my friend
ut Moscow, his Archimandrites, and me, 60 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 !
* Let the render examine his “ Quaestio ix,” (Mai, vol. iv. p. 293-5): hi
“ Quaestio x,” (p. 295, last seven lines). See also P. 296, line 29-32 _
4 Sce Chrys. Opp. vol. viii. p. 522 © :—8ri δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς drevuplabei οὐδὲ
ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν. τς
y 2
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 enainell’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 Gon.
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 Gov’s Truth ;
Gon’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 Gop,)
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 80 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.
CanNTRRBURY.
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.
Aors, 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, ἢ. 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. 80, 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.
βασιλὶς, 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,
Bibliothdque at Paris, p. 228-1,
278-83.
Birch’e N. T., Andr., p. δ, 116-8, $11.
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.
Cesarius, p. 133.
Canons, p. 127-31, 295-312.
Sections.
Carpian, Letter to, p. 126-8, 811-2.
Carthage. See Council.
Cassian, p. 193.
Catenm, p. 133-5. See Corderius,
Cramer, Matthaci, Peltanus, Pos-
sinus, Victor.
Chrysostom, p. 27, 85, 110, 179, 193,
198-9, 201-4, 223, 258-9, 275-3,
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.
See
CODICES.
Codex 8, p. 70—90, 77, 109—18, 218-
22, 252, 257, 313; how it exhi-
bits the end of S. Mark, 88-90;
omissions, 73-5, 79, 80; Ephes. i. 2,
91—109 ; interpolations and de-
re ee
GENERAL INDEX.
pravations, p. 80-6; affected by the
Lectionary practice, p. 217—24;
sympathy with B, 78; not so old
as 1}, 291-4; facsimile, p. ii.
A, p. 220-1, 222, 257-9, 311.
L, p. 70—90, 257, 202, 217-20, 222-
8, 8313; how it exhibits the exd of
S. Mark, 86—90 ; omissions, 74-5,
79, 80; Ephes. i. 1, 91—109; in-
terpolations and depravations, p.
80-6 ; affected by the Lectionary
practice, p. 217-24; sympathy
with S, 78; older than pw, 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. 806, 311.
Ἡ, p. 302, 306, 811.
K, p. 197, 302, 311.
L, p. 123-5, 218, 225, 311; facsimile,
p- 124.
M, p. 197, 305, 306, 311.
P,Q, kh, Y, Z, p. 302.
S, V, 4, Π, p. 311.
Τὸ, p. 305.
U, p. 218, 311.
W?, p. 302.
W4, p. 305.
I, p. 218, 224, 311.
A, p- 119, 122, 811.
Codex 1, p. 120, 123, 125.
7, p. 239.
— 10, p 224, 231.
12, p. 122, 278, 288-9,
—— 13, p. 226.
— 15, p.119.
—— 19, p. 240, 278.
—— 20, p. 118-9, 22, 271, 9, 280,
1, 2.
22, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.
—— 23, p. 120.
—— 24, p.121-3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280,
"288-9.
25, p. 225, 280.
— 27, p. 239.
— 30, p. 231.
— 83, p. 123.
— 34, p. 6, 120, 121-3, 280.
— 36, p.118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9.
327
Codex 37, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9.
— 88, p. 121.3.
—— 39, p. 120, 121-3, 271, 281.
—— 40, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9.
—— 41, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9.
—— 47, p. 226.
— 50, p. 271, 281.
— 54, 56 and G1, p. 226.
— 63, p. 240-1.
—— 69, p. 123, 226.
— 72, p. 23, 218, 314.
—_ 177, p. 283.
| ——. 90, p. 240.
92 and 94, p. 283.
—— 108, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.
| —— 113, p. 218.
— 117, p. 302.
—— 124, p. 226.
129, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.
— 137, p. 116-8, 121-8, 284, 288-9.
—— 138, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.
—— 143, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
— 146, p. 286.
—— 181 and 186, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.
—— 194, p. 284.
—— 195, p. 121-8, 284, 288-9.
—— 197, p. 284.
—— 199, 206 and 209, p. 120, 1-3, 5.
—— 210, p. 121-8, 284, 288-9.
—— 215, p. 285.
—— 221 and 222, p. 121-3, 285, 8-9.
—— 233, p. 286.
—— 237 and 238, p. 285, 8-9, 321.
— 239, p. 321.
—— 258, p. 285.
—— 255, p. 285, 288-9, 319-23.
—— 256, p. 239, 286.
—— 259, p. 286, 288-9, 321.
— 262, p. 119, 122, 305.
— 263, p. 802, 804
—— 264, p. 117, 305-6.
—— 265, p. 225.
—— 266, p. 238.
—— 267, p. 216.
—— 268, p. 231.
— 270, p. 224.
—— 274, p. 124.
— 282 and 293, p. 231.
—— 299, p.122, 281, 288-9.
—— 300, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9,
280, 1, 2.
398 GENERAL INDEX.
Codex 301, p. 289.
—— 304, p. 283.
—— 309, p. 239, 282.
— 312, p. 282,
—— 329, p. 122, 282, 288. 9.
—— 332 and 358, p. 286.
— 373, p. 287.
—— 374, p. 122, 121, 2, 286, 288.9.
—— 379 and 427, p. 287.
—— 428 and 432, p. 286.
— 436, p. 218.
— 439, p. 226.
Addit. 7,157, p. 309.
— 12141, p. 215.
— 14,449, p. 215, 306, 309.
* —— 14,450, p. 215, 306, 310.
—— 14,451, p. 306.
—— 14,452-4-5, p. 215, 306.
— 14,456, p. 215.
—— 14,457-8, p. 215, 306, 309. ᾿
—— 14,461, p. 215.
—— 14,463, p. 215, 306.
— 14,464, p. 215.
—— 14,469, p. 306.
—— 14,485-8, p. 208.
—— 14,492, p. 208.
— 14,113, p. 215, 306.
— 14,114-5-6, p. 215.
17,213, p. 310.
Ambros. M. 93, p. 286,
Basil., p. 283, (three Codd.)
Bobbiensis, p. 35, 124, 186.
Bodleian, see Codd. r, A, 47, 50, 54,
Dawkins,
Cois!. 19, p. 122, 282, 8-9.
— 20, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280,
8, 9.
— 21, p. 121-3, 281, 8-9.
—— 22, p. 281, 288.
—— 23, p. 271, 281, 288.
—— 24, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9.
195, p. 66, 120, 1-3, £80.
Dawkins 3, p. 306-9.
Escorial 7, ii. 8, p. 286.
Florence, 8. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv, p- 120,
1-3, 5.
Harl. 1,810, p. 218. —
5,107, Ρ. 226.
5,647, p. 23, 218, 314.
Laur, vi. 18, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.
—— vi. 33, p. 284.
Laur. vi. 34, p. 284, 288.
viii. 14, p. 284.
Matthaei’s a, 286, 289-9, $21.
——— ἃ, p. 285, 288-9.
e, p. 285, 288.9.
10, p. 285.
12, p. 285, 288, 819-23.
14, p. 239, 286.
Meerman 117, p. 218.
Middle Hill 13, 975, p. 287.
Monacen. 99 and 881, p. 286.
—— 465, p. 287.
Moscow, see Matthaei:
Reg. 14, p. 123.
50, p. 226.
—— 53, p. 119, 122, 305.
—— 61 p. 302, 304.
——- 62, see Codex L.
— 64, p. 119.
65, p. 117, 305-6.
—— 66, p. 225.
—— 67, p. 238.
— 69, p. 216.
— 11, p. 239.
—— 72, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.
— 73, p. 231.
75, p. 224,
— τὴν. 120.
—— 79%, p. 124,
—— 90, p. 231.
— 9], p. 224, 231.
—— 100, p. 231.
— 115, p. 239.
— 117, p. 231.
— 147, p. 121, 281, 8-9. Ἶ
----118, p.121, 3, 228.9, 271, 3,
280, 8, 9.
— 166, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9,
280, 1, 2.
—— 167, p. 282.
—— 188, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 9, 280,
1, 2.
—— 189, p. 240, 278.
—— 191, p. 225, 280.
— 194, p. 283.
—— 201, p. 239, 282.
—— 206, p. 282.
—— 230, p. 122, 278, 288-9.
—— 703, p. 282.
2r¢, p. 226.
7°, p. 286.
GENERAL
ct, p. 226.
ite? and B*', p. 302.
T°, p. 305.
Taurin. xx J. iv. 20, p. 286
Toledo, p. 286.
Vat. 358, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.
— 756-7, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284,
288-9.
—— 1,229 p. 121-3, 284, 283-9.
—— 1,423, p. 287.
—— 1,415, p. 122, 286, 288-9.
—— 1,760), p. 287.
Palat. 5, p. 280.
Venet. G, 10, p. 120, 121-3, 5.
27, p. 121-3, 3854, 258-9.
—— 494, p. 285.
—— 544, p. 285.
Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. 121, 3,
283, 288-9.
—— Nep. 114, Lambec. 29, p. 283.
117, 38, p. 121-3,
285, 288-9.
18, 81, p. 226.
180, 39, p. 121-8,
285, 288-9.
Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. 811.
Xavier de Zelada, p. 121-3, 254, 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.
Crammer, Dr. J. A., p. 44, 60, 271-8.
Creed of Jerusalem, p. 184-5.
, see Athanasian.
Curetoninn Syriac Version, p. 33.
Cyprian, 25, 249.
INDEX. 329
Cyprus, p. 315.
Cyril of Alex., p. 29, 60, 110, 198,
201, 258, 271, 5, 7, 9, 281, 315.
— 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 witb, p. 163-4.
ἐπιφανία, τὰ, p. 204.
Epiphaninus, p. 95, 132-3, 199, 202-3,
258.
Epiphany, Festival of, p. 204, 7 ; les-
sons, 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. δα, p. 293-4 ;
was the Author of the “ Ammo-
nian” 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.
330 GENERAL INDEX.
Evangelists vary their expressions,
p. 147.
Evidence, Law of, p. 15.
ἐξελθόντες, p. 188.
Facsimile of Cod. yy, 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.
. Formule of the Lectionaries, p. 215-
224, 5.
Gandell, Rev. Prof., p. 148.
Garnier, J., p. 101.
Genesis, when read, p. 201.
Gennadias, p. 26.
Georgian Version, p. 86.
Gloria in Excelsis, p. 257-63.
Gothic Version, p. 35, 262.
Green, Rev. T. S., p. 13, 137, 153.
Gregentias, p. 30.
Gregory of Nazianzus, p. 258.
of Nyssa, p. 29, 39—41, 66,
267-8.
Thaumaturgus, p. 180.
the Great, p. 30.
Griesbach, Ὁ. 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.
Hbarklensian Revision, p. 33, 124,
815.
Hierosolymitan Version, p. 84, 199.
Hippolytus, p. 24-5, 248.
Hort, Rev. F. J. A., p. 13.
Huet, P. D., p. 269, 275, 314.
Hypapante, p. 207.
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, p. 165.
Iuterpolations in B and yy, p. 806;
from the Lectionary practice, p,
217-24.
Irenwus, 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, 61-7,
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.
Jony, 5. See Texts.
John Damascene, p. 30.
Josephus, p. 275.
Justin Martyr, p. 23, 193.
καθαρίζων, p. 179-80.
xavovitew, 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, 263.1
Laodiceans, Ep. to, p. 938-107. .
Latinus Latinius, p. 42-44.
Lectionary System, p.191—211, 214-
δ, 217-24, 240, 313-5, 818.
——, 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 Formula, p. 216—25.
Lloyd, Bishop C., p. 298.
Adyos, p. 165.
Luxe, S. See Texts.
Macknight, p. 105.
GENERAL INDEX. 331
Mai, Card. A., p. 42-4, 242, 265.
Manuscripts. &¢ 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.
Mang, 8. (See Texts), p. 167, 176, 7,
9; Latinisms, 149-61; style of
ch. 1. 9—20, p. 143-4; phraseology
of cb. i. 1—12, p. 174-5; ch. xvi.
9—20, p. 86—73 ; stracture of ch.
xvi. 9—20, p. 181-4.
xvi. 9-20, a Lection in the
Ancient Charch, p. 204-11.
Matthaei, C. F., p.5, 66, 191, 197,
227, 247, 271-3, 319-23. See
Codices.
Marrnew, 5. See Texts.
μέγα σάββατον, p. 194.
Meerman 117, Cod., p. 218.
Memphitic Version, p. 35.
Menologium, p. 197.
Methodius, p. 253.
Meyer, p. 13, 136, 160.
τῶν σαββάτων, p. 146-51.
Michaelis, J. D., p. 10].
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.
Maratorian fragment, p. 103.
Nativity, Festival of, p. 199, 204.
Nazianzus, see Gregory.
Nestorius, p. 29.
Nenbauer, N., p. 307.
Nisibenus, see Aphraates.
Norton, Prof. p. 13, 137, 245.
Nyesa, see Gregory.
Omissions in Band Wy, p. 73-5, 79, 80,
91, ἄς.
ὁμοιοτέλεντον, 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 5. Mark, 235.
Palestinian excmplar, p. 64-5, 121,
289.
πάλιν, p. 168-9.
Palmer, Sir Roundell, p. v, vi.
Rev. W. 4., p. v.
Papias, p. 23.
παρά, verbs compounded with, p. 163-
4.
Paralle) passages. See Tables of Re-
ference.
παρασκενή, 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. 82.
Peter, S., p. 161-2, 179, 180-1. See
Texts.
of Laodicea, p. 284, 286.
Petersburg. See Rev. A. S. Thomp-
son.
Petrus junior, p. 815.
Phillipps, Sir T. See Codices (Middle
Hill).
Philoxenian Version, p. 33, 4.
Phraseology of S. Mark xvi. 9—20,
p- 186—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. 800-1.
——_—, ancient Tables of, p. 304-
11.
332
Revision of Auth. Version, p. 263-4.
Greck Text, p. 263.
Lectionary, p. 200-1.
Rose, Ven. Arehd., p. 27.
Rev. W. F., p. 218.
Routh, Rev. President, p- ix.
Rufinus, p. 314,
5. (G. V.) p. 264.
σαββατοκυριακαί, p. 194.
- σάββατυν---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, 116-22, 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. 814.
Simon, Pére, p. 48, 209.
Sinaiticus, see Codex.
Sirletus, Card., p. 44.
Smith, Dean Payne, Ρ. 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, 814-8.
τέλος, p. 119-20, 224-42. -
Tertullian, p. 30, 93-4, 106.
Textual Criticism, p. vii—ix, 113.
GENERAL INDEX.
TEXTS,
ΞΟ Matrnew i. 10, p. 178; 25, p.
80.
iii. 16, p.178; 17, p. 30.
iv. 18—22, p. 295-6.
viii. 9, p.82; 13, p. 80, 229.
xi. 19, p.83; 20, p. 22).
xii. 9, p. 291.
xiii. 35, p.81, 110-1; 36, p.221;
39, 55, p. 178.
xiv. 14, p. 221; 22, p. 216; 80,
p. 82.
xv. 22, p.178.
xvi. 10, p.177; 12, p. 178-9; 165,
p- 162.
xx. 17, p. 223; 29, p.178.
xxi. 8, p. 178; 31, p. 83.
xxv. 24, p. 82.
rxvi. 34, 75, p.178; 39, p.217-8.
xxvii. 32, p. 188; 34, p. 84; 35,
p. 75; 48, 49, p. 80, 218, 313-8;
64, 55, p. 315.
xxviii. 2, 3, p.73; 8, p.84; 19,20,
p- 178.
S. Marx i. 1, p.180, 185 ; 9—20,
p. 182; 10, p.178; 11, 13, p. 30;
16—20, p. 295-6 ; 28, p. 85.
vi. 3, p. 178.
vii. 3, 4, p. 82; 19, p.179; 26,
p 178.
viii. 10, 15, p. 178.
x. 6, p.180; 42, p.82; 46, p.
178.
xi. 8, p. 178.
xiii. 19, p. 180.
xiv. 3, p.221; 30, p.178; 30, 63,
72, p.84; 41, p. 225; 58, p.82;
72, p.177.
xv. 28, p.301; 46, p. 82.
xvi. 8 and 9, p. 239; 8—20, p. 306;
9, p. 152-8, 178-9, 187, 216;
9—20, p. 182, 224; 10, 14, Ρ.
187, 319; 15, p.180; 15, 16, p-
178; 19, p. 180, 195.
. LUEE i. 26, p. 85; 27, p. 82.
ii. 14, p. 257-63; 37, p.82.
iii. 22, p. 30, 178; 23, p. 220.
iv. 5, p.74; 16, p. 220; 44, P-
85.
[7]
GENERAL INDEX.
333
(S. Luge) v. 1, p. 82, 220; 1-11, Cotoss. i. 23, p. 162.
pe 2-6; 17, p. 220.
vi 1, p.75, 220; 37, p. 220; 48,
p. $1.
vii. 1, p. 220; 31, p. 216.
viii. 2, p. 152, 115.
ix. 57, p. 220.
x. Lp. 81, 220; 25, p. 220.
xiii. 2, p. 221.
xv. 13, p. 82.
xvi. 6. p.178; 16, p. 745 19, p.
220.
xviii. 15, p. 220,
xix. 45, p. 220.
xx. ἢ, p. 220.
xxii 25, p. 82; 43, 44, p. 79, 201,
917-8, 30] ; 64, p. 74.
xxiii. 15, p. 83; 34. p. 79, 219;
35, p.79; 45, p. 85-6.
xxiv. 12, p. 222; 13, p. 85, 236;
16, p. 178-9; 31, p. 73; 30,
p-221; 42, 52, 53, p. 74; 51,
p. 195.
S. Joux i. 3, 4, p. 30, 110; 3, 18, 50,
p- 30; 4, p. 81, 109-11; 18,
Ρ. 39, 81; 28, p. 236; 29, 44,
p-221; 34, p. 81; 50, p. 30.
ii. 3, p. SO.
iii. 13, p. 80.
vi. MH, p. 221; 17, 64, p. 823 51,
Ρ.111.
vii. 53-τν τ. 11, p. 319,
viii. 57, p.82; 59, p. 80, 222.
ix. 4,11, p.81; 35, p. 825 38, p. 79.
x. 14, p.825 29, Pp. 223.
xiii. 3, p. 221; 10, p. 111.
xiv. 1, p. 220; 31, p. 188.
xvii. 10, p.82; 15, 16, p.76.
xviii 1, p. 18S.
xix. 13, p. 223; 17, p. 188; 34,
p- 218, 313-5.
xxi, p. 221, 3; 1—6, 11, p. 295 6;
12,18, 15—17, p. 297 ; 18, p. 83;
25, μι 19.
AcTs Paes 23, p.180; 9, p. 195.
iv. 12, p. 262.
viii. 3, p. δ.
x. 15, p. 180.
xiii. 15, 27, p. 192.
Ernes.i. 1, p. 91—109.
vi. 21,2. p 10].
iv. 7, 16, p. 101, 105.
1 5. Per. ii. 13, p. 180.
iv. 19, p. 180.
2S. Pet. iii. 4, p. 180.
Eccits. xiii. 11, 12, p. 30].
1 Macc. iv. 59, p. 301.
θεᾶσθαι, ). 156-8.
Thebsaic Version, p. 35.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. 275, 7.
Theodoret, p. 258, 317-8.
Theodotus of Ancyra, p. 258.
Theopbania, 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, vili—
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,
46, 114, 126-9, 136. 145, 169, 222-3,
227, 234, 242, 4, 5, 7, 251, 9, 260,
319, vili—ix.
Turin, see Codiccs.
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 Codiccs.
Vercellone, C., p. 73.
Versions, see Armenian, ἄς. -
Vetus Itala, p. 35.
Victor of Autioch, p. 29, 59—65, 67,
122, 134, 178, 180, 235, 250, 268,
269-87 ; Codices, 278-87; Scho-
lion, 288-99.
334 GENERAL INDEX.
Victor of Capua, p. 129.
Vienna, see Codices.
Vincentius a Thibari, p. 25.
Vulgate, p. 34.
Wordsworth, Bishop, p. ix, 9.
Rev. John, p. ix.
Wright, Prof., p. 27, 33, 206, 8, 215-
δ, 225, 306, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Westcott, Rev. Prof., p. 13, 23.
avier de Zelada, see Codices,
Wetstein, J. J., p. 121, 125, 129.
|
| iphilinus, John, p. 44.
x
x
TO TEAOC.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
A PLAIN COMMENTARY ON THE FOUR HOLY GOS-
PELS, intended chiefly for Devotional Reading. 65 vols., Feap. 8vo.,
cloth, £1 1s. 3
INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION. Seven Sermons
preached before the University of Oxford; with an Introduction, being an
answer to a Volume entitled “ Essays and Reviews.” 8vo., cloth, 14s.
NINETY SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING:
following the Course of the Christian Seasons. First Series. 2 vols.,
Feap. 8vo., cloth, 85.
A TREATISE ON THE PASTORAL OFFICE, addressed chiefly
to Candidates for Holy Orders, or to those who have recently undertaken
the Cure of Souls. 8vo., 12s.
NINETY-ONE SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING:
following the Course of the Christian Scasons. Second Scries. 2 vols.,
Feap. 8vo., cloth, 88.
THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE AND THE ENCYCLICAL.
A SERMON preached at S. Mary-the-Virgin’s, Oxford, ov the Eighteenth
Sunday after Trinity, (Oct. 20th), 1867, after publicly reading, by command
of the Lord Bishop of the Diocese, the Pastoral Address of the Archbishops,
Bishops, Metropolitans, and presiding Bishops assembled at the Lambeth
Conference. 8vo., 15.
DISESTABLISHMENT,—THE NATION’S FORMAL REJEC-
TION OF GOD AND DENIAL OF THE FAITH. A SERMON
preached at 5. Mary-the-Virgin’s, Oxford, on the Nincteentb Sunday after
Trinity (Oct. 18, 1868). ὅνο., 1s.
THE ROMAN COUNCIL. A SERMON preached at S. Mary-
the-Virgin’s, Oxford, on the Third Sunday in Advent, Dec. 12, 1869; being
the Sunday after the Death of Joux Pagsons, Esq. 8vo., 6d.
THE REVIEW OF A YEAR. A SERMON preached at
δ. Mary-the-Virgin’s, Osford, on January 1, 1871. 8vo., 6d.
WOMAN’S PLACE. A SERMON preached at S. Mary-the-
Virgin's, Oxford, on Sexagesima Sunday, Feb. 12, 1871. 8vo., 4d.
OxrForD and Lonpow: JAMES PARKER and Co.
HECKMAN
BINDERY, INC.
Bound-To-Please*
, ὃ ῦ
ἷ
4.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11