Footnotes

Footnotes1.Abp. Tait'sHarmony of Revelation and the Sciences, (1864,) p. 21.2.See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13.3.Abp. Tait is of opinion that it“should not retain its place in the public Service of the Church:”and Dean Stanley gives sixteen reasons for the same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that“many excellent laymen, including King George III., have declined to take part in the recitation.”(Final)Report of the Ritual Commission, 1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.4.In the words of a thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P. Eden),—“Condemnatoryis just what these clauses are not. I understand myself, in uttering these words, not to condemn a fellow creature, but to acknowledge a truth of Scripture,God'sjudgment namely on the sin of unbelief. The further question,—In whom the sin of unbelief is found;thatawful question I leave entirely in His hands who is the alone Judge of hearts; who made us, and knows our infirmities, and whose tender mercies are over all His works.”5.“The Athanasian Creed,”by the Dean of Westminster (Contemporary Review, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).6.Commentarius Criticus, ii. 197.7.Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd. MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit Andreas Birch, Havniae, 1788. A copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may be seen in the King's Library (Brit. Mus.)8.Account of the Printed Text, p. 83.9.See above, p.3.10.“Eam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant gravissimae.”11.I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this amiable and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am finishing my task. I consign these pages to the press with a sense of downright reluctance,—(constrained however by the importance of the subject,)—seeing thatheis no longer among us either to accept or to dispute a single proposition. All I can do is to erase every word which might have occasioned him the least annoyance; and indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. An open grave reminds one of the nothingness of earthly controversy; as nothing else does, or indeed can do.12.Tischendorf, besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the Greek Text, has edited our English“Authorized Version”(Tauchnitz, 1869,) with an“Introduction”addressed to unlearned readers, and the various readings of Codd. א, B and A, set down in English at the foot of every page.—Tregelles, besides his edition of the Text of the N. T., is very full on the subject of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, in his“Account of the Printed Text,”and in his“Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.”(vol. iv. of Horne'sIntrod.)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek Testament, and an abridgment“for the upper forms of Schools and for passmen at the Universities,”put forth two editions of a“N. T. for English Readers,”and three editions of“the Authorized Version newly compared with the original Greek and revised;”—in every one of which it is stated that these twelve verses are“probably an addition, placed here in very early times.”13.The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent Divine reluctantly admitting that“this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark himself;”and Bishop Ellicott (Historical Lectures, pp. 26-7) asking“Why may not this portion have been written by S. Mark at a later period?;”—both alike resolutely insist on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the popular outcry against this portion of the Gospel.“Without the slightest misgiving”he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (Introduction, pp. 7 and 429-32.)14.“Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,”(p. 320.)“Quæ testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba αφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.”(p. 322.)—I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf's 8th ed. (1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the following addition:—“Quæ quum ita sint, sanæ erga sacrum textum pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.”(p. 407.)15.Evangelia Apocrypha, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.16.Pp. 253, 7-9.17.In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced it“manifestly untenable”that S. Mark's Gospel was the last written; and assignedA.D.64 as“its most probable”date. In his second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—“When we consider thatthe Gospel was not written till the second century, internal evidence loses much of its force against the authenticity of these verses.”—Introduction to N.T.18.Vol. ii. p. 239.19.Developed Criticism, [1857], p. 53.20.Ed. 1847. i. p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader's acceptance in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.21.Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 311.22.Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92.23.In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,—“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.”Tayloron the Law of Evidence, 1868, i. p. 369.24.This is freely allowed by all.“Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam jam in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.”TregellesN.T.p. 214.25.This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 626) accounts for the phenomenon:—“Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam partem scribere differret, et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii quasi perfectum sequerentur, praesertim quum ea pars cum reliquâ historiâ evangelicâ minus congruere videretur.”26.It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his latest edition) S. John xxi. 25.27.Chap. III.-VIII., also Chap. X.28.Chap. IX.29.Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch.ed.8va.) [ix]: G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective here,—F (ver. 9-19), H (ver. 9-14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z.30.SeeAppendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14.31.Consider how Ignatius (ad Smyrn., c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39; and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep.ad Ephes.c. 17.32.Ἱστορεῖ [sc. Παπίας] ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονὸς,—evidently a slip of the pen for Βαρσαβᾶν τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Ἰοῦστον (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately afterwards,)—ὡς δηλητήριον φάρμακον ἐμπιόντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν ὑπομείναντος. Euseb.Hist. Eccl.iii. 39.33.Apol.I. c. 45.—The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the FragmentDe Resurrectione(Westcott and others) are clearly references to S. Luke xxiv.,—notto S. Mark xvi.34.lib. iii. c. x.ad fin.(ed. Stieren, i. p. 462).“In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus,et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est sis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.”Accordingly, against S. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 ( = Evan. 72) occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already published:—Εἰρηναῖος ὁ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πλησίον, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις γ᾽ λόγῳ τοῦτο ἀνήνεγκεν τὸ ῥητον ὡς Μάρκῳ ειρημένον.35.First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ; and by that name the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter of the (so called)“Apostolical Constitutions,”(τὰ μὲν σῦν πρῶτα τοῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Χαρισμάτων, κ.τ.λ.),—in which singular monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the“Apostolical Constitutions;”of which the ivthchapter is also claimed for Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such appears in the last edition of the Father's collected works, (Hippolyti Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. 74.The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of the heading,—Διατάξεις τῶν ἀυτῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν, διὰ Ἱππολύτου,) is part of the“Octateuchus Clementinus,”concerning which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to hisReliquiæ Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimæ, 1856. The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact correspondence between the“Octateuchus Clementinus”and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend no further than the single chapter (the ivth) specified in the text. In the meantime the fragment περὶ χαρισμάτων (containing S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in Lagarde'sReliquiæ, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there headed Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων.36.Ad fin.See Routh'sOpuscula, i. p. 80.37.For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf's remark (ed. 8va. p. 407),“Quod idem [Justinus] Christum ἀνεληλυθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐράνους dicit, [Apol.I. c. 50?] minus valet.”38.“In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,”(Cyprian Opp. p. 237 [Reliqq. Sacr.iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,)—“In nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus imponentet bene habebunt.”39.Responsa ad Episcopos, c. 44, (Reliqq.v. 248.)40.Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: alsoProleg.p. lvi.41.Inl.vii.c.7 (ad fin.),—λαβόντες ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κηρύξαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον: and inl.viii.c.1,—ἡμῖν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Observe, this immediately follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.42.Lib.vi.c.15.—The quotation (at the beginning oflib.viii.) of the 17th and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper place.Supra, p.24.43.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 421.44.ApudHieron.Opp. ed.Vallars., ii. 951-4.45.See Dr. Wright's ed. of“Aphraates,”(4to. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am entirely indebted to the learned Editor'sPrefacefor the information in the text.46.From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose.47.Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver. 15 and 16: vol. ii. 663 B, C quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 639 E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver. 17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes ver. 20.48.Opp.iii. 765 A, B.49.Καὶ μὴν τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρία πρώτῃ [ὤφθη]. Chrys.Opp.ch. 355 B.50.“Cogis”(he says to Pope Damasus)“ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se variant, quae sint illa quae cum Graecâ consentiant veritate decernam.—Haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia ... codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione, sed et veterum.”51.Vol. i. p. 327 C (ed.Vallars.)52.Contra Pelagianos, II. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5):—“In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine Evangelii scribitur:Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis Jesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes: Sæculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis substantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam.”53.E.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149); Vol. v. 988 C.—Verses 15, 16, in vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F.54.Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.55.ἐξελθόντες γάρ, φησι, διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ. τοῦ Κυρίοῦ συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων σημειων. Nestoriusc. Orthodoxos: (Cyril. Alexand.adv. Nestorian.Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,—τῇ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι, διεκηρύσσοντο καὶ εἰργάζοντο τὰς θεοσημείας οἱ θεοπέσιοι μαθηταὶ. (Ibid.D.) This quotation was first noticed by Matthaei (Enthym. Zig.i. 161.)56.ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένον; Ὁ μὲν οὄν Κύριος—ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 415.57.AthanasiiOpp.vol. ii. p. 181 F, 182 A. See thePræfat., pp. vii., viii.58.In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have overlooked. The necessity one is under, on occasions like the present, of depending to a great extent on“Indices,”is fatal; so scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be named. To judge from the Index in Oehler's edition of Tertullian, that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times. According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no less than fourteen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9-20 at all.Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf's new Oxford ed. of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in Potter's ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3 (or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, l. 8: S. John i. 18, 50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, l. 26: S. Mark i. 13, interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7:—are nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at ourSaviour'sBaptism,—a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, l. 14),—does not appear in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i. 11), or S. Luke (iii. 22.)]59.GregentiusapudGalland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in Evang.)—ModestusapudPhotium cod. 275.—Johannis DamasceniOpp.(ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and Theophylact (who quotesallthe verses) and Euthymiusin loc.60.Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that some more leaves of this Version have just been recovered.61.By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the last four verses.62.In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii. 5, Thomas writes,—“In tribus codicibus Græcis, et in uno Syriaco antiquæ versionis, non inventum est nomen,‘Nazarenus.’”—Cf. ad xxvii. 35.—Adler'sN. T. Verss. Syrr., p. 97.63.That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the Gospels relegated to the Philoxenian margin, should occur the worthless supplement which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch.viii.)—is not at all surprising. Of these 437 readings and notes, 91 are not found in White's Edition; while 105 (the supplement in question being one of them) are found in White only. This creates a suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must exhibit traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text. (So Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of some of those marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to refer to Adler's learned work, (pp. 79-134) and examine the notes on the following places:—S. Matth. xv. 21: xx. 28 ( = D): xxvi. 7. S. Mk. i. 16: xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 ( = B D): 42 ( = B א L): xi. 1: 53. S. Jo. ii. 1 [3] ( = א): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly = B): x. 8, &c. &c.64.This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, 1861-4, under the following title:—Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit, Prolegomenis et Glossario adornavit, ComesFranciscus Miniscalchi Erizzo.65.It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that one ancient codex, the“Codex Bobbiensis”(k), which Tregelles describes as“a revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS. is discernible,”[Printed text, &c. p. 170.] and which therefore may not be cited in the present controversy,—exhibits after ver. 8 a Latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in Cod. L.66.“Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint, vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.”Mai,Nova Patt. Bibl.iv. 256.67.Account of the Printed Text, p. 247.68.Gr. Test.p. 322.69.Ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὺαγγέλιον μέχρι τοῦ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, ἔχει τὸ τέλος. ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτων (sic) ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.Opp.(ed. 1638) iii, 411 B.70.Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 248, also in Horne'sIntrod.iv. 434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &c.71.Nov. Auct.i. 743-74.—Bibl. Vett. PP.xi. 221-6.72.Bibl. Coisl.pp. 68-75.—Catena, i. 243-51.73.Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean Payne Smith'sCat. of Syrr. MSS.p. 411] who diedA.D.1171) in hisExposition of S. Mark's Gospel(published at Dublin by Dudley Loftus, 1672, 4to.) seems (at p. 59) to give this homily to Severus.—I have really no independent opinion on the subject.74.Alford,Greek Test.i. p. 433.75.Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101.76.At p. 217, (ed.1847), Mai designates it as“Codex Vat. Palat. cxx pulcherrimus, sæculi ferme x.”At p. 268, he numbers it rightly,—ccxx. We are there informed that the work of Eusebius extends from fol. 61 to 96 of the Codex.77.Vol. iv. pp. 219-309.78.SeeNova P. P. Bibliotheca, iv. 255.—That it was styled“Inquiries with their Resolutions”(Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσεις), Eusebius leads us to suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name, (Demonstr. Evang. lib.vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus,Mai, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ (Mai, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so designate the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual title is correctly indicated by Jerome,—De Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ:“Edidit”(he says)“de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ,”(De Scriptt. Illustt.c. 81.) Again, Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων, (Hieron.in Matth. i. 16.) Consider also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given below, p.44, note (q).“Indicated”by Jerome, I say: for the entire title was probably, Περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ. διαφωνίας. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by Cramer (i. p. 266), quotes an opinion of Eusebius ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν εὐαγγελίοις περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας: words which are extracted from the same MS. by Simon,Hist. Crit. N. T.p. 89.79.Ἐκλογὴ ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ Εὐσεβίου πρὸς Στέφανον [and πρὸς Μαρῖνον] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων.Ibid.pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes facing the title of vol. i. ed. 1825.)80.Σὐσέβιος ... ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἐπὶ ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου πάθους καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ζητήσεσι καὶ ἐκλύσεσι, κ.τ.λ. I quote the place from the less known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to Severus of Antioch: but it occurs also inCorderii Cat. in Joan.p. 436. (See Mai, iv. 299.)81.This passage is too grand to be withheld:—Οὐ γὰρ ἤν ἀξιός τις ἐν τῇ πόλει Ἰουδαίων, (ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος κεφαλαίωιγ πρὸς Μαρνον,) τὸ κατὰ τοῦ διαβόλου τρόπαιον τὸν σταυρὸν βαστάσαι; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐξ ἀγροῦ, ὅς μηδὲν ἐπικεκοινώνηκε τῇ κατὰ χριστο μιαιφονίᾳ. (Possini Cat. in Marcum, p. 343.)82.Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenæ, inasmuch as their compilers are observed to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently full ofdisjecta membraof the work. These are recognisable for the most part by their form; but sometimes they actually retain the name of their author. Accordingly, Catenæ have furnished Mai with a considerable body of additional materials; which (as far as a MS. Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A.seuVat. 1611,] enabled him,) he has edited with considerable industry; throwing them into a kind of Supplement. (Vol. iv. pp. 268-282, and pp. 283-298.) It is only surprising that with the stores at his command, Mai has not contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject. It would not be difficult to indicate sundry passages which he has overlooked. Neither indeed can it be denied that the learned Cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner. He does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp. 357-8—262—283—295, is to be found in theCatenaofCorderiusat pp. 448-9—449—450—457.—He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of John Xiphilinus, (Cod. Vat.p. 160,) what he might have found in Possinus; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) He was evidently unacquainted with Cramer's work, though it had been published 3 (if not 7) years before his own,—else, at p. 299, instead of quoting Simon, he would have quoted Cramer'sCatenæ, i. 266.—It was in his power to solve his own shrewd doubt, (at p. 299,—concerning the text of a passage in Possinus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus published was transcribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican. (PossiniPræfat.p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of theCatenaof Possinus. In countless places he might, by such references, have improved his often manifestly faulty text.83.Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (Opp.ii. 116.) to Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis)“scire te vult in Siciliâ inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensisde Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.”The letter is dated 1563.I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will be found that Eusebius digested his“Questions”under heads: e.g. περὶ το τάφου, καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p. 299.)84.I translate according to the sense,—the text being manifestly corrupt. Τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν is probably a gloss, explanatory of τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό. In strictness, the κεφάλαιον begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end of the Gospel. There are 48 such κεφάλαια in S. Mark. But this term was often loosely employed by the Greek Fathers, (as“capitulum”by the Latins,) to denotea passageof Scripture, and it is evidently so used here. Περικοπή, on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true technical meaning, and to denote the liturgicalsection, or“lesson.”85.Ἀνάγνωσμα (like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to be here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgicalsection, or“lectio.”See Suicer,in voce.86.The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement and depravation here.87.Mai,Bibl. P.P. Nova, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the original of this passage is given in the Appendix (B).88.Mai, iv. 257. So far, I have given the substance only of what Eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity. It follows,—ὥστε τὸν αὐτὸν σχεδὸν νοεῖσθαι καιρὸν, ἡ τὸν σφόδρα ἐγγὺς, παρὰ τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς διαφόροις ὀνόμασι τετηρημένον. μηδέν τε διαφέρειν Ματθαῖον ἰρηκότα“ὀψὲ—τάφον”[xxviii. 1.] Ἰωάννου φήσαντος“τῇ δὲ μιᾷ—ἔτι οὔσης σκοτίας.”[xx. 1.] πλατυκῶς γὰρ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν δηλοῦσι χρόνον διαφόροις ῥήμασι. [xxviii. 1.]—For the principal words in the text, see the Appendix (B)ad fin.89.I allude to the following places:—Combefis,Novum Auctarium, col. 780.—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei,Anectt. Græc.ii. 62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195fol.165.—Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer,Catt.i. 251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4,fol.169.—Cod. Bodl. Laud. Gr. 33,fol.79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this subject will do well to begin by reading SimonHist. Crit. du N. T.p. 89. See Mai's foot-note, iv. p. 257.90.Ep. cxx.Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43.91.Ibid.p. 844.92.Ibid.p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.93.“Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est. [Τοῦτου διττὴ ἂν εἴν ἡ λύσεις.] Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur [σπανίωσ ἔν τισι φερόμενα] Evangeliis, omnibus Græciæ libris pene hec capitulum [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] in fine non habentibus; [ἐν τουτῷ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος]; præsertim cum diversa atque contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.] Aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [ἐκατέραν παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρϗειν ... συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς.] Matthæus, quando Dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati: Marcus autem, quando tum viderit Maria Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est, Cum autem resurrexisset: [μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον Ἀναστὰς δέ:] et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane apparuit Mariæ Magdalenæ: [εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες ῥητέον, Πρωι τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta Matthæum surrexerat, [παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τοτε γὰρ ἐγήγερατο.] ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Mariæ Magdalenæ. [προί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius diei visum esse demonstrans.”[τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.]For the Latin of the above, seeHieronymi Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).94.ἠρώτας τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; [Eusebiusad Marinum,(Mai, iv. 255.)]Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymusad Hedibiam, (Opp. i. 818-9.)]Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ μίᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου. [Ut suprà, p. 257.]Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit Dominum resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere? [Ut suprà, p. 819.]Πῶς, κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἁψαμένη τῶν ποσῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἡ αὐτὴ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἀκούει μή μου ἅπτου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην. [Ut suprà, p. 262.]Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem, audierit à Domino, Noli me tangere. [Ut suprà, p. 821.]95.Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 247.96.See above, p.28.97.See above, p.40-1.98.See theAppendix (C)§ 2.99.See theAppendix (C)§ 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § 2.100.In theEccl. Grac. Monumentaof Cotelerius, (iii. 1-53,) may be seen the discussion of 60 problems, headed,—Συναγωγή ἀποριῶν καὶ ἐπιλύσεων, ἐκλεγεῖσα ἐν ἐπιτομῇ ἐκ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς συμφωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου Ἱεροσολύμων. From this it appears that Hesychius, following the example of Eusebius, wrote a work on“Gospel Harmony,”—of which nothing but an abridgment has come down to us.101.He says that he writes,—Πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου προβλήματος λύσιν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν ῥητῶν ἀναφουμένων ζητήσεων, κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 400 c.102.ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένομ;Ὁ μὲν οῦν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 415 D.—See above, p.29, note (g).103.See below,chap. X.104.Fasti Romani, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395-495.105.Vol. i.Præfat.p. xxviii. See below, note (p).106.“Victor Antiochenus”(writes Dr. Tregelles in his N. T. vol. i. p. 214,)“dicit ὅτι νενόθενται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον.”107.For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and his work, the studious in such matters are referred to theAppendix (D).108.Opp.vol. vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field's edition, p. 527, line 3 to 20.109.Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,—ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος ὁ Καισαρείας ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον κ.τ.λ. And at p. 446, line 19,—Εὐσεβιός φησιν ὁ Καισαρείας κ.τ.λ.110.Compare Cramer'sVict. Ant.i. p. 444, line 6-9, with Field'sChrys.iii. p. 539, line 7-21.111.Mai, iv. p. 257-8.112.Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4.113.The following is the original of what is given above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ,“ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ Μαγδαληνῇ,”δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου εὶρημένῳ, ὲροῦμεν ὡς δυνατὸν μὲν εἰπεῖν ὅτι νενόθευται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον. πλὴν ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτοιμον καταφεύγειν, οὔτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα;“ἀναστὰς δὲ,”καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν,“πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”ἵνα [The extract fromVictoris continued below in the right hand column: the left exhibiting the text ofEusebius“ad Marinum.”] [Transcriber's Note: The extracts will be on alternating paragraphs.](Eusebius.) τὸ μὲν“ἀναστὰς,”ἀν[απέμψωμεν?] ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”(τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις.(Victor.) τὸ μὲν“ἀναστὰς,”ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”(τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις;(Eusebius.) (“πρωί”γὰρ“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”)(Victor.) (τὸν γὰρ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων”κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ“πρωί”ἑωρακέναι Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.)(Eusebius.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης“πρωί”καί αὐτὸς“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου”ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.(Victor.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες,“πρωί”καὶ αὐτὸς“τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων”ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.[31 words here omitted.](Eusebius.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς αναστάσεως τὸν“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.”τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν“πρωί.”(Victor.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τὸν“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου;”τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸ“προί.”[Eusebius,apud Mai, iv. p. 256.][Victor Antioch,ed. Cramer, i. p. 444-5: (with a few slight emendations of the text fromEvan. Cod. Reg. 178.)]Note, that Victortwiceomits the word πρῶτον, andtwicereads τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου),only because Eusebius had inadvertently(three times)done the same thingin the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai.Nova P. P. Bibl.iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.114.οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δἐ ὡς διαφόρους ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί φασιν οἱ τὴν δοκοῦσαν διαφωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες. Vict. Ant.ed. Cramer, vol. i. p. 445, l. 23-5: referring to what Eusebius saysapud Mai, iv. 264 and 265 (§ iiii): 287-290 (§§ v, vi, vii.)115.e.g. in the passage last quoted.116.For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred to theAppendix (E).117.How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,—“Scholia certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omniaex uno fonte promanarunt. Ex eodem fonte Hieronymum etiam hausisse intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.—Similiter Scholiastæ omnes in principio hujus Evangelii in disputatione de lectione ἐν ἡσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτη ex uno pendent.Fortasse Origenes auctor est hujus dubitationis.”(N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)—The reader is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47 (line 23.)118.It is not often, I think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually inserted after Ἀναστάς δέ. Such a point is found, however, in Cod. 34 ( = Coisl. 195,) and Cod. 22 ( = Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many other copies.119.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 47, 125, 431.120.Φασὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἐνταῦθα συμπληροῦσθαι τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον; τὰ δὲ ἐφεξῆς προσθήκην εἶναι μεταγενεστέραν. Χρὴ δὲ καὶ ταύτην ἑρμηνεῦσαι μηδὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ λυμαινομένην.—Euthym. Zig. (ed.Matthaei, 1792),in loc.121.For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to theAppendix (F).122.Viz. A, C [v]; D [vi]; E, L [viii]; F, K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π [ix]; G, H, X, S, U [ix, x].123.Vercellone,—Del antichissimo Codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca, Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)124.Dublin Univ. Mag.(Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.125.ὁμοιοτέλευτον.126.See Scrivener'sIntroductionto his ed. of the Codex Bezæ, p. xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface to the 2nd ed. of hisCollation of the Cod. Sinaiticus.—Add to his instances, this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:—ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ ΕΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕΗ ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣΑΣΤΡΑΠΗIt is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:—ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟHence the omission of και επεγνωσαν αυτον in א.—The following explains the omission from א (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke xxiv. 52:—ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙThe next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke xxii. 64:—ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε[ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ]ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟThe next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are absent in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ127.In this way, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt reading of Cod. B (ινα τηρησης αυτους εκ του κοσμου)—which, however, was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (Opp.p. 1035:al. ed.p. 825)—is explained:—ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣThus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42:—ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ[ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ]ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝAnd why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S. Luke xxiv. 53:—ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝAnd why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of the Temptation (S. Luke iv. 5) :—ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ128.In this way the famous omission (א, B, L) of the word δευτεροπρώτῳ, in S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the least) capable of being explained:—ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕand of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:—ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ[ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ]ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ129.He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii. (1 Cor. v. 7.)130.In this way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. א in S. Mark xv. 47—xvi. 1:—19 words in S. Mark i. 32-4:—20 words in S. John xx. 5, 6:—39 words in S. John xix. 20, 21.131.Scrivener'sFull Collation, &c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles' N. T. Part II. page ii.132.SeeChap. IV. p.37.133.Scrivener'sIntroduction to Con. Bezae, p. liv.134.e.g. in S. John i. 42 (meaning only א, B, L): iv. 42 (א, B, C): v. 12 (א, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, B, L), &c.135.e.g. S. Matth. x. 25; xii. 24, 27: S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19 (βεεζεβουλ).—1 Cor. xiii. 3 (καυχησωμαι).—S. James i. 17 (αποσκιασματος).—Acts i. 5 (εν πν. βαπ. αγ.).—S. Mark vi. 20 (ηπορει).—S. Matth. xiv. 30 (ισχυρον).—S. Luke iii. 32 (ἰωβηλ).—Acts i. 19 (ἰδίᾳ omitted).—S. Matth. xxv. 27 (τα αργυρια).—S. Matth. xvii. 22 (συστρεφομενων).—S. Luke vi. 1 (δευτεροπρῶτῳ omitted).—See more in Tischendorf'sProlegomenato his 4to. reprint of theCod. Sin.p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to Scrivener's very interestingCollation of the Cod. Sinaiticus, Introduction, p. xliii.seq.136.See Tischendorf's note in his reprint of the Cod. Sin.,Prolegg.p. lix.137.Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος—καταβαίνοντα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44.138.ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς—τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 34):—γράμμασιν Ἐλληνικοῖς καὶ Ῥωμαῖκοῖς καὶ Ἐβραῖκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.)139.αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!140.Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xlvii.141.So, in the margin of the Hharklensian revision.142.Note, that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to claim theLatinversions as allies. Ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ἄνθρωπος λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κ.τ.λ. is not“Respondit, Ille homo qui dicitur Jesus,”(as both Tischendorf and Tregelles assume;) but“Respondit ille, Homo,”&c.,—as in verses 25 and 36.143.This reading will be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the end ofChap. VII.,—p.110.144.The following may be added from Cod. א:—μεγάλοι αὐτῶν (in S. Mark x. 42) changed into βασιλεις: ειπεν (in S. Mark xiv. 58) substituted for ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτου λέγοντος: εβδομηκοντα τεσσαρων (in S. Lu. ii. 37) for ὀγδοηκ: and εωρακεν σε (in S. Jo. viii. 57) for ἑώρακας:—in all which four readings Cod. א is without support. [Scrivener,Coll. Cod. Sin.p. li.] The epithet μεγαν, introduced (in the same codex) before λίθον in S. Mark xv. 46; and και πατριας inserted into the phrase ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ in S. Lu. i. 27,—are two more specimens of mistaken officiousness. In the same infelicitous spirit, Cod. B and Cod. א concur in omitting ἰσχυρόν (S. Matt. xiv. 30), and in substituting πυκνα for πυγμῇ, and ραντισωνται for βαπτίσωνται in S. Mark vii. 3 and 4:—while the interpolation of τασσομενος after ἐξουσίαν in S. Matth. viii. 9, because of the parallel place in S. Luke's Gospel; and the substitution of ανθρωπος αυστηρος ει (from S. Luke xix. 21) for σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος in S. Matth. xxv. 24, are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting influence has been here at work besides those which have been already specified.145.Scrivener,Coll. Cod. Sin.p. xlvii.146.Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for ἐξελθ. Chrys.^834 (twice,) (also quoted in Cramer'sCat.241). The mistake adverted to in the text is at least as old as the time of Eusebius, (Mai, iv. p. 264 = 287), who asks,—Πῶς παρά τῷ Ματθάιῳ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἔξω τοῦ μνήματος ἑώρακεν τὸν ἕνα ἄγγελον ἐπικαθήμενον τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ μνήματος, κ.τ.λ.147.Tischendorf accordinglyis forced, for once, to reject the reading of his oracle א,—witnessed to though it be by Origen and Eusebius. His discussion of the text in this place is instructive and even diverting. How is it that such an instance as the present does not open the eyes of Prejudice itself to the danger of pinning its faith to the consentient testimony even of Origen, of Eusebius, and of Cod. א?... The reader is reminded of what was offered above, in the lower part of p.49.148.A similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S. Luke iv. 44, (cf. the parallel place, S. Matth. iv. 23: S. Mark i. 89). It does not mend the matter to find א supported this time by Codd. B, C, L, Q, R.149.S. Lu. xxiii. 45:—ὅπερ οὐδέποτε πρότερον συνέβη, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν Αἰγύπτω μόνον, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα τελεῖσθαι ἔμελλε; καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα τούτων τύπος ἦν. (Chrys. vii. 824 c.)150.ὅπως δὲ μὴ εἰπωσί τινες ἔκλειψιν εἶναι τὸ γεγενημένον, ἐν τῇ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη ἡμέρᾳ τῆς σελήνης γἐγονε τὸ σκότος:—ὅτε ἔκλειψιν συμβῆναι ἀμήχανον. So Victor of Antioch, in his Catena on S. Mark (ed. Possin.) He makes the remark twice: first (p. 351) in the midst of an abridgment of the beginning of Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew: next (p. 352) more fully, after quoting“the great Dionysius”of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on the same subject in Cramer'sCatena in Matth.i. p. 237,—from whom derived, I know not; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note, that the 10 lines ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου, beginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys. vii. 824, D, E.) The very next words in Chrysostom's published Homily (p. 825 A.) are as follows:—Ὅτε γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ἔκλειψις, αλλ᾽ ὀργή τε καὶ ἀγανάκτησις, οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ; τρεῖς γἀρ ὥρας παρέμεινεν, ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ γίνεται καιροῦ ῥοπῇ.—Anyone who would investigate this matter further should by all means read Matthaei's long note on S. Luke xxiii. 45.151.See above, p.70, and theAppendix (F).152.Tischendorf's“Introduction”to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the English N.T., 1869,—p. xiii.153.“Epistola quam nos‘ad Ephesios’præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero 'ad Laodicenos.”Adv. Marcion.lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.)154.“‘Titulum’enim‘ad Laodicenos’ut addidisse accusatur a Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba ἐν Ἐφέσῳ omnino non legisse censendus est.”(N. T.in loc.)155.“Ecclesiæ quidem veritate Epistolam istam‘ad Ephesios’habemus emissam, non‘ad Laodicenos;’sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.”Adv. Marcion.lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)156.ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἰκανῶν. (Epiphan.Opp.i. 310 c.)157.He describes its structure minutely at vol. i. pp. 309-310, and from pp. 312-7; 318-321. [Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has crept into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321d: pointed out long since by Jones,On the Canon, ii. 38.] His plan is excellent. Marcion had rejected every Gospel except S. Luke's, and of S. Paul's Epistles had retained only ten,—viz. (1st) Galatians, (2nd and 3rd) I and II Corinthians, (4th) Romans, (5th and 6th) I and II Thessalonians, (7th)Ephesians, (8th) Colossians, (9th) Philemon, (10th) Philippians. Even these he had mutilated and depraved. And yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78 passages, (pp. 312-7), and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40 passages more (pp. 318-21); by means of which 118 texts he undertakes to refute the heresy of Marcion. (pp. 322-50: 350-74.) [It will be perceived that Tertullian goes over Marcion's work in much the same way.] Very beautiful, and well worthy of the student's attention, (though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form,) is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy ofGod'sWord, even when dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape.“Ὅλου γὰρ τοῦ σώματος ζῶντος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τῆς θείας γραφῆς, ποῖον ηὕρισκε (sc. Marcion) μέλος νεκρὸν κατὰ τῆν αὐτοῦ γνώμην, ἵνα παρεισαγάγη ψεῦδος κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας; ... παρέκοψε πολλὰ τῶν μελῶν, κατέσχε δὲ ἔνιά τινα παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ; καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ κατασχεθέντα ἔτι ζῶντα οὐ δύναται νεκροῦσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ ζωτικὸν τῆς ἐμφάσεως, κᾴν τε μυρίως παρ᾽ αὐτῷ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἀποτμηθείν.”(p. 375b.) He seems to say of Marcion,—Fool! to suppose thy shallow witsCould quench a fire like that. Go, learnThat cut into ten thousand bitsYet every bit would breathe and burn!158.He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius,Opp.i. p. 318 and 371-2.)159.Ibid.p. 318c( = 371b), and319 a ( = 374 a.)160.Ibid.p. 319 and 374. But note, that through error in the copies, or else through inadvertence in the Editor, the depravation commented on at p. 374b, c,is lost sight of at p. 319b.161.See below, at the end of the next note.162.Προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Ἀποστολικῷ καλουμένῳ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πρὸς Λαοδικέας:—“Εῖς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα, εἶς Χριστὸς, εἶς Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.”(Epiphan.Opp.vol i. p. 374.) Here is obviously a hint of τριῶν ἀνάρχων ἀρχῶν διαφορὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἐξουσῶν: [Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ ματαιόφρονος δίδαγμα, εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς μοναρχίας τομὴν καὶ διαίρεσιν. Athanas. i. 231e.] but, (says Epiphanius), οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀποστόλου ὑπόθεσις καὶ ἠσφαλισμένον κήρυγμα. ἀλλὰ ἄλλως παρὰ τὸ σὸν ποιήτευμα. Then he contrasts with the“fabrication”of Marcion, the inspired verity,—Eph. iv. 5: declaring ἕνα Θεὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων,—τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, κ.τ.λ.—p. 374c.Epiphanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained materials ἐκτὸς τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου; οὐ γὰρ ἔδοξε τῷ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ Μαρκίωνι ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν λέγειν, (sc. the words quoted above,) ἀλλὰ τῆς πρὸς Λαοδικέας, τῆς μὴ οὔσης ἐν τῷ Ἀποστόλῳ (p. 375a.) (Epiphanius here uses Ἀπόστολος in its technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with S. Paul's Epistles.)163.“Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—”Ἐπὶ μόνων Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;”καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,”τί δύναται σημαίνειν; ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδω ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεί τὸ ὬΝ οὕτως οἱ μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται“ὄντες.”καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι.“ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,”φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος,“ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση.”—Cramer'sCatena in Ephes.i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.164.Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: xii. 14, &c.165.Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽ ἐπιγνώσεως,“ὄντας”αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών:“τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.”οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. Note also what immediately follows. (BasilOpp.i. p. 254 E, 255 A.)166.See the places quoted by Scrivener,Introd.pp. 381-91; particularly p. 385.167.Hieron.Opp.vol. vii. p. 543:—“Illud quoque in Præfatione commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.”168.“Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum est‘Haec dices filiis Israel,Qui estmisit me,’etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf.‘qui sunt Ephesi,’Vulg.] sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... abEo‘qui est,’hi‘qui sunt’appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, non ad eos‘qui sint,’sed‘qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint’scriptum arbitrantur.”Hieron.Opp.vii. p. 545a, b.169.The cursive“Cod. No. 67”(or“672”) is improperly quoted as“omitting”(Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who says of it (p. 496),—“cod. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat.”... The MS. must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in hisTentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece, &c. Havn. 1773, pp. 62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in hisLibellus Criticus de indole Cod. MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv.&c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. B itself.170.So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener'sCollation, p. xlix.171.Scrivener'sIntroduction to Codex Bezae, p. liv.172.Scrivener,Coll. of Cod. Sin.p. xlv.173.Eph. vi. 21, 22.174.Coloss. iv. 7, 16.175.Ubi suprà.176.Gnomon, in Ephes. i. 1,ad init.177.See above, pp.93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (ad Ephes.c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner, vol. ii.178.Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and א, that nothing whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in question remain, by their own admission,defective.Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1)To leave a blank spaceafter τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2)To let the wordsἐν Ἐφέσῳstand,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (Life and Letters of S. Paul, ii. 491), to eject the words“at Ephesus”from the text of Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words“in Laodicea,”—is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff) have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford (vol. iii.Prolegg.pp. 13-8); who infers,“in accordance with the prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle wasveritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus, andto no other Church.”] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity; viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (“carta bianca”) copy of the Epistle looked with“the space after τοῖς οὔσι left utterly void:”in the latter, they will be representing the archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus. But by printing the text thus,—τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσω] καὶ πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., they are acting on an entirely different theory. They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS. in the world except Codd. B and א. This is clearly to forsake the“Encyclical”hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be named.179.Ἐγκύκλιον ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii interpretanturliteras circulares: ego cum viris doctis malimEpistolasvelliteras publicas, ad omnes fideles pertinentes, quas Græci aliàs vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicerin voce.180.Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicerin voce, Ἐγκύκλιος.181.Routh'sReliquiæ, vol. iii. p. 266.—“Tum ex Conciliis, tum ex aliis Patrum scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiao Patres acta et decreta Conciliorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere per epistolas, quas non uni privatim dicârunt, sed publice describi ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulgari, atque cum omnibus populis communicari voluerunt. Hac igitur epistolae ἐγκύκλιοι vocatae sunt, quia κυκλόσε, quoquò versum et in omnem partem mittebantur.”—Suicerin voc.182.“On the whole,”says Bishop Middleton, (Doctrine of the Greek Art.p. 355)“I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on Col. iv. 16,)—‘that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans; with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.’”—This suggestion is intended to meetanotherdifficulty, and leaves the question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is found in Col. iv. 16.Macknight's suggestion, though it has found favour with many subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S. Paul is found not to have sentthe Colossians“word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.”He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this roundabout method of communication, were notthe Ephesiansordered,—if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the Colossians charged to read publicly τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, which (by the hypothesis) would have been only a copy,—instead of τὴν ἐξ Ἐφέσου, which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay, why is it not designated by S. Paul, τὴν πρὸς Ἐφεσίους,—(if indeed it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; which would hardly be an intelligible way of indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of theEphesiansalso, which had been originally addressed by S. Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the Colossians!183.Epiphan.Opp.i. 311 D.184.“Marcion exerte et palam machæra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad materiam suam cædem Scripturarum confecit.”(TertullianPræscript. Hær.c. 38, p. 50.)“Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque subducat.”(Adv. Marcion.lib. v, c. xvii, p. 455.)185.See above p.95, and see note (f) p.94.186.See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii.Prolegg.pp. 13-15.187.p. xiv.—See above, pp.8,9, note (f).188.One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of statement. The facts are these:—(1) Valentt. (apudIrenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apudClem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apudClem.)alsoread ἦν. These testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also hasbothreadings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is“perhaps not an improbable reading,”) reads ἦνten or eleven times. Ἦν is also the reading of Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact ofall the MSS. in the world, except of א and D.All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and Cureton's Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin.And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a question of authority, and reason fromthe evidence,—declining to import into the argument what may be calledlogicalconsiderations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age of reading the place after the following strange fashion,—ὁ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3, 4. And to substitute ἐστί (for ἦν) in such a sentence asthat, was obvious.... Chrysostom's opinion is well known,“Let us beware of putting the full stop”(he says)“at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as do the heretics.”[He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig.Opp.i. 130), and to Theodotus (apudClem. Alex.). But it must be confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (Routh, Opusc.i. 68), Clemens Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D.269,Routhiii. 293), Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (Routhiii. 459), and Augustine,—point the place in the same way.“It is worth our observation,”(says Pearson,)“that Eusebius citing the place of S. John to prove that theHoly Ghostwas made by theSon, leaves out those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute that heresy of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.”]Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out thatthe Spiritis a creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the Evangelist's language is made unintelligible.”(Opp.viii. 40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred toinfrà), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson'snote(z),Art.viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh'sOpusc.i. 88-9.189.It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of the Codex Sinaiticus:—(1.)S. Johni. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.)S. Matth.xiii. 35: το ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.)S. Johnxiii. 10: ο λελουμενος ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.)S. Johnvi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to be“indubitably correct.”)On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the private property of the single Codex א. The last three are absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to reject them: the second (of which Jerome says somethingverydifferent from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) he hasdropped a line: thus:—ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝThe first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p.110.190.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves careful study.191.Deut. xvi. 19.192.Printed Text, p. 254.193.Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222.194.Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan. 15, 19, 299 (?) respectively.195.Variae Lectiones, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358, 756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181): Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89, Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (leg.5 ?) S. Mariæ Bened. Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)196.Nov. Test.vol. i. p. 199.197.Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.198.Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam dubias notarent.—Variae Lectiones, &c. p. 225.199.In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, + occurs at xi. 12, xii. 38, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such sign occurs at thepericope de adulterá.200.Further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in theAppendix (D).201.Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our 36,) against S. Mark xvi. 9, is this sign [symbol: inverse or open x]. It is intended (like an asterisk in a modern book) to refer the reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occur in the margin of the Paris MS. also.202.ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188, 186.)203.See more concerning this matter in theAppendix (D),ad fin.204.At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is found,—εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδand at the end of S. Mark's, (at fol. 147b)—εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξThis second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20.Bothreappear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an interesting variety in the former of the two) in [what I suppose is the first half of] the uncial Codex Λ. See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 125.205.= Paris 72,fol.107b. He might have added, (for Wetstein had pointed it out 79 years before,) thatthe same note preciselyis found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,)fol.98b.206.See more at the very end ofChap. XI.207.Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10) contain as follows:—ἔν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς, ἕως οἱ καὶ Ἐυσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν; ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ ταῦτα φέρεται; ἀναστὰς, κ.τ.λ.But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [lege5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has only this:—ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα.208.It originated in this way. At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel, in both Codices, are found those large extracts from the“2nd Hom. on the Resurrection”which Montfaucon published in theBibl. Coisl.(pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since reprinted at the end of hisCatena in S. Matth.(i. 243-251.) In Codd. 34 and 39 they are ascribed to“Severus of Antioch.”See above (p.40.) See also pp.39and57.209.See above, pp.64,65.210.22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20.211.viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 208, 209:—20, 300:—15, 22.212.Cod. Λ, 20, 262, 300.213.Evan. 374.214.viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (BirchVarr. Lectt. p. 225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by Matthaei.215.2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding note) = 24.216.Paris 62,olim,2861 and 1558.217.See the facsimile.—The original, (which knows nothing of Tischendorf's crosses,) reads as follows:—ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡΟ ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩi.e.—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦταΠάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τον Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήλλειλαν: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας.Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου.218.As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two Æthiopic MSS.—I am unable to understand what Scholz and his copyists have said concerning Cod. 274. I was assured again and again at Paris that they knew of no such codex as“Reg, 79a,”which is Scholz' designation (Prolegg.p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which, after him, we number“274.”219.NecAmmoniiSectionibus, necEusebiiCanonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi versus.—Tisch.Nov. Test.(ed. 8va), p. 406.220.Printed Text, p. 248.221.The reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for himself:—Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὥς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὅφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.222.Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ, εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τό πους, ἐν οἷς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν φιλαληθῶς εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμὰς, καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους.223.This seems to representexactlywhat Eusebius means in this place. The nearest English equivalent to ἀφορμή is“a hint.”Consider Euseb.Hist. Eccl.v. 27. Also the following:—πολλὰς λαβόντες ἀφορμάς. (Andreas,Proleg. in Apocalyps.).—λαβόντες τὰς ἀφρμάς. (Anastasius Sin.,Routh's Rell.i. 15.)224.κανόνας ... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This at least is decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome says of Ammonius,—“Evangelicos canones excogitavitquos postea secutus est Eusebius Cæsariensis,”(De Viris Illust.c. lv. vol. ii. p. 881,) we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand gain statements of this Father are entitled.What else can be inferred from the account which Eusebius gives of the present sectional division of the Gospels but that it was also his own?—Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τὼν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις: ἡ δὲ σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προιὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους τοῦ βιβλίου. He proceeds to explain how the sections thus numbered are to be referred to his X Canons:—καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρόκειται, δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.225.“Frustra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Quæ supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.”(Tischendorfon S. Markxvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to light in the vithcentury, and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was the lost work of Ammonius, (Proleg.p. 63, § 660,)—was of course warranted in appealing to the authority of Ammoniusin supportof the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But in truth Mill's assumption cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has convincingly shewn. (Proleg.p. 68.) Any one may easily satisfy himself of the fact who will be at the pains to examine a few of the chapters with attention, bearing in mind what Eusebius has said concerning the work of Ammonius. Cap. lxxiv, for instance, contains as follows:—Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. 33. Mtt. xiii. 34, 35: 10, 11. Mk. iv. 34. Mtt. xiii. 13 to 17. But here it isS. Matthew's Gospelwhich is dislocated,—for verses 10, 11, and 13 to 17 of ch. xiii. comeafterverses 33-35; while ver. 12 has altogether disappeared.The most convenient edition for reference is Schmeller's,—Ammonii Alexandrini quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum. (Vienna, 1841.)226.Only by the merest license of interpretation can εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς be assumed to mean that Eusebius had found the four Gospels ready divided to his hand by Ammonius into exactly 1165 sections,—every one of which he had simply adopted for his own. Mill, (who nevertheless held this strange opinion,) was obliged to invent the wild hypothesis that Eusebius,besidesthe work of Ammonius which he describes, must have found in the library at Cæsarea the private copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ammonius,—an unique volume, in which the last-named Father (as he assumes) will have numbered the Sections and made them exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss such a notion. We are dealing with facts,—not with fictions.227.For proofs of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks on the (so-called)“Ammonian”Sections, the reader is referred to theAppendix (G).228.See above, p.128, note (f).229.See above, p.125.230.As a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are notedwithoutthe Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in theAppendix (G).231.τέσσαρα εἰσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξηκονταδύο. The words are most unexpectedly, (may I not saysuspiciously?), found in Epiphanius,Ancor.50, (Opp.ii. 54B.)232.By Tischendorf, copying Mill'sProleg.p. 63, § 662:—the fontal source, by the way, of the twin references to“Epiphanius and Cæsarius.”233.Comp. Epiph. (Ancor.50,)Opp.ii. 53cto 55a, with Galland.Bibl.vi. 26cto 27a.234.Galland.Bibl.vi. 147a.235.Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112).—It it only fair to add that Davidson is not alone in this statement. In substance, it has become one of the common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of S. Mark's Gospel is spurious.236.See PossiniCat.p. 363.237.Ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. [= ver. 9] ταύτην Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἑτέραν λέγει Μαρίαν παρὰ τὴν θεασαμένην τὸν νεανίσκον. ἥ καὶ ἀμφότεραι ἐκ τῆς Μαγδαληνῆς ἢσαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσι. καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς [= ver. 12.] τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Κλέοπαν, καθὼς ὁ Λουκᾶς ἱστορεῖ, (Possini siniCat.p. 364):—Where it will be seen thatText(κείμενον) andInterpretation(ἑρμηνεία) are confusedly thrown together.“Anonymus [Vaticanus]”also quotes S. Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109,ad fin.—Matthaei (N.T. ii. 269),—overlooking the fact that“Anonymus Vaticanus”(or simply“Anonymus”) and“Anonymus Tolosanus”(or simply“Tolosanus”) denote two distinct Codices,—falls into a mistake himself while contradicting our learned countryman Mill, who says,—“Certe Victor Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. ver. 8] nec ultra commentantur.”—Scholz' dictum is,—“Commentatorum qui in catenis SS. Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ exhibetur.”238.See above pp.62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such Collections as theMagna Bibliotheca Vett. PP.(1618,) vol. iv. p. 330, col. 2E, F.—For the Greek, see PossiniCatena, pp. 359-61.239.See above, pp.64-5, andAppendix (E).240.Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20.241.Introduction, &c. ii. p. 113.242.Nov. Test.Ed. 8vai. p. 406.243.Developed Crit.pp. 51-2.244.ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist.Eth. Nic.I. iii.245.To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener be it said, thatheat least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all“to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.”See by all means his remarks on this subject. (Introduction, pp. 431-2.)—One would have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English Poem,—which some able men were confidentmighthave been written by Milton, while others were just as confident that it could not possibly be his,—ought to have opened the eyes of all to the precarious nature of such Criticism.246.Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—“Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,”—the author of an able and convincing paper entitled“Exegetical Studies”in“The Baptist Quarterly”for July, 1869 (Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which“the words and phrases”contained in S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively examined.If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor's hands, he will perceive that I must have written the present ChapterbeforeI knew of his labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr. Scrivener's kindness:) my treatment of the subject and his own being so entirely different. But it is only due to Professor Broadus to acknowledge the interest and advantage with which I have compared my lucubrations with his, and the sincere satisfaction with which I have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at precisely the same result.247.Dr. Kay'sCrisis Hupfeldiana, p. 34,—the most masterly and instructive exposure of Bp. Colenso's incompetence and presumption which has ever appeared. Intended specially ofhishandling of the writings of Moses, the remarks in the text are equally applicable to much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end of S. Mark's Gospel.248.S. Matth. viii. 1 (καταβάντι αὐτῷ):—5 (εἰσελθόντι τω Ἰ.):—23 (ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ):—28 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ):—ix. 27 (παράγοντι τῷ Ἰ.):—28 (ἐλθόντι):—xxi. 23 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ).249.On the Creed, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.)250.τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ διαφωνεῖ τὰληθές. Aristot.Eth. Nic.I. c. vi.251.Davidson'sIntroduction, &c. i. 170.252.And yet, if it were ever so“sententious,”ever so“abrupt;”and if his“brief notices”were over so“loosely linked together;”—these,according to Dr. Davidson, would only be indications that S. Mark actuallywastheir Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark's“characteristics,”at p. 151:—“In the consecution of his narrations, Markputs them together very loosely.”“Mark is also characterised by aconcisenessand apparent incompleteness of delineation which are allied to the obscure.”“Theabruptintroduction”of many of his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, and illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common sense, is the value of such criticism as this? What is to be thought of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath: denying at p. 170 the genuineness of a certain portion of Scripturebecauseit exhibits the very peculiarities which at p. 151 he had volunteered the information arecharacteristicof its reputed Author?253.N.T. vol. i.Prolegg.p. 38.254.It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words and expressions about to be considered:—(i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (ver.9.)—See above.(ii.) ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνθα (ver.9.)—See p.152.(iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (ver.9.)—See p.153.(iv.) πορεύεσθαι (vers.10, 12, 15.)—Ibid.(v.) οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι (ver.10.)—See p.155.(vi.) θεᾶσθαι (ver.11 and 14.)—See p.156.(vii.) θεαθῆναι (ver.11.)—See p.158.(viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (ver.11 and 16.)—Ibid.(ix.) μετὰ ταῦτα (ver.12.)—See p.159.(x.) ἕτερος (ver.12.)—See p.160.(xi) ὅστερον (ver.14.)—Ibid.(xii.) βλάπτειν (ver.18.)—Ibid.(xiii.) πανταχοῦ (ver.20.)—See p.161.(xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν—βεβαιοῦν (ver.20.)—Ibid.(xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (ver.15.)—Ibid.(xvii.) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (ver.17.)—See p.162.(xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (ver.17 and 19.)—See p.163.(xx.) χεῖρας ἐπιθεῖναι ἐρί τινα (ver.18.)—See p.164.(xxi. and xxii.) μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver.19 and 20.)—Ibid.(xxiii.) ἀναληφθῆναι (ver.19.)—See p.166.(xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (verses10, 11 [and 13?].)—Ibid.(xxv.)“Verses without a copulative,”(verses10 and 14.)—Ibid.(xxvi. and xxvii.) Absence of εὐθέως and πάλιν.—See p.168.255.S. Luke vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9: xiii. 10, 14, 15, 16. S. Luke has, in fact, all the four different designations for the Sabbath which are found in the Septuagint version of the O. T. Scriptures: for, in the Acts (xiii. 14: xvi. 13), he twice calls it ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων.256.S. Matth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.257.It occurs in S. Matth. xxviii. 1. S. Mark xvi. 2. S. Luke xxiv. 1. S. John xx. i. 19. Besides, only in Acts xx. 7.258.Introduction, &c. i. 169.259.See the foregoing note.260.See Buxtorf'sLexicon Talmudicum, p. 2323.261.Lightfoot (on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul's phrase κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων,—“תבשב דהב [b'had b'shabbath,]‘In the first[lit.one]of the Sabbath,’would the Talmudists say.”—Professor Gandell writes,—“in Syriac, the days of the week are similarly named. See Bernstein [lit.one in the Sabbath,two in the Sabbath,three in the Sabbath.]”262.S. Mark xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.263.The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably תבש (shabbath): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more nearly than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש (shabbatha:) the final א (a) being added for emphasis, as in Abba, Aceldama, Bethesda, Cepha, Pascha,&c.: and this form,—(I owe the information to my friend Professor Gandell,)—because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine, (who spoke Aramaic,)gave rise to another form of the Greek name for the Sabbath,—viz. σάββατα: which, naturally enough, attracted the article (τό) into agreement with its own (apparently) plural form. By the Greek-speaking population of Judæa, the Sabbath day was therefore indifferently called το σαββατον and τα σαββατα: sometimes again, η ημερα του σαββατου, and sometimes η ημερα των σαββατων.Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. (Accordingly, it isinvariablyrendered“Sabbatum”in the Vulgate.) Thus, in Exod. xvi. 23,—σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις ἁγία τῷ Κυρίῳ: and 25,—ἔστι γὰρ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις τῷ Κυρίῳ. Again,—τῇ δὲ ἡμέρα τῇ ἑβδόμη σάββατα. (Exod. xvi. 26: xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in the Gospel, what took place onone definite Sabbath-day, is said to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10. S. Mark xii. 1.)It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form ἐν τοῖς σάββασι is strictly equivalent to ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ; and was adopted for convenience in contradistinction to ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις (1 Chron. xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where Sabbathdaysare spoken of.It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for“weeks;”though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough) there rendered the word ἑβδομάδας. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same word occurs twice,) it is once rendered ἀναπαύσεις; once, ἑβδομάδες. Quite distinct is עובש (shavooa) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any substitution of the one word for the other. But inasmuch as the recurrence of theSabbath-daywas what constituteda week; in other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish division of time, was the recurrence of the Jewish day of rest;—τὸ σάββατον or τὰ σάββατα, the Hebrew name forthe day of rest, became transferred tothe week. The former designation, (as explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark, once by S. Luke; while the phrase μία τῶν σαββάτων occurs in the N.T., in all, six times.264.So Eusebius (Eccl. Hist.ii. 15), and Jerome (De Viris Illust.ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also Euseb.Hist. Eccl.vi. 14.—The colophon in the Syriac Version shews that the same traditional belief prevailed in the Eastern Church. It also finds record in theSynopsis Scripturæ(wrongly) ascribed to Athanasius.265.παρασκευὴ, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον.—Our E. V.“preparation”is from Augustine,—“Parasceue Latine præparatio est.”—See Pearson's interesting note on the word.266.Consider Rom. xvi. 13.267.Townson'sDiscourses, i. 172.268.Ibid.269.See the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark xvi. 2 and of S. John xx. 19. In the same version, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered“una sabbati.”270.Davidson'sIntroduction, &c. i. 169,ed.1848: (ii. 113,ed.1868.)271.“Maria Magdalene ipsa est‘a quâ septem dæmonia expulerat’:ut ubi abundaverat peccatum, superabundant gratiæ.”(Hieron.Opp.i. 327.)272.So Tischendorf,—“Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽ ἦσ ἐκβεβλήκει ε. δ.”(p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same remark reiterated by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p. 52.273.Introduction, &c. vol. i. p. 169.274.viz. in chap. vii. 26.275.Professor Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject.276.Consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion alluded to, in Acts i. 13, 14. Note also what is clearly implied by ver. 21-6, as to the persons who werehabituallypresent at such gatherings.277.S. Luke (v. 27) has ἐθεασατο τελώνην. S. Matthew (ix. 9) and S. Mark (ii. 14) have preferred εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον (Λευίν τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου) καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον.278.See S. Matth. ix. 9.279.One is reminded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefullyreservesthe verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the contemplation of theSaviour'sCross and of theSaviour'sSepulchre.280.S. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 5. S. Mark xvi. 11.281.Πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, (vi. 1); and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, (xxiii. 5).282.S. Luke xii. 4.283.S. Matth. x. 28.284.S. Mark iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9.285.Professor Broadus,ubi suprà.286.Col i. 15, 23. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.287.παραβάλλειν [I quote from the Textus Receptus of S. Mark iv. 30,—confirmed as it is by the Peshito and the Philoxenian, the Vetus and the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Armenian versions,—besides Codd. A and D, and all the other uncials (except B, L, Δ, א,) and almost every cursive Codex. The evidence of Cod. C and of Origen is doubtful.Whowould subscribe to the different reading adopted on countless similar occasions by the most recent Editors of the N.T.?]: παραγγέλλειν: παράγειν: παραγίνεσθαι: παραδιδόναι: παραλαμβάνειν: παρατηρεῖν: παρατιθέναι: παραφέρειν: παρέρχεσθαι: παρέχειν: παριστάνει.—ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι: ἐπαισχύνεσθαι: ἐπανίστασθαι: ἐπερωτᾷν: ἐπιβάλλειν: ἐπιγινώσκειν: ἐπιγράφειν: ἐπιζητεῖν: ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι: ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι: ἐπιλύειν: ἐπιπίπτειν: ἐπιρράπτειν: ἐπισκιάζειν: ἐπιστρέφειν: ἐπισυνάγειν: ἐπισυντρέχειν: ἐπιτάσσειν: ἐπιτιθέναι: ἐπιτιμᾷν: ἐπιτρέπειν.288.S. Mark v. 23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23.289.S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix. 13, 15.290.See below, pp.184-6.291.See Pearsonon the Creed, (ed. Burton), vol. i. p. 151.292.Ibid.p. 183,—at the beginning of the exposition of“OurLord.”293.S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2.294.Alford.295.Davidson.296.Exactly so Professor Broadus:—“Now it will not do to say that while no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be foreign to Mark, the whole of them combined will do so. It is very true that the multiplication oflittlesmay amount to much; but not so the multiplication ofnothings. And how many of the expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our examination, to retain the slightest real force as proving difference of authorship? Is it not true that most of them, and those the most important, are reduced to absolutely nothing, while the remainder possess scarcely any appreciable significance?”—p. 360, (see above, p.139, note g.)297.S. John has πάλιν (47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times). And yet, πάλιν is not met with in the iind, or the iiird, or the vth, or the viith, or the xvth, or the xviithchapter of S. John's Gospel.298.Printed Text, p. 256.299.It will be found that of the former class (1) are the following:—Article iii: vii: ix: x: xi: xii: xiii: xiv: xv: xxi: xxiv: xxv: xxvi: xxvii. Of the latter (2):—Art. i: ii: iv: v: vi: viii: xvi: xvii: xviii: xix: xx: xxii: xxiii.300.Ch. xiii. 16,—ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ὤν: and ch. xv. 21,—ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ,—an expression which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the corresponding place of his Gospel, viz. in ch. xxiii. 26.301.See above, p.146.302.The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in the pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded to:—“It occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses, (xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by a curious coincidence, the words and expressions not elsewhere employed by Mark, footed up precisely the same number, seventeen. Those noticed are the following (text of Tregelles):—ver. 44, τέθηκεν (elsewhere ἀποθνήσκο):—ver. 45, γνοὺς ἀπό, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament: also ἐδωρήσατο and πτῶμα: ver. 46, ἐνείλησεν, λελατομημένον, πέτρας, προσεκύλισεν:—chap. xvi. ver. 1, διαγενομένου, and ἀρώματα: ver. 2, μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων:—ver. 3, ἀποκυλίσει:—ver. 4, ἀνεκεκύλισται. Also, σφόδρα, (Mark's word is λίαν.) Ver. 5, ἀν τοῖς δεξιοῖς is a construction not found in Mark, or the other Gospels, though the word δεξιός occurs frequently:—ver. 8, εἶχεν, in this particular sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament: τρόμος.“This list is perhaps not complete, for it was prepared in a few hours—about as much time, it may be said, without disrespect, as Fritsche and Meyer appear to have given to their collections of examples from the other passage. It is not proposed to discuss the list, though some of the instances are curious. It is not claimed that they are all important, but that they are all real. And as regards the single question of thenumberof peculiarities, they certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford has laid stress.”—p. 361.303.Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.304.S. Mark i. 9: 14: 20.305.The same word is found also in S. Luke's narrative of the same event, ch. xxiv. 13.306.On which, Victor of Antioch (if indeed it be he) finely remarks,—Σχίζονται δὲ οἱ οὐρονοὶ, ἢ κατὰ Ματθαον ἀνοίγονται, ἵνα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀποδοθῇ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἁγιασμὸς, καὶ συναφθῇ τος ἐπιγείοις τὰ οὐράνια.—(Cramer i. p. 271.)307.Disc. v. Sect. ii.308.This appears to be the true reading.309.So Chrysostom:—ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι“καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα,”ταῦτα ἔλεγεν. [vii. 526 a].—He seems to have derived that remark from Origen [in Matth.ed. Huet. i. 249d]:—κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτὴρ“καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.”—From the same source, I suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen's disciple), Bp. of Neocæsarea in Pontus,A.D.261, [Routh, iii. 257] derived the following:—καὶ ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁ“πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα”οὐ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ, κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον.—See, by all means, Field's most interestingAdnotationes in Chrys., vol. iii. p. 112.... Εντευθεν (finely says Victor of Antioch) ὁ καινὸς ἄρχεται νόμος ὁ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα. (Crameri. 335.)310.Acts x. 15.311.Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. 2,—ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ... ἀνελήφθη.312.S. Mark x. 6: xiii. 19.—2 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.)313.Is. lxvi. 2.314.See above, p.143-5.315.See above, p.174-5.316.My attention was first drawn to this by my friend, the Rev. W. Kay, D.D.317.The Creed itself, (“ex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis collectum,”) may be seen at p. 84 of De Touttée's ed. of Cyril. Let the following be compared:—ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi. 19.)ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ (Art. VI.) This may be seenin situat p. 224Cof Cyril.βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ch. i. 4.)ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (Art. X.) This may be seen at p. 295Cof Cyril.The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in Professor Heurtley's little workDe Fide et Symbolo, 1869, p. 9.318.See above,—p.165-6.319.Cod. Bobbiensis(k): which however for“illis”has“et:”for“Petro,”“puero:”and for“occidentem,”“orientem.”It also repeats“usque.”I have ventured to alter“ab orientem”into“ab oriente.”—Compare what is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given by White and Adler.320.See above (Art. II.) p.152-3.321.Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14.322.S. Matth. xxvi. 14, 29, 47.—S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 35: x. 32: xi. 11: xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.—S. Luke viii. 1: ix. 1, 12: xviii. 31: xxii. 8, 47.—S. John vi. 37, 70, 71: xx. 24.323.Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. John xviii. 1,—where the moment of departurefrom the cityis marked: (for observe, they had left the house and the upper chamber at ch. xiv. 31). See also ch. xix. 17,—where the goingwithout the gateis indicated: (for ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider S. Luke xxi. 37.324.S. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 4.325.See above, p.2.326.The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate Matthaei, made in a place where it was almost safe to escape attention; viz. in a footnote at the very end of hisNov. Test.(ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.—“Haec lectio in Evangeliariis et Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus. Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur κυριακῇ τῶν μυροφόρων, εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον. Secundo, τῷ ὄρθρῳ τῆς ἀναλήψεως. Tertio, ut ἑωθινὸν ἀναστάσιμον γ᾽. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis temporibus nullo modo dubitavit Ecclesia.”—Matthaei had slightly anticipated this in his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.327.Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων διαδοχάς,—arethe first wordsof the Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius.328.See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorised Version.329.See Bingham'sOrigines, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4.330.Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἥ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἤ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται, μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ. Then came the Sermon,—then, all stood and prayed,—then followed Holy Communion.—Apol.i. c. 67, (ed. Otto, i. 158.)331.ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ, τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν σήμερον διέλχθη, καὶ περὶ τίνων;—(Opp.ix. p. 697e. Field's text.)332.Cassian writes,—“Venerabilis Patrum senatus ... decrevit hunc numerum [sc. duodecim Orationum] tam in Vespertinis quam in Nocturnis conventiculis custodiri; quibus lectiones geminas adjungentes, id est, unam Veteris et aliam Novi Testamenti.... In die vero Sabbati vel Dominico utrasque de Novo recitant Testamento; id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apostolorum, et aliam de Evangeliis. Quod etiam totis Quinquagesimae diebus faciunt hi, quibus lectio curae est, seu memoria Scripturarum.”—Instit.lib. ii. c. 6. (ed.1733, p. 18.)333.Constitutiones Apostolicae, lib. ii. c. 57, 59: v. 19: viii. 5.334.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 74, and the reff. in note (k) overleaf.335.English readers may be referred to Horne'sIntroduction, &c. (ed.1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps aware of the importance of the preface to Van der Hooght'sHebrew Bible, (ed.1705) § 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p. 352b.336.Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγου is“Quinquagesima Sunday;”butthe weekof“the cheese-eater”is the weekprevious.337.See Suicer'sThesaurus, vol. ii. 920.338.“Apud Rabbinos, לודגח תבשSabbathum Magnum. Sic vocatur Sabbathum proximum ante Pascha.”—Buxtorf,Lexicon Talmud.p. 2323.339.Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀκολουθία τῆς διδασκαλίας [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7] τῆς πίστεως προέτρεπεν εἰπεῖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως: ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις ᾠκονόμησε πληρέστατά σε ἀκοῦσαι, κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀσθένειαν, τῇ χθὲς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τῆν Κυριακήν: κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν τῆς θείας χάριτος, ἐν τῇ Συνάξει τῆς τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ἀκολουθίας τὰ περὶ τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν περιεχούσης: ἐλέγετο δὲ τὰ λεγόμενα, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ πάντας, καὶ διὰ τὸ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμοῦ πλῆθος: ἐξαιρέτως δὲ διά σε: ζητεῖται δὲ εἰ προσέσχες τοῖς λεγομένοις. Οἶδας γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀκολουθία τῆς Πίστεως διδάσκει σε πιστεύειν εἰς ΤΟΝ ἈΝΑΣΤΑΝΤΑ ΤΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ: ΚΑΙ ἈΝΕΛΘΟΝΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣ, ΚΑΙ ΚΑΘΙΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ—μάλιστα μὲν οὖν μνημονεύειν σε νομίζω τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. πλὴν ἐν παραδρομῇ καὶ νῦν ὑπομιμνήσκω σε τῶν εἰρημένων. (Cyril. Hier.Cat.xiv. c. 24.Opp.p. 217C, D.)—Of that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again reminds his auditory. Μέμνησο δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων μοι πολλάκις περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρος καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν,—he says,ibid.p. 219B. A little lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱόν.—Ibid.D.From this it becomes plainwhy Cyril nowhere quotes S. Markxvi. 19,—or S. Lukexxiv. 51,—or Actsi. 9. He must needs have enlarged upon those threeinevitableplaces of Scripture, the day before.340.See above, p.193and p.194.341.Ὥστε δὲ εὐμαθέστερον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, δεόμεθα καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων γραφῶν πεποιήκαμεν, προλαμβάνειν, τὴν περικοπὴν τῆς γραφῆς ἦν ἆν μέλλωμεν ἐξηνεῖσθαι.—In Matth.Hom.i. (Opp.vii. 13B.)—Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, ἥ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον, τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀναγνωσθήσεσθαι τῶν εὐαγγελίων περικοπὴν, ταύτην πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν μετὰ χεῖρας λαμβάνων ἕκαστος οἴκοι καθήμενος ἀναγινωσκέτω.—In Joann.Hom.ix, (Opp.viii. 62B.)342.It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching.“Sed quia nunc interposita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex Evangelio lectiones oportet in Ecclesiâ recitari, quae ita sunt annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo ille quem susceperamus necessitate pauliulum intermissus est, non amissus.”—(Opp.vol. iii. P. ii. p. 825,Prol.)343.The place will be found quoted below, p.202, note (o).344.See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more full and satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve attention, (Nov. Test.vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above, p.45, notes (r) and (s).345.At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of hisNov. Test.(Riga, 1788) Matthaei has laboriouslyeditedthe“Lectiones Ecclesiasticæ”of the Greek Church. See also his Appendices,—viz. vol. ii. pp. 272-318 and 322-363. His 2nd ed. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of an ancient MS.; and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His Συναχάρια (i. 723-68 and iii. 1-24) though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he designates“B”and“H,”but which areour“Evstt. 47 and 50,”—uncial Evangelistaria of the viiithcentury (See Scrivener'sIntrod.p. 214.)Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full the“Synaxarium”and“Menologium”of Codd. K and M, (viiithor ixthcentury.) See also his vol. ii. pp. 456-69. Unfortunately, (as Scrivener recognises, p. 110,) all here is carelessly done,—as usual with this Editor; and therefore to a great extent useless. His slovenliness is extraordinary. The“Gospels of the Passion”(τῶν ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472); and so throughout.Mr. Scrivener (Introduction, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the most intelligible account of this matter, by exhibitingin Englishthe Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (“gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and Christ's Coll. Camb.”); and supplying the references to Scripture in the ordinary way. See, by all means, hisIntroduction, pp. 62-65: also, pp. 211-225.346.Consider the following:—Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ πάντα ἀναγινώσκομεν. ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πάλιν, ὅτι παρεδόθη ἡμῶν ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη, ὅτι ἀπέθανε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅτι ἐτάφη: τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν καὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐ μετὰ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν ἀναγινώσκομεν, ὅτε καὶ ἐγένοντο, καὶ ἀρχὴν ἔλαβον;—Chrys.Opp.iii. 88.Again:—εἰ γὰρ τότε ἥρξαντο ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἤγουν μετὰ τὴν κυρίου ἀνάστασιν, τότε ἔδει καὶ τὸ βιβλίον ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῦτο. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σταυροῦ ἀναγινώσκομεν, καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει ὁμοίως, καὶ τὰ ἐν ἐκάστῃ ἑορτῇ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῇ πάλιν ἀναγινώσκομεν, οὕτως ἔδει καὶ τὰ θαύματα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν ἀποστολικῶν σημείων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι.—Ibid.p. 89D.347.Opp.ii. 454B, D.348.Opp.ii. 290B.349.Opp.ii. 357E.350.“Meminit sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine lectionum nos solere tractare.”(Opp.iii. P. ii. 825Prol.)351.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 246.352.ChrysostomOpp.ii. 369 b, c.—Compare Scrivener,ubi supra, p. 75.353.Ed.Mabillon, p. 116.354.Opp.vol. iii. p.85 b: 88 a:—τίνος ἕνεκεν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ πεντηκοστῇ τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν.—τίνος ἕνεκεν τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἀναγινώσκεται.355.“Anniversariâ sollemnitate post passionem Domini nostis illum librum recitari.”Opp.iii. (P. ii.) p. 337g.356.I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my deliberate conviction that the Lectionary which, last year, was hurried with such indecent haste through Convocation,—passed in a half-empty House by the casting vote of the Prolocutor,—and rudely pressed upon the Church's acceptance by the Legislature in the course of its present session,—is the gravest calamity which has befallen the Church of England for a long time past.Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.Appointed (in 1867) for anentirelydifferent purpose, (viz. the Ornaments and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and 15 Lay) found themselves further instructed“to suggest and reportwhether any and what alterations and amendments may be advantageously madein the selection of Lessons to be read at the time of Divine Service.”Thereupon, these individuals,—(the Liturgical attainments of nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself to characterise truthfully,)—at once imposed upon themselves the duty of inventingan entirely new Lectionary for the Church of England.So to mutilate the Word ofGodthat it shall henceforth be quite impossible to understand a single Bible story, or discover the sequence of a single connected portion of narrative,—seems to have been the guiding principle of their deliberations. With reckless eclecticism,—entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor brother,—strange disregard for Catholic Tradition and the claims of immemorial antiquity;—these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious of their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have given us a Lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of novelty,—the impatient,—and the enemies of Divine Truth.That the blame,the guiltlies at the door ofour Bishops, is certain; but the Church has no one but herself to thank for the injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her. She has suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without resistance; without remonstrance; without (in her corporate capacity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction.Canit be right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their lawful inheritance?... I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at what is taking place. At least, (as on other occasions,)liberavi animam meam.357.A trace of this remains in the old Gallican Liturgy,—pp. 137-8.358.Bingham, xiv. iii. 3.359.Opp.vol. vii. p. 791 B.360.See Dean Payne Smith's Translation, p. 863.361.κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα ἀναγινώσκεται.—Chrys.Opp.vii. 818c.362.“Passio autem, quia uno die legitur, non solet legi nisi secundum Matthæum. Voluerain aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes Evangelistas etiam Passio legeretur. Factum est. Non audierunt homines quod consueverant, et perturbati sunt.”—Opp.vol. v. p. 980e.363.Ed.Mabillon, pp. 130-5.364.Epiph.Opp.ii. 152-3.365.Chrys.Opp.i. 497c.366.Epiph.Opp.ii. 285-6.367.The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the perusal of both passages. Chrysostom declares that Christmas-Day is the greatest of Festivals; since all the others are but consequences of the Incarnation.Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning solemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to the human body.368.Constt. Apostt.lib. viii. c. 33. After the week of the Passion and the week of (1) the Resurrection,—(2) Ascension-Day is mentioned;—(3) Pentecost;—(4) Nativity;—(5) Epiphany. [Note this clear indication that this viiithBook of the Constitutions was written or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly assigned to the work.]369.Bingham'sOrigines, B. xx. c. iv. § 2.370.Chrys.Opp.ii. 355. (See theMonitum, p. 352.)371.Chrys.Opp.ii. 369d.372.Epiphanius, Adv. Haer.li, c. xvi. (Opp.i. 439a.)373.See above, pp.58-9and67.374.Opp.iii. 102b. See Bingham on this entire subject,—b. xiv, c. iii.375.“Illa quae non scriptu, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis Conciliis quorum in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri. Sicut quod Domini Passio, et Resurrectio, et Ascensio in cœlis, ut Adventus de cœlo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur.”—Ep.ad Januarium, (Opp.ii. 124b, c).376.“Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos, ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in Euchar. lect. sext. Resurrect.”—But“Lect. γ Resurrectionis”is“Marc. xvi. 9-20:”“Lect. σ,”“Luc. xxiv. 36-53.”—See Dean Payne Smith'sCatalogus Codd. Syrr.(1864) pp. 116, 127.377.See above, p.34, note (e).378.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 148.379.Hieronymi Comes, (ed. Pamel. ii. 31.)—But it is not the Gallican. (ed. Mabillon, p. 155.) ... It strikes me as just possible that a clue may be in this way supplied to the singular phenomenon noted above at p.118, line 22-8.380.Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά. See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 72, and R. P. Smith's Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer'sThes. Eccl.i. 1229.381.Dr. Wright'sCatal.p. 70, No. cx. (Addit. 14,464:fol.61b.)382.Ibid.No. lxx (fol.92b), and lxxii (fol.87b).383.“Quae titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.”(R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 116.)—In the“Synaxarium”of Matthaei (Nov. Test.1803, i. p. 731) it is styled Κ. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου.384.Adler'sN. T. Verss. Syrr.p. 71.385.Dean Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 146.386.Ed.Mabillon, pp. 144-5.387.“Resurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis diebus [Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.”(Opp.v. 977c)—“Quoniam hoc moris est ...Marci Evangeliumest quod modo, cum legeretur, audivimus.”“Quid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?”And he subjoins a quotation from S. Mark xvi. 12.—Ibid.997 f, 998 b.388.Hieron. Comes(ed.Pamel. ii. 27.)389.So Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 75.—Little stress, however, is to be laid on Saint's Day lessons. In Matthaei's“Menologium”(Nov. Test.1803, i. p. 765), I find that S. Luke viii. 1-4, or else S. John xx. 11-18 was the appointed Lection. See his note (5) at p. 750.390.Note, (in addition to all that has gone before,) that the Festivals are actually designated by theirGreeknames in the earliest Latin Service Books: not only“Theophania,”“Epiphania,”“Pascha,”“Pentecostes,”(the second, third and fourth of which appellations survive in the Church of the West,in memoriam, to the present hour;) but“Hypapante,”which was the title bestowed by the Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of the Purification, or Presentation ofChristin the Temple,) from the“Meeting”of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκευή, was called“Parasceve”in the West. (Mab.Lit. Gall.p. 129.) So entire was the sympathy of the East with the West in such matters in very early times, that when Rome decided to celebrate the Nativity on the 25th December, Chrysostom (as we have been reminded) publicly announced the fact at Constantinople; and it was determined that in this matter East and West would walk by the same rule.391.From Professor Wright'sCatalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum(1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is datedA.D.824; the oldest Nestorian,A.D.862; the oldest Malkite,A.D.1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; 14,492; and 14,488.—See hisCatalogue, Part I. pp. 146, 178, 194.392.It is exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus (A.)393.The reader is requested to refer back to p.45, and the note there.—The actual words of Eusebius are given inAppendix (B).394.See the enumeration of Greek Service-Books in Scrivener'sIntroduction, &c. pp. 211-25. For the Syriac Lectionaries, see Dean Payne Smith'sCatalogue, (1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also Professor Wright'sCatalogue, (1870) pp. 146 to 203.—I avail myself of this opportunity to thank both those learned Scholars for their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered.395.“Evangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.”Tischendorf, quoted by Scrivener, [Introduction to Cod. Augiensis,—80 pages which have been separately published and arewelldeserving of study,—p. 48,] who adds,—“I cannot even conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be thought of less value than another MS. of the same age.”—See also Scrivener'sIntroduction, &c. p. 211.396.e.g.Addit. MSS.12,141: 14,449: 14,450-2-4-5-6-7-8: 14,461-3: 17,113-4-5-6:--(= 15 Codd. in all:) from p. 45 to p. 66 of Professor Wright'sCatalogue.397.Addit.MS. 14,464. (See Dr. Wright'sCatalogue, p. 70.)398.Add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of C. P., (Introduction, p. 11), the following:—Gospels for Quinquagesima, 2nd S. after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity, Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p.220), All Saints.399.Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke vii. 31)which introduce an Ecclesiastical Lection(Friday in the iiirdweek of S. Luke,) inasmuch as the words are found innouncial MS., and are omitted besides by the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must needs be regarded as a liturgical interpolation.—The same is to be said of ὁ Ἰησοῦς in S. Matth. xiv. 22,—words which Origen and Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the Gospel for the ixthSunday after Pentecostbegins at that place.—It will be kindred to the present inquiry that I should point out that in S. Mark xvi. 9, Ἀναστάς ὁ Ἰησοῦς is constantly met with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the Vulgate; and yet there can benodoubt that here also the Holy Name is an interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the preceding. The fact is singularly illustrated by the insertion of“Ο ΙΣ”in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,)rubroabovethe same contraction(for ὁ Ἰησους) in the text.400.Not, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of regarding Codex B, (to which, if Cod. L. and Codd. 1, 33 and 69 are added, it isonly because they agree with B), as an all but infallible guide in settling the text of Scripture; and quietly taking it for granted thatall the other MSS. in existencehave entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind. Until this most uncritical method, this most unphilosophical theory, is unconditionally abandoned, progress in this department of sacred Science is simply impossible.401.See Matthaei's note on S. Luke xxii. 43, (Nov. Test. ed.1803.)402.This will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions are given as follows. After τὸ σὸν γενέσθω (i.e. the last words of ver. 42), is written ὑπέρβα εἰς τὸ τῆς γ᾽. Then, at the end of ver. 44, is written—ἄρχου τῆς γ᾽, after which follows the text καὶ ἀναστὰς, &c.In S. Matthew's Gospel, at chap, xxvi, which contains the Liturgical section for Thursday in Holy Week (τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλη έ), my Codex has been only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to quote from Harl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84, at the end of S. Matth. xxvi. 39, reads as follows, immediately after the words,—αλλ᾽ ὡς συ:—Π/Υ, [Cross] (i.e. ὑπάντα.) But in order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated word and sign are repeated at foot, as follows:—[Cross] ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκὰν ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ΡΘ. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῳ ἄγγελος: εἶτα στραφεὶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν, λέγε: καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς—which are the first words of S. Matth. xxvi. 40.Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after S. Luke xxii. 42,besidesthe rubric already quoted, has the following: ἄρξου τῆς μεγάλης έ. Then come the two famous verses (ver. 43, 44); and, after the words ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς, the following rubric occurs: ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ τῆς μεγάλης έ Ματθ. ἔρχεται πρὸς τοῦς μαθητάς.[With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. F. Rose, Curate of Holy Trinity, Windsor,) I have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its text most nearly resembles the Rev. F. H. Scrivener's l, m, n.]403.See by all means Matthaei'sNov. Test.(ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and 492.404.See above, p.75, note (h).405.For the 5th Sunday of S. Luke.406.Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual accuracy, points out several: e.g.Nov. Test.(1788) vol. i. p. 19 (note26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10 (note12), p. 14 (notes14 and 15), &c.407.SS. Philip and James.408.viz. σαββάτῳ θ: i.e. the ixthSaturday in S. Luke.—Note that Cod. A also reads ἐγένετο δέ in S. Lu. xi. 1.409.viz. Monday in the vth, Thursday in the vithweek after Pentecost, and the viiithSunday after Pentecost.410.viz. S. Luke xiii. 2: xxiv. 36. S. John i. 29 (ὁ Ἰωάννης): 44: vi. 14: xiii. 3,—to which should perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, א, A, C (not D) read Ἰησοῦς.411.See by all means Matthaei's interesting note on the place,—Nov. Test.(1788) vol. i. p. 113-4. It should be mentioned that Cod. C (and four other uncials), together with the Philoxenian and Hierosolymitan versions, concur in exhibiting the same spurious clause. Matthaei remarks,—“Origenes (iv. 171d) hanc pericopam haud adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in γενηθήτω σοι.”Will not the disturbingLectionary-practiceof his day sufficiently explain Origen's omission?412.I recall S. John x. 29: xix. 13: xxi. 1;—but the attentive student will be able to multiply such references almost indefinitely. In these and similar places, while the phraseology is exceedingly simple, the variations which the text exhibits are so exceeding numerous,—that when it is discovered thata Church Lesson begins in those places, we may be sure that we have been put in possession of the name of the disturbing force.413.Viz. K and M. (Field'sChrys.p. 251.)—How is it that the readings of Chrysostom are made so little account of? By Tregelles, for example, why are they overlooked entirely?414.See above, p.197to 204.415.e.g. in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270.416.In some cursive MSS. also, (which have been probably transcribed from ancient originals), the same phenomenon is observed. Thus, in Evan. 265 ( = Reg. 66), ΤΕΛ only occurs, in S. Mark, at ix. 9 and 41: xv. 32 and 41: xvi. 8. ΑΡΧ at xvi. 1. It is striking to observe that so little were these ecclesiastical notes (embedded in the text) understood by the possessor of the MS., that in the margin, over against ch. xv. 41, (where“ΤΕΛ:”standsin the text,) a somewhat later hand has written,—ΤΕ[λος] Τ[ης] ΩΡ[ας]. A similar liturgical note may be seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere. Cod. 25 (= Reg. 191), at the end of S. Mark's Gospel, hasonly twonotes of liturgical endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.417.Among theSyriacEvangelia, as explained above (p.215), instances occur of far more ancient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by the original scribe. Even here, however, (as may be learned from Dr. Wright'sCatalogue, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been onlyirregularlyinserted in the oldest copies.418.Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have exhibited the text thus,—ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΗΛΘΕΝ Η ΩΡΑ.—which is the reading of Cod. 13 ( = Reg. 50.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order to improve the sense, substituted for ἦλθεν the word καί. Note the scholion [Anon. Vat.] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι, πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ.Besides the said Cod. 13, the same reading is found in 47 and 54 (in the Bodl.): 56 (at Linc. Coll.): 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.): 69 (i.e. Cod. Leicestr.): 124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): csecr(i.e. Lambeth, 1177): 2pe(i.e. the 2nd of Muralt's S. Petersburg Codd.); and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107). All these eleven MSS. read ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος at S. Mark xiv. 41.419.So Scholz (i. 200):—“Pericopa hæccasu quodamforsan exciderat a codice quodam Alexandrino; unde defectus iste in alios libros transiit. Nec mirum hunc defectum multis, immo in certis regionibus plerisque scribis arrisisse: confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione Marcum Matthæo repugnare. Cf. maxima Eusebium ad Marinum,”&c.420.περιττὰ ὰν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai,Bibl. P.P. Nova, vol. iv. p. 256.)421.Alford's N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (ed. 1868.)—And so Tischendorf, (ed. 8va. pp. 406-7.)“Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere mutilandum adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus incredibile est, nec ullo probari potest exemplo.”—Tregelles is of the same opinion. (Printed Text, pp. 255-6.)—Matthaei, a competent judge, seems to have thought differently.“Una autem causa cur hic locus omitteretur fuit quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur Evangelistis.”The general observation which follows is true enough:—“Quæ ergo vel obscura, vel repugnantia, vel parum decora quorundam opinione habebantur, ca olim ab Criticis et interpretibus nonnullis vel sublata, vel in dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis sanctorum Evangeliorum intelligitur.”(Nov. Test.1788, vol. ii. p. 266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)—“In summâ. Videtur unus et item alter ex interpretibus, qui hæc cæteris evangeliis repugnare opinebatur, in dubium vocasse. Hunc deinde plures temere secuti sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus.”Dr. Davidson says the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,) Mr. Scrivener also. (Coll. Cod. Sin.p. xliv.)422.I have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M. de Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.423.See above, p.224.424.Whereas in the course of S. Matthew's Gospel, only two examples of + ΤΕΛΟΣ + occur, (viz. at ch. xxvi. 35 and xxvii. 2,)—in the former case the note has entirely lost its way in the process of transcription; standing where it has no business to appear.NoLiturgical section ends thereabouts. I suspect that the transition (ὑπέρβασις) anciently made at ver. 39, was the thing to which the scribe desired to call attention.425.= Coisl. 20. This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for Church purposes, appears to me to be the work of the same scribe who produced Reg. 178, (the codex described above); but it exhibits a different text. Bound up with it are some leaves of the LXX of about the viiithcentury.426.End of the Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany.427.In S. Matthew's Gospel, I could find ΤΕΛΟΣ so written only twice,—viz. at ch. ii. 23 and xxvi. 75: in S. Luke only once,—viz. at ch. viii. 39. These, in all three instances, are the concluding verses of famous Lessons,—viz. the Sunday after Christmas Day, the iiirdGospel of the Passion, the vithSunday of S. Luke.428.This has already come before us in a different connection: (see p.119): but it must needs be reproduced here; andthistime, it shall be exhibited as faithfully as my notes permit.429.(1) In Evan. 282 (writtenA.D.1176),—a codex whichhas been adaptedto Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to say,is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Markxv. 47andxvi. 8.(2) Evan. 268, (a truly superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the pictures of the Evangelists only sketched in ink,) was never prepared for Lectionary purposes; which makes it the more remarkable that, between ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and ἀναστάς, should be found inserted into the body of the text, τὲ. in gold.(3) I have often met with copies of S. Matthew's, or of S. Luke's, or of S. John's Gospel, unfurnished with a subscription in which ΤΕΛΟΣ occurs: but scarcely ever have I seen an instance of a Codex where the Gospelaccording to S. Markwas one of two, or of three from which it was wanting; much less where it stood alone in that respect. On the other hand, in the following Codices,—Evan. 10: 22: 30: 293,—S. Mark's isthe only Gospel of the Fourwhich is furnished with the subscription, + τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου [cross] or simply + τέλος + .... In Evan. 282, S. Matthew's Gospel shares this peculiarity with S. Mark's.430.“Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae filum ineptissime abrupisse verbis—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”—GriesbachComment. Crit.(ii. 197.) So, in fact,uno oreall the Critics.431.Chap. V. See above, pp.66-7.432.The English reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness if he will refer back, and read from the last line of p.44to the ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in two places, for“the end,”—“the end”.... The entire context of the Greek is given in theAppendix (B).433.τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό,) I suspect must be an explanatory gloss.434.“This then is clear,”(is Dr. Tregelles' comment,)“that the greater part of the Greek copies had not the verses in question.”—Printed Text, p. 247.435.Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in this place of Eusebius consists entirely in his introduction of the words τὸ τέλος. Had he merely said τὰ ἀκριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον περιγράφει ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. ... Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις περιγέγραπται τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον,—there would have been nothing extraordinary in the mode of expression. We should have been reminded of such places as the following in the writings of Eusebius himself:—Ὁ Κλήμης ... εἰς τὴν Κομόδου τελευτὴν περιγράφει τοὺς χρόνους, (Hist. Eccl.lib. vi. c. 6.)—Ἱππόλυτος ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτοπος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει, (Ibid.c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)—Or this, referred to by Stephanus (in voce),—Ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἔτι μνησθεὶς περιγράψω τὸν λόγον, (Praep. Evang.lib. vi. c. 10, [p. 280 c,ed.1628].) But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον wants explaining; and can be only satisfactorily explained in one way.436.See above, p.66and p.67.437.Πάρειμι νῦν ... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα [sic].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.438.“Consentit autem nobis adtractatum quem fecimus de scripturâMarci.”—Origen. (Opp.iii. 929 B.)Tractat.xxxv. inMatth.[I owe the reference to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the vigilance of Huet.]—This serves to explain why Victor of Antioch's Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origen: as in Paris Cod. 703, [olim2330, 958, and 1048: also 18.] where is read (at fol. 247), Ὠριγένους πρόλογος εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvithcent.) counterpart of the preceding; which has been transcribed [xviiithcent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.Possevinus [Apparat. Sac.ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet,Origeniana, p. 274) states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel by Origen. The source of this misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the Rev. W. R. Churton. James, in his“Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,”(1600, lib. i. p. 49,) mentions“Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae, Stabat ad monumentum.”—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe,“Cat. Codd. MSS. C.C.C.;”[No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—“Origenis presb. Hom. in istud Johannis,Maria stabat ad monumentum,”&c. But what actually led Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James's consummation of his own blunder in lib. ii. p. 49,—which Possevinus has simply appropriated.439.So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά.Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but also thatapud Heracleonem, (who wrote within 50 years of S. John's death,) he found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved bygeographicalconsiderations, however, (as he explains,) for Βηθανία, Origen proposes to read Βηθαβαρά.—Chrysostom (viii. 96 d), after noticing the former reading, declares,—ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει ἐν Βηθαβαρά φησιν: but he goes onto reproduce Origen's reasoning;—thereby betraying himself.—The author of theCatena in Matth.(Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces Chrysostom:—χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρὰ περιέχει. And so, other Scholia; until at last what was only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, became generally received as the reading of the“more accurate copies.”A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the true reading of that place is not“60”but“160,”—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις. Accordingly,Eusebiusalso reads the place in the same erroneous way.440.Jerome says of himself (Opp.vii. 537,)—“Non digne Græca in Latinum transfero: aut Græcos lege (si ejusdem linguae habes scientiam) aut si tantum Latinus es, noli de gratuito munere judicare, et, ut vulgare proverbium est:equi dentes inspicere donati.”441.See above, pp.57-9: alsoAppendix (C), § 2.442.See above, pp.225-6.443.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 116.444.See Adler's N. T.Verss. Syrr., p. 70.445.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 146.446.See p.206, also note (k).447.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 117.448.Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark xvi. 8 (fol. 125), as follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then,rubro,] τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver. 20, (atfol. 126 of the same Codex) is found the following concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽ ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου.In the same place, (viz. at the end of S. Mark's Gospel,) is found in another Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following rubric:—τέλος τοῦ τρίτου τοῦ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τοῦ ὄρθρου τῆς ἀναλήψεως.449.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 146.450.Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is written continuously throughout: and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh paragraph is observed to commence.Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies of the Armenian version.“The Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab, separates the concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel.... Many of the oldest MSS., after the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, put the final Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, and then give the additional verses with a new superscription.”(Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 253).... We are now in a position tounderstandthe Armenian evidence, which has been described above, at p.36, as well as to estimate its exact value.451.Euseb. apud Mai, iv. p. 264 = p. 287. Again at p. 289-90.—So also the author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurr. (Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 411-2.)—And see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp.Patres Apostol., (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515.452.I believe this will be found to be theinvariableorder of the Gospelsin the Lectionaries.453.This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). Seefol.98b.454.I allude of course to Matthaei's Cod. g. (See the note in hisN. T.vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the learned critic was right in his conjecture“aliquot folia excidisse,”matters nothing.The left hand page ends at the wordsἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Now, if τελος had followed, how obvious would have been the inference that the Gospel itself of S. Mark had come to an end there!Note, that in the Codex Bezæ (D), S. Mark's Gospel ends at ver. 15: in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (a) proves to be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (b) from xiii. 24; Cod. Brix. (f) from xiv. 70.455.Scrivener,Coll. Cod. Sin.p. lix.456.See p.227.457.See above, p.226.458.So Scholz:—“hic [sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,”&c.—Tischendorf,—“Testantur scholia ...Marci Evangelium... versu 9finem habuisse. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22 habet: ἐφοβουντο γαρ + τελος. εν τισι,”&c.—Tregelles appeals to copies,“sometimes with τέλος interposed after ver. 8,”(p. 254.)—Mai (iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,—“Codex Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum versumhabet quidemvocem τέλος, ut alibi interdum observatum fuit;sed tamenibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum progredientibus sectionum notis.”459.Chap. I. and II.460.Chap. IV, VI-X.461.Chap. III, V, and VIII.462.Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.463.Tregelles, Alford.464.Alford.465.“Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.”—See the rest of Tischendorf's verdict,suprà, p.10; and opposite, p.245.466.Tregelles'Account of the Printed Text, p. 259.467.Alford'sNew Test.vol. i.Proleg.[p. 38] and p. 437.468.So Norton, Tregelles, and others.469.This suggestion, which was originally Griesbach's, is found in Alford'sNew Test.vol. i. p. 433, (ed.1868.)—See above, p.12. The italics are not mine.470.Videsuprà, p.10.471.Opp.vol. iii. p. 671.472.EusebiusEccl. Hist.iv. 28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19.473.Note the remarkable adjuration of Irenæus,Opp.i. 821, preserved by Eusebius,lib.v. 20.—See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 383-4. Consider the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp's martyrdom,PP. App.ii. 614-6.474.Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus; especially to the work of Marcion.475.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 381-391.476.SeeChap. VI.477.Chap. IX.478.“Ad defendendum hunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus Codicum consensus in vocabulis et loquendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis παρεγγράπτοις, etiam multo brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, eo plures quoque sunt varietates. Comparetur modo Act. xv. 18, Matth. viii. 13, et loca similia.”—C. F. Matthaei'sNov. Test.(1788) vol. ii. p. 271.479.Speaking of the abrupt termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8, Dr. Tregelles asks,—“Would this have been transmitted as a fact by good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds for regarding it to be true?”—(Printed Text, p. 257.) Certainly not, we answer. Butwhereare the“good witnesses”of the“transmitted fact?”There is not so much as one.480.See above, pp.86-90.481.SeeChap. III.482.See above, Chap. III. and IV.483.“Habent periocham hanc Codices Græci, si unum b excipias, omnes.”(Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p.70.484.See above, Chap. X.485.See above, pp.66-68.486.See above, pp.41to 51: alsoAppendix (B).487.The reader is referred to Mai'sNov. PP. Bibl.vol. iv. p. 262, line 12: p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8.488.See above, p.64-5: alsoAppendix (E).489.P.68and note (d); p.119and note (m).490.P.51-7.491.P.57-9.492.P.59-66.493.P.114-125.494.P.68-9.495.Chap. VI.496.See above, pp.86to 88.497.Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejectsthatverse also as spurious; and brings the fourth Gospel to an end at ver. 24, as he brings the second Gospel to an end at ver. 8? For my own part,—having (through the kindness and liberality of the Keeper of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, aided by the good offices of my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at S. Petersburg,) obtained a photograph of the last page of S. John's Gospel,—I must be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr. Tischendorf's judgment in this particular. The utmost which can be allowed is that the Scribe may have possibly changed his pen, or been called away from his task, just before bringing the fourth Gospel to a close.498.SeeChap. IX.499.Chapter X.500.Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, and Marius Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.501.Codex A,—ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of the Psalms.502.The old Latin Interpreter of Origen's Commentary on S. Matthew seems to have found in Origen's text a quotation from S. Luke ii. 14 which isnot represented in the extant Greek text of Origen. Here also we are presented with“hominibusbonae voluntatis.”(Opp.iii. 537C). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.503.Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. (Suprà, pp.96-99.)504.From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.505.Vid. suprà, p.233.506.P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage fromTheophylact(A.D.1077) which should have obtained notice in a much earlier page:—Ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς; ἐνταῦθα στίξον, εἶτα εἱπέ; πρωί πρώτῇ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. οὐ γὰρ ἀνέστη πρωί (τίς γὰρ οἴδε πότε ἀνέστη;) ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάνη πρωί κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (αὔτη γὰρ ἡ πρώτη τοῦ σαββάτου, τουτέστι, τῆς ἑβδομάδος,) ἥν ἄνω ἐκάλεσε μίαν σαββάτων; [Opp.vol. i. p. 263C.It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing Eusebius. See above, p.66, note (c).507.Kollar, (editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same opinion.—Huet (Origeniana, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) has a brief and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject; but he arrives at a far shrewder conclusion.508.The copies which I have seen, are headed,—ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ (sometimes ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ) ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no Author's name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril, Origen, &c.—Vide infrà, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, No. xlvii (comp, xxviii.)509.Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in Evangelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem editi, nunc vero studio et operâ Theodori Peltani luce simul et Latinitate donati.Ingolstadt. 1580, 8vo. pp. 510.510.“Ex hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde annulos formavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis aptatos, inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem producerem, quo, si possem consequi, sancto Evangelistae Marco decus et ornamentum adderetur.”—Præfatio: from which the particulars in the text are obtained.511.ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐξήσησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit C. F. Matthæi, Mosquae, 1775.512.P. xxvii-xxviii.513.To understand what is alluded to, the reader should compare the upper and the lower half of p. 442 in Cramer: noting that he has one and the same annotation before him; but diversely exhibited. (The lower part of the page is taken from Cod. 178.) Besides transposing the sentences, the author of Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference to Chrysostom, and omitted the name of Apolinarius in line 10. (Compare Field's ed. ofChrys.iii. 529, top of the page.)514.Thus the two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to agree with the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. 527. See alsoinfrà, p.289.515.Let any one, with Mai's edition of the“Quaestiones ad Marinum”of Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged, mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p. 257 with Cramer's“Catenae,”i. p. 251-2; and this again with the“Catena in Joannem”of Corderius, p. 448-9.516.With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.517.p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p. 4.518.Eusebius is again quoted at p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line 23-5). See especially p. 446.519.What is found at p. 314 (on S. Mark v. 1,) is a famous place. (Cf. Huet's ed. ii. 131.) Compare also Victor's first note on i. 7 with the same edit. of Origen, ii. 125c, d,—which Victor is found to have abridged. Compare the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284a. Note, that ἄλλος δέ φησι, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf. Possinus, p. 324.520.See pp. 408, 418, 442.521.e.g. the first note on p. 311; (comp. Possinus, p. 95): and the last note on p. 323; (comp. Poss. p. 123.) Compare also Cramer, p. 395 (line 16-22) with Poss. p. 249.—I observe that part of a note on p. 315 is ascribed by Possinus (p. 102) to Athanasius: while a scholium at p. 321 and p. 359, has no owner.522.e.g. p. 408, 411 (twice).523.In p. 418,—ὁ τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος Ἰωάννης. For instances of quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 with Chrys. pp. 398-9: p. 376 with Chrys. pp. 227-8: p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c.524.Take for example Victor's Commentary on the stilling of the storm (pp. 312-3), which is merely an abridged version of the first part of Chrysostom's 28thHomily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8); about 45 lines being left out. Observe Victor's method however. Chrysostom begins as follows:—Ὁ μὲν οὖν Λουκᾶς, ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν. (Then follows S. Luke viii. 22.) καὶ ὁ Μάρκος ὁμοίως. Οὗτος δὲ οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ. Victor, because he had S. Mark (not S. Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus:—Ὁ μὲν Μάρκος ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ Λοῦκας; ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ.525.e.g. V. A. p. 422 (from ὁ μέν φησιν to ἄλλος δέ φησιν) = Chrys. p. 460. Observe the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, ἄλλος φησιν.—So again, V. A. pp. 426-7 = Chrys. pp. 473-6: where ἄλλος δέ φησι, at the foot of p. 427 introduces a quotation from Origen, as appears from Possinus, p. 324—See also p. 209, line 1,—which is from Chrys. p. 130,—ἤ ὡς ὁ ἄλλος being the next words.—The first three lines in p. 316 = Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, ἄλλος δέ φησιν. See also pp. 392: 407 (φασί τινες—ἕτερος δέ φησιν): pp. 415 and 433. After quoting Eusebius by name (p. 446-7), Victor says (line 3) ἅλλος δέ φησιν.526.e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which = Chrys. p. 447.527.e.g. Theod. Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Reg. 201:—Basil, (p. 370) whose name Possinus does not seem to have read:—Cyril's name, which Possinus found in a certain place (p. 311), is not mentioned inLaud.Gr. 33fol.100b, at top, &c.528.So in theCatenaof Corderius, inS. Joannem, p. 302.529.I believe it will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 correspondsexactlywith Cod. Reg. 188: also that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201 correspond with those of Cod. Reg. 206; to which last two, I believe is to be added Cod. Reg. 187.530.Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384 in theSyr. Cat.531.Catalogue Librorum MSS.Lips. 1830, 4to. p. 656b.532.Reg.177 = A: 178 = B: 230 = C.—Coisl.19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F: 22 = G: 24 = H.—Matthaei'sdorD = I:hiseorE = J:his12 = K:hisaorA = L.—Vat.358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O: 1229 = P: 1446 = Q.—Vind. Koll.4Forlos.5 = R.—Xav. de Zelada= S.—Laur.18 = T: 34 = U.—Venet.27 = V.—Vind. Lamb.38 = W : 39 = X.533.So B-E (which I chiefly follow) begins,—Το δε αναστας.534.B begins thus,—Ει δε και το αναστας δε πρωι μετα τα επιφερομενα παρα. It is at this word (παρα) that most copies of the present scholion (A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X) begin.535.So far (except in its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, T, begin,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ου κεινται [I, ου κειται: J, ουκ ην δε] ταυτα τα [M, O, T om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [D, F, H om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον [B, εν τω παροντι] ευαγγελιῳ.536.So I, J, K, L, and H. P proceeds,—ως νοθα νομισθεντα τισιν ειναι. But B, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, O, T exhibit,—ως νοθα νομισαντες αυτα τινες [B om. τινες] ειναι. On the other hand, A and Q begin and proceed as follows,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ταυτα τα [Q om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [A om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιῳ ως νοθα νομισαντες τινες [Q, τινας (a clerical error): A om. τινες] ουκ εθηκαν.537.So B, except that it omits ως. So also, A, D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, Q, T, except that they begin the sentence, ημεις δε.538.So D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, T: also B and Q, except that they prefix και to κατα το Π. B is peculiar in reading,—ως εχει η αληθεια Μαρκου (transposing Μαρκου): while C and P read,—ομως ημεις εξ ακριβων αντιγραφων και πλειστων ου μην αλλα και εν τῳ Παλαιστιναιῳ ευαγγελιῳ Μαρκου ευροντες αυτα ως εχει η αληθεια συντεθεικαμεν.539.So all, apparently: except that P reads εμφερομενην for επιφερομενην; and M, after αναστασιν inserts εδηλωσαμεν, with a point (.) before μετα: while C and P (after ανασταςιν,) proceed,—και την [C, ειτα] αναληψιν και καθεδραν εκ δεξιων του Πατρος ῳ πρεπει η δοξα και η τιμη νυν και εις τους αιωνας. αμην. But J [and I think, H] (after γαρ) proceeds,—διο δοξαν αναπεμψωμεν τῳ ανασταντι εκ νεκρων Χριστῳ τῳ Θεῳ ημων αμα τῳ αναρχῳ Πατρι και ζωοποιῳ Πνευματι νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων. αμην.540.So B. All, except B, C, H, J, P seem to end at εφοβουντο γαρ.541.e.g. οὐκ ἦν δέ for οὐ κεῖνται.542.Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author ofthe Canonsas well:—“Canones quosEusebiusCaesariensis EpiscopusAlexandrinum secutus Ammoniumin decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in Graeco habentur expressimus.”(Ad Papam Damasum. Epist.) And again:“Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavitquos postea secutus est Eusebius Caesariensis.”(De Viris Illustr.c. 55 [Opp.ii. 881.])—See above, p.128.543.There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome quarto volume (pp. 216) entitledHarmonia quatuor Evangeliorum juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones. It is merely the contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printedin extenso,—and of course is no“Harmony”at all. It would have been a really useful book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has omitted to number the sections.544.This last § according toTischendorf'sed. of the Eusebian Canons.545.Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have been recognised at leastby Eusebius. OurLord'sAgony in the Garden for instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by him numbered § 283: and that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28, he certainly numbered § 216,—whatever Tischendorf may say to the contrary. (See p.203.)546.It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in the order of their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the matter in hand:—and that, (2) actual Quotations, and even Allusions to other parts of Scripture when they are undeniable, should be referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also certain that, (3) to a far greater extent than at present,setsof References might be kepttogether; not scattered about in small parcels over the whole Book.—Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present occasion,) (4) it is to be wished thatstrictly parallel placesin the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative only, or are merely recalled by their similarity of subject or expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,—Why is it no longer possible to purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha?Whodoes not miss the reference to“Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12”at Gen. ix. 14?Whocan afford to do without the reference to“1 Macc. iv. 59”at S. John x. 22?547.Mai, vol. iv. p. 287. See also p. 293.548.Tischendorf says 19 only.549.Tischendorf says 96 only.550.Tischendorf says 13 only.551.Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I, P, Q, R, W6, Y, Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, iscr, sscr. Also D and K. (Cod. Bezæ, p. xx, andIntrod.pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I thinknot263.)552.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 51 and 52:Cod. Bezæ, p. xx. note [2.]553.Evan. 263, for instance, has certainlyblankEusebian Tables at the beginning: theframeonly.554.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 51 (note 2),—where Tregelles (in Horne'sIntrod.iv. 200) is quoted.555.e.g. Codd. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one other at Paris, but I have not preserved a record of the number.) To these, Tregelles adds E; (Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W, and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener'sCod. Bezae, p. xx.)556.Theorderof these monograms requires explanation.557.Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450, and 1, and 2, and 4, and 6, and 7, and 8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright'sCatalogue,4to. 1870.) Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler, p. 52-3: also p. 63.558.“Dawkins 3.”See Dean Payne Smith'sCatalogue, p. 72.559.It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme,every verseof S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes an independent section (§§ 281-288): ver. 16-18 another (§ 289); and verr. 19-20, another (§ 290), which is the last. The Greek scheme, as a rule, makes independent sections of verr. 8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but throws together ver. 10-11: 12-13: 15-16: 17-18. (Vide infrà, p.311.)560.Note that § 392/9 = S. Luke xxiv. 12: § 394/10 = ver. 18-34: § 395/8 = ver. 35: § 396/9 is incomplete. [Dr. Wright supplies the lacune for me, thus: § 396/9 = ver. 36-41 (down to θαυμαζόντων): § 397/9 = εἶπεν αὐτοῖς down to the end of ver. 41: § 398/9 = ver. 42: § 399/9 = ver. 43: § 400/10 = ver. 44-50: § 401/8 = 51: § 402/10 = ver. 52, 3.Critical readers will be interested in comparing, or rather contrasting, the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which prevails in all Greek Codices. S. John's § 248/1 = xx. 18: his § 249/9 = ver. 19 to εἰρήνη ὑμῖν in ver. 21: his $ 250/7 = ver. 21 (καθώς to the end of the verse): his § 251/10 = ver. 22: his § 252/7 = ver. 23: his § 253/[10] = ver. 24-5: his § 254/[9] = ver. 26-7: his § 255/10 = ver. 28 to the end of xxi. 4: his § 256/9 = xxi. 5: his § 257/9 = xxi. 6 (to εὑρήσετε): his § 258/9 = ver. 6, (ἔβαλον to the end): his § 259/[10] = ver. 7, 8: his § 260/[9] = ver. 9: his § 261/[10] = ver. 10: his § 262/9 = ver. 11: his § 263/9 = first half of ver. 12: his § 264/10 is incomplete.[But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently the correcter ones, 263/10 stands opposite the middle of ver. 12 [οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα], and 264/9 opposite ver. 13 [ἔρχεται οὖν],) proceeds to supply the lacune for me, thus: § 264/9 = ver. 13: § 265/10 = ver. 14-5 (down to φιλῶ σε; λέγει αυτῷ): § 266/9 = βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου, (end of ver. 15): § 267/10 = ver. 16 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 268/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ, Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατα μου (end of ver. 16): § 269/10 = ver. 17 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 270/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ., β. τὰ π. μου (end of ver. 17): § 271/10 = ver. 18 to 25.561.“I have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and 7,157. The first three are Nos. lxix, lxx, and lxxi, in my own Catalogue: the last, a Nestorian MS., is No. xiii in the old Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen (London, 1838). All four agree in their numeration.”562.See the preceding note.—Availing myself of the reference given me by my learned correspondent, I read as follows in the Catalogue:—“Inter ipsa textus verba, numeris viridi colore pictis, notatur Canon harmoniae Eusebianae, ad quem quaevis sectio referenda est. Sic, [glyph] [i.e. 1] indicat canonem in quo omnes Evangelistae concurrunt,”&c. &c.563.Suidas [A.D.980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke, makes the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171.564.This sheet was all but out of the printer's hands when the place in vol. i. of Assemani's Bibliotheca Medicea, (fol. 1742,) was shewn me by my learned friend, P. E. Pusey, Esq., of Ch. Ch.—Dr. Wright had already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from the mutilated fragments of the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and 14,450.565.Dr. Tregelles. (Vide suprà, pp.125-6.) And so, Tischendorf.566.The others are 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 32, 37, 40, 45, 52, 98, 113, 115, 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 169, 186, 188, 193, 195, 265, 269, 276, 371. Add. 18,211, Cromwell 15, Wake 12and27.567.The others are 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 54 [more §§ ?], 65, 68, 111, 112, 114, 118, 157, 183, 190, 202, 263, 268, 270, 273, 277, 278, 284, 287, 294, 414, 438, 439. Rich 7,141. Add. 17,741and17,982. Cromw. 16. Canonici 36and112. Wake 21.568.Viz. 184, 192, 264, hscr, Add. 11,836. Ti. Wake 29.569.The others are 10, 20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl. 141.570.Vide suprà, p.33. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p. 53.) The others are 8, 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36.571.The others are 7, 27, 34, 38, 39, 46, 74, 89, 105, 116, 117, 135, 179, 185, 194, 198, 207, 212, 260, 261, 267, 275, 279, 293, 301, 445, kscr. Add. 22,740. Wake 22, 24, 30;and31 in which, ver. 20 is numberedCMB.572.But Cod. U inserts ευθεως before εξηλθεν; and (at least two of the other Codices, viz.) 48, 67 read αιμα και υσωρ.573.Σημείωσις is what we call an“Annotation.”[On the sign in the text, see the Catalogue of MSS. in the Turin Library, P. i. p. 93.] On the word, and on σημειοῦσθαι, (consider 2 Thess. iii. 14,) see the interesting remarks of Huet,Origeniana, iii. § i. 4. (at the end of vol. iv. of Origen'sOpp.p. 292-3.)—Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.v. 20) uses σημείωσις in this sense. (See the note of Valesius.) But it is plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinus (subscriptio), that it often denoted a“signature,”or signing of the name. Eusebius so employs the word inlib.v. 19ad fin.574.He was Patriarch of Antioch,A.D.512-9.—The extract (made by Petrus junior, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch,A.D.578,) purports to be derived from the 26thEpistle, (Book 9,) which Severus addressed to Thomas Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani,Bibl. Orient.vol. ii. pp. 81-2.575.I cannot find the place in Cyril. I suppose it occurs in a lost Commentary of this Father,—whose Works by the way are miserably indexed.576.Ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν [viz. the sect of the Severiani] ἀρχηγὸς ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν. Ὁ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. The next words are every way suggestive. Τοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς, ὡς ἐπιδιωρθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν.—Eusebius,Hist. Eccl.iv. 29, § 4.577.See, for example, the readings of B or א, or both, specified from p.80to p. 86.578.Vid. suprà, p.129, note (g.)579.Opp.vol. i. p. 391D.580.Haeret. Fab.lib. i. c. xx. (Opp.iv. 208.)581.Clinton, F. R. ii.Appendix, p. 473, quoting Theodoret's“Ep. 113, p. 1190. [al.vol. iii. p. 986-7].”582.Quoted by Matthaei, N. T.(1788) vol. ix. p. 228,fromg, a, d.583.Ibid., ii. 69, and ix. 228.584.Nov. Test.(1869), p. 404.585.Let the reader examine his“Quaestio ix,”(Mai, vol. iv. p. 293-5): his“Quaestio x,”(p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296, line 29-32.586.See Chrys.Opp.vol. viii. p. 522c:—ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς ἐπεχωρίαζεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν.

Footnotes1.Abp. Tait'sHarmony of Revelation and the Sciences, (1864,) p. 21.2.See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13.3.Abp. Tait is of opinion that it“should not retain its place in the public Service of the Church:”and Dean Stanley gives sixteen reasons for the same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that“many excellent laymen, including King George III., have declined to take part in the recitation.”(Final)Report of the Ritual Commission, 1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.4.In the words of a thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P. Eden),—“Condemnatoryis just what these clauses are not. I understand myself, in uttering these words, not to condemn a fellow creature, but to acknowledge a truth of Scripture,God'sjudgment namely on the sin of unbelief. The further question,—In whom the sin of unbelief is found;thatawful question I leave entirely in His hands who is the alone Judge of hearts; who made us, and knows our infirmities, and whose tender mercies are over all His works.”5.“The Athanasian Creed,”by the Dean of Westminster (Contemporary Review, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).6.Commentarius Criticus, ii. 197.7.Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd. MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit Andreas Birch, Havniae, 1788. A copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may be seen in the King's Library (Brit. Mus.)8.Account of the Printed Text, p. 83.9.See above, p.3.10.“Eam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant gravissimae.”11.I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this amiable and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am finishing my task. I consign these pages to the press with a sense of downright reluctance,—(constrained however by the importance of the subject,)—seeing thatheis no longer among us either to accept or to dispute a single proposition. All I can do is to erase every word which might have occasioned him the least annoyance; and indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. An open grave reminds one of the nothingness of earthly controversy; as nothing else does, or indeed can do.12.Tischendorf, besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the Greek Text, has edited our English“Authorized Version”(Tauchnitz, 1869,) with an“Introduction”addressed to unlearned readers, and the various readings of Codd. א, B and A, set down in English at the foot of every page.—Tregelles, besides his edition of the Text of the N. T., is very full on the subject of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, in his“Account of the Printed Text,”and in his“Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.”(vol. iv. of Horne'sIntrod.)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek Testament, and an abridgment“for the upper forms of Schools and for passmen at the Universities,”put forth two editions of a“N. T. for English Readers,”and three editions of“the Authorized Version newly compared with the original Greek and revised;”—in every one of which it is stated that these twelve verses are“probably an addition, placed here in very early times.”13.The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent Divine reluctantly admitting that“this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark himself;”and Bishop Ellicott (Historical Lectures, pp. 26-7) asking“Why may not this portion have been written by S. Mark at a later period?;”—both alike resolutely insist on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the popular outcry against this portion of the Gospel.“Without the slightest misgiving”he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (Introduction, pp. 7 and 429-32.)14.“Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,”(p. 320.)“Quæ testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba αφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.”(p. 322.)—I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf's 8th ed. (1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the following addition:—“Quæ quum ita sint, sanæ erga sacrum textum pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.”(p. 407.)15.Evangelia Apocrypha, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.16.Pp. 253, 7-9.17.In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced it“manifestly untenable”that S. Mark's Gospel was the last written; and assignedA.D.64 as“its most probable”date. In his second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—“When we consider thatthe Gospel was not written till the second century, internal evidence loses much of its force against the authenticity of these verses.”—Introduction to N.T.18.Vol. ii. p. 239.19.Developed Criticism, [1857], p. 53.20.Ed. 1847. i. p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader's acceptance in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.21.Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 311.22.Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92.23.In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,—“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.”Tayloron the Law of Evidence, 1868, i. p. 369.24.This is freely allowed by all.“Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam jam in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.”TregellesN.T.p. 214.25.This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 626) accounts for the phenomenon:—“Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam partem scribere differret, et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii quasi perfectum sequerentur, praesertim quum ea pars cum reliquâ historiâ evangelicâ minus congruere videretur.”26.It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his latest edition) S. John xxi. 25.27.Chap. III.-VIII., also Chap. X.28.Chap. IX.29.Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch.ed.8va.) [ix]: G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective here,—F (ver. 9-19), H (ver. 9-14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z.30.SeeAppendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14.31.Consider how Ignatius (ad Smyrn., c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39; and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep.ad Ephes.c. 17.32.Ἱστορεῖ [sc. Παπίας] ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονὸς,—evidently a slip of the pen for Βαρσαβᾶν τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Ἰοῦστον (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately afterwards,)—ὡς δηλητήριον φάρμακον ἐμπιόντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν ὑπομείναντος. Euseb.Hist. Eccl.iii. 39.33.Apol.I. c. 45.—The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the FragmentDe Resurrectione(Westcott and others) are clearly references to S. Luke xxiv.,—notto S. Mark xvi.34.lib. iii. c. x.ad fin.(ed. Stieren, i. p. 462).“In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus,et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est sis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.”Accordingly, against S. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 ( = Evan. 72) occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already published:—Εἰρηναῖος ὁ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πλησίον, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις γ᾽ λόγῳ τοῦτο ἀνήνεγκεν τὸ ῥητον ὡς Μάρκῳ ειρημένον.35.First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ; and by that name the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter of the (so called)“Apostolical Constitutions,”(τὰ μὲν σῦν πρῶτα τοῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Χαρισμάτων, κ.τ.λ.),—in which singular monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the“Apostolical Constitutions;”of which the ivthchapter is also claimed for Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such appears in the last edition of the Father's collected works, (Hippolyti Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. 74.The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of the heading,—Διατάξεις τῶν ἀυτῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν, διὰ Ἱππολύτου,) is part of the“Octateuchus Clementinus,”concerning which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to hisReliquiæ Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimæ, 1856. The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact correspondence between the“Octateuchus Clementinus”and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend no further than the single chapter (the ivth) specified in the text. In the meantime the fragment περὶ χαρισμάτων (containing S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in Lagarde'sReliquiæ, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there headed Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων.36.Ad fin.See Routh'sOpuscula, i. p. 80.37.For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf's remark (ed. 8va. p. 407),“Quod idem [Justinus] Christum ἀνεληλυθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐράνους dicit, [Apol.I. c. 50?] minus valet.”38.“In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,”(Cyprian Opp. p. 237 [Reliqq. Sacr.iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,)—“In nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus imponentet bene habebunt.”39.Responsa ad Episcopos, c. 44, (Reliqq.v. 248.)40.Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: alsoProleg.p. lvi.41.Inl.vii.c.7 (ad fin.),—λαβόντες ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κηρύξαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον: and inl.viii.c.1,—ἡμῖν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Observe, this immediately follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.42.Lib.vi.c.15.—The quotation (at the beginning oflib.viii.) of the 17th and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper place.Supra, p.24.43.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 421.44.ApudHieron.Opp. ed.Vallars., ii. 951-4.45.See Dr. Wright's ed. of“Aphraates,”(4to. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am entirely indebted to the learned Editor'sPrefacefor the information in the text.46.From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose.47.Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver. 15 and 16: vol. ii. 663 B, C quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 639 E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver. 17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes ver. 20.48.Opp.iii. 765 A, B.49.Καὶ μὴν τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρία πρώτῃ [ὤφθη]. Chrys.Opp.ch. 355 B.50.“Cogis”(he says to Pope Damasus)“ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se variant, quae sint illa quae cum Graecâ consentiant veritate decernam.—Haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia ... codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione, sed et veterum.”51.Vol. i. p. 327 C (ed.Vallars.)52.Contra Pelagianos, II. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5):—“In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine Evangelii scribitur:Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis Jesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes: Sæculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis substantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam.”53.E.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149); Vol. v. 988 C.—Verses 15, 16, in vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F.54.Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.55.ἐξελθόντες γάρ, φησι, διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ. τοῦ Κυρίοῦ συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων σημειων. Nestoriusc. Orthodoxos: (Cyril. Alexand.adv. Nestorian.Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,—τῇ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι, διεκηρύσσοντο καὶ εἰργάζοντο τὰς θεοσημείας οἱ θεοπέσιοι μαθηταὶ. (Ibid.D.) This quotation was first noticed by Matthaei (Enthym. Zig.i. 161.)56.ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένον; Ὁ μὲν οὄν Κύριος—ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 415.57.AthanasiiOpp.vol. ii. p. 181 F, 182 A. See thePræfat., pp. vii., viii.58.In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have overlooked. The necessity one is under, on occasions like the present, of depending to a great extent on“Indices,”is fatal; so scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be named. To judge from the Index in Oehler's edition of Tertullian, that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times. According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no less than fourteen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9-20 at all.Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf's new Oxford ed. of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in Potter's ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3 (or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, l. 8: S. John i. 18, 50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, l. 26: S. Mark i. 13, interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7:—are nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at ourSaviour'sBaptism,—a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, l. 14),—does not appear in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i. 11), or S. Luke (iii. 22.)]59.GregentiusapudGalland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in Evang.)—ModestusapudPhotium cod. 275.—Johannis DamasceniOpp.(ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and Theophylact (who quotesallthe verses) and Euthymiusin loc.60.Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that some more leaves of this Version have just been recovered.61.By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the last four verses.62.In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii. 5, Thomas writes,—“In tribus codicibus Græcis, et in uno Syriaco antiquæ versionis, non inventum est nomen,‘Nazarenus.’”—Cf. ad xxvii. 35.—Adler'sN. T. Verss. Syrr., p. 97.63.That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the Gospels relegated to the Philoxenian margin, should occur the worthless supplement which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch.viii.)—is not at all surprising. Of these 437 readings and notes, 91 are not found in White's Edition; while 105 (the supplement in question being one of them) are found in White only. This creates a suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must exhibit traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text. (So Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of some of those marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to refer to Adler's learned work, (pp. 79-134) and examine the notes on the following places:—S. Matth. xv. 21: xx. 28 ( = D): xxvi. 7. S. Mk. i. 16: xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 ( = B D): 42 ( = B א L): xi. 1: 53. S. Jo. ii. 1 [3] ( = א): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly = B): x. 8, &c. &c.64.This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, 1861-4, under the following title:—Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit, Prolegomenis et Glossario adornavit, ComesFranciscus Miniscalchi Erizzo.65.It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that one ancient codex, the“Codex Bobbiensis”(k), which Tregelles describes as“a revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS. is discernible,”[Printed text, &c. p. 170.] and which therefore may not be cited in the present controversy,—exhibits after ver. 8 a Latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in Cod. L.66.“Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint, vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.”Mai,Nova Patt. Bibl.iv. 256.67.Account of the Printed Text, p. 247.68.Gr. Test.p. 322.69.Ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὺαγγέλιον μέχρι τοῦ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, ἔχει τὸ τέλος. ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτων (sic) ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.Opp.(ed. 1638) iii, 411 B.70.Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 248, also in Horne'sIntrod.iv. 434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &c.71.Nov. Auct.i. 743-74.—Bibl. Vett. PP.xi. 221-6.72.Bibl. Coisl.pp. 68-75.—Catena, i. 243-51.73.Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean Payne Smith'sCat. of Syrr. MSS.p. 411] who diedA.D.1171) in hisExposition of S. Mark's Gospel(published at Dublin by Dudley Loftus, 1672, 4to.) seems (at p. 59) to give this homily to Severus.—I have really no independent opinion on the subject.74.Alford,Greek Test.i. p. 433.75.Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101.76.At p. 217, (ed.1847), Mai designates it as“Codex Vat. Palat. cxx pulcherrimus, sæculi ferme x.”At p. 268, he numbers it rightly,—ccxx. We are there informed that the work of Eusebius extends from fol. 61 to 96 of the Codex.77.Vol. iv. pp. 219-309.78.SeeNova P. P. Bibliotheca, iv. 255.—That it was styled“Inquiries with their Resolutions”(Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσεις), Eusebius leads us to suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name, (Demonstr. Evang. lib.vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus,Mai, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ (Mai, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so designate the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual title is correctly indicated by Jerome,—De Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ:“Edidit”(he says)“de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ,”(De Scriptt. Illustt.c. 81.) Again, Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων, (Hieron.in Matth. i. 16.) Consider also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given below, p.44, note (q).“Indicated”by Jerome, I say: for the entire title was probably, Περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ. διαφωνίας. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by Cramer (i. p. 266), quotes an opinion of Eusebius ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν εὐαγγελίοις περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας: words which are extracted from the same MS. by Simon,Hist. Crit. N. T.p. 89.79.Ἐκλογὴ ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ Εὐσεβίου πρὸς Στέφανον [and πρὸς Μαρῖνον] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων.Ibid.pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes facing the title of vol. i. ed. 1825.)80.Σὐσέβιος ... ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἐπὶ ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου πάθους καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ζητήσεσι καὶ ἐκλύσεσι, κ.τ.λ. I quote the place from the less known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to Severus of Antioch: but it occurs also inCorderii Cat. in Joan.p. 436. (See Mai, iv. 299.)81.This passage is too grand to be withheld:—Οὐ γὰρ ἤν ἀξιός τις ἐν τῇ πόλει Ἰουδαίων, (ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος κεφαλαίωιγ πρὸς Μαρνον,) τὸ κατὰ τοῦ διαβόλου τρόπαιον τὸν σταυρὸν βαστάσαι; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐξ ἀγροῦ, ὅς μηδὲν ἐπικεκοινώνηκε τῇ κατὰ χριστο μιαιφονίᾳ. (Possini Cat. in Marcum, p. 343.)82.Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenæ, inasmuch as their compilers are observed to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently full ofdisjecta membraof the work. These are recognisable for the most part by their form; but sometimes they actually retain the name of their author. Accordingly, Catenæ have furnished Mai with a considerable body of additional materials; which (as far as a MS. Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A.seuVat. 1611,] enabled him,) he has edited with considerable industry; throwing them into a kind of Supplement. (Vol. iv. pp. 268-282, and pp. 283-298.) It is only surprising that with the stores at his command, Mai has not contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject. It would not be difficult to indicate sundry passages which he has overlooked. Neither indeed can it be denied that the learned Cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner. He does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp. 357-8—262—283—295, is to be found in theCatenaofCorderiusat pp. 448-9—449—450—457.—He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of John Xiphilinus, (Cod. Vat.p. 160,) what he might have found in Possinus; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) He was evidently unacquainted with Cramer's work, though it had been published 3 (if not 7) years before his own,—else, at p. 299, instead of quoting Simon, he would have quoted Cramer'sCatenæ, i. 266.—It was in his power to solve his own shrewd doubt, (at p. 299,—concerning the text of a passage in Possinus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus published was transcribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican. (PossiniPræfat.p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of theCatenaof Possinus. In countless places he might, by such references, have improved his often manifestly faulty text.83.Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (Opp.ii. 116.) to Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis)“scire te vult in Siciliâ inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensisde Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.”The letter is dated 1563.I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will be found that Eusebius digested his“Questions”under heads: e.g. περὶ το τάφου, καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p. 299.)84.I translate according to the sense,—the text being manifestly corrupt. Τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν is probably a gloss, explanatory of τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό. In strictness, the κεφάλαιον begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end of the Gospel. There are 48 such κεφάλαια in S. Mark. But this term was often loosely employed by the Greek Fathers, (as“capitulum”by the Latins,) to denotea passageof Scripture, and it is evidently so used here. Περικοπή, on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true technical meaning, and to denote the liturgicalsection, or“lesson.”85.Ἀνάγνωσμα (like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to be here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgicalsection, or“lectio.”See Suicer,in voce.86.The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement and depravation here.87.Mai,Bibl. P.P. Nova, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the original of this passage is given in the Appendix (B).88.Mai, iv. 257. So far, I have given the substance only of what Eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity. It follows,—ὥστε τὸν αὐτὸν σχεδὸν νοεῖσθαι καιρὸν, ἡ τὸν σφόδρα ἐγγὺς, παρὰ τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς διαφόροις ὀνόμασι τετηρημένον. μηδέν τε διαφέρειν Ματθαῖον ἰρηκότα“ὀψὲ—τάφον”[xxviii. 1.] Ἰωάννου φήσαντος“τῇ δὲ μιᾷ—ἔτι οὔσης σκοτίας.”[xx. 1.] πλατυκῶς γὰρ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν δηλοῦσι χρόνον διαφόροις ῥήμασι. [xxviii. 1.]—For the principal words in the text, see the Appendix (B)ad fin.89.I allude to the following places:—Combefis,Novum Auctarium, col. 780.—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei,Anectt. Græc.ii. 62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195fol.165.—Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer,Catt.i. 251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4,fol.169.—Cod. Bodl. Laud. Gr. 33,fol.79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this subject will do well to begin by reading SimonHist. Crit. du N. T.p. 89. See Mai's foot-note, iv. p. 257.90.Ep. cxx.Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43.91.Ibid.p. 844.92.Ibid.p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.93.“Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est. [Τοῦτου διττὴ ἂν εἴν ἡ λύσεις.] Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur [σπανίωσ ἔν τισι φερόμενα] Evangeliis, omnibus Græciæ libris pene hec capitulum [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] in fine non habentibus; [ἐν τουτῷ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος]; præsertim cum diversa atque contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.] Aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [ἐκατέραν παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρϗειν ... συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς.] Matthæus, quando Dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati: Marcus autem, quando tum viderit Maria Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est, Cum autem resurrexisset: [μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον Ἀναστὰς δέ:] et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane apparuit Mariæ Magdalenæ: [εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες ῥητέον, Πρωι τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta Matthæum surrexerat, [παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τοτε γὰρ ἐγήγερατο.] ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Mariæ Magdalenæ. [προί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius diei visum esse demonstrans.”[τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.]For the Latin of the above, seeHieronymi Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).94.ἠρώτας τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; [Eusebiusad Marinum,(Mai, iv. 255.)]Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymusad Hedibiam, (Opp. i. 818-9.)]Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ μίᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου. [Ut suprà, p. 257.]Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit Dominum resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere? [Ut suprà, p. 819.]Πῶς, κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἁψαμένη τῶν ποσῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἡ αὐτὴ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἀκούει μή μου ἅπτου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην. [Ut suprà, p. 262.]Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem, audierit à Domino, Noli me tangere. [Ut suprà, p. 821.]95.Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 247.96.See above, p.28.97.See above, p.40-1.98.See theAppendix (C)§ 2.99.See theAppendix (C)§ 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § 2.100.In theEccl. Grac. Monumentaof Cotelerius, (iii. 1-53,) may be seen the discussion of 60 problems, headed,—Συναγωγή ἀποριῶν καὶ ἐπιλύσεων, ἐκλεγεῖσα ἐν ἐπιτομῇ ἐκ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς συμφωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου Ἱεροσολύμων. From this it appears that Hesychius, following the example of Eusebius, wrote a work on“Gospel Harmony,”—of which nothing but an abridgment has come down to us.101.He says that he writes,—Πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου προβλήματος λύσιν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν ῥητῶν ἀναφουμένων ζητήσεων, κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 400 c.102.ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένομ;Ὁ μὲν οῦν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 415 D.—See above, p.29, note (g).103.See below,chap. X.104.Fasti Romani, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395-495.105.Vol. i.Præfat.p. xxviii. See below, note (p).106.“Victor Antiochenus”(writes Dr. Tregelles in his N. T. vol. i. p. 214,)“dicit ὅτι νενόθενται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον.”107.For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and his work, the studious in such matters are referred to theAppendix (D).108.Opp.vol. vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field's edition, p. 527, line 3 to 20.109.Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,—ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος ὁ Καισαρείας ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον κ.τ.λ. And at p. 446, line 19,—Εὐσεβιός φησιν ὁ Καισαρείας κ.τ.λ.110.Compare Cramer'sVict. Ant.i. p. 444, line 6-9, with Field'sChrys.iii. p. 539, line 7-21.111.Mai, iv. p. 257-8.112.Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4.113.The following is the original of what is given above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ,“ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ Μαγδαληνῇ,”δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου εὶρημένῳ, ὲροῦμεν ὡς δυνατὸν μὲν εἰπεῖν ὅτι νενόθευται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον. πλὴν ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτοιμον καταφεύγειν, οὔτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα;“ἀναστὰς δὲ,”καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν,“πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”ἵνα [The extract fromVictoris continued below in the right hand column: the left exhibiting the text ofEusebius“ad Marinum.”] [Transcriber's Note: The extracts will be on alternating paragraphs.](Eusebius.) τὸ μὲν“ἀναστὰς,”ἀν[απέμψωμεν?] ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”(τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις.(Victor.) τὸ μὲν“ἀναστὰς,”ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”(τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις;(Eusebius.) (“πρωί”γὰρ“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”)(Victor.) (τὸν γὰρ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων”κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ“πρωί”ἑωρακέναι Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.)(Eusebius.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης“πρωί”καί αὐτὸς“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου”ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.(Victor.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες,“πρωί”καὶ αὐτὸς“τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων”ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.[31 words here omitted.](Eusebius.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς αναστάσεως τὸν“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.”τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν“πρωί.”(Victor.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τὸν“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου;”τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸ“προί.”[Eusebius,apud Mai, iv. p. 256.][Victor Antioch,ed. Cramer, i. p. 444-5: (with a few slight emendations of the text fromEvan. Cod. Reg. 178.)]Note, that Victortwiceomits the word πρῶτον, andtwicereads τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου),only because Eusebius had inadvertently(three times)done the same thingin the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai.Nova P. P. Bibl.iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.114.οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δἐ ὡς διαφόρους ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί φασιν οἱ τὴν δοκοῦσαν διαφωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες. Vict. Ant.ed. Cramer, vol. i. p. 445, l. 23-5: referring to what Eusebius saysapud Mai, iv. 264 and 265 (§ iiii): 287-290 (§§ v, vi, vii.)115.e.g. in the passage last quoted.116.For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred to theAppendix (E).117.How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,—“Scholia certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omniaex uno fonte promanarunt. Ex eodem fonte Hieronymum etiam hausisse intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.—Similiter Scholiastæ omnes in principio hujus Evangelii in disputatione de lectione ἐν ἡσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτη ex uno pendent.Fortasse Origenes auctor est hujus dubitationis.”(N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)—The reader is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47 (line 23.)118.It is not often, I think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually inserted after Ἀναστάς δέ. Such a point is found, however, in Cod. 34 ( = Coisl. 195,) and Cod. 22 ( = Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many other copies.119.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 47, 125, 431.120.Φασὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἐνταῦθα συμπληροῦσθαι τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον; τὰ δὲ ἐφεξῆς προσθήκην εἶναι μεταγενεστέραν. Χρὴ δὲ καὶ ταύτην ἑρμηνεῦσαι μηδὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ λυμαινομένην.—Euthym. Zig. (ed.Matthaei, 1792),in loc.121.For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to theAppendix (F).122.Viz. A, C [v]; D [vi]; E, L [viii]; F, K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π [ix]; G, H, X, S, U [ix, x].123.Vercellone,—Del antichissimo Codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca, Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)124.Dublin Univ. Mag.(Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.125.ὁμοιοτέλευτον.126.See Scrivener'sIntroductionto his ed. of the Codex Bezæ, p. xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface to the 2nd ed. of hisCollation of the Cod. Sinaiticus.—Add to his instances, this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:—ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ ΕΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕΗ ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣΑΣΤΡΑΠΗIt is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:—ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟHence the omission of και επεγνωσαν αυτον in א.—The following explains the omission from א (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke xxiv. 52:—ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙThe next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke xxii. 64:—ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε[ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ]ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟThe next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are absent in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ127.In this way, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt reading of Cod. B (ινα τηρησης αυτους εκ του κοσμου)—which, however, was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (Opp.p. 1035:al. ed.p. 825)—is explained:—ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣThus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42:—ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ[ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ]ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝAnd why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S. Luke xxiv. 53:—ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝAnd why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of the Temptation (S. Luke iv. 5) :—ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ128.In this way the famous omission (א, B, L) of the word δευτεροπρώτῳ, in S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the least) capable of being explained:—ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕand of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:—ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ[ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ]ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ129.He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii. (1 Cor. v. 7.)130.In this way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. א in S. Mark xv. 47—xvi. 1:—19 words in S. Mark i. 32-4:—20 words in S. John xx. 5, 6:—39 words in S. John xix. 20, 21.131.Scrivener'sFull Collation, &c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles' N. T. Part II. page ii.132.SeeChap. IV. p.37.133.Scrivener'sIntroduction to Con. Bezae, p. liv.134.e.g. in S. John i. 42 (meaning only א, B, L): iv. 42 (א, B, C): v. 12 (א, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, B, L), &c.135.e.g. S. Matth. x. 25; xii. 24, 27: S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19 (βεεζεβουλ).—1 Cor. xiii. 3 (καυχησωμαι).—S. James i. 17 (αποσκιασματος).—Acts i. 5 (εν πν. βαπ. αγ.).—S. Mark vi. 20 (ηπορει).—S. Matth. xiv. 30 (ισχυρον).—S. Luke iii. 32 (ἰωβηλ).—Acts i. 19 (ἰδίᾳ omitted).—S. Matth. xxv. 27 (τα αργυρια).—S. Matth. xvii. 22 (συστρεφομενων).—S. Luke vi. 1 (δευτεροπρῶτῳ omitted).—See more in Tischendorf'sProlegomenato his 4to. reprint of theCod. Sin.p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to Scrivener's very interestingCollation of the Cod. Sinaiticus, Introduction, p. xliii.seq.136.See Tischendorf's note in his reprint of the Cod. Sin.,Prolegg.p. lix.137.Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος—καταβαίνοντα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44.138.ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς—τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 34):—γράμμασιν Ἐλληνικοῖς καὶ Ῥωμαῖκοῖς καὶ Ἐβραῖκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.)139.αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!140.Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xlvii.141.So, in the margin of the Hharklensian revision.142.Note, that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to claim theLatinversions as allies. Ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ἄνθρωπος λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κ.τ.λ. is not“Respondit, Ille homo qui dicitur Jesus,”(as both Tischendorf and Tregelles assume;) but“Respondit ille, Homo,”&c.,—as in verses 25 and 36.143.This reading will be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the end ofChap. VII.,—p.110.144.The following may be added from Cod. א:—μεγάλοι αὐτῶν (in S. Mark x. 42) changed into βασιλεις: ειπεν (in S. Mark xiv. 58) substituted for ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτου λέγοντος: εβδομηκοντα τεσσαρων (in S. Lu. ii. 37) for ὀγδοηκ: and εωρακεν σε (in S. Jo. viii. 57) for ἑώρακας:—in all which four readings Cod. א is without support. [Scrivener,Coll. Cod. Sin.p. li.] The epithet μεγαν, introduced (in the same codex) before λίθον in S. Mark xv. 46; and και πατριας inserted into the phrase ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ in S. Lu. i. 27,—are two more specimens of mistaken officiousness. In the same infelicitous spirit, Cod. B and Cod. א concur in omitting ἰσχυρόν (S. Matt. xiv. 30), and in substituting πυκνα for πυγμῇ, and ραντισωνται for βαπτίσωνται in S. Mark vii. 3 and 4:—while the interpolation of τασσομενος after ἐξουσίαν in S. Matth. viii. 9, because of the parallel place in S. Luke's Gospel; and the substitution of ανθρωπος αυστηρος ει (from S. Luke xix. 21) for σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος in S. Matth. xxv. 24, are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting influence has been here at work besides those which have been already specified.145.Scrivener,Coll. Cod. Sin.p. xlvii.146.Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for ἐξελθ. Chrys.^834 (twice,) (also quoted in Cramer'sCat.241). The mistake adverted to in the text is at least as old as the time of Eusebius, (Mai, iv. p. 264 = 287), who asks,—Πῶς παρά τῷ Ματθάιῳ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἔξω τοῦ μνήματος ἑώρακεν τὸν ἕνα ἄγγελον ἐπικαθήμενον τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ μνήματος, κ.τ.λ.147.Tischendorf accordinglyis forced, for once, to reject the reading of his oracle א,—witnessed to though it be by Origen and Eusebius. His discussion of the text in this place is instructive and even diverting. How is it that such an instance as the present does not open the eyes of Prejudice itself to the danger of pinning its faith to the consentient testimony even of Origen, of Eusebius, and of Cod. א?... The reader is reminded of what was offered above, in the lower part of p.49.148.A similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S. Luke iv. 44, (cf. the parallel place, S. Matth. iv. 23: S. Mark i. 89). It does not mend the matter to find א supported this time by Codd. B, C, L, Q, R.149.S. Lu. xxiii. 45:—ὅπερ οὐδέποτε πρότερον συνέβη, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν Αἰγύπτω μόνον, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα τελεῖσθαι ἔμελλε; καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα τούτων τύπος ἦν. (Chrys. vii. 824 c.)150.ὅπως δὲ μὴ εἰπωσί τινες ἔκλειψιν εἶναι τὸ γεγενημένον, ἐν τῇ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη ἡμέρᾳ τῆς σελήνης γἐγονε τὸ σκότος:—ὅτε ἔκλειψιν συμβῆναι ἀμήχανον. So Victor of Antioch, in his Catena on S. Mark (ed. Possin.) He makes the remark twice: first (p. 351) in the midst of an abridgment of the beginning of Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew: next (p. 352) more fully, after quoting“the great Dionysius”of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on the same subject in Cramer'sCatena in Matth.i. p. 237,—from whom derived, I know not; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note, that the 10 lines ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου, beginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys. vii. 824, D, E.) The very next words in Chrysostom's published Homily (p. 825 A.) are as follows:—Ὅτε γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ἔκλειψις, αλλ᾽ ὀργή τε καὶ ἀγανάκτησις, οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ; τρεῖς γἀρ ὥρας παρέμεινεν, ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ γίνεται καιροῦ ῥοπῇ.—Anyone who would investigate this matter further should by all means read Matthaei's long note on S. Luke xxiii. 45.151.See above, p.70, and theAppendix (F).152.Tischendorf's“Introduction”to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the English N.T., 1869,—p. xiii.153.“Epistola quam nos‘ad Ephesios’præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero 'ad Laodicenos.”Adv. Marcion.lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.)154.“‘Titulum’enim‘ad Laodicenos’ut addidisse accusatur a Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba ἐν Ἐφέσῳ omnino non legisse censendus est.”(N. T.in loc.)155.“Ecclesiæ quidem veritate Epistolam istam‘ad Ephesios’habemus emissam, non‘ad Laodicenos;’sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.”Adv. Marcion.lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)156.ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἰκανῶν. (Epiphan.Opp.i. 310 c.)157.He describes its structure minutely at vol. i. pp. 309-310, and from pp. 312-7; 318-321. [Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has crept into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321d: pointed out long since by Jones,On the Canon, ii. 38.] His plan is excellent. Marcion had rejected every Gospel except S. Luke's, and of S. Paul's Epistles had retained only ten,—viz. (1st) Galatians, (2nd and 3rd) I and II Corinthians, (4th) Romans, (5th and 6th) I and II Thessalonians, (7th)Ephesians, (8th) Colossians, (9th) Philemon, (10th) Philippians. Even these he had mutilated and depraved. And yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78 passages, (pp. 312-7), and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40 passages more (pp. 318-21); by means of which 118 texts he undertakes to refute the heresy of Marcion. (pp. 322-50: 350-74.) [It will be perceived that Tertullian goes over Marcion's work in much the same way.] Very beautiful, and well worthy of the student's attention, (though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form,) is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy ofGod'sWord, even when dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape.“Ὅλου γὰρ τοῦ σώματος ζῶντος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τῆς θείας γραφῆς, ποῖον ηὕρισκε (sc. Marcion) μέλος νεκρὸν κατὰ τῆν αὐτοῦ γνώμην, ἵνα παρεισαγάγη ψεῦδος κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας; ... παρέκοψε πολλὰ τῶν μελῶν, κατέσχε δὲ ἔνιά τινα παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ; καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ κατασχεθέντα ἔτι ζῶντα οὐ δύναται νεκροῦσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ ζωτικὸν τῆς ἐμφάσεως, κᾴν τε μυρίως παρ᾽ αὐτῷ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἀποτμηθείν.”(p. 375b.) He seems to say of Marcion,—Fool! to suppose thy shallow witsCould quench a fire like that. Go, learnThat cut into ten thousand bitsYet every bit would breathe and burn!158.He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius,Opp.i. p. 318 and 371-2.)159.Ibid.p. 318c( = 371b), and319 a ( = 374 a.)160.Ibid.p. 319 and 374. But note, that through error in the copies, or else through inadvertence in the Editor, the depravation commented on at p. 374b, c,is lost sight of at p. 319b.161.See below, at the end of the next note.162.Προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Ἀποστολικῷ καλουμένῳ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πρὸς Λαοδικέας:—“Εῖς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα, εἶς Χριστὸς, εἶς Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.”(Epiphan.Opp.vol i. p. 374.) Here is obviously a hint of τριῶν ἀνάρχων ἀρχῶν διαφορὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἐξουσῶν: [Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ ματαιόφρονος δίδαγμα, εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς μοναρχίας τομὴν καὶ διαίρεσιν. Athanas. i. 231e.] but, (says Epiphanius), οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀποστόλου ὑπόθεσις καὶ ἠσφαλισμένον κήρυγμα. ἀλλὰ ἄλλως παρὰ τὸ σὸν ποιήτευμα. Then he contrasts with the“fabrication”of Marcion, the inspired verity,—Eph. iv. 5: declaring ἕνα Θεὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων,—τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, κ.τ.λ.—p. 374c.Epiphanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained materials ἐκτὸς τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου; οὐ γὰρ ἔδοξε τῷ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ Μαρκίωνι ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν λέγειν, (sc. the words quoted above,) ἀλλὰ τῆς πρὸς Λαοδικέας, τῆς μὴ οὔσης ἐν τῷ Ἀποστόλῳ (p. 375a.) (Epiphanius here uses Ἀπόστολος in its technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with S. Paul's Epistles.)163.“Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—”Ἐπὶ μόνων Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;”καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,”τί δύναται σημαίνειν; ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδω ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεί τὸ ὬΝ οὕτως οἱ μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται“ὄντες.”καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι.“ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,”φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος,“ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση.”—Cramer'sCatena in Ephes.i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.164.Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: xii. 14, &c.165.Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽ ἐπιγνώσεως,“ὄντας”αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών:“τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.”οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. Note also what immediately follows. (BasilOpp.i. p. 254 E, 255 A.)166.See the places quoted by Scrivener,Introd.pp. 381-91; particularly p. 385.167.Hieron.Opp.vol. vii. p. 543:—“Illud quoque in Præfatione commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.”168.“Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum est‘Haec dices filiis Israel,Qui estmisit me,’etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf.‘qui sunt Ephesi,’Vulg.] sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... abEo‘qui est,’hi‘qui sunt’appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, non ad eos‘qui sint,’sed‘qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint’scriptum arbitrantur.”Hieron.Opp.vii. p. 545a, b.169.The cursive“Cod. No. 67”(or“672”) is improperly quoted as“omitting”(Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who says of it (p. 496),—“cod. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat.”... The MS. must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in hisTentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece, &c. Havn. 1773, pp. 62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in hisLibellus Criticus de indole Cod. MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv.&c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. B itself.170.So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener'sCollation, p. xlix.171.Scrivener'sIntroduction to Codex Bezae, p. liv.172.Scrivener,Coll. of Cod. Sin.p. xlv.173.Eph. vi. 21, 22.174.Coloss. iv. 7, 16.175.Ubi suprà.176.Gnomon, in Ephes. i. 1,ad init.177.See above, pp.93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (ad Ephes.c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner, vol. ii.178.Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and א, that nothing whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in question remain, by their own admission,defective.Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1)To leave a blank spaceafter τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2)To let the wordsἐν Ἐφέσῳstand,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (Life and Letters of S. Paul, ii. 491), to eject the words“at Ephesus”from the text of Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words“in Laodicea,”—is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff) have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford (vol. iii.Prolegg.pp. 13-8); who infers,“in accordance with the prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle wasveritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus, andto no other Church.”] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity; viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (“carta bianca”) copy of the Epistle looked with“the space after τοῖς οὔσι left utterly void:”in the latter, they will be representing the archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus. But by printing the text thus,—τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσω] καὶ πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., they are acting on an entirely different theory. They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS. in the world except Codd. B and א. This is clearly to forsake the“Encyclical”hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be named.179.Ἐγκύκλιον ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii interpretanturliteras circulares: ego cum viris doctis malimEpistolasvelliteras publicas, ad omnes fideles pertinentes, quas Græci aliàs vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicerin voce.180.Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicerin voce, Ἐγκύκλιος.181.Routh'sReliquiæ, vol. iii. p. 266.—“Tum ex Conciliis, tum ex aliis Patrum scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiao Patres acta et decreta Conciliorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere per epistolas, quas non uni privatim dicârunt, sed publice describi ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulgari, atque cum omnibus populis communicari voluerunt. Hac igitur epistolae ἐγκύκλιοι vocatae sunt, quia κυκλόσε, quoquò versum et in omnem partem mittebantur.”—Suicerin voc.182.“On the whole,”says Bishop Middleton, (Doctrine of the Greek Art.p. 355)“I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on Col. iv. 16,)—‘that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans; with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.’”—This suggestion is intended to meetanotherdifficulty, and leaves the question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is found in Col. iv. 16.Macknight's suggestion, though it has found favour with many subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S. Paul is found not to have sentthe Colossians“word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.”He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this roundabout method of communication, were notthe Ephesiansordered,—if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the Colossians charged to read publicly τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, which (by the hypothesis) would have been only a copy,—instead of τὴν ἐξ Ἐφέσου, which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay, why is it not designated by S. Paul, τὴν πρὸς Ἐφεσίους,—(if indeed it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; which would hardly be an intelligible way of indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of theEphesiansalso, which had been originally addressed by S. Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the Colossians!183.Epiphan.Opp.i. 311 D.184.“Marcion exerte et palam machæra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad materiam suam cædem Scripturarum confecit.”(TertullianPræscript. Hær.c. 38, p. 50.)“Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque subducat.”(Adv. Marcion.lib. v, c. xvii, p. 455.)185.See above p.95, and see note (f) p.94.186.See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii.Prolegg.pp. 13-15.187.p. xiv.—See above, pp.8,9, note (f).188.One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of statement. The facts are these:—(1) Valentt. (apudIrenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apudClem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apudClem.)alsoread ἦν. These testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also hasbothreadings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is“perhaps not an improbable reading,”) reads ἦνten or eleven times. Ἦν is also the reading of Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact ofall the MSS. in the world, except of א and D.All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and Cureton's Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin.And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a question of authority, and reason fromthe evidence,—declining to import into the argument what may be calledlogicalconsiderations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age of reading the place after the following strange fashion,—ὁ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3, 4. And to substitute ἐστί (for ἦν) in such a sentence asthat, was obvious.... Chrysostom's opinion is well known,“Let us beware of putting the full stop”(he says)“at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as do the heretics.”[He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig.Opp.i. 130), and to Theodotus (apudClem. Alex.). But it must be confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (Routh, Opusc.i. 68), Clemens Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D.269,Routhiii. 293), Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (Routhiii. 459), and Augustine,—point the place in the same way.“It is worth our observation,”(says Pearson,)“that Eusebius citing the place of S. John to prove that theHoly Ghostwas made by theSon, leaves out those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute that heresy of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.”]Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out thatthe Spiritis a creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the Evangelist's language is made unintelligible.”(Opp.viii. 40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred toinfrà), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson'snote(z),Art.viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh'sOpusc.i. 88-9.189.It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of the Codex Sinaiticus:—(1.)S. Johni. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.)S. Matth.xiii. 35: το ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.)S. Johnxiii. 10: ο λελουμενος ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.)S. Johnvi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to be“indubitably correct.”)On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the private property of the single Codex א. The last three are absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to reject them: the second (of which Jerome says somethingverydifferent from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) he hasdropped a line: thus:—ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝThe first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p.110.190.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves careful study.191.Deut. xvi. 19.192.Printed Text, p. 254.193.Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222.194.Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan. 15, 19, 299 (?) respectively.195.Variae Lectiones, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358, 756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181): Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89, Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (leg.5 ?) S. Mariæ Bened. Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)196.Nov. Test.vol. i. p. 199.197.Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.198.Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam dubias notarent.—Variae Lectiones, &c. p. 225.199.In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, + occurs at xi. 12, xii. 38, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such sign occurs at thepericope de adulterá.200.Further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in theAppendix (D).201.Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our 36,) against S. Mark xvi. 9, is this sign [symbol: inverse or open x]. It is intended (like an asterisk in a modern book) to refer the reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occur in the margin of the Paris MS. also.202.ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188, 186.)203.See more concerning this matter in theAppendix (D),ad fin.204.At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is found,—εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδand at the end of S. Mark's, (at fol. 147b)—εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξThis second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20.Bothreappear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an interesting variety in the former of the two) in [what I suppose is the first half of] the uncial Codex Λ. See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 125.205.= Paris 72,fol.107b. He might have added, (for Wetstein had pointed it out 79 years before,) thatthe same note preciselyis found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,)fol.98b.206.See more at the very end ofChap. XI.207.Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10) contain as follows:—ἔν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς, ἕως οἱ καὶ Ἐυσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν; ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ ταῦτα φέρεται; ἀναστὰς, κ.τ.λ.But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [lege5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has only this:—ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα.208.It originated in this way. At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel, in both Codices, are found those large extracts from the“2nd Hom. on the Resurrection”which Montfaucon published in theBibl. Coisl.(pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since reprinted at the end of hisCatena in S. Matth.(i. 243-251.) In Codd. 34 and 39 they are ascribed to“Severus of Antioch.”See above (p.40.) See also pp.39and57.209.See above, pp.64,65.210.22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20.211.viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 208, 209:—20, 300:—15, 22.212.Cod. Λ, 20, 262, 300.213.Evan. 374.214.viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (BirchVarr. Lectt. p. 225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by Matthaei.215.2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding note) = 24.216.Paris 62,olim,2861 and 1558.217.See the facsimile.—The original, (which knows nothing of Tischendorf's crosses,) reads as follows:—ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡΟ ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩi.e.—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦταΠάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τον Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήλλειλαν: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας.Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου.218.As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two Æthiopic MSS.—I am unable to understand what Scholz and his copyists have said concerning Cod. 274. I was assured again and again at Paris that they knew of no such codex as“Reg, 79a,”which is Scholz' designation (Prolegg.p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which, after him, we number“274.”219.NecAmmoniiSectionibus, necEusebiiCanonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi versus.—Tisch.Nov. Test.(ed. 8va), p. 406.220.Printed Text, p. 248.221.The reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for himself:—Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὥς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὅφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.222.Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ, εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τό πους, ἐν οἷς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν φιλαληθῶς εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμὰς, καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους.223.This seems to representexactlywhat Eusebius means in this place. The nearest English equivalent to ἀφορμή is“a hint.”Consider Euseb.Hist. Eccl.v. 27. Also the following:—πολλὰς λαβόντες ἀφορμάς. (Andreas,Proleg. in Apocalyps.).—λαβόντες τὰς ἀφρμάς. (Anastasius Sin.,Routh's Rell.i. 15.)224.κανόνας ... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This at least is decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome says of Ammonius,—“Evangelicos canones excogitavitquos postea secutus est Eusebius Cæsariensis,”(De Viris Illust.c. lv. vol. ii. p. 881,) we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand gain statements of this Father are entitled.What else can be inferred from the account which Eusebius gives of the present sectional division of the Gospels but that it was also his own?—Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τὼν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις: ἡ δὲ σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προιὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους τοῦ βιβλίου. He proceeds to explain how the sections thus numbered are to be referred to his X Canons:—καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρόκειται, δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.225.“Frustra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Quæ supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.”(Tischendorfon S. Markxvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to light in the vithcentury, and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was the lost work of Ammonius, (Proleg.p. 63, § 660,)—was of course warranted in appealing to the authority of Ammoniusin supportof the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But in truth Mill's assumption cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has convincingly shewn. (Proleg.p. 68.) Any one may easily satisfy himself of the fact who will be at the pains to examine a few of the chapters with attention, bearing in mind what Eusebius has said concerning the work of Ammonius. Cap. lxxiv, for instance, contains as follows:—Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. 33. Mtt. xiii. 34, 35: 10, 11. Mk. iv. 34. Mtt. xiii. 13 to 17. But here it isS. Matthew's Gospelwhich is dislocated,—for verses 10, 11, and 13 to 17 of ch. xiii. comeafterverses 33-35; while ver. 12 has altogether disappeared.The most convenient edition for reference is Schmeller's,—Ammonii Alexandrini quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum. (Vienna, 1841.)226.Only by the merest license of interpretation can εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς be assumed to mean that Eusebius had found the four Gospels ready divided to his hand by Ammonius into exactly 1165 sections,—every one of which he had simply adopted for his own. Mill, (who nevertheless held this strange opinion,) was obliged to invent the wild hypothesis that Eusebius,besidesthe work of Ammonius which he describes, must have found in the library at Cæsarea the private copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ammonius,—an unique volume, in which the last-named Father (as he assumes) will have numbered the Sections and made them exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss such a notion. We are dealing with facts,—not with fictions.227.For proofs of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks on the (so-called)“Ammonian”Sections, the reader is referred to theAppendix (G).228.See above, p.128, note (f).229.See above, p.125.230.As a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are notedwithoutthe Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in theAppendix (G).231.τέσσαρα εἰσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξηκονταδύο. The words are most unexpectedly, (may I not saysuspiciously?), found in Epiphanius,Ancor.50, (Opp.ii. 54B.)232.By Tischendorf, copying Mill'sProleg.p. 63, § 662:—the fontal source, by the way, of the twin references to“Epiphanius and Cæsarius.”233.Comp. Epiph. (Ancor.50,)Opp.ii. 53cto 55a, with Galland.Bibl.vi. 26cto 27a.234.Galland.Bibl.vi. 147a.235.Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112).—It it only fair to add that Davidson is not alone in this statement. In substance, it has become one of the common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of S. Mark's Gospel is spurious.236.See PossiniCat.p. 363.237.Ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. [= ver. 9] ταύτην Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἑτέραν λέγει Μαρίαν παρὰ τὴν θεασαμένην τὸν νεανίσκον. ἥ καὶ ἀμφότεραι ἐκ τῆς Μαγδαληνῆς ἢσαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσι. καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς [= ver. 12.] τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Κλέοπαν, καθὼς ὁ Λουκᾶς ἱστορεῖ, (Possini siniCat.p. 364):—Where it will be seen thatText(κείμενον) andInterpretation(ἑρμηνεία) are confusedly thrown together.“Anonymus [Vaticanus]”also quotes S. Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109,ad fin.—Matthaei (N.T. ii. 269),—overlooking the fact that“Anonymus Vaticanus”(or simply“Anonymus”) and“Anonymus Tolosanus”(or simply“Tolosanus”) denote two distinct Codices,—falls into a mistake himself while contradicting our learned countryman Mill, who says,—“Certe Victor Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. ver. 8] nec ultra commentantur.”—Scholz' dictum is,—“Commentatorum qui in catenis SS. Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ exhibetur.”238.See above pp.62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such Collections as theMagna Bibliotheca Vett. PP.(1618,) vol. iv. p. 330, col. 2E, F.—For the Greek, see PossiniCatena, pp. 359-61.239.See above, pp.64-5, andAppendix (E).240.Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20.241.Introduction, &c. ii. p. 113.242.Nov. Test.Ed. 8vai. p. 406.243.Developed Crit.pp. 51-2.244.ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist.Eth. Nic.I. iii.245.To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener be it said, thatheat least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all“to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.”See by all means his remarks on this subject. (Introduction, pp. 431-2.)—One would have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English Poem,—which some able men were confidentmighthave been written by Milton, while others were just as confident that it could not possibly be his,—ought to have opened the eyes of all to the precarious nature of such Criticism.246.Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—“Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,”—the author of an able and convincing paper entitled“Exegetical Studies”in“The Baptist Quarterly”for July, 1869 (Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which“the words and phrases”contained in S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively examined.If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor's hands, he will perceive that I must have written the present ChapterbeforeI knew of his labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr. Scrivener's kindness:) my treatment of the subject and his own being so entirely different. But it is only due to Professor Broadus to acknowledge the interest and advantage with which I have compared my lucubrations with his, and the sincere satisfaction with which I have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at precisely the same result.247.Dr. Kay'sCrisis Hupfeldiana, p. 34,—the most masterly and instructive exposure of Bp. Colenso's incompetence and presumption which has ever appeared. Intended specially ofhishandling of the writings of Moses, the remarks in the text are equally applicable to much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end of S. Mark's Gospel.248.S. Matth. viii. 1 (καταβάντι αὐτῷ):—5 (εἰσελθόντι τω Ἰ.):—23 (ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ):—28 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ):—ix. 27 (παράγοντι τῷ Ἰ.):—28 (ἐλθόντι):—xxi. 23 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ).249.On the Creed, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.)250.τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ διαφωνεῖ τὰληθές. Aristot.Eth. Nic.I. c. vi.251.Davidson'sIntroduction, &c. i. 170.252.And yet, if it were ever so“sententious,”ever so“abrupt;”and if his“brief notices”were over so“loosely linked together;”—these,according to Dr. Davidson, would only be indications that S. Mark actuallywastheir Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark's“characteristics,”at p. 151:—“In the consecution of his narrations, Markputs them together very loosely.”“Mark is also characterised by aconcisenessand apparent incompleteness of delineation which are allied to the obscure.”“Theabruptintroduction”of many of his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, and illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common sense, is the value of such criticism as this? What is to be thought of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath: denying at p. 170 the genuineness of a certain portion of Scripturebecauseit exhibits the very peculiarities which at p. 151 he had volunteered the information arecharacteristicof its reputed Author?253.N.T. vol. i.Prolegg.p. 38.254.It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words and expressions about to be considered:—(i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (ver.9.)—See above.(ii.) ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνθα (ver.9.)—See p.152.(iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (ver.9.)—See p.153.(iv.) πορεύεσθαι (vers.10, 12, 15.)—Ibid.(v.) οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι (ver.10.)—See p.155.(vi.) θεᾶσθαι (ver.11 and 14.)—See p.156.(vii.) θεαθῆναι (ver.11.)—See p.158.(viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (ver.11 and 16.)—Ibid.(ix.) μετὰ ταῦτα (ver.12.)—See p.159.(x.) ἕτερος (ver.12.)—See p.160.(xi) ὅστερον (ver.14.)—Ibid.(xii.) βλάπτειν (ver.18.)—Ibid.(xiii.) πανταχοῦ (ver.20.)—See p.161.(xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν—βεβαιοῦν (ver.20.)—Ibid.(xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (ver.15.)—Ibid.(xvii.) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (ver.17.)—See p.162.(xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (ver.17 and 19.)—See p.163.(xx.) χεῖρας ἐπιθεῖναι ἐρί τινα (ver.18.)—See p.164.(xxi. and xxii.) μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver.19 and 20.)—Ibid.(xxiii.) ἀναληφθῆναι (ver.19.)—See p.166.(xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (verses10, 11 [and 13?].)—Ibid.(xxv.)“Verses without a copulative,”(verses10 and 14.)—Ibid.(xxvi. and xxvii.) Absence of εὐθέως and πάλιν.—See p.168.255.S. Luke vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9: xiii. 10, 14, 15, 16. S. Luke has, in fact, all the four different designations for the Sabbath which are found in the Septuagint version of the O. T. Scriptures: for, in the Acts (xiii. 14: xvi. 13), he twice calls it ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων.256.S. Matth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.257.It occurs in S. Matth. xxviii. 1. S. Mark xvi. 2. S. Luke xxiv. 1. S. John xx. i. 19. Besides, only in Acts xx. 7.258.Introduction, &c. i. 169.259.See the foregoing note.260.See Buxtorf'sLexicon Talmudicum, p. 2323.261.Lightfoot (on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul's phrase κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων,—“תבשב דהב [b'had b'shabbath,]‘In the first[lit.one]of the Sabbath,’would the Talmudists say.”—Professor Gandell writes,—“in Syriac, the days of the week are similarly named. See Bernstein [lit.one in the Sabbath,two in the Sabbath,three in the Sabbath.]”262.S. Mark xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.263.The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably תבש (shabbath): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more nearly than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש (shabbatha:) the final א (a) being added for emphasis, as in Abba, Aceldama, Bethesda, Cepha, Pascha,&c.: and this form,—(I owe the information to my friend Professor Gandell,)—because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine, (who spoke Aramaic,)gave rise to another form of the Greek name for the Sabbath,—viz. σάββατα: which, naturally enough, attracted the article (τό) into agreement with its own (apparently) plural form. By the Greek-speaking population of Judæa, the Sabbath day was therefore indifferently called το σαββατον and τα σαββατα: sometimes again, η ημερα του σαββατου, and sometimes η ημερα των σαββατων.Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. (Accordingly, it isinvariablyrendered“Sabbatum”in the Vulgate.) Thus, in Exod. xvi. 23,—σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις ἁγία τῷ Κυρίῳ: and 25,—ἔστι γὰρ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις τῷ Κυρίῳ. Again,—τῇ δὲ ἡμέρα τῇ ἑβδόμη σάββατα. (Exod. xvi. 26: xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in the Gospel, what took place onone definite Sabbath-day, is said to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10. S. Mark xii. 1.)It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form ἐν τοῖς σάββασι is strictly equivalent to ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ; and was adopted for convenience in contradistinction to ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις (1 Chron. xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where Sabbathdaysare spoken of.It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for“weeks;”though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough) there rendered the word ἑβδομάδας. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same word occurs twice,) it is once rendered ἀναπαύσεις; once, ἑβδομάδες. Quite distinct is עובש (shavooa) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any substitution of the one word for the other. But inasmuch as the recurrence of theSabbath-daywas what constituteda week; in other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish division of time, was the recurrence of the Jewish day of rest;—τὸ σάββατον or τὰ σάββατα, the Hebrew name forthe day of rest, became transferred tothe week. The former designation, (as explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark, once by S. Luke; while the phrase μία τῶν σαββάτων occurs in the N.T., in all, six times.264.So Eusebius (Eccl. Hist.ii. 15), and Jerome (De Viris Illust.ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also Euseb.Hist. Eccl.vi. 14.—The colophon in the Syriac Version shews that the same traditional belief prevailed in the Eastern Church. It also finds record in theSynopsis Scripturæ(wrongly) ascribed to Athanasius.265.παρασκευὴ, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον.—Our E. V.“preparation”is from Augustine,—“Parasceue Latine præparatio est.”—See Pearson's interesting note on the word.266.Consider Rom. xvi. 13.267.Townson'sDiscourses, i. 172.268.Ibid.269.See the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark xvi. 2 and of S. John xx. 19. In the same version, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered“una sabbati.”270.Davidson'sIntroduction, &c. i. 169,ed.1848: (ii. 113,ed.1868.)271.“Maria Magdalene ipsa est‘a quâ septem dæmonia expulerat’:ut ubi abundaverat peccatum, superabundant gratiæ.”(Hieron.Opp.i. 327.)272.So Tischendorf,—“Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽ ἦσ ἐκβεβλήκει ε. δ.”(p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same remark reiterated by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p. 52.273.Introduction, &c. vol. i. p. 169.274.viz. in chap. vii. 26.275.Professor Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject.276.Consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion alluded to, in Acts i. 13, 14. Note also what is clearly implied by ver. 21-6, as to the persons who werehabituallypresent at such gatherings.277.S. Luke (v. 27) has ἐθεασατο τελώνην. S. Matthew (ix. 9) and S. Mark (ii. 14) have preferred εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον (Λευίν τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου) καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον.278.See S. Matth. ix. 9.279.One is reminded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefullyreservesthe verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the contemplation of theSaviour'sCross and of theSaviour'sSepulchre.280.S. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 5. S. Mark xvi. 11.281.Πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, (vi. 1); and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, (xxiii. 5).282.S. Luke xii. 4.283.S. Matth. x. 28.284.S. Mark iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9.285.Professor Broadus,ubi suprà.286.Col i. 15, 23. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.287.παραβάλλειν [I quote from the Textus Receptus of S. Mark iv. 30,—confirmed as it is by the Peshito and the Philoxenian, the Vetus and the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Armenian versions,—besides Codd. A and D, and all the other uncials (except B, L, Δ, א,) and almost every cursive Codex. The evidence of Cod. C and of Origen is doubtful.Whowould subscribe to the different reading adopted on countless similar occasions by the most recent Editors of the N.T.?]: παραγγέλλειν: παράγειν: παραγίνεσθαι: παραδιδόναι: παραλαμβάνειν: παρατηρεῖν: παρατιθέναι: παραφέρειν: παρέρχεσθαι: παρέχειν: παριστάνει.—ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι: ἐπαισχύνεσθαι: ἐπανίστασθαι: ἐπερωτᾷν: ἐπιβάλλειν: ἐπιγινώσκειν: ἐπιγράφειν: ἐπιζητεῖν: ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι: ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι: ἐπιλύειν: ἐπιπίπτειν: ἐπιρράπτειν: ἐπισκιάζειν: ἐπιστρέφειν: ἐπισυνάγειν: ἐπισυντρέχειν: ἐπιτάσσειν: ἐπιτιθέναι: ἐπιτιμᾷν: ἐπιτρέπειν.288.S. Mark v. 23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23.289.S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix. 13, 15.290.See below, pp.184-6.291.See Pearsonon the Creed, (ed. Burton), vol. i. p. 151.292.Ibid.p. 183,—at the beginning of the exposition of“OurLord.”293.S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2.294.Alford.295.Davidson.296.Exactly so Professor Broadus:—“Now it will not do to say that while no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be foreign to Mark, the whole of them combined will do so. It is very true that the multiplication oflittlesmay amount to much; but not so the multiplication ofnothings. And how many of the expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our examination, to retain the slightest real force as proving difference of authorship? Is it not true that most of them, and those the most important, are reduced to absolutely nothing, while the remainder possess scarcely any appreciable significance?”—p. 360, (see above, p.139, note g.)297.S. John has πάλιν (47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times). And yet, πάλιν is not met with in the iind, or the iiird, or the vth, or the viith, or the xvth, or the xviithchapter of S. John's Gospel.298.Printed Text, p. 256.299.It will be found that of the former class (1) are the following:—Article iii: vii: ix: x: xi: xii: xiii: xiv: xv: xxi: xxiv: xxv: xxvi: xxvii. Of the latter (2):—Art. i: ii: iv: v: vi: viii: xvi: xvii: xviii: xix: xx: xxii: xxiii.300.Ch. xiii. 16,—ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ὤν: and ch. xv. 21,—ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ,—an expression which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the corresponding place of his Gospel, viz. in ch. xxiii. 26.301.See above, p.146.302.The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in the pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded to:—“It occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses, (xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by a curious coincidence, the words and expressions not elsewhere employed by Mark, footed up precisely the same number, seventeen. Those noticed are the following (text of Tregelles):—ver. 44, τέθηκεν (elsewhere ἀποθνήσκο):—ver. 45, γνοὺς ἀπό, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament: also ἐδωρήσατο and πτῶμα: ver. 46, ἐνείλησεν, λελατομημένον, πέτρας, προσεκύλισεν:—chap. xvi. ver. 1, διαγενομένου, and ἀρώματα: ver. 2, μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων:—ver. 3, ἀποκυλίσει:—ver. 4, ἀνεκεκύλισται. Also, σφόδρα, (Mark's word is λίαν.) Ver. 5, ἀν τοῖς δεξιοῖς is a construction not found in Mark, or the other Gospels, though the word δεξιός occurs frequently:—ver. 8, εἶχεν, in this particular sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament: τρόμος.“This list is perhaps not complete, for it was prepared in a few hours—about as much time, it may be said, without disrespect, as Fritsche and Meyer appear to have given to their collections of examples from the other passage. It is not proposed to discuss the list, though some of the instances are curious. It is not claimed that they are all important, but that they are all real. And as regards the single question of thenumberof peculiarities, they certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford has laid stress.”—p. 361.303.Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.304.S. Mark i. 9: 14: 20.305.The same word is found also in S. Luke's narrative of the same event, ch. xxiv. 13.306.On which, Victor of Antioch (if indeed it be he) finely remarks,—Σχίζονται δὲ οἱ οὐρονοὶ, ἢ κατὰ Ματθαον ἀνοίγονται, ἵνα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀποδοθῇ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἁγιασμὸς, καὶ συναφθῇ τος ἐπιγείοις τὰ οὐράνια.—(Cramer i. p. 271.)307.Disc. v. Sect. ii.308.This appears to be the true reading.309.So Chrysostom:—ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι“καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα,”ταῦτα ἔλεγεν. [vii. 526 a].—He seems to have derived that remark from Origen [in Matth.ed. Huet. i. 249d]:—κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτὴρ“καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.”—From the same source, I suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen's disciple), Bp. of Neocæsarea in Pontus,A.D.261, [Routh, iii. 257] derived the following:—καὶ ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁ“πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα”οὐ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ, κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον.—See, by all means, Field's most interestingAdnotationes in Chrys., vol. iii. p. 112.... Εντευθεν (finely says Victor of Antioch) ὁ καινὸς ἄρχεται νόμος ὁ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα. (Crameri. 335.)310.Acts x. 15.311.Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. 2,—ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ... ἀνελήφθη.312.S. Mark x. 6: xiii. 19.—2 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.)313.Is. lxvi. 2.314.See above, p.143-5.315.See above, p.174-5.316.My attention was first drawn to this by my friend, the Rev. W. Kay, D.D.317.The Creed itself, (“ex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis collectum,”) may be seen at p. 84 of De Touttée's ed. of Cyril. Let the following be compared:—ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi. 19.)ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ (Art. VI.) This may be seenin situat p. 224Cof Cyril.βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ch. i. 4.)ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (Art. X.) This may be seen at p. 295Cof Cyril.The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in Professor Heurtley's little workDe Fide et Symbolo, 1869, p. 9.318.See above,—p.165-6.319.Cod. Bobbiensis(k): which however for“illis”has“et:”for“Petro,”“puero:”and for“occidentem,”“orientem.”It also repeats“usque.”I have ventured to alter“ab orientem”into“ab oriente.”—Compare what is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given by White and Adler.320.See above (Art. II.) p.152-3.321.Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14.322.S. Matth. xxvi. 14, 29, 47.—S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 35: x. 32: xi. 11: xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.—S. Luke viii. 1: ix. 1, 12: xviii. 31: xxii. 8, 47.—S. John vi. 37, 70, 71: xx. 24.323.Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. John xviii. 1,—where the moment of departurefrom the cityis marked: (for observe, they had left the house and the upper chamber at ch. xiv. 31). See also ch. xix. 17,—where the goingwithout the gateis indicated: (for ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider S. Luke xxi. 37.324.S. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 4.325.See above, p.2.326.The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate Matthaei, made in a place where it was almost safe to escape attention; viz. in a footnote at the very end of hisNov. Test.(ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.—“Haec lectio in Evangeliariis et Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus. Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur κυριακῇ τῶν μυροφόρων, εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον. Secundo, τῷ ὄρθρῳ τῆς ἀναλήψεως. Tertio, ut ἑωθινὸν ἀναστάσιμον γ᾽. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis temporibus nullo modo dubitavit Ecclesia.”—Matthaei had slightly anticipated this in his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.327.Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων διαδοχάς,—arethe first wordsof the Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius.328.See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorised Version.329.See Bingham'sOrigines, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4.330.Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἥ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἤ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται, μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ. Then came the Sermon,—then, all stood and prayed,—then followed Holy Communion.—Apol.i. c. 67, (ed. Otto, i. 158.)331.ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ, τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν σήμερον διέλχθη, καὶ περὶ τίνων;—(Opp.ix. p. 697e. Field's text.)332.Cassian writes,—“Venerabilis Patrum senatus ... decrevit hunc numerum [sc. duodecim Orationum] tam in Vespertinis quam in Nocturnis conventiculis custodiri; quibus lectiones geminas adjungentes, id est, unam Veteris et aliam Novi Testamenti.... In die vero Sabbati vel Dominico utrasque de Novo recitant Testamento; id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apostolorum, et aliam de Evangeliis. Quod etiam totis Quinquagesimae diebus faciunt hi, quibus lectio curae est, seu memoria Scripturarum.”—Instit.lib. ii. c. 6. (ed.1733, p. 18.)333.Constitutiones Apostolicae, lib. ii. c. 57, 59: v. 19: viii. 5.334.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 74, and the reff. in note (k) overleaf.335.English readers may be referred to Horne'sIntroduction, &c. (ed.1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps aware of the importance of the preface to Van der Hooght'sHebrew Bible, (ed.1705) § 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p. 352b.336.Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγου is“Quinquagesima Sunday;”butthe weekof“the cheese-eater”is the weekprevious.337.See Suicer'sThesaurus, vol. ii. 920.338.“Apud Rabbinos, לודגח תבשSabbathum Magnum. Sic vocatur Sabbathum proximum ante Pascha.”—Buxtorf,Lexicon Talmud.p. 2323.339.Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀκολουθία τῆς διδασκαλίας [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7] τῆς πίστεως προέτρεπεν εἰπεῖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως: ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις ᾠκονόμησε πληρέστατά σε ἀκοῦσαι, κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀσθένειαν, τῇ χθὲς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τῆν Κυριακήν: κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν τῆς θείας χάριτος, ἐν τῇ Συνάξει τῆς τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ἀκολουθίας τὰ περὶ τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν περιεχούσης: ἐλέγετο δὲ τὰ λεγόμενα, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ πάντας, καὶ διὰ τὸ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμοῦ πλῆθος: ἐξαιρέτως δὲ διά σε: ζητεῖται δὲ εἰ προσέσχες τοῖς λεγομένοις. Οἶδας γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀκολουθία τῆς Πίστεως διδάσκει σε πιστεύειν εἰς ΤΟΝ ἈΝΑΣΤΑΝΤΑ ΤΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ: ΚΑΙ ἈΝΕΛΘΟΝΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣ, ΚΑΙ ΚΑΘΙΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ—μάλιστα μὲν οὖν μνημονεύειν σε νομίζω τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. πλὴν ἐν παραδρομῇ καὶ νῦν ὑπομιμνήσκω σε τῶν εἰρημένων. (Cyril. Hier.Cat.xiv. c. 24.Opp.p. 217C, D.)—Of that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again reminds his auditory. Μέμνησο δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων μοι πολλάκις περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρος καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν,—he says,ibid.p. 219B. A little lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱόν.—Ibid.D.From this it becomes plainwhy Cyril nowhere quotes S. Markxvi. 19,—or S. Lukexxiv. 51,—or Actsi. 9. He must needs have enlarged upon those threeinevitableplaces of Scripture, the day before.340.See above, p.193and p.194.341.Ὥστε δὲ εὐμαθέστερον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, δεόμεθα καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων γραφῶν πεποιήκαμεν, προλαμβάνειν, τὴν περικοπὴν τῆς γραφῆς ἦν ἆν μέλλωμεν ἐξηνεῖσθαι.—In Matth.Hom.i. (Opp.vii. 13B.)—Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, ἥ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον, τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀναγνωσθήσεσθαι τῶν εὐαγγελίων περικοπὴν, ταύτην πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν μετὰ χεῖρας λαμβάνων ἕκαστος οἴκοι καθήμενος ἀναγινωσκέτω.—In Joann.Hom.ix, (Opp.viii. 62B.)342.It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching.“Sed quia nunc interposita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex Evangelio lectiones oportet in Ecclesiâ recitari, quae ita sunt annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo ille quem susceperamus necessitate pauliulum intermissus est, non amissus.”—(Opp.vol. iii. P. ii. p. 825,Prol.)343.The place will be found quoted below, p.202, note (o).344.See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more full and satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve attention, (Nov. Test.vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above, p.45, notes (r) and (s).345.At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of hisNov. Test.(Riga, 1788) Matthaei has laboriouslyeditedthe“Lectiones Ecclesiasticæ”of the Greek Church. See also his Appendices,—viz. vol. ii. pp. 272-318 and 322-363. His 2nd ed. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of an ancient MS.; and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His Συναχάρια (i. 723-68 and iii. 1-24) though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he designates“B”and“H,”but which areour“Evstt. 47 and 50,”—uncial Evangelistaria of the viiithcentury (See Scrivener'sIntrod.p. 214.)Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full the“Synaxarium”and“Menologium”of Codd. K and M, (viiithor ixthcentury.) See also his vol. ii. pp. 456-69. Unfortunately, (as Scrivener recognises, p. 110,) all here is carelessly done,—as usual with this Editor; and therefore to a great extent useless. His slovenliness is extraordinary. The“Gospels of the Passion”(τῶν ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472); and so throughout.Mr. Scrivener (Introduction, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the most intelligible account of this matter, by exhibitingin Englishthe Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (“gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and Christ's Coll. Camb.”); and supplying the references to Scripture in the ordinary way. See, by all means, hisIntroduction, pp. 62-65: also, pp. 211-225.346.Consider the following:—Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ πάντα ἀναγινώσκομεν. ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πάλιν, ὅτι παρεδόθη ἡμῶν ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη, ὅτι ἀπέθανε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅτι ἐτάφη: τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν καὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐ μετὰ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν ἀναγινώσκομεν, ὅτε καὶ ἐγένοντο, καὶ ἀρχὴν ἔλαβον;—Chrys.Opp.iii. 88.Again:—εἰ γὰρ τότε ἥρξαντο ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἤγουν μετὰ τὴν κυρίου ἀνάστασιν, τότε ἔδει καὶ τὸ βιβλίον ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῦτο. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σταυροῦ ἀναγινώσκομεν, καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει ὁμοίως, καὶ τὰ ἐν ἐκάστῃ ἑορτῇ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῇ πάλιν ἀναγινώσκομεν, οὕτως ἔδει καὶ τὰ θαύματα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν ἀποστολικῶν σημείων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι.—Ibid.p. 89D.347.Opp.ii. 454B, D.348.Opp.ii. 290B.349.Opp.ii. 357E.350.“Meminit sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine lectionum nos solere tractare.”(Opp.iii. P. ii. 825Prol.)351.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 246.352.ChrysostomOpp.ii. 369 b, c.—Compare Scrivener,ubi supra, p. 75.353.Ed.Mabillon, p. 116.354.Opp.vol. iii. p.85 b: 88 a:—τίνος ἕνεκεν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ πεντηκοστῇ τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν.—τίνος ἕνεκεν τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἀναγινώσκεται.355.“Anniversariâ sollemnitate post passionem Domini nostis illum librum recitari.”Opp.iii. (P. ii.) p. 337g.356.I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my deliberate conviction that the Lectionary which, last year, was hurried with such indecent haste through Convocation,—passed in a half-empty House by the casting vote of the Prolocutor,—and rudely pressed upon the Church's acceptance by the Legislature in the course of its present session,—is the gravest calamity which has befallen the Church of England for a long time past.Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.Appointed (in 1867) for anentirelydifferent purpose, (viz. the Ornaments and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and 15 Lay) found themselves further instructed“to suggest and reportwhether any and what alterations and amendments may be advantageously madein the selection of Lessons to be read at the time of Divine Service.”Thereupon, these individuals,—(the Liturgical attainments of nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself to characterise truthfully,)—at once imposed upon themselves the duty of inventingan entirely new Lectionary for the Church of England.So to mutilate the Word ofGodthat it shall henceforth be quite impossible to understand a single Bible story, or discover the sequence of a single connected portion of narrative,—seems to have been the guiding principle of their deliberations. With reckless eclecticism,—entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor brother,—strange disregard for Catholic Tradition and the claims of immemorial antiquity;—these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious of their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have given us a Lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of novelty,—the impatient,—and the enemies of Divine Truth.That the blame,the guiltlies at the door ofour Bishops, is certain; but the Church has no one but herself to thank for the injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her. She has suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without resistance; without remonstrance; without (in her corporate capacity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction.Canit be right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their lawful inheritance?... I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at what is taking place. At least, (as on other occasions,)liberavi animam meam.357.A trace of this remains in the old Gallican Liturgy,—pp. 137-8.358.Bingham, xiv. iii. 3.359.Opp.vol. vii. p. 791 B.360.See Dean Payne Smith's Translation, p. 863.361.κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα ἀναγινώσκεται.—Chrys.Opp.vii. 818c.362.“Passio autem, quia uno die legitur, non solet legi nisi secundum Matthæum. Voluerain aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes Evangelistas etiam Passio legeretur. Factum est. Non audierunt homines quod consueverant, et perturbati sunt.”—Opp.vol. v. p. 980e.363.Ed.Mabillon, pp. 130-5.364.Epiph.Opp.ii. 152-3.365.Chrys.Opp.i. 497c.366.Epiph.Opp.ii. 285-6.367.The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the perusal of both passages. Chrysostom declares that Christmas-Day is the greatest of Festivals; since all the others are but consequences of the Incarnation.Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning solemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to the human body.368.Constt. Apostt.lib. viii. c. 33. After the week of the Passion and the week of (1) the Resurrection,—(2) Ascension-Day is mentioned;—(3) Pentecost;—(4) Nativity;—(5) Epiphany. [Note this clear indication that this viiithBook of the Constitutions was written or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly assigned to the work.]369.Bingham'sOrigines, B. xx. c. iv. § 2.370.Chrys.Opp.ii. 355. (See theMonitum, p. 352.)371.Chrys.Opp.ii. 369d.372.Epiphanius, Adv. Haer.li, c. xvi. (Opp.i. 439a.)373.See above, pp.58-9and67.374.Opp.iii. 102b. See Bingham on this entire subject,—b. xiv, c. iii.375.“Illa quae non scriptu, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis Conciliis quorum in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri. Sicut quod Domini Passio, et Resurrectio, et Ascensio in cœlis, ut Adventus de cœlo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur.”—Ep.ad Januarium, (Opp.ii. 124b, c).376.“Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos, ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in Euchar. lect. sext. Resurrect.”—But“Lect. γ Resurrectionis”is“Marc. xvi. 9-20:”“Lect. σ,”“Luc. xxiv. 36-53.”—See Dean Payne Smith'sCatalogus Codd. Syrr.(1864) pp. 116, 127.377.See above, p.34, note (e).378.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 148.379.Hieronymi Comes, (ed. Pamel. ii. 31.)—But it is not the Gallican. (ed. Mabillon, p. 155.) ... It strikes me as just possible that a clue may be in this way supplied to the singular phenomenon noted above at p.118, line 22-8.380.Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά. See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 72, and R. P. Smith's Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer'sThes. Eccl.i. 1229.381.Dr. Wright'sCatal.p. 70, No. cx. (Addit. 14,464:fol.61b.)382.Ibid.No. lxx (fol.92b), and lxxii (fol.87b).383.“Quae titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.”(R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 116.)—In the“Synaxarium”of Matthaei (Nov. Test.1803, i. p. 731) it is styled Κ. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου.384.Adler'sN. T. Verss. Syrr.p. 71.385.Dean Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 146.386.Ed.Mabillon, pp. 144-5.387.“Resurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis diebus [Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.”(Opp.v. 977c)—“Quoniam hoc moris est ...Marci Evangeliumest quod modo, cum legeretur, audivimus.”“Quid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?”And he subjoins a quotation from S. Mark xvi. 12.—Ibid.997 f, 998 b.388.Hieron. Comes(ed.Pamel. ii. 27.)389.So Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 75.—Little stress, however, is to be laid on Saint's Day lessons. In Matthaei's“Menologium”(Nov. Test.1803, i. p. 765), I find that S. Luke viii. 1-4, or else S. John xx. 11-18 was the appointed Lection. See his note (5) at p. 750.390.Note, (in addition to all that has gone before,) that the Festivals are actually designated by theirGreeknames in the earliest Latin Service Books: not only“Theophania,”“Epiphania,”“Pascha,”“Pentecostes,”(the second, third and fourth of which appellations survive in the Church of the West,in memoriam, to the present hour;) but“Hypapante,”which was the title bestowed by the Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of the Purification, or Presentation ofChristin the Temple,) from the“Meeting”of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκευή, was called“Parasceve”in the West. (Mab.Lit. Gall.p. 129.) So entire was the sympathy of the East with the West in such matters in very early times, that when Rome decided to celebrate the Nativity on the 25th December, Chrysostom (as we have been reminded) publicly announced the fact at Constantinople; and it was determined that in this matter East and West would walk by the same rule.391.From Professor Wright'sCatalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum(1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is datedA.D.824; the oldest Nestorian,A.D.862; the oldest Malkite,A.D.1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; 14,492; and 14,488.—See hisCatalogue, Part I. pp. 146, 178, 194.392.It is exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus (A.)393.The reader is requested to refer back to p.45, and the note there.—The actual words of Eusebius are given inAppendix (B).394.See the enumeration of Greek Service-Books in Scrivener'sIntroduction, &c. pp. 211-25. For the Syriac Lectionaries, see Dean Payne Smith'sCatalogue, (1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also Professor Wright'sCatalogue, (1870) pp. 146 to 203.—I avail myself of this opportunity to thank both those learned Scholars for their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered.395.“Evangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.”Tischendorf, quoted by Scrivener, [Introduction to Cod. Augiensis,—80 pages which have been separately published and arewelldeserving of study,—p. 48,] who adds,—“I cannot even conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be thought of less value than another MS. of the same age.”—See also Scrivener'sIntroduction, &c. p. 211.396.e.g.Addit. MSS.12,141: 14,449: 14,450-2-4-5-6-7-8: 14,461-3: 17,113-4-5-6:--(= 15 Codd. in all:) from p. 45 to p. 66 of Professor Wright'sCatalogue.397.Addit.MS. 14,464. (See Dr. Wright'sCatalogue, p. 70.)398.Add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of C. P., (Introduction, p. 11), the following:—Gospels for Quinquagesima, 2nd S. after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity, Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p.220), All Saints.399.Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke vii. 31)which introduce an Ecclesiastical Lection(Friday in the iiirdweek of S. Luke,) inasmuch as the words are found innouncial MS., and are omitted besides by the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must needs be regarded as a liturgical interpolation.—The same is to be said of ὁ Ἰησοῦς in S. Matth. xiv. 22,—words which Origen and Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the Gospel for the ixthSunday after Pentecostbegins at that place.—It will be kindred to the present inquiry that I should point out that in S. Mark xvi. 9, Ἀναστάς ὁ Ἰησοῦς is constantly met with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the Vulgate; and yet there can benodoubt that here also the Holy Name is an interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the preceding. The fact is singularly illustrated by the insertion of“Ο ΙΣ”in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,)rubroabovethe same contraction(for ὁ Ἰησους) in the text.400.Not, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of regarding Codex B, (to which, if Cod. L. and Codd. 1, 33 and 69 are added, it isonly because they agree with B), as an all but infallible guide in settling the text of Scripture; and quietly taking it for granted thatall the other MSS. in existencehave entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind. Until this most uncritical method, this most unphilosophical theory, is unconditionally abandoned, progress in this department of sacred Science is simply impossible.401.See Matthaei's note on S. Luke xxii. 43, (Nov. Test. ed.1803.)402.This will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions are given as follows. After τὸ σὸν γενέσθω (i.e. the last words of ver. 42), is written ὑπέρβα εἰς τὸ τῆς γ᾽. Then, at the end of ver. 44, is written—ἄρχου τῆς γ᾽, after which follows the text καὶ ἀναστὰς, &c.In S. Matthew's Gospel, at chap, xxvi, which contains the Liturgical section for Thursday in Holy Week (τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλη έ), my Codex has been only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to quote from Harl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84, at the end of S. Matth. xxvi. 39, reads as follows, immediately after the words,—αλλ᾽ ὡς συ:—Π/Υ, [Cross] (i.e. ὑπάντα.) But in order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated word and sign are repeated at foot, as follows:—[Cross] ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκὰν ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ΡΘ. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῳ ἄγγελος: εἶτα στραφεὶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν, λέγε: καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς—which are the first words of S. Matth. xxvi. 40.Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after S. Luke xxii. 42,besidesthe rubric already quoted, has the following: ἄρξου τῆς μεγάλης έ. Then come the two famous verses (ver. 43, 44); and, after the words ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς, the following rubric occurs: ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ τῆς μεγάλης έ Ματθ. ἔρχεται πρὸς τοῦς μαθητάς.[With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. F. Rose, Curate of Holy Trinity, Windsor,) I have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its text most nearly resembles the Rev. F. H. Scrivener's l, m, n.]403.See by all means Matthaei'sNov. Test.(ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and 492.404.See above, p.75, note (h).405.For the 5th Sunday of S. Luke.406.Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual accuracy, points out several: e.g.Nov. Test.(1788) vol. i. p. 19 (note26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10 (note12), p. 14 (notes14 and 15), &c.407.SS. Philip and James.408.viz. σαββάτῳ θ: i.e. the ixthSaturday in S. Luke.—Note that Cod. A also reads ἐγένετο δέ in S. Lu. xi. 1.409.viz. Monday in the vth, Thursday in the vithweek after Pentecost, and the viiithSunday after Pentecost.410.viz. S. Luke xiii. 2: xxiv. 36. S. John i. 29 (ὁ Ἰωάννης): 44: vi. 14: xiii. 3,—to which should perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, א, A, C (not D) read Ἰησοῦς.411.See by all means Matthaei's interesting note on the place,—Nov. Test.(1788) vol. i. p. 113-4. It should be mentioned that Cod. C (and four other uncials), together with the Philoxenian and Hierosolymitan versions, concur in exhibiting the same spurious clause. Matthaei remarks,—“Origenes (iv. 171d) hanc pericopam haud adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in γενηθήτω σοι.”Will not the disturbingLectionary-practiceof his day sufficiently explain Origen's omission?412.I recall S. John x. 29: xix. 13: xxi. 1;—but the attentive student will be able to multiply such references almost indefinitely. In these and similar places, while the phraseology is exceedingly simple, the variations which the text exhibits are so exceeding numerous,—that when it is discovered thata Church Lesson begins in those places, we may be sure that we have been put in possession of the name of the disturbing force.413.Viz. K and M. (Field'sChrys.p. 251.)—How is it that the readings of Chrysostom are made so little account of? By Tregelles, for example, why are they overlooked entirely?414.See above, p.197to 204.415.e.g. in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270.416.In some cursive MSS. also, (which have been probably transcribed from ancient originals), the same phenomenon is observed. Thus, in Evan. 265 ( = Reg. 66), ΤΕΛ only occurs, in S. Mark, at ix. 9 and 41: xv. 32 and 41: xvi. 8. ΑΡΧ at xvi. 1. It is striking to observe that so little were these ecclesiastical notes (embedded in the text) understood by the possessor of the MS., that in the margin, over against ch. xv. 41, (where“ΤΕΛ:”standsin the text,) a somewhat later hand has written,—ΤΕ[λος] Τ[ης] ΩΡ[ας]. A similar liturgical note may be seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere. Cod. 25 (= Reg. 191), at the end of S. Mark's Gospel, hasonly twonotes of liturgical endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.417.Among theSyriacEvangelia, as explained above (p.215), instances occur of far more ancient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by the original scribe. Even here, however, (as may be learned from Dr. Wright'sCatalogue, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been onlyirregularlyinserted in the oldest copies.418.Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have exhibited the text thus,—ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΗΛΘΕΝ Η ΩΡΑ.—which is the reading of Cod. 13 ( = Reg. 50.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order to improve the sense, substituted for ἦλθεν the word καί. Note the scholion [Anon. Vat.] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι, πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ.Besides the said Cod. 13, the same reading is found in 47 and 54 (in the Bodl.): 56 (at Linc. Coll.): 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.): 69 (i.e. Cod. Leicestr.): 124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): csecr(i.e. Lambeth, 1177): 2pe(i.e. the 2nd of Muralt's S. Petersburg Codd.); and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107). All these eleven MSS. read ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος at S. Mark xiv. 41.419.So Scholz (i. 200):—“Pericopa hæccasu quodamforsan exciderat a codice quodam Alexandrino; unde defectus iste in alios libros transiit. Nec mirum hunc defectum multis, immo in certis regionibus plerisque scribis arrisisse: confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione Marcum Matthæo repugnare. Cf. maxima Eusebium ad Marinum,”&c.420.περιττὰ ὰν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai,Bibl. P.P. Nova, vol. iv. p. 256.)421.Alford's N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (ed. 1868.)—And so Tischendorf, (ed. 8va. pp. 406-7.)“Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere mutilandum adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus incredibile est, nec ullo probari potest exemplo.”—Tregelles is of the same opinion. (Printed Text, pp. 255-6.)—Matthaei, a competent judge, seems to have thought differently.“Una autem causa cur hic locus omitteretur fuit quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur Evangelistis.”The general observation which follows is true enough:—“Quæ ergo vel obscura, vel repugnantia, vel parum decora quorundam opinione habebantur, ca olim ab Criticis et interpretibus nonnullis vel sublata, vel in dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis sanctorum Evangeliorum intelligitur.”(Nov. Test.1788, vol. ii. p. 266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)—“In summâ. Videtur unus et item alter ex interpretibus, qui hæc cæteris evangeliis repugnare opinebatur, in dubium vocasse. Hunc deinde plures temere secuti sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus.”Dr. Davidson says the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,) Mr. Scrivener also. (Coll. Cod. Sin.p. xliv.)422.I have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M. de Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.423.See above, p.224.424.Whereas in the course of S. Matthew's Gospel, only two examples of + ΤΕΛΟΣ + occur, (viz. at ch. xxvi. 35 and xxvii. 2,)—in the former case the note has entirely lost its way in the process of transcription; standing where it has no business to appear.NoLiturgical section ends thereabouts. I suspect that the transition (ὑπέρβασις) anciently made at ver. 39, was the thing to which the scribe desired to call attention.425.= Coisl. 20. This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for Church purposes, appears to me to be the work of the same scribe who produced Reg. 178, (the codex described above); but it exhibits a different text. Bound up with it are some leaves of the LXX of about the viiithcentury.426.End of the Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany.427.In S. Matthew's Gospel, I could find ΤΕΛΟΣ so written only twice,—viz. at ch. ii. 23 and xxvi. 75: in S. Luke only once,—viz. at ch. viii. 39. These, in all three instances, are the concluding verses of famous Lessons,—viz. the Sunday after Christmas Day, the iiirdGospel of the Passion, the vithSunday of S. Luke.428.This has already come before us in a different connection: (see p.119): but it must needs be reproduced here; andthistime, it shall be exhibited as faithfully as my notes permit.429.(1) In Evan. 282 (writtenA.D.1176),—a codex whichhas been adaptedto Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to say,is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Markxv. 47andxvi. 8.(2) Evan. 268, (a truly superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the pictures of the Evangelists only sketched in ink,) was never prepared for Lectionary purposes; which makes it the more remarkable that, between ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and ἀναστάς, should be found inserted into the body of the text, τὲ. in gold.(3) I have often met with copies of S. Matthew's, or of S. Luke's, or of S. John's Gospel, unfurnished with a subscription in which ΤΕΛΟΣ occurs: but scarcely ever have I seen an instance of a Codex where the Gospelaccording to S. Markwas one of two, or of three from which it was wanting; much less where it stood alone in that respect. On the other hand, in the following Codices,—Evan. 10: 22: 30: 293,—S. Mark's isthe only Gospel of the Fourwhich is furnished with the subscription, + τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου [cross] or simply + τέλος + .... In Evan. 282, S. Matthew's Gospel shares this peculiarity with S. Mark's.430.“Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae filum ineptissime abrupisse verbis—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”—GriesbachComment. Crit.(ii. 197.) So, in fact,uno oreall the Critics.431.Chap. V. See above, pp.66-7.432.The English reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness if he will refer back, and read from the last line of p.44to the ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in two places, for“the end,”—“the end”.... The entire context of the Greek is given in theAppendix (B).433.τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό,) I suspect must be an explanatory gloss.434.“This then is clear,”(is Dr. Tregelles' comment,)“that the greater part of the Greek copies had not the verses in question.”—Printed Text, p. 247.435.Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in this place of Eusebius consists entirely in his introduction of the words τὸ τέλος. Had he merely said τὰ ἀκριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον περιγράφει ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. ... Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις περιγέγραπται τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον,—there would have been nothing extraordinary in the mode of expression. We should have been reminded of such places as the following in the writings of Eusebius himself:—Ὁ Κλήμης ... εἰς τὴν Κομόδου τελευτὴν περιγράφει τοὺς χρόνους, (Hist. Eccl.lib. vi. c. 6.)—Ἱππόλυτος ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτοπος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει, (Ibid.c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)—Or this, referred to by Stephanus (in voce),—Ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἔτι μνησθεὶς περιγράψω τὸν λόγον, (Praep. Evang.lib. vi. c. 10, [p. 280 c,ed.1628].) But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον wants explaining; and can be only satisfactorily explained in one way.436.See above, p.66and p.67.437.Πάρειμι νῦν ... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα [sic].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.438.“Consentit autem nobis adtractatum quem fecimus de scripturâMarci.”—Origen. (Opp.iii. 929 B.)Tractat.xxxv. inMatth.[I owe the reference to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the vigilance of Huet.]—This serves to explain why Victor of Antioch's Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origen: as in Paris Cod. 703, [olim2330, 958, and 1048: also 18.] where is read (at fol. 247), Ὠριγένους πρόλογος εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvithcent.) counterpart of the preceding; which has been transcribed [xviiithcent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.Possevinus [Apparat. Sac.ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet,Origeniana, p. 274) states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel by Origen. The source of this misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the Rev. W. R. Churton. James, in his“Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,”(1600, lib. i. p. 49,) mentions“Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae, Stabat ad monumentum.”—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe,“Cat. Codd. MSS. C.C.C.;”[No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—“Origenis presb. Hom. in istud Johannis,Maria stabat ad monumentum,”&c. But what actually led Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James's consummation of his own blunder in lib. ii. p. 49,—which Possevinus has simply appropriated.439.So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά.Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but also thatapud Heracleonem, (who wrote within 50 years of S. John's death,) he found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved bygeographicalconsiderations, however, (as he explains,) for Βηθανία, Origen proposes to read Βηθαβαρά.—Chrysostom (viii. 96 d), after noticing the former reading, declares,—ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει ἐν Βηθαβαρά φησιν: but he goes onto reproduce Origen's reasoning;—thereby betraying himself.—The author of theCatena in Matth.(Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces Chrysostom:—χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρὰ περιέχει. And so, other Scholia; until at last what was only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, became generally received as the reading of the“more accurate copies.”A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the true reading of that place is not“60”but“160,”—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις. Accordingly,Eusebiusalso reads the place in the same erroneous way.440.Jerome says of himself (Opp.vii. 537,)—“Non digne Græca in Latinum transfero: aut Græcos lege (si ejusdem linguae habes scientiam) aut si tantum Latinus es, noli de gratuito munere judicare, et, ut vulgare proverbium est:equi dentes inspicere donati.”441.See above, pp.57-9: alsoAppendix (C), § 2.442.See above, pp.225-6.443.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 116.444.See Adler's N. T.Verss. Syrr., p. 70.445.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 146.446.See p.206, also note (k).447.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 117.448.Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark xvi. 8 (fol. 125), as follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then,rubro,] τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver. 20, (atfol. 126 of the same Codex) is found the following concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽ ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου.In the same place, (viz. at the end of S. Mark's Gospel,) is found in another Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following rubric:—τέλος τοῦ τρίτου τοῦ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τοῦ ὄρθρου τῆς ἀναλήψεως.449.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 146.450.Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is written continuously throughout: and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh paragraph is observed to commence.Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies of the Armenian version.“The Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab, separates the concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel.... Many of the oldest MSS., after the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, put the final Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, and then give the additional verses with a new superscription.”(Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 253).... We are now in a position tounderstandthe Armenian evidence, which has been described above, at p.36, as well as to estimate its exact value.451.Euseb. apud Mai, iv. p. 264 = p. 287. Again at p. 289-90.—So also the author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurr. (Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 411-2.)—And see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp.Patres Apostol., (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515.452.I believe this will be found to be theinvariableorder of the Gospelsin the Lectionaries.453.This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). Seefol.98b.454.I allude of course to Matthaei's Cod. g. (See the note in hisN. T.vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the learned critic was right in his conjecture“aliquot folia excidisse,”matters nothing.The left hand page ends at the wordsἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Now, if τελος had followed, how obvious would have been the inference that the Gospel itself of S. Mark had come to an end there!Note, that in the Codex Bezæ (D), S. Mark's Gospel ends at ver. 15: in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (a) proves to be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (b) from xiii. 24; Cod. Brix. (f) from xiv. 70.455.Scrivener,Coll. Cod. Sin.p. lix.456.See p.227.457.See above, p.226.458.So Scholz:—“hic [sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,”&c.—Tischendorf,—“Testantur scholia ...Marci Evangelium... versu 9finem habuisse. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22 habet: ἐφοβουντο γαρ + τελος. εν τισι,”&c.—Tregelles appeals to copies,“sometimes with τέλος interposed after ver. 8,”(p. 254.)—Mai (iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,—“Codex Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum versumhabet quidemvocem τέλος, ut alibi interdum observatum fuit;sed tamenibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum progredientibus sectionum notis.”459.Chap. I. and II.460.Chap. IV, VI-X.461.Chap. III, V, and VIII.462.Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.463.Tregelles, Alford.464.Alford.465.“Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.”—See the rest of Tischendorf's verdict,suprà, p.10; and opposite, p.245.466.Tregelles'Account of the Printed Text, p. 259.467.Alford'sNew Test.vol. i.Proleg.[p. 38] and p. 437.468.So Norton, Tregelles, and others.469.This suggestion, which was originally Griesbach's, is found in Alford'sNew Test.vol. i. p. 433, (ed.1868.)—See above, p.12. The italics are not mine.470.Videsuprà, p.10.471.Opp.vol. iii. p. 671.472.EusebiusEccl. Hist.iv. 28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19.473.Note the remarkable adjuration of Irenæus,Opp.i. 821, preserved by Eusebius,lib.v. 20.—See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 383-4. Consider the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp's martyrdom,PP. App.ii. 614-6.474.Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus; especially to the work of Marcion.475.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 381-391.476.SeeChap. VI.477.Chap. IX.478.“Ad defendendum hunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus Codicum consensus in vocabulis et loquendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis παρεγγράπτοις, etiam multo brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, eo plures quoque sunt varietates. Comparetur modo Act. xv. 18, Matth. viii. 13, et loca similia.”—C. F. Matthaei'sNov. Test.(1788) vol. ii. p. 271.479.Speaking of the abrupt termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8, Dr. Tregelles asks,—“Would this have been transmitted as a fact by good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds for regarding it to be true?”—(Printed Text, p. 257.) Certainly not, we answer. Butwhereare the“good witnesses”of the“transmitted fact?”There is not so much as one.480.See above, pp.86-90.481.SeeChap. III.482.See above, Chap. III. and IV.483.“Habent periocham hanc Codices Græci, si unum b excipias, omnes.”(Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p.70.484.See above, Chap. X.485.See above, pp.66-68.486.See above, pp.41to 51: alsoAppendix (B).487.The reader is referred to Mai'sNov. PP. Bibl.vol. iv. p. 262, line 12: p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8.488.See above, p.64-5: alsoAppendix (E).489.P.68and note (d); p.119and note (m).490.P.51-7.491.P.57-9.492.P.59-66.493.P.114-125.494.P.68-9.495.Chap. VI.496.See above, pp.86to 88.497.Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejectsthatverse also as spurious; and brings the fourth Gospel to an end at ver. 24, as he brings the second Gospel to an end at ver. 8? For my own part,—having (through the kindness and liberality of the Keeper of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, aided by the good offices of my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at S. Petersburg,) obtained a photograph of the last page of S. John's Gospel,—I must be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr. Tischendorf's judgment in this particular. The utmost which can be allowed is that the Scribe may have possibly changed his pen, or been called away from his task, just before bringing the fourth Gospel to a close.498.SeeChap. IX.499.Chapter X.500.Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, and Marius Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.501.Codex A,—ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of the Psalms.502.The old Latin Interpreter of Origen's Commentary on S. Matthew seems to have found in Origen's text a quotation from S. Luke ii. 14 which isnot represented in the extant Greek text of Origen. Here also we are presented with“hominibusbonae voluntatis.”(Opp.iii. 537C). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.503.Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. (Suprà, pp.96-99.)504.From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.505.Vid. suprà, p.233.506.P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage fromTheophylact(A.D.1077) which should have obtained notice in a much earlier page:—Ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς; ἐνταῦθα στίξον, εἶτα εἱπέ; πρωί πρώτῇ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. οὐ γὰρ ἀνέστη πρωί (τίς γὰρ οἴδε πότε ἀνέστη;) ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάνη πρωί κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (αὔτη γὰρ ἡ πρώτη τοῦ σαββάτου, τουτέστι, τῆς ἑβδομάδος,) ἥν ἄνω ἐκάλεσε μίαν σαββάτων; [Opp.vol. i. p. 263C.It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing Eusebius. See above, p.66, note (c).507.Kollar, (editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same opinion.—Huet (Origeniana, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) has a brief and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject; but he arrives at a far shrewder conclusion.508.The copies which I have seen, are headed,—ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ (sometimes ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ) ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no Author's name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril, Origen, &c.—Vide infrà, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, No. xlvii (comp, xxviii.)509.Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in Evangelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem editi, nunc vero studio et operâ Theodori Peltani luce simul et Latinitate donati.Ingolstadt. 1580, 8vo. pp. 510.510.“Ex hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde annulos formavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis aptatos, inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem producerem, quo, si possem consequi, sancto Evangelistae Marco decus et ornamentum adderetur.”—Præfatio: from which the particulars in the text are obtained.511.ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐξήσησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit C. F. Matthæi, Mosquae, 1775.512.P. xxvii-xxviii.513.To understand what is alluded to, the reader should compare the upper and the lower half of p. 442 in Cramer: noting that he has one and the same annotation before him; but diversely exhibited. (The lower part of the page is taken from Cod. 178.) Besides transposing the sentences, the author of Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference to Chrysostom, and omitted the name of Apolinarius in line 10. (Compare Field's ed. ofChrys.iii. 529, top of the page.)514.Thus the two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to agree with the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. 527. See alsoinfrà, p.289.515.Let any one, with Mai's edition of the“Quaestiones ad Marinum”of Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged, mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p. 257 with Cramer's“Catenae,”i. p. 251-2; and this again with the“Catena in Joannem”of Corderius, p. 448-9.516.With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.517.p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p. 4.518.Eusebius is again quoted at p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line 23-5). See especially p. 446.519.What is found at p. 314 (on S. Mark v. 1,) is a famous place. (Cf. Huet's ed. ii. 131.) Compare also Victor's first note on i. 7 with the same edit. of Origen, ii. 125c, d,—which Victor is found to have abridged. Compare the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284a. Note, that ἄλλος δέ φησι, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf. Possinus, p. 324.520.See pp. 408, 418, 442.521.e.g. the first note on p. 311; (comp. Possinus, p. 95): and the last note on p. 323; (comp. Poss. p. 123.) Compare also Cramer, p. 395 (line 16-22) with Poss. p. 249.—I observe that part of a note on p. 315 is ascribed by Possinus (p. 102) to Athanasius: while a scholium at p. 321 and p. 359, has no owner.522.e.g. p. 408, 411 (twice).523.In p. 418,—ὁ τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος Ἰωάννης. For instances of quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 with Chrys. pp. 398-9: p. 376 with Chrys. pp. 227-8: p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c.524.Take for example Victor's Commentary on the stilling of the storm (pp. 312-3), which is merely an abridged version of the first part of Chrysostom's 28thHomily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8); about 45 lines being left out. Observe Victor's method however. Chrysostom begins as follows:—Ὁ μὲν οὖν Λουκᾶς, ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν. (Then follows S. Luke viii. 22.) καὶ ὁ Μάρκος ὁμοίως. Οὗτος δὲ οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ. Victor, because he had S. Mark (not S. Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus:—Ὁ μὲν Μάρκος ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ Λοῦκας; ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ.525.e.g. V. A. p. 422 (from ὁ μέν φησιν to ἄλλος δέ φησιν) = Chrys. p. 460. Observe the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, ἄλλος φησιν.—So again, V. A. pp. 426-7 = Chrys. pp. 473-6: where ἄλλος δέ φησι, at the foot of p. 427 introduces a quotation from Origen, as appears from Possinus, p. 324—See also p. 209, line 1,—which is from Chrys. p. 130,—ἤ ὡς ὁ ἄλλος being the next words.—The first three lines in p. 316 = Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, ἄλλος δέ φησιν. See also pp. 392: 407 (φασί τινες—ἕτερος δέ φησιν): pp. 415 and 433. After quoting Eusebius by name (p. 446-7), Victor says (line 3) ἅλλος δέ φησιν.526.e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which = Chrys. p. 447.527.e.g. Theod. Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Reg. 201:—Basil, (p. 370) whose name Possinus does not seem to have read:—Cyril's name, which Possinus found in a certain place (p. 311), is not mentioned inLaud.Gr. 33fol.100b, at top, &c.528.So in theCatenaof Corderius, inS. Joannem, p. 302.529.I believe it will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 correspondsexactlywith Cod. Reg. 188: also that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201 correspond with those of Cod. Reg. 206; to which last two, I believe is to be added Cod. Reg. 187.530.Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384 in theSyr. Cat.531.Catalogue Librorum MSS.Lips. 1830, 4to. p. 656b.532.Reg.177 = A: 178 = B: 230 = C.—Coisl.19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F: 22 = G: 24 = H.—Matthaei'sdorD = I:hiseorE = J:his12 = K:hisaorA = L.—Vat.358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O: 1229 = P: 1446 = Q.—Vind. Koll.4Forlos.5 = R.—Xav. de Zelada= S.—Laur.18 = T: 34 = U.—Venet.27 = V.—Vind. Lamb.38 = W : 39 = X.533.So B-E (which I chiefly follow) begins,—Το δε αναστας.534.B begins thus,—Ει δε και το αναστας δε πρωι μετα τα επιφερομενα παρα. It is at this word (παρα) that most copies of the present scholion (A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X) begin.535.So far (except in its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, T, begin,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ου κεινται [I, ου κειται: J, ουκ ην δε] ταυτα τα [M, O, T om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [D, F, H om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον [B, εν τω παροντι] ευαγγελιῳ.536.So I, J, K, L, and H. P proceeds,—ως νοθα νομισθεντα τισιν ειναι. But B, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, O, T exhibit,—ως νοθα νομισαντες αυτα τινες [B om. τινες] ειναι. On the other hand, A and Q begin and proceed as follows,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ταυτα τα [Q om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [A om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιῳ ως νοθα νομισαντες τινες [Q, τινας (a clerical error): A om. τινες] ουκ εθηκαν.537.So B, except that it omits ως. So also, A, D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, Q, T, except that they begin the sentence, ημεις δε.538.So D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, T: also B and Q, except that they prefix και to κατα το Π. B is peculiar in reading,—ως εχει η αληθεια Μαρκου (transposing Μαρκου): while C and P read,—ομως ημεις εξ ακριβων αντιγραφων και πλειστων ου μην αλλα και εν τῳ Παλαιστιναιῳ ευαγγελιῳ Μαρκου ευροντες αυτα ως εχει η αληθεια συντεθεικαμεν.539.So all, apparently: except that P reads εμφερομενην for επιφερομενην; and M, after αναστασιν inserts εδηλωσαμεν, with a point (.) before μετα: while C and P (after ανασταςιν,) proceed,—και την [C, ειτα] αναληψιν και καθεδραν εκ δεξιων του Πατρος ῳ πρεπει η δοξα και η τιμη νυν και εις τους αιωνας. αμην. But J [and I think, H] (after γαρ) proceeds,—διο δοξαν αναπεμψωμεν τῳ ανασταντι εκ νεκρων Χριστῳ τῳ Θεῳ ημων αμα τῳ αναρχῳ Πατρι και ζωοποιῳ Πνευματι νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων. αμην.540.So B. All, except B, C, H, J, P seem to end at εφοβουντο γαρ.541.e.g. οὐκ ἦν δέ for οὐ κεῖνται.542.Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author ofthe Canonsas well:—“Canones quosEusebiusCaesariensis EpiscopusAlexandrinum secutus Ammoniumin decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in Graeco habentur expressimus.”(Ad Papam Damasum. Epist.) And again:“Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavitquos postea secutus est Eusebius Caesariensis.”(De Viris Illustr.c. 55 [Opp.ii. 881.])—See above, p.128.543.There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome quarto volume (pp. 216) entitledHarmonia quatuor Evangeliorum juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones. It is merely the contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printedin extenso,—and of course is no“Harmony”at all. It would have been a really useful book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has omitted to number the sections.544.This last § according toTischendorf'sed. of the Eusebian Canons.545.Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have been recognised at leastby Eusebius. OurLord'sAgony in the Garden for instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by him numbered § 283: and that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28, he certainly numbered § 216,—whatever Tischendorf may say to the contrary. (See p.203.)546.It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in the order of their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the matter in hand:—and that, (2) actual Quotations, and even Allusions to other parts of Scripture when they are undeniable, should be referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also certain that, (3) to a far greater extent than at present,setsof References might be kepttogether; not scattered about in small parcels over the whole Book.—Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present occasion,) (4) it is to be wished thatstrictly parallel placesin the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative only, or are merely recalled by their similarity of subject or expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,—Why is it no longer possible to purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha?Whodoes not miss the reference to“Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12”at Gen. ix. 14?Whocan afford to do without the reference to“1 Macc. iv. 59”at S. John x. 22?547.Mai, vol. iv. p. 287. See also p. 293.548.Tischendorf says 19 only.549.Tischendorf says 96 only.550.Tischendorf says 13 only.551.Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I, P, Q, R, W6, Y, Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, iscr, sscr. Also D and K. (Cod. Bezæ, p. xx, andIntrod.pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I thinknot263.)552.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 51 and 52:Cod. Bezæ, p. xx. note [2.]553.Evan. 263, for instance, has certainlyblankEusebian Tables at the beginning: theframeonly.554.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 51 (note 2),—where Tregelles (in Horne'sIntrod.iv. 200) is quoted.555.e.g. Codd. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one other at Paris, but I have not preserved a record of the number.) To these, Tregelles adds E; (Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W, and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener'sCod. Bezae, p. xx.)556.Theorderof these monograms requires explanation.557.Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450, and 1, and 2, and 4, and 6, and 7, and 8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright'sCatalogue,4to. 1870.) Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler, p. 52-3: also p. 63.558.“Dawkins 3.”See Dean Payne Smith'sCatalogue, p. 72.559.It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme,every verseof S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes an independent section (§§ 281-288): ver. 16-18 another (§ 289); and verr. 19-20, another (§ 290), which is the last. The Greek scheme, as a rule, makes independent sections of verr. 8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but throws together ver. 10-11: 12-13: 15-16: 17-18. (Vide infrà, p.311.)560.Note that § 392/9 = S. Luke xxiv. 12: § 394/10 = ver. 18-34: § 395/8 = ver. 35: § 396/9 is incomplete. [Dr. Wright supplies the lacune for me, thus: § 396/9 = ver. 36-41 (down to θαυμαζόντων): § 397/9 = εἶπεν αὐτοῖς down to the end of ver. 41: § 398/9 = ver. 42: § 399/9 = ver. 43: § 400/10 = ver. 44-50: § 401/8 = 51: § 402/10 = ver. 52, 3.Critical readers will be interested in comparing, or rather contrasting, the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which prevails in all Greek Codices. S. John's § 248/1 = xx. 18: his § 249/9 = ver. 19 to εἰρήνη ὑμῖν in ver. 21: his $ 250/7 = ver. 21 (καθώς to the end of the verse): his § 251/10 = ver. 22: his § 252/7 = ver. 23: his § 253/[10] = ver. 24-5: his § 254/[9] = ver. 26-7: his § 255/10 = ver. 28 to the end of xxi. 4: his § 256/9 = xxi. 5: his § 257/9 = xxi. 6 (to εὑρήσετε): his § 258/9 = ver. 6, (ἔβαλον to the end): his § 259/[10] = ver. 7, 8: his § 260/[9] = ver. 9: his § 261/[10] = ver. 10: his § 262/9 = ver. 11: his § 263/9 = first half of ver. 12: his § 264/10 is incomplete.[But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently the correcter ones, 263/10 stands opposite the middle of ver. 12 [οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα], and 264/9 opposite ver. 13 [ἔρχεται οὖν],) proceeds to supply the lacune for me, thus: § 264/9 = ver. 13: § 265/10 = ver. 14-5 (down to φιλῶ σε; λέγει αυτῷ): § 266/9 = βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου, (end of ver. 15): § 267/10 = ver. 16 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 268/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ, Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατα μου (end of ver. 16): § 269/10 = ver. 17 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 270/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ., β. τὰ π. μου (end of ver. 17): § 271/10 = ver. 18 to 25.561.“I have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and 7,157. The first three are Nos. lxix, lxx, and lxxi, in my own Catalogue: the last, a Nestorian MS., is No. xiii in the old Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen (London, 1838). All four agree in their numeration.”562.See the preceding note.—Availing myself of the reference given me by my learned correspondent, I read as follows in the Catalogue:—“Inter ipsa textus verba, numeris viridi colore pictis, notatur Canon harmoniae Eusebianae, ad quem quaevis sectio referenda est. Sic, [glyph] [i.e. 1] indicat canonem in quo omnes Evangelistae concurrunt,”&c. &c.563.Suidas [A.D.980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke, makes the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171.564.This sheet was all but out of the printer's hands when the place in vol. i. of Assemani's Bibliotheca Medicea, (fol. 1742,) was shewn me by my learned friend, P. E. Pusey, Esq., of Ch. Ch.—Dr. Wright had already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from the mutilated fragments of the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and 14,450.565.Dr. Tregelles. (Vide suprà, pp.125-6.) And so, Tischendorf.566.The others are 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 32, 37, 40, 45, 52, 98, 113, 115, 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 169, 186, 188, 193, 195, 265, 269, 276, 371. Add. 18,211, Cromwell 15, Wake 12and27.567.The others are 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 54 [more §§ ?], 65, 68, 111, 112, 114, 118, 157, 183, 190, 202, 263, 268, 270, 273, 277, 278, 284, 287, 294, 414, 438, 439. Rich 7,141. Add. 17,741and17,982. Cromw. 16. Canonici 36and112. Wake 21.568.Viz. 184, 192, 264, hscr, Add. 11,836. Ti. Wake 29.569.The others are 10, 20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl. 141.570.Vide suprà, p.33. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p. 53.) The others are 8, 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36.571.The others are 7, 27, 34, 38, 39, 46, 74, 89, 105, 116, 117, 135, 179, 185, 194, 198, 207, 212, 260, 261, 267, 275, 279, 293, 301, 445, kscr. Add. 22,740. Wake 22, 24, 30;and31 in which, ver. 20 is numberedCMB.572.But Cod. U inserts ευθεως before εξηλθεν; and (at least two of the other Codices, viz.) 48, 67 read αιμα και υσωρ.573.Σημείωσις is what we call an“Annotation.”[On the sign in the text, see the Catalogue of MSS. in the Turin Library, P. i. p. 93.] On the word, and on σημειοῦσθαι, (consider 2 Thess. iii. 14,) see the interesting remarks of Huet,Origeniana, iii. § i. 4. (at the end of vol. iv. of Origen'sOpp.p. 292-3.)—Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.v. 20) uses σημείωσις in this sense. (See the note of Valesius.) But it is plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinus (subscriptio), that it often denoted a“signature,”or signing of the name. Eusebius so employs the word inlib.v. 19ad fin.574.He was Patriarch of Antioch,A.D.512-9.—The extract (made by Petrus junior, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch,A.D.578,) purports to be derived from the 26thEpistle, (Book 9,) which Severus addressed to Thomas Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani,Bibl. Orient.vol. ii. pp. 81-2.575.I cannot find the place in Cyril. I suppose it occurs in a lost Commentary of this Father,—whose Works by the way are miserably indexed.576.Ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν [viz. the sect of the Severiani] ἀρχηγὸς ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν. Ὁ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. The next words are every way suggestive. Τοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς, ὡς ἐπιδιωρθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν.—Eusebius,Hist. Eccl.iv. 29, § 4.577.See, for example, the readings of B or א, or both, specified from p.80to p. 86.578.Vid. suprà, p.129, note (g.)579.Opp.vol. i. p. 391D.580.Haeret. Fab.lib. i. c. xx. (Opp.iv. 208.)581.Clinton, F. R. ii.Appendix, p. 473, quoting Theodoret's“Ep. 113, p. 1190. [al.vol. iii. p. 986-7].”582.Quoted by Matthaei, N. T.(1788) vol. ix. p. 228,fromg, a, d.583.Ibid., ii. 69, and ix. 228.584.Nov. Test.(1869), p. 404.585.Let the reader examine his“Quaestio ix,”(Mai, vol. iv. p. 293-5): his“Quaestio x,”(p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296, line 29-32.586.See Chrys.Opp.vol. viii. p. 522c:—ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς ἐπεχωρίαζεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν.

Footnotes1.Abp. Tait'sHarmony of Revelation and the Sciences, (1864,) p. 21.2.See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13.3.Abp. Tait is of opinion that it“should not retain its place in the public Service of the Church:”and Dean Stanley gives sixteen reasons for the same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that“many excellent laymen, including King George III., have declined to take part in the recitation.”(Final)Report of the Ritual Commission, 1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.4.In the words of a thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P. Eden),—“Condemnatoryis just what these clauses are not. I understand myself, in uttering these words, not to condemn a fellow creature, but to acknowledge a truth of Scripture,God'sjudgment namely on the sin of unbelief. The further question,—In whom the sin of unbelief is found;thatawful question I leave entirely in His hands who is the alone Judge of hearts; who made us, and knows our infirmities, and whose tender mercies are over all His works.”5.“The Athanasian Creed,”by the Dean of Westminster (Contemporary Review, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).6.Commentarius Criticus, ii. 197.7.Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd. MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit Andreas Birch, Havniae, 1788. A copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may be seen in the King's Library (Brit. Mus.)8.Account of the Printed Text, p. 83.9.See above, p.3.10.“Eam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant gravissimae.”11.I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this amiable and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am finishing my task. I consign these pages to the press with a sense of downright reluctance,—(constrained however by the importance of the subject,)—seeing thatheis no longer among us either to accept or to dispute a single proposition. All I can do is to erase every word which might have occasioned him the least annoyance; and indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. An open grave reminds one of the nothingness of earthly controversy; as nothing else does, or indeed can do.12.Tischendorf, besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the Greek Text, has edited our English“Authorized Version”(Tauchnitz, 1869,) with an“Introduction”addressed to unlearned readers, and the various readings of Codd. א, B and A, set down in English at the foot of every page.—Tregelles, besides his edition of the Text of the N. T., is very full on the subject of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, in his“Account of the Printed Text,”and in his“Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.”(vol. iv. of Horne'sIntrod.)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek Testament, and an abridgment“for the upper forms of Schools and for passmen at the Universities,”put forth two editions of a“N. T. for English Readers,”and three editions of“the Authorized Version newly compared with the original Greek and revised;”—in every one of which it is stated that these twelve verses are“probably an addition, placed here in very early times.”13.The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent Divine reluctantly admitting that“this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark himself;”and Bishop Ellicott (Historical Lectures, pp. 26-7) asking“Why may not this portion have been written by S. Mark at a later period?;”—both alike resolutely insist on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the popular outcry against this portion of the Gospel.“Without the slightest misgiving”he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (Introduction, pp. 7 and 429-32.)14.“Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,”(p. 320.)“Quæ testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba αφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.”(p. 322.)—I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf's 8th ed. (1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the following addition:—“Quæ quum ita sint, sanæ erga sacrum textum pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.”(p. 407.)15.Evangelia Apocrypha, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.16.Pp. 253, 7-9.17.In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced it“manifestly untenable”that S. Mark's Gospel was the last written; and assignedA.D.64 as“its most probable”date. In his second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—“When we consider thatthe Gospel was not written till the second century, internal evidence loses much of its force against the authenticity of these verses.”—Introduction to N.T.18.Vol. ii. p. 239.19.Developed Criticism, [1857], p. 53.20.Ed. 1847. i. p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader's acceptance in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.21.Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 311.22.Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92.23.In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,—“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.”Tayloron the Law of Evidence, 1868, i. p. 369.24.This is freely allowed by all.“Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam jam in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.”TregellesN.T.p. 214.25.This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 626) accounts for the phenomenon:—“Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam partem scribere differret, et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii quasi perfectum sequerentur, praesertim quum ea pars cum reliquâ historiâ evangelicâ minus congruere videretur.”26.It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his latest edition) S. John xxi. 25.27.Chap. III.-VIII., also Chap. X.28.Chap. IX.29.Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch.ed.8va.) [ix]: G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective here,—F (ver. 9-19), H (ver. 9-14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z.30.SeeAppendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14.31.Consider how Ignatius (ad Smyrn., c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39; and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep.ad Ephes.c. 17.32.Ἱστορεῖ [sc. Παπίας] ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονὸς,—evidently a slip of the pen for Βαρσαβᾶν τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Ἰοῦστον (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately afterwards,)—ὡς δηλητήριον φάρμακον ἐμπιόντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν ὑπομείναντος. Euseb.Hist. Eccl.iii. 39.33.Apol.I. c. 45.—The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the FragmentDe Resurrectione(Westcott and others) are clearly references to S. Luke xxiv.,—notto S. Mark xvi.34.lib. iii. c. x.ad fin.(ed. Stieren, i. p. 462).“In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus,et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est sis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.”Accordingly, against S. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 ( = Evan. 72) occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already published:—Εἰρηναῖος ὁ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πλησίον, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις γ᾽ λόγῳ τοῦτο ἀνήνεγκεν τὸ ῥητον ὡς Μάρκῳ ειρημένον.35.First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ; and by that name the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter of the (so called)“Apostolical Constitutions,”(τὰ μὲν σῦν πρῶτα τοῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Χαρισμάτων, κ.τ.λ.),—in which singular monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the“Apostolical Constitutions;”of which the ivthchapter is also claimed for Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such appears in the last edition of the Father's collected works, (Hippolyti Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. 74.The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of the heading,—Διατάξεις τῶν ἀυτῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν, διὰ Ἱππολύτου,) is part of the“Octateuchus Clementinus,”concerning which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to hisReliquiæ Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimæ, 1856. The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact correspondence between the“Octateuchus Clementinus”and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend no further than the single chapter (the ivth) specified in the text. In the meantime the fragment περὶ χαρισμάτων (containing S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in Lagarde'sReliquiæ, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there headed Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων.36.Ad fin.See Routh'sOpuscula, i. p. 80.37.For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf's remark (ed. 8va. p. 407),“Quod idem [Justinus] Christum ἀνεληλυθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐράνους dicit, [Apol.I. c. 50?] minus valet.”38.“In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,”(Cyprian Opp. p. 237 [Reliqq. Sacr.iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,)—“In nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus imponentet bene habebunt.”39.Responsa ad Episcopos, c. 44, (Reliqq.v. 248.)40.Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: alsoProleg.p. lvi.41.Inl.vii.c.7 (ad fin.),—λαβόντες ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κηρύξαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον: and inl.viii.c.1,—ἡμῖν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Observe, this immediately follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.42.Lib.vi.c.15.—The quotation (at the beginning oflib.viii.) of the 17th and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper place.Supra, p.24.43.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 421.44.ApudHieron.Opp. ed.Vallars., ii. 951-4.45.See Dr. Wright's ed. of“Aphraates,”(4to. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am entirely indebted to the learned Editor'sPrefacefor the information in the text.46.From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose.47.Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver. 15 and 16: vol. ii. 663 B, C quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 639 E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver. 17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes ver. 20.48.Opp.iii. 765 A, B.49.Καὶ μὴν τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρία πρώτῃ [ὤφθη]. Chrys.Opp.ch. 355 B.50.“Cogis”(he says to Pope Damasus)“ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se variant, quae sint illa quae cum Graecâ consentiant veritate decernam.—Haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia ... codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione, sed et veterum.”51.Vol. i. p. 327 C (ed.Vallars.)52.Contra Pelagianos, II. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5):—“In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine Evangelii scribitur:Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis Jesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes: Sæculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis substantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam.”53.E.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149); Vol. v. 988 C.—Verses 15, 16, in vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F.54.Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.55.ἐξελθόντες γάρ, φησι, διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ. τοῦ Κυρίοῦ συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων σημειων. Nestoriusc. Orthodoxos: (Cyril. Alexand.adv. Nestorian.Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,—τῇ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι, διεκηρύσσοντο καὶ εἰργάζοντο τὰς θεοσημείας οἱ θεοπέσιοι μαθηταὶ. (Ibid.D.) This quotation was first noticed by Matthaei (Enthym. Zig.i. 161.)56.ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένον; Ὁ μὲν οὄν Κύριος—ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 415.57.AthanasiiOpp.vol. ii. p. 181 F, 182 A. See thePræfat., pp. vii., viii.58.In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have overlooked. The necessity one is under, on occasions like the present, of depending to a great extent on“Indices,”is fatal; so scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be named. To judge from the Index in Oehler's edition of Tertullian, that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times. According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no less than fourteen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9-20 at all.Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf's new Oxford ed. of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in Potter's ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3 (or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, l. 8: S. John i. 18, 50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, l. 26: S. Mark i. 13, interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7:—are nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at ourSaviour'sBaptism,—a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, l. 14),—does not appear in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i. 11), or S. Luke (iii. 22.)]59.GregentiusapudGalland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in Evang.)—ModestusapudPhotium cod. 275.—Johannis DamasceniOpp.(ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and Theophylact (who quotesallthe verses) and Euthymiusin loc.60.Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that some more leaves of this Version have just been recovered.61.By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the last four verses.62.In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii. 5, Thomas writes,—“In tribus codicibus Græcis, et in uno Syriaco antiquæ versionis, non inventum est nomen,‘Nazarenus.’”—Cf. ad xxvii. 35.—Adler'sN. T. Verss. Syrr., p. 97.63.That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the Gospels relegated to the Philoxenian margin, should occur the worthless supplement which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch.viii.)—is not at all surprising. Of these 437 readings and notes, 91 are not found in White's Edition; while 105 (the supplement in question being one of them) are found in White only. This creates a suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must exhibit traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text. (So Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of some of those marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to refer to Adler's learned work, (pp. 79-134) and examine the notes on the following places:—S. Matth. xv. 21: xx. 28 ( = D): xxvi. 7. S. Mk. i. 16: xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 ( = B D): 42 ( = B א L): xi. 1: 53. S. Jo. ii. 1 [3] ( = א): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly = B): x. 8, &c. &c.64.This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, 1861-4, under the following title:—Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit, Prolegomenis et Glossario adornavit, ComesFranciscus Miniscalchi Erizzo.65.It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that one ancient codex, the“Codex Bobbiensis”(k), which Tregelles describes as“a revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS. is discernible,”[Printed text, &c. p. 170.] and which therefore may not be cited in the present controversy,—exhibits after ver. 8 a Latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in Cod. L.66.“Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint, vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.”Mai,Nova Patt. Bibl.iv. 256.67.Account of the Printed Text, p. 247.68.Gr. Test.p. 322.69.Ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὺαγγέλιον μέχρι τοῦ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, ἔχει τὸ τέλος. ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτων (sic) ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.Opp.(ed. 1638) iii, 411 B.70.Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 248, also in Horne'sIntrod.iv. 434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &c.71.Nov. Auct.i. 743-74.—Bibl. Vett. PP.xi. 221-6.72.Bibl. Coisl.pp. 68-75.—Catena, i. 243-51.73.Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean Payne Smith'sCat. of Syrr. MSS.p. 411] who diedA.D.1171) in hisExposition of S. Mark's Gospel(published at Dublin by Dudley Loftus, 1672, 4to.) seems (at p. 59) to give this homily to Severus.—I have really no independent opinion on the subject.74.Alford,Greek Test.i. p. 433.75.Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101.76.At p. 217, (ed.1847), Mai designates it as“Codex Vat. Palat. cxx pulcherrimus, sæculi ferme x.”At p. 268, he numbers it rightly,—ccxx. We are there informed that the work of Eusebius extends from fol. 61 to 96 of the Codex.77.Vol. iv. pp. 219-309.78.SeeNova P. P. Bibliotheca, iv. 255.—That it was styled“Inquiries with their Resolutions”(Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσεις), Eusebius leads us to suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name, (Demonstr. Evang. lib.vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus,Mai, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ (Mai, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so designate the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual title is correctly indicated by Jerome,—De Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ:“Edidit”(he says)“de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ,”(De Scriptt. Illustt.c. 81.) Again, Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων, (Hieron.in Matth. i. 16.) Consider also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given below, p.44, note (q).“Indicated”by Jerome, I say: for the entire title was probably, Περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ. διαφωνίας. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by Cramer (i. p. 266), quotes an opinion of Eusebius ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν εὐαγγελίοις περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας: words which are extracted from the same MS. by Simon,Hist. Crit. N. T.p. 89.79.Ἐκλογὴ ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ Εὐσεβίου πρὸς Στέφανον [and πρὸς Μαρῖνον] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων.Ibid.pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes facing the title of vol. i. ed. 1825.)80.Σὐσέβιος ... ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἐπὶ ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου πάθους καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ζητήσεσι καὶ ἐκλύσεσι, κ.τ.λ. I quote the place from the less known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to Severus of Antioch: but it occurs also inCorderii Cat. in Joan.p. 436. (See Mai, iv. 299.)81.This passage is too grand to be withheld:—Οὐ γὰρ ἤν ἀξιός τις ἐν τῇ πόλει Ἰουδαίων, (ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος κεφαλαίωιγ πρὸς Μαρνον,) τὸ κατὰ τοῦ διαβόλου τρόπαιον τὸν σταυρὸν βαστάσαι; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐξ ἀγροῦ, ὅς μηδὲν ἐπικεκοινώνηκε τῇ κατὰ χριστο μιαιφονίᾳ. (Possini Cat. in Marcum, p. 343.)82.Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenæ, inasmuch as their compilers are observed to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently full ofdisjecta membraof the work. These are recognisable for the most part by their form; but sometimes they actually retain the name of their author. Accordingly, Catenæ have furnished Mai with a considerable body of additional materials; which (as far as a MS. Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A.seuVat. 1611,] enabled him,) he has edited with considerable industry; throwing them into a kind of Supplement. (Vol. iv. pp. 268-282, and pp. 283-298.) It is only surprising that with the stores at his command, Mai has not contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject. It would not be difficult to indicate sundry passages which he has overlooked. Neither indeed can it be denied that the learned Cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner. He does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp. 357-8—262—283—295, is to be found in theCatenaofCorderiusat pp. 448-9—449—450—457.—He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of John Xiphilinus, (Cod. Vat.p. 160,) what he might have found in Possinus; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) He was evidently unacquainted with Cramer's work, though it had been published 3 (if not 7) years before his own,—else, at p. 299, instead of quoting Simon, he would have quoted Cramer'sCatenæ, i. 266.—It was in his power to solve his own shrewd doubt, (at p. 299,—concerning the text of a passage in Possinus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus published was transcribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican. (PossiniPræfat.p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of theCatenaof Possinus. In countless places he might, by such references, have improved his often manifestly faulty text.83.Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (Opp.ii. 116.) to Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis)“scire te vult in Siciliâ inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensisde Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.”The letter is dated 1563.I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will be found that Eusebius digested his“Questions”under heads: e.g. περὶ το τάφου, καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p. 299.)84.I translate according to the sense,—the text being manifestly corrupt. Τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν is probably a gloss, explanatory of τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό. In strictness, the κεφάλαιον begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end of the Gospel. There are 48 such κεφάλαια in S. Mark. But this term was often loosely employed by the Greek Fathers, (as“capitulum”by the Latins,) to denotea passageof Scripture, and it is evidently so used here. Περικοπή, on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true technical meaning, and to denote the liturgicalsection, or“lesson.”85.Ἀνάγνωσμα (like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to be here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgicalsection, or“lectio.”See Suicer,in voce.86.The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement and depravation here.87.Mai,Bibl. P.P. Nova, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the original of this passage is given in the Appendix (B).88.Mai, iv. 257. So far, I have given the substance only of what Eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity. It follows,—ὥστε τὸν αὐτὸν σχεδὸν νοεῖσθαι καιρὸν, ἡ τὸν σφόδρα ἐγγὺς, παρὰ τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς διαφόροις ὀνόμασι τετηρημένον. μηδέν τε διαφέρειν Ματθαῖον ἰρηκότα“ὀψὲ—τάφον”[xxviii. 1.] Ἰωάννου φήσαντος“τῇ δὲ μιᾷ—ἔτι οὔσης σκοτίας.”[xx. 1.] πλατυκῶς γὰρ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν δηλοῦσι χρόνον διαφόροις ῥήμασι. [xxviii. 1.]—For the principal words in the text, see the Appendix (B)ad fin.89.I allude to the following places:—Combefis,Novum Auctarium, col. 780.—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei,Anectt. Græc.ii. 62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195fol.165.—Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer,Catt.i. 251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4,fol.169.—Cod. Bodl. Laud. Gr. 33,fol.79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this subject will do well to begin by reading SimonHist. Crit. du N. T.p. 89. See Mai's foot-note, iv. p. 257.90.Ep. cxx.Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43.91.Ibid.p. 844.92.Ibid.p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.93.“Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est. [Τοῦτου διττὴ ἂν εἴν ἡ λύσεις.] Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur [σπανίωσ ἔν τισι φερόμενα] Evangeliis, omnibus Græciæ libris pene hec capitulum [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] in fine non habentibus; [ἐν τουτῷ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος]; præsertim cum diversa atque contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.] Aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [ἐκατέραν παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρϗειν ... συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς.] Matthæus, quando Dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati: Marcus autem, quando tum viderit Maria Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est, Cum autem resurrexisset: [μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον Ἀναστὰς δέ:] et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane apparuit Mariæ Magdalenæ: [εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες ῥητέον, Πρωι τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta Matthæum surrexerat, [παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τοτε γὰρ ἐγήγερατο.] ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Mariæ Magdalenæ. [προί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius diei visum esse demonstrans.”[τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.]For the Latin of the above, seeHieronymi Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).94.ἠρώτας τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; [Eusebiusad Marinum,(Mai, iv. 255.)]Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymusad Hedibiam, (Opp. i. 818-9.)]Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ μίᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου. [Ut suprà, p. 257.]Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit Dominum resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere? [Ut suprà, p. 819.]Πῶς, κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἁψαμένη τῶν ποσῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἡ αὐτὴ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἀκούει μή μου ἅπτου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην. [Ut suprà, p. 262.]Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem, audierit à Domino, Noli me tangere. [Ut suprà, p. 821.]95.Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 247.96.See above, p.28.97.See above, p.40-1.98.See theAppendix (C)§ 2.99.See theAppendix (C)§ 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § 2.100.In theEccl. Grac. Monumentaof Cotelerius, (iii. 1-53,) may be seen the discussion of 60 problems, headed,—Συναγωγή ἀποριῶν καὶ ἐπιλύσεων, ἐκλεγεῖσα ἐν ἐπιτομῇ ἐκ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς συμφωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου Ἱεροσολύμων. From this it appears that Hesychius, following the example of Eusebius, wrote a work on“Gospel Harmony,”—of which nothing but an abridgment has come down to us.101.He says that he writes,—Πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου προβλήματος λύσιν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν ῥητῶν ἀναφουμένων ζητήσεων, κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 400 c.102.ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένομ;Ὁ μὲν οῦν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 415 D.—See above, p.29, note (g).103.See below,chap. X.104.Fasti Romani, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395-495.105.Vol. i.Præfat.p. xxviii. See below, note (p).106.“Victor Antiochenus”(writes Dr. Tregelles in his N. T. vol. i. p. 214,)“dicit ὅτι νενόθενται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον.”107.For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and his work, the studious in such matters are referred to theAppendix (D).108.Opp.vol. vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field's edition, p. 527, line 3 to 20.109.Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,—ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος ὁ Καισαρείας ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον κ.τ.λ. And at p. 446, line 19,—Εὐσεβιός φησιν ὁ Καισαρείας κ.τ.λ.110.Compare Cramer'sVict. Ant.i. p. 444, line 6-9, with Field'sChrys.iii. p. 539, line 7-21.111.Mai, iv. p. 257-8.112.Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4.113.The following is the original of what is given above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ,“ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ Μαγδαληνῇ,”δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου εὶρημένῳ, ὲροῦμεν ὡς δυνατὸν μὲν εἰπεῖν ὅτι νενόθευται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον. πλὴν ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτοιμον καταφεύγειν, οὔτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα;“ἀναστὰς δὲ,”καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν,“πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”ἵνα [The extract fromVictoris continued below in the right hand column: the left exhibiting the text ofEusebius“ad Marinum.”] [Transcriber's Note: The extracts will be on alternating paragraphs.](Eusebius.) τὸ μὲν“ἀναστὰς,”ἀν[απέμψωμεν?] ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”(τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις.(Victor.) τὸ μὲν“ἀναστὰς,”ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”(τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις;(Eusebius.) (“πρωί”γὰρ“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”)(Victor.) (τὸν γὰρ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων”κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ“πρωί”ἑωρακέναι Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.)(Eusebius.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης“πρωί”καί αὐτὸς“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου”ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.(Victor.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες,“πρωί”καὶ αὐτὸς“τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων”ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.[31 words here omitted.](Eusebius.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς αναστάσεως τὸν“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.”τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν“πρωί.”(Victor.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τὸν“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου;”τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸ“προί.”[Eusebius,apud Mai, iv. p. 256.][Victor Antioch,ed. Cramer, i. p. 444-5: (with a few slight emendations of the text fromEvan. Cod. Reg. 178.)]Note, that Victortwiceomits the word πρῶτον, andtwicereads τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου),only because Eusebius had inadvertently(three times)done the same thingin the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai.Nova P. P. Bibl.iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.114.οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δἐ ὡς διαφόρους ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί φασιν οἱ τὴν δοκοῦσαν διαφωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες. Vict. Ant.ed. Cramer, vol. i. p. 445, l. 23-5: referring to what Eusebius saysapud Mai, iv. 264 and 265 (§ iiii): 287-290 (§§ v, vi, vii.)115.e.g. in the passage last quoted.116.For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred to theAppendix (E).117.How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,—“Scholia certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omniaex uno fonte promanarunt. Ex eodem fonte Hieronymum etiam hausisse intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.—Similiter Scholiastæ omnes in principio hujus Evangelii in disputatione de lectione ἐν ἡσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτη ex uno pendent.Fortasse Origenes auctor est hujus dubitationis.”(N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)—The reader is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47 (line 23.)118.It is not often, I think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually inserted after Ἀναστάς δέ. Such a point is found, however, in Cod. 34 ( = Coisl. 195,) and Cod. 22 ( = Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many other copies.119.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 47, 125, 431.120.Φασὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἐνταῦθα συμπληροῦσθαι τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον; τὰ δὲ ἐφεξῆς προσθήκην εἶναι μεταγενεστέραν. Χρὴ δὲ καὶ ταύτην ἑρμηνεῦσαι μηδὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ λυμαινομένην.—Euthym. Zig. (ed.Matthaei, 1792),in loc.121.For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to theAppendix (F).122.Viz. A, C [v]; D [vi]; E, L [viii]; F, K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π [ix]; G, H, X, S, U [ix, x].123.Vercellone,—Del antichissimo Codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca, Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)124.Dublin Univ. Mag.(Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.125.ὁμοιοτέλευτον.126.See Scrivener'sIntroductionto his ed. of the Codex Bezæ, p. xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface to the 2nd ed. of hisCollation of the Cod. Sinaiticus.—Add to his instances, this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:—ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ ΕΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕΗ ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣΑΣΤΡΑΠΗIt is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:—ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟHence the omission of και επεγνωσαν αυτον in א.—The following explains the omission from א (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke xxiv. 52:—ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙThe next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke xxii. 64:—ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε[ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ]ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟThe next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are absent in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:—ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ127.In this way, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt reading of Cod. B (ινα τηρησης αυτους εκ του κοσμου)—which, however, was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (Opp.p. 1035:al. ed.p. 825)—is explained:—ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣThus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42:—ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ[ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ]ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝAnd why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S. Luke xxiv. 53:—ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝAnd why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of the Temptation (S. Luke iv. 5) :—ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ128.In this way the famous omission (א, B, L) of the word δευτεροπρώτῳ, in S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the least) capable of being explained:—ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕand of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:—ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ[ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ]ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ129.He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii. (1 Cor. v. 7.)130.In this way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. א in S. Mark xv. 47—xvi. 1:—19 words in S. Mark i. 32-4:—20 words in S. John xx. 5, 6:—39 words in S. John xix. 20, 21.131.Scrivener'sFull Collation, &c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles' N. T. Part II. page ii.132.SeeChap. IV. p.37.133.Scrivener'sIntroduction to Con. Bezae, p. liv.134.e.g. in S. John i. 42 (meaning only א, B, L): iv. 42 (א, B, C): v. 12 (א, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, B, L), &c.135.e.g. S. Matth. x. 25; xii. 24, 27: S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19 (βεεζεβουλ).—1 Cor. xiii. 3 (καυχησωμαι).—S. James i. 17 (αποσκιασματος).—Acts i. 5 (εν πν. βαπ. αγ.).—S. Mark vi. 20 (ηπορει).—S. Matth. xiv. 30 (ισχυρον).—S. Luke iii. 32 (ἰωβηλ).—Acts i. 19 (ἰδίᾳ omitted).—S. Matth. xxv. 27 (τα αργυρια).—S. Matth. xvii. 22 (συστρεφομενων).—S. Luke vi. 1 (δευτεροπρῶτῳ omitted).—See more in Tischendorf'sProlegomenato his 4to. reprint of theCod. Sin.p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to Scrivener's very interestingCollation of the Cod. Sinaiticus, Introduction, p. xliii.seq.136.See Tischendorf's note in his reprint of the Cod. Sin.,Prolegg.p. lix.137.Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος—καταβαίνοντα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44.138.ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς—τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 34):—γράμμασιν Ἐλληνικοῖς καὶ Ῥωμαῖκοῖς καὶ Ἐβραῖκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.)139.αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!140.Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xlvii.141.So, in the margin of the Hharklensian revision.142.Note, that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to claim theLatinversions as allies. Ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ἄνθρωπος λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κ.τ.λ. is not“Respondit, Ille homo qui dicitur Jesus,”(as both Tischendorf and Tregelles assume;) but“Respondit ille, Homo,”&c.,—as in verses 25 and 36.143.This reading will be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the end ofChap. VII.,—p.110.144.The following may be added from Cod. א:—μεγάλοι αὐτῶν (in S. Mark x. 42) changed into βασιλεις: ειπεν (in S. Mark xiv. 58) substituted for ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτου λέγοντος: εβδομηκοντα τεσσαρων (in S. Lu. ii. 37) for ὀγδοηκ: and εωρακεν σε (in S. Jo. viii. 57) for ἑώρακας:—in all which four readings Cod. א is without support. [Scrivener,Coll. Cod. Sin.p. li.] The epithet μεγαν, introduced (in the same codex) before λίθον in S. Mark xv. 46; and και πατριας inserted into the phrase ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ in S. Lu. i. 27,—are two more specimens of mistaken officiousness. In the same infelicitous spirit, Cod. B and Cod. א concur in omitting ἰσχυρόν (S. Matt. xiv. 30), and in substituting πυκνα for πυγμῇ, and ραντισωνται for βαπτίσωνται in S. Mark vii. 3 and 4:—while the interpolation of τασσομενος after ἐξουσίαν in S. Matth. viii. 9, because of the parallel place in S. Luke's Gospel; and the substitution of ανθρωπος αυστηρος ει (from S. Luke xix. 21) for σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος in S. Matth. xxv. 24, are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting influence has been here at work besides those which have been already specified.145.Scrivener,Coll. Cod. Sin.p. xlvii.146.Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for ἐξελθ. Chrys.^834 (twice,) (also quoted in Cramer'sCat.241). The mistake adverted to in the text is at least as old as the time of Eusebius, (Mai, iv. p. 264 = 287), who asks,—Πῶς παρά τῷ Ματθάιῳ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἔξω τοῦ μνήματος ἑώρακεν τὸν ἕνα ἄγγελον ἐπικαθήμενον τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ μνήματος, κ.τ.λ.147.Tischendorf accordinglyis forced, for once, to reject the reading of his oracle א,—witnessed to though it be by Origen and Eusebius. His discussion of the text in this place is instructive and even diverting. How is it that such an instance as the present does not open the eyes of Prejudice itself to the danger of pinning its faith to the consentient testimony even of Origen, of Eusebius, and of Cod. א?... The reader is reminded of what was offered above, in the lower part of p.49.148.A similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S. Luke iv. 44, (cf. the parallel place, S. Matth. iv. 23: S. Mark i. 89). It does not mend the matter to find א supported this time by Codd. B, C, L, Q, R.149.S. Lu. xxiii. 45:—ὅπερ οὐδέποτε πρότερον συνέβη, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν Αἰγύπτω μόνον, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα τελεῖσθαι ἔμελλε; καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα τούτων τύπος ἦν. (Chrys. vii. 824 c.)150.ὅπως δὲ μὴ εἰπωσί τινες ἔκλειψιν εἶναι τὸ γεγενημένον, ἐν τῇ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη ἡμέρᾳ τῆς σελήνης γἐγονε τὸ σκότος:—ὅτε ἔκλειψιν συμβῆναι ἀμήχανον. So Victor of Antioch, in his Catena on S. Mark (ed. Possin.) He makes the remark twice: first (p. 351) in the midst of an abridgment of the beginning of Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew: next (p. 352) more fully, after quoting“the great Dionysius”of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on the same subject in Cramer'sCatena in Matth.i. p. 237,—from whom derived, I know not; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note, that the 10 lines ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου, beginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys. vii. 824, D, E.) The very next words in Chrysostom's published Homily (p. 825 A.) are as follows:—Ὅτε γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ἔκλειψις, αλλ᾽ ὀργή τε καὶ ἀγανάκτησις, οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ; τρεῖς γἀρ ὥρας παρέμεινεν, ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ γίνεται καιροῦ ῥοπῇ.—Anyone who would investigate this matter further should by all means read Matthaei's long note on S. Luke xxiii. 45.151.See above, p.70, and theAppendix (F).152.Tischendorf's“Introduction”to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the English N.T., 1869,—p. xiii.153.“Epistola quam nos‘ad Ephesios’præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero 'ad Laodicenos.”Adv. Marcion.lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.)154.“‘Titulum’enim‘ad Laodicenos’ut addidisse accusatur a Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba ἐν Ἐφέσῳ omnino non legisse censendus est.”(N. T.in loc.)155.“Ecclesiæ quidem veritate Epistolam istam‘ad Ephesios’habemus emissam, non‘ad Laodicenos;’sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.”Adv. Marcion.lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)156.ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἰκανῶν. (Epiphan.Opp.i. 310 c.)157.He describes its structure minutely at vol. i. pp. 309-310, and from pp. 312-7; 318-321. [Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has crept into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321d: pointed out long since by Jones,On the Canon, ii. 38.] His plan is excellent. Marcion had rejected every Gospel except S. Luke's, and of S. Paul's Epistles had retained only ten,—viz. (1st) Galatians, (2nd and 3rd) I and II Corinthians, (4th) Romans, (5th and 6th) I and II Thessalonians, (7th)Ephesians, (8th) Colossians, (9th) Philemon, (10th) Philippians. Even these he had mutilated and depraved. And yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78 passages, (pp. 312-7), and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40 passages more (pp. 318-21); by means of which 118 texts he undertakes to refute the heresy of Marcion. (pp. 322-50: 350-74.) [It will be perceived that Tertullian goes over Marcion's work in much the same way.] Very beautiful, and well worthy of the student's attention, (though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form,) is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy ofGod'sWord, even when dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape.“Ὅλου γὰρ τοῦ σώματος ζῶντος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τῆς θείας γραφῆς, ποῖον ηὕρισκε (sc. Marcion) μέλος νεκρὸν κατὰ τῆν αὐτοῦ γνώμην, ἵνα παρεισαγάγη ψεῦδος κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας; ... παρέκοψε πολλὰ τῶν μελῶν, κατέσχε δὲ ἔνιά τινα παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ; καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ κατασχεθέντα ἔτι ζῶντα οὐ δύναται νεκροῦσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ ζωτικὸν τῆς ἐμφάσεως, κᾴν τε μυρίως παρ᾽ αὐτῷ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἀποτμηθείν.”(p. 375b.) He seems to say of Marcion,—Fool! to suppose thy shallow witsCould quench a fire like that. Go, learnThat cut into ten thousand bitsYet every bit would breathe and burn!158.He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius,Opp.i. p. 318 and 371-2.)159.Ibid.p. 318c( = 371b), and319 a ( = 374 a.)160.Ibid.p. 319 and 374. But note, that through error in the copies, or else through inadvertence in the Editor, the depravation commented on at p. 374b, c,is lost sight of at p. 319b.161.See below, at the end of the next note.162.Προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Ἀποστολικῷ καλουμένῳ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πρὸς Λαοδικέας:—“Εῖς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα, εἶς Χριστὸς, εἶς Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.”(Epiphan.Opp.vol i. p. 374.) Here is obviously a hint of τριῶν ἀνάρχων ἀρχῶν διαφορὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἐξουσῶν: [Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ ματαιόφρονος δίδαγμα, εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς μοναρχίας τομὴν καὶ διαίρεσιν. Athanas. i. 231e.] but, (says Epiphanius), οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀποστόλου ὑπόθεσις καὶ ἠσφαλισμένον κήρυγμα. ἀλλὰ ἄλλως παρὰ τὸ σὸν ποιήτευμα. Then he contrasts with the“fabrication”of Marcion, the inspired verity,—Eph. iv. 5: declaring ἕνα Θεὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων,—τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, κ.τ.λ.—p. 374c.Epiphanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained materials ἐκτὸς τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου; οὐ γὰρ ἔδοξε τῷ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ Μαρκίωνι ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν λέγειν, (sc. the words quoted above,) ἀλλὰ τῆς πρὸς Λαοδικέας, τῆς μὴ οὔσης ἐν τῷ Ἀποστόλῳ (p. 375a.) (Epiphanius here uses Ἀπόστολος in its technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with S. Paul's Epistles.)163.“Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—”Ἐπὶ μόνων Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;”καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,”τί δύναται σημαίνειν; ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδω ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεί τὸ ὬΝ οὕτως οἱ μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται“ὄντες.”καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι.“ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,”φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος,“ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση.”—Cramer'sCatena in Ephes.i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.164.Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: xii. 14, &c.165.Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽ ἐπιγνώσεως,“ὄντας”αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών:“τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.”οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. Note also what immediately follows. (BasilOpp.i. p. 254 E, 255 A.)166.See the places quoted by Scrivener,Introd.pp. 381-91; particularly p. 385.167.Hieron.Opp.vol. vii. p. 543:—“Illud quoque in Præfatione commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.”168.“Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum est‘Haec dices filiis Israel,Qui estmisit me,’etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf.‘qui sunt Ephesi,’Vulg.] sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... abEo‘qui est,’hi‘qui sunt’appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, non ad eos‘qui sint,’sed‘qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint’scriptum arbitrantur.”Hieron.Opp.vii. p. 545a, b.169.The cursive“Cod. No. 67”(or“672”) is improperly quoted as“omitting”(Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who says of it (p. 496),—“cod. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat.”... The MS. must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in hisTentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece, &c. Havn. 1773, pp. 62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in hisLibellus Criticus de indole Cod. MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv.&c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. B itself.170.So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener'sCollation, p. xlix.171.Scrivener'sIntroduction to Codex Bezae, p. liv.172.Scrivener,Coll. of Cod. Sin.p. xlv.173.Eph. vi. 21, 22.174.Coloss. iv. 7, 16.175.Ubi suprà.176.Gnomon, in Ephes. i. 1,ad init.177.See above, pp.93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (ad Ephes.c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner, vol. ii.178.Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and א, that nothing whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in question remain, by their own admission,defective.Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1)To leave a blank spaceafter τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2)To let the wordsἐν Ἐφέσῳstand,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (Life and Letters of S. Paul, ii. 491), to eject the words“at Ephesus”from the text of Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words“in Laodicea,”—is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff) have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford (vol. iii.Prolegg.pp. 13-8); who infers,“in accordance with the prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle wasveritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus, andto no other Church.”] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity; viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (“carta bianca”) copy of the Epistle looked with“the space after τοῖς οὔσι left utterly void:”in the latter, they will be representing the archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus. But by printing the text thus,—τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσω] καὶ πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., they are acting on an entirely different theory. They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS. in the world except Codd. B and א. This is clearly to forsake the“Encyclical”hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be named.179.Ἐγκύκλιον ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii interpretanturliteras circulares: ego cum viris doctis malimEpistolasvelliteras publicas, ad omnes fideles pertinentes, quas Græci aliàs vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicerin voce.180.Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicerin voce, Ἐγκύκλιος.181.Routh'sReliquiæ, vol. iii. p. 266.—“Tum ex Conciliis, tum ex aliis Patrum scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiao Patres acta et decreta Conciliorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere per epistolas, quas non uni privatim dicârunt, sed publice describi ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulgari, atque cum omnibus populis communicari voluerunt. Hac igitur epistolae ἐγκύκλιοι vocatae sunt, quia κυκλόσε, quoquò versum et in omnem partem mittebantur.”—Suicerin voc.182.“On the whole,”says Bishop Middleton, (Doctrine of the Greek Art.p. 355)“I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on Col. iv. 16,)—‘that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans; with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.’”—This suggestion is intended to meetanotherdifficulty, and leaves the question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is found in Col. iv. 16.Macknight's suggestion, though it has found favour with many subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S. Paul is found not to have sentthe Colossians“word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.”He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this roundabout method of communication, were notthe Ephesiansordered,—if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the Colossians charged to read publicly τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, which (by the hypothesis) would have been only a copy,—instead of τὴν ἐξ Ἐφέσου, which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay, why is it not designated by S. Paul, τὴν πρὸς Ἐφεσίους,—(if indeed it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; which would hardly be an intelligible way of indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of theEphesiansalso, which had been originally addressed by S. Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the Colossians!183.Epiphan.Opp.i. 311 D.184.“Marcion exerte et palam machæra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad materiam suam cædem Scripturarum confecit.”(TertullianPræscript. Hær.c. 38, p. 50.)“Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque subducat.”(Adv. Marcion.lib. v, c. xvii, p. 455.)185.See above p.95, and see note (f) p.94.186.See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii.Prolegg.pp. 13-15.187.p. xiv.—See above, pp.8,9, note (f).188.One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of statement. The facts are these:—(1) Valentt. (apudIrenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apudClem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apudClem.)alsoread ἦν. These testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also hasbothreadings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is“perhaps not an improbable reading,”) reads ἦνten or eleven times. Ἦν is also the reading of Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact ofall the MSS. in the world, except of א and D.All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and Cureton's Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin.And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a question of authority, and reason fromthe evidence,—declining to import into the argument what may be calledlogicalconsiderations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age of reading the place after the following strange fashion,—ὁ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3, 4. And to substitute ἐστί (for ἦν) in such a sentence asthat, was obvious.... Chrysostom's opinion is well known,“Let us beware of putting the full stop”(he says)“at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as do the heretics.”[He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig.Opp.i. 130), and to Theodotus (apudClem. Alex.). But it must be confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (Routh, Opusc.i. 68), Clemens Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D.269,Routhiii. 293), Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (Routhiii. 459), and Augustine,—point the place in the same way.“It is worth our observation,”(says Pearson,)“that Eusebius citing the place of S. John to prove that theHoly Ghostwas made by theSon, leaves out those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute that heresy of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.”]Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out thatthe Spiritis a creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the Evangelist's language is made unintelligible.”(Opp.viii. 40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred toinfrà), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson'snote(z),Art.viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh'sOpusc.i. 88-9.189.It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of the Codex Sinaiticus:—(1.)S. Johni. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.)S. Matth.xiii. 35: το ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.)S. Johnxiii. 10: ο λελουμενος ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.)S. Johnvi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to be“indubitably correct.”)On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the private property of the single Codex א. The last three are absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to reject them: the second (of which Jerome says somethingverydifferent from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) he hasdropped a line: thus:—ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝThe first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p.110.190.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves careful study.191.Deut. xvi. 19.192.Printed Text, p. 254.193.Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222.194.Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan. 15, 19, 299 (?) respectively.195.Variae Lectiones, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358, 756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181): Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89, Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (leg.5 ?) S. Mariæ Bened. Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)196.Nov. Test.vol. i. p. 199.197.Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.198.Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam dubias notarent.—Variae Lectiones, &c. p. 225.199.In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, + occurs at xi. 12, xii. 38, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such sign occurs at thepericope de adulterá.200.Further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in theAppendix (D).201.Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our 36,) against S. Mark xvi. 9, is this sign [symbol: inverse or open x]. It is intended (like an asterisk in a modern book) to refer the reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occur in the margin of the Paris MS. also.202.ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188, 186.)203.See more concerning this matter in theAppendix (D),ad fin.204.At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is found,—εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδand at the end of S. Mark's, (at fol. 147b)—εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξThis second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20.Bothreappear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an interesting variety in the former of the two) in [what I suppose is the first half of] the uncial Codex Λ. See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 125.205.= Paris 72,fol.107b. He might have added, (for Wetstein had pointed it out 79 years before,) thatthe same note preciselyis found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,)fol.98b.206.See more at the very end ofChap. XI.207.Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10) contain as follows:—ἔν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς, ἕως οἱ καὶ Ἐυσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν; ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ ταῦτα φέρεται; ἀναστὰς, κ.τ.λ.But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [lege5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has only this:—ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα.208.It originated in this way. At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel, in both Codices, are found those large extracts from the“2nd Hom. on the Resurrection”which Montfaucon published in theBibl. Coisl.(pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since reprinted at the end of hisCatena in S. Matth.(i. 243-251.) In Codd. 34 and 39 they are ascribed to“Severus of Antioch.”See above (p.40.) See also pp.39and57.209.See above, pp.64,65.210.22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20.211.viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 208, 209:—20, 300:—15, 22.212.Cod. Λ, 20, 262, 300.213.Evan. 374.214.viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (BirchVarr. Lectt. p. 225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by Matthaei.215.2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding note) = 24.216.Paris 62,olim,2861 and 1558.217.See the facsimile.—The original, (which knows nothing of Tischendorf's crosses,) reads as follows:—ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡΟ ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩi.e.—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦταΠάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τον Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήλλειλαν: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας.Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου.218.As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two Æthiopic MSS.—I am unable to understand what Scholz and his copyists have said concerning Cod. 274. I was assured again and again at Paris that they knew of no such codex as“Reg, 79a,”which is Scholz' designation (Prolegg.p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which, after him, we number“274.”219.NecAmmoniiSectionibus, necEusebiiCanonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi versus.—Tisch.Nov. Test.(ed. 8va), p. 406.220.Printed Text, p. 248.221.The reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for himself:—Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὥς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὅφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.222.Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ, εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τό πους, ἐν οἷς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν φιλαληθῶς εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμὰς, καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους.223.This seems to representexactlywhat Eusebius means in this place. The nearest English equivalent to ἀφορμή is“a hint.”Consider Euseb.Hist. Eccl.v. 27. Also the following:—πολλὰς λαβόντες ἀφορμάς. (Andreas,Proleg. in Apocalyps.).—λαβόντες τὰς ἀφρμάς. (Anastasius Sin.,Routh's Rell.i. 15.)224.κανόνας ... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This at least is decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome says of Ammonius,—“Evangelicos canones excogitavitquos postea secutus est Eusebius Cæsariensis,”(De Viris Illust.c. lv. vol. ii. p. 881,) we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand gain statements of this Father are entitled.What else can be inferred from the account which Eusebius gives of the present sectional division of the Gospels but that it was also his own?—Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τὼν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις: ἡ δὲ σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προιὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους τοῦ βιβλίου. He proceeds to explain how the sections thus numbered are to be referred to his X Canons:—καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρόκειται, δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.225.“Frustra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Quæ supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.”(Tischendorfon S. Markxvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to light in the vithcentury, and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was the lost work of Ammonius, (Proleg.p. 63, § 660,)—was of course warranted in appealing to the authority of Ammoniusin supportof the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But in truth Mill's assumption cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has convincingly shewn. (Proleg.p. 68.) Any one may easily satisfy himself of the fact who will be at the pains to examine a few of the chapters with attention, bearing in mind what Eusebius has said concerning the work of Ammonius. Cap. lxxiv, for instance, contains as follows:—Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. 33. Mtt. xiii. 34, 35: 10, 11. Mk. iv. 34. Mtt. xiii. 13 to 17. But here it isS. Matthew's Gospelwhich is dislocated,—for verses 10, 11, and 13 to 17 of ch. xiii. comeafterverses 33-35; while ver. 12 has altogether disappeared.The most convenient edition for reference is Schmeller's,—Ammonii Alexandrini quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum. (Vienna, 1841.)226.Only by the merest license of interpretation can εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς be assumed to mean that Eusebius had found the four Gospels ready divided to his hand by Ammonius into exactly 1165 sections,—every one of which he had simply adopted for his own. Mill, (who nevertheless held this strange opinion,) was obliged to invent the wild hypothesis that Eusebius,besidesthe work of Ammonius which he describes, must have found in the library at Cæsarea the private copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ammonius,—an unique volume, in which the last-named Father (as he assumes) will have numbered the Sections and made them exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss such a notion. We are dealing with facts,—not with fictions.227.For proofs of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks on the (so-called)“Ammonian”Sections, the reader is referred to theAppendix (G).228.See above, p.128, note (f).229.See above, p.125.230.As a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are notedwithoutthe Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in theAppendix (G).231.τέσσαρα εἰσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξηκονταδύο. The words are most unexpectedly, (may I not saysuspiciously?), found in Epiphanius,Ancor.50, (Opp.ii. 54B.)232.By Tischendorf, copying Mill'sProleg.p. 63, § 662:—the fontal source, by the way, of the twin references to“Epiphanius and Cæsarius.”233.Comp. Epiph. (Ancor.50,)Opp.ii. 53cto 55a, with Galland.Bibl.vi. 26cto 27a.234.Galland.Bibl.vi. 147a.235.Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112).—It it only fair to add that Davidson is not alone in this statement. In substance, it has become one of the common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of S. Mark's Gospel is spurious.236.See PossiniCat.p. 363.237.Ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. [= ver. 9] ταύτην Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἑτέραν λέγει Μαρίαν παρὰ τὴν θεασαμένην τὸν νεανίσκον. ἥ καὶ ἀμφότεραι ἐκ τῆς Μαγδαληνῆς ἢσαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσι. καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς [= ver. 12.] τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Κλέοπαν, καθὼς ὁ Λουκᾶς ἱστορεῖ, (Possini siniCat.p. 364):—Where it will be seen thatText(κείμενον) andInterpretation(ἑρμηνεία) are confusedly thrown together.“Anonymus [Vaticanus]”also quotes S. Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109,ad fin.—Matthaei (N.T. ii. 269),—overlooking the fact that“Anonymus Vaticanus”(or simply“Anonymus”) and“Anonymus Tolosanus”(or simply“Tolosanus”) denote two distinct Codices,—falls into a mistake himself while contradicting our learned countryman Mill, who says,—“Certe Victor Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. ver. 8] nec ultra commentantur.”—Scholz' dictum is,—“Commentatorum qui in catenis SS. Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ exhibetur.”238.See above pp.62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such Collections as theMagna Bibliotheca Vett. PP.(1618,) vol. iv. p. 330, col. 2E, F.—For the Greek, see PossiniCatena, pp. 359-61.239.See above, pp.64-5, andAppendix (E).240.Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20.241.Introduction, &c. ii. p. 113.242.Nov. Test.Ed. 8vai. p. 406.243.Developed Crit.pp. 51-2.244.ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist.Eth. Nic.I. iii.245.To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener be it said, thatheat least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all“to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.”See by all means his remarks on this subject. (Introduction, pp. 431-2.)—One would have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English Poem,—which some able men were confidentmighthave been written by Milton, while others were just as confident that it could not possibly be his,—ought to have opened the eyes of all to the precarious nature of such Criticism.246.Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—“Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,”—the author of an able and convincing paper entitled“Exegetical Studies”in“The Baptist Quarterly”for July, 1869 (Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which“the words and phrases”contained in S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively examined.If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor's hands, he will perceive that I must have written the present ChapterbeforeI knew of his labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr. Scrivener's kindness:) my treatment of the subject and his own being so entirely different. But it is only due to Professor Broadus to acknowledge the interest and advantage with which I have compared my lucubrations with his, and the sincere satisfaction with which I have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at precisely the same result.247.Dr. Kay'sCrisis Hupfeldiana, p. 34,—the most masterly and instructive exposure of Bp. Colenso's incompetence and presumption which has ever appeared. Intended specially ofhishandling of the writings of Moses, the remarks in the text are equally applicable to much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end of S. Mark's Gospel.248.S. Matth. viii. 1 (καταβάντι αὐτῷ):—5 (εἰσελθόντι τω Ἰ.):—23 (ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ):—28 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ):—ix. 27 (παράγοντι τῷ Ἰ.):—28 (ἐλθόντι):—xxi. 23 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ).249.On the Creed, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.)250.τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ διαφωνεῖ τὰληθές. Aristot.Eth. Nic.I. c. vi.251.Davidson'sIntroduction, &c. i. 170.252.And yet, if it were ever so“sententious,”ever so“abrupt;”and if his“brief notices”were over so“loosely linked together;”—these,according to Dr. Davidson, would only be indications that S. Mark actuallywastheir Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark's“characteristics,”at p. 151:—“In the consecution of his narrations, Markputs them together very loosely.”“Mark is also characterised by aconcisenessand apparent incompleteness of delineation which are allied to the obscure.”“Theabruptintroduction”of many of his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, and illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common sense, is the value of such criticism as this? What is to be thought of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath: denying at p. 170 the genuineness of a certain portion of Scripturebecauseit exhibits the very peculiarities which at p. 151 he had volunteered the information arecharacteristicof its reputed Author?253.N.T. vol. i.Prolegg.p. 38.254.It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words and expressions about to be considered:—(i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (ver.9.)—See above.(ii.) ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνθα (ver.9.)—See p.152.(iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (ver.9.)—See p.153.(iv.) πορεύεσθαι (vers.10, 12, 15.)—Ibid.(v.) οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι (ver.10.)—See p.155.(vi.) θεᾶσθαι (ver.11 and 14.)—See p.156.(vii.) θεαθῆναι (ver.11.)—See p.158.(viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (ver.11 and 16.)—Ibid.(ix.) μετὰ ταῦτα (ver.12.)—See p.159.(x.) ἕτερος (ver.12.)—See p.160.(xi) ὅστερον (ver.14.)—Ibid.(xii.) βλάπτειν (ver.18.)—Ibid.(xiii.) πανταχοῦ (ver.20.)—See p.161.(xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν—βεβαιοῦν (ver.20.)—Ibid.(xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (ver.15.)—Ibid.(xvii.) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (ver.17.)—See p.162.(xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (ver.17 and 19.)—See p.163.(xx.) χεῖρας ἐπιθεῖναι ἐρί τινα (ver.18.)—See p.164.(xxi. and xxii.) μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver.19 and 20.)—Ibid.(xxiii.) ἀναληφθῆναι (ver.19.)—See p.166.(xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (verses10, 11 [and 13?].)—Ibid.(xxv.)“Verses without a copulative,”(verses10 and 14.)—Ibid.(xxvi. and xxvii.) Absence of εὐθέως and πάλιν.—See p.168.255.S. Luke vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9: xiii. 10, 14, 15, 16. S. Luke has, in fact, all the four different designations for the Sabbath which are found in the Septuagint version of the O. T. Scriptures: for, in the Acts (xiii. 14: xvi. 13), he twice calls it ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων.256.S. Matth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.257.It occurs in S. Matth. xxviii. 1. S. Mark xvi. 2. S. Luke xxiv. 1. S. John xx. i. 19. Besides, only in Acts xx. 7.258.Introduction, &c. i. 169.259.See the foregoing note.260.See Buxtorf'sLexicon Talmudicum, p. 2323.261.Lightfoot (on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul's phrase κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων,—“תבשב דהב [b'had b'shabbath,]‘In the first[lit.one]of the Sabbath,’would the Talmudists say.”—Professor Gandell writes,—“in Syriac, the days of the week are similarly named. See Bernstein [lit.one in the Sabbath,two in the Sabbath,three in the Sabbath.]”262.S. Mark xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.263.The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably תבש (shabbath): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more nearly than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש (shabbatha:) the final א (a) being added for emphasis, as in Abba, Aceldama, Bethesda, Cepha, Pascha,&c.: and this form,—(I owe the information to my friend Professor Gandell,)—because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine, (who spoke Aramaic,)gave rise to another form of the Greek name for the Sabbath,—viz. σάββατα: which, naturally enough, attracted the article (τό) into agreement with its own (apparently) plural form. By the Greek-speaking population of Judæa, the Sabbath day was therefore indifferently called το σαββατον and τα σαββατα: sometimes again, η ημερα του σαββατου, and sometimes η ημερα των σαββατων.Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. (Accordingly, it isinvariablyrendered“Sabbatum”in the Vulgate.) Thus, in Exod. xvi. 23,—σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις ἁγία τῷ Κυρίῳ: and 25,—ἔστι γὰρ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις τῷ Κυρίῳ. Again,—τῇ δὲ ἡμέρα τῇ ἑβδόμη σάββατα. (Exod. xvi. 26: xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in the Gospel, what took place onone definite Sabbath-day, is said to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10. S. Mark xii. 1.)It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form ἐν τοῖς σάββασι is strictly equivalent to ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ; and was adopted for convenience in contradistinction to ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις (1 Chron. xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where Sabbathdaysare spoken of.It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for“weeks;”though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough) there rendered the word ἑβδομάδας. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same word occurs twice,) it is once rendered ἀναπαύσεις; once, ἑβδομάδες. Quite distinct is עובש (shavooa) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any substitution of the one word for the other. But inasmuch as the recurrence of theSabbath-daywas what constituteda week; in other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish division of time, was the recurrence of the Jewish day of rest;—τὸ σάββατον or τὰ σάββατα, the Hebrew name forthe day of rest, became transferred tothe week. The former designation, (as explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark, once by S. Luke; while the phrase μία τῶν σαββάτων occurs in the N.T., in all, six times.264.So Eusebius (Eccl. Hist.ii. 15), and Jerome (De Viris Illust.ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also Euseb.Hist. Eccl.vi. 14.—The colophon in the Syriac Version shews that the same traditional belief prevailed in the Eastern Church. It also finds record in theSynopsis Scripturæ(wrongly) ascribed to Athanasius.265.παρασκευὴ, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον.—Our E. V.“preparation”is from Augustine,—“Parasceue Latine præparatio est.”—See Pearson's interesting note on the word.266.Consider Rom. xvi. 13.267.Townson'sDiscourses, i. 172.268.Ibid.269.See the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark xvi. 2 and of S. John xx. 19. In the same version, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered“una sabbati.”270.Davidson'sIntroduction, &c. i. 169,ed.1848: (ii. 113,ed.1868.)271.“Maria Magdalene ipsa est‘a quâ septem dæmonia expulerat’:ut ubi abundaverat peccatum, superabundant gratiæ.”(Hieron.Opp.i. 327.)272.So Tischendorf,—“Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽ ἦσ ἐκβεβλήκει ε. δ.”(p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same remark reiterated by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p. 52.273.Introduction, &c. vol. i. p. 169.274.viz. in chap. vii. 26.275.Professor Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject.276.Consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion alluded to, in Acts i. 13, 14. Note also what is clearly implied by ver. 21-6, as to the persons who werehabituallypresent at such gatherings.277.S. Luke (v. 27) has ἐθεασατο τελώνην. S. Matthew (ix. 9) and S. Mark (ii. 14) have preferred εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον (Λευίν τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου) καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον.278.See S. Matth. ix. 9.279.One is reminded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefullyreservesthe verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the contemplation of theSaviour'sCross and of theSaviour'sSepulchre.280.S. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 5. S. Mark xvi. 11.281.Πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, (vi. 1); and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, (xxiii. 5).282.S. Luke xii. 4.283.S. Matth. x. 28.284.S. Mark iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9.285.Professor Broadus,ubi suprà.286.Col i. 15, 23. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.287.παραβάλλειν [I quote from the Textus Receptus of S. Mark iv. 30,—confirmed as it is by the Peshito and the Philoxenian, the Vetus and the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Armenian versions,—besides Codd. A and D, and all the other uncials (except B, L, Δ, א,) and almost every cursive Codex. The evidence of Cod. C and of Origen is doubtful.Whowould subscribe to the different reading adopted on countless similar occasions by the most recent Editors of the N.T.?]: παραγγέλλειν: παράγειν: παραγίνεσθαι: παραδιδόναι: παραλαμβάνειν: παρατηρεῖν: παρατιθέναι: παραφέρειν: παρέρχεσθαι: παρέχειν: παριστάνει.—ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι: ἐπαισχύνεσθαι: ἐπανίστασθαι: ἐπερωτᾷν: ἐπιβάλλειν: ἐπιγινώσκειν: ἐπιγράφειν: ἐπιζητεῖν: ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι: ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι: ἐπιλύειν: ἐπιπίπτειν: ἐπιρράπτειν: ἐπισκιάζειν: ἐπιστρέφειν: ἐπισυνάγειν: ἐπισυντρέχειν: ἐπιτάσσειν: ἐπιτιθέναι: ἐπιτιμᾷν: ἐπιτρέπειν.288.S. Mark v. 23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23.289.S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix. 13, 15.290.See below, pp.184-6.291.See Pearsonon the Creed, (ed. Burton), vol. i. p. 151.292.Ibid.p. 183,—at the beginning of the exposition of“OurLord.”293.S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2.294.Alford.295.Davidson.296.Exactly so Professor Broadus:—“Now it will not do to say that while no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be foreign to Mark, the whole of them combined will do so. It is very true that the multiplication oflittlesmay amount to much; but not so the multiplication ofnothings. And how many of the expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our examination, to retain the slightest real force as proving difference of authorship? Is it not true that most of them, and those the most important, are reduced to absolutely nothing, while the remainder possess scarcely any appreciable significance?”—p. 360, (see above, p.139, note g.)297.S. John has πάλιν (47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times). And yet, πάλιν is not met with in the iind, or the iiird, or the vth, or the viith, or the xvth, or the xviithchapter of S. John's Gospel.298.Printed Text, p. 256.299.It will be found that of the former class (1) are the following:—Article iii: vii: ix: x: xi: xii: xiii: xiv: xv: xxi: xxiv: xxv: xxvi: xxvii. Of the latter (2):—Art. i: ii: iv: v: vi: viii: xvi: xvii: xviii: xix: xx: xxii: xxiii.300.Ch. xiii. 16,—ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ὤν: and ch. xv. 21,—ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ,—an expression which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the corresponding place of his Gospel, viz. in ch. xxiii. 26.301.See above, p.146.302.The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in the pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded to:—“It occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses, (xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by a curious coincidence, the words and expressions not elsewhere employed by Mark, footed up precisely the same number, seventeen. Those noticed are the following (text of Tregelles):—ver. 44, τέθηκεν (elsewhere ἀποθνήσκο):—ver. 45, γνοὺς ἀπό, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament: also ἐδωρήσατο and πτῶμα: ver. 46, ἐνείλησεν, λελατομημένον, πέτρας, προσεκύλισεν:—chap. xvi. ver. 1, διαγενομένου, and ἀρώματα: ver. 2, μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων:—ver. 3, ἀποκυλίσει:—ver. 4, ἀνεκεκύλισται. Also, σφόδρα, (Mark's word is λίαν.) Ver. 5, ἀν τοῖς δεξιοῖς is a construction not found in Mark, or the other Gospels, though the word δεξιός occurs frequently:—ver. 8, εἶχεν, in this particular sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament: τρόμος.“This list is perhaps not complete, for it was prepared in a few hours—about as much time, it may be said, without disrespect, as Fritsche and Meyer appear to have given to their collections of examples from the other passage. It is not proposed to discuss the list, though some of the instances are curious. It is not claimed that they are all important, but that they are all real. And as regards the single question of thenumberof peculiarities, they certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford has laid stress.”—p. 361.303.Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.304.S. Mark i. 9: 14: 20.305.The same word is found also in S. Luke's narrative of the same event, ch. xxiv. 13.306.On which, Victor of Antioch (if indeed it be he) finely remarks,—Σχίζονται δὲ οἱ οὐρονοὶ, ἢ κατὰ Ματθαον ἀνοίγονται, ἵνα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀποδοθῇ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἁγιασμὸς, καὶ συναφθῇ τος ἐπιγείοις τὰ οὐράνια.—(Cramer i. p. 271.)307.Disc. v. Sect. ii.308.This appears to be the true reading.309.So Chrysostom:—ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι“καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα,”ταῦτα ἔλεγεν. [vii. 526 a].—He seems to have derived that remark from Origen [in Matth.ed. Huet. i. 249d]:—κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτὴρ“καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.”—From the same source, I suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen's disciple), Bp. of Neocæsarea in Pontus,A.D.261, [Routh, iii. 257] derived the following:—καὶ ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁ“πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα”οὐ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ, κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον.—See, by all means, Field's most interestingAdnotationes in Chrys., vol. iii. p. 112.... Εντευθεν (finely says Victor of Antioch) ὁ καινὸς ἄρχεται νόμος ὁ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα. (Crameri. 335.)310.Acts x. 15.311.Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. 2,—ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ... ἀνελήφθη.312.S. Mark x. 6: xiii. 19.—2 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.)313.Is. lxvi. 2.314.See above, p.143-5.315.See above, p.174-5.316.My attention was first drawn to this by my friend, the Rev. W. Kay, D.D.317.The Creed itself, (“ex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis collectum,”) may be seen at p. 84 of De Touttée's ed. of Cyril. Let the following be compared:—ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi. 19.)ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ (Art. VI.) This may be seenin situat p. 224Cof Cyril.βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ch. i. 4.)ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (Art. X.) This may be seen at p. 295Cof Cyril.The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in Professor Heurtley's little workDe Fide et Symbolo, 1869, p. 9.318.See above,—p.165-6.319.Cod. Bobbiensis(k): which however for“illis”has“et:”for“Petro,”“puero:”and for“occidentem,”“orientem.”It also repeats“usque.”I have ventured to alter“ab orientem”into“ab oriente.”—Compare what is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given by White and Adler.320.See above (Art. II.) p.152-3.321.Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14.322.S. Matth. xxvi. 14, 29, 47.—S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 35: x. 32: xi. 11: xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.—S. Luke viii. 1: ix. 1, 12: xviii. 31: xxii. 8, 47.—S. John vi. 37, 70, 71: xx. 24.323.Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. John xviii. 1,—where the moment of departurefrom the cityis marked: (for observe, they had left the house and the upper chamber at ch. xiv. 31). See also ch. xix. 17,—where the goingwithout the gateis indicated: (for ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider S. Luke xxi. 37.324.S. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 4.325.See above, p.2.326.The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate Matthaei, made in a place where it was almost safe to escape attention; viz. in a footnote at the very end of hisNov. Test.(ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.—“Haec lectio in Evangeliariis et Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus. Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur κυριακῇ τῶν μυροφόρων, εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον. Secundo, τῷ ὄρθρῳ τῆς ἀναλήψεως. Tertio, ut ἑωθινὸν ἀναστάσιμον γ᾽. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis temporibus nullo modo dubitavit Ecclesia.”—Matthaei had slightly anticipated this in his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.327.Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων διαδοχάς,—arethe first wordsof the Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius.328.See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorised Version.329.See Bingham'sOrigines, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4.330.Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἥ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἤ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται, μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ. Then came the Sermon,—then, all stood and prayed,—then followed Holy Communion.—Apol.i. c. 67, (ed. Otto, i. 158.)331.ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ, τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν σήμερον διέλχθη, καὶ περὶ τίνων;—(Opp.ix. p. 697e. Field's text.)332.Cassian writes,—“Venerabilis Patrum senatus ... decrevit hunc numerum [sc. duodecim Orationum] tam in Vespertinis quam in Nocturnis conventiculis custodiri; quibus lectiones geminas adjungentes, id est, unam Veteris et aliam Novi Testamenti.... In die vero Sabbati vel Dominico utrasque de Novo recitant Testamento; id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apostolorum, et aliam de Evangeliis. Quod etiam totis Quinquagesimae diebus faciunt hi, quibus lectio curae est, seu memoria Scripturarum.”—Instit.lib. ii. c. 6. (ed.1733, p. 18.)333.Constitutiones Apostolicae, lib. ii. c. 57, 59: v. 19: viii. 5.334.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 74, and the reff. in note (k) overleaf.335.English readers may be referred to Horne'sIntroduction, &c. (ed.1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps aware of the importance of the preface to Van der Hooght'sHebrew Bible, (ed.1705) § 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p. 352b.336.Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγου is“Quinquagesima Sunday;”butthe weekof“the cheese-eater”is the weekprevious.337.See Suicer'sThesaurus, vol. ii. 920.338.“Apud Rabbinos, לודגח תבשSabbathum Magnum. Sic vocatur Sabbathum proximum ante Pascha.”—Buxtorf,Lexicon Talmud.p. 2323.339.Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀκολουθία τῆς διδασκαλίας [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7] τῆς πίστεως προέτρεπεν εἰπεῖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως: ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις ᾠκονόμησε πληρέστατά σε ἀκοῦσαι, κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀσθένειαν, τῇ χθὲς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τῆν Κυριακήν: κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν τῆς θείας χάριτος, ἐν τῇ Συνάξει τῆς τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ἀκολουθίας τὰ περὶ τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν περιεχούσης: ἐλέγετο δὲ τὰ λεγόμενα, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ πάντας, καὶ διὰ τὸ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμοῦ πλῆθος: ἐξαιρέτως δὲ διά σε: ζητεῖται δὲ εἰ προσέσχες τοῖς λεγομένοις. Οἶδας γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀκολουθία τῆς Πίστεως διδάσκει σε πιστεύειν εἰς ΤΟΝ ἈΝΑΣΤΑΝΤΑ ΤΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ: ΚΑΙ ἈΝΕΛΘΟΝΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣ, ΚΑΙ ΚΑΘΙΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ—μάλιστα μὲν οὖν μνημονεύειν σε νομίζω τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. πλὴν ἐν παραδρομῇ καὶ νῦν ὑπομιμνήσκω σε τῶν εἰρημένων. (Cyril. Hier.Cat.xiv. c. 24.Opp.p. 217C, D.)—Of that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again reminds his auditory. Μέμνησο δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων μοι πολλάκις περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρος καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν,—he says,ibid.p. 219B. A little lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱόν.—Ibid.D.From this it becomes plainwhy Cyril nowhere quotes S. Markxvi. 19,—or S. Lukexxiv. 51,—or Actsi. 9. He must needs have enlarged upon those threeinevitableplaces of Scripture, the day before.340.See above, p.193and p.194.341.Ὥστε δὲ εὐμαθέστερον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, δεόμεθα καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων γραφῶν πεποιήκαμεν, προλαμβάνειν, τὴν περικοπὴν τῆς γραφῆς ἦν ἆν μέλλωμεν ἐξηνεῖσθαι.—In Matth.Hom.i. (Opp.vii. 13B.)—Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, ἥ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον, τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀναγνωσθήσεσθαι τῶν εὐαγγελίων περικοπὴν, ταύτην πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν μετὰ χεῖρας λαμβάνων ἕκαστος οἴκοι καθήμενος ἀναγινωσκέτω.—In Joann.Hom.ix, (Opp.viii. 62B.)342.It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching.“Sed quia nunc interposita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex Evangelio lectiones oportet in Ecclesiâ recitari, quae ita sunt annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo ille quem susceperamus necessitate pauliulum intermissus est, non amissus.”—(Opp.vol. iii. P. ii. p. 825,Prol.)343.The place will be found quoted below, p.202, note (o).344.See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more full and satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve attention, (Nov. Test.vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above, p.45, notes (r) and (s).345.At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of hisNov. Test.(Riga, 1788) Matthaei has laboriouslyeditedthe“Lectiones Ecclesiasticæ”of the Greek Church. See also his Appendices,—viz. vol. ii. pp. 272-318 and 322-363. His 2nd ed. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of an ancient MS.; and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His Συναχάρια (i. 723-68 and iii. 1-24) though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he designates“B”and“H,”but which areour“Evstt. 47 and 50,”—uncial Evangelistaria of the viiithcentury (See Scrivener'sIntrod.p. 214.)Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full the“Synaxarium”and“Menologium”of Codd. K and M, (viiithor ixthcentury.) See also his vol. ii. pp. 456-69. Unfortunately, (as Scrivener recognises, p. 110,) all here is carelessly done,—as usual with this Editor; and therefore to a great extent useless. His slovenliness is extraordinary. The“Gospels of the Passion”(τῶν ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472); and so throughout.Mr. Scrivener (Introduction, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the most intelligible account of this matter, by exhibitingin Englishthe Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (“gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and Christ's Coll. Camb.”); and supplying the references to Scripture in the ordinary way. See, by all means, hisIntroduction, pp. 62-65: also, pp. 211-225.346.Consider the following:—Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ πάντα ἀναγινώσκομεν. ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πάλιν, ὅτι παρεδόθη ἡμῶν ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη, ὅτι ἀπέθανε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅτι ἐτάφη: τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν καὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐ μετὰ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν ἀναγινώσκομεν, ὅτε καὶ ἐγένοντο, καὶ ἀρχὴν ἔλαβον;—Chrys.Opp.iii. 88.Again:—εἰ γὰρ τότε ἥρξαντο ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἤγουν μετὰ τὴν κυρίου ἀνάστασιν, τότε ἔδει καὶ τὸ βιβλίον ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῦτο. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σταυροῦ ἀναγινώσκομεν, καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει ὁμοίως, καὶ τὰ ἐν ἐκάστῃ ἑορτῇ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῇ πάλιν ἀναγινώσκομεν, οὕτως ἔδει καὶ τὰ θαύματα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν ἀποστολικῶν σημείων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι.—Ibid.p. 89D.347.Opp.ii. 454B, D.348.Opp.ii. 290B.349.Opp.ii. 357E.350.“Meminit sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine lectionum nos solere tractare.”(Opp.iii. P. ii. 825Prol.)351.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 246.352.ChrysostomOpp.ii. 369 b, c.—Compare Scrivener,ubi supra, p. 75.353.Ed.Mabillon, p. 116.354.Opp.vol. iii. p.85 b: 88 a:—τίνος ἕνεκεν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ πεντηκοστῇ τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν.—τίνος ἕνεκεν τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἀναγινώσκεται.355.“Anniversariâ sollemnitate post passionem Domini nostis illum librum recitari.”Opp.iii. (P. ii.) p. 337g.356.I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my deliberate conviction that the Lectionary which, last year, was hurried with such indecent haste through Convocation,—passed in a half-empty House by the casting vote of the Prolocutor,—and rudely pressed upon the Church's acceptance by the Legislature in the course of its present session,—is the gravest calamity which has befallen the Church of England for a long time past.Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.Appointed (in 1867) for anentirelydifferent purpose, (viz. the Ornaments and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and 15 Lay) found themselves further instructed“to suggest and reportwhether any and what alterations and amendments may be advantageously madein the selection of Lessons to be read at the time of Divine Service.”Thereupon, these individuals,—(the Liturgical attainments of nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself to characterise truthfully,)—at once imposed upon themselves the duty of inventingan entirely new Lectionary for the Church of England.So to mutilate the Word ofGodthat it shall henceforth be quite impossible to understand a single Bible story, or discover the sequence of a single connected portion of narrative,—seems to have been the guiding principle of their deliberations. With reckless eclecticism,—entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor brother,—strange disregard for Catholic Tradition and the claims of immemorial antiquity;—these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious of their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have given us a Lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of novelty,—the impatient,—and the enemies of Divine Truth.That the blame,the guiltlies at the door ofour Bishops, is certain; but the Church has no one but herself to thank for the injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her. She has suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without resistance; without remonstrance; without (in her corporate capacity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction.Canit be right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their lawful inheritance?... I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at what is taking place. At least, (as on other occasions,)liberavi animam meam.357.A trace of this remains in the old Gallican Liturgy,—pp. 137-8.358.Bingham, xiv. iii. 3.359.Opp.vol. vii. p. 791 B.360.See Dean Payne Smith's Translation, p. 863.361.κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα ἀναγινώσκεται.—Chrys.Opp.vii. 818c.362.“Passio autem, quia uno die legitur, non solet legi nisi secundum Matthæum. Voluerain aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes Evangelistas etiam Passio legeretur. Factum est. Non audierunt homines quod consueverant, et perturbati sunt.”—Opp.vol. v. p. 980e.363.Ed.Mabillon, pp. 130-5.364.Epiph.Opp.ii. 152-3.365.Chrys.Opp.i. 497c.366.Epiph.Opp.ii. 285-6.367.The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the perusal of both passages. Chrysostom declares that Christmas-Day is the greatest of Festivals; since all the others are but consequences of the Incarnation.Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning solemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to the human body.368.Constt. Apostt.lib. viii. c. 33. After the week of the Passion and the week of (1) the Resurrection,—(2) Ascension-Day is mentioned;—(3) Pentecost;—(4) Nativity;—(5) Epiphany. [Note this clear indication that this viiithBook of the Constitutions was written or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly assigned to the work.]369.Bingham'sOrigines, B. xx. c. iv. § 2.370.Chrys.Opp.ii. 355. (See theMonitum, p. 352.)371.Chrys.Opp.ii. 369d.372.Epiphanius, Adv. Haer.li, c. xvi. (Opp.i. 439a.)373.See above, pp.58-9and67.374.Opp.iii. 102b. See Bingham on this entire subject,—b. xiv, c. iii.375.“Illa quae non scriptu, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis Conciliis quorum in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri. Sicut quod Domini Passio, et Resurrectio, et Ascensio in cœlis, ut Adventus de cœlo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur.”—Ep.ad Januarium, (Opp.ii. 124b, c).376.“Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos, ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in Euchar. lect. sext. Resurrect.”—But“Lect. γ Resurrectionis”is“Marc. xvi. 9-20:”“Lect. σ,”“Luc. xxiv. 36-53.”—See Dean Payne Smith'sCatalogus Codd. Syrr.(1864) pp. 116, 127.377.See above, p.34, note (e).378.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 148.379.Hieronymi Comes, (ed. Pamel. ii. 31.)—But it is not the Gallican. (ed. Mabillon, p. 155.) ... It strikes me as just possible that a clue may be in this way supplied to the singular phenomenon noted above at p.118, line 22-8.380.Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά. See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 72, and R. P. Smith's Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer'sThes. Eccl.i. 1229.381.Dr. Wright'sCatal.p. 70, No. cx. (Addit. 14,464:fol.61b.)382.Ibid.No. lxx (fol.92b), and lxxii (fol.87b).383.“Quae titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.”(R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 116.)—In the“Synaxarium”of Matthaei (Nov. Test.1803, i. p. 731) it is styled Κ. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου.384.Adler'sN. T. Verss. Syrr.p. 71.385.Dean Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 146.386.Ed.Mabillon, pp. 144-5.387.“Resurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis diebus [Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.”(Opp.v. 977c)—“Quoniam hoc moris est ...Marci Evangeliumest quod modo, cum legeretur, audivimus.”“Quid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?”And he subjoins a quotation from S. Mark xvi. 12.—Ibid.997 f, 998 b.388.Hieron. Comes(ed.Pamel. ii. 27.)389.So Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 75.—Little stress, however, is to be laid on Saint's Day lessons. In Matthaei's“Menologium”(Nov. Test.1803, i. p. 765), I find that S. Luke viii. 1-4, or else S. John xx. 11-18 was the appointed Lection. See his note (5) at p. 750.390.Note, (in addition to all that has gone before,) that the Festivals are actually designated by theirGreeknames in the earliest Latin Service Books: not only“Theophania,”“Epiphania,”“Pascha,”“Pentecostes,”(the second, third and fourth of which appellations survive in the Church of the West,in memoriam, to the present hour;) but“Hypapante,”which was the title bestowed by the Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of the Purification, or Presentation ofChristin the Temple,) from the“Meeting”of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκευή, was called“Parasceve”in the West. (Mab.Lit. Gall.p. 129.) So entire was the sympathy of the East with the West in such matters in very early times, that when Rome decided to celebrate the Nativity on the 25th December, Chrysostom (as we have been reminded) publicly announced the fact at Constantinople; and it was determined that in this matter East and West would walk by the same rule.391.From Professor Wright'sCatalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum(1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is datedA.D.824; the oldest Nestorian,A.D.862; the oldest Malkite,A.D.1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; 14,492; and 14,488.—See hisCatalogue, Part I. pp. 146, 178, 194.392.It is exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus (A.)393.The reader is requested to refer back to p.45, and the note there.—The actual words of Eusebius are given inAppendix (B).394.See the enumeration of Greek Service-Books in Scrivener'sIntroduction, &c. pp. 211-25. For the Syriac Lectionaries, see Dean Payne Smith'sCatalogue, (1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also Professor Wright'sCatalogue, (1870) pp. 146 to 203.—I avail myself of this opportunity to thank both those learned Scholars for their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered.395.“Evangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.”Tischendorf, quoted by Scrivener, [Introduction to Cod. Augiensis,—80 pages which have been separately published and arewelldeserving of study,—p. 48,] who adds,—“I cannot even conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be thought of less value than another MS. of the same age.”—See also Scrivener'sIntroduction, &c. p. 211.396.e.g.Addit. MSS.12,141: 14,449: 14,450-2-4-5-6-7-8: 14,461-3: 17,113-4-5-6:--(= 15 Codd. in all:) from p. 45 to p. 66 of Professor Wright'sCatalogue.397.Addit.MS. 14,464. (See Dr. Wright'sCatalogue, p. 70.)398.Add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of C. P., (Introduction, p. 11), the following:—Gospels for Quinquagesima, 2nd S. after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity, Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p.220), All Saints.399.Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke vii. 31)which introduce an Ecclesiastical Lection(Friday in the iiirdweek of S. Luke,) inasmuch as the words are found innouncial MS., and are omitted besides by the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must needs be regarded as a liturgical interpolation.—The same is to be said of ὁ Ἰησοῦς in S. Matth. xiv. 22,—words which Origen and Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the Gospel for the ixthSunday after Pentecostbegins at that place.—It will be kindred to the present inquiry that I should point out that in S. Mark xvi. 9, Ἀναστάς ὁ Ἰησοῦς is constantly met with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the Vulgate; and yet there can benodoubt that here also the Holy Name is an interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the preceding. The fact is singularly illustrated by the insertion of“Ο ΙΣ”in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,)rubroabovethe same contraction(for ὁ Ἰησους) in the text.400.Not, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of regarding Codex B, (to which, if Cod. L. and Codd. 1, 33 and 69 are added, it isonly because they agree with B), as an all but infallible guide in settling the text of Scripture; and quietly taking it for granted thatall the other MSS. in existencehave entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind. Until this most uncritical method, this most unphilosophical theory, is unconditionally abandoned, progress in this department of sacred Science is simply impossible.401.See Matthaei's note on S. Luke xxii. 43, (Nov. Test. ed.1803.)402.This will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions are given as follows. After τὸ σὸν γενέσθω (i.e. the last words of ver. 42), is written ὑπέρβα εἰς τὸ τῆς γ᾽. Then, at the end of ver. 44, is written—ἄρχου τῆς γ᾽, after which follows the text καὶ ἀναστὰς, &c.In S. Matthew's Gospel, at chap, xxvi, which contains the Liturgical section for Thursday in Holy Week (τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλη έ), my Codex has been only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to quote from Harl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84, at the end of S. Matth. xxvi. 39, reads as follows, immediately after the words,—αλλ᾽ ὡς συ:—Π/Υ, [Cross] (i.e. ὑπάντα.) But in order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated word and sign are repeated at foot, as follows:—[Cross] ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκὰν ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ΡΘ. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῳ ἄγγελος: εἶτα στραφεὶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν, λέγε: καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς—which are the first words of S. Matth. xxvi. 40.Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after S. Luke xxii. 42,besidesthe rubric already quoted, has the following: ἄρξου τῆς μεγάλης έ. Then come the two famous verses (ver. 43, 44); and, after the words ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς, the following rubric occurs: ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ τῆς μεγάλης έ Ματθ. ἔρχεται πρὸς τοῦς μαθητάς.[With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. F. Rose, Curate of Holy Trinity, Windsor,) I have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its text most nearly resembles the Rev. F. H. Scrivener's l, m, n.]403.See by all means Matthaei'sNov. Test.(ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and 492.404.See above, p.75, note (h).405.For the 5th Sunday of S. Luke.406.Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual accuracy, points out several: e.g.Nov. Test.(1788) vol. i. p. 19 (note26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10 (note12), p. 14 (notes14 and 15), &c.407.SS. Philip and James.408.viz. σαββάτῳ θ: i.e. the ixthSaturday in S. Luke.—Note that Cod. A also reads ἐγένετο δέ in S. Lu. xi. 1.409.viz. Monday in the vth, Thursday in the vithweek after Pentecost, and the viiithSunday after Pentecost.410.viz. S. Luke xiii. 2: xxiv. 36. S. John i. 29 (ὁ Ἰωάννης): 44: vi. 14: xiii. 3,—to which should perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, א, A, C (not D) read Ἰησοῦς.411.See by all means Matthaei's interesting note on the place,—Nov. Test.(1788) vol. i. p. 113-4. It should be mentioned that Cod. C (and four other uncials), together with the Philoxenian and Hierosolymitan versions, concur in exhibiting the same spurious clause. Matthaei remarks,—“Origenes (iv. 171d) hanc pericopam haud adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in γενηθήτω σοι.”Will not the disturbingLectionary-practiceof his day sufficiently explain Origen's omission?412.I recall S. John x. 29: xix. 13: xxi. 1;—but the attentive student will be able to multiply such references almost indefinitely. In these and similar places, while the phraseology is exceedingly simple, the variations which the text exhibits are so exceeding numerous,—that when it is discovered thata Church Lesson begins in those places, we may be sure that we have been put in possession of the name of the disturbing force.413.Viz. K and M. (Field'sChrys.p. 251.)—How is it that the readings of Chrysostom are made so little account of? By Tregelles, for example, why are they overlooked entirely?414.See above, p.197to 204.415.e.g. in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270.416.In some cursive MSS. also, (which have been probably transcribed from ancient originals), the same phenomenon is observed. Thus, in Evan. 265 ( = Reg. 66), ΤΕΛ only occurs, in S. Mark, at ix. 9 and 41: xv. 32 and 41: xvi. 8. ΑΡΧ at xvi. 1. It is striking to observe that so little were these ecclesiastical notes (embedded in the text) understood by the possessor of the MS., that in the margin, over against ch. xv. 41, (where“ΤΕΛ:”standsin the text,) a somewhat later hand has written,—ΤΕ[λος] Τ[ης] ΩΡ[ας]. A similar liturgical note may be seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere. Cod. 25 (= Reg. 191), at the end of S. Mark's Gospel, hasonly twonotes of liturgical endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.417.Among theSyriacEvangelia, as explained above (p.215), instances occur of far more ancient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by the original scribe. Even here, however, (as may be learned from Dr. Wright'sCatalogue, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been onlyirregularlyinserted in the oldest copies.418.Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have exhibited the text thus,—ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΗΛΘΕΝ Η ΩΡΑ.—which is the reading of Cod. 13 ( = Reg. 50.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order to improve the sense, substituted for ἦλθεν the word καί. Note the scholion [Anon. Vat.] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι, πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ.Besides the said Cod. 13, the same reading is found in 47 and 54 (in the Bodl.): 56 (at Linc. Coll.): 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.): 69 (i.e. Cod. Leicestr.): 124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): csecr(i.e. Lambeth, 1177): 2pe(i.e. the 2nd of Muralt's S. Petersburg Codd.); and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107). All these eleven MSS. read ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος at S. Mark xiv. 41.419.So Scholz (i. 200):—“Pericopa hæccasu quodamforsan exciderat a codice quodam Alexandrino; unde defectus iste in alios libros transiit. Nec mirum hunc defectum multis, immo in certis regionibus plerisque scribis arrisisse: confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione Marcum Matthæo repugnare. Cf. maxima Eusebium ad Marinum,”&c.420.περιττὰ ὰν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai,Bibl. P.P. Nova, vol. iv. p. 256.)421.Alford's N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (ed. 1868.)—And so Tischendorf, (ed. 8va. pp. 406-7.)“Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere mutilandum adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus incredibile est, nec ullo probari potest exemplo.”—Tregelles is of the same opinion. (Printed Text, pp. 255-6.)—Matthaei, a competent judge, seems to have thought differently.“Una autem causa cur hic locus omitteretur fuit quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur Evangelistis.”The general observation which follows is true enough:—“Quæ ergo vel obscura, vel repugnantia, vel parum decora quorundam opinione habebantur, ca olim ab Criticis et interpretibus nonnullis vel sublata, vel in dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis sanctorum Evangeliorum intelligitur.”(Nov. Test.1788, vol. ii. p. 266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)—“In summâ. Videtur unus et item alter ex interpretibus, qui hæc cæteris evangeliis repugnare opinebatur, in dubium vocasse. Hunc deinde plures temere secuti sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus.”Dr. Davidson says the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,) Mr. Scrivener also. (Coll. Cod. Sin.p. xliv.)422.I have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M. de Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.423.See above, p.224.424.Whereas in the course of S. Matthew's Gospel, only two examples of + ΤΕΛΟΣ + occur, (viz. at ch. xxvi. 35 and xxvii. 2,)—in the former case the note has entirely lost its way in the process of transcription; standing where it has no business to appear.NoLiturgical section ends thereabouts. I suspect that the transition (ὑπέρβασις) anciently made at ver. 39, was the thing to which the scribe desired to call attention.425.= Coisl. 20. This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for Church purposes, appears to me to be the work of the same scribe who produced Reg. 178, (the codex described above); but it exhibits a different text. Bound up with it are some leaves of the LXX of about the viiithcentury.426.End of the Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany.427.In S. Matthew's Gospel, I could find ΤΕΛΟΣ so written only twice,—viz. at ch. ii. 23 and xxvi. 75: in S. Luke only once,—viz. at ch. viii. 39. These, in all three instances, are the concluding verses of famous Lessons,—viz. the Sunday after Christmas Day, the iiirdGospel of the Passion, the vithSunday of S. Luke.428.This has already come before us in a different connection: (see p.119): but it must needs be reproduced here; andthistime, it shall be exhibited as faithfully as my notes permit.429.(1) In Evan. 282 (writtenA.D.1176),—a codex whichhas been adaptedto Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to say,is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Markxv. 47andxvi. 8.(2) Evan. 268, (a truly superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the pictures of the Evangelists only sketched in ink,) was never prepared for Lectionary purposes; which makes it the more remarkable that, between ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and ἀναστάς, should be found inserted into the body of the text, τὲ. in gold.(3) I have often met with copies of S. Matthew's, or of S. Luke's, or of S. John's Gospel, unfurnished with a subscription in which ΤΕΛΟΣ occurs: but scarcely ever have I seen an instance of a Codex where the Gospelaccording to S. Markwas one of two, or of three from which it was wanting; much less where it stood alone in that respect. On the other hand, in the following Codices,—Evan. 10: 22: 30: 293,—S. Mark's isthe only Gospel of the Fourwhich is furnished with the subscription, + τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου [cross] or simply + τέλος + .... In Evan. 282, S. Matthew's Gospel shares this peculiarity with S. Mark's.430.“Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae filum ineptissime abrupisse verbis—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”—GriesbachComment. Crit.(ii. 197.) So, in fact,uno oreall the Critics.431.Chap. V. See above, pp.66-7.432.The English reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness if he will refer back, and read from the last line of p.44to the ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in two places, for“the end,”—“the end”.... The entire context of the Greek is given in theAppendix (B).433.τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό,) I suspect must be an explanatory gloss.434.“This then is clear,”(is Dr. Tregelles' comment,)“that the greater part of the Greek copies had not the verses in question.”—Printed Text, p. 247.435.Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in this place of Eusebius consists entirely in his introduction of the words τὸ τέλος. Had he merely said τὰ ἀκριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον περιγράφει ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. ... Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις περιγέγραπται τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον,—there would have been nothing extraordinary in the mode of expression. We should have been reminded of such places as the following in the writings of Eusebius himself:—Ὁ Κλήμης ... εἰς τὴν Κομόδου τελευτὴν περιγράφει τοὺς χρόνους, (Hist. Eccl.lib. vi. c. 6.)—Ἱππόλυτος ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτοπος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει, (Ibid.c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)—Or this, referred to by Stephanus (in voce),—Ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἔτι μνησθεὶς περιγράψω τὸν λόγον, (Praep. Evang.lib. vi. c. 10, [p. 280 c,ed.1628].) But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον wants explaining; and can be only satisfactorily explained in one way.436.See above, p.66and p.67.437.Πάρειμι νῦν ... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα [sic].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.438.“Consentit autem nobis adtractatum quem fecimus de scripturâMarci.”—Origen. (Opp.iii. 929 B.)Tractat.xxxv. inMatth.[I owe the reference to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the vigilance of Huet.]—This serves to explain why Victor of Antioch's Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origen: as in Paris Cod. 703, [olim2330, 958, and 1048: also 18.] where is read (at fol. 247), Ὠριγένους πρόλογος εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvithcent.) counterpart of the preceding; which has been transcribed [xviiithcent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.Possevinus [Apparat. Sac.ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet,Origeniana, p. 274) states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel by Origen. The source of this misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the Rev. W. R. Churton. James, in his“Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,”(1600, lib. i. p. 49,) mentions“Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae, Stabat ad monumentum.”—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe,“Cat. Codd. MSS. C.C.C.;”[No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—“Origenis presb. Hom. in istud Johannis,Maria stabat ad monumentum,”&c. But what actually led Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James's consummation of his own blunder in lib. ii. p. 49,—which Possevinus has simply appropriated.439.So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά.Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but also thatapud Heracleonem, (who wrote within 50 years of S. John's death,) he found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved bygeographicalconsiderations, however, (as he explains,) for Βηθανία, Origen proposes to read Βηθαβαρά.—Chrysostom (viii. 96 d), after noticing the former reading, declares,—ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει ἐν Βηθαβαρά φησιν: but he goes onto reproduce Origen's reasoning;—thereby betraying himself.—The author of theCatena in Matth.(Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces Chrysostom:—χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρὰ περιέχει. And so, other Scholia; until at last what was only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, became generally received as the reading of the“more accurate copies.”A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the true reading of that place is not“60”but“160,”—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις. Accordingly,Eusebiusalso reads the place in the same erroneous way.440.Jerome says of himself (Opp.vii. 537,)—“Non digne Græca in Latinum transfero: aut Græcos lege (si ejusdem linguae habes scientiam) aut si tantum Latinus es, noli de gratuito munere judicare, et, ut vulgare proverbium est:equi dentes inspicere donati.”441.See above, pp.57-9: alsoAppendix (C), § 2.442.See above, pp.225-6.443.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 116.444.See Adler's N. T.Verss. Syrr., p. 70.445.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 146.446.See p.206, also note (k).447.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 117.448.Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark xvi. 8 (fol. 125), as follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then,rubro,] τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver. 20, (atfol. 126 of the same Codex) is found the following concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽ ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου.In the same place, (viz. at the end of S. Mark's Gospel,) is found in another Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following rubric:—τέλος τοῦ τρίτου τοῦ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τοῦ ὄρθρου τῆς ἀναλήψεως.449.R. Payne Smith'sCatal.p. 146.450.Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is written continuously throughout: and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh paragraph is observed to commence.Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies of the Armenian version.“The Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab, separates the concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel.... Many of the oldest MSS., after the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, put the final Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, and then give the additional verses with a new superscription.”(Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 253).... We are now in a position tounderstandthe Armenian evidence, which has been described above, at p.36, as well as to estimate its exact value.451.Euseb. apud Mai, iv. p. 264 = p. 287. Again at p. 289-90.—So also the author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurr. (Greg. Nyss.Opp.iii. 411-2.)—And see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp.Patres Apostol., (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515.452.I believe this will be found to be theinvariableorder of the Gospelsin the Lectionaries.453.This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). Seefol.98b.454.I allude of course to Matthaei's Cod. g. (See the note in hisN. T.vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the learned critic was right in his conjecture“aliquot folia excidisse,”matters nothing.The left hand page ends at the wordsἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Now, if τελος had followed, how obvious would have been the inference that the Gospel itself of S. Mark had come to an end there!Note, that in the Codex Bezæ (D), S. Mark's Gospel ends at ver. 15: in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (a) proves to be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (b) from xiii. 24; Cod. Brix. (f) from xiv. 70.455.Scrivener,Coll. Cod. Sin.p. lix.456.See p.227.457.See above, p.226.458.So Scholz:—“hic [sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,”&c.—Tischendorf,—“Testantur scholia ...Marci Evangelium... versu 9finem habuisse. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22 habet: ἐφοβουντο γαρ + τελος. εν τισι,”&c.—Tregelles appeals to copies,“sometimes with τέλος interposed after ver. 8,”(p. 254.)—Mai (iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,—“Codex Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum versumhabet quidemvocem τέλος, ut alibi interdum observatum fuit;sed tamenibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum progredientibus sectionum notis.”459.Chap. I. and II.460.Chap. IV, VI-X.461.Chap. III, V, and VIII.462.Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.463.Tregelles, Alford.464.Alford.465.“Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.”—See the rest of Tischendorf's verdict,suprà, p.10; and opposite, p.245.466.Tregelles'Account of the Printed Text, p. 259.467.Alford'sNew Test.vol. i.Proleg.[p. 38] and p. 437.468.So Norton, Tregelles, and others.469.This suggestion, which was originally Griesbach's, is found in Alford'sNew Test.vol. i. p. 433, (ed.1868.)—See above, p.12. The italics are not mine.470.Videsuprà, p.10.471.Opp.vol. iii. p. 671.472.EusebiusEccl. Hist.iv. 28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19.473.Note the remarkable adjuration of Irenæus,Opp.i. 821, preserved by Eusebius,lib.v. 20.—See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 383-4. Consider the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp's martyrdom,PP. App.ii. 614-6.474.Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus; especially to the work of Marcion.475.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 381-391.476.SeeChap. VI.477.Chap. IX.478.“Ad defendendum hunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus Codicum consensus in vocabulis et loquendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis παρεγγράπτοις, etiam multo brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, eo plures quoque sunt varietates. Comparetur modo Act. xv. 18, Matth. viii. 13, et loca similia.”—C. F. Matthaei'sNov. Test.(1788) vol. ii. p. 271.479.Speaking of the abrupt termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8, Dr. Tregelles asks,—“Would this have been transmitted as a fact by good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds for regarding it to be true?”—(Printed Text, p. 257.) Certainly not, we answer. Butwhereare the“good witnesses”of the“transmitted fact?”There is not so much as one.480.See above, pp.86-90.481.SeeChap. III.482.See above, Chap. III. and IV.483.“Habent periocham hanc Codices Græci, si unum b excipias, omnes.”(Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p.70.484.See above, Chap. X.485.See above, pp.66-68.486.See above, pp.41to 51: alsoAppendix (B).487.The reader is referred to Mai'sNov. PP. Bibl.vol. iv. p. 262, line 12: p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8.488.See above, p.64-5: alsoAppendix (E).489.P.68and note (d); p.119and note (m).490.P.51-7.491.P.57-9.492.P.59-66.493.P.114-125.494.P.68-9.495.Chap. VI.496.See above, pp.86to 88.497.Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejectsthatverse also as spurious; and brings the fourth Gospel to an end at ver. 24, as he brings the second Gospel to an end at ver. 8? For my own part,—having (through the kindness and liberality of the Keeper of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, aided by the good offices of my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at S. Petersburg,) obtained a photograph of the last page of S. John's Gospel,—I must be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr. Tischendorf's judgment in this particular. The utmost which can be allowed is that the Scribe may have possibly changed his pen, or been called away from his task, just before bringing the fourth Gospel to a close.498.SeeChap. IX.499.Chapter X.500.Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, and Marius Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.501.Codex A,—ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of the Psalms.502.The old Latin Interpreter of Origen's Commentary on S. Matthew seems to have found in Origen's text a quotation from S. Luke ii. 14 which isnot represented in the extant Greek text of Origen. Here also we are presented with“hominibusbonae voluntatis.”(Opp.iii. 537C). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.503.Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. (Suprà, pp.96-99.)504.From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.505.Vid. suprà, p.233.506.P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage fromTheophylact(A.D.1077) which should have obtained notice in a much earlier page:—Ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς; ἐνταῦθα στίξον, εἶτα εἱπέ; πρωί πρώτῇ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. οὐ γὰρ ἀνέστη πρωί (τίς γὰρ οἴδε πότε ἀνέστη;) ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάνη πρωί κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (αὔτη γὰρ ἡ πρώτη τοῦ σαββάτου, τουτέστι, τῆς ἑβδομάδος,) ἥν ἄνω ἐκάλεσε μίαν σαββάτων; [Opp.vol. i. p. 263C.It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing Eusebius. See above, p.66, note (c).507.Kollar, (editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same opinion.—Huet (Origeniana, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) has a brief and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject; but he arrives at a far shrewder conclusion.508.The copies which I have seen, are headed,—ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ (sometimes ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ) ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no Author's name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril, Origen, &c.—Vide infrà, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, No. xlvii (comp, xxviii.)509.Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in Evangelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem editi, nunc vero studio et operâ Theodori Peltani luce simul et Latinitate donati.Ingolstadt. 1580, 8vo. pp. 510.510.“Ex hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde annulos formavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis aptatos, inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem producerem, quo, si possem consequi, sancto Evangelistae Marco decus et ornamentum adderetur.”—Præfatio: from which the particulars in the text are obtained.511.ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐξήσησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit C. F. Matthæi, Mosquae, 1775.512.P. xxvii-xxviii.513.To understand what is alluded to, the reader should compare the upper and the lower half of p. 442 in Cramer: noting that he has one and the same annotation before him; but diversely exhibited. (The lower part of the page is taken from Cod. 178.) Besides transposing the sentences, the author of Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference to Chrysostom, and omitted the name of Apolinarius in line 10. (Compare Field's ed. ofChrys.iii. 529, top of the page.)514.Thus the two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to agree with the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. 527. See alsoinfrà, p.289.515.Let any one, with Mai's edition of the“Quaestiones ad Marinum”of Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged, mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p. 257 with Cramer's“Catenae,”i. p. 251-2; and this again with the“Catena in Joannem”of Corderius, p. 448-9.516.With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.517.p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p. 4.518.Eusebius is again quoted at p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line 23-5). See especially p. 446.519.What is found at p. 314 (on S. Mark v. 1,) is a famous place. (Cf. Huet's ed. ii. 131.) Compare also Victor's first note on i. 7 with the same edit. of Origen, ii. 125c, d,—which Victor is found to have abridged. Compare the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284a. Note, that ἄλλος δέ φησι, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf. Possinus, p. 324.520.See pp. 408, 418, 442.521.e.g. the first note on p. 311; (comp. Possinus, p. 95): and the last note on p. 323; (comp. Poss. p. 123.) Compare also Cramer, p. 395 (line 16-22) with Poss. p. 249.—I observe that part of a note on p. 315 is ascribed by Possinus (p. 102) to Athanasius: while a scholium at p. 321 and p. 359, has no owner.522.e.g. p. 408, 411 (twice).523.In p. 418,—ὁ τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος Ἰωάννης. For instances of quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 with Chrys. pp. 398-9: p. 376 with Chrys. pp. 227-8: p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c.524.Take for example Victor's Commentary on the stilling of the storm (pp. 312-3), which is merely an abridged version of the first part of Chrysostom's 28thHomily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8); about 45 lines being left out. Observe Victor's method however. Chrysostom begins as follows:—Ὁ μὲν οὖν Λουκᾶς, ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν. (Then follows S. Luke viii. 22.) καὶ ὁ Μάρκος ὁμοίως. Οὗτος δὲ οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ. Victor, because he had S. Mark (not S. Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus:—Ὁ μὲν Μάρκος ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ Λοῦκας; ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ.525.e.g. V. A. p. 422 (from ὁ μέν φησιν to ἄλλος δέ φησιν) = Chrys. p. 460. Observe the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, ἄλλος φησιν.—So again, V. A. pp. 426-7 = Chrys. pp. 473-6: where ἄλλος δέ φησι, at the foot of p. 427 introduces a quotation from Origen, as appears from Possinus, p. 324—See also p. 209, line 1,—which is from Chrys. p. 130,—ἤ ὡς ὁ ἄλλος being the next words.—The first three lines in p. 316 = Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, ἄλλος δέ φησιν. See also pp. 392: 407 (φασί τινες—ἕτερος δέ φησιν): pp. 415 and 433. After quoting Eusebius by name (p. 446-7), Victor says (line 3) ἅλλος δέ φησιν.526.e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which = Chrys. p. 447.527.e.g. Theod. Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Reg. 201:—Basil, (p. 370) whose name Possinus does not seem to have read:—Cyril's name, which Possinus found in a certain place (p. 311), is not mentioned inLaud.Gr. 33fol.100b, at top, &c.528.So in theCatenaof Corderius, inS. Joannem, p. 302.529.I believe it will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 correspondsexactlywith Cod. Reg. 188: also that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201 correspond with those of Cod. Reg. 206; to which last two, I believe is to be added Cod. Reg. 187.530.Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384 in theSyr. Cat.531.Catalogue Librorum MSS.Lips. 1830, 4to. p. 656b.532.Reg.177 = A: 178 = B: 230 = C.—Coisl.19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F: 22 = G: 24 = H.—Matthaei'sdorD = I:hiseorE = J:his12 = K:hisaorA = L.—Vat.358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O: 1229 = P: 1446 = Q.—Vind. Koll.4Forlos.5 = R.—Xav. de Zelada= S.—Laur.18 = T: 34 = U.—Venet.27 = V.—Vind. Lamb.38 = W : 39 = X.533.So B-E (which I chiefly follow) begins,—Το δε αναστας.534.B begins thus,—Ει δε και το αναστας δε πρωι μετα τα επιφερομενα παρα. It is at this word (παρα) that most copies of the present scholion (A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X) begin.535.So far (except in its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, T, begin,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ου κεινται [I, ου κειται: J, ουκ ην δε] ταυτα τα [M, O, T om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [D, F, H om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον [B, εν τω παροντι] ευαγγελιῳ.536.So I, J, K, L, and H. P proceeds,—ως νοθα νομισθεντα τισιν ειναι. But B, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, O, T exhibit,—ως νοθα νομισαντες αυτα τινες [B om. τινες] ειναι. On the other hand, A and Q begin and proceed as follows,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ταυτα τα [Q om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [A om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιῳ ως νοθα νομισαντες τινες [Q, τινας (a clerical error): A om. τινες] ουκ εθηκαν.537.So B, except that it omits ως. So also, A, D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, Q, T, except that they begin the sentence, ημεις δε.538.So D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, T: also B and Q, except that they prefix και to κατα το Π. B is peculiar in reading,—ως εχει η αληθεια Μαρκου (transposing Μαρκου): while C and P read,—ομως ημεις εξ ακριβων αντιγραφων και πλειστων ου μην αλλα και εν τῳ Παλαιστιναιῳ ευαγγελιῳ Μαρκου ευροντες αυτα ως εχει η αληθεια συντεθεικαμεν.539.So all, apparently: except that P reads εμφερομενην for επιφερομενην; and M, after αναστασιν inserts εδηλωσαμεν, with a point (.) before μετα: while C and P (after ανασταςιν,) proceed,—και την [C, ειτα] αναληψιν και καθεδραν εκ δεξιων του Πατρος ῳ πρεπει η δοξα και η τιμη νυν και εις τους αιωνας. αμην. But J [and I think, H] (after γαρ) proceeds,—διο δοξαν αναπεμψωμεν τῳ ανασταντι εκ νεκρων Χριστῳ τῳ Θεῳ ημων αμα τῳ αναρχῳ Πατρι και ζωοποιῳ Πνευματι νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων. αμην.540.So B. All, except B, C, H, J, P seem to end at εφοβουντο γαρ.541.e.g. οὐκ ἦν δέ for οὐ κεῖνται.542.Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author ofthe Canonsas well:—“Canones quosEusebiusCaesariensis EpiscopusAlexandrinum secutus Ammoniumin decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in Graeco habentur expressimus.”(Ad Papam Damasum. Epist.) And again:“Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavitquos postea secutus est Eusebius Caesariensis.”(De Viris Illustr.c. 55 [Opp.ii. 881.])—See above, p.128.543.There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome quarto volume (pp. 216) entitledHarmonia quatuor Evangeliorum juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones. It is merely the contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printedin extenso,—and of course is no“Harmony”at all. It would have been a really useful book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has omitted to number the sections.544.This last § according toTischendorf'sed. of the Eusebian Canons.545.Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have been recognised at leastby Eusebius. OurLord'sAgony in the Garden for instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by him numbered § 283: and that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28, he certainly numbered § 216,—whatever Tischendorf may say to the contrary. (See p.203.)546.It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in the order of their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the matter in hand:—and that, (2) actual Quotations, and even Allusions to other parts of Scripture when they are undeniable, should be referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also certain that, (3) to a far greater extent than at present,setsof References might be kepttogether; not scattered about in small parcels over the whole Book.—Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present occasion,) (4) it is to be wished thatstrictly parallel placesin the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative only, or are merely recalled by their similarity of subject or expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,—Why is it no longer possible to purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha?Whodoes not miss the reference to“Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12”at Gen. ix. 14?Whocan afford to do without the reference to“1 Macc. iv. 59”at S. John x. 22?547.Mai, vol. iv. p. 287. See also p. 293.548.Tischendorf says 19 only.549.Tischendorf says 96 only.550.Tischendorf says 13 only.551.Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I, P, Q, R, W6, Y, Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, iscr, sscr. Also D and K. (Cod. Bezæ, p. xx, andIntrod.pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I thinknot263.)552.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 51 and 52:Cod. Bezæ, p. xx. note [2.]553.Evan. 263, for instance, has certainlyblankEusebian Tables at the beginning: theframeonly.554.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 51 (note 2),—where Tregelles (in Horne'sIntrod.iv. 200) is quoted.555.e.g. Codd. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one other at Paris, but I have not preserved a record of the number.) To these, Tregelles adds E; (Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W, and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener'sCod. Bezae, p. xx.)556.Theorderof these monograms requires explanation.557.Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450, and 1, and 2, and 4, and 6, and 7, and 8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright'sCatalogue,4to. 1870.) Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler, p. 52-3: also p. 63.558.“Dawkins 3.”See Dean Payne Smith'sCatalogue, p. 72.559.It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme,every verseof S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes an independent section (§§ 281-288): ver. 16-18 another (§ 289); and verr. 19-20, another (§ 290), which is the last. The Greek scheme, as a rule, makes independent sections of verr. 8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but throws together ver. 10-11: 12-13: 15-16: 17-18. (Vide infrà, p.311.)560.Note that § 392/9 = S. Luke xxiv. 12: § 394/10 = ver. 18-34: § 395/8 = ver. 35: § 396/9 is incomplete. [Dr. Wright supplies the lacune for me, thus: § 396/9 = ver. 36-41 (down to θαυμαζόντων): § 397/9 = εἶπεν αὐτοῖς down to the end of ver. 41: § 398/9 = ver. 42: § 399/9 = ver. 43: § 400/10 = ver. 44-50: § 401/8 = 51: § 402/10 = ver. 52, 3.Critical readers will be interested in comparing, or rather contrasting, the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which prevails in all Greek Codices. S. John's § 248/1 = xx. 18: his § 249/9 = ver. 19 to εἰρήνη ὑμῖν in ver. 21: his $ 250/7 = ver. 21 (καθώς to the end of the verse): his § 251/10 = ver. 22: his § 252/7 = ver. 23: his § 253/[10] = ver. 24-5: his § 254/[9] = ver. 26-7: his § 255/10 = ver. 28 to the end of xxi. 4: his § 256/9 = xxi. 5: his § 257/9 = xxi. 6 (to εὑρήσετε): his § 258/9 = ver. 6, (ἔβαλον to the end): his § 259/[10] = ver. 7, 8: his § 260/[9] = ver. 9: his § 261/[10] = ver. 10: his § 262/9 = ver. 11: his § 263/9 = first half of ver. 12: his § 264/10 is incomplete.[But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently the correcter ones, 263/10 stands opposite the middle of ver. 12 [οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα], and 264/9 opposite ver. 13 [ἔρχεται οὖν],) proceeds to supply the lacune for me, thus: § 264/9 = ver. 13: § 265/10 = ver. 14-5 (down to φιλῶ σε; λέγει αυτῷ): § 266/9 = βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου, (end of ver. 15): § 267/10 = ver. 16 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 268/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ, Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατα μου (end of ver. 16): § 269/10 = ver. 17 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 270/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ., β. τὰ π. μου (end of ver. 17): § 271/10 = ver. 18 to 25.561.“I have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and 7,157. The first three are Nos. lxix, lxx, and lxxi, in my own Catalogue: the last, a Nestorian MS., is No. xiii in the old Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen (London, 1838). All four agree in their numeration.”562.See the preceding note.—Availing myself of the reference given me by my learned correspondent, I read as follows in the Catalogue:—“Inter ipsa textus verba, numeris viridi colore pictis, notatur Canon harmoniae Eusebianae, ad quem quaevis sectio referenda est. Sic, [glyph] [i.e. 1] indicat canonem in quo omnes Evangelistae concurrunt,”&c. &c.563.Suidas [A.D.980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke, makes the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171.564.This sheet was all but out of the printer's hands when the place in vol. i. of Assemani's Bibliotheca Medicea, (fol. 1742,) was shewn me by my learned friend, P. E. Pusey, Esq., of Ch. Ch.—Dr. Wright had already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from the mutilated fragments of the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and 14,450.565.Dr. Tregelles. (Vide suprà, pp.125-6.) And so, Tischendorf.566.The others are 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 32, 37, 40, 45, 52, 98, 113, 115, 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 169, 186, 188, 193, 195, 265, 269, 276, 371. Add. 18,211, Cromwell 15, Wake 12and27.567.The others are 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 54 [more §§ ?], 65, 68, 111, 112, 114, 118, 157, 183, 190, 202, 263, 268, 270, 273, 277, 278, 284, 287, 294, 414, 438, 439. Rich 7,141. Add. 17,741and17,982. Cromw. 16. Canonici 36and112. Wake 21.568.Viz. 184, 192, 264, hscr, Add. 11,836. Ti. Wake 29.569.The others are 10, 20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl. 141.570.Vide suprà, p.33. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p. 53.) The others are 8, 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36.571.The others are 7, 27, 34, 38, 39, 46, 74, 89, 105, 116, 117, 135, 179, 185, 194, 198, 207, 212, 260, 261, 267, 275, 279, 293, 301, 445, kscr. Add. 22,740. Wake 22, 24, 30;and31 in which, ver. 20 is numberedCMB.572.But Cod. U inserts ευθεως before εξηλθεν; and (at least two of the other Codices, viz.) 48, 67 read αιμα και υσωρ.573.Σημείωσις is what we call an“Annotation.”[On the sign in the text, see the Catalogue of MSS. in the Turin Library, P. i. p. 93.] On the word, and on σημειοῦσθαι, (consider 2 Thess. iii. 14,) see the interesting remarks of Huet,Origeniana, iii. § i. 4. (at the end of vol. iv. of Origen'sOpp.p. 292-3.)—Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.v. 20) uses σημείωσις in this sense. (See the note of Valesius.) But it is plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinus (subscriptio), that it often denoted a“signature,”or signing of the name. Eusebius so employs the word inlib.v. 19ad fin.574.He was Patriarch of Antioch,A.D.512-9.—The extract (made by Petrus junior, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch,A.D.578,) purports to be derived from the 26thEpistle, (Book 9,) which Severus addressed to Thomas Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani,Bibl. Orient.vol. ii. pp. 81-2.575.I cannot find the place in Cyril. I suppose it occurs in a lost Commentary of this Father,—whose Works by the way are miserably indexed.576.Ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν [viz. the sect of the Severiani] ἀρχηγὸς ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν. Ὁ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. The next words are every way suggestive. Τοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς, ὡς ἐπιδιωρθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν.—Eusebius,Hist. Eccl.iv. 29, § 4.577.See, for example, the readings of B or א, or both, specified from p.80to p. 86.578.Vid. suprà, p.129, note (g.)579.Opp.vol. i. p. 391D.580.Haeret. Fab.lib. i. c. xx. (Opp.iv. 208.)581.Clinton, F. R. ii.Appendix, p. 473, quoting Theodoret's“Ep. 113, p. 1190. [al.vol. iii. p. 986-7].”582.Quoted by Matthaei, N. T.(1788) vol. ix. p. 228,fromg, a, d.583.Ibid., ii. 69, and ix. 228.584.Nov. Test.(1869), p. 404.585.Let the reader examine his“Quaestio ix,”(Mai, vol. iv. p. 293-5): his“Quaestio x,”(p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296, line 29-32.586.See Chrys.Opp.vol. viii. p. 522c:—ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς ἐπεχωρίαζεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν.

First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ; and by that name the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter of the (so called)“Apostolical Constitutions,”(τὰ μὲν σῦν πρῶτα τοῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Χαρισμάτων, κ.τ.λ.),—in which singular monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the“Apostolical Constitutions;”of which the ivthchapter is also claimed for Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such appears in the last edition of the Father's collected works, (Hippolyti Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p. 74.

The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of the heading,—Διατάξεις τῶν ἀυτῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν, διὰ Ἱππολύτου,) is part of the“Octateuchus Clementinus,”concerning which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to hisReliquiæ Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimæ, 1856. The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact correspondence between the“Octateuchus Clementinus”and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend no further than the single chapter (the ivth) specified in the text. In the meantime the fragment περὶ χαρισμάτων (containing S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in Lagarde'sReliquiæ, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there headed Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων.

In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have overlooked. The necessity one is under, on occasions like the present, of depending to a great extent on“Indices,”is fatal; so scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be named. To judge from the Index in Oehler's edition of Tertullian, that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times. According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no less than fourteen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9-20 at all.

Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf's new Oxford ed. of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in Potter's ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3 (or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, l. 8: S. John i. 18, 50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, l. 26: S. Mark i. 13, interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7:—are nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at ourSaviour'sBaptism,—a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, l. 14),—does not appear in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i. 11), or S. Luke (iii. 22.)]

Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (Opp.ii. 116.) to Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis)“scire te vult in Siciliâ inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensisde Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.”The letter is dated 1563.

I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will be found that Eusebius digested his“Questions”under heads: e.g. περὶ το τάφου, καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p. 299.)

“Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est. [Τοῦτου διττὴ ἂν εἴν ἡ λύσεις.] Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur [σπανίωσ ἔν τισι φερόμενα] Evangeliis, omnibus Græciæ libris pene hec capitulum [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] in fine non habentibus; [ἐν τουτῷ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος]; præsertim cum diversa atque contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.] Aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [ἐκατέραν παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρϗειν ... συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς.] Matthæus, quando Dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati: Marcus autem, quando tum viderit Maria Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est, Cum autem resurrexisset: [μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον Ἀναστὰς δέ:] et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane apparuit Mariæ Magdalenæ: [εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες ῥητέον, Πρωι τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta Matthæum surrexerat, [παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τοτε γὰρ ἐγήγερατο.] ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Mariæ Magdalenæ. [προί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius diei visum esse demonstrans.”[τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.]

For the Latin of the above, seeHieronymi Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).

ἠρώτας τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων; [Eusebiusad Marinum,(Mai, iv. 255.)]

Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymusad Hedibiam, (Opp. i. 818-9.)]

Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ μίᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου. [Ut suprà, p. 257.]

Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit Dominum resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere? [Ut suprà, p. 819.]

Πῶς, κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἁψαμένη τῶν ποσῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἡ αὐτὴ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἀκούει μή μου ἅπτου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην. [Ut suprà, p. 262.]

Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem, audierit à Domino, Noli me tangere. [Ut suprà, p. 821.]

The following is the original of what is given above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ,“ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ Μαγδαληνῇ,”δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου εὶρημένῳ, ὲροῦμεν ὡς δυνατὸν μὲν εἰπεῖν ὅτι νενόθευται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον. πλὴν ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτοιμον καταφεύγειν, οὔτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα;“ἀναστὰς δὲ,”καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν,“πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”ἵνα [The extract fromVictoris continued below in the right hand column: the left exhibiting the text ofEusebius“ad Marinum.”] [Transcriber's Note: The extracts will be on alternating paragraphs.]

(Eusebius.) τὸ μὲν“ἀναστὰς,”ἀν[απέμψωμεν?] ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”(τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις.

(Victor.) τὸ μὲν“ἀναστὰς,”ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.”(τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις;

(Eusebius.) (“πρωί”γὰρ“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.”)

(Victor.) (τὸν γὰρ“ὀψὲ σαββάτων”κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ“πρωί”ἑωρακέναι Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.)

(Eusebius.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης“πρωί”καί αὐτὸς“τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου”ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.

(Victor.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες,“πρωί”καὶ αὐτὸς“τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων”ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.

[31 words here omitted.]

(Eusebius.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς αναστάσεως τὸν“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.”τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸν“πρωί.”

(Victor.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τὸν“ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου;”τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπιφανείας, τὸ“προί.”

[Eusebius,apud Mai, iv. p. 256.]

[Victor Antioch,ed. Cramer, i. p. 444-5: (with a few slight emendations of the text fromEvan. Cod. Reg. 178.)]

Note, that Victortwiceomits the word πρῶτον, andtwicereads τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου),only because Eusebius had inadvertently(three times)done the same thingin the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai.Nova P. P. Bibl.iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.

See Scrivener'sIntroductionto his ed. of the Codex Bezæ, p. xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface to the 2nd ed. of hisCollation of the Cod. Sinaiticus.—Add to his instances, this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:—

ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ ΕΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕΗ ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣΑΣΤΡΑΠΗ

It is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:—

ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ

Hence the omission of και επεγνωσαν αυτον in א.—The following explains the omission from א (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke xxiv. 52:—

ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙ

The next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke xxii. 64:—

ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε[ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ]ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟ

The next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are absent in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:—

ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ

In this way, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt reading of Cod. B (ινα τηρησης αυτους εκ του κοσμου)—which, however, was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (Opp.p. 1035:al. ed.p. 825)—is explained:—

ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣ

Thus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42:—

ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ[ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ]ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ

And why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S. Luke xxiv. 53:—

ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝ

And why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of the Temptation (S. Luke iv. 5) :—

ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ

In this way the famous omission (א, B, L) of the word δευτεροπρώτῳ, in S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the least) capable of being explained:—

ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕ

and of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:—

ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ[ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ]ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ

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

Fool! to suppose thy shallow witsCould quench a fire like that. Go, learnThat cut into ten thousand bitsYet every bit would breathe and burn!

Fool! to suppose thy shallow wits

Could quench a fire like that. Go, learn

That cut into ten thousand bits

Yet every bit would breathe and burn!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Valentt. (apudIrenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apudClem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apudClem.)alsoread ἦν. These testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also hasbothreadings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is“perhaps not an improbable reading,”) reads ἦνten or eleven times. Ἦν is also the reading of Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact ofall the MSS. in the world, except of א and D.

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

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

Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out thatthe Spiritis a creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the Evangelist's language is made unintelligible.”(Opp.viii. 40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred toinfrà), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson'snote(z),Art.viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh'sOpusc.i. 88-9.

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

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

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

ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ

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

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

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

and at the end of S. Mark's, (at fol. 147b)—

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

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

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

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

But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [lege5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has only this:—

ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα.

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

ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ

ΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝ

ΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡΟ ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣ

ΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ

ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩ

i.e.—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα

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

Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου.

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

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

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

The most convenient edition for reference is Schmeller's,—Ammonii Alexandrini quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum. (Vienna, 1841.)

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

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

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

(i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (ver.9.)—See above.

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

(iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (ver.9.)—See p.153.

(iv.) πορεύεσθαι (vers.10, 12, 15.)—Ibid.

(v.) οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι (ver.10.)—See p.155.

(vi.) θεᾶσθαι (ver.11 and 14.)—See p.156.

(vii.) θεαθῆναι (ver.11.)—See p.158.

(viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (ver.11 and 16.)—Ibid.

(ix.) μετὰ ταῦτα (ver.12.)—See p.159.

(x.) ἕτερος (ver.12.)—See p.160.

(xi) ὅστερον (ver.14.)—Ibid.

(xii.) βλάπτειν (ver.18.)—Ibid.

(xiii.) πανταχοῦ (ver.20.)—See p.161.

(xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν—βεβαιοῦν (ver.20.)—Ibid.

(xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (ver.15.)—Ibid.

(xvii.) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (ver.17.)—See p.162.

(xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (ver.17 and 19.)—See p.163.

(xx.) χεῖρας ἐπιθεῖναι ἐρί τινα (ver.18.)—See p.164.

(xxi. and xxii.) μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver.19 and 20.)—Ibid.

(xxiii.) ἀναληφθῆναι (ver.19.)—See p.166.

(xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (verses10, 11 [and 13?].)—Ibid.

(xxv.)“Verses without a copulative,”(verses10 and 14.)—Ibid.

(xxvi. and xxvii.) Absence of εὐθέως and πάλιν.—See p.168.

The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably תבש (shabbath): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more nearly than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש (shabbatha:) the final א (a) being added for emphasis, as in Abba, Aceldama, Bethesda, Cepha, Pascha,&c.: and this form,—(I owe the information to my friend Professor Gandell,)—because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine, (who spoke Aramaic,)gave rise to another form of the Greek name for the Sabbath,—viz. σάββατα: which, naturally enough, attracted the article (τό) into agreement with its own (apparently) plural form. By the Greek-speaking population of Judæa, the Sabbath day was therefore indifferently called το σαββατον and τα σαββατα: sometimes again, η ημερα του σαββατου, and sometimes η ημερα των σαββατων.

Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. (Accordingly, it isinvariablyrendered“Sabbatum”in the Vulgate.) Thus, in Exod. xvi. 23,—σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις ἁγία τῷ Κυρίῳ: and 25,—ἔστι γὰρ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις τῷ Κυρίῳ. Again,—τῇ δὲ ἡμέρα τῇ ἑβδόμη σάββατα. (Exod. xvi. 26: xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in the Gospel, what took place onone definite Sabbath-day, is said to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10. S. Mark xii. 1.)

It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form ἐν τοῖς σάββασι is strictly equivalent to ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ; and was adopted for convenience in contradistinction to ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις (1 Chron. xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where Sabbathdaysare spoken of.

It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for“weeks;”though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough) there rendered the word ἑβδομάδας. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same word occurs twice,) it is once rendered ἀναπαύσεις; once, ἑβδομάδες. Quite distinct is עובש (shavooa) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any substitution of the one word for the other. But inasmuch as the recurrence of theSabbath-daywas what constituteda week; in other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish division of time, was the recurrence of the Jewish day of rest;—τὸ σάββατον or τὰ σάββατα, the Hebrew name forthe day of rest, became transferred tothe week. The former designation, (as explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark, once by S. Luke; while the phrase μία τῶν σαββάτων occurs in the N.T., in all, six times.

The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in the pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded to:—“It occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses, (xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by a curious coincidence, the words and expressions not elsewhere employed by Mark, footed up precisely the same number, seventeen. Those noticed are the following (text of Tregelles):—ver. 44, τέθηκεν (elsewhere ἀποθνήσκο):—ver. 45, γνοὺς ἀπό, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament: also ἐδωρήσατο and πτῶμα: ver. 46, ἐνείλησεν, λελατομημένον, πέτρας, προσεκύλισεν:—chap. xvi. ver. 1, διαγενομένου, and ἀρώματα: ver. 2, μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων:—ver. 3, ἀποκυλίσει:—ver. 4, ἀνεκεκύλισται. Also, σφόδρα, (Mark's word is λίαν.) Ver. 5, ἀν τοῖς δεξιοῖς is a construction not found in Mark, or the other Gospels, though the word δεξιός occurs frequently:—ver. 8, εἶχεν, in this particular sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament: τρόμος.

“This list is perhaps not complete, for it was prepared in a few hours—about as much time, it may be said, without disrespect, as Fritsche and Meyer appear to have given to their collections of examples from the other passage. It is not proposed to discuss the list, though some of the instances are curious. It is not claimed that they are all important, but that they are all real. And as regards the single question of thenumberof peculiarities, they certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford has laid stress.”—p. 361.

The Creed itself, (“ex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis collectum,”) may be seen at p. 84 of De Touttée's ed. of Cyril. Let the following be compared:—

ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi. 19.)

ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ (Art. VI.) This may be seenin situat p. 224Cof Cyril.

βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ch. i. 4.)

ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (Art. X.) This may be seen at p. 295Cof Cyril.

The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in Professor Heurtley's little workDe Fide et Symbolo, 1869, p. 9.

Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀκολουθία τῆς διδασκαλίας [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7] τῆς πίστεως προέτρεπεν εἰπεῖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως: ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις ᾠκονόμησε πληρέστατά σε ἀκοῦσαι, κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀσθένειαν, τῇ χθὲς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τῆν Κυριακήν: κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν τῆς θείας χάριτος, ἐν τῇ Συνάξει τῆς τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ἀκολουθίας τὰ περὶ τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν περιεχούσης: ἐλέγετο δὲ τὰ λεγόμενα, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ πάντας, καὶ διὰ τὸ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμοῦ πλῆθος: ἐξαιρέτως δὲ διά σε: ζητεῖται δὲ εἰ προσέσχες τοῖς λεγομένοις. Οἶδας γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀκολουθία τῆς Πίστεως διδάσκει σε πιστεύειν εἰς ΤΟΝ ἈΝΑΣΤΑΝΤΑ ΤΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ: ΚΑΙ ἈΝΕΛΘΟΝΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣ, ΚΑΙ ΚΑΘΙΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ—μάλιστα μὲν οὖν μνημονεύειν σε νομίζω τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. πλὴν ἐν παραδρομῇ καὶ νῦν ὑπομιμνήσκω σε τῶν εἰρημένων. (Cyril. Hier.Cat.xiv. c. 24.Opp.p. 217C, D.)—Of that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again reminds his auditory. Μέμνησο δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων μοι πολλάκις περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρος καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν,—he says,ibid.p. 219B. A little lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱόν.—Ibid.D.

From this it becomes plainwhy Cyril nowhere quotes S. Markxvi. 19,—or S. Lukexxiv. 51,—or Actsi. 9. He must needs have enlarged upon those threeinevitableplaces of Scripture, the day before.

At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of hisNov. Test.(Riga, 1788) Matthaei has laboriouslyeditedthe“Lectiones Ecclesiasticæ”of the Greek Church. See also his Appendices,—viz. vol. ii. pp. 272-318 and 322-363. His 2nd ed. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of an ancient MS.; and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His Συναχάρια (i. 723-68 and iii. 1-24) though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he designates“B”and“H,”but which areour“Evstt. 47 and 50,”—uncial Evangelistaria of the viiithcentury (See Scrivener'sIntrod.p. 214.)

Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full the“Synaxarium”and“Menologium”of Codd. K and M, (viiithor ixthcentury.) See also his vol. ii. pp. 456-69. Unfortunately, (as Scrivener recognises, p. 110,) all here is carelessly done,—as usual with this Editor; and therefore to a great extent useless. His slovenliness is extraordinary. The“Gospels of the Passion”(τῶν ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472); and so throughout.

Mr. Scrivener (Introduction, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the most intelligible account of this matter, by exhibitingin Englishthe Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (“gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and Christ's Coll. Camb.”); and supplying the references to Scripture in the ordinary way. See, by all means, hisIntroduction, pp. 62-65: also, pp. 211-225.

Consider the following:—Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ πάντα ἀναγινώσκομεν. ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πάλιν, ὅτι παρεδόθη ἡμῶν ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη, ὅτι ἀπέθανε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅτι ἐτάφη: τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν καὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐ μετὰ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν ἀναγινώσκομεν, ὅτε καὶ ἐγένοντο, καὶ ἀρχὴν ἔλαβον;—Chrys.Opp.iii. 88.

Again:—εἰ γὰρ τότε ἥρξαντο ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἤγουν μετὰ τὴν κυρίου ἀνάστασιν, τότε ἔδει καὶ τὸ βιβλίον ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῦτο. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σταυροῦ ἀναγινώσκομεν, καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει ὁμοίως, καὶ τὰ ἐν ἐκάστῃ ἑορτῇ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῇ πάλιν ἀναγινώσκομεν, οὕτως ἔδει καὶ τὰ θαύματα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν ἀποστολικῶν σημείων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι.—Ibid.p. 89D.

I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my deliberate conviction that the Lectionary which, last year, was hurried with such indecent haste through Convocation,—passed in a half-empty House by the casting vote of the Prolocutor,—and rudely pressed upon the Church's acceptance by the Legislature in the course of its present session,—is the gravest calamity which has befallen the Church of England for a long time past.

Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.

Appointed (in 1867) for anentirelydifferent purpose, (viz. the Ornaments and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and 15 Lay) found themselves further instructed“to suggest and reportwhether any and what alterations and amendments may be advantageously madein the selection of Lessons to be read at the time of Divine Service.”

Thereupon, these individuals,—(the Liturgical attainments of nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself to characterise truthfully,)—at once imposed upon themselves the duty of inventingan entirely new Lectionary for the Church of England.

So to mutilate the Word ofGodthat it shall henceforth be quite impossible to understand a single Bible story, or discover the sequence of a single connected portion of narrative,—seems to have been the guiding principle of their deliberations. With reckless eclecticism,—entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor brother,—strange disregard for Catholic Tradition and the claims of immemorial antiquity;—these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious of their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have given us a Lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of novelty,—the impatient,—and the enemies of Divine Truth.

That the blame,the guiltlies at the door ofour Bishops, is certain; but the Church has no one but herself to thank for the injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her. She has suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without resistance; without remonstrance; without (in her corporate capacity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction.Canit be right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their lawful inheritance?... I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at what is taking place. At least, (as on other occasions,)liberavi animam meam.

The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the perusal of both passages. Chrysostom declares that Christmas-Day is the greatest of Festivals; since all the others are but consequences of the Incarnation.

Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning solemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to the human body.

This will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions are given as follows. After τὸ σὸν γενέσθω (i.e. the last words of ver. 42), is written ὑπέρβα εἰς τὸ τῆς γ᾽. Then, at the end of ver. 44, is written—ἄρχου τῆς γ᾽, after which follows the text καὶ ἀναστὰς, &c.

In S. Matthew's Gospel, at chap, xxvi, which contains the Liturgical section for Thursday in Holy Week (τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλη έ), my Codex has been only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to quote from Harl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84, at the end of S. Matth. xxvi. 39, reads as follows, immediately after the words,—αλλ᾽ ὡς συ:—Π/Υ, [Cross] (i.e. ὑπάντα.) But in order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated word and sign are repeated at foot, as follows:—[Cross] ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκὰν ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ΡΘ. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῳ ἄγγελος: εἶτα στραφεὶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν, λέγε: καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς—which are the first words of S. Matth. xxvi. 40.

Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after S. Luke xxii. 42,besidesthe rubric already quoted, has the following: ἄρξου τῆς μεγάλης έ. Then come the two famous verses (ver. 43, 44); and, after the words ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς, the following rubric occurs: ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ τῆς μεγάλης έ Ματθ. ἔρχεται πρὸς τοῦς μαθητάς.

[With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. F. Rose, Curate of Holy Trinity, Windsor,) I have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its text most nearly resembles the Rev. F. H. Scrivener's l, m, n.]

Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have exhibited the text thus,—ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΗΛΘΕΝ Η ΩΡΑ.—which is the reading of Cod. 13 ( = Reg. 50.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order to improve the sense, substituted for ἦλθεν the word καί. Note the scholion [Anon. Vat.] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι, πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ.

Besides the said Cod. 13, the same reading is found in 47 and 54 (in the Bodl.): 56 (at Linc. Coll.): 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.): 69 (i.e. Cod. Leicestr.): 124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): csecr(i.e. Lambeth, 1177): 2pe(i.e. the 2nd of Muralt's S. Petersburg Codd.); and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107). All these eleven MSS. read ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος at S. Mark xiv. 41.

(1) In Evan. 282 (writtenA.D.1176),—a codex whichhas been adaptedto Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to say,is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Markxv. 47andxvi. 8.

(2) Evan. 268, (a truly superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the pictures of the Evangelists only sketched in ink,) was never prepared for Lectionary purposes; which makes it the more remarkable that, between ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and ἀναστάς, should be found inserted into the body of the text, τὲ. in gold.

(3) I have often met with copies of S. Matthew's, or of S. Luke's, or of S. John's Gospel, unfurnished with a subscription in which ΤΕΛΟΣ occurs: but scarcely ever have I seen an instance of a Codex where the Gospelaccording to S. Markwas one of two, or of three from which it was wanting; much less where it stood alone in that respect. On the other hand, in the following Codices,—Evan. 10: 22: 30: 293,—S. Mark's isthe only Gospel of the Fourwhich is furnished with the subscription, + τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου [cross] or simply + τέλος + .... In Evan. 282, S. Matthew's Gospel shares this peculiarity with S. Mark's.

“Consentit autem nobis adtractatum quem fecimus de scripturâMarci.”—Origen. (Opp.iii. 929 B.)Tractat.xxxv. inMatth.[I owe the reference to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the vigilance of Huet.]—This serves to explain why Victor of Antioch's Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origen: as in Paris Cod. 703, [olim2330, 958, and 1048: also 18.] where is read (at fol. 247), Ὠριγένους πρόλογος εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvithcent.) counterpart of the preceding; which has been transcribed [xviiithcent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.

Possevinus [Apparat. Sac.ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet,Origeniana, p. 274) states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel by Origen. The source of this misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the Rev. W. R. Churton. James, in his“Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,”(1600, lib. i. p. 49,) mentions“Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae, Stabat ad monumentum.”—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe,“Cat. Codd. MSS. C.C.C.;”[No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—“Origenis presb. Hom. in istud Johannis,Maria stabat ad monumentum,”&c. But what actually led Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James's consummation of his own blunder in lib. ii. p. 49,—which Possevinus has simply appropriated.

So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά.

Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but also thatapud Heracleonem, (who wrote within 50 years of S. John's death,) he found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved bygeographicalconsiderations, however, (as he explains,) for Βηθανία, Origen proposes to read Βηθαβαρά.—Chrysostom (viii. 96 d), after noticing the former reading, declares,—ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει ἐν Βηθαβαρά φησιν: but he goes onto reproduce Origen's reasoning;—thereby betraying himself.—The author of theCatena in Matth.(Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces Chrysostom:—χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρὰ περιέχει. And so, other Scholia; until at last what was only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, became generally received as the reading of the“more accurate copies.”

A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the true reading of that place is not“60”but“160,”—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις. Accordingly,Eusebiusalso reads the place in the same erroneous way.

Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark xvi. 8 (fol. 125), as follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then,rubro,] τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver. 20, (atfol. 126 of the same Codex) is found the following concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽ ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου.

In the same place, (viz. at the end of S. Mark's Gospel,) is found in another Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following rubric:—τέλος τοῦ τρίτου τοῦ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τοῦ ὄρθρου τῆς ἀναλήψεως.

Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is written continuously throughout: and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh paragraph is observed to commence.

Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies of the Armenian version.“The Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab, separates the concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel.... Many of the oldest MSS., after the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, put the final Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, and then give the additional verses with a new superscription.”(Tregelles,Printed Text, p. 253).... We are now in a position tounderstandthe Armenian evidence, which has been described above, at p.36, as well as to estimate its exact value.

I allude of course to Matthaei's Cod. g. (See the note in hisN. T.vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the learned critic was right in his conjecture“aliquot folia excidisse,”matters nothing.The left hand page ends at the wordsἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Now, if τελος had followed, how obvious would have been the inference that the Gospel itself of S. Mark had come to an end there!

Note, that in the Codex Bezæ (D), S. Mark's Gospel ends at ver. 15: in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (a) proves to be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (b) from xiii. 24; Cod. Brix. (f) from xiv. 70.

P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage fromTheophylact(A.D.1077) which should have obtained notice in a much earlier page:—Ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς; ἐνταῦθα στίξον, εἶτα εἱπέ; πρωί πρώτῇ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. οὐ γὰρ ἀνέστη πρωί (τίς γὰρ οἴδε πότε ἀνέστη;) ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάνη πρωί κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (αὔτη γὰρ ἡ πρώτη τοῦ σαββάτου, τουτέστι, τῆς ἑβδομάδος,) ἥν ἄνω ἐκάλεσε μίαν σαββάτων; [Opp.vol. i. p. 263C.

It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing Eusebius. See above, p.66, note (c).

Note that § 392/9 = S. Luke xxiv. 12: § 394/10 = ver. 18-34: § 395/8 = ver. 35: § 396/9 is incomplete. [Dr. Wright supplies the lacune for me, thus: § 396/9 = ver. 36-41 (down to θαυμαζόντων): § 397/9 = εἶπεν αὐτοῖς down to the end of ver. 41: § 398/9 = ver. 42: § 399/9 = ver. 43: § 400/10 = ver. 44-50: § 401/8 = 51: § 402/10 = ver. 52, 3.

Critical readers will be interested in comparing, or rather contrasting, the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which prevails in all Greek Codices. S. John's § 248/1 = xx. 18: his § 249/9 = ver. 19 to εἰρήνη ὑμῖν in ver. 21: his $ 250/7 = ver. 21 (καθώς to the end of the verse): his § 251/10 = ver. 22: his § 252/7 = ver. 23: his § 253/[10] = ver. 24-5: his § 254/[9] = ver. 26-7: his § 255/10 = ver. 28 to the end of xxi. 4: his § 256/9 = xxi. 5: his § 257/9 = xxi. 6 (to εὑρήσετε): his § 258/9 = ver. 6, (ἔβαλον to the end): his § 259/[10] = ver. 7, 8: his § 260/[9] = ver. 9: his § 261/[10] = ver. 10: his § 262/9 = ver. 11: his § 263/9 = first half of ver. 12: his § 264/10 is incomplete.

[But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently the correcter ones, 263/10 stands opposite the middle of ver. 12 [οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα], and 264/9 opposite ver. 13 [ἔρχεται οὖν],) proceeds to supply the lacune for me, thus: § 264/9 = ver. 13: § 265/10 = ver. 14-5 (down to φιλῶ σε; λέγει αυτῷ): § 266/9 = βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου, (end of ver. 15): § 267/10 = ver. 16 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 268/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ, Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατα μου (end of ver. 16): § 269/10 = ver. 17 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 270/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ., β. τὰ π. μου (end of ver. 17): § 271/10 = ver. 18 to 25.

Back to IndexNext